Valedictory Debate

Robert Neill Excerpts

Friday 24th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), who reminded me that, as a young girl, she lived in Bromley. I am delighted to see her here.

Like my hon. Friend, I started my career in local government, and it is exactly 50 years since I was elected to Havering Council. I was younger and somewhat more acned, which indicates something about the quality of social life that I had at the time. I was lucky enough to take responsibilities on the council quite early, and I enjoyed doing so. I was chairman of the environment committee—we had a committee system back then, rather than portfolio holders—and I was able to initiate important measures, such as cleaning up the streets of Havering, Romford and Hornchurch. That triggered a headline in the Romford Recorder that read, “Dog mess Neill steps in”, which may have set the general tone for what was to be the early part of my political career.

I then briefly found myself on the Greater London Council. That was useful, because I managed to keep pace with Ken Livingstone in the bar from time to time, which came in handy later when I became the London Assembly Member for Bexley and Bromley, and leader of the Conservative group on the London Assembly. Of course, that background in London politics has enabled me to meet many of my hon. Friends who are here today. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster is one, and my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), who is sitting next to me, is another.

As I was engaged in London politics, I was also practising as a barrister, and I will say more about that in a moment. My journey, which started 50 years ago, comes to an end today, and it has been an amazing privilege. I am not quite sure what my maternal grandfather, a staunch trade unionist, would have made of it all, but I hope he is looking down favourably.

Eventually I was fortunate enough to be elected, after a couple of mishaps. I fought Dagenham twice—Dagenham fought back. It was perhaps the only election campaign where one of my former clients volunteered to deliver leaflets for me. When I was elected at the by-election in Chislehurst, another former client came up to me and said, “Ah, Bob. I voted for you.” Given I had got him acquitted a year or so before of a £250 million bearer bond fraud, I thought that was the least he could have done. In the end, the Bromley and Chislehurst constituency came along and I was elected at the by-election.

I had become the London Assembly Member under the usual circumstances: I did not live in either Bexley or Bromley, but the people of Bexley did not want anyone from Bromley and the people of Bromley did not want anyone from Bexley. I arrived and served on the London Assembly. I pay tribute to the work that is done in local government, across the piece and everywhere. I had the privilege thereafter of being local government Minister for a time, so I know how important the work of local government is.

I have now represented the wonderful constituency of Bromley and Chislehurst for the past 18 years, and I have made many great friends there. Bromley was Harold Macmillan’s constituency; I have always felt that very strongly as I see myself in the Macmillan tradition of one nation Conservatism. I am a politician on the centre-right. In my book, the centre in that phrase is as important as the right. Long may we continue to hold to that tradition of pragmatism, compassion and sensible moderation that has been the hallmark of our party over the years, which Macmillan epitomised and which inspired many of my generation.

The seat has changed over the years, but it is a still a wonderful part of London to live in, as I do and intend to continue to do. It has been split up by the Boundary Commission. Among other things, that has triggered my decision to leave, as well as perhaps the passing of the years, although not really. I wish both Charlie Davis in Chislehurst and Eltham and Peter Fortune in Bromley and Biggin Hill every good fortune in carrying on the fight—if they are successful, as I hope they will be, at the election.

Having arrived in the House, I served as a shadow Minister and was then appointed a junior Minister at the Department of Communities and Local Government in 2010. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) and I arrived at the Department on the same day. I seem to recall it took 24 hours before the civil service would let us into the building, because a fax needed to be sent to confirm who we were and that we had been appointed as Ministers. Lo and behold, who was the then Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State Eric Pickles, but my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon?

It was a privilege to serve as a Minister. As well as local government, I dealt with the fire service. Interestingly, Eric asked me to become Minister for community pubs—I cannot think why that came about. I noticed that far more officials were willing to come with me on visits when I was dealing with community pubs than they were when I was dealing with local government pension funds. In the course of that local government work, I met the Deputy Chief Whip, my right hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), who is now sitting on the Front Bench. I appreciated David Cameron giving me the opportunity to serve as a Minister. He once described me at a Conservative councillors’ conference as “Eric’s mini me”. Somebody once said junior Ministers were there to be the Secretary of State’s human shield; well, I don’t think I was much of that.

That time in Government passed, and for the past nine years I have had the greatest privilege of my career in Parliament: to Chair the Justice Committee. The law has been central to my life and always will be. Dealing with those issues in this House, and reminding people that a functioning justice system is as important a social service as functioning education, health and care systems, matters.

My brand of conservatism, and indeed all safe forms of constitutional government, depend upon respect for institutions, checks and balances, and the independence of our judiciary. I gently say that anyone in politics who has attempted to attack lawyers for doing their job, or judges for coming to their independent decisions, is not understanding of checks and balances—that is neither constitutional, nor, I say gently, very Conservative. I hope that I have done my best to make that case, and that there will be other ways in which I can continue doing so from outside this House.

I thank all members of the Committee. We have had a magnificent team over the years. When I started, two bright young Back Benchers came on to the Committee. One is now the Attorney General; the other is the Lord Chancellor. I rather feel that I have become a sort of legal-political Banquo—not king but father of kings. It is a great source of pride to me to see that serious lawyers are still prepared to come into Parliament and carry out essential public service. Frankly, we need more of them, because to scrutinise legislation, a forensic mind and approach is of genuine value.

I also thank the Committee Clerks. They have been absolutely brilliant. We have had numbers of them, most recently Rob Cope and his team, and David Weir, who many hon. Members know, before him. I thank everybody who has worked with me in that role. I like to think that we have been consensual and dealt with things on a cross-party basis, and I hope that we have made a difference in a number of areas. My only regret in my farewell being brought forward somewhat unexpectedly is that there is still business undone that I would like to have returned to, such as the service and work of the probate registry, the situation in our prisons, and the pressures in our courts—there is still much more to do. The people who work in the justice system at every level provide a great service to our country.

I have also had the chance to pursue other causes dear to my heart, and I hope to be able to continue that, too. I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Gibraltar, which is a matter of great pride to me. Gibraltar is a proud part of the British family, and we owe it to Gibraltarians to have a good deal with the European Union in order to enable the free-flowing border that is absolutely essential to Gibraltar’s wellbeing. It was our choice—although not my personal choice—to leave the European Union. That was the democratic decision, but as many people will know, it placed Gibraltar under particular pressures. We owe it to them not to obstruct any sensible deal. I am sure that that will be the case in the hands of this or any future Government, because we have built cross-party consensus on supporting Gibraltar.

I have also been able to do that sometimes very dangerous thing in politics of owning up to an interest in the arts. I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on opera, and am delighted to have worked across parties with the Mother of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), and the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) in our campaign to rescue great institutions such as the English National Opera from at least some of the damage done by the cuts by Arts Council England. I have never understood the inverted snobbery that we sometimes have about public figures talking about an interest in the arts. I got interested in opera when I was a teenager, when I did a bit of amateur acting, would you believe. I never saw any contradiction in going to Sadler’s Wells or Covent Garden, up in the gods on a Friday, and going to Upton Park to watch West Ham on a Saturday. It ought to be perfectly possible to enjoy both, and I hope that we have a future generation of politicians just as willing to talk about their interest in theatre, music and all other art forms as they are about sporting activities. They are all part of what enriches our souls.

Finally, the other thing that I have dealt with is stroke care. I very much hope to continue with that as it is very personal to me, as the House will know. For Ann-Louise’s sake, and the sake of many others, I want to continue to ensure that we get better stroke care. We are great at the lifesaving bit, but we need an awful lot more to be done for therapy and recovery thereafter.

And so, as the greyhound of destiny catches up with the electric hare of fate, to quote those immortal words that we used to get on “I’m Sorry I Haven’t A Clue”, I had better draw my remarks to an end with some thank-yous. I say a particular thank you to my office staff, who have looked after me throughout—to Vanessa and Rory, who are up in the Gallery, to Jane, to Lewis, to Sam, who was with me for many years, and to Joanne in the constituency office. They have all been stars. They have been very tolerant of me. They have collected things that I have left in all manner of unlikely places. I could not thank them enough. They are like a second family.

I, too, thank all the members of staff of the Commons, at every level, from the Doorkeepers right the way around. All of you have been magnificent. I do hope that the Smoking Room will remain financially viable when I have gone. I shall always miss all of you.

The final thank-yous are to my family: to Anne-Louise, who has always been there for me—now it is my turn to be there for her—my two wonderful stepchildren, James and Victoria, and my little grandson, Aneurin, who is one this week. We are a very ecumenical family in political terms, as colleagues can tell from the names. For him, I want to make sure that the world is better when he grows up than it is in some respects at the moment. That is an ambition that we all have. Maybe watching this at some point will be my old mum, who is 100 in September—I just hope it is in the genes.

As for what the future holds, we will see. My practice was, of course, always at the criminal Bar. I found it useful sometimes when the witnesses could not see where the cross-examination was coming from. Anyone who knows the criminal Bar will not be surprised to hear that I had a message earlier today from my old head of chambers, Jim Sturman KC, saying, “Ring the clerks about coming back.” Who knows, but it has been the privilege of my life to represent Bromley and Chislehurst and its wonderful people—my friends and neighbours—and a privilege to have had the chance to do the jobs that I have done. Now is the right time for me to go—before, as happens with all old lawyers, I lose my appeal.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Sir Robert—Bob, as you are known to everybody—we are going to miss you. Love to Anne-Louise. You have always been there for her; we know that. Maybe there will be a bit more time now for opera. We wish you incredibly well.

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

Robert Neill Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 6th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I am delighted, as I am sure everyone is, to see you back in the Chair, Dame Eleanor.

I also do not seek to delay the Bill’s progress. New clause 14 is a probing amendment that raises an issue to which the shadow Minister alluded: the failure of the system, however good its intentions, to deal adequately with people who have fluctuating incomes, particularly those who are self-employed.

The way in which the system interacts with self-employed people has always led me to believe that, with all due respect, the vast majority of people advising Ministers, and the government machine as a whole, do not understand the self-employed or how they work. All too often, I am afraid, those who work for the Government in full-time, regular jobs seem to think that self-employment is something to be wary of, and that it can lead to a risk of fraud or a lack of seriousness. There is a fundamental culture gap in the system of government.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

Of course, this leads to a differential effect in communities, such as mine, that have a high incidence of self-employment. The disadvantage to my community is quite clear.

[Sir Robert Neill]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman is right. This can apply to particular communities and to particular sectors. I suspect it is not deliberate, as I do not believe Ministers are looking to treat people unfairly, but I genuinely think there is a lack of understanding in how the system works for the self-employed and the degree to which fluctuating incomes are not captured by the scheme, as currently devised. That is why I urge the Government to review the position.

I particularly ask the Government to review how the minimum income floor interacts with self-employed people on varying incomes. I will explain it as briefly and as swiftly as possible. Eligibility for each of the three cost of living payments depends on receiving a universal credit payment of at least 1p during the corresponding qualifying month, as set out in the Bill. The position was the same for the original cost of living payments set out in the Social Security (Additional Payments) Act 2022.

Equity, which represents self-employed people working in the creative industries and the theatre, challenged the 2022 Act as unfair and detrimental to the entertainment industry, and it seems to me that it presented good evidence. I refer to my interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on opera and as a member of the all-party parliamentary group on theatre. I regret to say that Ministers did not make any changes, and I ask them to look into this in more detail and to think again as more evidence emerges.

When the minimum income floor is applied to self-employed universal credit claimants, their universal credit payments are, of course, reduced. For some claimants, the MIF reduces their payments to zero. The MIF is assumed earnings for UC claimants who are deemed gainfully self-employed, irrespective of whether those earnings are being received in a particular month. It is a calculation based on the national minimum wage and in a typical case the assumption is 35 times the hourly national minimum wage per week. On 2022-23 figures, that equates to £311.85 a week or £1,351.35 over a UC monthly assessment period.

The effects of that are unduly harsh for the self-employed with variable and unpredictable incomes, because it removes UC payments during periods of low earnings. The difficulty for people in the theatre is that, although they may well have periods when they are busy and above the threshold for any benefits, there may be weeks and months when they are not getting paid and the system does not pick that up. During those months when they are not qualifying they are likely to fall into debt, needing to borrow, and into arrears. That cannot be a fair way to deal with this. At a time when the entertainment industry and the theatre have been particularly hard hit during covid and the lockdowns and are still, in some respects recovering, the position seems to me and to many others to be unjust. It particularly hurts those who are starting out in their careers in the industry. I have been self-employed in the past and I know that at least one of the Ministers on the Bench has, but there is a difference between being in an established set of barristers’ chambers with a significant workflow coming through and being a young actor, musician or creative starting out. The inability to draw such distinctions and to be more nuanced in approach needs to be looked at, and I ask Ministers to do that.

The figures that have been demonstrated by Equity in looking at the DCMS workforce estimates show, for example, that between 2019 and 2021 the number of young people aged 16 to 24 working in music and performing and visual arts fell by 19%, which compares with a 14% drop among people aged 55 to 64. That was probably largely due to people leaving because of the impacts of the lockdown on that sector, but it is happening more among the youngsters, for the reasons I have set out. The number of black, African, Caribbean, black British people—those with minority ethnic backgrounds —in music, and performing and visual arts has fallen by 39%, which compares with a fall of some 9% among people with white ethnic backgrounds. Again, the people who find it harder to access careers in the arts sector to start with are the ones being most hard hit, because their incomes are more precarious, as it often takes them longer, by the nature of the business, to establish themselves. I am sure that is not an outcome Ministers wish to see, but that is the way the system, without any reform, is currently operating.

That situation is likely to get worse. In the first round of cost of living payments some 80,600 UC claimants were subject to the MIF, of whom 4,860 earned below their MIF and received a nil payment—that is about 6% of them. We are likely to be talking about a lot more people in 2023-24, because more claimants are now subject to the MIF than they were in the previous regime. That is simply because some 219,000 claimants were in a 12-month start-up period and therefore exempt during the qualifying period for the first payment. That of course has now ended for that cohort, so they will be subject to the MIF. If we were looking at the same percentages, we would be talking about another 13,000 people. That leaves us with the figure that Equity suggests of about 17,000 being affected.

This issue has been raised before, including by the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), the Chair of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions. He raised it with Ministers back in November 2022, and I am grateful to him for doing so. He asked the Secretary of State to consider a way to rectify the position of claimants who had had a nil payment during that period, but I regret to say that the Secretary of State rejected that request. He said that, among other things, simplicity of processing in the timeframe required and an inability to readily identify people affected were the reasons. I am not sure that simplicity of processing is, of itself, a good justification for causing unfairness to people. I thought that the Government were about fairness, more importantly, than they were about administrative simplicity. The suggestion that having the three qualifying periods reduces the risk of someone missing out completely does not work for every sector. It may work in some industries, but it does not work for the theatre and other sectors. The lack of flexibility and the rigidity need to be addressed.

Against that background, I hope that the Government will reflect on this matter. We want to encourage people into our creative industries, which is a thriving sector that does a great deal for this country. They work well for us economically, in social matters and for our cultural heritage, but it is hard for young people, in particular, to start out and this is a precarious life. We ought to have a system that more readily recognises that. It is not, as has been suggested, that the MIF is dealing with cases of fraud here; these are not fraudulent people, and we can sometimes worry so much about fraud that we exclude the honest from the system. We ought to get a balance on that. It has also been suggested that this was to weed out hobbyists who cannot sustain themselves in self-employment. I know lots of people in the creative industries who are not hobbyists. They work immensely hard to sustain themselves in self-employment but their incomes fluctuate to such a degree that they lose out on supplements and benefits that others who happen to be in slightly different forms of work with a slightly different pay structure get. That does not seem to be fair, which is why I tabled my new clause. I hope that the Government will reflect on it and undertake at the very least to review the matter again, look again at the evidence and meet people in the sector. I am not sure how often Ministers have face-to-face meetings. They should meet the people affected. Let us try to find a fairer way of making the Government’s objectives work for those people.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is not often that I find myself pleased in this place, but may I say how genuinely pleased I am to see you back in your place, Dame Eleanor? It is just right to see you in that place, so it is great to see you back.

I rise to speak to the amendments and new clauses that stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends. I am also happy to offer support for the amendments tabled by members of the Select committee, namely the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) and the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), as well as for new clause 7, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams). I also support new clause 12, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) but not selected.

The House will recall that when I spoke on Second Reading, I stated my party’s support of the broad thrust of what the Bill seeks to achieve but was clear that it fails to address some of the wider issues impacting our social security system, which have only been highlighted further by the cost of living crisis. It is important to remind ourselves that these amendments, and in fact this entire Bill, are the product of the continuing cost of living crisis, which remains the single biggest priority for my east end constituents. We cannot forget that all of this comes against a backdrop of households continuing to face extremely challenging economic conditions. As such, there should be no doubt that my party welcomes the support laid out in this Bill, but we think that it does not go far enough to meet the needs of the poorest households struggling with the cost of living crisis. We have therefore tabled these amendments, in good faith, to try to make the Bill better.

The one-off cost of living payments in this Bill, as set out in the Chancellor’s autumn statement, are only a temporary fix, when it is clear that more permanent solutions are needed. Rather than offering one-off payments to shore up the incomes of struggling families, the British Government should reverse the damaging policies that are impacting the most vulnerable in our communities. They should be ending benefit sanctions, ending the benefit cap, ending unfair assessments, ending the rape clause, ending the five-week wait, ending no recourse to public funds. That list sometimes feels endless, but it is not, and the social security system is fixable if we have the political will. The amendments we have tabled today show that and highlight just some of the ways in which the British Government can point the social security system towards the people who actually use it and ensure they have adequate support, perhaps taking a leaf out of the Scottish Government’s book.

My amendment 2 ensures that universal credit claimants who have been sanctioned are not denied the vital cost of living payments. As the Bill currently stands, to qualify for the cost of living payment, claimants must be entitled to at least 1p in the month preceding the date specified by the Secretary of State in clause 2. However, if a claimant is sanctioned, their full entitlement could be taken away for a period of time. Many of those who have a sanction imposed will receive a nil award, which means that they do not receive the payment despite having an underlying entitlement to universal credit for that period. I have heard of cases where claimants have missed the bus or had to drop their children off at school, which has resulted, I am afraid, in their being late or missing an appointment at the jobcentre. That in turn has led to their being sanctioned and losing their universal credit for a number of weeks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mims Davies]

I thank the hon. Lady, and I think the point here is that this is not solely about sanctions. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow), this is about getting cost of living payments to the people most in need at this challenging time. SNP Members are continually talking about sanctions, and never talking about getting people into work and progressing. It is a continual bleating, and I think it is right that the hon. Lady reassesses the word “guff” in relation to fairness between the taxpayer and those people who of course need to be engaging with work coaches. It is important that we know what is happening with our claimants. Leaving people to their own devices and not seeing what is going on is no way to support them, and I do hope that SNP Members will look at that.

I am going to talk a little more about sanction cases: 97.6% of sanctions in the quarter up to October 2022 were applied for failing to attend a mandatory appointment at a jobcentre. These cases can often be resolved quickly by engaging with claimants, so that they turn up to the next appointment. If someone with no universal credit award due to sanctions re-engages with us, they could get one of the later cost of living payments. That is why it was so important that we look at those hard edges, and as I have told the Committee, we did look at them.

Clause 3 sets out the eligibility criteria for each cost of living payment, based on the entitlement of child tax credit or working tax credit. This clause ensures that only individuals who have been paid tax credits by HMRC in respect of a day in the qualifying period will receive a cost of living payment. Clause 4 is applicable to those who are entitled to more than one social security benefit or tax credit, so that they do not get duplicate cost of living payments.

Clause 5, on the additional payment for disability, means that there is a cost of living payment of £150 for people who receive an eligible benefit, and this will enable us to make payments to up to 6 million people. I fully recognise that disabled people may be likely to face extra costs to deal with the impact of higher inflation, as we have heard in the Chamber this evening, so I am pleased that we can make this additional payment. I can also confirm that many will qualify for both the disability payment and means-tested benefits, to a maximum of £1,050 in total in what is covered by this Bill.

Let me make a little progress in trying to whip through the clauses. On the administration of the payments, clause 6 makes appropriate arrangements for the recovery of overpaid cost of living payments. This means that, where a cost of living payment is overpaid, including as a result of fraud, recovery rules that apply to its qualifying benefit will apply to the cost of living payment. Cost of living payments are paid automatically, without the need to claim, and there is no separate right of appeal against a decision on entitlement. Individuals can, of course, exercise their right of appeal against the decision on entitlement in relation to the relevant qualifying benefit.

Clause 7, on the co-operation between the Secretary of State and HMRC, allows for relevant data to be shared to ensure that cost of living payments reach the right people, and to avoid the duplication of payments. In the event that a payment is made by HMRC when it should have been made by the DWP, or the other way around, this clause allows us to treat the payment as if it was made by the correct Department, and it avoids the need for recovery of cost of living payments in these circumstances.

I am pleased to confirm to Members that clause 8—on payments to be disregarded for the purpose of tax and social security—ensures that any additional payments made are exempt from tax, will not affect a person’s entitlement to social security benefits or tax credits, and are not subject to the benefit cap. This means that every person who is entitled to a cost of living payment will receive every penny in their pockets.

Clause 9 amends the Social Security (Additional Payments) Act 2022 to ensure that provisions relating to overpayments and recovery of the qualifying disability benefit also apply to disability cost of living payments. This clause also amends regulations made by HMRC to simplify and clarify their position on the recovery of overpaid cost of living payments in the next financial year. These are essentially tidying-up provisions that modify existing legislation to clarify our policy intention.

Clause 10 sets out the definition and interpretation of certain terms used in the Bill. Clause 11 explains the procedure for the laying of regulations. Clause 12 defines the territorial extent of the Bill and specifies that its provisions extend to England, Wales, Scotland and now to Northern Ireland. These are standard clauses.

I will briefly respond to new clauses 1, 2, 3, 7, 8 and 14 laid respectively by the hon. Members for Glasgow East (David Linden), for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) and for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill).

New clause 1 appears to require the Government to publish analysis of the impact on household incomes of an earlier backstop date for the second and third qualifying day. New clauses 2, 3, 7, 8 and 14 require the Government to publish analysis on the impacts of the Bill on various groups, and I would point to a number of existing analytical publications. The Treasury has already published a distributional analysis of the autumn statement decisions; this shows the impact of the cost of living payments on households across the income distribution. Alongside this Bill, we have published an impact analysis which uses administrative data to look at the characteristics of those receiving the cost of living payments. This includes consideration of different characteristics such as age, gender and geographical location, including England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. My Department’s annual “Household below average income” publication looks at numbers in both relative and absolute low income and covers a wide range of characteristics, as I have mentioned.

I am pleased to say that my Department is planning an evaluation of the cost of living payments. In addition, we will consider what further information we can release in future. I hope, given the amount of data we are making available, hon. Members will withdraw these amendments.

[Sir Robert Neill]

rose—

[Mims Davies]

Finally, I would like to mention the minimum income floor, which I think my hon. Friend wants to raise. He has spoken this evening to the Minister for Employment about fluctuating earnings; I entirely understand the challenges that he has set forward in Committee and I know that he will be meeting the Minister. I worked in media where there are fluctuating earnings and fully understand the points he and others have made; we do not think, however, that it is right for the state to provide indefinite support through the welfare system for those who persistently declare low earnings from self-employment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Robert Neill]

I am glad that the Minister recognises that that was not the point made in relation to creative industries. I am grateful for the constructive approach by her colleague the Minister for Employment towards a meeting. I hope that we can have a meeting with the relevant all-party groups so that Ministers can directly hear the views of those who work in the sector and, as suggested by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), find a constructive way forward which we can all sign up to.

[Mims Davies]

I thank my hon. Friend and agree that it is right that we raise the situation of that sector. He has made his point and we have heard from other Members across the House about the same scenarios.

New clause 13 tabled by the hon. Member for North East Fife requires us to make all payments under this Act by 1 April. As I previously stated, we have deliberately staggered payments over the course of the next year to ensure that as many people as possible will qualify for a payment at some point. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw the motion.

I think I have made all my points.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Neill Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

As ever, my hon. Friend talks common sense. It is really important that people realise that the heart of our Way to Work campaign is ABC—any job, better job, career. We know that having a job already allows people to build a lot of skills so they can progress, perhaps in the job of their dreams. Through support such as the DWP youth offer, work coaches will continue to help unemployed young people move into a range of roles. The skills and work experience that people can gain from a job will help them to progress.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

16. If she will make an assessment of the impact of the universal credit minimum income floor on performers and creative workers with unpredictable and fluctuating earnings.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (David Rutley)]

We recognise that earnings can fluctuate for all self-employed people, including performers and creative workers, and that it takes time to establish a business. That is why we offer a 12-month start-up period, giving claimants time and support to grow their earnings and reach their agreed minimum income floor before it is applied.

[Sir Robert Neill]

I understand the objective of the minimum income floor, to get into sustainable employment, but perhaps the Minister does not appreciate that for people in the performing arts and creative sectors it is not just a short-term period for which they have unpredictable and fluctuating incomes. By the nature of theatre, music, performance and so on, shows are cancelled at short notice. In fact, established performers with viable careers still get hit disproportionately by the minimum income floor. Would it not be sensible to collect the data on a sector-by-sector basis, so that we do not have a one-size-fits-all approach but can tailor it to achieve the objective he wants, which is to reach the need of each specific sector?

[David Rutley]

Universal credit supports self-employed people and the Department ensures fairness by treating all sectors equally. I have already talked about the 12-month start-up period, which is designed to strike the right balance between supporting claimants to make a success of their business and protecting public funds.

Work and Pensions

Robert Neill Excerpts

Monday 16th November 2020 Ministerial Corrections

The following is an extract from Work and Pensions topical questions on 19 October 2020.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

A number of my constituents are receiving letters out of the blue saying that the Child Maintenance Service is writing off unpaid payments as part of a review of historical debt. Will my right hon. Friend tell me the basis for the review, what the criteria are for the cases, how many are involved, and by what means personal advance notice of the changes is being given to the people concerned?

[Dr Coffey]

My understanding is that the policy relates to people who have had child maintenance arrangements for a very long time. There comes a point when there is an element of understanding the different debts. My hon. Friend will be aware that, in a way, this is a very odd arrangement, with the state effectively becoming the arbiter between two parents. The only people who lose are the children. That is why I encourage everybody who has a responsibility towards their children—currently 111,000 children are owed £187 million by parents who refuse to pay up—to get on and do the right thing by them. We should not end up having to rely on the state to arbitrate between two parents.

[Official Report, 19 October 2020, Vol. 682, c. 753.]

Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey).

An error has been identified in the response I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill)

The correct response should have been.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

A number of my constituents are receiving letters out of the blue saying that the Child Maintenance Service is writing off unpaid payments as part of a review of historical debt. Will my right hon. Friend tell me the basis for the review, what the criteria are for the cases, how many are involved, and by what means personal advance notice of the changes is being given to the people concerned?

[Dr Coffey]

My understanding is that the policy relates to people who have had child maintenance arrangements for a very long time. There comes a point when there is an element of understanding the different debts. My hon. Friend will be aware that, in a way, this is a very odd arrangement, with the state effectively becoming the arbiter between two parents. The only people who lose are the children. That is why I encourage everybody who has a responsibility towards their children—as of the end of June 2020, £362 million in unpaid maintenance was owed by parents—to get on and do the right thing by them. We should not end up having to rely on the state to arbitrate between two parents.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Neill Excerpts

Monday 19th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mims Davies]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising what sounds like a concerning situation for that family. We recognise that we are currently in an unusual and challenging economic period, and I am sure that the Minister for welfare delivery, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince), will have taken note of that particular case. I am sure we will be able to look at that once again, and I thank the hon. Lady for raising the matter.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

What recent assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the Child Maintenance Service in collecting child maintenance.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies) [V]]

This Government have made clear their commitment to supporting both paying and receiving parents, especially during this difficult period. Around three quarters of paying parents are paying towards their liability. The Child Maintenance Service will continue to pursue all cases where appropriate, and I stress that anyone found to be abusing the system risks being subject to the full extent of our enforcement powers.

[Sir Robert Neill]

I am sorry to say that the Minister’s words do not sit with the experience of some of my constituents, who feel that the Child Maintenance Service has failed them in pursuing outstanding claims. I shall give the House one example. In an appeal against a CMS decision to the tribunal in February, it was discovered that a private pension had not been disclosed. The CMS should therefore have recouped the shortfall, but there was no contact until May. When the CMS was asked how much it would recoup for my constituent, she again heard nothing until she got a letter saying that the CMS was writing off historic debt and would not pursue it. That is letting that person down, not supporting them.

[Mims Davies]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue, and I stress that those found abusing the system are subject to the full extent of our enforcement powers. The CMS will pursue these people, where appropriate. Our key partners are in communication with us to make sure that we secure the appropriate court dates for cases impacted by the covid-19 pandemic and that we are establishing our full and normal range of enforcement services. Where payments have been missed we are taking action to re-establish compliance, and I am happy to look at the issue for him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Tomlinson]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Our forthcoming Green Paper will look specifically at the importance of advocacy in the system, and at increasing it. That need should have been identified at the initial application. If he sends through the details, I will be happy to ensure that the claimant is not lost from the system.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

  A number of my constituents are receiving letters out of the blue saying that the Child Maintenance Service is writing off unpaid payments as part of a review of historical debt. Will my right hon. Friend tell me the basis for the review, what the criteria are for the cases, how many are involved, and by what means personal advance notice of the changes is being given to the people concerned?

[Dr Coffey]

My understanding is that the policy relates to people who have had child maintenance arrangements for a very long time. There comes a point when there is an element of understanding the different debts. My hon. Friend will be aware that, in a way, this is a very odd arrangement, with the state effectively becoming the arbiter between two parents. The only people who lose are the children. That is why I encourage everybody who has a responsibility towards their children—currently 111,000 children are owed £187 million by parents who refuse to pay up—to get on and do the right thing by them. We should not end up having to rely on the state to arbitrate between two parents.[Official Report, 16 November 2020, Vol. 684, c. 2MC.]

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Neill Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Justin Tomlinson]

As part of this review we are looking at consistency across DWP work, as well as working with the NHS and hospices to try to have a more consistent and sympathetic approach. Where claimants do struggle to get to jobcentres, there are always opportunities for home visits.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

8. What recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Justice on improving access to employment for ex-offenders.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)]

I work closely with my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor as does the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince). The Under-Secretary also works with the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer). We have visited HMP Downview to see at first hand the excellent work of our prison work coaches, of which there are 130 based across the country. We have identified prisons that currently do not have a work coach as part of delivering on our manifesto commitment to break the cycle of crime.

[Sir Robert Neill]

I am grateful for that progress, but can the Secretary of State tell me when we will be in a position where all prisons will have this provision? Will she also tell me what progress there has been in ensuring that all prisoners are able to claim universal credit before the end of their sentence, because it is well established that access to a job or honest, legitimate benefits is one of the best means of preventing reoffending?

[Dr Coffey]

The Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, is working carefully on the pilot scheme that is currently being rolled out in certain Scottish prisons, and we are working with the Prison Service to ensure that universal credit claims are made in a safe way. This includes booking appointments at the jobcentre in advance by using a telephony-based system to avoid the risk of IT crime that could happen as a consequence.

Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [Lords]

Robert Neill Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 22nd January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms McVey]

I reiterate what the hon. Gentleman said by welcoming you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to the Chair.

The money will be collected. At the moment, what is spent and how it is spent is down to the new body being formulated. However, it will be done by Government grants and then money will be taken back—financial bodies will be paying in. Obviously, going forward, where there is most need is where most money will be going. That is how it will be viewed.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I very much welcome part 2, which does improve protections. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Justice Committee looked at this issue in relation to changes to the small claims limit in personal injuries matters? Will she bear in mind the very strong evidence suggesting that, because the likely increase in the small claims limit will mean more litigants in personal injuries cases, the current cap in relation to payment protection insurance should be extended to personal injuries cases in order to extend consumer protection? Will she consider a “fit and proper person” test in relation to claims management companies operating in this area?

[Ms McVey]

My hon. Friend always provides wise words. I can assure him that those matters will be taken into consideration.

This is not to say that claims management companies should be regulated out of existence. The Government believe that these firms provide a valuable service to consumers who may be less likely or unable to bring claims themselves. A well-functioning CMC market can also benefit the public interest by acting as a check and balance on business conduct. The measures therefore aim to strengthen claims management regulation in the round in order to enhance both consumer protection and professionalism in the sector.

The Bill ensures that those who use claims management services to make claims in relation to PPI are protected in the interim period before the FCA exercises its duty to introduce a fee cap. The Bill does this through the provision of an interim fee cap on PPI claims management services during the period between Royal Assent and implementation of the FCA cap. The Bill will cap these fees at 20% of the final compensation amount. The Association of British Insurers welcomed the claims management regulation measures, stating:

“Confirmation of tougher regulation of claims management companies cannot come soon enough for people who are plagued by unsolicited calls and texts.”

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Neill Excerpts

Monday 9th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

I am happy to assure the right hon. Gentleman that as part of the changes there is an extra £330 million support programme for those in that group. We will target support more effectively to ensure that as many of them as possible can get back into work.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

5. What steps he is taking to help ex-offenders into work.

[The Minister for Employment (Damian Hinds)]

There is a huge premium on helping ex-offenders into work for them, their families and their children’s life chances, and for reducing costs to society. Jobcentre Plus now has a dedicated resource of 150 prison work coaches who are helping to support prisoners nationwide.

[Robert Neill]

I am grateful to the Minister for his response. He will know from his own experience, and from the excellent report on supporting offenders by the Work and Pensions Committee, which my own Select Committee would endorse, that getting a job is one of the best means of preventing reoffending. As well as the work that is being done, will he consider what can be done jointly with the Ministry of Justice to ensure there is better collaboration between job centres and community rehabilitation companies so that they are joined up, given that people currently risk the cliff edge to which the report refers?

[Damian Hinds]

We work closely with the Ministry of Justice on numerous joint initiatives locally and nationally, and we are supporting the development of the MOJ’s new offender employment strategy, but I recognise that we need to improve opportunities for ex-offenders, so I welcome the continued attention of my hon. Friend and his Committee, as well as the Work and Pensions Committee report, to which we will respond in due course.

State Pension Age: Women

Robert Neill Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

What we are trying to do is what I am talking about, which is remove barriers to work, so that it is easier for these people to work. The arrival of universal credit makes it easier for people to extend the hours they work, so that they do not hit the old cliff edges under the other benefits. Paid employment maximises people’s opportunities to build up savings—the point the right hon. Lady was just making—and helps to maintain social networks, and it is beneficial to health, provided the employment takes into account the person’s broader circumstances.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I appreciate that the SNP’s proposal is not economically viable, but does the Minister accept that some women, including in my constituency, had to give up work for health reasons and were therefore not able to pay in, and they are not able to return to the workplace either? It does not seem that we have yet put in place adequate measures to be fair to those people, who cannot change their situation.

[Damian Green]

Absolutely, I quite take the point that my hon. Friend makes. Clearly, specific issues need to be dealt with for this group, and I am going through several of them now. Some of these people will not be able to work, as I made clear at the start; this touches on one of the four principles I set out at the start of my speech. Working-age benefits are specifically designed to help such people, and I wish to make it clear that this group of women will be entitled to working-age benefits. If there are barriers to their claiming them, we need to remove those barriers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Loughton]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will come on to that in the very limited time available.

I am concerned that the Government’s amendment to the motion is just another example of them sticking their head in the sand and hoping the problem will go away. I acknowledge the wisdom of Mr Speaker in selecting the Government amendment, rather than those in my name and other hon. Members, but it appears to have little to do with the subject of the debate—the effect of pension age equalisation on WASPI women. I welcome the average rise of £550 a year for 3 million women. I welcome the increases in the basic pension, which the Secretary of State talked about. I welcome the introduction of the triple lock. Frankly, however, to produce such an amendment adds insult to injury. WASPI women will not be able to enjoy those benefits for up to six further years. That is the whole point. These women will not qualify for the benefits for a much longer time and they need help now. In addition, and despite what we have heard, women’s life expectancy actually fell last year for the first time in many years. The Chancellor, understandably, recently declined to guarantee the triple lock for years to come. By the time many of the WASPI women qualify, they will not be able to enjoy the security of the triple lock. That is why I cannot support the Government amendment. I urge hon. Members to refrain from supporting it, too. Frankly, to vote for such a disappointing and inappropriate amendment would be an insult to the many WASPI women who have campaigned so hard.

I also have a problem with the SNP motion. Mr Speaker, you were lucky enough not to be here when the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) spent 36 minutes losing my vote. SNP Members have been unilaterally pushing this cause. I am grateful that they do so, but in Scotland they do not have to pay for it. That is why we never hear solutions from the SNP. The motion references the Landman report, which relies heavily on the magic money tree known as the national insurance fund. We know the fund has been in deficit and that the Government, who have a responsibility for pensions up and down the country, had to top it up. The SNP suggestion is, in reality, a pension fund-raiding exercise.

I am disappointed that Mr Speaker did not choose my amendment, simply because it asked for a dialogue to be opened up—that we prioritise looking at the most extreme cases of hardship, which we all now see in our surgeries. The amendment does not commit to specific substantial spending and it certainly does not call for a reversion to the pre-1995 status quo. We support pension age equalisation. It is just that the speed of the transition process has led to unintended consequences for a large number of women. Many hon. Members have seen cases at first hand in their surgeries. We just want to talk.

[Robert Neill]

I agree that it is regrettable that we were not able to debate my hon. Friend’s amendment. I would have supported it. Does he agree that we are where we are, and that we should not go down the extravagant SNP route? We should take the Secretary of State up on his offer of dialogue to find something constructive for those most in need.

[Tim Loughton]

I agree. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for seeing a delegation from the all-party group just a few days ago, even though there is no preparedness to discuss specific options. He has, however, offered to look at examples of hardship, particularly where women are being offered very inappropriate and impractical jobs by jobcentres up and down the country. We have examples from all over the place of women aged 65 being offered bar jobs in a nightclub or a job stacking shelves at 4 o’clock in the morning. It is just not working in practice. We need to be much more sensitive and sensible to the particular work needs of these women if they do indeed have to go back to work, and transitional arrangements cannot hold them back from doing that.

I also made the point earlier about there being just seven of these older people champions at jobcentres up and down the country. We do not need to go over the issues again. We heard them today, and we have heard them nine times before: the poor communication; the little notice or no notice of the change; the fact that women from the 1950s worked in very different environments, where they did not get equal pay or childcare benefits, or have access to occupational pension schemes, and typically worked part time. I believe if we proceed on these lines it will be a breach of trust between hundreds of thousands of women who have worked hard, brought up families and done the right thing—and some of them also have caring responsibilities—and the Government.

The state pension system is founded on the contributory principle. This is not a state benefit for which no prior commitment is involved, yet this group of women, who have been paying national insurance contributions over many years in good faith, now stand to have their reasonable expectations dashed.

I urge the Government to think again and to talk, and let us come up with a sensible proposal.