My Lords, it is indeed a special privilege to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Field of Birkenhead. It is very difficult to call him that; I have known him for 50 years and now I have to learn his new name. My noble friend is of course well known for his expertise and contribution in the area of poverty, whether in welfare benefits, food banks, education for underprivileged children, housing needs and so forth. He has also made an exceptional contribution to the welfare of the people of Birkenhead on all those issues and many others, as well as being an exceptionally effective parliamentarian over 40 years. The combination of those two contributions is remarkable.
Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Field, has also contributed on a considerable number of other issues over those years. I could probably keep your Lordships here all afternoon going through all the different issues that he has talked about and effected change on over the years, but noble Lords will glad to know that I shall mention just three.
With one or two other people, it was the noble Lord, Lord Field—Frank Field as he then was—who persuaded Mrs Thatcher, as she then was, to enable council tenants to buy their own houses or flats and become homeowners. For these deeply underprivileged people, to own a home was an incredibly important change in their lives and we should never forget it. If people remember, the issue at the time was that the noble Lord wanted these houses sold to the tenants but for the money to be used to invest in new social housing. The sad thing about that whole policy was that Mrs Thatcher agreed to sell the properties to their tenants but not to use the money to invest in social housing. Half the policy was wonderful but had the noble Lord, Lord Field, had his way, there would have been investment in social housing and then it would have been the perfect policy.
On a very different issue, the noble Lord, Lord Field, was one of the masterminds of the Modern Slavery Act. He chaired the committee that developed that policy and then led the charge in driving the Bill through the other place. We know that my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss and the noble Lord, Lord Randall, were also key players in that reform. It is a radical, major issue, which will last for many decades to come—that is important.
The third, totally different, example, which illustrates the versatility of the noble Lord’s mind, was the adoption by the Queen, for her Jubilee year, of the Queen’s Commonwealth Canopy—it was his idea and rather a wonderful one. We can expect the noble Lord to contribute on all sorts of issues to do with climate change and the planet—you name it and he will be up there. I think he will be an extremely active Member of your Lordships’ House and a formidable challenge to anyone who chooses to disagree with him. I have to confess that that might often—sometimes, anyway—include me.
I turn now to the Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill, which is what I am supposed to be talking about today. I thank the Minister and her officials for their very helpful briefing the other day. I understand that if wages fall this year, as they are expected to do, without this Bill, the Secretary of State cannot uprate a range of benefits, but I have a few questions for the Minister.
First, I believe that this year and next year should really be taken together. These two years are going to be ravaged by Covid-19, in very different ways. We know that this year average wages are likely to fall by about 1%. Indeed, we know that people on the Government’s employment support scheme will lose some 17% of their wages. I applaud the scheme—I am not being critical of it—but we have to be aware that a lot of working people, including many young people, will lose substantial percentages of their income. Millions
of others will lose their incomes altogether. This year is not like any other that we have experienced in our lifetimes.
Next year, however, average wages are likely to increase by about 4%. These shifts in pay make a nonsense of the triple lock. Over the two years, we can expect average wages to increase by, let us say, 3%—a purely illustrative figure. However, if the triple lock is applied, my understanding is that with that sort of wage change this year and next, pensions would increase by 6.5%—more than double the wage increases, if I am right. No doubt the Minister is looking around for some information to prove me wrong. Maybe she will succeed but I stand by my figures for the next while.
Seriously, there is an important issue here, which a number of other Peers have mentioned: the difference between the old—like me; I claim my state pension—and the young. It is crucial that we do not lose sight of that; others have made the point far better than I could.
I understand that there is a dispute between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. The Prime Minister wants to stand by his manifesto commitment to hold on to the triple lock, which I can understand. But nobody knew about Covid at the time of the election, although we probably should have done. The Chancellor, rightly, wants to ditch the triple lock for the moment and I have to say that I think he is right. I just want to put that on record. We have a Chancellor who really knows about figures and I think he has got it right.
I agree with the flexibility introduced by this Bill but hope that it will be repeated next year. Unfortunately, it is not just one Bill covering the two years. I also hope that it will be used to increase the basic pension in line with average earnings, at most. The basic pension should not increase any more than wages; in the light of the fact that so many pensioners have done rather well in the last decade or so, even to increase pensions in line with wages at least needs thinking about. Also, I very strongly think that pension rates and other benefits for the poor should be increased even more than the increase in average wages. I hope that the Chancellor will treat the basic pension differently from the pension and other benefits for the most deprived, because we have to deal with the most incredible inequalities in our society and that is one way in which to do it.
I turn to a slightly different issue. I hope that we will consider in Committee the problem of the 4% of UK pensioners who currently do not receive the pensions to which they contributed over their entire working lives. This is the 4% who do not live in the EEA or in a country covered by an agreement that requires us to update their pensions. If they are in other countries, their pension is frozen at the level it was when they moved from the UK or first claimed their pension. You could say that that is nothing to do with this Bill, or that this is an opportunity to do something about this rather tragic little group. These are people who may have moved to Canada, or somewhere, to be near their daughter because they are frail and have stayed there. They may still alive 15 years later but have had no increase in their pensions. In conclusion, I welcome the Bill but with one or two provisos, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
3.12 pm