Carer’s Allowance

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

We certainly do not agree with the idea that any of the debt should be written off; we think that the debt is there to be repaid. However, as I have said, we have a number of plans in place on a one-to-one basis to help each individual who has got into difficulty, to help them to repay that debt. That is a very important point.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley called for a fundamental review of carer’s allowance, as has the Work and Pensions Committee. We need a review that looks not just at the cruel rules but at the purpose of carer’s allowance, all the eligibility rules and the level of carer’s allowance, which is one of the lowest benefits of its kind.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

The noble Baroness will know that we keep these matters under constant review and that the carer’s allowance is a non-means-tested benefit, with no capital rules, in England and Wales, which means it does not depend on the payment of national insurance contributions but is funded from general taxation.

I would also say that, for the claimant to be able to earn up to £151 per week, we need to take account of the allowable expenses. So that £151 can be stretched, in effect, by taking account of national insurance, tax and other allowable expenses.

Child Poverty

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Monday 29th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for securing this debate.

While individual circumstances and actions may represent proximate contributary causes, the root causes of child poverty are systemic and as such are amenable to government action. Unfortunately, for the most part, over the past decade or so, government actions, particularly with regard to social security, have served not to prevent or alleviate child poverty but to worsen and even deepen it.

No doubt the Minister will refer to this month’s benefits uprating to defend his Government’s record; we hear about it constantly from Ministers. While it is welcome that, this year, the Government are doing the right thing, it has to be understood in the context of the significant cut in the real value of working-age and children’s benefits since 2010. The recent Work and Pensions Committee report on benefit levels referred to the wide range of evidence received which suggests they are “too low”, and called for the development of a framework of principles, following consultation with stakeholders—and here I would include social security recipients themselves—to inform proper consideration of the adequacy of benefits.

The impact of overall cuts in real value has been aggravated by the imposition of what the Resolution Foundation described as the “catastrophic caps” of the two-child limit and benefit cap, which have been identified as key drivers of child poverty today. As such, any child poverty strategy will be strangled at birth so long as they continue.

While I welcome the six-month reprieve for the household support fund, could we not use that time to design a longer-term statutory programme that combined the fund with the existing discretionary local welfare assistance scheme—which, at the last count, 37 local authorities no longer run—so as to ensure a proper safety net at local authority level?

In the last poverty debate, led so successfully by the noble Lord, Lord Bird, the Minister reminded us that the Government’s approach is based on the importance of the role of paid work in lifting people out of poverty, which was echoed today by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham. While there is general agreement that access to paid work is important, it has to be good work and have proper regard to caring responsibilities, and it should not be imposed through the use of punitive mechanisms. Unfortunately, none of those conditions applies at present.

Moreover, when two-thirds of children in poverty are in families with at least one parent in paid work, it can only be a partial solution. In response to a recent Oral Question, the Minister responded to my call for a comprehensive cross-government child poverty strategy with the rather tired argument that it could drive action that simply moves the incomes of those “just in poverty” across the poverty line,

“while doing nothing to help those on the very lowest incomes or to improve children’s future prospects”.—[Official Report, 26/3/24; col. 576.]

Yet incomes are important and have been shown to make a real difference to children’s life chances. Depth of poverty indicators could, and indeed should, be included in any future targets, but the point of a comprehensive cross-government strategy—local as well as central— is that it would address the many facets of poverty that blight both childhood and children’s life chances. It would include all children, including those of asylum seekers, refugees and migrants, whose poverty is the focus of a joint report to be published tomorrow by the APPG on Poverty and the APPG on Migration.

In conclusion, last week we lost a valiant crusader against child poverty, Lord Field of Birkenhead. It is shameful that the situation is worse today than it was when he and I worked at the Child Poverty Action Group in the 1970s.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

Of course, and the noble Baroness will know that I have spoken at length on this matter and that there are a number of exceptions to this particular policy. But I stick to our view that there is a balance to be struck between helping those people in the way that we do, not having the two-child policy and, equally, being fair to the taxpayer. I know that the noble Baroness will never agree to that.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

Does the Minister accept that many of these families are taxpayers and in paid work?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

Absolutely. As I have said before, I do not think that we will agree at all on this—but, as I say, we are not minded to move on this policy. Both noble Baronesses will be well aware of our position on this.

There are encouraging signs that the economy has now turned a corner. Inflation has more than halved from its peak, delivering on the Prime Minister’s pledge, and is forecast to fall below 2% in 2024-25. Food price inflation is at its lowest since January 2022, at 4%, and wages are rising in real terms. We remain committed to a strong welfare system for those families who need it, and have uprated working-age benefits by a further 6.7% from this month and raised the local housing allowance to the 30th percentile of local rents, benefiting 1.6 million private renters in 2024-25.

Some questions were raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln and also alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, about social housing, which is an important subject. Their questions were linked to items of damp and mould; they asked what the Government were going to do about this. The Government have now introduced Awaab’s law through the Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023, which gives the Secretary of State powers to set out new requirements for social landlords to address hazards such as damp and mould in social homes within fixed time periods. We are now analysing the responses to the consultation, and then we will publish a response setting out findings and bringing for secondary legislation as soon as possible.

What I should say, which think was alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, is that everyone has a right to a safe and decent home. Since 2001, the decent homes standard, the so-called DHS, has played a key role in providing a minimum quality standard that social homes should meet. We are currently reviewing the DHS to ensure that it sets the right requirements for decency, and we will publish a consultation on a proposed new standard soon.

Personal Independence Payments

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

The right reverend Prelate makes a very good point. It chimes with what I said earlier, which is that we need to target our resources in the right place and be sure that individuals are looked after in terms not of the end result but of the process. That is extremely important. I will make this point again: where an individual has severe conditions, it must be right that we, the state as a compassionate country, look after them, and we need to be able to provide a better focus. This is, again, one of the reasons why we are bringing forward this Green Paper.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, it is common ground among commentators that claimants who have realistic work prospects should be offered high- quality employment support. Why do the Government have so little confidence in their own policy that they feel it necessary to impose benefits cuts and the threat of sanctions, risking greater poverty and even destitution, rather than the life of dignity promised in the DWP press release?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

As the noble Baroness will know, you can claim PIP whether you are in or out of work. More than 5 million disabled people are in work. One of the aims is to continue to encourage those who are disabled to take up some form of work. I say again that it is incredibly important that this is done in a measured and targeted way in line with the needs of the individual.

Data Protection and Digital Information Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 22nd April 2024 Grand Committee

We support tackling fraud. Wherever we are on the political spectrum and whatever we think of the benefit system, we do not think that people should be receiving money to which they are not entitled. At the same time, we must make sure that this is not an excuse for a mass trawling exercise or a Big Brother initiative, which many of us would oppose.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kamall. Although we probably come from very different positions on the role of the state, I agree with virtually everything that he said. I apologise for popping up at this late stage of proceedings on the Bill but, as someone with a long-standing concern about social security matters, I was shocked by the inclusion of these powers and want to add my support to those opposing them and, should this opposition prove unsuccessful, to the very sensible set of recommendations made by my noble friend Lady Sherlock.

The Child Poverty Action Group, of which I am honorary president, and Z2K warn that the stakes are high for claimants, as getting caught up in an error and fraud investigation can lead to the wrongful suspension and/or termination of their benefits. They give some horrendous examples of where this has happened. I will read just one: “A claimant with severe mental health problems whose main carer had recently passed away had his UC suspended in October 2023 by the UC case review when he was unable to obtain and upload bank statements on request. The suspension continued for four months and he was unable to pay for food, electricity or heating. When he was referred for benefits advice and his welfare rights adviser contacted the UC case review team, she was told that claims under review are randomly chosen and they are not targeted in any way”. This is someone with mental health problems left without any money; this could become the norm under this proposal.

The briefing from the CPAG and Z2K also cites the perspective of Changing Realities—families with experience in claiming low-income benefits. One warns that

“it will put folk off claiming altogether”.

I always remember, when I worked at the CPAG, getting a phone call from a woman who started by saying, “Please don’t think I’m a scrounger”. I am afraid that is still very much how people often feel about claiming benefits. Treating all social security recipients as potentially fraudulent can but increase the stigma associated with claiming. Amendment 219 in the name of my noble friend Lord Sikka is highly pertinent here. The point has already been made, but how would we feel if we knew that our bank accounts could well be scrutinised for potential tax evasion? I realise that I should declare an interest: as a pensioner, ultimately my bank account will be trawled, but that is down the line. Underlying this is a double standard that has operated year after year in social security and tax fraud.

The CPAG and Z2K also warn that some of the most marginalised people in our society could get caught up in these speculative searches. Given this, can the Minister explain why—I believe this is still the case—there is no equalities impact assessment for these provisions? Disabled people’s organisations are very worried about the likely implications for their members, such as in the case of disabled people who set up bank accounts to pay for their social care. They warn of the potential mental health impact as existing mental distress and trauma could be exacerbated by the knowledge that they are under surveillance—a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron.

The Government state that they

“are confident that the power is proportionate and would operate in a way that it only brings in data on DWP claimants, and specifically those claimants where there is a reasonable suspicion that something is wrong within their claim”.

Given the evidence of people already being wrongfully targeted for fraud and the strongly expressed view of organisations such as Justice, as well as the Information Commissioner, that the measures are disproportionate and therefore arguably unlawful, can the Minister say on what evidence that confidence is based? Given this confidence, I hope that the Government will accept without demur Amendments 220 to 222 in the next group from my noble friend Lady Sherlock.

Picking up what my noble friend Lord Sikka said, what is the breakdown between suspected fraud and error? It is not helpful that they are always talked about as though they are one and the same thing. The Government have argued that one reason the power is necessary is to provide the tools to enable the DWP to

“minimise the impact of genuine mistakes that can lead to debt”.

Try telling that to recipients of carer’s allowance who have been charged with fraud as a result of genuine mistakes relating to the earnings threshold. The fact that the DWP already has the information and power it needs to act to ensure that debts do not accrue in this situation, yet in countless cases has not used it until the point where very large sums may be owing, does not instil confidence, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron.

On Amendment 303, which relates to Amendment 230, one of the criticisms of these provisions has been the lack of consultation. Has the Social Security Advisory Committee been consulted? If so, what was its response; if not, why not?

In conclusion, I support the opposition to Clause 128 and Schedule 11 standing part of the Bill, but so long as they do stand part, I hope very much that the Minister will take seriously the amendments in the name of my noble friend in this group and the next two.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, I was also too late to put my name to these stand part notices for Clause 128 and Schedule 11. There must have been a stampede towards the Public Bill Office, meaning that some of us failed to make it.

At Second Reading, I described Clause 128 as “draconian”. Having dug into the subject further, I think that was an understatement. Data protection is a rather dry subject and, as the debates throughout this Committee stage have shown, it does not generate a lot of excitement. We data protection enthusiasts are a fairly select group, but it is nice to see a few new faces here today.

The Bill runs to 289 pages and is called the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill. Nothing in that name suggests that around 20 pages of it relate, in effect, to giving the Government unlimited access to the bank accounts of large swathes of the population without suspicion of any wrongdoing—20 pages is larger than many Bills. I wonder what the reaction in this Committee and the other place might have been if those 20 pages had been introduced as a stand-alone Bill—called, perhaps, the government right to access bank account information Bill. I suspect that we might have had a few more people in this Room. It feels as if this draconian clause is being hidden in the depths of a Bill that the Government perhaps felt would not generate much interest. It is particularly concerning that it was dropped into the Bill at the last minute in the other place and has not, therefore, received scrutiny there either. This sort of draconian power deserves much more scrutiny than on day 6 in Committee in the Moses Room.

I hope that my desire to stamp out fraud is well known—indeed, I think I can probably describe myself as rather boring on the subject—so I have a lot of sympathy for the Government’s underlying intention here. However, a right to require banks to carry out suspicionless surveillance over the bank accounts of anybody who receives pretty much any kind of benefit, directly or indirectly, is a huge intrusion into privacy and feels completely disproportionate. Others have covered the detail eloquently, so I just want to ask a number of questions of the Minister—I see that we have had a viscount swap at this stage.

I have been trying to work out exactly which accounts could be covered by this requirement. Schedule 11 is not the easiest document to read. It seems clear that if, for example, I am a landlord receiving rent directly from the benefit system on behalf of a tenant, the account of mine that receives the money would be covered, as would any other account in my name. However, would it also catch, for example, a joint account with my wife? I think it would. Would it catch a business account or an account for a charity where I am a signatory, a director or a trustee? I am not sure from reading it, I am afraid. Can the noble Minister clarify that?

Once received, the information provided by the banks may be used

“for the purposes of, or for any purposes connected with, the exercise of departmental functions”.

That seems extremely broad, and I cannot find anything at all setting out for how long the information can be retained. Again, can the Minister clarify that?

As well as being a data protection enthusiast, I am also an impact assessment nerd. I have been trying to work out from the impact assessment that accompanies the Bill—without much success—how much money the Government anticipate recovering as a result of these proposed rights, as well as the cost to the banks, the department and any other parties in carrying out these orders. The impact assessment is rather impenetrable—I cannot find anything in it that covers these costs—so I would be grateful if the Minister could say what they are and on what assumptions those numbers are based.

The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, mentioned unintended consequences. I echo his points: this is really important. Putting additional onerous obligations on banks may make them decide that it is too difficult to provide accounts to those in receipt of benefits. Access to bank accounts for vulnerable people is already an issue, and any incentive to make that worse is a real problem. As the noble Lord pointed out, we have a good example of that with PEPs. All of us have, I suspect, experienced finding it at least difficult to open an account. Some of us have had accounts refused or even closed simply because we have made it difficult for the banks to act for us. The same risk applies to landlords. Why would a landlord want to receive money from housing benefits directly when it will mean that all of his bank accounts and linked accounts will be looked at? He will simply say no. We are therefore reducing the pool of potential accommodation available to housing benefit claimants.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Buscombe (Con)]

My Lords, I speak as someone who was a Minister at the Department for Work and Pensions back in 2017. I well remember, when I was in charge of fraud and benefit, when we had a new addition to my team. I felt very strongly about this area because, when I first started as a Minister there, I was incredibly shocked by the level of fraud. Someone talked about having a fraud strategy, but this area is very complex. In the years since then, we have learned that the greatest incidence of fraud is people misstating their assets. Everybody in the Room will know that it is important that you must have only a certain amount of assets to claim benefits, whatever your situation, unless they are not means-tested or are disability benefits.

In 2017, the Treasury ran a controlled pilot. I do not know the details of how it was run, but I saw the results and they were extraordinary. The pilot was at one bank, using the powers they already had, for those who may be avoiding tax—which of course is not a crime—to see whether there was an issue with regard to benefit claimants misstating the extent of their assets when claiming. The extraordinary thing was that they found that between 25,000 and 30,000 at that one bank alone were misstating their assets.

So we know that there is a real problem here, and we know that fraud itself has gone up and up. We are unable to calculate all fraud in the system because, under the legacy system, we found it difficult to check the degree of housing benefit and so on. Maybe it is easier now under universal credit—I hope my noble friend the Minister will be able to tell us that it is—to check people in receipt of benefits who claim to be living alone when they are not.

This is a very nuanced area, but all I can say is that we knew we had a major problem with people misstating their assets. We had to deal with that, but we could not do so without working out how to do so with care, bearing in mind all the issues that noble Lords have raised today about doing it in a proportionate way, in a way that does not conflict with human rights in a way that does not become mass surveillance for everyone. We should bear in mind that since 2011 taxpayers, the people actually funding the benefits system, including some benefit claimants themselves, have had their bank accounts checked to make sure that they are not avoiding tax, which is not a crime—I am talking not about evasion but about avoiding—while fraud in the benefits system is a crime.

We need to be quite careful. Some of the things that have been said today conflating this issue with Horizon are wrong. I have been reading the so-called facts that some of these lobbyists have written about how the clause is disproportionate and unfair and goes too far in terms of people’s privacy. The Department for Work and Pensions works tirelessly to try to do the right thing in the right way. This has not been thrown into the Bill at the last minute as if we have just dreamed it up. That discovery was seven years ago. The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, may laugh, but I do not see the relevance of an awful lot of what he was saying—about the noble Baroness, Lady Mone, and so on—to what we are discussing now.

The reality is that benefit fraud is a serious offence, depriving those who need it most of vital support. A lot of people have come up with cases of very difficult situations that people have to live through. Those are the people we want to support but, frankly, the bill at DWP for this one year is £290 billion. When I was there in 2019, it was £190 billion. We cannot afford to put up with benefit fraud, so we have developed this carefully constructed measure, which needs to be thought through with care. I am sure my noble friend will be able to answer a lot of the questions that have quite rightly been asked today in Committee.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

The noble Baroness mentioned lobby groups that say the clause is disproportionate. The Information Commissioner has questioned the proportionality of this measure. Does she consider the Information Commissioner a lobby group?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Buscombe (Con)]

I thank my noble friend very much for all the explanation that he has given thus far. I just want to add a word that has not been mentioned: deterrent. One of the reasons why the Government have sought to introduce this in the Bill, I believe, is that it is hugely important that we are much more thoughtful about what will stop people doing the wrong thing. It has become an old-fashioned word but, from a legal, practical and moral standpoint, does my noble friend agree that this is a practical deterrent to make sure that people do the right thing?

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

Is it not one of the dangers that this is a deterrent to people claiming these benefits?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

I have a response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about signals. The signal is where the criteria or rules for benefit eligibility appear not to be met, and Parliament will have agreed those rules.

--- Later in debate ---

Mrs Carter’s name is on the number 2 account, her own accounts and her joint account. My reading of this suggests that information could indeed be sought on any accounts in Mrs Carter’s name, including joint accounts, without her knowledge. Could the Minister specifically confirm if that reading is correct? If so, how can he justify it? If it is correct, and if he accepts that it cannot be justified, will he accept Amendment 222A, which would simply make clear that the personal accounts of a benefit claimant’s appointee are not to be considered linked accounts for the purposes of fulfilling account information notices? I beg to move.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I intervene very briefly. I thank my noble friend who, with her usual forensic clarity, identified some really important points. The last one in particular is very worrying. I have a question. It may be that I misheard what the Minister said in response to the last set of amendments. I thought I heard him say that child benefit would not be included, but it appears to have been on the list that was given to my noble friend. Of course, the point is partly that it is administered by HMRC, but it has replaced child tax allowances, so it should be treated in the same way as a tax allowance when it comes to this purpose—so I hope that I heard the Minister correctly and that child benefit will not be included.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, in relation to the excellent speech of the noble Baroness, she mentioned “personal” accounts. I would like to double-check that business accounts, charitable accounts and other accounts that have one’s name or one’s partner’s name on, or are connected, do not go on ad infinitum.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

Yes it would. Landlords are in scope. We will filter this through in terms of the business as usual. If we receive any information—

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

Given that, has the department done an assessment of the likely impact on landlords being willing to take people on housing benefit? It is already an issue that landlords are reluctant to take housing benefit recipients, but, with this, I could see the market completely freezing for people on benefit.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

I clearly cannot go far enough today, but, because this is important and we are in Committee, I need to give some further reassurances on where we are in the process in terms of filtering. If I may conclude my remarks, I will finish this particular point. This is all part of the test and learn, and I give some reassurance that we are working through these important issues in relation to appointees and landlords.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My understanding is that it needs to have these powers to be able to cover the ground properly. I say again that these powers are limited, and whatever comes from the data that is requested from the third parties will end up being, we hope, limited. Even then, it may not be used by us because there is no need to do so.

The power covers all relevant benefits, grants and other payments set out in paragraph 16 of new Schedule 3B to the Social Security Administration Act 1992, as inserted by Schedule 11 to the Bill. To remove pension-age payments from the scope of the power would significantly undermine our power to tackle fraud and error where it occurs. Pension-age payments are not immune to fraud and error, as I have mentioned. I will give an example of that. The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked whether people would be notified of their bank accounts being accessed.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

Before the Minister moves on, I asked specifically about child benefit. Could he please answer that?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

I know that I said earlier that child benefit was not included. I will clarify that child benefit is not a benefit for which the DWP is responsible or has any functionality for. This measure will be exercised by the DWP Secretary of State, and we cannot use this power for that benefit.

I was in the middle of answering a question from the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock.

Child Poverty

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2024 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what action they are taking in response to the fact that 4.3 million children lived in relative poverty in 2023, according to data published by the Department for Work and Pensions on 21 March.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)]

My Lords, these statistics cover 2022-23—a year when war in Ukraine and global supply chain challenges led to unexpected and high inflation rates, averaging 10% over the year. These factors are reflected in the statistics. The Government have since taken firm action to support those on the lowest incomes, including through uprating benefits by 10.1% from April 2023, increasing the national living wage from April 2023 and providing cost of living support worth £96 billion over 2022-23 and 2023-24.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, we have a record number of children in poverty, of whom two-thirds are considered to be in deep poverty, and an annual increase even on the Government’s preferred measure. Plus more food insecurity means more hungry children and reliance on food banks. So what was the Secretary of State’s response? “The plan is working”—working for whom? When seven in 10 children in poverty have at least one employed parent, parental employment can be only a partial answer. Welcome as it is, benefits uprating is really the minimum we should be expecting. Will the Government therefore now accept that it is high time for a new plan, which scraps the social security policies that drive worsening child poverty and sets out a comprehensive, cross-government child poverty strategy?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

Setting such a strategy and targets can drive action that focuses primarily on moving the incomes for those just in poverty—just above a somewhat arbitrary poverty line—while doing nothing to help those on the very lowest incomes or to improve children’s future prospects. Therefore, we have no plans to reintroduce an approach to tackling child poverty focused primarily on income-based targets. Having said that, perhaps I can reassure the noble Baroness that my Department for Work and Pensions consistently works across government to support the most vulnerable households.

UNICEF: Child Poverty Rankings

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Wednesday 28th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

The Government like to read all reports and regard this one with a great deal of interest. However, our argument is that it is hard to give these findings much weight, due to the methodology used to create this ranking. Let me explain. International comparisons of poverty rates are difficult, due to differences in the frequency and timing of data collection and the approach taken to gather this data.

I shall go further. UNICEF’s ranking uses two measures: recent rates of relative child poverty and the percentage change in those rates over an arbitrary comparison period. There are issues with both measures. First, in considering recent child poverty rates, the latest OECD data shows that the UK has a relative poverty rate for nought to 17 year-olds comparable to large European countries. Secondly, UNICEF’s ranking compares relative poverty rates between 2012-14 and 2019-21.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, paid work is hardly the answer, as the Minister suggested, given that the majority of children in poverty are in families with a parent in paid work. He goes on about the methodology, but he knows very well the evidence of hardship and deepening poverty in this country. Is it not time the Government accepted the case made by UNICEF and many others for a coherent, cross-government child poverty strategy?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

The noble Baroness will have heard me say this before, but we believe that the best route out of poverty is through work. We are committed to a sustainable long-term approach to tackling child poverty in particular—the subject of this Question—and supporting people on lower incomes to progress in work. She will know that in April 2023, we uprated benefit rates by 10.1%, and working-age benefits will rise by 6.7% from April 2024, in line with inflation. But we are very aware of the pressures that quite a few households are experiencing.

Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2024

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Tuesday 27th February 2024 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)]

My Lords, in my opinion, the provisions in the instrument are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order increases relevant state pension rates by 8.5%, in line with the growth in average earnings in the year to May-July 2023. It will also increase most other benefit rates by 6.7%, in line with the rise in the consumer prices index in the year to September 2023.

The order commits the Government to increased expenditure of £19 billion in 2024-25. It ensures that state benefits maintain their value relative to the increase in the cost of goods and services. It means that most state pensions will gain value relative to that increase. Indeed, the proposed increase to state pensions would be the second highest on record—second only to the increase last April.

This will meet the Government’s commitment to the triple lock, benefiting pensioners who are already in receipt of basic and new state pensions, and younger people who are building up future entitlements as a foundation for private saving. It will raise the level of the safety net in pension credit beyond the increase in prices, and it will maintain the purchasing power of benefits to help with additional costs arising from disability.

For those receiving support linked to participation in the labour market, the Government announced a range of employment and conditionality measures at the Autumn Statement. These measures maintain and improve work incentives. This allows us now to strike a balance in support of those who are in low-paid work, who are looking for work or who are unable to work by linking the increase in the rates of universal credit to the increase in prices.

I will now address state pensions in more detail. The Government’s commitment to the triple lock means that the basic and full rate of the new state pension are uprated by the highest of the growth in average earnings, the growth in prices or 2.5%. This will be 8.5% for 2024-25, in line with the conventional average earnings growth measure. As a result, from April 2024, the basic state pension will increase from £156.20 to £169.50 a week, and the full rate of the new state pension will increase from £203.85 to £221.20 a week. All additional elements of the state pension will rise by 6.7%.

The Government are committed to supporting pensioners on the lowest incomes. The order therefore also increases the safety net provided by the pension credit standard minimum guarantee by 8.5% from April 2024. For single pensioners, this means it will increase from £201.05 to £218.15 a week, and for couples it will increase from £306.85 to £332.95 a week.

I turn now to universal credit, jobseeker’s allowance and employment and support allowance. The Social Security Administration Act 1992 gives the Secretary of State discretion on whether to increase the rates of benefits such as these, which are linked to participation in the labour market. Given the employment and conditionality measures I mentioned earlier, he has decided to strike a balance in support by also increasing the rates of these benefits by 6.7%, in line with the increase in the consumer prices index.

As a further measure to reinforce work incentives, the monthly amounts of universal credit work allowances will also go up by 6.7% from April 2024. They will increase from £379 to £404 a month for those also receiving support for housing costs, and from £631 to £673 a month for those not receiving support for housing costs. Noble Lords are aware that these are the amounts a household can earn before their universal credit payment is affected if they have children or if they have limited capability for work. The 6.7% increase will also apply to statutory payments, such as statutory maternity pay, statutory paternity pay and statutory sick pay.

I turn finally to benefits for those with additional disability needs and those who provide unpaid care for them. The rates of personal independence payment, disability living allowance and attendance allowance will increase by 6.7% from April 2024, in line with the increase in the cost of goods and services. As we have debated previously in other contexts, the Government recognise the vital role played by unpaid carers. This order also increases the rate of carer’s allowance by 6.7%, from £76.75 to £81.90. Unpaid carers may also access support through universal credit, pension credit and housing benefit. All these include additional amounts for carers, which will also increase by 6.7%. For a single person, the carer element in universal credit will increase from £185.86 to £198.31 a month. The additional amount for carers in pension credit and the carer premium in the other income-related benefits will increase from £42.75 to £45.60 a week.

In conclusion, the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2024 implements the Government’s commitment to the triple lock. It provides for a real-terms increase in the value of the safety net in pension credit, it maintains the purchasing power of benefits for additional disability needs and for people providing unpaid care to people with those needs, and it strikes a balance in universal credit by maintaining both work incentives and the purchasing power of benefit income. I commend this instrument to the Committee.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I of course welcome the inflation-proofing of benefits and the temporary lifting of the local housing allowance freeze in April, but—I fear this speech is a series of “but”s—I find it, frankly, insulting to those affected. I should say that the Minister is not included in this but, from the Prime Minister down, the uprating is constantly lauded by Ministers as a record amount, an additional support, as if it represents a great act of generosity which somehow justifies the lack of action on a number of other fronts. The inflation-proofing of benefits should be the default position, avoiding the months of speculation, fuelled by government sources, that have caused considerable uncertainty and anxiety for benefit recipients in and out of work.

Moreover, there is a number of reasons why the increase in line with inflation is far from generous. The Resolution Foundation points out that the uprating will do no more than restore benefits to their real value on the eve of the pandemic. While there were flaws in the cost of living payments, which we discussed last year, their loss now means that many households on universal credit will be worse off in cash terms. The foundation estimates that the typical household in the poorest quarter of the working-age population could face an income fall of 2% next year. The following year, on current assumptions, private renters will face a further freeze in the local housing allowance, which, according to Citizens Advice, is an important factor in the increase in the number facing a negative budget—that is, where income does not cover essential spending.

There is also the prospect that the uprating could coincide with the abolition of the household support fund, which has acted as both a lifeline and a sticking plaster for the holes in the social security safety net. I know that the Minister can say nothing more than that this is kept under review, but local authorities, charities and potential beneficiaries need a bit of certainty, rather than to wait for the Budget, which is only a month before the outcome of this review takes effect. I really do not understand how he can tell me in a Written Answer that the Government do not have robust data on the number of English local authorities that have closed their local welfare assistance schemes which, in his answer to my earlier Oral Question, he prayed in aid, should the household support fund be scrapped. Surely, such data should inform any review of the future of the fund. As it is, we know from End Furniture Poverty that at least 37 authorities have closed their scheme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all those who have spoken in this short debate. Before I attend to the number of questions asked and subjects raised, I would like to say at the outset—I normally do this but, today, I give special feeling and meaning to it—that this Government really do fully recognise the challenges facing people across the country due to the higher cost of living.

Although inflation is trending in the right direction, with the Bank of England now forecasting a fall to a target rate of around 2% in three months’ time, I acknowledge that pressures on household budgets very much persist. I saw this for myself in a recent visit to the Earlsfield Foodbank. The Government are not complacent about such matters; I hope noble Lords will recognise that the Government have taken action on a number of fronts to address these concerns, which were raised by a number of Peers—four, to be precise—this afternoon. I may not be able to answer all the questions but I will do my very best.

Let me start at the outset—I do not think I have done this before—by saying that, although I acknowledge the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, I am generally disappointed that every single item was a negative. I am disappointed that nothing she said seemed to support what we have done in these regulations or what we are trying to do. We really are trying. There was a long litany of faults coming from the Government: that the uprating was not enough; on the loss of the cost of living payments; on the freeze in the LHA, which is all for the future as we do not like where we stand on that yet; on the household support fund; and on the benefits cap review, including why it was not being done.

The noble Baroness is right to ask questions but I say gently that there is no mention of the genuine headwinds that all Governments have been facing. This Government have not been alone in the experiences of the pandemic and coming out of it, as well as of the war in Ukraine. There was no indication of these whatever. It is a bit disappointing. I know that the noble Baroness will understand why I have said these things but I thought it would be worth mentioning them.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

I am sorry to interrupt but I started by saying that I welcomed the inflation-proofing. That is a positive. I then warned him by saying, “All the ‘buts’ are coming, I am afraid”, but it was in the context of welcoming.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

I appreciate that from the noble Baroness. We have undertaken a number of debates together; I hope that she did not mind me mentioning it.

However, questions are questions; I will start by attempting to answer one of them. After each uprating, household income will go down by 2% because of the ending of the cost of living payments. At the moment, the Government have no plans to extend the cost of living payments past the 2023-24 round of payments. Responding swiftly and decisively to the cost of living pressures has been a key priority for the Government. Over the past two years, the Government have demonstrated their commitment to supporting the most vulnerable by providing one of the largest support packages in Europe. Taken together, support to households to help with the high cost of living is worth £104 billion over the period 2022-23 to 2024-25.

As was mentioned earlier, reducing inflation and growing the economy are the most effective ways to build a more prosperous future for all. This Government are committed to halving the rate of inflation; they have pretty well achieved that. However, to be helpful to the noble Baroness, an evaluation of the cost of living payments is under way. This seeks to understand their effectiveness as a means of support for low-income and vulnerable households. This will be made public when it is ready.

The noble Baroness mentioned the household support fund. She probably second-guessed my answer, which is that this is kept under review in the usual way. It has been used to support millions of households in need with the cost of essentials. For example, 26 million awards were made to households in need between 1 October 2021 and 31 March 2023. More than £2 billion in funding has been provided to local authorities via the household support fund since it began—that is, October 2021. More than 10 million awards were made between 1 October 2022 and 31 March 2023.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, asked why we are not going to increase the benefit cap. She cited the fact that the Secretary of State has an obligation to review at least once every five years. We believe that there has to be a balance. The benefit cap provides a balanced work incentive and fairness for hard-working taxpaying households, while providing a safety net of support for the most vulnerable. She will know that the Government increased the level significantly from April 2023 following the review in November 2022. The proportion of all working-age households capped remains low, at 1.3%, and these capped households will still be able to receive benefits up to the value of gross earnings of around £26,500, or £31,300 in London. For single households, this is around £15,800, or £19,000 in London.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, asked about benefits levels and how to measure them. There is no objective way of deciding what an adequate level of benefit should be as every person has different requirements depending on their circumstances. However, we will spend £276 billion through the welfare system in Great Britain this financial year, including around £124 billion on people of working age and their children. Over the past two years, the Government have demonstrated their commitment to supporting the most vulnerable by providing one of the largest support packages in Europe, which I mentioned earlier.

The national living wage, which I also want to mention, is set to increase this April by 9.8% to £11.44, on top of the increase in April 2023 of 9.7%. This represents an increase of over £1,800 in the annual earnings of a full-time worker on the national living wage, and it is expected to benefit over 2.7 million low- paid workers.

Poverty Reduction

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Thursday 22nd February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, follow that! I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for the opportunity not just to debate this important issue but also to say thank you to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham for his tireless championing of the interests of children in poverty and also refugees and asylum seekers. It has been a privilege and a pleasure to work with him, and he will be sorely missed.

I shall focus my remarks mainly on child poverty and the need for a cross-government child poverty strategy, not least because children are disproportionately at risk of poverty. As the Association of Directors of Children’s Services reminded us this week:

“Sadly, children’s needs, their rights and outcomes have not been prioritised in recent years”.


No doubt the Minister will trot out the usual cherry-picked statistics on so-called absolute poverty, despite the promise of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, when leader of the Conservative Party, that the party

“recognises, will measure and will act on relative poverty”.

I shall spare noble Lords the trading of statistics, but we cannot ignore the growing evidence of the intensification of poverty, serious hardship and indeed, as documented by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, destitution.

Last month, the Prime Minister in a radio interview said that he was sad to hear of families in poverty who reportedly were having to water down baby formula, and that he was committed to sitting down with those involved, if he were written to. Well, he would have to sit down with an awful lot of people, if he were to meet all those who are unable to afford life’s basics today. What is needed is systemic change, not individual sympathy—and that brings me to today’s Motion.

In 2010, the political parties came together to support the introduction of the Child Poverty Act, which required central, devolved and local government to produce child poverty strategies, building on the progress made on reducing child poverty over much of the previous decade. Despite that all-party support, the Act was watered down and then effectively abolished in 2016—though, thanks to the stalwart work of the right reverend Prelate, the duty to continue the measurement and publication of key poverty indicators was retained. But the upshot was that, as the Social Mobility Commission pointed out in 2021, England is now

“the only nation in the UK without a strategy to address child poverty”.

When challenged on the lack of a child poverty strategy, Ministers tend to recite a litany of various inadequate measures, but a list of measures does not constitute a strategy, with clear targets and reporting requirements. In contrast, my party has committed itself in its final National Policy Forum document, agreed by conference, to

“a bold and ambitious strategy to tackle child poverty”,

which will be cross-government and place a

“responsibility of all government departments to tackle the fundamental drivers of poverty”.

I just hope that this commitment will be set out clearly in our manifesto.

Decisions made by almost every government department have implications for children and others in poverty. For example, the Department for Education cannot ignore the impact of poverty, whether it be childcare policies, the costs of education, including school meals, the need to poverty-proof schools and, most fundamentally, the impact of poverty on the ability to learn, and its role in continued inequality of educational opportunities and outcomes.

Home Office rules have a direct impact on poverty among refugees, asylum seekers and migrants, and this is the subject of a current joint inquiry by the APPGs on Migration and on Poverty, which I co-chair. Fuel poverty is the responsibility of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero; the transition to net zero has to take account of the needs of those living in poverty as, otherwise, new research suggests that they could face what the authors call “transition poverty”.

Before I turn to the Minister’s own area of responsibility, I ask him what cross-government machinery exists to consider the impact of policies on poverty. What discussions does he have with colleagues in other departments to encourage them to think about the poverty implications of their work? The DWP’s work of course remains central to any poverty reduction strategy. At present, it seems as if its anti-poverty policy begins and ends with getting more people into paid work, regardless of the quality of the jobs on offer. I do not dispute that paid work is important and reduces the risk of poverty, but it is no panacea—witness the fact that the majority of children in poverty have at least one parent in work. Indeed, according to Action for Children, around 300,000 families with children are in poverty despite each parent being in full-time work. Much more needs to be done to break down the barriers faced, in particular by those with caring responsibilities.

Punitive sanctions have been shown to be counterproductive, pushing people into low-quality and insecure work, according to the Work Foundation and others. The evidence suggests that those struggling to get by on inadequate benefits do not make effective jobseekers, as poverty reduces psychological bandwidth and job-seeking itself can cost money.

I will say more about the inadequacy of the social security benefits that we expect our fellow citizens to survive on in next week’s uprating debate, but I make just two points now. First, in a briefing paper for the Financial Fairness Trust, my former colleague Professor Donald Hirsch concludes:

“The level of working age benefits in the UK today is denying claimants access to the most fundamental material resources needed to function day to day and have healthy lives”.


Secondly, a report from CPAG, of which I am honorary president, argues that the first step in tackling child poverty has to be the abolition of policies that are increasing it. This includes scrapping the benefit cap and the two-child limit—here, again, I pay tribute to the right reverend Prelate’s indefatigable opposition to the latter; I suspect that the Minister might breathe a sigh of relief not to hear more from him about its iniquities. Underlying both points are the series of cuts made to social security since 2010. Given that many of those affected were already in poverty, we may have seen the impact less in the numbers in poverty and more in its growing depth.

A cross-government strategy must also include local government. Key here is the future of the household support fund. In his Answer to my recent Oral Question, the Minister referred to councils’ continued ability

“to use funding … to provide local welfare assistance”,—[Official Report, 30/1/24; col. 1106.]

which replaced the national Social Fund. But when I followed up with a Written Question about how many English local authorities do not run such a scheme, he responded that the Government do not have “robust data”. Why do they not? According to End Furniture Poverty, 37 authorities have closed their scheme, which means that if the household support fund is abolished as feared, there will be nothing other than charity for people in need to turn to. To their credit, a number of local authorities have developed anti-poverty strategies despite their financial pressures, but it is clear from research by Greater Manchester Poverty Action that they are hampered by the absence of a UK government strategy and by national policies that have compounded poverty.

As made clear so graphically by the noble Lord, Lord Bird, policy-making must aim to prevent poverty rather than simply reduce it after the event. I see that as one of the principles that should inform any anti-poverty strategy. Other principles include: the need to provide genuine financial security; attention to diversity, including the particular needs of racialised minorities, disabled people and women; recognition that poverty is experienced not just as a disadvantaged and insecure economic condition but as a corrosive and shameful social relation, which means that policies and their application must be dignity-promoting rather than, as is too often the case, shame-inducing; and, related to this, the involvement of people with experience of poverty, including children, in the development of anti-poverty policies—here we can learn from Scotland.

There is growing recognition of the value of the expertise of experience thanks to projects such as Changing Realities. Its recent briefing began and ended by quoting Erik, a single disabled parent. He argues:

“It is NOW that changes must be made in order for a fairer society where we can all have a reasonable standard of living, bring up our families to have the best possible start in life that is achievable”,


but, he says:

“I am starting to lose hope that anything will change for low-income families”.


Whatever Benches we sit on, we have a duty to offer people like Erik some cause for hope. He is right that change must happen now. Indeed, as public attitudes towards action against poverty appear to have softened in recent years, what better time to offer a vision of a good society in which a cross-government anti-poverty strategy has to play a central part?

Household Support Fund

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Tuesday 30th January 2024 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the Household Support Fund; and what plans they have for (1) the future of the fund, and (2) the role of local crisis support generally.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)]

My Lords, an evaluation of the current household support fund scheme is under way to better understand the impact of the funding. The current household support fund runs until the end of March 2024, and the Government continue to keep all their existing programmes under review. Councils continue to have the flexibility to use funding from the local government finance settlement to provide local welfare assistance. As with all government policies, this remains under review.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, the discretionary household support fund has acted as a vital lifeline come sticking plaster, filling some of the holes in our totally inadequate social security safety net. If, as is feared, the sticking plaster is torn off from April—just two months away—it will leave and deepen a gaping wound of dire hardship. Will the Minister therefore convey to the Chancellor the urgency of the calls from local authorities and civil society groups for the fund to continue for at least a year, followed by a proper long-term strategy for local crisis support in place of last-minute, ad hoc funding decisions?

Department for Work and Pensions: AI

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Tuesday 5th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

We are certainly working very hard to look at and mitigate delays, and AI will over time be a game-changer for that. To manage and mitigate risk, we have produced a risk framework, in line with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. We are setting out AI governance and an approach to AI enablement which will be transformational.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall pick up on what my noble friend said about digital stop and search, because there is growing concern about the potential for hidden bias in the use of algorithms to detect social security fraud. What steps has the DWP taken to prevent such bias, with potentially discriminatory outcomes?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

The noble Baroness raises an important point. We are committed to building trust in our use of AI and are fully aware of the risks of the technology, as discussed at the UK AI safety summit. Where AI is used to assist its activities in the prevention and detection of fraud within UC applications, DWP always ensures appropriate safeguards, and bias is something we are very alive to. It will very much depend on the input of data and we have some risk profiles in place to ensure that we adopt best practice in that respect.