Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill

Debate between Baroness Wheatcroft and Lord Rooker

Report stage
Tuesday 2nd November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, I had not intended to speak. I can see why there is a logic against the noble Baroness’s amendment in some ways, although if she puts the amendment to a vote, I will support her. There was a time—I am going back some years now—when the Government were committed to a link. The consequence of that was that I had to put forward a 75p pension increase. I remember saying to Alistair Darling, my boss, “Couldn’t we make a quid? It’ll be a lot easier to explain a quid than 75p.”. He said, “No, no. The formula’s there. The Treasury said this is what we do: we stick to the formula.” So we stuck to the formula. I was always able to defend it in a way because the supplementary pension, although people did not always apply for it, was worth three quid rather than 75p, but we know about the uptake. The Treasury factor in that people do not take up benefits.

However, here it looks as though pensioners are being treated unfairly. I do not think they are because, as I shall say tomorrow in the debate on the Budget, there are so many hidden tax increases, particularly for pensioners with a very small occupational pension who are at the moment outside the tax net but who will be sucked into it because of the freezing of the personal allowance over a five-year period. Substantial numbers will be paying tax without anybody announcing a tax increase, and that is unfair. I hope that some time, when he flies in, the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, will come to support me on the basis that he supported me and Audrey Wise in 1977 to make the system workable.

However, the noble Baroness has a point. I do not intend to speak on the other amendments because there is a point where logic says you cannot take account of the pandemic. I understand the long run. For a couple of years, I did the job that the Minister is doing and I understand that Ministers are presented with a 30-year run of the consequences of any change in the figures. That has got to be the case when you are talking about pensions.

If we had the second or third-best pension in Europe, we would not be having this argument, would we? However we have one of the poorest basic pension rates of any modern economic country, but we are, so called, one of the richest. Sometimes we have to say, “Hang on a minute: let’s take a stand,” and I think today is an opportunity to do that. I know the logic is against this, but when one looks at the figures, it is an opportunity to make a change. The Government could be forced to have a look at some of the long-run consequences of having such poor pensions, where they factor in low uptake of pension credit. One of the documents produced for the Budget on changes in household incomes mentions that they factor in that people will not claim benefits to which they are entitled. That is not very fair. Today is an opportunity for the little people to hit back.

[Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)]

My Lords, I have put my name to Amendments 1 and 7 in this group, as well as to Amendments 3 and 4 which will be debated later. I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. He spoke sanely about what these amendments would do and why they should do it.

The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, made the case very clearly. There are 2 million pensioners living in poverty and 1 million in extreme poverty. Noble Lords need to know that this Bill would put more people in this position. We should not be passing it unamended.

I find the arguments against our amendments pitifully thin—I am sorry, but I do. I remind the House that, in Committee, the Minister, who wants to do the right thing, said:

“The Government’s triple lock manifesto commitment remains in place”.—[Official Report, 26/10/21; col. 738.]


I know that that is a reference to the fact that we are told that the suspension will be for only one year, but that is not good enough. If you suspend the earnings lock for one year, the cumulative effect goes on, so the commitment is lost.

The commitment was to keep the earnings lock in place because earnings might well be greater than inflation—particularly CPI inflation—and there is no doubt that that will be the case. After all, the Government keep telling us that they want a high-wage economy. But they do not seem to want higher increases for pensioners. We know that, in most cases, these people’s spending is very curtailed. It goes predominantly on fuel and on food. Those are constituents of the CPI, but they are not in the same proportion as they are in pensioners’ spending. Therefore, increases in fuel and food prices hit pensioners harder.

I am still bemused as to how, in Committee, the Minister was able to tell us that,

“we are not currently expecting widespread, significant and sustained increases in consumer food prices in the coming months”.—[Official Report, 26/10/21; col. 740.]

I do not know what she knows, but the supermarkets certainly are. These price rises are already coming through. They are not yet fully reflected in the CPI, but we know that prices in the shops are going up. And the more that wages go up in this new, high-wage economy where we are encouraging drivers of HGVs to demand more money—which the Government say they deserve—the more this will feed through into increased food prices.

We need to make sure that our pensioners can eat. I do not want to be responsible for pensioners going hungry —or even hungrier than they have been in the past—and I do not believe that the Minister does either. It is imperative that we do what should not be beyond the wit of any Government and come up with a number that approximates effectively to where underlying earnings have gone in the last year. I have every confidence that the ONS can do this. Indeed, CPI is not quite as robust as the Minister would have us believe; it is often adjusted after a few months, or even a year, because a lot of numbers have to be adjusted as new information comes through. We could come up with an adjusted earnings figure which would enable the Government to maintain their manifesto commitment, which I am sure it would really like to do. It would enable the rest of us to ensure that pensioners –those on pension credit, as well those on the basic pension—lead a slightly better life. This is all part of the levelling-up agenda.

Brexit: European Union-derived Rights

Debate between Baroness Wheatcroft and Lord Rooker

Tuesday 4th April 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Wheatcroft]

I thank the noble Lord. We are a very friendly Brexit club here.

I speak in support of both these Motions, which seem to me very moderate and reasonable. I know that my noble friend Lord Bridges is a very reasonable and moderate man and I hope that he will have no difficulty accepting them. However, perhaps it will encourage him a little more to know that, as regards the first Motion, my postbag has been full of letters and emails from UK citizens resident in Europe. They unanimously do not want to be used as bargaining chips. They want us to do the decent thing and to do it now because they know the damaging uncertainty that they are going through, and they would like people who come to the UK not to have to cope with that uncertainty. The wonderful thing is that this would also be enlightened self-interest on our part because, as even the Minister for leaving the EU has said, we need these people to stay. Already that is less attractive for them than it was, not just because of the changed climate but because of what Brexit has done to the pound. Those who want to send money back to the countries they come from are already finding that that is much tougher than it was. In the agriculture industry, for instance, wages are already having to go up, and food prices will therefore go up too. Therefore, we should do the decent thing, do it quickly and keep those people we need living here.

Secondly, having a Joint Committee is a very sensible thing to do. We need to be clear about what the vote is and when it is. A vote simply on the proposition, “Accept this deal or we are out of Europe without a deal” would be a travesty of parliamentary democracy and certainly would not amount to taking back control. I wonder whether the Select Committee might look at what we need to know before it is possible to vote on any deal, or no deal. Perhaps the Minister could tell us, for instance, when we might be clearer about what the border in Ireland might be, because for the people living in Ireland there is as much uncertainty as there is for EU citizens living in the UK.

[Lord Rooker]

My Lords, I support both the Motions but want to address the second one, or what is behind it: in other words, the role of Parliament.

I have much in common with the Minister. I was a remainer and I accept the vote count of 23 June. Indeed, there are not really two sides anymore but the language of contest is still used. It is because I am a democrat that I accept the vote count and it is because I am a democrat that I accept the rule of law. Parliament is sovereign, not the Government, and it is Parliament’s role to protect the rule of law. As such, it has to be Parliament’s role to consider and judge the terms of fundamental changes to our way of life. Governments come and go via Parliament, or in this case through an ill-thought-out advisory referendum held for more purposes than just to remain or leave the EU.

It is in my view more important to protect Parliament than the Government. A Joint Committee would help considerably in this respect. In fact, the Supreme Court case in some ways helped in respect of protecting the rule of law, and at some point will probably need to do so again. When the people voted on 23 June, it was simple—leave or remain. They knew that the Government’s view was to remain, as set out in the booklet sent to every home in the country. They knew then that the Government had abandoned the idea of an advisory referendum and that the decision would be implemented. They also knew that there was a set of rules around the decision, to the extent, for example, that it was not the Government who drafted the question but the Electoral Commission. They knew that there were rules about the funding of the two strands of opinion. Parliament had set out those rules so there was confidence. However, in the last couple of months, any informed person has to be concerned by the extensive reporting by Carole Cadwalladr in the Observer of 26 February and 2 April, to refer to just two of the very long articles. I have never met nor had contact with Ms Cadwalladr, but I contacted the Electoral Commission in February following the first of the three-page articles and received this response on 8 March:

“I can confirm the Electoral Commission has begun an assessment in respect of Leave.EU’s spending return at the EU Referendum to determine whether or not there are potential offences under the law that require investigation. Our assessment is focused on whether any donation—including services—was made by Cambridge Analytica or Goddard Gunster to Leave.EU; whether those donations, if any, were from a permissible source and whether Leave.EU spending return was complete. Given the high public interest in the returns submitted by campaigners, the Commission will announce the outcome of its assessment in due course”.


I suspect that that response will be made public to others.

Accepting the vote count of 23 June, therefore, we need Parliament to play a key role, as via these proposed Motions. There must be concern that the major donor to Leave.EU is now quoted as saying:

“I don’t give a monkey’s what the Electoral Commission says”,


and:

“We were … cleverer than the regulators and the politicians. Of course we were”.


To me, that is an admission of “cheating”—that they were cleverer than the regulator, the Electoral Commission. The self-confessed cheat Mr Banks is planning to unseat “bad MPs”, via an unregistered organisation. Therefore, Parliament itself is now under threat from dark money, as we have not yet passed the legislation introducing unexplained wealth orders—I suspect that he will be the first candidate for one of those.

Passing these two Motions will send a signal to those who threaten democracy with secret funds and by cheating election regulators. Indeed, it is a wake-up call which, if we fail to answer it, will put Parliament, not the Government, in peril. When I hear a Brexit extremist raise these concerns, I will know the battle of the referendum is over and the battle for Parliament has begun.