Child Support Collection (Domestic Abuse) Bill

Baroness Sherlock Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 21st April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for introducing this Bill and all noble Lords who have spoken. As we have heard, the main aim of the Bill is simply to make it possible for parents who have experienced domestic abuse to ask the Child Maintenance Service to collect maintenance payments on their behalf, thus avoiding the need to communicate with the abusive parent. At the moment, they would first have to try to arrange payment directly with the abusive parent via the direct pay system and wait for that to fail, which is obviously risky.

We know that the stakes are very high in relation to domestic abuse. The noble Baronesses, Lady Berridge and Lady Burt, have mentioned the tragic case of Emma Day, who was murdered by her ex-partner in May 2017. That case could not be more directly relevant here: he had warned her not to chase him for child support, threatening her life if she did so. When she pursued her claim, he stabbed her to death. I am sure all noble Lords would like to join me in sending our sympathies to Emma Day’s family and friends, and all those who mourn her and will do so for years to come.

After Emma’s inquest, the coroner issued a regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths. It noted that Ms Day had told the CMS of the threat to her life but this was not passed to the known caseworker. The report says:

“Staff were not fully and consistently trained in domestic violence. There was no action to address the potential escalation of the risk on reinstating the claim”.


The coroner called for a review of the protocols and training of child maintenance caseworkers and then in due course, as we have heard, the report by Dr Samantha Callan looking at the CMS response to domestic abuse was published in April last year, with the Government’s response in January. I too thank Dr Callan for her work on this subject as well as Gingerbread and Surviving Economic Abuse for their campaigns for change.

We on these Benches support the Bill. It represents a welcome step forward in improving the way that the child support system serves the parents and children who suffer as a result of domestic abuse. That said, the actual impact of the Bill will depend very much on future decisions on matters that will be dealt with in regulations and operational guidance, so there are some important questions on which we need more information.

First, as noted by the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, we do not yet know what evidence of domestic abuse will be accepted by the CMS. We know it will be detailed in secondary legislation, and at Second Reading in the Commons the Minister, Tom Pursglove, committed the Government to consulting widely and said the aim would be to produce requirements

“that are sensitive to the needs of domestic abuse victims”.—[Official Report, Commons, 28/10/22; col. 568.]

That is good, but can the Minister offer us any more information? Since he is the Minister for child support, can he assure us that he is already in discussions with colleagues in other government departments to ensure consistency on matters of domestic abuse across government? Would he be willing to publish the regulations in draft so that Peers could consider them before they were finalised, or at least to engage with Peers as part of that wider consultation exercise? I would be grateful if he would reflect on that.

That leads to the second issue: how ready the CMS is to deal with these changes or with domestic abuse more broadly. Since the Emma Day tragedy, training on domestic abuse has been introduced for CMS staff. In Committee in the Commons, the Minister, Mims Davies, said that

“with particular input from Women’s Aid, a programme of domestic abuse training has been designed and delivered for all CMS caseworkers”.—[Official Report, Commons, Child Support Collection (Domestic Abuse) Public Bill Committee, 14/12/22; col. 10.]

The Minister will know that my honourable friend Jess Phillips expressed some concerns about whether the training was adequate and queried whether Women’s Aid was indeed involved in designing and delivering it. I sought the view of Women’s Aid on this issue. I was told it recommends that all CMS staff should get specialist domestic abuse training from a specialist provider to ensure that they can understand the risks facing survivors and provide a safe response. However, Women’s Aid understands that the CMS training is not designed or run by specialists but has been developed and is delivered in-house within the CMS. It told me:

“The National Training Centre at Women’s Aid assessed the delivery of one of these in-house training sessions and was severely concerned by it. Women’s Aid provided feedback to them in this regard but we had no further input or role in the training.”


Can the Minister please clarify what training is given to CMS staff and who designs and delivers it?

I have also heard concerns from charities of cases where the response of CMS staff to their disclosure of domestic abuse was not what one would have hoped. Gingerbread surveyed single parents with experience of domestic abuse and found that most did not think CMS staff had given appropriate consideration to their situation as survivors. One parent said:

“I was told that I wasn’t a victim of domestic abuse because I hadn’t experienced physical violence”.


Another said:

“The whole system was very stressful and I tried to explain how dangerous he was and how scared we were but I was just told either it’s direct pay or they will charge me lots of money and my daughter will lose out.”


How confident is the Minister that CMS staff are trained and resourced to deal appropriately at all levels with parents facing domestic abuse?

There is then the question of charges, which has been touched on already. The Government’s 2012 reforms of child support used charging to push parents into handling maintenance between themselves, without involving the state. If they make a private arrangement, there is no fee; if they use direct pay, there is just a £20 application fee. But if they use collect and pay, a collection charge of 20% of the maintenance liability is levied on the paying parent, as we have heard, and 4% on the parent receiving the money. But the whole point of this Bill is to ensure that parents who cannot safely use direct pay without putting themselves or their children at risk will in future be able to use the collect and pay service—getting the CMS to collect the money for them—without having to have contact with the abusive parent.

If the CMS accepts that someone has produced evidence that they are experiencing domestic abuse, it waives the £20 application fee. But it does not waive the 4% of the total maintenance liability fee if they use the collect and pay service. At Third Reading in the Commons, my honourable friend Vicky Foxcroft put it like this. She said that

“they are then effectively penalised every month simply for using a service that stops them having to have contact with their abusive ex-partner. I hope we can all agree that that is grossly unfair”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/3/23; col. 1008.]

In Committee the Minister, Mims Davies, had said:

“Full consideration is being given to exempting victims of domestic abuse from collection charges”.—[Official Report, Commons, Child Support Collection (Domestic Abuse) Bill Committee, 14/12/22; col. 9.]


Can the Minister tell the House where this consideration has got to and when it will conclude?

This takes me to timing more generally. I think we are all hopeful that the Bill will become an Act this Session, in the not-too-distant future. But given that nothing can happen until we get the secondary legislation and the guidance, as so much of the detail will be in that, can the Minister give us at least an outline target timetable for when that might come on stream?

I want to make a final point about enforcement, which seems to be a problem with child support. I do not know whether I need to declare a very historic interest: a long time ago, I was on the board of the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission, so I understand the background to this. I have been looking at the CMS statistics and for the last quarter, to December 2022, under half of parents due to pay through collect and pay paid even the 90% that the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, mentioned, while 35% of those on collect and pay paid nothing. Thirty-five per cent of those for whom the CMS was collecting the money paid not one pound. That is over 140,000 children for whom none of the maintenance due was paid, and this matters.

A 2019 study by Hakovirta et al found that if child maintenance were paid in full to all children in separated families living in poverty who are not getting money from their other parent, it could lift 60% of them out of poverty. It makes that much difference, so I ask the Minister, first: is the problem with enforcement in CMS about a lack of staff, a lack of money or a lack of powers? What is the drag on this? Secondly, I was really worried to hear that there is now a real backlog in CMS, with thousands of claims not even yet assigned to the service. Can the Minister tell the House if this is so and how many claims are waiting?

The noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, raised some really interesting questions. I will happily leave the Minister to respond to them, but I will listen with great interest to what he has to say. They sounded really important and are a sign to us all, and indeed to the Government, of the need to think across all areas when considering something as all-encompassing as domestic abuse.

Despite these concerns, we welcome this Bill and congratulate again the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, on introducing it here and the honourable Sally-Ann Hart MP on steering it though the Commons. I hope the Government will continue to build on this legislation and, more widely, the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 to deliver a strong, co-ordinated cross-government approach to domestic abuse.

Pensions Dashboards (Prohibition of Indemnification) Bill

Baroness Sherlock Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 21st April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I am pleased that the Pensions Dashboards (Prohibition of Indemnification) Bill has now reached its final stage in your Lordships’ House. I thank my noble friend the Minister and his officials for their support, as well as those noble Lords who supported the Bill on Second Reading: my noble friends Lady Altmann and Lord Holmes, who flank me on either side, the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, all of whom who are present in the Chamber this morning to ensure the safe passage of this legislation. I am also grateful to Mary Robinson for introducing the Bill and expertly steering it through all stages in the other place.

The Bill’s purpose is clear. It will increase protection for pensions savers by making it a criminal offence for trustees and managers of occupational pension schemes to reimburse themselves using assets of the pension scheme for penalties imposed on them due to non-compliance with any relevant pensions dashboard regulations. I hope noble Lords recognise the importance of the Bill and agree to its passage today. I beg to move.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, on piloting the Bill through the House with his usual flair, and it is very nice that we can all be here to see it on its way. It is a narrowly focused Bill which simply addresses a lacuna in the original legislation, and we are happy to support it. I also thank the noble Viscount for giving us an assurance at Second Reading that before long, we can look forward to an update on the likely implementation of the pensions dashboards themselves. It remains of paramount importance that people can save for their retirement with confidence and with an understanding of all the implications of the choices they are making or that have been made on their behalf. We support the creation of a pensions dashboard to contribute to that goal, although we will continue to debate with Ministers choices about how it can best be done. For today, we are pleased to wish this Bill on its way.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham for presenting his Bill to the House, and to my honourable friend in the other place, Mary Robinson, for her skilled stewardship of the Bill. It is a pleasure again to offer my support for the Bill on behalf of the Government. I, like my noble friend, also thank all noble Lords who were present for Second Reading for their interest in the Bill and for supporting it as it moved towards its final stage.

I committed to follow up on the topics relating to this Bill and questions about pensions dashboards more broadly that were raised by noble Lords during the previous debate. I have placed copies of letters I sent after Second Reading in the House Library, and they are also available on the Bill’s webpage—hopefully, noble Lords have had a look at them. I hope the letters sent have helped to address these queries, which included asking for an update on progress on the department’s state pension records correction exercise, the readiness of public service pension schemes to connect to dashboards, and whether penalties could be incurred for loading incorrect data to pensions dashboards. Queries were also raised more specifically about the penalties which could be imposed on trustees and managers of occupational pension schemes under the proposals in the Bill, and for compliance breaches under the pensions dashboards regulations.

I further addressed questions about the challenges faced by the pensions dashboards programme in delivering the digital architecture underpinning pensions dashboards. On this final point, I made clear to the House during Second Reading the importance of this Bill, and that it is needed irrespective of the delivery timeline for pensions dashboards. To be helpful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, I also pledged—and I stick to that pledge—to update noble Lords as soon as is reasonably possible, and an invitation will be forthcoming.

To reiterate why the Bill is required, it corrects a legislative gap which, left as it is, means that no provision would prohibit trustees or managers from reimbursing themselves using pension scheme assets to pay penalties in respect of breaches of any relevant pensions dashboards regulations. There was unanimous agreement among noble Lords at Second Reading that this would be unacceptable.

The proposals under this Bill seek to deter rogue actors from reimbursing themselves using the assets of pensions scheme members by allowing criminal proceedings to be brought against trustees or managers of occupational pension schemes if they are reimbursed and knew or had reasonable grounds to believe that they had been reimbursed as such. If a trustee or manager is found guilty of this offence, the Bill’s provisions allow for a maximum sentence of up to two years in prison, or a fine, or indeed both.

As I emphasised at Second Reading, the Bill does not place any new requirements on trustees or managers of occupational pension schemes or burden them with additional costs. It simply extends an existing prohibition in Section 256 of the Pensions Act 2004, which already applies to a number of areas of pensions legislation, to include pensions dashboards.

To conclude, the Bill rightly increases protection for consumers saving for their retirement. I do hope, therefore, that the whole House will join me in its support for my noble friend’s Bill and agree to its passage.

Heritage Railways and Tramways (Voluntary Work) Bill [HL]

Baroness Sherlock Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 21st April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, I did not speak at Second Reading, but I declare an interest as president of the Steam Boat Association. In that respect, I intervene briefly to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, for the wonderful work he has done. We have found common cause in trying to maintain coal for our respective interests in steamboats and railways.

This is an important Bill. I do not know what the outcome of it will be, but it is essential that young people should be able to become involved in heritage steam and heritage vehicles of all kinds. It brings discipline and a knowledge of engineering, and it is great fun. One of the best birthday presents I ever got was when I turned 65 and my family arranged for me to drive a steam train. It was fantastic—almost as good as my wedding.

Even if the Bill is not the right way to achieve this purpose, I say to my noble friends on the Front Bench that the purpose is very important. It is absolutely fantastic that the noble Lord does so much work in this field, which is so important to tourism and to our economy.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I add our thanks to my noble friend Lord Faulkner, who has piloted the Bill. I regret that I could not find a relevant interest to confess at this point, but I commend those who have. I add my hope that Lady Forsyth has a forgiving nature when she comes to read Hansard.

Our heritage railways are a joy and a blessing to the nation, as well as a big contributor to the economy. It would certainly be a shame if children and young people were prevented engaging safely in voluntary activity down to legislation from a time when heritage railways were simply railways. In the earlier stages, the Government seemed confident that there is no legislative barrier. That is not completely accepted around the table, so I hope that the Minister is able to give some reassurance to my noble friend and that discussions are carrying on to make sure that this can happen. I am happy to wait to hear what the Minister has to say.

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

My Lords, I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, for bringing this debate to the House for the fourth time, for which he is to be applauded. I agree with him that it is important to protect heritage railways for future generations.

Modern health and safety legislation—in particular the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and relevant secondary legislation—does not prevent children and young people volunteering on heritage railways or tramways. The current legislative framework already allows for this to happen. However, it is important that such activities are carried out in a safe way with employers, organisers and those supervising the activities making sure that any risks are properly controlled.

The Government support volunteers and volunteering; to that extent, I echo the words of my noble friend Lord Forsyth. It can be a rewarding experience for young people, and it allows them to gain new skills and make a difference in their community. Volunteering is vital for the future sustainability of the heritage rail sector, with more than 22,000 people, 800 of them young people, giving their time to support heritage railway organisations across the country.

At Second Reading, my predecessor, my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott, offered to bring officials from the Health and Safety Executive, the Office of Rail and Road, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, together with the Heritage Railway Association to discuss how its guidance can be further strengthened. Unfortunately, unforeseen circumstances prevented this meeting happening, but I would very much like to make this offer again.

Under the 1974 Act, duty holders are required to control the risks they create from their operation. Although the Health and Safety Executive has the policy responsibility for the 1920 Act, in the case of heritage railways, the Office of Rail and Road is the regulator for health and safety legislation. Both regulators have confirmed that they would not enforce the 1920 Act solely to prevent young people volunteering on heritage railways. It has not been used in a prosecution since 2009 and, when it was, it was used alongside more modern health and safety legislation to prosecute in cases where young people were employed illegally in dangerous environments. In total, the 1920 Act has been enforced on eight occasions since 1998, and none of these prosecutions was against a heritage railway.

The law protecting children in the UK is a complex area, and this Bill would have implications not only on health and safety protections but on education legislation and local authority by-laws. To repeal or amend the 1920 Act may initially seem the best course of action; however, because of the links to other legislation, the process of making changes would be extensive. There is no evidence that this legislative change would make a difference to the number of young people volunteering, and therefore it is not proportionate to proceed with it.

I promised also to be relatively short, so I conclude by saying that the Bill seeks to allow children to gain valuable experiences volunteering on heritage railways and tramways, and the Government support this aim. However, we believe that the current legislative framework does just that. Nothing would be gained from a change to legislation when other, simpler and more effective options are available—in particular, working with the regulators to explore the types of activities and tasks that are proportionate for young volunteers.

At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, remained concerned about what would happen should something go wrong with a young person working as a volunteer, and he wanted stronger guarantees in relation to the 1920 Act. I want to reassure him that if such an incident occurred, both the Health and Safety Executive and the Office of Rail and Road have confirmed that there would be a full investigation, taking account of the risks that the young person was exposed to and how they were controlled. The existing framework is fair and effective, which is why, unfortunately, the Government oppose the Bill.

Universal Credit

Baroness Sherlock Excerpts

Tuesday 18th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

It is right to say that, although the Government are very aware of the severe issues at the moment, we do not look at every single essential item because we think that individuals and households have the right to spend how they like. The benefit cap, which is probably the gist of the noble Baroness’s question, provides a strong work incentive and fairness for hard-working tax-paying households, and it encourages people to move into work where possible. Let us not forget that households will still be able to receive benefits up to the value of gross earnings of around £26,500, or £31,300 in London.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, of course households make their own choices, but the point of this report is that we all need certain things: somewhere to live, clothes to wear, food to eat and the ability to heat our homes. The suggestion is that there simply is not enough money in the system to do that. For most of the last decade, the Government have not uprated benefits by the rate of inflation, which results in a disconnect between the cost of living and what the social security system gives people to live on. Now, we are seeing poverty, destitution, homelessness and the use of food banks are all going up. Does the Minister think it would make a difference if benefits and tax credits were automatically uprated by inflation, rather than simply being down to what Ministers want to do that year?

Occupational Pension Schemes (Administration, Investment, Charges and Governance) and Pensions Dashboards (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Baroness Sherlock Excerpts

Tuesday 28th March 2023 Grand Committee

[Baroness Drake (Lab)]

My Lords, I hold pension trustee positions, and refer to my interests as set out in the register.

These pension scheme regulations are being introduced for two reasons. First, the Government believe that they will facilitate greater investment by pension schemes into private markets, securing better returns for savers. Secondly, the Government want to increase DC pension fund investments in UK start-ups, infrastructure, green investment and illiquid asset classes in private markets.

Of course, this is to be welcomed if beneficial alignment is achieved between the best interests of the ordinary citizen and their pension pot, and investments that benefit the UK economy to achieve the win-win. However, there are barriers to be addressed in getting there. The problem with these regulations is that the exclusion of performance fees from the DC charge cap will not be the driver of significant changes of investment in illiquid asset classes, but consumer protections will be weakened where money is invested without the security of that cap. The charge cap was introduced to protect millions of people investing through inertia under auto-enrolment. To achieve the diversification of investments which would benefit the UK economy, the complexities of other barriers to investment in private markets need to be addressed. Overreliance on removing consumer protections from pension savers will not do it.

I will reflect on some of those complexities. The pension regulatory environment, which is in perpetual change, is driven by endless policy initiatives without certainty as to the Government’s underpinning strategy. Recent regulation enabled performance fees to be smoothed over a five-year period, but before even testing the efficacy of those changes the Government proposed reversing them in favour of these. Trustees need greater consistency when considering long-term investment decisions—consistency between not only one Government and the next but one Minister and the next. Also, the complexity of regulation means that government contradicts itself. For example, the Government asked the Productive Finance Working Group to make recommendations on increasing private market investments, while TPR was consulting on prohibiting the schemes from holding more than 20% of assets in unregulated investments.

There is also the need to strengthen confidence in government economic policy and governance, a sentiment captured by the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox of Soho, president of the British Chambers of Commerce, in the FT yesterday, where she warned policymakers that

“businesses are holding off making big investment decisions given the UK’s recent political and economic upheaval”

and that,

“People just don’t feel like taking risks”

in the UK.

Inefficiencies from pension freedoms are weakening the long-term private pension system and the approach to illiquid assets. For example, as savers get to 55 or 57, they can take their pots as cash in a series of lump sums and draw down funds in any combination of timing and amount that they choose. Small pots are growing exponentially. People change jobs more frequently. Pension transfers are increasing, including out of workplace schemes. Trustees have to implement these freedoms, which in turn impact on investment decisions.

Higher costs incurred with illiquid assets need to be borne fairly across the members of the scheme, as they would impact members differently. Those close to retirement or who choose to exit the scheme are at greater risk of paying higher fees without the additional returns.

Then we come to the issue of how to ensure value for members and higher returns when performance fees are outside the charge cap and inert citizens directly bear the investment risk. Achieving that higher value will be very challenging, as will measuring it for the Government to see it, as it is with securing standardised disclosure of performance fees. There is a lot of history here about making fees and charges work effectively for ordinary savers.

Ensuring that fees are payable only for realised outperformance is to rest on a tighter definition of performance fees and the discipline of negotiated agreements between trustees and asset managers. Those are the two big levers that are relied on. The Explanatory Memorandum states that excluding pension fees will encourage innovation on fees, but where is the evidence? It is an assertion, and lots of people assert it in their submissions, but it is difficult to find hard evidence. Exclusion of performance fees might set a precedent for removing other charges. Having removed that hard-fought security for consumers, the gate is open. It can disincentivise innovation because the cap has been removed. It can inhibit the evolution of fee structures and private market products that better accommodate DC pensions to the benefit of the UK economy.

Testing the impact of negotiated agreements between trustees and asset managers needs to be assessed much further before weakening the charge cap, given the challenge of achieving member fairness on performance fees. It is an assertion that those negotiated agreements will produce that beneficial result, but that should be really tested before such a critical consumer protection is removed.

The Government have set up a long-term asset fund, the Productive Finance Working Group is considering recommendations and the FCA and TPR have commenced consideration of value for money. This is work in progress, yet the Government push ahead with amending the cap, increasing the risk to the saver.

Investments that help with transition to net zero, environmental protection, housing or infrastructure which support economic growth and savers’ best interest are to be welcomed. Indeed, ESG and TCFD reporting and governance requirements are nudging schemes more and more in that direction. Several pension providers have indicated that they would no longer agree to traditional performance fees but remain committed to investing in private markets. Some large schemes hold illiquid investments within the existing charge cap. Some fund managers are indicating innovating on growth equity funds, and fee and product structures will evolve from the high-growth prospects of the UK automatic enrolment market—agreements achieved through scheme scale, not by weakening consumer protection.

One of the policy options in the impact assessment was government mandating investment in illiquid assets by pension schemes. Although rejected, this is the second hint at mandation after the joint December 2021 letter from the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. These DC savings are citizens’ private assets. Mandation would replace or undermine the fiduciary duty on trustees, require private assets to be harnessed and directed to meet government policy objectives, and probably risk market distortions. It would risk imposing inappropriate risk appetites on savers and increase uncertainty on liability, consumer protection and duty of care. It would certainly weaken employer engagement, and it could seriously risk undermining public confidence in auto-enrolment. Those are big consequences from mandation.

I have four questions to ask the Minister. Can he confirm that the Government have no intention to mandate how pension schemes must invest? How will value for members assessments be altered in light of the new risks arising to pension savers from these regulations? How will the Government ensure that savers close to retirement or who exit a scheme do not pay higher fees without additional returns from illiquid investments? What new measures will be introduced to enhance the availability of charges and cost information on illiquid investments? What new initiatives are the Government expecting the FCA to take to regulate for fairness and consumer duty in all the private markets that these regulations cover? I am sure that the DWP will say that it is not within its remit to know what the FCA is doing, but to make a decision that lifts such a hard-fought-for and fundamental consumer protection on the level of evidence that is before the Government, without knowing, having considered or having discussed with the FCA its approach, is an omission. It would be helpful to leave those questions.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations and those noble Lords who have spoken. As we have heard, these regulations cover two distinct issues—one minor and the other rather less so. I will do the minor one first; it is a change to correct a drafting error in the Pensions Dashboards Regulations 2022, amending the line in Part 1 of Schedule 2 that specifies which master trusts are required to connect to the pension dashboard by 30 September this year. I do not want to kick a project when it is down, but, to me, that is not the most pressing problem attached to the Pensions Dashboards Regulations 2022. In fact, the Minister recently announced that the entire timetable, which is hard-wired into these regulations, is being scrapped, so the regulations will presumably need to be either repealed or amended. Could the Minister tell us whether the intention is to repeal them or if they are simply going to be amended and when we will know more about that?

On the major provisions in the regulations, the objective behind them is clearly to push pension schemes into investing more of their members’ money in illiquid assets. As we have heard, they will use two basic levers to do that. First, they will require all pension schemes with more than 100 members to explain their policy on illiquid assets and to disclose their schemes’ investments in them; and, secondly, they will exclude specified performance-based fees from the list of charges that fall within the 0.75% regulatory charge cap.

Just to be clear, these Benches would like to see greater investment in ways that will help the transition to net zero and in infrastructure projects that support economic growth, but we have heard today some important questions about the detail of these regulations, and I hope the Minister has some answers ready. First, the question of risk was raised. The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, is right: I could not find a definition of illiquid assets either, but they clearly cover a wide range of investments. They are not just buildings or infrastructure but, as the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee pointed out, could include art or intellectual property. Some illiquids clearly carry significant risk. This legislation also targets venture capital investments, which often have a high failure rate.

The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, mentioned the 30th report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which drew these regulations to the special attention of the House. It expressed concern that, without limits on the proportion of illiquid assets in a pension scheme, the scheme may not be able to deliver the returns that members anticipate. It pointed out that many of those members, of course, have been auto-enrolled by their employer and therefore had no involvement in the choice of their pension scheme investments.

As the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, pointed out, the committee asked two specific questions that it thought Members of the House might like to put to the Minister. One was about how schemes’ exposure to increased risk of lower returns would be monitored, and the other was how trustees would be guided on assessing the risks to the portfolio. I may have missed this in the Minister’s comments—I heard him talk about advice to trustees on charges, but I am not sure that he talked about advice on assessing risks—so it would be helpful if he would address that.

I want now to look briefly at the proposal specifically to exclude certain specified performance-based fees from the list of charges that fall within the regulatory charge cap. As my noble friend Lady Drake has reminded us, the charge cap was introduced to protect the millions of people who are saving and investing through inertia, so surely there must be a compelling case for the Government to do anything that might weaken that. It is worth pausing briefly to remember that, in 2013, DWP research showed the impact of higher fees on pension savings. An individual who saves throughout their working life via a scheme with a 0.5%—50 basis points—annual charge cap on the value of their pot could lose 13% of their savings to charges. Push that to 1% and they could lose almost a quarter; push it to 1.5%, the figure is around a third. These basis points may sound small but their impact on the value of a fund is really quite significant.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for taking the time to answer those questions. I just want to ask him to explain the definition of an illiquid asset a bit more. He is right to point to Regulation 3(2)(d), which says that they are

“assets of a type which cannot easily or quickly be sold or exchanged for cash”.

I suppose most things can be sold or exchanged for cash reasonably quickly if you do not mind how much you get for them at a fire sale. I have two questions. If that means

“cannot easily or quickly be sold or exchanged for cash”

at a reasonable price, or at least at the price one had paid for them, would that apply to UK gilts last autumn? Secondly, the reason this matters is that there is a lot of money to be made from this definition. Where that is the case, the definition is likely to end up being the subject of some dispute. What is the mechanism to resolve this? Whose decision is it? Does someone just get to do it? Will the regulator push them, or will it end up in court? How will this be litigated?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

I hope I can be of some help. I think I should write a letter on this quite detailed question, as it takes us further from the question originally asked by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey. Part of the answer could be—I will need to follow up with a letter—that we do not want to prescribe our approach too much. As I mentioned earlier, it will be very much up to the trustees and pension funds to decide for themselves. It might not be right to have too much prescription here, but I will go no further than that. The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, may know more than me, as one can go only so far with a definition. I will write to clarify further what we mean.

Charitable Sector: Food Provision

Baroness Sherlock Excerpts

Monday 27th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My noble friend will not be surprised to hear me say that we are committed to action that helps alleviate levels of pensioner poverty. In answer to one of her questions, the HBAI statistics recorded that fewer than 100,000 pensioners were living in households where a food bank had been used. However, despite those figures, there is more to do.

The figures show that there are 200,000 fewer pensioners in absolute poverty than in 2009-10. Pension credit provides a vital financial support to pensioners. This is one of the actions that has been and is being taken by the Government, and it is proving to be very successful, with a 73% uptake in the last 12 months.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am delighted that we are now asking about food bank use in the annual HBAI survey. That is great. But the results are really pretty shocking. For example, they showed that one in six of all people on universal credit used a food bank in the last financial year. When we think that, in the first half of that year, universal credit was £20 higher, furlough was still in place, inflation was 4% and energy bills were half what they are now, it begins to show the scale of the problem.

On 9 January, I asked the Minister what the Government were going to do about the shocking increase in food banks. He said that they needed to know more. Now that they do, what will they do about it?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

First, I welcome the noble Baroness back. It is good to see her in her place. To pick up on what she was saying, our newly published statistics on food bank use, alongside the broad suite of poverty data, will indeed help us to shape future policy considerations. There is much in these statistics—some good, some less good—and I assure the noble Baroness that we will look very carefully at them and use them to help us inform and impact on our policies.

Pension Schemes: Guidance

Baroness Sherlock Excerpts

Monday 13th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, the report has said that, since the law was changed to require pension funds to do climate reporting as a way to nudge the companies and assets in which they invest to do better, two broad problems have emerged. First, the data out there are not consistent in timeframes or formats, or across asset classes or managers. Secondly, the regulatory regime seems to focus more on positioning pension funds than on the climate transition plans of the companies; as the report puts it,

“the world needs greening, not the pension fund”.

So will the Government look again at this?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

Not only will we be looking again, but this is an iterative process. As I have said, we are yet to come back on the report, One Year On, but we will come back soon. I also reiterate the fact that we are the lead in the world; I will have to check the figures from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. For example, since our department introduced TCFDs, over 70% of occupational pension schemes—a value of £1.4 trillion—are now subject to climate disclosure, and over 80% of scheme members, some 20 million people, will be able to access their pension schemes’ disclosures on climate risks and see how they are being managed. That is being published for the first time.

Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Baroness Sherlock Excerpts

Monday 6th March 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, on the substance of the two instruments before us and the uprating of payments by 10.1%, we on these Benches, like the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Jones, of course welcome that. I have learned a lot from noble Lords in the debate. I know from reading Hansard on their previous appearances on these uprating instruments that they have long and honourable records of advocating for sufferers of these appalling diseases. I thank both noble Lords present and those whom the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, reminded us are no longer with us. Their words have helped to inform me and provided me with information that I understand will be useful in future years, as we continue to come back to debate these issues.

Much has been said that I will not repeat, but I will emphasise three areas that I am interested in and where I hope the noble Viscount might be able to expand in his response. The first is the question of the latest trends in the numbers of sufferers. As he pointed out, there is an expectation that they will decline once we reach a point 30 years or so after there was a reduction in the use of asbestos. But it would be interesting to hear from the Minister the extent to which there have been any surprises in the data, to understand more about the distribution of sufferers geographically and in terms of their professions, which has already been raised, their gender and any other factors that have surprised people, given the expected exposure and rate of suffering.

The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, was right to remind us that the exposure is not finished. Indeed, as we stand here, we are standing over huge amounts of asbestos, which is securely contained within the basement but which, at some point, will have to be removed as the works take place on this building. That is true across the country: in the 20th century a huge amount of electrical infrastructure was put in using asbestos as a fire preventer, and that is being replaced; people are now saying, “We need to get rid of it”. Whether that is meters in people’s own domestic premises or something on this scale, asbestos exposure is not finished—it will be an ongoing issue. I know that is broader than the instruments before us today, but I hope the Minister will make sure that his colleagues with relevant responsibilities continue to focus on that.

The predictions of expected sufferers would be helpful—not about individuals but about the population as a whole. Making that information public would help people to understand what is taking place. The Minister raised the effect of Covid on the figures, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked whether diagnoses were missed during that period. Again, if there were changes during the Covid period, it is really important that we understand whether they were material changes or changes because of practice—because people were no longer presenting to their doctors and, therefore, in a sense, there is a false lowering of the numbers, rather than a genuine change in what has been occurring.

The second area about which it would be interesting to hear from the Minister is research, particularly the development of international networks. It has been mentioned that this affects people across many different countries. I was interested to see PREDICT-Meso, a network of international researchers run by the University of Glasgow involving countries in the EU but also countries such as India and Brazil, which industrialised very rapidly in the 20th century and which will also, sadly, see significant issues. Given that government support for scientific research is very topical at the moment, I am keen to understand the extent to which the Government are supporting research being carried out in this area. Can the Minister say any more about government support for research networks into respiratory diseases?

My final point, which has been touched on already, is about why the uprating is a manual rather than an automatic process. I can see from Hansard that this has been repeated on many occasions. I am sure that those who support the Minister did not have to do much work to recycle the comments made in previous years, but it would be interesting to hear from him again why the Government believe that this should continue to be a manual rather than an automatic process, whereby the people planning can understand that they will be entitled to the uprating, rather than us having to debate it each year. Perhaps the Minister will surprise us and there will be a change in the Government’s position this year, but I will not hang on for that.

I hope that the Minister can put some flesh on those three points about predicted numbers, government support for research and the manual versus automatic process. I will be interested to hear about them, but, as I said, broadly speaking, we welcome the 10.1% increase.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations to the Committee, and all noble Lords who have spoken. As we have heard celebrated by my noble friend Lord Jones and others, the sums payable under the 1979 and the 2008 schemes are to be uprated by 10.1%—the rate of inflation as measured by the CPI 12-month rate last September, which is in line with other social security benefits, including the industrial injuries benefit.

First, I join the Minister in remembering all those who have suffered so much from these terrible diseases. Although many of us would like not to have to come back every year, it is at least an opportunity to pay tribute to them and to remember the lives so blighted. These schemes continue to provide crucial compensation to those who suffer from these terrible diseases and their families. Annual deaths from mesothelioma in Britain increased steeply over the last half century, due mainly, as we have heard, to the widespread industrial use of asbestos from about 1950 to 1980, which accounts for the high death rates among males over 70 whose younger working lives coincided with that period of peak asbestos use. It is good to see that death rates from mesothelioma among the under 65s have been falling.

I looked through the latest statistics on mesothelioma deaths published by the Health and Safety Executive last year, which went up to 2020. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, there were 2,544 mesothelioma deaths in Great Britain in 2020, 6% up on 2019 but similar to the average across the previous eight years. But as the Minister pointed out, there are gender differences here. Those deaths comprise 2,085 men and 459 women. The projections are that annual deaths in men will reduce after 2020 but that female deaths will not, likely staying in the range of 400 to 500 throughout the 2020s but hopefully reducing further after that. Does the Minister know why there is this gender difference? I would be interested to know anything he can share on that.

Pensions Dashboards (Prohibition of Indemnification) Bill

Baroness Sherlock Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 3rd March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for introducing this Bill, and all noble Lords who have contributed. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Young, for his characteristically clear introduction. I commend him on his many years of service in the interests of debating pensions and, like him, I say it is nice to have those of us interested in pensions dashboards back together again. It is always good to get the band back together again, even if the pensions dashboards crew is about as un-rock and roll as it is possible to be. But it is lovely to be here today.

I have a long speech on the importance of pensions, which I am going to spare your Lordships this morning because, if nothing else, the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, has done a fine job of this and it is a very narrow Bill today. But since the discussion has ranged a bit more widely, I will say that we were supportive of the idea of pensions dashboards in the original legislation but that support came with a number of questions. Like so many things, things can be a good idea, but how they are done is crucial to whether they end up being a good idea. We raised questions about ID, data security, governance and redress. What happens when things go wrong? This is an unusual situation, where tens of billions of pounds of assets will be mandated by the state to be released and put on to this central spot. If something goes wrong, this is potentially very serious indeed.

I think that was amplified by the Government’s insistence on going with commercial dashboards from the outset. This House had to press to insist that a public dashboard be there from day one, but I still think the Government’s attachment to commercial dashboards raises some risks. Imagine for moment that you are a commercial pensions company. You can sit somebody down, show them your dashboard and say, “Look at your pots all over here. Let’s gather them all into one tidy pot in this corner. Should I just move them into this space?” It does not take very much imagination to consider the possibilities for mis-selling even within what is legal. Those questions have been raised and have yet to be satisfactorily answered.

The principle of today’s Bill is very simple. It is that the interests of pension scheme members should be protected from the actions of rogue trustees and others who fail in their statutory duties. The Bill, as we have heard, will make it a criminal offence for a trustee or scheme manager who is given a penalty for failing in their duties to dip into scheme funds to pay the penalty. Inasmuch as it aligns the position in relation to penalties for failure to fulfil dashboard requirements with those for other comparable penalties, the Bill seems straightforward and we are very happy to support it.

But I would like to add a few brief questions to those put to the noble Lord, Lord Young, and the Minister may wish to reflect his view as well, given the Government’s wholehearted support of this Private Member’s Bill. First, can somebody confirm to the House that this Bill simply replicates for dashboard-related breaches the prohibition in the Pensions Act 2004 which prevents trustees or managers using member funds to pay regulatory penalties; in other words, that there is nothing novel hidden in here?

Secondly, why was the provision not included in the Pension Schemes Act 2021? Was it, as the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Sharkey, have suggested, simply an oversight? If so, I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, should beat himself up. I do not think it is his job to bury in the small print details of how things may align with the original legislation. I certainly feel no guilt at all. Frankly, I am prone to feeling guilt but, on this occasion, I feel absolutely fine.

Thirdly, will it be permissible for trustees to be covered by indemnity insurance paid for out of scheme funds? I think this can be done elsewhere.

On a related point, when we debated the Pensions Dashboards Regulations on 15 November 2022, the then Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, said

“we accept that the regulatory requirements on trustees have grown a great deal over the years”.—[Official Report, 15/11/22; col. 839.]

It is always the case that rogue trustees can simply ignore the rules, but has the DWP made any assessment of whether there is a point at which the demands and risks of trusteeship might deter individuals and lead to a growth in the use of corporate trustees, and whether that might lead to a reduction in the important diversity of trustee experience which may be necessary to protect members’ interests?

My final question was going to be to ask whether trustees are ready for the first connection deadline on 31 August 2023. However—as the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, rightly pointed out—yesterday, from a clear blue sky, dropped a Written Ministerial Statement which was just 418 words long. It calmly and simply said that additional time would be needed to deliver the technology and for the

“industry to help facilitate the successful connection of a wide range of different IT systems to the dashboards digital architecture.”

The Minister continued:

“Given these delays, I have initiated a reset of the Pensions Dashboards Programme in which DWP will play a full role. The new Chair of the Programme Board will develop a new plan for delivery.”


The Statement also said:

“DWP will legislate at the earliest opportunity to amend the timing of these obligations”.


We do not know, therefore, when the start date will be, but given that we are not promised another update before the Summer Recess, presumably it is not imminent. Can somebody, either the mover or perhaps the Minister, tell the House what on earth has gone wrong? Is it technical? Is it problems with schemes? Is it data?

When did the Government know? Did they know when this Bill was going through another place just recently? Did they know when we debated the regulations in November in some considerable detail? I am really interested to know to what extent the problems associated with creating commercial dashboards and connecting them to the dashboard architecture from day one have contributed to the need for a reset. What does it mean that

“DWP will play a full role”

in the new programme? Was it not playing a full role already? Has that changed?

When will the Government legislate to delay the programme? Are there plans to amend, for example, the many forthcoming pensions regulations we have before us? Also, I wonder, given that there is now no urgency at all, would government legislation not be a better way to deal even with the matters under debate today than a Private Member’s Bill which has the wholehearted support of the Government?

The Government were so confident of being able to meet their dashboards timetable—–on which we challenged them—that they hardwired the connection dates for schemes into the schedule. It says that the “staging deadline” for

“master trust schemes that provide money purchase benefits only”

for 20,000 or more relevant members is 31 August 2023, and so on. They were that confident. But since then, because that was published, pension schemes have spent time and money scrabbling to get ready for those hard deadlines. I suspect the irony will strike them that we in Parliament are debating a Bill designed to ensure that trustees pay penalties if they do not get their schemes connected to the dashboards in a timely and appropriate manner and the DWP just slips out a Written Statement saying, “You know what, we are not going to make it for August, after all. We are just going to reset the programme and we will give you some kind of update before the summer.”

I know that things go wrong. I get this. I have been a special adviser in government. I have been involved in enough programmes. But when things go wrong, I think the House is owed an explanation of exactly what went wrong. I suggest to the Minister that one thing he might usefully do is to forward to his colleagues in another place the proceedings of this House on the original legislation, the debates on the regulations and the associated debates. The Government were warned that this was incredibly complex. They were warned about the issues about data, ID and all kinds of things. I think this may be a good opportunity, since we are to have a pause enforced, for the Minister to tell the House that he will take the opportunity both to engage with the concerns raised around the House and to brief the House on how these are going to be addressed. I look forward to the replies.

Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2023

Baroness Sherlock Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd February 2023 Grand Committee

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

He could answer them now.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Janke (LD)]

My Lords, as the two previous speakers said, I am sure it will be a matter of great relief to the poorest citizens and families that this year there is a realistic rise, unlike last year when, despite forecasts from the Bank of England of inflation rising to 7.9%, the rise in benefits and pensions was only 3.1%. Other speakers have referred to the distress suffered by so many citizens who have had to manage with that, despite the crisis in energy costs and the cost of living, and the pressures that have been put on families and individuals in recent months.

Some evidence of the level of distress caused by this policy is the increase in the use of food banks. The number of food bank users increased to over 2 million in 2022, of whom 832,000 are children. A measure that was intended for emergency charitable use has now become a national institution and without it many impoverished families would go hungry.

The increase in short-term government funding is a positive step and it is to be welcomed that it is excluded from the benefit cap. I share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, on the triple lock and agree that we should retain it until the state pension has regained much more of its value, because it is taking quite a time to catch up. Large numbers of the poorest pensioners are dependent on the state pension but that is sometimes not appreciated. We hear quite a lot of speeches from people nowadays saying that the triple lock should be abolished because everybody is jolly too well off; in fact, large numbers of pensioners are completely dependent on the state pension so to those people, it is absolutely crucial that it retains its value.

We would also like to see an extension of auto-enrolment to younger workers and those on lower incomes. They could get started a bit earlier and would welcome that in their older age.

I also recognise the campaign on pension credit and know that the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, was keen to pursue it. It has encouraged me greatly to hear the adverts and to hear from the Minister today that the percentage of take-up has increased so much. I would certainly like to have a look at that.

The uprating increase of 10.1% will, we hope, provide more protection to those on limited incomes but the situation for many families does not improve—it only worsens. We have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, about the benefit cap and although it will be uprated today it has quite a bit to catch up. The benefit cap has been found by many studies to be a major contributor to poverty in families. There are 123,000 households subject to that cap. That is 64% higher than before the pandemic; 85% of them are families with children and 65% are lone parents. The benefit cap takes no account of the size of a home needed to house a family, so the freezing of the local housing allowance at the March 2020 level, despite rapidly increasing rent costs, will mean more capped households falling into poverty.

I have these questions for the Minister. What will the Government do to prevent a new wave of homelessness following the freeze in the LHA? I point out to him that in my city of Bristol, for example, the cost of a one-bedroom home at the 30th percentile is 7% higher this year. But with housing benefit still frozen, there is now a shortfall of £18.41 a week between what can be claimed and what has to be paid.

What plans do the Government have to review the range of evidence about the benefit cap? I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, can provide plenty. She has certainly made that case very articulately many times. I feel it is time that the Government re-evaluate and look into the circumstances that this is causing. I would also like the Minister to look at the findings of studies of the two-child limit. This seriously disadvantages families. It was championed by the Government as an incentive to people on benefits to work. However, official statistics show that most families affected are in work while a study found that those affected felt strongly that the two-child limit unfairly punished hard-working, low-income families at a time when they needed most support, that is, at the birth of a child. I hope that we may revisit that.

All in all, I am grateful that we are having a much more realistic increase this year. I hope that some of the points made by other noble Lords about the delay and distress caused by the way that the increase is calculated can be looked at. I hope that we will look again at how some of the most vulnerable underprivileged families, and particularly children, are faring under the current benefits scheme.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction and all noble Lords who have spoken. As my noble friend Lady Lister said, it is nice to have the band back together again. I also find it very moving that people turn out every year to try to make the case and to bear witness to the struggles that so many people around the country have and why it matters.

I will talk briefly on each order in turn. If we come back again, I notice that it has been nice to have had the Minister here previously as a Whip, although if one can be here one year as a Whip and the next year as the Minister, perhaps his noble friend to his right should be thinking very carefully about what might happen next year if he is not very good indeed.

I shall run though each order in turn, although probably not in the order the Minister did. GMP is really interesting. As we have heard, this gives schemes the percentage by which they have to uprate GMP between 1988 and 1997. I have a really simple question: can the Minister remind the Committee why the cap was set at 3%? That makes me Clive Myrie to the contestant behind me, my noble friend Lord Davies, who asked a much better question, so I will simply wait and let the Minister answer that instead. It will be very interesting.

Is there any reason why the Minister thinks we ought to worry when the gap is so big between the cap at 3% and the prevailing inflation rate at 10.1%? Is there any cause for concern there?

The only other point I want to raise on GMP is that some people with a large GMP lost out when the new state pension was introduced in 2016. The Minister will be aware that the Work and Pensions Select Committee called on the Government to identify those who were affected, calculate their losses and get in touch with them. Obviously that did not happen. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman reported on two cases of people who complained that they had not been given enough information by the DWP about the fact that the reforms could leave them worse off. The ombudsman said that the DWP failed to provide clear and accurate information despite being warned, with the result that some people were not aware that they might need to make alternative provision for their retirement. The ombudsman recommended that the DWP should

“review and report back its learning from our investigations. In particular”,

it should improve its communications on this issue. In response, in August 2021, I think, the DWP finally published a fact sheet on GMP and the effect of the new state pension. I then read with fascination the growing correspondence between the Select Committee and successive Pension Ministers, driven, I think, by correspondence from members of the public who were concerned about the effect. For the record, I commend the Committee for its detailed and tenacious work on this frankly very technical issue.

I shall ask the Minister two brief questions. First, now that there is a fact sheet, what is DWP doing to draw its existence to the attention of those who might need to know about it? Secondly, can the Minister tell the Committee how many people have successfully applied, or indeed applied at all, for any compensation since the PHSO report?

I now turn briefly to the draft Benefit Cap (Annual Limit) (Amendment) Regulations because the case has been made so well by my colleagues that there is not much left for me to say. As we have heard, the Secretary of State is required to review the level every five years. My noble friend Lady Lister and the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, have set out the background to how we got here and the consequences of the failure to uprate it hitherto. I remember the then Secretary of State Iain Duncan Smith saying very clearly that the original rationale for the policy was to ensure that people who were unemployed and on benefits would not receive more than average earnings. We had a debate at the time because, for example, child benefit also goes to those on average earnings. However, even allowing that for the moment, the problem with that argument is that the level of the cap was not in any way tied to average earnings. Having brought it in in 2013, not only was it not increased but it was reduced in 2016 and never increased after that until these regulations. Is the Government’s rationale for the benefit cap still related to average earnings? If not, what is the rationale, so we can assess how effectively the policy is achieving its objective? Has DWP made any assessment of the impact of the benefit cap on child poverty? If not, would it like to?

I turn now to the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order, which we debate every year, except during the years of shame. It is worth reminding ourselves for the record that before 2010 annual uprating of benefits by at least inflation was the norm for both Conservative and Labour Governments. However, between 2013 and 2020 this was abandoned, with most working-age benefits and tax credits being either frozen or uprated by just 1%. The reason I continue to repeat this, even in a year when they are being uprated, is because that means that most benefits and credits have fallen in value even before the latest cost of living crisis. Many noble Lords have expressed relief that, finally, having debated the alternatives and being subject to pressure from around both Houses and outside, the Government decided to raise benefits and tax credits in line with CPI last September.

However, as my noble friend Lady Lister said, this is not an act of unusual generosity. It is simply a decision not to cut the value of benefits in the middle of a cost of living crisis, which should be a pretty obvious decision. To do the alternative would have consequences that we have heard about already. Of course, as noble Lords have pointed out, the reference point is the 12-month CPI rate in the previous September. When inflation is as volatile as it is now, that gap can cause real hardship. If we go back a year to last April, inflation was nearly 10%, but benefits were uprated that month by just 3.1%—the CPI rate from the previous September, and that loss of value is baked in because it is the basis for this year’s increase.

The result of this is that the value of out-of-work benefits is at a historically low level, as my noble friend Lady Lister said. As the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, said, it is no wonder that food bank use is at a new high. Trussell Trust food banks gave out 1.3 million parcels between April and September, which is up by one-third on the year before and includes an estimated 328,000 people using its food banks for the first time, so new people are being drawn into the need to use food banks to survive. The Trussell Trust thinks that this winter will prove to be its busiest ever. I want to put something in particular to the Minister. The Prime Minister told the Liaison Committee in December that he very much hoped that food bank demand would be lower by the end of this Parliament. Is there any plan in DWP to take action to make sure that this will actually come to pass?

Although most working-age benefits will be increased by 10.1%, there will be no change to two crucial benefits: first, the childcare element of universal credit and tax credits and, secondly, the local housing allowance, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady Lister and the noble Baroness, Lady Janke. Why are those two not being uprated? Is the presumption that they are not affected by inflation in the same way? Childcare is in crisis. We know that employers are desperate for staff and parents cannot afford childcare. I notice that we keep seeing media briefings appearing about possible benefit crackdowns and how people need to work more hours. Can the Minister confirm whether it is the case now that the childcare support in universal credit is sufficient to cover part-time hours only because the cap in it has been frozen for so long? Of course, that is not to mention the fact that for parents to get that help, they have to pay the money up front for childcare and then claim it back. That makes it a non-starter for most parents who are poor enough to be entitled to universal credit in the first place in the middle of a cost of living crisis. Can the Minister tell us what the plan is to address this?

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, I start by thanking the Committee in general for its overall support for these regulations. I also thank various Peers, including the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies, who made some very kind remarks about me coming into this particular role; I appreciate it. I was more than prepared for the fact that a good number of questions would arise from these regulations, of which there are three; I will of course do my best to answer them.

Let me start, in what I hope is not too discordant a way, by taking some issue with what the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, said. There is no question that there is no way in which we have played fast and loose with this; that is a bit unfair. A huge amount of thought has gone into this. I think the Committee has acknowledged that we have moved in the right direction by raising many of these benefits by 10.1%.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

Let me just clarify: I was not suggesting that the Government played fast and loose this year. I was talking about previous years when they broke with uprating and did not uprate at all, not this year. I am sorry if I did not make that clear.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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