Nationality and Borders Bill

Debate between Richard Graham and Stephen Timms

Report stage
Tuesday 7th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Richard Graham]

I am grateful for the hon. Member’s comments. I specifically quoted two words that the hon. Member for Streatham used in relation to the clause—she spoke about this “horrible” Bill and this “hostile” Bill. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) will recognise that the clause has been used by Opposition Members, notably the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), to stir up concerns—which, bluntly speaking, I regard as scaremongering—among members of different ethnic communities in our country. To my way of thinking, that is deeply inappropriate.

What we are talking about is the notification of revocation of British nationality to a tiny, tiny number of people who have chosen to behave in a way that is totally against the interests of our country and who have allied themselves with the enemies of this country. All the clause will do is allow for the absence of physical notification where those individuals are either unreachable or in a war zone. So far, so good.

[Stephen Timms]

I am listening carefully to the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but will he take it from me that the alarm about the clause is not because of any stirring from the Opposition, but because of the reality of its content and the Government’s track record?

[Richard Graham]

Over the past 10 or 11 years, I have agreed with the right hon. Gentleman many times on many issues, particularly work and pensions. On this particular point, I am sorry, but I think he is being a little disingenuous about how some of his colleagues are using it to stir up concerns when actually we need to be together as a nation. Where I agree with him is that there is real work for the Government to do—as the Minister knows, because he kindly gave me time on the point yesterday—to communicate much more effectively with Britons across this country about the facts of the legislation, which draw on a right that has been there for the Government for 100 years, since the first world war. Most people—most of our constituents—have no idea about that.

Universal Credit (Children)

Debate between Richard Graham and Stephen Timms

Tuesday 10th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms]

The hon. Gentleman has got slightly the wrong end of the stick in relation to what I was saying. The problem with universal credit is that the five-week delay is built into the design of the benefit. That is not a fault; it is how it is supposed to work. The assumption is that someone who has last month’s pay cheque in the bank can cope for a month. That is the problem that the Trussell Trust is starting to identify, and Citizens Advice is saying that, in practice, it is proving to be a very serious problem for many claimants of the new benefit.

[Richard Graham]

I do not think that I have grasped the wrong end of the stick, but I may have grasped a different part of the stick, and I think it is important for all parts of the stick to be considered in this context. I will, however, respond directly to the point that the right hon. Gentleman has made.

I have sought permission from the Department for Work and Pensions and my local Jobcentre Plus to install a DWP adviser in the George Whitefield Centre—appropriately, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, named after the founder of Methodism—where there is both a food bank and a health service for the homeless. I hope that, should I be fortunate enough to receive approval from the Department and the Jobcentre Plus, the adviser, with access to a computer, will be able to see precisely where the problems are, and I hope that if, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, the inbuilt delay is a real issue, that fact will be revealed. I put it to him gently, however, that there are a number of alternative scenarios, one of which is—to put it bluntly—that when people go to a food bank and are asked why they have done so, it is very easy for them to say, “I have had problems getting my benefits.” I hope that one of the advantages of the presence of a DWP adviser will be the ability to establish the extent to which that claim is correct, or possibly slightly exaggerated. The reality of life, I think, is that people get into financial difficulties—through no particular fault of their own—in a series of different ways, and I think that that is an aspect of the Trussell Trust feedback that has not been explored in enough detail so far.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Debate between Richard Graham and Stephen Timms

Monday 20th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Attention has been drawn to that issue, not least by the Financial Times, which has reported that housing associations’ business plans and their loan covenants and agreements with lenders could be at risk, and that even some big associations could go bust. The implications are very serious.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman is a reasonable man, so I am surprised that he cannot see the advantages of the housing policy in, first, reducing rents for large numbers of tenants who are among the poorest people in the land; secondly, obliging housing associations to make a 1% productivity saving each year, which is very small compared with other parts of the public sector; and, thirdly, reducing the welfare spend and therefore the budget deficit. Surely they are all advantages.

[Stephen Timms]

I think the hon. Gentleman was momentarily distracted, because I have welcomed both his first and third points. We welcome the fact that rents are being reduced, but he needs to recognise the impact that the changes will have. As I am sure he will be aware, housing associations do not share his rather sanguine view of what the changes will mean, particularly for new house building at a time when we all recognise the need for substantial new socially rented housing, which is not being delivered at the moment.

The Bill does not provide a definition of “full employment”. In line with recent research and the previous Labour Government’s definition, our amendment will set the full employment target at 80% of the working-age population. To pick up on a point rightly made in an intervention by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), in our view the annual report on progress to full employment must also set out progress on the target to halve the disability employment gap.

We will support policies that make work pay and increase opportunity, but where the Government are wrong we will not hesitate to say so. The Conservative party promised in its manifesto that it would

“work to eliminate child poverty”.

It is now absolutely clear that it did not mean it: the Bill abandons any pretence that it did. Instead of eliminating the scandal of child poverty, the Bill attempts to eliminate the term. Labour in government was committed to reducing the appalling levels of child poverty left behind by the Thatcher and Major Governments, and we did so. We introduced the Child Poverty Act 2010, with cross-party support, including from the Secretary of State when he was in opposition and the Conservative party. It contained clear targets to reduce absolute and relative poverty, persistent poverty and material deprivation.

We have known for some time about the debate in the Conservative party about the validity of the relative poverty measure, but now it is not just changing the definition. It is interested not in stopping child poverty, only in stopping people talking about it. It is exactly the same with food banks: the Tories want to stop people discussing them. Clause 6(9) tells us that we should not refer any more to the Child Poverty Act and that instead it is to be known as the life chances Act, but there are fewer life chances for a child growing up in poverty, and poverty needs to be reduced.

Getting rid of the targets and measures leaves the Government with no commitment to tackle child poverty at all, just a requirement to publish a mix of loosely connected statistics. Instead of removing child poverty, the Bill seeks simply to remove it from the lexicon.

Pension Schemes Bill

Debate between Richard Graham and Stephen Timms

Tuesday 25th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms]

I fear my hon. Friend is right. If in practice only a tiny proportion of people, or even a modest proportion, take up the guidance being offered, there is every chance of very serious problems in this market in the future. The House cannot be satisfied with that likelihood.

A number of organisations have pressed vigorously for a second line of defence requirement and they make a telling case. Proceeding without that safeguard will leave many consumers exposed—we should bear in mind that this is all supposed to happen from next April—making people guinea pigs and opening up the real possibility of another mis-selling scandal in the coming months.

[Richard Graham]

The right hon. Gentleman raises an issue that may not technically arise from the amendments that we are debating, but in which all hon. Members have some interest. What could a possible second line of defence look like?

[Stephen Timms]

That is a good question. I do not have a proposition to make. I would hope that those who are reflecting on these matters, particularly in the FCA, will be giving that some thought. There is time for it to incorporate something else and to put that second line of defence in its conduct rules. What it would look like, I am not in a position to propose this afternoon, but the need for it is clear. If the hon. Gentleman is about to propose something, I would welcome that.

[Richard Graham]

The right hon. Gentleman is being very generous and Madam Deputy Speaker is indulging us gently so I will be brief. I guess—perhaps the Minister might nod sagely at this stage—that this is an issue primarily for the FCA, but I hope that the message has gone out from us today that we are interested in it.

[Stephen Timms]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I hope that those who follow these debates will take that as an endorsement of the need for that second line of defence to be devised and put in place. If it was not there, there is a real risk of exposing consumers to risk of a kind that we have all seen before, and which would undermine these important reforms from the outset.

As the Minister explained, independent financial advice amendments are set out in new clauses 7 to 13. New clause 7 requires that when a member requests a transfer of safeguarded benefits, which are anything other than the cash balance or other money purchase benefits, with a view to acquiring flexible benefits, which are anything that is not safeguarded, the trustees

“must check that the member or survivor has received appropriate independent advice”.

I want to pick up a number of issues. What exactly are the trustees being required to do? Are they being asked to evaluate the appropriateness of the advice that was given to the scheme member? It does not seem right that they should be called upon to do that. It is quite a big undertaking for them and they are probably not in a position to do it. That wording could be understood to mean that that is what they are being asked to do. I would be grateful if the Minister commented on that.

We are seeing the creation of two new categories of benefits—safeguarded benefits and flexible benefits. I gather that the use of these terms is completely new; they are not used elsewhere in the statute. We have three new categories of scheme set out in the Bill, but this is the first time that we have had reference to safeguarded and flexible benefits. The use of those terms seems unfortunate, because safeguarded rights has a particular meaning, which was familiar when, admittedly now rather a long time ago, I was in the office that the Minister now holds. In the context of contracting out, safeguarded rights had a particular meaning. That term is now being introduced in the amendments before us to mean something completely different. The term “flexible” also has a specific meaning in pensions tax terms. Again, there is a real risk of confusion in reusing that particular term to mean something very different from the one people familiar with pensions tax arrangements understand it to mean.

The National Association of Pension Funds has argued that the statute should state that where the member has requested a transfer of his or her benefits, other than cash balance or other money purchase benefits to a scheme in which they will be paid a cash balance or money purchase benefits, the trustees should require appropriate proof from the member that he or she has received independent financial advice from a person authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority to give such advice. The regulations could define “appropriate financial advice” in that way. The NAPF makes the point that the language in front of us is rather ambiguous about what exactly is envisaged. Perhaps the Minister could comment on the alternative wording proposed by the NAPF, which it thinks would make it clearer and would not give the impression that trustees were being called upon to do something that is actually very difficult for them.

New schedule 1, as the Minister has told us, deals with the detail of the calculation of the cash equivalent transfer valuation, replacing the current CETV provisions under the 1993 Act. I fear that the tangle gets worse here. The distinction is between money purchase benefits, flexible benefits that are not money purchase benefits—in other words, cash balance benefits—and benefits that are not flexible benefits, previously defined as safeguarded benefits. There are also transferable benefits, which are benefits

“by virtue of which this Chapter applies to the member.”

This is all quite complicated stuff. One of the fears is that the changes in terminology, and the reuse of previously familiar terms to mean completely different things, significantly increase the amount of confusion being created. Instead of just removing the current statutory requirement that all benefits be transferred if a member wants to transfer any benefits, the effect here is to prohibit schemes from having rules that require transfer of other categories of benefits if the member wants to transfer only one category, or that

“prevent a member who exercises a right under this Chapter in relation to a category of benefits from accruing rights to benefits in another category.”

Again, the NAPF makes the point that that last provision is “incredibly wide”. It points out that schemes do not let members participate in various sections willy-nilly; there are all sorts of rules about who can accrue what sorts of benefits and under what circumstances. The fact that somebody has asked for a CETV in one section of the scheme should not entitle them to benefits in other sections, but that is the way that this provision has been written. Perhaps the Minister could comment on whether that is what he really intends.

New clauses 14 to 16 seem to allow the Secretary of State to forbid draw-down from schemes that give members a guaranteed return, because draw-down can only be from money purchase benefits. That seems odd as well. Perhaps the Minister could tell us whether he or his officials discussed that with anybody before producing these new clauses. Certainly, the NAPF tells me that it is not aware of any discussions about that with it, or with anybody else. It well understands that schemes with guarantees must comply with the funding regime, but it does not understand why they should not be allowed to do draw-down or UFPLS—uncrystallised funds pension lump sum. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that.

The Bill requires members of defined benefit schemes to have received independent financial advice before being permitted to transfer into a defined contribution arrangement, unless they have pension wealth amounting to less than £30,000. The NAPF is concerned that that will impose a requirement that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to meet. People will be required to prove that they do not have pension wealth in excess of £30,000, which will be very difficult for the average saver. There is the potential for a lot of confusion for savers attempting to assess their level of pension wealth. They might not realise that previously crystallised pension assets will be counted towards that threshold. They might find it difficult to assess the current value of such assets.

The average person may well not understand—nor should they be expected to understand—that the £30,000 will be measured not by the current CETV system but using the methodology created to measure benefits against the lifetime allowance, information that members are not currently entitled to get from other schemes. As a result, many defined benefit members will not be able to exercise their rights in the way that the Bill intends. The NAPF urges that savers should be able to access a total of £30,000 of defined benefit benefits calculated on a CETV basis, regardless of any additional defined contributions savings that they may have. Will the Minister respond to that point?

As with the previous group of amendments, I ask the Minister to set out his intentions on the regulations that are envisaged. He gave a clear and helpful response to my earlier question, but as he is well aware, it is good practice where regulations are referred to in primary legislation for Members who are scrutinising that legislation at least to have a draft in front of them when determining whether they support the provisions. The Minister said that it was not possible to give the costs for trustees because there was not yet a draft of the regulations. I think he will accept that it is very difficult for Members to decide whether to support these provisions if the House has not been told the cost for those who have to operate the regulations. Telling Members that the Government have no idea, at this stage, of what the cost of all this will be for everybody makes it impossible for us to do the job that we are required to do in properly scrutinising the costs and benefits that the legislation provides.

I was rather down-hearted by the content of the Minister’s previous answer, but I will ask the question again as regards these measures. Does he anticipate bringing forward the regulations on the same sort of time scale as the one he indicated earlier? Is there any prospect at least that draft regulations might be available to Members in the other place when they scrutinise the Bill? Does he expect that, as he said before, the majority of the regulations will be subject to the negative rather than the affirmative procedure? Will he draw the House’s attention to any exceptions, as he did last time, and point to those that will be subject to the affirmative procedure?

I am not going to urge the House to vote against any of the measures before us. I look forward to hearing the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) speak about his amendment. I have to tell the Minister that the House is being placed in a pretty unsatisfactory situation. I hope that even though we have not been able properly to scrutinise these measures because of the lack of information to support that scrutiny, he might encourage us by saying that those in the other place will have a better chance to do so.

Pensions and Social Security

Debate between Richard Graham and Stephen Timms

Wednesday 13th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms]

We have made it plain, in all the three uprating debates since the election, that in our view there would have been a case for a temporary move from RPI to CPI uprating, as a contribution to reducing the deficit. Unfortunately, the Government decided that this should not be a temporary move, but a permanent move—or so we thought. Now it turns out that they are not even uprating in line with CPI for a large part of the benefits, but the position is the one that I have set out.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm whether the change from RPI to CPI, for the pension indexation of Labour party agents, is temporary or permanent?

[Stephen Timms]

I think the hon. Gentleman is asking me a question about the administration of the Labour party on which, I am afraid, I am unable to assist him.

It is worth reflecting on the history of the triple lock. In its first year, it was announced but not actually implemented. If it had been implemented, it would have produced, from the Government’s point of view, an embarrassingly small pension increase. The Minister, sensibly, chose to override it and instead apply a larger increase that in that year was in line with RPI. At its first outing, therefore, it failed. In its second year—last year—it was actually implemented, and delivered an increase in line with CPI, along with working-age benefits. This year it is being applied again, and for the first time it is delivering something better than CPI uprating—a point made by the Minister.

The increase in CPI, as measured last September, was 2.2%, and the uprating amount in line with the triple lock is 2.5%. So that is it: in comparison with the CPI uprating, which until recently was the Government’s policy for working-age benefits, the triple lock has delivered a higher pension by a paltry 0.3%. Of course, if it had been applied in the first year, it would have been less than the CPI uprating. The triple lock has delivered a higher pension of 0.3% over three years—a rather derisory achievement. It is clear that the triple lock has been something of a damp squib. Of course, if it was something other than a damp squib, the Chancellor would have vetoed it long ago.