Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 25th June 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

123: After Clause 96, insert the following new Clause—
“Overpayments made as a result of official error(1) Section 71ZB of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (recovery of benefit payments) is amended as follows. (2) In subsection (1), for “The” substitute “Subject to subsection (1A), the”.(3) After subsection (1) insert—“(1A) The amount referred to in subsection (1) must not include any overpayment that arose in consequence of an official error where the claimant or a person acting on the claimant’s behalf or any other person to whom the payment is made could not, at the time of receipt of the payment or of any notice relating to that payment, reasonably have been expected to realise that it was an overpayment.””Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would bring the test for recovery of Universal Credit overpayments caused by official error into line with Regulation 100(2) of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 by providing that they can only be recovered where the claimant could reasonably have been expected to realise that there was an overpayment.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 123 is supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, who is in the Chamber, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester, who regrets that he cannot be in his place. He was going to be replaced by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester but he is also in the Chamber. I thank them anyway for their moral support, even if it cannot be practical. I also thank the Public Law Project for all its help with the amendment. I apologise that I was unable to attend Second Reading, but my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton kindly gave notice of this amendment.

The amendment brings the test of recovery of universal credit overpayments caused by official error into line with the housing benefit provisions by ensuring that recovery can be made only where the claimant could reasonably have been expected to realise there was an overpayment. There is surely no better time to address official error overpayments in a Bill so appropriately named the “Fraud, Error and Recovery” Bill. However, it is currently one sided. Although it recognises the harms that both fraud and error cause in the social security system, it focuses only on the behaviour of claimants. It does not address the harms that result from the recovery of so-called official error overpayments. These are debts created because of mistakes made by the Department for Work and Pensions.

Unlike many other benefits, DWP can recover official error UC overpayments from claimants. This power was introduced in the Welfare Reform Act 2012 and represented a significant change to the position previously applied to most legacy benefits—that is, those that preceded UC. According to DWP data, in 2023-2024, 686,756 new UC official error overpayment debts were entered on DWP’s debt manager system. Is my noble friend the Minister able to give us any data on the circumstances in which official error overpayments occur and the average length of time before they are identified?

We are not just talking about numbers on a debt manager system. These DWP mistakes are having a serious impact on the lives of individuals such as D, who got in touch with me after hearing my noble friend Lord Davies raise the issue at Second Reading. D emailed me and we had a phone conversation. She told me that after her son was born, she was incorrectly told by DWP that she would be able to claim UC while her partner was studying for a master’s degree. Two years later, the DWP then told her that she was not eligible and that she now owed them £12,000—a “life-changing amount”, in her words. She has tried to dispute this through the tribunal system and the DWP complaints process. But even though the judge in the tribunal was sympathetic, the response has been that the DWP has the power to recover all overpayments, regardless of how they are caused. D now has £20 deducted from each UC payment she receives but no record from the DWP of how much she still owes.

It simply should not be the case that claimants such as D are paying the price for DWP mistakes. Public Law Project research demonstrates that the financial and psychological impact of overpayment debt recovery on individual claimants can be severe and is often associated with a particular sense of injustice. Understandably so, with individuals finding themselves unexpectedly in debt through no fault of their own.

The DWP’s default approach is to recover all overpayments regardless of how they are caused. The onus is on claimants to request discretionary measures, such as a waiver, but the DWP does not automatically tell them this. In 2023-24, only 75 waiver requests were granted; this equates to only 0.01% of overpayment debts registered that year. Could my noble friend tell the Committee what steps, if any, the DWP is taking to make waivers more accessible? In particular, would it consider following the example of the Department for Communities in Northern Ireland and automatically including reference to waivers in communications with claimants? Will it consider lowering the thresholds and evidential requirements to grant waivers?

In the Commons, the Minister referred to measures that were in place to mitigate the risk of harm associated with overpayment recovery. I welcome the introduction of the fair repayment rate, which I am sure my noble friend will mention. However, access to some of these safeguards is not an easy process for claimants to navigate. Moreover, as evidenced by research from the Public Law Project, Citizens Advice, the Trussell Trust and StepChange, and acknowledged by the DWP’s own guidance, those safeguards are not sufficient to prevent harm and hardship.

This was illustrated by a recent report from Policy in Practice about deductions from UC in general. It observed that many low-income households are already in crisis and at risk of deep poverty, prior to the application of deductions. I know that I do not have to explain to my noble friend the difficulties of trying to survive on universal credit and how low it is. That will still be the case despite the welcome, real-terms increase being proposed in the legislation currently before the Commons. Policy in Practice found that deductions risk placing households further from being able to afford the essential items of daily life. This is particularly the case for lone parents and carers.

Citizens Advice reports that fewer than 40% of its clients who contacted the DWP were successful in getting an affordability measure put in place, yet the DWP’s own guidance recognises that any recovery of an overpayment from any person in receipt of benefit is almost certain to cause some hardship and upset for them and their family. What criteria does the DWP use to decide what is an affordable deduction? Would the DWP consider agreeing an affordable and sustainable repayment plan with claimants before initiating recovery by way of deductions?

As I said, overpayment recovery is taking the individual below the amount that the DWP has assessed them to need, in a context where UC rates have already been shown to be insufficient to meet essential needs—a point emphasised by Policy in Practice. This is why I have tabled an amendment to bring the test for recovery of UC overpayments into line with the current test for housing benefit. It would ensure that UC overpayments caused by official error could be recovered only when individuals could reasonably have been expected to have realised that they had been overpaid. It places the onus on DWP officials to consider the fairness of recovery before initiating it. When UC was introduced, the then Labour shadow Minister for Employment considered this a just and fair test, which has been tested in case law.

This amendment would also create a clear incentive for the DWP to prevent these mistakes in the first place, which is a step towards a better-functioning social security system that gets things right first time. We ought to pay attention to the more than 30 charities that have written to the Secretary of State urging the Government to grasp this opportunity.

In introducing the Bill’s Second Reading, my noble friend stated:

“Our approach is tough but fair … fair on claimants, by spotting and stopping errors earlier and helping people to avoid getting into debt. It is fair on those who play by the rules”.—[Official Report, 15/5/25; col. 2346.]


But the current system is patently unfair to those who have been affected by an official error that they could not be expected to spot, and who have played by the rules as they understood them.

This is a fundamental question of fairness and of rights and responsibilities. If a government system makes mistakes, who should bear the consequences? Is it the system that caused the error and has the power to avoid it, or the service user who has no control over, or responsibility for, that mistake and, worse, is detrimentally affected by it? If we are serious about addressing fraud, error and the recovery of debt in the Bill, it would—for want of a better word—be an error on our part not to take action to end this unfair practice and source of economic instability for hundreds of thousands of families and individuals whom our social security system is there to serve. I beg to move.

[Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I will speak in support of the amendment because it raises, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, pointed out, a question of principle. Should a person who received payments in error always be required to make restitution in full?

We are dealing with the application of this principle in the context of welfare payments, but it may be useful to keep in mind how this principle would apply in other contexts under our law. The default position is, as one would expect, that a party that has received money in error is obliged to return that money. However, it is also the case that our law has developed an important exception to this general position. This is known as the change of position defence, which was first recognised by Lord Goff in the case Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd 1991, where he said that

“the defence is available to a person whose position is so changed that it would be inequitable in all the circumstances to require him to make restitution, or alternatively, to make restitution in full”.

In essence, where the person has changed their position, in good faith, in reliance on that payment—for example, by spending it—restitution in a non-welfare context may be denied in whole or in part.

As I said, it is an equitable exception that our law has developed over a number of decades and on the basis of various decisions. It is a complex area of law known as unjust enrichment, on which many doctoral theses have been written. The reason it has attracted so much attention is that there is a conflict of fairness. On the one hand, it seems right that the payer who paid in error should, in principle, receive the money back and that people should not derive benefit from someone else’s innocent error. On the other, it also seems wrong that someone who made no error and relied, in good faith, on that payment should be unduly penalised. The common law and equity seek to strike a balance between these two concerns with the change of position exception that I have outlined.

For welfare payments, we are dealing with a context where statute rather than common law applies; however, it seems that the concerns that the common law has sought to address in other contexts arise even more acutely. The people who received the payments are socioeconomically disadvantaged and very likely to have spent that money, as the case mentioned by the noble Baroness illustrates. Thus, they are very likely to have changed, in good faith, their position by relying on those payments. To ask them to return that money is particularly burdensome on individuals who are on benefits and without a safety net.

Section 71ZB of the Social Security Administration Act, which the amendment proposes to change, seems a very blunt instrument. It responds to that first concern—to ensure that the payer, in this case the taxpayer, should have their money back—but it does nothing to protect the bona fide recipient of that payment from being penalised unduly. For that reason, it seems a fundamentally unfair provision. It seems wrong that the protection that a bona fide recipient of a payment in error would enjoy in other contexts, including a commercial context, should not apply to the bona fide recipient of a welfare payment made in error. This amendment seeks to remedy that unfairness, and it has my support for that reason.

It is true that Section 71ZB gives the Government a discretion and I suppose it will be said that there is guidance that tells the Government to exercise that discretion, taking into account certain circumstances. But the good will of the payer is not sufficient and that certainly is not the position under the general common law on restitution. It is not just a matter of the payer having the good will not to pursue the recovery of the payment; there has to be more to recognise that the innocent beneficiary, too, has an entitlement to protection. It seems to me that this amendment seeks to provide that correction to Section 71ZB of the Social Security Administration Act 1992.

I will, of course, be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the various mitigations that might exist, but at the moment I agree that, unless the mitigation is in statute, whatever guidance might be in place will not be sufficient. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the Minister and her officials for the very informative briefing last week.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that has answered noble Lords’ questions and explained how the policy came about, what the safeguards are and the reasons why the department is operating in the way it does at the moment. We are very focused on improving payment accuracy while trying, where it is appropriate, to recover public money in a way that supports anyone struggling with their repayment terms. In the light of that, I ask my noble friend to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

I am afraid it was remiss of me not to congratulate the Chair on the recent addition to his family and to send best wishes to his daughter—fingers crossed, and I hope it all goes well.

I thank all noble Lords who spoke, including the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame—he sounded so learned that I want to call him noble and learned—for his helpful contribution. There is something very comforting about having someone who knows the law coming in behind you and saying that this is a point of principle. I very much appreciated that, as well as the support of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill.

I appreciated the sympathy expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, but it felt a bit like doing contortions so as not to have to criticise what his Government introduced. I do not accept the argument about public money. It is not like there is little pot and that if some of that pot goes to someone who has been overpaid because of the department’s error, that money will not be there for other claimants. The talk about public money felt a bit like some of the arguments around taxation being theft and so forth because it is public, the “It’s our money, not their money” sort of thing. Anyway, I appreciate the sympathy with which he approached the question, and I appreciate my noble friend, as always, engaging fully with what was said. I am disappointed that the department is not willing at all to budge on this.

We have to remember that universal credit is complicated. It may have been sold to us by the previous Government as a simplification but, in fact, it is complicated and, therefore, not surprising if people do not understand the payment that goes into their bank account. Who understands how universal credit is worked out? The answer is not many people. That has to be borne in mind when we are talking about what it is reasonable to expect people to know and respond to. The noble Lord opposite talked about fessing up and realising they have got it wrong, but people may not realise they have got it wrong until it is brought to their attention by the department because, tardily—we will hear more about that when it comes to carer’s allowance—it is brought to their attention that the payment is wrong. It is a question not of hiding but of simply not knowing.

I understand that universal credit is a dynamic benefit and that the payments are different from what went before—it is different from housing benefit—but surely there could be a provision that allowed for repayment not to be made in certain circumstances. My noble friend talked about a right of appeal, but that is pointless in this situation. The person who contacted me, D, went to appeal. She had a lovely judge at the appeal who looked at what the DWP said and said, “I’d really like to be able to give you this, but I can’t because the law does not allow me to.” Everybody’s time was wasted. She was given undue expectations. My noble friend said that people are encouraged to contact the recovery team and work out a decent repayment rate. I am not involved in the day-to-day business of universal credit, but the organisations that have helped with this and asked me to put this forward know the situation, and that is not how they see it. What should happen in theory does not always happen in practice on the ground.

If nothing else, perhaps this amendment will encourage the DWP to look again at its procedures and the guidance to make sure that things are happening as they are supposed to happen so that the picture that my noble friend painted is an accurate picture of what happens on the ground. I will obviously want to read in more detail to see whether we want to bring this back. I very much appreciate my noble friend answering my rather nerdy questions. It is not the first time that we have exchanged nerdiness in this Room. With that, I will withdraw the amendment but will want to consider what we do on Report.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

I shall just pick up on what the noble Baroness said about universal credit and the fact that it is quite complicated. I hope she will agree that the old system, where there were six benefits, was particularly overcomplicated and that one of the successes of the past 14 years of government was that the six benefits became one. I hope she might accept that it is not quite so complicated and that, secondly, as I have been told and believe, if we had not done that then the system of paying out benefits would have been in severe trouble during the Covid period.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

I do not want to have a long debate with the noble Viscount about the pros and cons of universal credit because we would be here all night. I just point out that it may be simpler overall to have it all in one, but that does not make the one in itself any simpler. Some of the rules around universal credit are very complicated to understand because they do not always make sense. That was the point I meant to make. I am not saying that it was nirvana beforehand, but at least then an overpayment error made without the claimant knowing was not repaid, so in that sense it was better, but I will not go into any more detail about that.

Amendment 123 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I rise extremely briefly and apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, that I could not be in the previous group as I was in the Chamber. I will take seconds to intervene in the interesting debate between the noble Baroness and the noble Viscount to say that, of course, if you have a universal basic income, that is an extremely simple system to administer that would not create any of these kinds of problems.

Anyway, I rise with great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, and to back in particular Amendment 124, although I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response to Amendment 127. I felt I had to speak because I raised at some length in earlier discussions the case of Nicola Green. That is one case, but overall the Government have been clawing back £357 million. Hundreds of people have acquired criminal records in what I think most people would agree are entirely unjust circumstances, whatever the detail of the law. Some people now face debts of up to £20,000 or more.

This amendment—waiting until we have the review and not doing more damage to individuals’ lives and to the reputations of the Government and the Department for Work and Pensions—is a really simple, practical measure, and I commend the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for doing this and for powerfully presenting his case. I also align myself very much with his tributes to unpaid family carers, who are doing so much in our society for what are, on a week-to-week basis, derisory sums of money for an incredible amount of labour.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise very briefly. My noble friend said that the department tries to move as quickly as possible when there is an error in payment, but, patently, that did not happen with carer’s allowance. Therefore, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, for raising the issue. Part of the problem was that the DWP allowed the overpayments to accumulate until they were really significant and, given the way the cliff edge works, you could be a tiny amount over and end up having to repay the whole of your carer’s allowance. So it is a really important issue.

I want to ask my noble friend a question. Do we know when the review will be published? How quickly does the department hope to be able to move once it has been published? In a sense, that affects the practical impact of the noble Lord’s amendment.

PIP Changes: Impact on Carer’s Allowance

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, there is confusion, but I do not think it is the Chancellor who created it. I have heard a suggestion that carers’ benefits are being cut. Let me be clear: carers’ benefits are not being cut. Carer’s allowance will rise to £83.30 from next week, or the end of this week, and the Government have boosted the earnings threshold in carer’s allowance by the highest ever amount.

Secondly, reforms are being made to disability and sickness benefits. One of the consequences of those is to change some of the people who currently are entitled to the personal independence payment. Because carer’s allowance is paid to people who care for someone on personal independence payment, there will be some people currently getting carer’s allowance for whom there may not be an entitlement in future.

We spelled out clearly in the Green Paper that we would look at how we could support those who are losing entitlement in general as well as, specifically, carers who are losing entitlement. I want people to be clear: we are not cutting the value of the benefit; we are not changing the fact that they can earn more—but there will be some people who are getting carer’s allowance now, and who might have got it in the future, who will not get it. However, given the rate at which the PIP case load is growing, with all the changes that we are making we are stemming the rate at which spending on sickness and disability benefits goes up, not cutting it.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, at the very end of the Green Paper, in an annexe, is, I believe, the one and only reference to the impact of the personal independence payment cuts on unpaid carers. It says:

“The government will consider the impacts on benefits for unpaid carers as part of its wider consideration of responses to the consultation as it develops its detailed proposals for change”.


As the impact on carers is not included in the list of questions for consultation, can my noble friend the Minister explain exactly how the Government propose to consult on it? Are we talking about anything more than possible transitional protection?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I cannot tell my noble friend at this stage what it will be, both because we are listening to the wider views and because we are going to take our time to work this through. To be clear, we specifically said in the Green Paper that we would look at the impact on carers and look at ways in which we could support carers who might find themselves losing entitlement to carer’s allowance.

To give a sense of timescale, assuming that Parliament approves the primary legislation that will bring about these changes to disability and sickness benefits, the changes to PIP that will affect carer’s allowance will not come in until November 2026. Only after that will somebody who is getting PIP at the moment see their entitlement change. It will be only as and when they are called to a review and their own circumstances are reviewed that their entitlement changes, which could in turn affect carer’s allowance. So I am confident that we have plenty of time available to us to work through the way in which we can support those who will lose out as a result of these changes.

Welfare Reform

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am really grateful to the noble Baroness for raising that question and, as she so often does, reminding us of the challenges in this area. Let me say a couple of things. To reassure those who may be worried, as I have said before, anyone currently receiving benefits will carry on getting them unless there is a reassessment and their eligibility changes. However, that is not the limit of our ambition. One of the reasons we want at least to have a supportive conversation, rather than abandon people who are simply getting those benefits, is to begin to understand what more we could do to support them.

There are some people who will find it very difficult to get into work but maybe they could, with the right support, begin to do some voluntary work. Perhaps they could begin to reach out and get some fresh kinds of support or connect with the local community. The biggest challenge for us, as in the noble Baroness’s words to us today, is how we challenge employers to take this on. We are planning, as part of the consultation on the Green Paper, to not only invite people—I expect very many responses—but to hold events for the public and round tables, to hold discussions both in person and elsewhere. I would be really grateful if she would be willing to talk to us about addressing this as part of that consultation.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, parts of this package are very welcome; for example, the right to try paid work, the strengthening of contributory benefit for unemployed people, the increase in the UC standard rate—albeit very modest—and the commitment to consult disabled people on at least some of the changes. But overhanging them is the £5 billion cut from a social security system which, according to CPAG, suffered £50 billion a year in cuts thanks to the Tories. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation warns that this is the biggest cut in disability benefits since 2010, yet disabled people are at disproportionate risk of poverty.

What assessment have the Government made of the future impact of the cuts on poverty, not mentioned in the Statement, and reliance on food banks, which is of great concern to Trussell? What will happen to entitlement to carer’s allowance, for which PIP is one of the most common qualifying benefits? When the Green Paper says that it represents a “start”—a welcome start—of the rebalancing of UC payment levels and of addressing “the basic adequacy” of UC, can we look forward to a proper review of its inadequacy?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend raises some interesting points and I am grateful for the welcome she has given to some elements of our reforms. On the question of adequacy, it may be—in her words—modest but this is actually a significant above-inflation cash increase in the standard allowance of universal credit. It means that by the end of this Parliament, people will be £14 a week, or £775 a year, better off. That might be modest proportionally; it is significant and will make a difference to people’s lives. But the real way that we will make a difference to people’s lives, in so many cases, is by helping them to move into work.

There is only so much that the benefit system can do. There are those who cannot work and have severe needs, and the benefit system must always be there to support them. But for those who can, there is so much more out there that we could be doing and we simply have not been doing it. That is really one of my hopes. We will deal with poverty in other ways. Just so my noble friend knows, the impact and equality assessments will be published next week alongside the Spring Statement. In the long run, this is not about simply tinkering around the sides of a system. We are not just doing blanket cuts. We are doing two things: trying to put this system on a sustainable basis, so it will still be there for the future, but, much more than that, trying to reform it so that people genuinely can get into work who previously have been given no help and been abandoned. That way, we can really make a difference to people’s lives.

UK Poverty 2025

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My noble friend knows more about collective bargaining than anyone in this House, I suspect, and I thank him for that question. He is absolutely right to highlight the scandal of in-work poverty. We should not be in a position where somebody goes to work full-time and cannot support their family. The Government are absolutely determined to do something about this. Our strategy is about trying to get people into good jobs and keep them there, and that they develop in them. For that to work, we have to make sure that all the parties are involved.

We are very committed: do we want an era of partnership that sees employers, unions and government working together in co-operation and through negotiation? For example, we are going to start by establishing a new fair pay agreement in the adult social care sector, consulting on how it will work, learning from economies where it has worked effectively, and then assessing to what extent those kinds of agreements could benefit other sectors and tackle labour market challenges. We all have to do this together. Work should be the way out of poverty, but it will take action to make sure that it is.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, in the press release on the report, the JRF chief executive warned that the social security system was pushing some people into deeper poverty through cruel limits and caps, and that any credible child poverty strategy must therefore include policies that rebuild the tax and social security system after a decade or so of cuts—not further cuts, but actions to ensure that social security provides genuine security and meets people’s needs. Will my noble friend relay that message to her government colleagues, especially in the Treasury?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I always make sure that the comments of all my noble friends—and, indeed, all noble Lords—are conveyed to those down the other end. I absolutely agree with my noble friend that it is incumbent on this Government to do what they can to tackle poverty. One of the things I like very much about the way that the Child Poverty Unit is developing a strategy is that it recognises that we have to do this on more than one front. It is trying to use all the levers available to it, looking at four different areas: how we increase incomes; how we drive down essential costs; how we get interventions, especially at a local level; and how we make sure that we use the whole economy and all the tools available to us across government to tackle poverty and get people into work. I will make sure that her views are heard by those making the decisions.

Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2025

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)]

In speaking to this order, I will also speak to the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2025. In my view, the provisions in both instruments are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Let us begin with the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order. This instrument will increase relevant state pension rates by 4.1%, in line with the growth in average earnings in the year to May to July 2024. It will increase most other benefit rates by 1.7%, in line with the rise in the consumer prices index in the year to September 2024. As such, the up-rating order commits the Government to increased expenditure of £6.9 billion in 2025-26. In so doing, it maintains the triple lock, benefiting pensioners in receipt of both the basic and the new state pensions; raises the level of the pension credit safety net beyond the increase in prices; increases the rates of benefits for those of working age; and increases the rates of benefits to help with additional costs arising from a disability or health condition, as well as carers’ benefits.

I turn now in more detail to the issue of state pensions. The Government’s commitment to the triple lock means that the basic and full rate of the new state pension will be uprated by the highest of the growth in earnings or prices, or 2.5%. This will therefore be 4.1% for 2025-26, in line with the conventional average earnings growth measure. As such, from April 2025 the basic state pension will increase from £169.50 to £176.45 a week, and the full rate of the new state pension will increase from £221.20 to £230.25 a week. The basic and new state pensions will increase by 4.1% in April of this year, benefiting 12 million pensioners by up to £470 next year. That is up to £275 more than if pensions had been uprated simply by inflation. Other components of state pension awards, such as those previously built under earnings-related state pension schemes, including the additional state pension, will increase by 1.7%, in line with the statutory minimum requirement of prices.

The safety net provided by the pension credit standard minimum guarantee will increase by 4.1%. For single pensioners it will increase from £218.15 to £227.10 a week, and for couples it will increase from £332.95 to £346.60 a week. The Government are committed to supporting pensioners on the lowest incomes and want everyone entitled to this support to receive it. That is why we launched the national pension credit campaign.

I turn now to the support given to those in the labour market, such as universal credit and the legacy means-tested benefits it replaces. The up-rating order increases the personal and standard allowances of working-age benefits, including universal credit, by 1.7%, in line with the increase in prices in the year to September 2024. Around 5.7 million families are forecast to benefit from the uprating of universal credit, with an average annual gain for a family estimated to be £150. Additionally, this order increases statutory payments by 1.7%, including statutory maternity pay, statutory paternity pay, statutory shared parental pay and statutory sick pay.

The up-rating order will also increase rates by 1.7% for those with additional disability needs and for those who provide unpaid care for them. This commits the department to increased expenditure of £0.9 billion in 2025-26. This means that benefits such as disability living allowance, attendance allowance and personal independence payment, intended for those who have additional costs as a result of disability or health conditions, will rise in line with the rise in CPI in the year to September 2024.

This order will also increase carer’s allowance by 1.7% from April 2025, from £81.90 to £83.30 per week. Recognising the vital role played by unpaid carers, the Government have also announced that from April, the weekly carer’s allowance earnings limit will be tied to the level of 16 hours’ work at the national living wage.

I turn now to the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2025—the GMP order—which is a routine, technical matter we attend to each year. I shall therefore be brief.

The GMP order was laid before the House on 16 January 2025. It sets out the annual percentage increase that must be applied to the GMP part of an individual’s contracted-out occupational pension earned between 1988 and 1997. Occupational pension schemes that provide GMPs are required to increase GMPs earned during that period, and which are in payment, by 1.7% for the tax year 2025-26.

The 1.7% figure is taken from the CPI inflation rate for the year to September 2024. That approach is broadly consistent with other uprating approaches, and it balances the need to provide members with a measure of inflation protection while giving schemes greater certainty about their ongoing liabilities.

In summary, the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 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; and it increases the rates of benefits for those in the labour market, as well as those with additional disability needs, and those providing unpaid care to people with those needs.

The draft GMP order requires formerly contracted-out occupational pension schemes to pay an increase of 1.7% on GMPs in payment earned between April 1988 and April 1997. This provides people with a measure of protection against inflation, paid for by their scheme. I beg to move.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I have lost count of the number of these debates I have participated in while in opposition on the Benches opposite. This is the first debate I have participated in while knowing that there is a commitment to tackle child poverty and a serious government taskforce drawing up a strategy to do so. So I can applaud that, and the welcome improvements in benefits announced in the Budget. But I am afraid I have to concur with the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which in its recent poverty review described the improvements as “timid” and falling

“a long way short of what is required to deliver the scale of changes needed.”

So this speech is less supportive than I would have liked.

As already noted, the uprating of working-age and children’s benefits by 1.7% follows the convention of increasing them in line with inflation the previous September. But as JRF points out:

“According to OBR and Bank of England forecasts, this may well be the low point of inflation in the near term, with inflation in 2025/26 likely to be higher, meaning benefits will lose a little value next year”.


Indeed, inflation is already at 3%, and just today we heard of a higher than expected energy price cap increase. Losing a little value may not sound very significant, but when benefits are so low to begin with, as I will come back to, it can make a real difference for families struggling to get by.

My noble friend the Minister previously raised the long reference period for the uprating, as did the Work and Pensions Committee in last year’s report on benefit levels. Disappointingly, the DWP told the committee that even in the longer term, when the migration to universal credit is completed, it has no plans to shorten the reference period. Can my noble friend say whether this might be looked at again under the new Administration?

The Work and Pensions Committee also recommended that limits on benefit entitlements such as the benefits cap be uprated annually. Again, it is disappointing that no such increase was announced for this year. As a recent report by the IPPR, supported by Save the Children, notes, the effect of the near constant freeze is to make the policy

“considerably more punitive than at the point of introduction”.

The stock response from the DWP—that the legislation requires the level of the cap to be reviewed every five years only, and that therefore, following the 2022 review, another review is not required until November 2027 —simply is not good enough. It may not be required but it is permitted, and so long as the cap continues, it should be reviewed annually so that, at the very least, those hit by it, mostly families with children, can benefit in full from the annual uprating.

Together with the two-child limit—also ignored in the Budget—the cap is a key driver of child poverty, as well as contributing to homelessness and disproportionately affecting survivors of domestic abuse. Research has shown that it is not achieving its aims. I know that my noble friend will say that we have to await the outcome of the child poverty review for any decision on the cap and the two-child limit, but every day they continue spells misery for many thousands of parents and children.

The other serious omission in this year’s uprating is the local housing allowance. As the IPPR report points out, this is tantamount to a benefit freeze for housing support and breaks the principle that support should be tied to changing rents in a local area. The result is that, for those with housing costs at or above the current LHA, the real value of their uprated UC will in effect be cut.

The impact of all this has to be understood in the context of benefit levels that, in the words of JRF, fall a

“long way short of what is needed to enable recipients to escape poverty”,

and that mean that many continue to “struggle needlessly”. Paid work may be the best route out of poverty, but it is not a route open to all. For too many, it proves a cul-de-sac, as they swap out-of-work poverty for in-work poverty. Inquiries by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Poverty, of which I am co-chair, and the Work and Pensions Committee received

“a wealth of evidence that benefit levels are not meeting need”.

Benefit levels were never generous, but the effect of years of freezes, cuts and restrictions imposed by the Conservatives have meant that, in the words of the Financial Fairness Trust,

“we do not have a safety net worth its name”.

As a result, claimants are denied access to the most fundamental material resources needed to function day to day and to have healthy lives. The Work and Pensions Committee’s recommendations concerning the establishment of a benchmark for assessing benefits adequacy and the review of the extent to which current benefit levels are meeting this benchmark were rejected by the previous Administration. I urge my noble friend and her colleagues to look at them again. I ask her whether any consideration has been given to Trussell’s and JRF’s proposals for a protected minimum floor in UC, as a first step towards an essentials guarantee. For anyone who believes that poverty is relative, this is a pretty minimalist demand.

The Work and Pensions Committee also recommended that the local authority household support fund should be made permanent, so that local authorities can better plan the support they provide. This is not the place to go into detail but, if my noble friend has not already done so, I urge her to read the recent proposal from Trussell for a permanent and effective system of discretionary cash-first local crisis support, with broad statutory duties and ring-fenced funding that would incorporate both the household support fund and welfare assistance schemes where they still exist. It sees such a scheme as a crucial element in meeting our manifesto pledge to try to end mass dependence on emergency food parcels, which is a moral scar on society. At a recent meeting of the APPG on Ending the Need for Food Banks, the Minister for Employment assured us that the reform of local crisis support is definitely under review. It would be good if my noble friend could confirm this on the record in Hansard. As welcome as the extension of the fund for another year is—and it is welcome—those working on the ground need to be given some hope for the future. We heard reports at the meeting that food bank workers on the front line are scared and are burning out.

Scared, too, are many in receipt of disability benefits, in the face of mounting speculation about cuts to their benefits. It is worth remembering that disabled people are at disproportionate risk of poverty, in part because of the additional costs associated with disability. A recent report by Pro Bono Economics for Z2K warned that cutting the benefits that go some way toward meeting these costs could have a seriously damaging impact on the health and well-being of disabled people.

Also looking ahead, the Minister for Social Security and Disability advised, in the Commons debate on this order, that the Government would “set out shortly” how they plan to fulfil the manifesto commitment to a review of UC. Is my noble friend able to say any more at this stage about, for example, whether it will follow the example of the child poverty review in taking evidence from stakeholders, including those with lived experience of UC?

“Get Britain Working” White Paper

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I am sorry to hear of the experience that the noble Baroness’s friend or family member had. What she said goes right to the heart of what we are doing. The point of the national jobs and careers service is that it is not just for people claiming benefits: it is for anybody who needs help getting into work, getting back to work or getting on in work. If we narrow it down to simply being about benefits, we will end up putting the incentives in the wrong place.

One thing that worries us about how the system has worked is that a lot of work coaches’ time is spent checking up to see whether everyone has ticked all the boxes and whether those on benefits have done all the right things. Of course, conditionality will always be a part of the system, but we want to see whether there are ways to reform that so that we can test different ways of making sure that people stay connected and work coaches can spend more time devoted to individuals —including the person that the noble Baroness described —to get them back into work if they want. There are 600,000 people out there who are long-term sick or disabled who want to work, but somehow they are not able to. We have to do something about that and we are determined to.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, there is much to welcome in these proposals for reform of employment support and their aim of better health and good work. But can my noble friend please assure me, first, that the emphasis will be more on carrots than on sticks? Secondly, can she assure me that transforming a department for welfare into a department for work will not mean further social security cuts or abandoning any attempt to repair the serious damage wreaked on the social security system over the past 14 years, at the cost of its role in addressing poverty and providing genuine security?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

Let me reassure my noble friend of two things. First, we are absolutely committed to tackling the scourge of child poverty, and the Government are completely committed to making sure that how the social security system works is part of that—so I can reassure her on that front.

Secondly, we often talk in terms of carrots and sticks, but I am not sure that that is very helpful. Most people want to get on: they want a satisfying job that will be rewarding in itself and that will also feed them and their family. People want the same things that we want for them, but lots of things get in the way. Our job is to set the system up so that it is aligned to go with that—to get barriers out of the way, to support people, to give them all the help they can get and to get them over the line.

Obviously, some people will not be able to work on grounds of severe disability or perhaps sickness, or maybe their caring responsibilities do not make that possible. The Department for Work and Pensions is there to support them, as it is to support pensioners and those who need our help. A small number of people really do not want to work and, frankly, they should. We are quite clear that we will support them and, in return, we expect them to do their bit. But, in between, surely we can design a system that is not just carrots or sticks but goes with the grain and helps people to be themselves.

Pensioners: Winter Support

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, nobody went out thinking that this is where we would like to be, but the noble Baroness knows very well the economic situation that we inherited, and she will know exactly why it was necessary to save money in year. I remind the noble Baroness that, by definition, the poorest pensioners are getting the support they need provided they apply; we will make it as easy as possible for them to do that. For everybody else, the Government have committed to sticking to the triple lock for this Parliament. That means that somebody on the new state pension will find that, over this Parliament, the value of that state pension will rise by £1,700, and the value of even the basic state pension will rise by £1,300. That is where the huge extra support will come from for the pensioners that she is talking about.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, with reference to the triple lock, my noble friend the Minister will be aware that a number of charities have been calling for a double lock on benefits for children; that is, that they should uprated in line with either earnings or prices. Given this Government’s commitment to putting children at the heart of policy-making, might this be considered for the future?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, obviously the noble Baroness will not expect me to comment on the Budget, or I would be back asking questions rather than answering them as quick as she can say “Chief Whip”. She will be aware that the work of the child poverty commission to develop a strategy will involve looking in the round at the challenge of child poverty in our country, including social security systems. It will be looked at in that context.

Child Poverty: Benefit Cap

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 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 benefit cap on child poverty.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)]

Child poverty is a multifaceted issue and the benefit cap is just one factor that can influence the level of financial support available to children and families. Comprehensive action is essential to address the root causes of child poverty. This Government are committed to examining all the ways to dismantle barriers to opportunity, alleviate poverty and help families move towards sustainable employment. The child poverty task force is driving forward this work and will publish its strategy in the spring.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, as my noble friend knows well, not only is the cap a driver of child poverty, especially deep poverty, but it undermines government goals with regard to homelessness and domestic abuse. Will she therefore impress on the child poverty task force the case for its abolition alongside the two-child limit and, in the meantime, do what she can to ensure that at least the cap is uprated in line with inflation as a matter of course so that some of the poorest families are not denied the protection of the annual uprating?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, the Secretary of State is currently in the process of reviewing the levels of social security benefits that are uprated annually, and a statement will be made in due course. When the benefit cap was introduced by the coalition Government in 2013, the legislation required that it be reviewed every five years. The next review is due by November 2027. However, I hear my noble friend’s comments about the challenges facing many families in poverty. The child poverty task force, which is getting to work already, is determined to use all available levers to drive forward short-term and long-term actions across government to reduce child poverty. It is taking evidence from families, activists, local government and people across the country, and I will make sure that her comments are conveyed to it.

Household Support Fund

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2024 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have for the future of the local authority Household Support Fund, due to expire in September.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)]

My Lords, the household support fund is a scheme to provide local support to those most in need. For the period April to September 2024 DWP has provided £500 million, of which £421 million is for local authorities in England to spend at their discretion, with the balance going to the devolved Administrations. No funding was budgeted beyond September. As a new Government, we keep all policies under review, including the household support fund.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome my noble friend to her rightful place. May I urge her to impress on her government colleagues the urgent need for the fund’s extension for at least six months, to give local authorities certainty and to enable the development of a longer-term, ring-fenced local crisis support scheme to replace also the discretionary welfare assistance that many authorities have scrapped and that is vulnerable to further cuts? As she knows, the alternative is even greater hardship for people in very vulnerable circumstances and even greater reliance on food banks.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that question and for the warmth of her welcome. We appreciate very much the crucial role that local authorities are playing in providing crisis support to vulnerable people in their areas. Indeed, my department is engaging closely with each local authority in England to make sure that we understand the ways in which they are using the household support fund.

She mentioned that it is not the only source of support; some local authorities still have local welfare assistance schemes and there are other forms of localised support. But the Government are very conscious of the financial pressures facing local authorities and we are committed to ensuring that councils have the resources they need to provide public services to their communities. As I say, the policy is under review but my noble friend’s points are well made and I will take note of them.

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.