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?