📈 Social Security Benefits

• The Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2025 and the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2025 were discussed in Parliament. Both orders were approved.

• The state pension will be increased by 4.1%, aligning with the growth in average earnings from May to July 2024. This upholds the government’s commitment to the pension triple lock, which ensures pensions rise by the highest of earnings growth, price increases, or 2.5%.

• From April 2025, the basic state pension will rise from £169.50 to £176.45 per week, and the full rate of the new state pension will increase from £221.20 to £230.25 per week.

• The pension credit standard minimum guarantee will also increase by 4.1%, aiding pensioners with the lowest incomes. For single pensioners, it will increase from £218.15 to £227.10 per week, and for couples, from £332.95 to £346.60 per week.

• Most other benefits, including universal credit, will be uprated by 1.7% in line with the consumer prices index increase to September 2024. This also applies to statutory payments like maternity and sick pay, as well as benefits for disability and health impairments.

• The earnings threshold for carer’s allowance will increase to the level of 16 hours’ work at the national living wage, allowing carers to earn up to £196 per week net and still receive the allowance.

• A Green Paper on health and disability benefits reform is expected in the spring, aiming to support those with additional costs due to disability or health issues.

• The Guaranteed Minimum Pension (GMP) for those who earned it between April 1988 and April 1997 will increase by 1.7%, providing inflation protection for these pensioners.

• There was debate over the Conservative party’s stance on the pension triple lock, with the opposition reaffirming their support but noting challenges with its long-term sustainability.

• Concerns were raised about pensioner poverty, with calls for a taskforce similar to the existing one addressing child poverty. The impact of recent changes, such as cuts to winter fuel payments, was highlighted.

• The discussion also touched on the need for better communication and fairness in pension changes, referencing past issues like those faced by WASPI women.

• There were calls for reforms to address welfare dependency, particularly focusing on supporting people back into work and addressing the adequacy of benefit levels, with some advocating for the removal of the two-child benefit cap.

• Members discussed the importance of improving the efficiency of benefit processing, noting long wait times for pension credit applications as a particular issue.

The session contained a moderate level of disagreement, primarily focused on policy considerations and the current state of welfare and pension systems. Several points of contention were raised throughout the debate, indicating a mix of differing opinions but not reaching the level of severe conflict. Below are the key differences and examples of disagreements observed in the session:

1. Triple Lock Policy: The discussion around the pension triple lock saw some disagreement. Sir Stephen Timms initially challenged the Conservative Party’s position on the triple lock, prompting clarification from Dr Luke Evans and Danny Kruger. Kruger clarified that the Conservative Party was not looking to cancel it, but highlighted concerns raised by others in his party about its long-term sustainability. This indicates a moderate level of disagreement between parties, especially on the future of the policy beyond immediate concerns.

   Example: - Sir Stephen Timms challenged the Conservative Party’s stance on the triple lock, saying, “there is some confusion about the position of the Conservative party,” to which Dr Evans and Danny Kruger responded, clarifying their positions.

2. Impact of Benefit Up-rating and Welfare Caps: Jeremy Corbyn raised concerns about the welfare spending cap and the two-child benefit cap, suggesting that these policies need reevaluation. Sir Stephen Timms responded by stating that these matters were under review by a newly formed taskforce, but he did not commit to immediate changes. This represents a disagreement on the necessity and urgency of removing certain welfare restrictions.

   Example: - Jeremy Corbyn questioned the welfare cap and two-child benefit cap, to which Sir Stephen Timms responded that these issues are being considered by the child poverty taskforce, without promising changes.

3. Incapacity Benefit System and Welfare Reform: Danny Kruger’s critique of the incapacity benefit system and his call for tougher conditions was met with opposition from Debbie Abrahams, who emphasized the dangers and lack of evidence supporting such reforms. This shows a clear disagreement on the approach to welfare reform and the effectiveness of proposed solutions.

   Example: - Danny Kruger suggested tougher conditions for incapacity benefits, while Debbie Abrahams refuted these suggestions by citing evidence that such measures were harmful and ineffective.

4. Universal Credit and Benefit Adequacy: There was disagreement about the adequacy of universal credit and working-age benefits. Steve Darling pointed out gaps in the benefits system, indicating inadequacy, while Dan Tomlinson expressed confidence in the ongoing review process to address these issues. This shows different perspectives on the current system’s effectiveness and the steps needed to improve it.

   Example: - Steve Darling highlighted the shortcomings of universal credit, noting the substantial weekly gap for couples, while Dan Tomlinson looked forward to the review process, suggesting a more optimistic outlook on the government’s plans.

5. Pensioner Poverty and Winter Fuel Payments: Shockat Adam and Neil Duncan-Jordan advocated for additional measures to combat pensioner poverty, including the reinstatement of winter fuel payments. Sir Stephen Timms acknowledged the need for substantial measures but did not commit to specific actions. This disagreement reflects different views on the immediate needs of pensioners and the government’s role in addressing them.

   Example: - Shockat Adam and Neil Duncan-Jordan emphasized the need for a pensioner poverty taskforce and restoration of the winter fuel payment, while Sir Stephen Timms broadly agreed on tackling pensioner poverty but did not commit to specific measures.

Overall, the disagreements in the session were significant but not fundamentally divisive, focusing on policy details, evidence, and approaches rather than broader ideological differences. This level of disagreement warrants a rating of 3 on the scale of disagreement.