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 – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    Stephen Timms – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Timms on 2015-10-27.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, what estimate he has made of the amount of its own capital which BT has invested in the rural broadband rollout programme to date.

    Mr Edward Vaizey

    The Major Projects Authority concluded in Autumn 2014 that BDUK’s open book accounting process which supports BDUK’s monitoring and control of BT’s costsisan exemplar of best practice.Most Phase 1 broadband projects are using this process. BT have incurred £230 million spend to date for these projects.

  • Stephen Timms – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Stephen Timms – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Timms on 2015-11-04.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many complaints were made by jobseekers about advisers at Plaistow Jobcentre between 1 June 2013 and 31 May 2014.

    Priti Patel

    The information is not collated centrally. To provide this information could only be done so at disproportionate cost.

  • Stephen Timms – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Stephen Timms – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Timms on 2015-11-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, when her Department plans to publish an updated action plan on violence against women and girls.

    Karen Bradley

    Home Office officials have been working with partners on a refresh of our violence against women and girls strategy. We aim to publish this shortly.

  • Stephen Timms – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Stephen Timms – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Timms on 2015-11-25.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, for what reason the finance officer at Plaistow Jobcentre until December 2013 was not interviewed in the investigation which led to the dismissal of two advisers from that jobcentre in May 2014.

    Priti Patel

    Allegations of misuse of the Flexible Support Fund at Plaistow Jobcentre were investigated fully by the Department’s professionally trained investigators.

    It is not appropriate for the Secretary of State to disclose detailed information regarding individuals who may or may not have been contacted by investigators, as providing this information would risk individuals being identified.

  • Stephen Timms – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Stephen Timms – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Timms on 2015-11-30.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what estimate she has made of how many Syrian refugees in the vulnerable persons programme will be resettled in (a) North East England, (b) North West England, (c) Yorkshire and the Humber, (d) the East Midlands, (e) the West Midlands, (f) the East of England, (g) Greater London, (h) South East England, (i) South West England, (j) Wales, (k) Scotland and (l) Northern Ireland by 2020.

    Richard Harrington

    We are still in discussions with many local authorities to establish whether they wish to participate in the Syrian Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme.

  • Stephen Timms – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Stephen Timms – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Timms on 2015-12-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the Answer of 3 December 2015 to Question 18222, if her Department will put procedures in place to ensure that family members who are not resettled together when they arrive in the UK under the vulnerable persons programme are able to maintain contact with each other.

    Richard Harrington

    The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) identifies refugees for potential resettlement under the Syrian Vulnerable Persons Resettlement scheme using their vulnerability criteria, and submits cases for Home Office consideration. The UNHCR links family groups so we can seek to allocate them to the same local authority. We also try and place them close to any family members already residing in the UK.

  • Stephen Timms – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Stephen Timms – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Timms on 2015-12-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of the finding of the report, Halving the Gap, published by Mencap in December 2015, that the proposed change in employment and support allowance to claimants in the work-related activity group is likely to move those claimants further away from the labour market rather than closer.

    Priti Patel

    The Government set out its assessment of the impacts of the policies in Bill on 20th July and we will review all reports which relate to the Welfare Reform and Work Bill.

  • Stephen Timms – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    Stephen Timms – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Timms on 2016-01-05.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to the Answer of 14 December 2015 to Question 19214 and with reference to Chapter 3 of the National Audit Office Report, entitled The Superfast (Rural) Broadband Programme: update, published in January 2015, for what reason the amount spent per cabinet is approximately double the amount estimated by the National Audit Office.

    Mr Edward Vaizey

    The costs reported in the January 2015 National Audit Office Report were based on average direct cabinet costs in September 2014, which were lower than envisaged at the time of the contract. Underspends at the end of the projects will be available for further investment in superfast broadband roll-out.