UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Stephen Timms

  • Stephen Timms – 2023 Speech on the Budget

    Stephen Timms – 2023 Speech on the Budget

    The speech made by Sir Stephen Timms, the Labour MP for East Ham, in the House of Commons on 16 March 2023.

    Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I apologise for my late arrival in the debate.

    It is striking how hard it is for Conservative Chancellors to resist the temptation to hand out big tax cuts to the wealthiest while raising tax for ordinary people. We can sympathise with the Chancellor in that he meets many such people—many people among the 1% wealthiest pension savers in the country—who are very courteous and very nice to him over convivial dinners, and they explain to him their frustrations with the Government’s pensions tax policy. These are good eggs, and who could possibly begrudge them a £1.2 billion tax cut? But the reality is that pension tax relief is already massively skewed in favour of the best-off, and the Chancellor, when times are hard, has decided to give another billion to the wealthiest in pension tax relief.

    I do welcome the adoption of the Select Committee recommendations on support in universal credit for the costs of childcare, which was announced yesterday. As the Secretary of State explained, allowing the costs to be paid up front from universal credit and lifting the cap—absurdly, it had not been raised since 2005—will remove very important barriers to work, including a barrier to those who are working part-time from working full-time.

    There is much to welcome in the health and disability White Paper, which says that the system will be changed so that it focuses on

    “what people can do, rather than what they can’t”.

    That is laudable, but precisely the same form of words was used by Alistair Darling to introduce changes to the incapacity benefit system 25 years ago. Whether the detail turns out to be a good thing will depend on the detail, which is largely absent. The Secretary of State spoke about consultation. The Government’s ill-fated disability strategy came to grief in the courts because had not adequately consulted disabled people. We must hope that that lesson has been learned.

    Nobody will mourn the work capability assessment, which the White Paper says will be replaced by

    “a new personalised health conditionality approach”.

    Can Ministers tell us what that means? The White Paper goes on to explain that it

    “will provide more personalised levels of conditionality and employment support”,

    but I am afraid that leaves us none the wiser. The problem is that, despite being years late, much of the vital detailed work does not seem to have been done yet.

    I welcome some of the specific proposals to reform PIP—for example, I am pleased that the call to match people’s primary health condition with a specialist assessor will at least be tested. Many PIP assessments come up with the wrong answer, as we know, because when people appeal against the determination, the great majority win their appeal—in fact, the proportion who do so has been going up. The White Paper proposes to place more weight on the PIP assessment in future, so it is even more important that we get it right. The only way to do that is to record all the assessments, so that if the decision is subsequently found to be wrong, it is possible to go back, work out why and consider how to avoid the same mistake being made again in future.

    The White Paper says that there will be an increase in recording, which is a good thing, but the Select Committee proposed five years ago that all assessments should be recorded, with an opt-out for the claimant if they did not want their assessment to be recorded. In the new contract for assessments to be agreed this year, the Department should instruct providers to record assessments by default with a clear opt-out option. That proposition is supported by all three assessment providers. It will ensure that there is an objective record of the assessment, which will reassure claimants and allow assessment quality to be audited. When recordings are available and the findings of assessments are overturned, the recordings should be checked at least on a sample basis to see whether an erroneous outcome could have been avoided.

    I welcome the White Paper’s commitment to test the feasibility of sending a copy of the assessor’s report to claimants automatically before the decision is made, which was also recommended by the Select Committee five years ago. I hope that the feasibility testing will be brief so that that can be introduced across the system soon.

    It is disappointing that there is still not yet a target for disability employment in the White Paper. The Government congratulate themselves on achieving the previous very undemanding target early, but I am pleased that the White Paper says:

    “Our goal to reduce the disability employment gap remains.”

    In the 2015 election campaign, David Cameron announced a target to halve the disability employment gap. Unfortunately, that target was quickly scrapped as soon the general election was out of the way. I hope that a clear target on the disability employment gap will now be adopted.

    Much will depend on the support that disabled people receive from work coaches. Polling by the charity Scope found that half of jobseekers with complex disabilities do not feel supported by work coaches. The initial training for work coaches does not seem to cover the barriers to work faced by disabled people, and jobcentres lack the specialist assistive technology that many disabled people need to look for and apply for work.

    The White Paper refers to the potential of the UK shared prosperity fund to provide employment support. It is disappointing that there will be, I think, a two-year gap between the European social fund ending and the UK shared prosperity fund being allowed to support employment projects. A witness to the Select Committee yesterday suggested that the flexible support fund might be expanded, at least temporarily, to try to bridge that gap.

    That could lead to a large amount of important employment support capacity not being lost, which it will be if the gap is allowed to take effect.

    Lastly, I appeal to the Secretary of State to spare us the embarrassment of the Department’s appealing against the ruling this week by the Information Commissioner that the Department’s research on the impact of benefit sanctions must be published. The Department promised to publish it. As was her wont, his predecessor but one, the right hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), decided to hide as much as possible if it contained any hint of a question mark about the Department’s policies. I welcome his review of that approach, and I hope he will show with this particular case that things have now changed.

  • Stephen Timms – 2023 Speech on Raising the State Pension Age to 68

    Stephen Timms – 2023 Speech on Raising the State Pension Age to 68

    The speech made by Stephen Timms, the Labour MP for East Ham, in the House of Commons on 1 February 2023.

    I congratulate the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) on securing this Backbench Business debate, which gives us the chance to ask for the Government’s views on this topic of great importance and enormous public interest. I am delighted that the Pensions Minister, the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), and the former Pensions Minister, the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), are in their places on the Front Bench.

    I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Amber Valley said. The idea of spending a third of adult life in retirement is a sensible yardstick to run with. He made the point, in passing, about the importance of implementing the recommendations of the auto-enrolment review, and I agree with him that that is important. We are repeatedly told that it will be done in the mid-2020s, but time to implement it before 2025 is either running out or has possibly already run out.

    In my remarks, I will focus on the process we are in. I recall the wise words of David Cameron, who said:

    “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.”

    He argued—rightly, in my view—for a culture of openness in government. One of the results of his view was the 2010 protocol on publication of all Government social research, which was most recently updated last year. It states:

    “Principle 1: The products from government social research and analysis will be made publicly available”,

    and that research should be published “promptly”, within 12 weeks of completion.

    For a number of years, that was, to their credit, the Government’s approach. In 2017, when the first review of state pension age was undertaken for the Government by John Cridland—as the hon. Member for Amber Valley has pointed out—his report, and the report of the Government Actuary, were both published on 23 March 2017, nearly four months before the DWP’s own review was set out on 19 July 2017, shortly after the hon. Member for Hexham took up his former post as Pensions Minister in June 2017.

    I have often expressed great regret that the Department, for some reason or other—perhaps reflecting a different approach across Government—has abandoned the practice set out by David Cameron and instead now resists publication of research and analysis, or delays it for as long as it possibly can. Preventing public discussion no doubt has the benefit of allowing Ministers to avoid having to answer difficult questions, but it has the disastrous drawback of worsening policy outcomes. The policy cannot be informed by public debate before the decisions are made, because the evidence that would allow a debate is not available. The Government publication protocol was watered down a little last year, but its essential gist remains unchanged. It says, for example:

    “The primary purpose of social research commissioned and conducted by government is to inform…policy and delivery, but it also plays a role in wider policy debate.”

    That is quite right, but, as we have discussed in the Chamber on various occasions, in the DWP the requirements of the protocol are simply ignored. They are not being fulfilled.

    I have been hoping very much that the new ministerial team will turn over a new leaf and take a more enlightened approach. Indeed, the new Secretary of State has hinted that he is considering the advantages of greater openness. But here we have a flagrant example of his predecessor’s bad habits of hiding analysis and evidence until it is convenient to the Government to release them. Instead of publishing the evidence four months before the Government’s decision, as was done in 2017—around the time the former pensions Minister, the hon. Member for Hexham, was appointed—the Department is keeping the evidence hidden until it makes its announcement “early in 2023”. Presumably, as the hon. Member for Amber Valley has suggested, that will be at the time of the Budget next month.

    In my brief contribution to this important debate, I mainly want to press the Minister to publish now both the report by the independent reviewer, Baroness Neville-Rolfe, which the Secretary of State received on 16 September last year—more than four months ago—and the related Government Actuary’s report, which was submitted to Ministers on 5 October. Publish them now. Why have they not been published already? What possible benefit can there be in keeping this important work and evidence hidden for all this time?

    The Select Committee has published today an exchange of letters with the Minister on the subject. When asked why these reports are not being published before the Government’s announcement as they were for the 2017 review, the Minister, who is in her place, replied that

    “this is a different publication schedule to the last review, the issues are still under consideration and so we think this approach is more appropriate.”

    In other words, they appear to be saying, “We don’t want anyone to see the evidence until we have made up our mind. This is still under consideration, so we think it is not appropriate to publish the evidence.” Surely, there ought to be a public debate about all this before the Government make their decision, not afterwards. This instinct of hiding things, not disclosing them, and not complying with the requirements of the cross-Government protocol is very damaging to the Government’s ability to make good policy.

    Surely, Ministers should take advantage of public debate to inform their decisions, rather than refusing to show anyone the evidence until after the Government have made up their mind. What has become of David Cameron’s belief in sunlight? We are talking here not about confidential advice to Ministers—there is no requirement to publish that—but rather about expert analysis that will eventually be published, and which sets out the evidence that will underpin the Government’s decision. Publish it now so that everybody can see it. The protocol says that

    “analysis should be published promptly…as early as possible following agreement of the final output.”

    So it should be. The recent independent review was announced in December 2021. The terms of reference said that it should explore what metrics the Government should take into account when considering how to set state pension age. They stated that it should include a consideration of recent trends in life expectancy in every part of the United Kingdom; whether it remained right for there to be a fixed proportion of adult life that people should, on average, expect to spend over state pension age, and what metrics would enable state pension costs, and the importance of sharing those fairly between generations, to be taken into account.

    The Select Committee agreed months ago that once Baroness Neville-Rolfe’s review had been published, we would take evidence on it, including from her, as the hon. Member for Amber Valley said, before the Government announced their decision. Now that the Government are unwilling to publish the analysis before they announce their decision, we clearly cannot do that.

    The Sun has reported that the Government plan to raise the state pension age from 67 to 68 as early as 2035, which will affect everyone who is 54 and under, instead of 10 years later, as set out in current legislation. Is that the right thing to do? Well, we need to see the evidence. The key evidence is about future projections of life expectancy. As we heard from the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), emerging evidence shows that the trend of rising life expectancy is not what it was before the pandemic.

    One of the expert witnesses at this morning’s meeting of the Select Committee said, “Mortality seems to have peaked, because one reason why there was increasing mortality was that the second world war lifestyle was ironically quite healthy for people, and the numbers are now going down quite a lot.” We were discussing something else this morning, and I do not know what evidence the witness was drawing on there, but I do not know what evidence the Government will draw on either, because it has not been published and it should have been. There should be no delay in publishing it.

    Cohort life expectancy statistics are produced every two years. A new set is expected this year. The latest, 2020-based projections show life expectancy at 65 still rising, but at a slower rate than in previous releases. Of course, the 2020 figures did not take any account of changes arising from the pandemic. The change in projection has prompted some commentators to call for the planned rises in the state pension age to be abandoned, or at least to be slowed.

    Lane Clark & Peacock took the latest Office for National Statistics life expectancy projections and reran the 2017 calculations of the Government Actuary’s Department. They concluded that any move from 67 to 68 would not be needed until the mid-2060s rather than the mid-2040s, and certainly not by the late 2030s, as suggested by The Sun. They also suggested that the move from 66 to 67, which is currently scheduled to be phased in over two years from 2026, could be put back until the end of the 2040s. They went on to argue that if further ONS statistics show relatively lower life expectancy growth, that could imply further delays to planned increases, and perhaps even abandoning the planned rise to 67.

    The former pensions Minister but two—I think— Steve Webb, who is now a partner at Lane Clark & Peacock said:

    “The Government’s plans for rapid increases in state pension age have been blown out of the water by this new analysis. Even before the Pandemic hit, the improvements in life expectancy which we had seen over the last century had almost ground to a halt.”

    Those are important public policy questions. They should be debated in Parliament and among the public before the Government announce their decision, so that that public and parliamentary debate can inform the Government’s decision. We should not just see the evidence after the Government have announced what they plan to do, because changing the Government’s mind at that point will not happen.

    A wide public debate should take place now, but it cannot happen unless the independent review and the Government Actuary’s report are published before the announcement is made. I ask the Minister to resist the temptation to keep the documents hidden for even longer and instead to remember the wise words of David Cameron, and to be open and publish those two key documents.

  • Stephen Timms – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Stephen Timms – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Timms on 2016-03-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many appeal hearings at the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum) were (a) withdrawn and (b) adjourned because the Home Office did not send a representative in (i) 2012-13, (ii) 2013-14 and (iii) 2014-15.

    Mr Shailesh Vara

    The First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) is administered by HM Courts & Tribunals Service.

    There are no available data relating to numbers of appeals withdrawn where the Home Office representative did not attend the hearing.

    The number of appeal hearings adjourned because the Home Office did not send a representative in (i) 2012-13 was 64 (ii) 2013-14 was 61 and (iii) 2014-15 was 68. For comparison, the figure in 2009/10 was 94.

    Data provided are internal Management Information and not subject to the same quality checks as Official Statistics.

  • Stephen Timms – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Stephen Timms – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Timms on 2016-04-12.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many enlisted soldiers who were not commissioned officers gained GCSEs in (a) English and (b) mathematics while serving in the army in each of the last five years; and how many such soldiers gained GCSEs in (i) English and (ii) mathematics within four years of enlisting.

    Mark Lancaster

    The Army provides opportunities for personnel to gain functional skills in literacy and numeracy. These are the standards that the Army has determined it requires and links these functional skills qualifications with promotion to certain ranks. Individuals are free to pursue GCSEs as part of their elective personal development with the support of learning credits schemes but the details of such GCSE qualifications are not held centrally.

  • Stephen Timms – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Stephen Timms – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Timms on 2016-04-22.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Answer of 19 April 2016 to Question 33687, what funding and support (a) his Department and (b) NHS England have provided to integrate blood-borne virus testing into mobile digital radiology screening for active TB in line with NICE guidance NG33 of January 2016.

    Jane Ellison

    As yet, no funding has been allocated to include blood-borne virus (BBV) testing into mobile screening outreach services.

    NHS England has provided additional funding to the London ‘Find & Treat’ mobile health unit so that they can offer latent Tuberculosis testing and treatment. The Find & Treat service continues its discussions with the Hepatitis C Trust to work in partnership to provide on-the-spot screening for hepatitis C and onward care.

    The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance NG33 published in January 2016 suggests that integrating BBV testing into mobile digital radiology screening services would be good practice. NHS England has expressed an interest to consider this further, and discussions continue with the lead London Clinical Commissioning Groups.

  • Stephen Timms – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Stephen Timms – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Timms on 2016-05-04.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the Answer of 25 April 2016 to Question 34910, how many Guided Learning Hours are required for recruits to complete a (a) GCSE and (b) Level 2 in numeracy or literacy.

    Penny Mordaunt

    The Ministry of Defence has no established policy relating to time allowed to deliver GCSEs and Level 2 functional skills. Armed Forces Training Establishments follow the Guided Learning Hours (GLH) guidance provided by Education Awarding Bodies. The GLH as identified by the course governing body are used as a starting point when teaching functional skills. Our aim is to provide our trainees with a framework to achieve the qualification with the best possible support, not to achieve it within a certain period of time.

    The Royal Navy normally allocate three weeks for guided learning functional skills courses delivered as part of longer professional skills development training. The GLH for each qualification in the Army is 45 hours; however this can vary depending on individual needs and other factors such as location. Time allocated to functional skills training in the RAF will depend on the establishment delivering the training with some schools allocating between 45 and 64 hours.

    GCSEs are treated as elective courses for Service Personnel and time allocated for GCSEs is dependent on the individual and varies between four weeks for an intensive course and up to 16 weeks for a part time course. Army Personnel can undertake GCSEs or IGCSEs through evening classes run by the Army Education Centres and there will be a set programme linked to the GLH which is usually a minimum of 125 hours. The RAF and Navy offer courses which can be intensive or delivered over an extended period of time delivered by external providers.

    All Armed Forces Training Establishments have the ability to deliver functional skills training and GCSEs flexibly and time allocated is dependent on the individual and their needs as reflected in each individual’s learning plan.

  • Stephen Timms – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Stephen Timms – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Timms on 2016-05-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, how many UK nationals were employed by the European Parliament in each year since 2010; and how many such people were employed at administrator grade.

    Mr David Lidington

    The European Parliament does not publish statistics on numbers of permanent staff by nationality. According to our own records, the total the numbers of UK nationals employed by the European Parliament in each year since 2010 is:

    2010: 290
    2011: 306
    2012: 306
    2013: 291
    2014: 271
    2015: 251

    The latest figure available is for May 2016 and is 263.

  • Stephen Timms – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Stephen Timms – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Timms on 2016-05-25.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what steps he is taking to encourage UK nationals to take up junior and entry-level positions in the European Commission.

    Mr David Lidington

    UK representation has been falling across EU institutions as UK officials retire and are not replaced by the same number of new UK entrants. The Government is committed to reversing this picture, recognising that this will require a sustained effort. The EU Staffing Unit, established in April 2013, promotes EU careers across the UK and supports candidates through the application process. It has increased secondments in positions of strategic importance to the UK. The European Fast Stream within the Civil Service has also been re-launched.

  • Stephen Timms – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Stephen Timms – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Timms on 2016-06-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what plans she has to ensure that multi-academy trusts are accountable to the parents of students in those academies.

    Edward Timpson

    Our White Paper Educational Excellence Everywhere set out the Government’s intention to introduce a new duty on academies to ensure that they listen to the views and needs of all parents, particularly when key decisions are made about their child’s school. For Multi Academy Trusts (MATs) we will expect all academies to engage meaningfully at a local level.

    We are committed to ensuring parents have a more significant voice in their child’s school. Through the new Parent Portal, we will ensure parents have access to clear and simple information about the school system and how to support their child. This will work alongside the new performance tables website which is making it easier for parents to find out how well their child’s school is performing and to compare schools across a range of key measures.

    We will provide guidance on handling complaints to ensure a common approach for all schools and MATs so that all parents know where they can go if a problem arises. In addition, we will make it simpler for parents to escalate complaints to the Department, and beyond that to a public service ombudsman.

    Finally, we are considering how parents might petition Regional Schools Commissioners for their child’s school to move to a different MAT where there is underperformance or other exceptional circumstances.

  • Stephen Timms – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Stephen Timms – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Timms on 2016-07-07.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what recent discussions he has had with stakeholders on the implication of the outcome of the EU referendum for future levels of employment in the UK financial services industry.

    Mr David Gauke

    The Government is committed to the UK hosting the world’s most competitive international financial centre and securing a long-term economic relationship with the rest of Europe that provides for the best possible terms of trade in goods and services, including financial services.

    The Chancellor and other Treasury ministers have met, and will continue to meet, a number of financial services stakeholders since the referendum. The impact of the referendum on the financial services industry was discussed at these meetings. Future employment in the UK financial services industry will be commercial decisions for individual firms.