Social Fund Winter Fuel Payment Regulations 2024

Debate between Lord Bishop of Southwark and Baroness Butler-Sloss

Wednesday 11th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Southwark]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the Minister on her appointment and I declare an interest as a beneficiary myself hitherto of the winter fuel payment—but only in very recent years. Indeed, I wonder whether your Lordships’ House should not pass a resolution declaring a corporate interest. Members of this House are unlikely to be seriously affected by the measure. That is not the point. For many pensioners in my diocese and for considerably larger numbers, possibly extending to millions, across the country, this will be a significant financial hit, with adverse repercussions this coming winter.

As has been alluded to, the origin of the Chancellor’s decision to cut winter fuel payments lies in her view of the state of public finances. It is not a manifesto commitment. The Minister, for whom I have enormous respect, has appealed to the House to neither annul the regulations nor express regret, but I suspect that there are those on the Government Benches who are internalising their regret at this very moment. I fear, and I think this feeling is shared across the House, that the Government’s decision on this matter will define them in the public mind for years to come. It is a signal gesture on their part and one that I believe should be resisted, notwithstanding the Minister’s careful appeal.

First, all Governments should take scrupulous care with our public finances, and it is true that the national debt is now at a level not seen since the early 1960s. But a third of our national debt is owned by the Government themselves through the exercise known as quantitative easing. Secondly, deficit financing, investment, growth and reductions in debt went hand in hand in the decades following the Second World War. Thirdly, the principle of universality in public benefits, as here, is one that is being steadily eroded.

The advantage of a universal benefit is simplicity in administration, the certainty of application and the absence of a social stigma. Means-tested benefits attract doubtless unintended stigmatisation, with a burden to both applicant and state in terms of administration and, inevitably, a failure by those eligible to take up the benefit. Despite the sharp increase in those applying for pension credit, it remains the case that a significant number of people eligible for the credit have not applied for it and would not wish to seek special treatment, as they see it, by so doing.

The Beveridge report in 1942, at a time of desperate stress, identified five giants that needed to be slain on the road to reconstruction: want, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness. The prescription for their demise was universal, as had been all the great reforms of the previous century, from public parks to museums and galleries, free lending libraries, open-air concerts, healthcare, pensions and unemployment benefit. Those principles were extended after 1945.

The prescriptions in more recent years have been of restricted access, increased commodification and means testing. Of these, means testing is always the costliest option. They have accompanied low growth, increased inequality and an atrophy of positive outcomes. After a wide consultation, the proposal suggested by other Members to make the payment a taxable benefit clearly has much to commend it.

I shall listen to your Lordships with care, but I am minded to vote for the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, if not for that of the noble Baroness, Lady Altman.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I entirely understand why the Government want to get rid of a fuel payment to many people who can afford to deal with even the heightened cost of fuel for heating, but I make no apology for repeating what others have said, because it seems to me that it has to come from right across the House in order for—just possibly—the Minister and therefore the Government to listen to what we are saying. I do not think, from what I heard happened in the Commons yesterday—although I was not in this country—that there is more than a faint hope of that, but it is so important that we should be saying this from across the House.

We know that those eligible for universal credit do not always take it; we have been told that. But we also know of a large number of people who have an income just above universal credit and that is the group about whom I am most concerned when it comes to an increase in heating costs. The triple-lock pension increase does not come until April, but the heating cost is coming now. These people are going to suffer this year and I find it inconceivable that a Labour Government who have done so much for this country in so many ways should put themselves behind depriving ordinary, elderly people—and I speak as a very elderly person—of the opportunity to not have to choose between eating or heating. This seems to me the saddest thing I could possibly think of.

It may be a short-term problem in the sense that the triple-lock payment may help for next year, but, having heard what other speakers have said today in your Lordships’ House, that seems to me unlikely and it does seem that we will need a fuel payment for those on universal credit and those not on universal credit but earning very little more. I absolutely beg the Government to think again.

Illegal Migration Bill

Debate between Lord Bishop of Southwark and Baroness Butler-Sloss

Committee stage
Wednesday 7th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I want to make two quite separate points. I pick up on what the noble Lord just said; have the Government looked at what is really happening on the ground, the numbers of people currently waiting to be removed—that is a very large number—and the numbers coming in? How on earth are they going to get people away? Where they are going and what is going to happen was set out in much greater detail on an earlier amendment.

What worries me as I have sat listening, today in particular but really throughout the debates on the Bill, is that I do not think the Government have yet put their mind to the problems of numbers and how on earth they are going to get rid of these people, if I may put it rather bluntly.

The second point, which is so much more important, relates to what the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, just said, and I not only support him but admire him enormously for saying it. As I said on another Bill some time ago, I remind the Government that the Home Secretary is not a corporate parent, nor indeed at the moment is the Secretary of State for Education. The concept of the corporate parent is to be found in the Children Act 1989, as a local authority. Currently, the Government are expecting to deal with sometimes quite young children. I think they are concentrating on the 16 and 17-year-olds who are coming through and are not looking at a minority—but probably a relatively substantial minority—of children who are much younger. They have to be looked after. I do not want to repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, said, but it is crucial that they be looked after. The only corporate parent who can care for them is in fact the local authority where the children are. It is about time the Government started to look at not just the best interests of the children, which is so obvious—it worries me that I keep having to talk about that—but the points that the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, made, which really should strike home.

[The Lord Bishop of Southwark]

My Lords, I support Amendments 61 and 62 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord German, and welcome the opportunity to discuss what rules and regulations His Majesty’s Government will adhere to when selecting a site for the purposes of detention. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham had intended to speak but is unable to be here for this group of amendments; I am glad to be here in his place. I am grateful to Medical Justice for sharing how existing legislation governs both the nature and operation of detention centres. As it is a detailed policy area, I will focus my time on the context for these amendments while also posing questions to the Minister.

First, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham explained at Second Reading, the Bill before us changes the nature and scope of detention considerably. It moves detention away from an administrative process to facilitate someone’s removal to a punitive system of incarceration intended thereby to deter asylum seekers from travelling to the United Kingdom. Deterrence, as we have seen, is a key theme stressed by the Government, albeit no evidence or impact assessment has been adduced in its favour. This shift towards incarceration signals a major transition in policy, but in embarking on this shift in the purpose of detention, the Government leave us with a lack of detail on what rules and guidance will be adhered to when the Secretary of State is selecting a place of detention.

However, the Minister replied on 26 May to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham’s Written Question that individuals can be detained for immigration purposes only

“in places that are listed in the Immigration (Places of Detention) Direction 2021”.

I know that the right reverend Prelate was grateful for that answer. Furthermore, the Minister stated:

“All Immigration Removal Centres … must operate in compliance with the Detention Centre Rules 2001, this includes any additional sites that are opened as IRCs to increase detention capacity”.


Can the Minister therefore say whether it will remain unlawful for the Government to authorise places of detention outside those specified in the direction?

Secondly, will the Minister explain how the power granted by Clause 10 to the Secretary of State to detain people

“in any place that the Secretary of State considers appropriate”

marries up with the Immigration (Places of Detention) Direction 2021? The Minister may understand my concern that the power to deprive a person of their liberty, and how and where someone is detained, should be constrained by law and not the discretion of a Minister of the Crown, or anyone else.