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 Department for Education

    Stephen Timms – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Timms on 2016-06-15.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to the Answer of 15 June 2016 to Question 40258, what the minimum number of responses is for results for a school to be published on Parent View.

    Nick Gibb

    This is a matter for Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector, Sir Michael Wilshaw. I have asked him to write to you and a copy of his reply will be placed in the libraries of the House.

  • 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 2016-07-07.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, for what purposes the income from fines levied on parents in England who take their children out of school in term time is allocated.

    Nick Gibb

    The sums received by local authorities from penalty notices issued to parents should be used for the purposes of issuing and enforcing such penalty notices, and prosecuting recipients who do not pay.

    This is set out in Regulation 23 of the Education (Penalty Notices) (England) Regulations 2007, available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/1867/contents/made

    “

  • 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 2016-07-20.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, if she will place in the Library copies of the action plans by Bright Tribe Multi-Academy Trust and Adventure Learning Academies Trust in response to the request made to them by the Education Funding Agency.

    Edward Timpson

    The Education Funding Agency is due to publish a report about Bright Tribe Trust. This final report will include the Trust’s progress in implementing recommendations set out by the EFA in December 2015; and will incorporate how assurance is obtained that services are provided at cost. Once this report is published, a copy will be placed in the Library.

  • 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 2016-09-06.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many appeal hearings were cancelled in (a) 2014, (b) 2015 and (c) the first eight months of 2016 at the (i) First-tier Tribunal and (ii) Upper-tier Tribunal due to documents from the Home Office not being submitted before the hearing date.

    Sir Oliver Heald

    The First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chambers) are administered by HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS).

    The number of appeal hearings adjourned at the hearing, or postponed prior to the hearing, due to documents from the Home Office not being submitted before the hearing date was:

    (i) First-tier Tribunal: (a) 2014 – 833 and (b) 2015 – 739

    (ii) Upper Tribunal: (a) 2014 – 17 and (b) 2015 – 8

    The number of appeal hearings either adjourned at the hearing, or postponed prior to the hearing due to documents from the Home Office not being submitted before the hearing date in the first six months of 2016, which are the latest figures available, was:

    (i) First-tier Tribunal – 269

    (ii) Upper Tribunal – 1

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

  • 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 2016-09-14.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what proportion of non-selective schools in selective areas is rated by Ofsted as (a) outstanding, (b) good, (c) satisfactory and (d) inadequate.

    Nick Gibb

    These are matters for Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector, Sir Michael Wilshaw. I have asked him to write to the Hon. Member and a copy of his reply will be placed in the House libraries.

  • 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 2016-10-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what her Department’s policy is on asking teachers to opt out of the European Working Time directive in respect of their working hours.

    Nick Gibb

    The School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document, which applies to all maintained schools, makes clear in paragraph 53.4 that governing bodies and head teachers should ensure that they adhere to the working limits set out in the Working Time Regulations 1998. These are the regulations that implement the European Council Directive.

  • Stephen Timms – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Stephen Timms – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Timms on 2015-10-28.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many people have accessed the Pension Wise service through the (a) face-to-face service provided by the Citizens Advice Bureau and (b) telephone service provided by the Pensions Advisory Service to date.

    Harriett Baldwin

    The government committed to providing free, impartial guidance through Pension Wise, to help people make informed and confident decisions about how they use their defined contribution pension savings in retirement. It is available online, via the telephone and face to face. As of 29 October 2015, there were over 20,000 completed appointments for face to face guidance and 9,000 completed appointments for telephone guidance as well as over 1.7 million visits to the website.

    Pension Wise runs exit surveys of those who have completed an appointment It is not mandatory for a user to complete an exit survey. The government is committed to being open and transparent with Pension Wise data and will be making core data readily available by placing it on the government performance platform this autumn. The data will be in the public domain and updated regularly. HM Treasury is working with Pension Wise delivery partners to provide the level of detail that we require for reporting purposes.

    The Financial Conduct Authority, in line with its remit to protect consumers and ensure markets function in consumers’ interests, is monitoring developments in the retirement income market closely and has committed to take action where consumers are coming to harm or where the market is not operating competitively.

    The government recognises that people may wish to consult different sources of information before reaching a decision about their retirement income. In addition to Pension Wise, The Pension Advisory Service (TPAS) provides independent, impartial information and guidance about pensions, free of charge, to members of the public. The Money Advice Service also provides free and unbiased information and guidance on all money matters.

    A number of pension providers offer financial guidance. Individuals can also access regulated advice from an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). HM Treasury and the Financial Conduct Authority are jointly considering how financial advice could be made more accessible and affordable for consumers through the Financial Advice Market Review.

  • 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, what discussions were held with the two Jobcentre Plus staff dismissed from Plaistow Jobcentre in May 2014 after a complaint about misuse of the Flexible Support Fund on (a) whether that misuse was part of a pattern of malpractice and (b) by whom it was authorised.

    Priti Patel

    Allegations of misuse of the Flexible Support Fund at Plaistow Jobcentre during 2013 and 2014 were investigated fully by the Department’s investigators. Various discussions were held and investigators also undertook further work, completed in July 2014, which examined whether there was a pattern of malpractice or any evidence of wider misuse, of which none was found, of the Flexible Support Fund at this office or other offices in the immediate area.