Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill

Debate between Lord Rooker and Baroness Sherlock

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 16th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, I will briefly follow the introduction made by the noble Lord, Lord Desai. I will not address the issue—I did that the last time we sat—but there is a wonderful clarity about this issue. With ignorant journalists in the media calling for the abolition of your Lordships’ House, this issue shows, above all, that we will always be an irritant to the Government, whatever party is in power. It was the same when I was over there; the House is an irritant. The clarity with this issue, particularly for those of us who do the Peers in Schools programme, it that it is a wonderful example that is very easy to explain of the fact that the Commons always has the last word.

So, whatever the arguments about the composition and powers of this place—and the idea that we can legislate at will, which we cannot—this example gives wonderful clarity on the fact that the Commons always has the last word. Our job is to ask MPs to think again and again, and sometimes again—I have known examples of three occasions. But the fact of the matter, which the elected Chamber cannot run away from, however it is dressed up, is that the Commons has the last word—and I think that is to your Lordships’ advantage for the way we operate.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing her Motion and all noble Lords who have spoken. I am going to get a new T-shirt for Christmas: “Proud to Be an Irritant”. Perhaps they should start selling them in the House of Lords gift shop; they might sell quite well. A nice note for the noble Lord, Lord Desai.

I must say that I am disappointed. The House voted by a healthy majority for the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, which would have kept the link between pensions and earnings. It is worth noting that the amendment won support from around the House, whereas the Government were able to persuade only 13 Members who do not take the government Whip to vote against. The reason is clear: the case was unpersuasive.

The Government came to power on the back of a manifesto commitment to the triple lock, which we also supported at the last election, as did the Liberal Democrats and other major parties. The Government now want to ditch it for next year on the grounds that the rise in earnings over the year to last summer was artificially high as a result of Covid. We accept that earnings growth was distorted as a result of the pandemic, but that does not mean that the Government should just ditch their promises. They could and should have found a way to maintain the earnings link in pensions while adjusting for the Covid effect.

I will not relitigate this but, during the passage of the Bill, we looked at lots of ways we could do it, and lots of constructive suggestions emerged, and in the end the House coalesced around a very reasonable amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, with cross-party support, which simply said that the Government should use a figure for earnings chosen

“in the light of reasonable adjustments to take account of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic based on the Office for National Statistics reported earnings figure.”

It could not have been more reasonable, and it left the Government considerable latitude: we were not telling the other place what to do but simply giving them a chance to think again.

But the Government flat out rejected that. The Pensions Minister in the other place did comment on the merits of the amendment, but he caricatured it by saying that it

“invites the Secretary of State to measure earnings as if they were not actually growing by 8.3%.”—[Official Report, Commons, 15/11/21; col. 359.]

So are the Government now saying that earnings growth actually is 8.3%? If so, why are they ditching the triple lock? And if it is not 8.3%, why did they not take the chance this House afforded them to look at alternatives?

The Minister again mentioned time pressure, so I put to her again a question I put at an earlier stage in the Bill. She told noble Lords there were two reasons why it was so time-critical. The first was that the computers have to be changed by a date—I think it was 26 November, or another date late this month that was the last date that computers could be changed to adjust the rates for next year. She also said that the House will then have to approve the uprating order, which we normally do in the spring. So what happens if they change the computers deep in the bowels of DWP and then the House chooses to reject the uprating order? What happens then?

While we are here, by refusing to look again, we are left with a Bill which will uprate pensions by the CPI inflation rate prevailing last September. Meanwhile, we all know that the costs of things that all pensioners use—food and fuel, for example—are spiralling up. Pensioner poverty is on the rise again. The last Labour Government managed to bring it way down, but it started to rise again in 2012. It is now on the rise and it will get worse yet.

I am sorry to say that this short Bill is a mistake. It steps away from the earnings link and, in walking away from their manifesto commitment for the third time, the Government are breaking trust with the electorate. Why are they so determined to do it? Ministers tell us that it is for one year only. Great, but I worry that their refusal to be creative in finding a way to deal with the fallout from the pandemic raises fears that they really are planning to walk away from this longer term.

My noble friend Lord Rooker is, as always, right. We have done what we can. We have asked the elected House to think again. The Government whipped their people to say that they did not want to do so. I think they are wrong. Pensioners will pay the price for this and they will not likely forget this breach of trust. I hope the Government think it was worth it.

Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill

Debate between Lord Rooker and Baroness Sherlock

Report stage
Tuesday 2nd November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to the other amendment in this group: Amendment 5, in my name and that of the noble Baronesses, Lady Janke, Lady Altmann and Lady Boycott. But first, I want to comment on Amendments 1 and 7 and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, for her introduction and explanation of them.

Noble Lords will remember that in Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, tabled an amendment which simply excluded pension credit entirely from the effects of the Bill. The Minister opposed this on lots of grounds, but probably the main one was that the earnings growth had been distorted as a result of the pandemic, and therefore it would not be an appropriate way to increase pension credit. The noble Baroness has come back with Amendments 1 and 7, which would require the Government to uprate pension credit with reference to earnings but adjusted for the effects of the pandemic.

As the noble Baroness mentioned, I am quite sure the Minister will get up and say that the Government do not believe a figure can be found which will be robust enough to use as a measure of underlying earnings growth. We will come back to the substantial discussion on that point in the third group, but, in short, Labour accepts that there is a distortion in the earnings data, but we think the Government should go back and try harder to find an alternative way to deal with this without ditching the earnings link and the manifesto commitment to the triple lock—and, indeed, losing the trust of the nation while they do so. Our view is that that should be done for the state pension, which we will come back to in the third group.

In the meantime, we need the Government to face into the growing problem of pensioner poverty and to develop a longer-term strategy for tackling it. Amendment 5 would force the Government to start by assessing the impact of the Bill on pensioner poverty within six months of the Bill passing, followed by a Statement to both Houses of Parliament.

We know we have a problem. I will not go over again all the evidence from around the House that we rehearsed in Committee, but let me give a quick summary. Pensioner poverty was doing really well: it fell markedly between 1997, when it was 29% for the UK, and 2010, when 14% of pensioners in Great Britain were living in poverty. That was due primarily to the introduction of pension credit. From 2012, pensioner poverty started to rise again. Last year, 18% of our pensioners were living in poverty—that is more than 2 million pensioners now in poverty, with over a million in severe poverty.

There is a real gender pensions gap. The number of women pensioners living in poverty has increased dramatically at a time when the total number of women pensioners has fallen as a result of the state pension age going up. That is really significant. We also have a particular problem in some regions, especially London, and there is a worry about a growing problem in the north. Older people from black and Asian communities are around twice as likely to be living in poverty as white pensioners.

The context for the Bill is a cost of living crisis, with inflation rising and energy bills skyrocketing. I raised this in Committee, and the Minister responded to my concerns by saying that energy prices were built into CPI. But the prices reference point for uprating is the September CPI rate, and the energy cap was raised on 1 October. It has been raised by £139 for those paying by direct debit and a huge £153 for those on prepayment plans. Yet again, there is huge premium on being poor: the poor pay far more per person for energy than the rich.

Given the worries about pensioner poverty from around the House, and the fact that the state pension is the largest single source of income for most pensioners, it would seem obvious that Ministers should carry out an impact assessment so that they would know what effect suspending the triple lock would have on pensioner poverty. But, astonishingly, there has been no impact assessment for the Bill. When I moved a similar amendment in Committee, the Minister said it was not possible to do what we asked because it would involve modelling. She said:

“Assumptions would need to be made about how each individual pensioner’s income would change in future under each scenario.”—[Official Report, 26/10/21; col. 750.]


I accept that assumptions would have to be made—that is what happens when you model things. Is it really impossible to model the impact of this policy? If so, how does anyone model the impact of any policy on poverty? When I was a spad in the Treasury—which I accept was back when dinosaurs roamed the land—it had a TAXBEN model which it used to assess the impact of any changes in taxes and benefits. Also, in those days, the DWP had some of the best statisticians anywhere in Whitehall. I have no reason to believe that that is not the case now, although I know the department has shrunk. So, I recognise that assumptions would need to be made, but in modelling they just have to be reasonable and stated. I would even be happy with an assessment which ignored behavioural responses, if that would make it easier.

There is a common theme across all the amendments today and there are concerns from all Benches about low pensioner incomes. Our simple amendment reflects that concern. If the Minister is not convinced by all the evidence mentioned here and in Committee, I urge her simply to accept my amendment and do the work to establish the facts. If the Government want to break their manifesto commitment, at least they should be committed to gathering and publishing information about the impact of that decision. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

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

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

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

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