Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2023

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd February 2023 Grand Committee

In conclusion, the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2023 and draft Benefit Cap (Annual Limit) (Amendment) Regulations 2023 provide vital protection for those who rely on state pensions and benefits at this time of particularly high inflation. In addition, the GMP increase order requires occupational pension schemes to increase post-1988 GMPs in payment by 3%. With that, I commend these instruments to the Committee.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister to this annual outing for us social security geeks and thank him for meeting me earlier this week. Of course I welcome the uprating of benefits and the benefit cap in line with inflation, even though it is no more than convention that leads us to expect it when it comes to the benefits themselves. I realise that the Government were under some pressure from within the Conservative Party to limit the increase to that in average wages, and it is to their credit that they withstood that pressure.

However, there is a real danger that, come April, some of the media will go to town on the 10.1% increase as if it somehow represents a bonus for claimants not enjoyed by those in paid work. It is therefore important that the Government make clear the context of the increase and also that, for two-fifths of universal credit claimants, their UC is topping up earnings. The issue was raised in the Commons debate on the regulations by Conservative MP Jerome Mayhew, who said it had been raised by his constituents on the grounds that they felt it was unfair, but he explained why

“it is fair. That is because it is morally right to protect the purchasing power of those very poorest families at an absolute level, even when other people in employment are suffering as well. I think it is right, because personal inflation is at its highest in the poorest families and food inflation is responsible for a higher percentage of their spending”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/2/23; col. 706.]

Mr Mayhew made a strong moral case and rightly pointed to how, when energy and food prices are rising faster than overall inflation, those on low incomes suffer most. According to the Child Poverty Action Group, of which I am honorary president, in 2023-24 benefits will be 14% higher in cash terms than in 2021-22, but over the same period prices will be 21% higher for low-income families, so despite the uprating in line with overall inflation, they will be worse off. The Resolution Foundation warns that even as inflation starts to fall, food price inflation, currently running at nearly 17%, will continue to pose a particular problem for low-income families, as will high energy costs.

There are a number of further important points that help put this April’s uprating in context and serve to strengthen Mr Mayhew’s case. First, claimants have had to live on benefits plunging in value over the past year as a result of an increase last April of a mere 3.1%, despite our best efforts in both Houses, when inflation was expected by the OBR to average 10.1% over that period. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, as a result 2022 saw the greatest fall in the value of the basic rate of unemployment benefit since 1972, when annual uprating began. The Minister has, as I expected, pointed to the additional cost of living payments that have been made and to the extension of the discretionary household support fund available from local authorities but, welcome as they are, neither provides the certainty and security that an increase in weekly benefits provides. One Citizens Advice adviser cited in a just published report spoke for many when they described the support fund as

“a very small sticking plaster on a very big wound”,

and because the cost of living payments take no account of family size, couples with two or more children will be worse off despite them, according to the CPAG. I will leave to the forthcoming debate on the additional payments Bill the other problems associated with one-off payments.

Just how difficult this past year has been for families in receipt of benefits was underlined in an open letter to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor yesterday from a group of organisations which called on them not to let this become the “new normal”. Resolution Foundation research highlights the emotional distress suffered by many in receipt of benefits and that one-third of poorer household feel that their health has been negatively affected by the cost of living crisis.

This all underlines the point that we made last year about the shortcomings of an annual uprating based on inflation around half a year earlier, especially at a time of high inflation and given that universal credit can be uprated much more quickly. Nigel Mills, a Conservative member of the Work and Pensions Committee, was one of those who expressed exasperation at this state of affairs in the Commons debate. He said:

“Now that we know that more of the legacy benefits will be continued on late into this decade, surely it is time to try to get a system that means we can do an uprating that reflects the real cost of living at the time that income comes in.”—[Official Report, Commons, 6/2/23; col. 687.]


His plea was echoed by Sir Stephen Timms, the chair of the committee that last year called for reform but to no avail, but it was ignored by the Minister in his closing speech. I know that the Minister addressed that in his opening speech, but I ask him to take this point back to the department and have another look at it.

Another theme of the Commons debate was the extent to which the benefits being uprated meet or do not meet the needs of those who rely on them. I think I have raised this issue in just about every uprating debate I have participated in, but it has taken on a renewed urgency given the growing evidence of hardship. Indeed, the APPG on Poverty, which I co-chair, is currently undertaking an inquiry into benefit adequacy. Bright Blue is one of many organisations that have recently drawn attention to this issue. In a recent article for Conservative Home, its head of research noted that

“the baseline level of support is inadequate in helping people avoid destitution.”

Similarly, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation concluded in its poverty report that

“the basic rates of benefits are inadequate and do not allow recipients to meet their essential needs.”

Have the Government’s considered the recommendation from Bright Blue and others that there should be a Low Pay Commission-type body to advise government on benefit rates?

Although it has been a failing of successive Governments to have uprated benefits without questioning whether the rates are adequate to meet people’s needs, the situation has been made worse by the cuts made over the past decade, which have reduced the value of working-age and children’s benefits and, particularly for families with children, have broken the link between need and entitlement. That is another reason why inflation-proofing is justified now.

However, one key benefit is not being inflation-proofed: the local housing allowance. Despite the Work and Pensions Secretary representing the freezing of the allowance as maintenance in cash terms at the elevated rates agreed for 2021—as if it were a bonus—the fact is that the value of the LHA has been cut for the third year running when average private rents increased by between 8.6% and 10.5% between September 2020 and September 2022, according to a highly critical Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee report. Although that freeze is covered by separate regulations, it affects the impact of the regulations that we are debating today because it means that claimants must use more of their basic benefit to cover their housing costs. I argued this earlier in Oral Questions but neither of the questions I asked were replied to by the Minister, and he may well bow his head in shame at that.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

He could answer them now.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

Yes, he could. Incidentally, the concern that this freeze is causing was evident from the unprecedented number of unsolicited briefings that I received for my Question.

According to the IFS—these figures are different from the ones I used earlier—just 8% of low-income private renters now have all their rent covered by housing benefits, compared with almost half in the mid-1990s. For 32% of them, the amount of rent not covered by housing benefits eats up at least one-third of their non-housing-benefits income, a situation faced by just 14% of the group in the mid-1990s. I ask the Minister not to say again that those affected can turn to discretionary housing payments because, as they are discretionary and cash-limited, they do not provide the security that is needed. The DHP budget was cut by 29% last year, leaving many authorities struggling to meet demand, according to Shelter.

Another related way in which the link between need and entitlement has been broken is the benefit cap, which, along with the two-child limit, hits larger families particularly hard. Of course, it is very welcome that the cap will for the first time be uprated in line with inflation this year, but that will cover only one year’s inflation. According to calculations done for me by the Library, the rates contained in the regulations will still leave the cap 9.8% less than it would have been had it been uprated in line with inflation since it was set at its current level in 2016. How is that fair? Whatever one thinks of the cap—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Freud, that it is an excrescence—at the very least, its level should be maintained in real terms annually. I hope that it will be from now on for as long as it exists.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, welcome the noble Viscount to our deliberations. He was possibly here as a Whip last year. I took the opportunity to look again at what I said then and, in fact, it would be possible for me to repeat what I said for the benefit of the new Minister, but I have amended it slightly and added some detailed comments on GMPs, which I am sure the Minister will look forward to.

There is no doubt that because of the lag in carrying out a pension increase the poorest in our society lose out. A figure has been calculated, which I was given by the researchers who work for the parliamentary party, that it is of the order of £520. That is the cash loss that they have incurred this year because of last year’s inadequate increase.

The important point is that it is no consolation to those who have lost that money to be told, “Okay, you’ll catch up next year” or, in the Minister’s words, “the fluctuations even out”. We are talking about the poorest people here; they are in no position to even out their income, as they have no savings worth addressing. The year of plenty when they are nudged marginally higher within the range of poverty does not ameliorate in any way at all the loss they incurred in the year that they fell behind. We are talking about pensioners in poverty. Let us not pretend that there are not millions of pensioners still in poverty. For them, this is simply not good enough; they suffer the effects in the current year.

The question is: what can be done about it? Last year, the Minister said that

“it is not possible to undertake the uprating exercise any later than currently timetabled.”

But she gave the game away a bit by also telling the Grand Committee:

“All benefit uprating since April 1987 has been based on the increase in the relevant price inflation index in the 12 months to the previous September.”—[Official Report, 9/3/22; col. GC 484.]


In truth, the seven-month delay goes back even longer. I can recall being in discussions with officials in the relevant department on this topic in the early 1970s, so we are going back on a system that has existed for 50 years. I find that less than impressive. Seven months is too long when inflation can change so rapidly. Given all the changes there have been in handling and processing data in the past 35 or 40 years, it is amazing that we cannot do any better.

I quite understand why officials tell the Minister “It has to be that way” but, really, with modern systems of handling data, it is simply untrue to say that nothing can be done and that we cannot move to a system that more closely aligns increases in prices with increases in benefits. Even if it were not possible—which I do not accept—could we not move to a system where the increase allows some provision for back-payment to make good the shortfall that people have suffered in the seven-month interim? I really do not accept the department’s line that nothing can be done about the delay in the increase.

My second point is about the triple lock. Last year, I asked how much credence we could give the Government’s repeated promises to keep the triple lock for the basic state pension and new state pension. The Secretary of State said last year:

“I am again happy to put on record that the triple lock will be honoured in the future.”—[Official Report, Commons, 21/3/22; col. 99.]


but she said the same thing in 2020 when she went on to break the triple lock. We know that the Government are prepared to break the triple lock—that is a fact—but we do not know what they count as the exceptional circumstances in which they are prepared to break it. The important thing about the Government trying to justify it last year is that they quoted exceptional circumstances, but those are not unique circumstances.

I was very pleased that the Minister, in his introductory remarks, reaffirmed the commitment to the triple lock. It is perhaps unfortunate that the Minister in the Commons, when introducing the same order, failed to refer to the triple lock at all even though it was mentioned several times in the debate. I was going to ask the Minister to give a commitment, but he has already done so.

It is worth stressing again the importance of the triple lock in this current period. Views differ, I know that, but I am totally committed to it so long as and until the state pension reaches an adequate level. When we compare it with the figures quoted by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation about what constitutes an adequate retirement income, we still have some way to go. If and when we reach that sort of level, we can have a debate about the triple lock but, at the moment, it is important that people receive the benefit.

I will just explain the triple lock a bit more. People refer to pensioners’ incomes but it only partly affects those. Pensioners who depend on the state pension, who by definition are on very low incomes, get the full triple lock. The people a bit above that level, who are not on massive incomes but whose additional income is from a personal or an occupational pension, are not getting triple-lock increases on those pensions; their overall increase is somewhat less. So long as we have this unequal and inadequate benefit system, the triple lock retains its justification.

I will make two more points. First, this is about taxation. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, has left because this is really a Treasury point. It is important for the department to understand the implications of the decision to freeze the personal allowance until 2028. People have not realised how significant that is in terms of running the social security system. The state pension is not subject to PAYE. That works as a system where almost everyone has a state pension below the personal allowance, so they pay the tax on any income they get over the state pension. But we are heading towards the personal allowance being the same as the new state pension in 2028. Any income a person receives from the state over that level—and many do, because of retained rights from the state earnings-related pension scheme—has to be taxed from their other income. They may not have any other income, so in the following year, they will start receiving the brown envelopes saying, “You owe the tax system and HMRC significant sums of money”, which will have to be paid as a lump sum.

This situation needs to be addressed at some stage but I have seen no indication by the Government that they understand this problem coming down the tracks. The most appropriate way would be to include PAYE to cover the state pension. It is a historic anomaly that it does not. I hope that the Minister, who may not accept all my arguments, will agree that this needs to be looked at now, and that we do not need to wait until 2028 before it is resolved.

Finally, I come to my point on the GMP. I think I have said previously in this Room that if I was ever on “Mastermind”, my specialist subject would be the GMP.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

There would not be much competition for that.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

Yes, I agree. In the Commons, the Pensions Minister said:

“Under the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2023, there will be an increase of 3% paid by occupational pension schemes, which means that that part of the GMP will increase by 3% from April 2023.”


The important bit is this:

“The 3% cap strikes a balance, I suggest, between providing members with some protection against inflation and not increasing scheme costs beyond what can be afforded.”—[Official Report, Commons, 6/2/23; col. 681.]


This is rewriting history. That is not in any way, shape or form why that 3% is there. It is to relieve strain not on the pension schemes but on the state pension, because it was the state pension scheme that was meant to be paying for any increases required over that 3%. I listened carefully to what the Minister said in his speech today, and it was a bit more nuanced than what the Minister said in the Commons the week before last.

This fiction is given a bit of support in the Explanatory Memorandum on the GMP increase order which says, in words very similar to those of the Minister:

“Guaranteed Minimum Pensions are increased yearly to help ensure that the value of a member’s pension has some protection against the effects of inflation”.


It is only “some protection” because the state was meant to be paying the excess over the 3%. The issue is complicated because, in some ways, people with GMPs got favourable treatment from the new state pension. That was reflected in some of the Minister’s words, but we need to be clear that we should not let the Government get away with the idea that it is only 3% because we do not want to put the burden on the schemes. It is only 3% because the Government previously promised to pay that excess, so perhaps the Minister could clarify that and tell me that I have got all the points from my “Mastermind” entry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

That is fine; I accept that. I think we can leave it at that.

I will start by tackling a couple of issues that were raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, towards the end of her speech. She made some good points that completely chime with what the Government think. We totally understand that a number of individuals are suffering as a result of the war in Ukraine, the pandemic and cost of living issues generally. I completely acknowledge that; I hope the Committee understands that.

Let me start on why childcare has not been included; perhaps I can help. Regardless of the number of hours that they work, eligible parents can claim back up to a generous 85% of their childcare costs each month, up to the maximum amount of £646 for one child and £1,108 for two or more children. The vast majority of UC claimants receiving a childcare element do not hit the UC childcare caps. In fact, between August 2020 and July 2021, 92% of universal credit claimants receiving a payment for the UC childcare element were eligible to receive the full 85% of their childcare before the earnings taper.

So we believe that our policy provides fairness in the welfare system between those receiving out-of-work benefits and those in work by putting in place a reasonable cap on the childcare costs that a household can have reimbursed through UC, in each assessment period. We believe that the childcare policy aligns with the wider government free childcare offer in England and our similar funded early learning offers in the devolved nations. We keep childcare under review. We know that childcare costs are extremely high; I am certainly aware of that. I cannot add anything more to that, only that the Committee should be aware that we are aware of these issues. I will stick with that.

Secondly, the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, raised a perfectly reasonable point about food back usage. I am aware from a previous Oral Question in the Chamber of various Peers’ strong concerns and the comments that have been made. I chime with those as well. As the noble Baroness knows, food banks are independent, charitable organisations and our department does not have a role in their operation. What she and the Committee should know is that we are looking to give some feedback from a series of questions posed by the Family Resources Survey. We hope that these will be published next month and will give the Government some idea about usage. It is very much our wish that food banks are not needed. We need to continue to work as hard as we can to look at the reasons behind their usage. We can all guess what they are; I have given some flavour of that this afternoon.

On the same theme, I will touch on inflation. This leads to a number of important points raised by noble Lords, in particular the extremely good point from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on the increase in food prices. We are all concerned about the price of certain food items rising particularly steeply. Like many countries around the world, and as the noble Baroness knows, the UK faces the challenge of high inflation. We will continue to provide support through cost of living payments, which have been well rehearsed in this Committee and in the Chamber, while increasing state pensions, benefits and the benefit cap levels by 10.1%.

To help the Committee, the CPI stood at 10.1% for the 12 months to January 2023, down from 10.5% in December. This monthly decline was principally driven by lower rises in motor fuel. The Bank of England predicts that the CPI will continue to fall. The OBR states that government action has limited the severity of the recession and protected 70,000 jobs, and that it will take 3.4 percentage points off inflation by the end of March. This will contribute to a fall in inflation, which, as the Prime Minister has said, is expected by mid-year.

This leads quite neatly on to some of the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies. To paraphrase, the general gist of their question was: why can we not uprate more frequently using a more up-to-date CPI figure? That is a fairly reasonable question. The Secretary of State undertakes an annual review of benefits and pensions. As I mentioned earlier, the CPI in the year to September is the latest figure that the Secretary of State can use. This is crucial to allow sufficient time for the required operational changes before new rates can be introduced at the start of a new financial year.

All benefit uprating since April 1987 has been based on this particular timing. Given the volumes involved, the technical and legislative requirements and the interdependencies across government, we state very firmly that it is not possible to undertake the uprating exercise any later than currently timetabled. I do not say this to be particularly cheeky but I wonder whether the comments might not have been quite so critical of this timing issue for the higher uprated figure had there been real evidence today of a much lower level of inflation, so all those people would be getting more than the level of inflation—perhaps I should not go there.

I turn to the local housing allowance—the LHA—which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and others; yes, we had 10 minutes on this in the Chamber earlier. I am not sure that I can really add to what I have said. I genuinely believe that the £1 billion that we invested in 2020 to provide support for private renters by increasing the rate to the 30th percentile was the right thing to do. It is a fact that it has been frozen but it is also a fact that the discretionary housing payments—DHPs—and homelessness protection grants are helpful. I say again that we believe it is right that we defer to local councils and local authorities to make the right decisions in terms of how to target the funds that we have given them, including to people who are generally suffering and are on the lowest incomes. It is up to them to decide what to do.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

Perhaps I can ask again the question that I asked this afternoon but in a slightly different way. Let us take somebody whose local housing allowance is well below the rent that they are paying and they are on benefits. They are probably struggling anyway because, as we have heard, benefits have been cut in real terms in recent years—if benefits had not been cut since 2010, people might have been in a better position that they are to withstand the current cost of living crisis. Let us say that they also live in an authority where the local housing allowance budget is under great strain; according to Shelter, some authorities are really struggling because demand is so high. What is the Minister’s advice to them? What should they do? There is no point saying, “Go to the local authority”, because there may not be any money there.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

I take note of that; I am certainly not dismissing what the noble Baroness says. It is a legitimate point that she raises. I hope, though, that she will acknowledge that it is right that the money we give is properly targeted to those who are in genuine need. I would like to hear of issues where they are not particularly targeted. If the money is going to people who do not need it, that is an issue, but the main thing is that the money should go to people who are genuinely in need. However, it does not just rely upon that; it relies upon the other initiatives that I have already mentioned.

To pick up on what the noble Baroness said in her remarks, the local housing allowance rates are not intended to meet all rents in all areas. In areas where rents are more expensive, those in receipt of benefits have to make the same decisions about where to live as those not claiming benefits. May I just leave it that we probably will not agree on this and that I will take away what the noble Baroness has said? It is important, I acknowledge, that local authorities follow through and give support to those who are in genuine need in all areas.

I will move on to the transitional element—that is, the uprating and the link to universal credit and transitional protection, which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies. As they know, TP provides eligible claimants time to adapt to UC by protecting entitlement at the point of migration to universal credit. TP is neither intended to replicate permanently nor be an indefinite increase in benefits. I therefore acknowledge that it erodes. This ensures that UC entitlement for those managed migrations will gradually align with new claimants in the same circumstances. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, asked how many people will see a less than 10.1% increase due to the interaction with transitional protection; I will need to write to him on that point.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

I asked that question as well. Will the Minister write to me about how many will be affected? I had hoped that he might be able to bring those figures today.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

If I had been given advance notice of the questions, I might have been able to.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

The noble Viscount was. I am sorry but the very reason I raised it with him earlier this week was so that it might be possible to bring the figures today.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

In which case, I apologise. I would normally take note and come back with some answers. Of course I will include the noble Baroness; in fact, I will include any Peer who has taken part in this debate in my letters about anything that I am not able to answer.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, said that the Government need to be clear about why we are raising the guaranteed minimum pensions by 3%. For the pre-2016 pensioners, the Government meet the difference; for post-2016 pensioners, we do not—however, these people benefit from transitional protection. I hope that gives some form of an answer.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, raised communication. A fact sheet covering the policy change was published on GOV.UK in August 2021—I see that she is nodding at that—which invited people to write to the department if they wanted an explanation of how they had been affected by the policy change. One request for compensation has been received so far, which is interesting. As of 25 January, we do not yet know the outcome of that claim, but I hope that provides an answer.

The noble Baroness also asked about the benefit cap increase linked to child poverty. As she will know, the Government are fully focused on tackling the root causes of poverty, such as children’s education and parental worklessness, to improve the lives of people in our country. She will know that the best way of doing that is for us to have a strong economy and get people into work. As mentioned earlier, the proposed levels will mean that households will be able to receive benefits up to the value of gross earnings of around £26,500, or £31,300 in London.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, asked about low pay and whether the Low Pay Commission—the LPC—would include in its deliberations the adequacy of benefit rates. I thank the noble Baroness and will draw the Treasury’s attention to that.

There are a number of other questions that I need to answer, but we probably need to draw a halt, as time is running short.