Women’s State Pension Age

Debate between Nigel Evans and Stephen Timms

Monday 25th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee.

[Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State agree with the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, as I do, that those affected should not have to wait for the outcome of a Select Committee inquiry before learning the Government’s response? The equalisation of the state pension age was legislated for in 1995, giving 15 years’ notice to those affected. The 2011 changes, which accelerated the process, gave much less than 10 years’ notice to those affected. Is one of the lessons about what has gone wrong that we must ensure major changes of this kind provide at least 10 years’ notice, or preferably 15 years’ notice, before those changes take effect?

Autumn Statement Resolutions

Debate between Nigel Evans and Stephen Timms

Monday 21st November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am glad that it is being raised; it certainly needs to be, and it will need to go further. The right hon. Gentleman would probably agree that if someone is working full time at the legal minimum allowed, that ought to be enough to enable them to live and to support their family, but at the moment it is not. Why is that, and what are we going to do to put it right? Part of the answer must be an adequate social security safety net. We do not have that at the moment, and we are going to need it in future.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Stephen Timms

Consideration of Lords message
Tuesday 27th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kevan Jones]

The hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) said that this was a good Bill—no, it is not. It is a bad Bill, and it is an unnecessary Bill. All of this could have been done within the Armed Forces Bill that is going through Parliament, but the Government chose, for their own reasons, to put forward this Bill. It does not get to the central point of the issue, which is around investigations. They are completely absent from this Bill and currently absent from the Armed Forces Bill. They were resisted by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) in this Bill and in the Armed Forces Bill. It galls me that yesterday he was standing outside a court in Northern Ireland, trumpeting the fact that he was on the side of trying to stop people being investigated, when he had been in a position to do something about it. I think of him as being a bit like an actor in a play who has been sat in the audience watching, rather than taking part.

Without investigation, the Bill is flawed. I have written to the Minister: he needs to ensure that investigations are put in the Armed Forces Bill, because without that, despite the protections that have been claimed today, servicemen and women will be watching our proceedings, thinking that they have more protection than they have. They will still be investigated if allegations are made. There is an opportunity now, with the Armed Forces Bill, to remedy that.

Part 2 of this Bill should simply have been scrapped. I am sorry, but the idea that we should all have Limitation Act rights and yet members of our armed forces should not—that we should take those away from them—is just not good enough. A Bill that is supposed to give things to our armed forces has been taking things away from them. Part 2 will be challenged in court; only the lawyers will benefit from it.

I welcome the change on war crimes because, like many across the House, I was concerned about our international reputation. I fully support Lord Dannatt’s amendment; I believe we should support anything that helps servicemen and women who are going through such a process.

The Bill claimed to do a lot but does very little. It is disappointing. It could have been vastly improved, or just ignored altogether and incorporated into the Armed Forces Bill. There is an opportunity to put right what is not in this Bill when the Armed Forces Bill passes through the House. I know that the Minister is open to discussions about that, but I urge him to ensure that that happens, because without that, people will still be investigated; they will still go through the agony that this Bill was intended to stop. We all sympathised with that intention. It clearly will not be achieved in the Bill’s present form.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I also warmly welcome the further concession that the Minister has announced. The Bill will now exclude all the offences for which service personnel could be summoned before the International Criminal Court. That has now fixed the worst of the problems that many have been anxious about during debates on the Bill.

It would be helpful to understand why it has proved so hard for the Government to realise how awful what they were proposing was. No Minister wants to give armed forces carte blanche to commit torture, genocide and war crimes, and yet it has required the most extraordinary struggle to stop the Government doing exactly that. The noble Lord Robertson—I welcome the Minister’s tribute to him—introducing his amendment in the other place, said:

“Maybe after a lifetime in politics I was affected by some uncharacteristic naivety in thinking that the Government, faced by almost universal and expert opposition on this aspect of the Bill, would by now have changed their mind.” [Official Report, House of Lords, 13 April 2021; Vol. 811, c. 1190.]

Yet they ploughed on until yesterday. Perhaps it was indeed the change of Minister that averted disaster, and with others I congratulate him on his achievement in a short time, but if he can, in winding up, shed some further light on what on earth has been going on, the House would be grateful.

I strongly support what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) said on duty of care and investigations. I hope that we will come back to them soon if the duty of care amendment is lost this afternoon. I warmly welcome the progress on the Bill in the past few days and would be grateful for any light the Minister can shed on what has been going on.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Jim Shannon —Please resume your seat no later than 4.27 pm.

Kenyan Civil Service Pensions: Non-payment

Debate between Nigel Evans and Stephen Timms

Monday 7th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She sums up the message of the debate extremely well. I hope that the Minister will provide some hope for our constituents that this matter will finally be resolved, and I look forward to hearing his answers after others have contributed to the debate.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Paul Bristow has sought and received the permissions of the relevant bodies to make a short contribution to the Adjournment debate.

Coronavirus Outbreak: DWP Response

Debate between Nigel Evans and Stephen Timms

Thursday 26th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes the First Report of the Work and Pensions Committee, “DWP’s response to the coronavirus outbreak”, HC 178; and calls on the Government to increase relevant legacy benefits in line with increases to universal credit, to take steps to return people who have been inadvertently left worse off under universal credit compared with their previous benefits, and to suspend the no recourse to public funds visa condition for the duration of the coronavirus outbreak.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for this opportunity. The new Work and Pensions Committee had an ambitious programme. Our first meeting in March was with the Health and Safety Executive, but in no time we were in lockdown and our programme was set aside. The Department for Work and Pensions has been key in this crisis as so many have lost the means to earn a living, and universal credit has delivered. I have been a frequent critic. I repeatedly pointed out that transition to universal credit could not be completed by October 2017, but the system that we now have has passed the test of this year. It is a national asset, which we should make the most of.

DWP staff have been on the frontline, with many redeployed to handle the tidal wave of claims. They have withstood enormous pressure. In our report, the Committee expresses thanks to them for their dedication and hard work, and that does need to be reflected in their pay; yesterday’s announcement was a heavy blow.

Ministers made good decisions at the start. After a decade of cuts, the £20 increase in universal credit and working tax credit, and the reconnecting of local housing allowance with actual rents, were key for many to surviving the crisis. I had understood that local housing allowance would be kept in line with local rents, so I was dismayed yesterday to hear that it will be frozen—decoupling it once again. My Committee agreed unanimously that the £20 increase should stay and many others have taken that view, including the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s “Keep the lifeline” campaign. The campaign wrote an open letter to the Chancellor on 30 September with Citizens Advice, the Child Poverty Action Group, Feeding Britain, Oxfam, the Trussell Trust, disability charities and bishops. The Resolution Foundation says that otherwise:

“The basic level of support for an out-of-work single adult would fall to the level it was at when Margaret Thatcher left office”.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies warned of a significant decline in the incomes of 4 million families. The Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb), a former Work and Pensions Secretary, called the £20 a lifeline and urged its retention. I very much regret that the Chancellor rejected those calls yesterday.

The spending projections show universal credit being cut by £20 in April, and people claiming universal credit are left fearing the worst. Our motion calls for the £20 uplift to be extended to legacy benefits. Yesterday, an increase of 37p per week was announced; Ministers must reconsider.

Not increasing jobseeker’s allowance and employment and support allowance for those out of work for ill health was done on the grounds, we were told, that computer systems were slow to change, but they certainly could have been changed by now, and it is absurd that people in otherwise identical circumstances, claiming different benefits because of universal credit roll-out sequencing, are receiving such different support. It is legally questionable. People should not face extended hardship because their benefits are run on out-of-date systems. Ministers were absolutely right to introduce the increase; it should be extended to legacy benefits, too

Our report last month, “Universal credit: the wait for a first payment”, calls for other much-needed changes. The five-week delay between applying and the first regular payment causes great hardship; we called for non-repayable starter payments to tide people over. We also called for “advances” to be renamed “loans”, to make it clear they have to be repaid, because calling them “advances” obscures that.

The motion also highlights the people made worse off by claiming universal credit. Government online advice says: “Apply online for universal credit to get financial support if you’ve lost your job.” For most people, that was sound advice, but not for everyone: if someone on tax credits claims universal credit, their tax credits stop.

We surveyed experiences of the benefits system in the pandemic; 6,000 people responded, and I thank all of them. Some had not realised that claiming universal credit meant losing tax credits. For some, their universal credit entitlement then turned out to be zero—for example, one of my constituents with £16,000 saved. That person was left, as many were, with no support at all. That is benefit mis-selling; Government should put it right.

In May, answering the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) here in the Chamber, the Secretary of State said that she would look “very carefully” at whether people should be able to return to previous benefits. That held out some hope, but now she says that allowing it would threaten to unravel the roll-out of universal credit; that is a very poor excuse.

Today’s motion highlights our call, also made by the Home Affairs Committee, for the no recourse to public funds immigration condition to be suspended for the pandemic. Some 3 million extra people have had to claim universal credit this year, but families working legally, with no recourse to public funds on their immigration status, do not have that safety net. They may get discretionary council help, but provision varies immensely. Indeed, Andy Jolly at the University of Wolverhampton has found that many families refused council help, so our report made this call:

“The Government should publish or at least clarify existing guidance for local authorities on what support they can provide for people with NRPF, including…whether measures such as the hardship fund are classed as public funds or not.”

At the Liaison Committee in May the Prime Minister said that people in this situation should get “help” of one kind or another. I agree, but unfortunately they do not. Families facing destitution can apply for exemption, but it is extremely hard. The all-party group on immigration law and policy heard this week from the Unity Project that it takes about 100 pages of evidence; many people cannot provide that. The Home Office takes a month, on average, to determine an application. No destitute family should have to wait a month for Government to decide whether they can claim benefit.

Our report in May also called for an impact analysis of the benefit cap in the pandemic. UC and the local housing allowance were rightly raised, but the benefit cap was not, so many families crashed into the cap for the first time. The Department told our inquiry that the number of people affected by that would be “very small”. We asked for a full analysis of the numbers and the characteristics of households newly subject to the cap, and of the impact on hardship. We now know that far from a very small impact, the number affected by the benefit cap has almost doubled in the pandemic.

In London, with high rents pushing up LHA, many have crashed into the benefit cap for the first time. People claiming benefit after losing their job have a nine-month grace period when the benefit cap does not apply. The employment Minister says that 160,000 households have a grace period due to end next month—the benefit cap will apply for the first time. I wrote to the Secretary of State yesterday, with the Committee’s agreement, about this issue. The Government were right to increase support for struggling families at the start of the pandemic and there should be a cap easement for those about to be hit.

Our report in May pointed out that the future jobs fund did a great job of supporting young people in the last financial crisis. I welcome the kickstart scheme, with its identical structure, that was announced the month after our report. It was disappointing to see yesterday that spending on kickstart will be much lower than planned. That seems to be because employers have to offer at least 30 places, thus shutting out small firms. That should surely be fixed. The Committee will take evidence on the Restart scheme, which was announced yesterday. An evaluation of the Work programme was published on Tuesday. Major commitment to employment support is absolutely right, but we need it—this is unlike what happened with the Work programme—to do a good job with, for example, disabled people.

The importance of dependable social security has never been clearer. The UC system and Department for Work and Pensions staff have passed an extraordinary test, and they have our congratulations and our thanks. The changes outlined in our report are needed now to minimise damage from the crisis, and to look forward and build back better in the months ahead.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I have asked Members to consider a five-minute limit. We are not putting the clock on, but Members who go wildly over five minutes will be doing a great disservice to those lower down the call list.

Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Stephen Timms

Monday 21st January 2013 Commons Chamber

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Before I call the first group of amendments I must tell the Committee that the amendments to the schedule have been marshalled in error before the new clauses. The Committee will deal with the new clauses before it considers the schedule. I invite Members who wish to speak to clause 1 as a whole to do so in this debate, as I do not anticipate that there will be a separate debate on clause 1 stand part.

Clause 1

Up-rating of certain social security benefits for tax years 2014-15 and 2015-16

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 12, page 1, line 4, leave out ‘by 1%’.

[The First Deputy Chairman]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 7, page 1, line 4, leave out ‘1%’ and insert

‘the Retail Prices Index measure of inflation.’.

Amendment 10, page 1, line 4, leave out ‘1%’ and insert

‘the percentage by which the general level of earnings is greater at the end of the period under review in that tax year under section 150(1) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 than it was at the beginning of that period’.

Amendment 20, page 1, line 22, leave out subsection (5).

Clause stand part.

[Stephen Timms]

In this Bill the Government are punishing people who are already hard up for the failure of their economic policy. We were promised that the policy would lead to steady growth and falling unemployment, but it has failed. We have had a double-dip recession, and some predict that this week we will learn we are in a triple dip. Unemployment is now officially forecast to go up next year, so spending on unemployment benefits will go up, and borrowing will go up too.

The Chancellor’s policy has failed and the Government have decided to respond by forcing down the incomes of those whose incomes are already the lowest of all. Roughly speaking, the saving over the two years to which the Bill refers will be about the same as the increase in welfare spending resulting from the rise in unemployment forecast just between the Budget last year and the autumn statement.

The Government want to cut the incomes of the least well-off in real terms, not just for the coming year but, through this Bill, for the year after and the year after that. At the same time, in April they will give a tax cut to everybody earning more than £150,000 per year. That combination of policies will force up poverty in every part of the country, and it is a disgrace that Ministers are forcing this Committee stage into a single day.

This Bill is a bitter blow to large numbers of families—in work and out of work—who are on low incomes at the moment and struggling to make ends meet. Three new food banks open every week; last year a quarter of a million people received help from a food bank because they could not afford enough to eat, and this Bill will make matters significantly worse. It means that for three years, low-income families will get below-inflation increases. The number of people visiting a food bank will be higher this year and, because of this Bill, it will be higher still next year and higher again the year after that.

As Citizens Advice points out:

“The cumulative impact of capping the uprating of most benefits to no more than 1%”,

for the next three years, will lead to an exponential increase in net losses each year. Child Poverty Action Group stated that

“the poorer you are, the greater your loss.”

Finance Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Stephen Timms

Thursday 15th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

Schedule 4 provides for the exemption from income tax of expenses paid or reimbursed to MPs, following the introduction under the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 of the popular new scheme for paying the expenses of MPs administered by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. I understand that that will broadly have the effect of maintaining—[Interruption.]

[The First Deputy Chairman]

Order. Far too many conversations are taking place in the Chamber. Will those who are leaving please do so quietly?

[Stephen Timms]

I appreciate that the arrangements will broadly have the effect of maintaining the tax treatment that applied to similar expenses paid under the previous arrangements. Tax treatment of MPs’ expenses used to be dealt with by specific legislation or long-standing extra-statutory concessions. As hon. Members will know, a long-term project has been undertaken following the judgment in the Wilkinson case of 2006 to place all the statutory concessions on a proper legislative basis. Can the Minister confirm that the previous concession, which I think is numbered A.54—Members of Parliament: accommodation, allowances and expenses—has, with this legislation, been withdrawn, and whether any of the other extra-statutory concessions outstanding are affected by the Bill?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms]

Clause 8 and schedule 5 amend the corporation tax rules on loan relationships and derivative contracts that apply to amounts not fully recognised for accounting purposes. This is a good example of the way in which the obligations that the previous Government introduced in 2004 on the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes are bearing fruit by revealing forms of avoidance that represent loopholes that need to be closed, which is what the clause does. The intention behind the clause was announced by the previous Government at the time of the March Budget. The provision is tightly targeted. I am not aware of any adverse reaction, and I certainly support the clause, but will the Exchequer Secretary give us his assessment of how much tax avoidance will be prevented by blocking the loophole?

I was pleased that the coalition agreement included the commitment:

“We will make every effort to tackle tax avoidance”.

Clauses 8 and 9 are the first concrete signs of that commitment being delivered. However, will the Exchequer Secretary tell us a little more about how those efforts will be pursued and what is meant in the coalition agreement by the commitment to

“detailed development of Liberal Democrat proposals”?

If I understand correctly, Liberal Democrat proposals in this area include: changing the taxation of benefits in kind; increasing the proportion of HMRC time spent on income tax evasion; a new general anti-avoidance provision for corporation tax, with companies paying a commercial rate for HMRC pre-clearance—I imagine that that is being subsumed in the wider discussion about a general anti-avoidance rule; and legislating to establish the beneficial ownership of property that is sold to prevent the avoidance of stamp duty land tax. Will the Exchequer Secretary confirm what the coalition agreement meant? Are all those initiatives—

[The First Deputy Chairman]

Order. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is going much wider than the provision before us. Will he confine his remarks to what is contained in clause 8?

[Stephen Timms]

Of course I will, Mr Evans.

I accept that there will always be areas in which there is legitimate uncertainty among business and their representatives about how the law applies. However, I am pleased that clause 8 and schedule 5 are being brought forward to block one more unwanted loophole.

Finance Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Stephen Timms

Monday 12th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms]

I beg to move amendment 31, page 6, line 16, leave out ‘28%’ and insert ‘25%’.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 32, page 6, line 20, leave out ‘28%’ and insert ‘25%’.

Amendment 33, page 6, line 25, leave out ‘28%’ and insert ‘25%’.

Amendment 10, page 9, line 29, at end insert—

‘, provided that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has laid before the House of Commons a report on the implications of aligning rates of capital gains tax with rates of income tax.’.

Schedule 1 stand part.