Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2025

Baroness Janke Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Drake (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer to my entry in the register of interests as a trustee of pension schemes, and I thank the Minister for her clear explanation of the two statutory instruments before us.

I want to raise an issue concerning the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2025. Given the pace at which DB pension schemes are transitioning to buyout contracts, this raises the issue of the extent to which, and how, a buyout contract contains liability for a guaranteed minimum pension, and the contractual provision of a promise to provide at least that pension from the age of 60 or 65. Is this a liability that all buyout contract providers must take on when they accept the original transfer from the defined benefit pension scheme? Secondly, does the DWP intend to update its guidance on the guaranteed minimum pension, considering the extent of buyout activity now taking place among DB pension schemes?

[Baroness Janke (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for her presentation. I also support very strongly the Government’s commitment to the triple lock, despite the loud and frequent calls for it to be abandoned. It is worth repeating that those who call for it to be abolished often do so from a position of financial security, conveniently ignoring the fact that large numbers of pensioners are dependent on the state pension, which is still one of the lowest in Europe.

I also welcome the capping of automatic deductions on debt from universal credit that leave people far below the amount they need to live on. But over the last year there have been reports of record levels of deductions from universal credit, and I wonder if the Minister could comment on the reasons for those.

The 1.7% uprating for other benefits will be of little comfort to the growing numbers in poverty. The Joseph Rowntree report has been mentioned already; it tells us that one in five people in the UK—21%—are in poverty. Of these 14.3 million people, 8.1 million are working-age adults, 4.3 million are children and 1.9 million are pensioners. Children, as we have heard, have higher risks of poverty overall, at 30%, versus 21% for the whole population. But larger families with three or more children have consistently faced a higher rate of poverty: 45% of children in large families were in poverty in 2022-23. That is an appalling indictment of this policy, which Labour Oppositions have criticised so much, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, acknowledged. I wonder how long it will take for the Government to abolish it.

Today’s uprating means that we are looking to approve a basic rate of universal credit of £92 a week for a single person aged over 25, and £145 for a couple. Yet the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Trussell Trust have estimated that at least £120 is needed for a single person, and £200 for a couple, in order to afford even the basic essentials—a shortfall of around £30 a week on the bare minimum needed to survive. Shortfalls in the benefit system are key drivers of poverty, depriving people of the basic necessities for survival. Specific features have been found to increase the numbers in poverty, including the benefits cap and the two-child limit, and the erosion of the value of universal credit means that its standard allowance is now at around its lowest levels as a proportion of average earnings. I too support the Joseph Rowntree Foundation on having a basic minimum floor for universal credit.

Another feature is that the capital cut-off for universal credit has been frozen since the benefit was introduced. This is a form of taxation by stealth of the least well-off, and it hits hard people in their 50s and 60s who are on benefits, having saved something for later life. For example, if they have more than £16,000 in non-pension ISAs, they are disqualified from universal credit. I wonder whether this needs to be looked at again.

The House of Lords Select Committee report Hungry for Change recommended that:

“The Government should embed consideration of the cost of the Eatwell Guide into calculations of benefit payment rates”.


Many of us were very surprised to hear that this is not factored into the calculation of the amount of benefits needed to live on. The report continued:

“The cost of the Government’s dietary guidance should be built in as a reference point to consideration of government interventions, including those relating to welfare and public food provision”.


It also cited, horrifyingly, that

“the poorest decile of UK households would need to spend 74% of their after-housing … income on food just to meet the cost”

of the Government’s Eatwell Guide, as

“compared to just 6% in the richest decile”.

With individuals and families denied the means of buying bare essentials, will the Government undertake a proper assessment of the adequacy of benefit payments to pay for the cost of essentials, including food?

The uprating today, as others have said, is not realistic in the face of ever-increasing poverty in the UK. A far-reaching and radical review of the benefits system is needed to tackle some of the fundamental problems. I know that we all look forward to the forthcoming benefit review, and the child poverty strategy, which we very much hope will address some of these desperate issues that continue to condemn families and individuals to a life of insecurity, hunger and misery, and children to a childhood of deprivation that will stay with them for life.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for clearly outlining the essence of these two SIs. I recall that last year, they were debated separately but I cannot remember why. Nevertheless, we are reverting to the status quo ante, and I hope that this will speed things up somewhat.

--- Later in debate ---

I will try to run through the other questions quickly. I have plenty of time. On the question of food banks, this Government are committed to reducing mass dependence on food banks, and we are open to evidence from anywhere, including from the Church —particularly in relation to child poverty—about what is driving that. I am meeting with Church organisations and looking forward to visiting projects exactly to see at first hand the kind of things the right reverend Prelate is describing. We are keen to learn from that as part of the process in trying to review the child poverty strategy. I ask noble Lords to intervene if I have missed anything out.

[Baroness Janke (LD)]

Can I ask about the record levels of deductions in universal credit that have been made in half of last year, which hit record numbers? I have been reading reports about them. Could we have some insight into that?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I do not have an insight on that at the moment. It is something I have asked about and have not yet got clear data on, but we are hoping that the changes we will make around things such as the fair repayment rate will help to rebalance that at the bottom, but I will have a look and, if I have any more data, I will write to the noble Baroness, if that is okay.

I turn briefly to the guaranteed minimum pensions increase order. I am grateful for the support for it. It simply aims to ensure that members who have a guaranteed minimum pension earned between 1988 and 1997 receive a measure of protection against inflation.

My noble friend Lady Drake asked a good question, as ever—in this case, about whether all buyout contract providers have to take on GMP liabilities in full when they accept the original transfer from the defined benefit pension scheme. I am happy to say that the Pension Schemes Act 1993 and associated regulations require all bulk annuity contracts to provide GMP benefits where applicable. From the point of view of scheme trustees, if a scheme was contracted out and still contains GMPs, both its trust deed and rules, and the legislation, will require the trustees to make sure that the bulk annuity contract provides those GMPs. From the point of view of the buyout contract provider, if a buyout contract includes GMPs, the provider is under a contractual obligation to provide those benefits. If the correct benefits somehow are not properly reflected in the bulk annuity contract, the scheme trustees, I am afraid, will remain liable for any additional liability, and that would include any GMPs. A question has been raised about whether there should be additional guidance, but the schemes and providers already have a clear legal duty or requirement that they have to follow and that they should be familiar with before they consider a buyout.

To conclude, through these orders, the Government are increasing the basic state pension and new state pension in line with earnings growth by 4.1%, meeting our commitment to the triple lock. We are increasing the pension credit standard minimum guarantee in line with earnings growth by 4.1% to support pensioners on the lowest incomes, increasing benefits to meet additional disability needs, and increasing carers benefits and working-age benefits in line with prices by 1%, and we are ensuring indexation on guaranteed minimum pensions earned between 1988 and 1997 that are in payment. I commend these orders to the Committee.