Social Security (Additional Payments) (No. 2) Bill

Paul Bristow Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 6th March 2023 Commons Chamber

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

I add my very warm welcome back to you, Dame Eleanor; like everyone, I am delighted to see you back in the Chair.

I will make a few brief remarks. Initially, I will follow up the speech from the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) in favour of amendment 3, which I have signed alongside him. The amendment relates to an intervention that I made on Second Reading, when I highlighted—the hon. Member just mentioned this—that people who are paid every four weeks instead of monthly, of whom there are quite a large number, receive 13 payments a year rather than 12. That means that in one month of the year, they receive two salary payments instead of one. Very often, that means that even though they will normally receive universal credit, they will not in that particular month, because their income is deemed to be too high for them to be eligible for universal credit. If that month happens to be one of the months when eligibility for the cost of living payment is assessed, they will lose their payment. No one is going to argue that they should not receive a payment, because their annual income is exactly the same as it is in every other month of the year. However, because of universal credit’s rigid approach to assessing people on a monthly basis, they will miss out. By arguing that eligibility should be based on looking at two months, not one, the hon. Member’s amendment entirely overcomes the problem for people in that situation.

The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) made some telling points about the situation for self-employed people. He was right to query how the minimum income floor works. There did not used to be a minimum income floor in tax credits. The Department for Work and Pensions introduced that innovation into universal credit and the case for it is, at best, debatable. But again, I do not think anyone would argue that the operation of the minimum income floor should deprive people of a cost of living payment when they would otherwise be entitled to receive it.

The hon. Member made a telling case for musicians and actors. Self-employed people may well have a good month and receive a significant amount of income, so they would perhaps not receive universal credit in that month. However, if they did not receive anything like as much in the month before or the month after, they would receive universal credit in that month. Most would agree that people in that situation—self-employed people with very fluctuating incomes, as he described—should receive a cost of living payment if their income across the year made them eligible. Therefore, looking at two months instead of one would help in that situation as well.

The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) made some telling points about people who have been sanctioned. It is very hard to argue that someone who happens to have had a sanction in a particular month, and therefore does not receive a penny of universal credit in that month, should not be entitled to a cost of living payment. A lot of sanctions last for a month. If we looked at two months, that would help to overcome that problem. I note from the briefing that 7,000 people lost out on the previous cost of living payments because they were subject to a sanction when their eligibility was assessed.

The Minister may say in response that people who are in this difficult situation can apply to their local authority for a payment from the household support fund. However, as we all know, the reality is that the household support fund is very little known by our constituents. It is extremely unlikely that anyone in the situation that I described would know that they should apply to the local council for a payment from the household support fund. It would be much better and simpler to extend the assessment of eligibility from one month to two months. It would mean adding an extra line of code in the computer system, which is a very easy thing to do to deal with a significant part of this clear unfairness in how the system works.

I want to make a point to the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), who tabled the amendments on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. My worry about saying that all the payments should be in one would be that the whole assessment for eligibility for that therefore annual payment would be based on receiving universal credit in one month. There is a benefit in dividing this across three months, as the Government have: if someone misses out on the payment in one month, at least they will still get the other two, whereas if it was all done at one time, there would be a danger of losing the whole year’s payment.

I will say a few words in support of new clause 7, which my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) tabled. I commend her contribution to the work of the Work and Pensions Committee. Indeed, all the amendments that I have spoken in favour of are tabled by members of the Committee. My hon. Friend correctly highlights the public health impacts, for better or for worse, of our social security arrangements, and it is absolutely right to take account of them.

At present, the headline rate of social security benefits—the typical universal credit standard allowance—is the lowest in real terms that it has been for four decades. As a percentage of average earnings, it is probably the lowest that it has ever been. It is certainly much lower than it was when Lloyd George introduced unemployment benefit in 1911. He did so at a significantly higher proportion of then average earnings than the standard allowance of universal credit today. There are significant public health impacts of this low level of social security support, making a contribution, for example, to the mental health crisis, which has hit so many people of working age in the UK since the pandemic. The hon. Member for Glasgow East referred to the fact that the Work and Pensions Committee will conduct an inquiry on the adequacy of benefits and the question of what the level of benefits should be. Public health impacts are a very important part of that debate.

[Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)]

Let me add how wonderful it is to see you back in your place, Dame Eleanor.

I rise to speak to amendment 4, which was tabled by the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain). I will also comment on one or two other amendments and clauses that have been mentioned, because this has been a very worthwhile debate.

Before I do so, I want to qualify the reason why I am here speaking to the Bill. I am doing so because in my city of Peterborough the Bill will impact and benefit so many of my constituents. It will benefit 21,900 people in my constituency, and that is a significant number of people. The difference that these payments and this legislation will make to their lives is considerable. On top of that, we are looking at 13,100 individuals who will be eligible for the disability payment.

This Government are committed to supporting families, and this legislation will be a good thing. It will get many, many of our constituents through, let us be honest, a difficult time, and that should be applauded. The people of Peterborough will benefit from this. It is a sign that the Government are doing exactly what they said they would do, supporting families across the UK during a global cost of living crisis.

Elections Bill (Third sitting)

Paul Bristow Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Cat Smith]

Thank you so much for your time.

[Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)]

Q Maurice, it is nice to talk to you, and thank you for coming to the Committee. I note that you are a Labour councillor in Battersea and a self-confessed Corbynite, and that you previously described the Government as

“Diluting rights, denying racism, delegitimising protest, and diminishing voter turnout.”

You added:

“Anyone who doesn’t see a concerted campaign at work here simply isn’t looking.”

What is that concerted campaign?

Maurice Mcleod: We have had mention of what happened in America with voter suppression, the methods that some parts of the political machine have gone through and the fights to pull back the other way. I think that there is a concerted effort, first, to instil the idea that our voting system is not secure, that there is loads of fraud, that there are loads of people doing something dodgy and that people are cheating. As I have said, I do not really see much evidence of that. Our voting system is pretty trusted and robust. So first, there is this idea of bringing in a measure. When you bring in a measure in Parliament, people think, “Oh, there must be a reason that they’re doing this; it’s because there’s loads of fraud.” It undermines faith and trust in our democracy.

Secondly, as I have said, these measures also put an extra barrier in the way of groups that some parts of the political establishment may think will not turn out for them or are not particularly strong supporters of them. What some people behind this may be thinking is, “If those people do not turn up and vote, is that such a bad deal?” When I said a concerted effort, that is what I mean.

[Paul Bristow]

Q Given your description of voter fraud as non-existent—you have just made that claim now—what do you make of the evidence that we have heard of voter fraud in Tower Hamlets, Birmingham and my constituency, Peterborough? Did that not exist?

Maurice Mcleod: If I said non-existent, that is not what I meant. I meant that it is very small. Yes, there have been issues in various places. To my mind, though, those issues would not be fixed by voter ID. The suggestion that there is a massive lack of faith in our electoral system just is not borne out in the polling. That is not the evidence of anyone that I have spoken to or any research that I have seen. People trust our electoral system, and that is a good thing. We should not do anything that undermines that.

[Paul Bristow]

Q You tweeted that the Government

“wants to bring in Voter ID to tackle non-existent voter fraud.”

I suggest that you take a look at the evidence from Peter Golds, Lord Pickles and others yesterday; it may enlighten you.

In 2018, you argued that people should be able to vote online. You then dismissed one social media user’s comment about fraud by saying,

“Sure, I understand the security risks but they are no greater than the risks of postal voting or even voting in person.”

What are those risks of postal voting or voting in person?

Maurice Mcleod: I see what you have done there. I was arguing, and I still argue, that we should move to online voting eventually. We should have ways of allowing more people to vote in more easy ways that fit in with their lives, so that they do not have to take time off work and go to a polling station, a post box or wherever. That is what I was arguing for. When I said that there are no more risks with that than with other types of voting, I meant that there are hardly any risks with those other types of voting, and therefore there are no risks with online voting.

[Paul Bristow]

But that is not quite what you said. You said:

“Sure, I understand the security risks”.

[The Chair]

Order. Online voting is not in the Bill. He was entitled to respond, but we are going a little bit wider than we should. Do you have a small supplementary?

[Paul Bristow]

Q Yes, absolutely. In 2019, you claimed that

“Voter ID will have a terrible impact on voter turnout.”

Why do you think that this impact has not been seen in any of the Cabinet Office trials, or indeed over many years in Northern Ireland?

Maurice Mcleod: That is valid. The Northern Ireland point is brought up a lot. I think I am right in saying—I could be wrong—that there is more of a tradition for carrying ID there than there is here. I could be wrong on that; I am not sure. I have not really looked into that too much.

[Paul Bristow]

No, I think you are wrong.

Maurice Mcleod: Am I wrong on that? Okay. It stands to reason that if you have a chunk of the population that does not have what you are being asked to have to turn up to vote, then you are going to lose voters among that demographic. I do not think that is really controversial. I am not sure how you would argue against that. You can argue that there is a bigger problem that needs to be fixed than I seem to think there is, but I do not see how you can argue that it is not going to dissuade people—it is not going to encourage more people to vote, is it?

[Paul Bristow]

Are you arguing that there are no—

[The Chair]

Order. I think we will move on. You have had quite a few questions. Patrick Grady is waiting to come in.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I have Tom Randall, followed by Fleur Anderson, Kate Hollern and Jerome Mayhew. If there is time at the end, I will bring Paul Bristow back in.

[Paul Bristow]

Thank you.

[Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)]

Q Mr Mcleod, good afternoon. I would just like to clarify a couple of points. You said in your evidence earlier that you had seen stuff. You are here as the chief executive of a charity, Race on the Agenda. The charity has not commissioned any research into this matter at all?

Maurice Mcleod: No, it has not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)]

Q Thank you for attending this session. It is interesting that you are the first black witness that we have had and you were invited along to talk about race. I apologise on behalf of the Committee for the way you were treated. The evidence we had yesterday from Peter Golds and Eric Pickles verified that election fraud does happen on very rare occasions. I would like to pick up your point about reaching out to communities and how we engage, encourage and assist people to get involved in the democratic process. Is there anything in the Bill that will enhance that communication and support?

I have just checked the allegation of fraud made by the hon. Member for Peterborough and, in those cases, it was found that no offences were committed. Does the message that electoral fraud has happened in black and ethnic minority communities act to disfranchise those communities, which we are trying to reach?

Maurice Mcleod: Sadly, I think it does, whether deliberately or not. I think we should always lean towards things having been done in good faith, but if you say things like, “There is very serious electoral fraud, and it happens in areas where there are lots of black and Asian people,” it is not a massive leap in people’s minds to, “Okay; so black and Asian people are somehow doing electoral fraud. That is what we’re clamping down on. We’re stopping people doing something dodgy to our process.” That is exactly the sort of alienating message that ends up with people saying, “I’m not interested in any of that stuff. All that politics stuff has nothing to do with me.” Those sorts of narratives do play into that, I am afraid. I have forgotten the beginning part of your question, but I worry about the narrative of, “We need to solve this massive fraud problem that is happening in minority ethnic areas.” I will not say it is a dog whistle, but I think it has an impact on minority communities, certainly.

[Paul Bristow]

On a point of order, Ms Rees.

[The Chair]

I do not really want to go down the road of more points of order. The Committee is becoming quite agitated. If there is anything you would like to raise, perhaps it could be raised after the witnesses have left. Would the Committee be content with that? We are against the clock, and more Members would like to come in.

[Paul Bristow]

I am perfectly happy to raise my point afterwards, but it is worth noting that it has been implied that my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling and I were unreasonable in our questioning, and that it may be because the witness comes from an ethnic minority. It is perfectly legitimate to place on record that that is not the case. Our questions were perfectly in order. I find it insulting that the hon. Member for Blackburn would even suggest such a thing.

[The Chair]

Can we leave it there, please? Your comments are on the record now. We need to move on and take more questions, but your point is noted.

Income Tax (Charge)

Paul Bristow Excerpts

Thursday 4th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con) [V]]

Yesterday, the Chancellor gave us a Peterborough Budget. It was exactly what my city needs to restart and to grow. There are no easy decisions in a pandemic, but this Budget is the basis of a swift and sustained recovery, and, as the Chancellor has said, the recovery will be swifter and more sustained than had previously been thought. That is great news for the country, yet, as I am sure you will understand, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am keenest on great news for Peterborough and that news came when the Chancellor spoke about the new levelling-up fund.

Even before the Budget, my city has benefited enormously from this Conservative Government: £16 million for our new science and technical university and research hub; £23 million from the towns fund to revitalise our city centre; extra police officers patrolling the streets of Bretton, Dogsthorpe, Ravensthorpe and beyond; and all the additional funding for Peterborough City Council to tackle covid-19 while getting tough on fly-tipping and antisocial behaviour. In other words, there was enough to be satisfied with. Regrettably for Ministers, though, I am never fully satisfied. I am always asking for more because I know the scale of Peterborough’s potential.

The Chancellor gets my requests regularly. Before this week, we knew that there would be a £4.8 billion levelling-up fund, but what we did not know was where it would be spent. I am thrilled that Peterborough is at the top of this bidding list in priority category 1.

The reality was a Budget that put Peterborough first: the restart grants to help businesses reopen and get our economy moving; the extensions to the furlough scheme and the top-up of universal credit; additional help for the self-employed; and further help for businesses on business rates and VAT. I had written to the Chancellor about that, too, noting how it would give my local businesses the shot in the arm that they so desperately need and they are delighted.

Perhaps it is at the pumps that my constituents will be most grateful. Thanks to successive Conservative Chancellors, we are saving a fortune when we fill up our tanks, with a 10-year freeze on fuel duty. The beer freeze means that we also save when our glasses are filled at the pump. I know to whom I shall raise my first post-lockdown pint; it is to a Chancellor who is delivering for my city.