Written questions by Perteghella.

What steps she is taking to ensure the equitability of payment amounts between the (a) old State Pension, awarded until 2016 and (b) new State Pension, awarded from 2016 onwards.

We are absolutely committed to supporting pensioners and giving them the dignity and security they deserve in retirement. It is not possible to make direct, like for like comparisons between State Pension amounts received under the pre 2016 State Pension system and the new State Pension. Under both systems, the amount people are entitled to varies according to their National Insurance record. It is not the case that everyone in the new system receives more than everyone in the pre 2016 system.

If she will make it her policy to (a) replace new Universal Credit claim (i) advance and (ii) benefit transfer loans with new claim grants and (b) to write off overpayments made in error.

As not all new UC customers require the same level of immediate support, replacing every new customer’s advance with a UC grant would lead to significantly increased expenditure and the potential for increased fraud and error in the social security system. We are committed to reviewing Universal Credit, to make sure it is doing the job we want it to. We will set out the details of this in due course. The Secretary of State has an obligation to protect public funds and to ensure that, wherever possible, an overpayment is recovered. It is our policy to recover all debt where it is reasonable and cost effective to do so. Debts should be recovered as quickly and cost effectively as possible without causing undue financial hardship. There are no plans to write off overpayments made in error.

If she will make it her policy to maintain the link between Local Housing Allowance rates and rent cost increases each year.

Local Housing Allowance (LHA) rates were restored to the 30th percentile of local market rents from April 2024 for one year. Decisions on LHA for future years will be taken in the context of the Government’s missions, housing priorities, and the fiscal context.

If she will make it her policy to reduce the frequency of PIP Reviews.

I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to her previous Question 6897 on 14 October. We continue to keep under review awards, their durations and award review periods.

Whether she has made an assessment of the adequacy of specialist input in PIP Reviews.

I have interpreted your question to refer to the adequacy of the input provided by the assessment supplier (AS) health professional (HP) during a PIP review. All decisions on entitlement to PIP, whether at initial claim or review, are made by DWP case managers (CM). CMs, whilst not medically qualified, do receive extensive training to enable them to evaluate a claim and assess the individual’s needs. They have access to expert advice from HPs, if required, and can make requests for supplementary advice at any stage in the decision-making process. Advice should be clear, succinct, justified and in accordance with the consensus of medical opinion. Where a CM is then still unable to make a decision on the PIP review, the case will be referred to the AS for an assessment. During the assessment stage the HP is able to source additional evidence from professionals such as the individuals GP, occupational therapist, community psychiatric nurse and/or any other health professionals involved in the individual’s care. They have access to guidance and support (such as Condition Insight Reports and Continuous Professional Development modules) on how certain conditions present and how they might affect function. The APs also have access to Mental Function Champions (MFC) who can provide advice and support to HPs on health conditions and disabilities affecting mental, cognitive, intellectual, and behavioural function. The quality of any advice provided by the HP, whether via supplementary advice or the assessment report is a priority for all AS’s and the department. The department works extensively with ASs to make improvements to guidance, training, and audit procedures to ensure a quality service, supported by an independent audit function that continually monitors performance and provides feedback to its ASs.

If she will make it her policy to extend the length of time within which bereaved families can claim Bereavement Support Payments.

The 3-month time limit to claim the full amount of Bereavement Support Payment is consistent with most other benefits. An individual would need to be 21 months late in claiming Bereavement Support Payment to forfeit the entire benefit.

Whether she has made an assessment of the potential impact of the PIP review process on (a) vulnerable and (b) disabled claimants.

Regular reviews are a key feature of Personal Independence Payment (PIP) and ensure that payments accurately match the current needs of claimants. Awards can be paid at one of eight rates dependent on the claimants needs. Award durations are based on the likelihood of claimant’s needs changing. Award durations can vary from nine months to an on-going award. Guidance ensures that those claimants on the highest level of support whose needs will not improve receive an ongoing award of PIP with a light touch review at the 10-year point. We understand that assessments can be stressful for some claimants which is why reviews are carried out without the need for the claimant to attend an assessment where sufficient and robust evidence is provided. Where an assessment is required, our Assessment Providers will choose the most appropriate method such as a phone, video or in-person assessment.

What steps she plans to take to ensure the continuation of the triple lock on state pensions.

The Government has committed to up-rating the basic and new State Pensions by the Triple Lock for the length of this Parliament. Through our commitment to protect the Triple Lock, over 12 million pensioners will benefit. Over the course of this Parliament, the full yearly rate of the new State Pension is forecast to increase by around £1,700.

If she will take steps to require pension funds to comply with the climate rules in the Paris Agreement.

Occupational pension schemes with assets of £1billion or more have been required to publish annual reports setting out how they are managing climate risks and opportunities in line with the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) since 2022. These reports include, so far as they can, how their portfolio investments are consistent with the Paris Agreement goal of limiting temperature increase to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels. A growing number of financial institutions and companies are setting goals to achieve net zero emissions in their business plans, and developing climate transition plans to map out how they will achieve this. Our manifesto committed to introducing new requirements in relation to transition plans for listed companies and financial institutions, including pension schemes.