Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 15th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Guy Opperman]

The Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill is a one-year Bill by reason of the pandemic. Last year, as you will be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, we changed the law for one year to increase state pensions by 2.5% at a time when average earnings had fallen and consumer price inflation had increased by half a percentage point. If we had not taken this action, state pensions would have been frozen.

This year, average earnings growth is estimated to be unusually high, distorted by the cumulative effects of a natural economic reaction to the coronavirus pandemic and the response to the supportive measures introduced by the Government to protect livelihoods. The figure for average weekly earnings from May to July—the measure used for uprating earnings-linked benefits—has grown at 8.3%, which is over two percentage points higher than at any time over the past two decades. Recognising this covid-related distortion, the Government are setting aside the earnings link for one more year, 2022-23, and continuing the double lock of at least inflation or 2.5%. The triple lock will be applied again in the usual way for the basic and new state pensions from the following year.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

Of course I understand why the Government have decided not to increase the state pension by 8%, but is it still their intention that the value of the state pension should, over time, at least keep track with earnings?

[Guy Opperman]

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that we remain committed to the triple lock. This is a one-year-only Bill. This will be a continuation of the policy that the Government introduced as part of the coalition in 2010 and have continued to pursue on an ongoing basis since then. There is no intention to change that.

[Stephen Timms]

rose—

[Guy Opperman]

I will make some progress.

It is right that I address these Lords amendments, Madam Deputy Speaker, because, as you rightly outlined, they engage financial privilege in that they interfere with the financial arrangements made by the elected House of Commons. That alone, I respectfully submit, is sufficient reason to disagree with the Lords amendments. However, it is also right that I address directly the point that was made by the House of Lords that invites the Secretary of State to measure earnings as if they were not actually growing by 8.3%. I assure the House that there is no robust way of calculating them as if they were not.

The independent Office for National Statistics has responsibility for producing economic statistics to the highest possible standards. ONS experts investigated whether it was possible to produce a single robust figure for underlying earnings growth that stripped out impacts from the pandemic, and concluded that it was not possible. Alongside the actual earnings growth figures, the ONS suggested a possible indicative range of 3.6% to 5.1%. These figures do not have national statistics status. Indeed, the ONS itself includes heavy caveats on the issue and advises caution in approaching it. The Bank of England also cast doubt on identifying a figure that could be relied on. The ONS said:

“There are a number of ways you can try to strip out these base effects, but no single method everyone would agree on. We have tried a couple of simple approaches…Neither approach is perfect…Our calculations of an underlying rate are there to help users understand base and compositional effects, but…there remains a lot of uncertainty about how best to control for these effects.”

It said that the statistics therefore “need to be” treated “with caution”.

We believe it would be reckless in procedure and in law for this or any other Government to set a precedent for uprating benefits or pensions using a methodology that is not robust and for which there is no consensus. That is why the Government have decided to suspend the earnings link in this year of exceptional and anomalous earnings growth. Instead, we decided to apply a double lock underpinned by the established consumer prices index published and approved by the ONS. This approach was also recommended by the Social Market Foundation and other commentators, and very strongly by this House on Second Reading, Report and Third Reading. That is the legislation that this House passed to the Lords, and that is the legislation I would urge this House to send back to the Lords.

I remind the House that over the two years of the pandemic the Government will have ensured that the pensions covered by this Bill will have increased by much more than prices, by reason of the 2.5% increase last year and the link to CPI this year. In those circumstances, I commend this House to reject the House of Lords amendments and agree that we proceed with this one-year Bill by reason of the pandemic.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden]

I will avoid going into energy policy in Northern Ireland, given previous actions, but the hon. Member is right to place that on the record. His constituents in Strangford should be grateful to him not just for making that point but for backing the Lords amendments when we come to the Division.

The Red Book suggests that, by scrapping the triple lock, the Treasury will save £5.4 billion in 2022-23, £5.8 billion in 2023-24 and £6.1 billion in 2024-25. The Chancellor is clearly balancing the books on the backs of pensioners who continue to get a raw deal from a pensions system that they have paid into their whole lives. I caution the Minister that that is an electorally courageous move for a party that has generally enjoyed higher levels of support among pensioners. Indeed, I will be particularly interested to see how our Scottish Conservative colleagues try to sell this latest broken promise to the electorate north of Coldstream.

The SNP wholeheartedly opposes the British Government’s triple lock betrayal and urges the House to support the Lords amendments. There may be a couple of hundred extra MPs in the Division Lobby with us tonight compared with the last time the House looked at this in September, but we know that the Tory Government will use their majority to plough ahead and vote down their lordships’ amendments regardless. My constituents in Glasgow East will therefore conclude once again that the House does not work for pensioners and it certainly does not work for Scotland. The only way to do things differently is with the normal powers of independence, and I suspect that this tawdry Bill will only hasten that cause further.

[Stephen Timms]

In my intervention on the Minister, I asked if it remained the Government’s intention that the value of the state pension should, over time, at least keep track with earnings. He declined to confirm that it did, so it may be that the Government’s policy has changed. Ever since Adair Turner’s pensions report was published in 2006, Government policy has been that the state pension should keep track with earnings, not just with prices as was previously the case. I suppose we must conclude that there has been a change in approach.

[Guy Opperman]

rose—

[Stephen Timms]

I will gladly give way to the Minister. Hopefully he will clarify the position.

[Guy Opperman]

I think the right hon. Member misheard or misunderstood me. This is a one-year-only Bill; after that, we revert to the current legislation and state pensions will increase at least in line with earnings. That is what I thought I made clear.

[Stephen Timms]

The Minister did indeed say that in response to my intervention, but that does not answer the question. The question was: do the Government intend the value of the state pension, over time, at least to keep track with earnings? I was hoping that he would reaffirm that. I do not think that is controversial—it is a policy long held by the Labour Government, the coalition Government and this Government—and I hoped that he would say that that was still their intention, even though in the current year, for reasons that we all understand, the value of the state pension will fall significantly behind the increase in earnings.

As I hope I made clear in my intervention, I think it is entirely reasonable not to increase the state pension by 8% this year; I completely understand the case for not doing that. It looks as though we will get an increase of around 3%, in line with CPI. The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), who spoke for the SNP, talked about the likely rates of inflation, and, depending on increases in prices and earnings next year, it is quite likely that the state pension will never catch up with earnings unless there is a catch-up initiative of some kind. The Lords amendments would provide such a mechanism. If there is not a catch-up at some point, that would be contrary to the Government’s long-held intention that the state pension should at least keep track with earnings. The fact that—as the Minister has now told the House twice—it will get back in line with the triple lock next year does not solve the problem, because there is a significant backwards move this year. Will there be a catch-up initiative at some point? It looks and sounds as though there will not.

Keeping the value of the state pension going up in line with earnings was a key pillar of the new pensions framework set out in the report by Adair Turner and his fellow commissioners John Hills and Jeannie Drake, published in 2005 and 2006. The settlement’s key elements were that the state pension should keep track with the increase in earnings over time, and auto-enrolment. It was accepted by the Government then and by every Government since.

The importance of that needs to be spelled out. It is not just about being more generous to pensioners and helpful to older people. It is important because it ensures a sound foundation for pension saving, so that people auto-enrolled into pension saving through that successful initiative, which we have all celebrated, are not being encouraged by the state into a bad deal. If the value of the state pension will no longer at least keep track over time with earnings, some people will be better off spending their money now, rather than saving into the pension pot that they are being auto-enrolled into, and later relying on the means-tested safety net of pension credit.

If the state pension slips behind earnings, modest pensions accrued through auto-enrolment will become worthless, because those who claim them in due course will not get above the means-tested threshold and they will still have to depend on pension credit for their income in retirement, and the fact that they have saved into a pension will do them no good at all. That will be a growing problem if the level of the state pension is allowed to slip behind the increase in earnings.

If that does happen, people who are looking forward and saving but are going to end up with fairly modest pensions should instead spend the money at the time they earn it, rather than save it in a pension that, in the end, is not going to take them above the means-tested threshold and so will not give them any additional income. That is why what the Minister is arguing for is such a threat to the success of auto-enrolment. Auto-enrolment will no longer be a sound basis for pension saving if the level of the state pension is allowed to drift below the level of earnings.

People must be able to trust in the state pension under the policies of the Government. They have been able to do so up to now, and now they will not. That raises a pretty fundamental question about the future of the Government’s pensions policy. There is a real danger in allowing, almost by sleight of hand albeit for reasons that we all understand and sympathise with, the state pension to fall permanently behind the increase in earnings and weakening the pension framework that, as far as we all know, is still the basis of the Minister’s policy.

We should not allow that to happen. We need either a measure, and the Minister needs to reassure us that there will be, such as a catch-up initiative to make sure that the state pension over time—not this year, but by next year or the year after—will keep track with the increase in earnings, or the House needs to accept the amendment agreed with a significant majority in the other place, because that keeps the pension framework in place and keeps it effective. There is a real worry if there is a significant falling behind. If there is a 3% increase in the state pension at a time when earnings have gone up by 8%, that will be a one-off 5% fall in the state pension behind the level of earnings. Depending on what happens to earnings growth, which will certainly not carry on at 8%, and on inflation rises next year, that fall could well be locked in for good and the pension framework will have been weakened.

I hope that I have made it clear why this is actually quite important. It is not just about whether we are being generous enough to pensioners. The question is: are we keeping in place a robust and reliable framework for pension saving based on which people can plan with confidence for the future?

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

May I say that we in the Opposition, and I think Members on both sides of the House, take pride in the expertise of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms)? Time and again, as Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, he has warned the House —both sides of the House, at times—about the approach that needs to be taken if we are to have a stable social security and pensions regime. I pay tribute to the work he does.

I am an ardent advocate of the coalition Government’s policy on the triple lock. That seems somewhat ironic, given the history of this policy, but I am. The historical background is that I was a total opponent of Mrs Thatcher’s breaking of the link between pensions and earnings. To be frank, the state pension still has not recovered from breaking that link. I was elected in 1997, and at the end of Conservative rule in 1997 the basic state pension would have been 50% higher in value if Mrs Thatcher had not broken the earnings link in 1980.

From 1997, I prepared alternative Budgets to the new Labour Budgets. Gordon Brown had a sense of humour about that, and when I was on a platform with him recently—when I was the shadow Chancellor—he said, “Actually, he’s always been the shadow Chancellor,” because I was producing alternatives to his Budgets. In every alternative Budget, I put forward the restoration of the link between earnings and pensions. I did so because the breaking of that link had undermined the progress we had seen until then in improving the state pension and lifting pensioners out of poverty. That is why I was a strong supporter of the triple lock when the coalition Government introduced it. Despite a decade of the triple lock, however, the basic state pension would still be 37% higher if the earnings link had been maintained. That means that today a single pensioner on the basic state pension would be £2,662 a year better off, and a pensioner couple would be £4,277 a year better off, if the link had not been broken by Mrs Thatcher all those years ago.

According to figures on pensioner poverty from Age UK, there are 2.1 million pensioners living in poverty in our country at the moment, up from 1.6 million in 2014—a 30% increase. What is interesting about this, and not shocking to some in this House, is that the majority of pensioners living in poverty are women. In addition, pensioners from black and Asian communities are about twice as likely to be living in poverty.

What I find interesting are some of the individual examples we can bring to the House about what this means. I remember that, the last time energy prices rose, I had a constituent who used her bus pass to stay on the bus all day to keep warm. Such stories about the reasons why people were living in such fuel poverty were not uncommon. I remind the House that this year fuel bills are increasing on average by £139 and they are expected to rise again next year, so I predict that we will have more of our pensioner constituents going cold this winter and, if we are not careful, in future winters as well, especially as, as has been said, inflation is now likely to be 4% and some are even predicting 5%.

I just wonder what this row is all about, because I support the amendments. I would have given the 8%, because I do not believe that people should break the principle of a manifesto commitment in such circumstances and I believe the additional top-up would have worked. However, the Altmann amendment is moving towards a 5% increase and the Government will award a 3% increase, so the difference we are talking about—this is the argument—is about £2.75 a week. Even if we went to the full amount of the 8%, there would only be an additional £7 a week between the 3% and the 8%. Are we really having a row in this House about robbing pensioners of £2.75 a week? I just find it unbelievable that we can even contemplate that.

I have seen the range of costings, but I have examined the DWP estimates on the effect of the Altmann amendment. They said it would cost £1.3 billion in ’22-23; that was in comparison with the uprating with prices. I was in the House a few weeks ago. We are arguing about an additional £1.3 billion for pensioners. Actually, a £25 billion corporate tax break was given away by the Chancellor in the Budget. It will be £12.5 billion next year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Guy Opperman]

It is in the Bill that it only lasts for one year. The hon. Gentleman should really read the Bill. It is not that difficult; it only runs to two pages and two clauses.

[Stephen Timms]

Will the Minister give way?

[Guy Opperman]

No. I have given way once already to the right hon. Gentleman, and I have answered his point on two occasions.

The Bill is for one year only. After that, it will revert to the current legislation, and state pension will increase at least in line with earnings. The triple lock will, I confirm, be applied in the usual way for the rest of the Parliament. I would point out to the House that last year, earnings fell by 1% but we still legislated to allow state pensions to be increased by 2.5%. As a result of the triple lock, as I say, the full yearly basic state pension is £875 more than if it had been uprated solely by earnings. The increase is £2,050 in cash terms.

[Stephen Timms]

Will the Minister give way?

[Guy Opperman]

No. This is a two-clause Bill introduced by reason of the pandemic. The law will last for only one year before reverting. I commend the progress made by the Government on this issue, and I invite the House to reject the Lords amendments.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Monday 8th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

Unemployment support is now at the lowest level in real terms for more than 30 years, even though the economy has grown by more than 50% in real terms over that period. As a proportion of average earnings, it is the lowest ever—lower than when Lloyd George introduced unemployment benefit 110 years ago. Why has unemployment support been set at this historically extremely low level?

[David Rutley]

It is always important to have a safety net, but it is also very important to make sure that we get people into the world of work, and that is what our focus is, as I have said repeatedly in my answers today. With 1.1 million vacancies and with a plan for jobs, that has to be our focus.

Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill

Stephen Timms Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 20th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), who makes an important contribution to the work of the Work and Pensions Committee. I echo his words of appreciation and good wishes to the hon. Members for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) and for Colchester (Will Quince).

The Bill reduces an increase in the state pension that the Government’s triple lock policy would have delivered. I understand why it has been done, but let us not kid ourselves; we have a growing problem with pensioner poverty, after a quite long-sustained improvement following the introduction of pension credit 18 years ago. The charity Independent Age has analysed the Government’s households below average income statistics. Its analysis shows that pensioner poverty has started to increase again since 2012, with 18% of pensioners—more than 2 million people—in 2020 living in poverty after paying housing costs, of whom more than 1 million are in severe poverty. This is a significant challenge and it is getting worse. Of the English regions, the problem is particularly acute in London. There is no room for complacency about pensioner poverty.

The Bill will increase the standard minimum guarantee of pension credit by 2.5% or inflation—whichever is the greater—next April. When the Minister responds, will he tell us what the Department will do to increase take-up of pension credit so that more people can benefit from the increase? The most recent figures show that only six in 10 of those who are eligible for pension credit are claiming it, and that only 76% of the total amount of pension credit that could have been claimed is claimed. That is quite a significant reason why the problem of pensioner poverty is rising.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)]

I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Member for making that important point. In preparation for this debate, I read an incredible stat: in Wales alone, about £214 million of pension credit is not claimed. Increasing take-up would be an easy way to deal with the growing tides of pensioner poverty, but the key thing with pension credit is that it is also a gateway to other support.

[Stephen Timms]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That is why Independent Age has called on the Government properly to research who is not claiming pension credit, and to draw up a plan to increase take-up over five years.

Research by academics at Loughborough University found that maximising pension credit uptake could lift three in 10 pensioners out of poverty and reduce the number living in severe poverty by half. When the Secretary of State came to the Select Committee in July, I asked her whether the Department would bring forward an action plan. She replied that there had been a “media day of action” in June to encourage take-up of pension credit, and told the Committee:

“We will continue to advertise it in a different way but I am not anticipating a big action plan, no.”

That is disappointing. Given that the Bill will deny pensioners an increase that the Government’s policy appeared to promise, I ask the Minister to look again at further steps to increase pension credit take-up.

My name was also on the reasoned amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), which, as he reminded the House, was not selected. However, I want to comment on the reasoned amendment that was selected, which states that we should reject the Bill because it

“fails to increase key benefits, such as making permanent the uplift to Universal Credit.”

Let me pick up that specific point. As the amendment drafted by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green pointed out, the money that the Bill will save the Government next year would almost deliver the £20 a week uplift to universal credit next year. Many Members across the House are deeply worried by the plan to remove the uplift next month. The Select Committee’s call to at least postpone the removal of the uplift was unanimous. There are lots of different kinds of worry, which I will outline.

First, this is not the right time, because the furlough scheme is about to end. We are told that Ministers’ intention in introducing the uplift was to protect people who were becoming newly unemployed, but there will be a surge of newly unemployed people when furlough ends. Ministers told the Select Committee last week that the Government have no estimate of the number of redundancies that will follow the end of the furlough scheme, but the most recent figures showed that 1.6 million people were furloughed at the end of July. Surely the consideration given to people who became unemployed at the start of the first lockdown should be given to those losing their livelihood next week as well. What justification could there be for treating them differently?

Secondly, since the decision to introduce the uplift—especially in the past month—we have seen a surge of price rises. September’s inflation figure was a record, reflecting increased food prices in particular, and earlier this afternoon the House was considering the current steep increases in energy prices. This cannot be the right time to take £20 a week away from everyone receiving universal credit. The Select Committee recently heard evidence of people having to skip meals before the uplift was introduced. Well, their position will be a good deal worse if the uplift is taken away in a couple of weeks, because the prices they now face are so much higher, and have become so much higher in just the last few weeks.

Thirdly, what justification can there be for reducing universal credit to a historically low level? If the uplift is taken away, support for unemployed families will be the lowest in real terms for more than 30 years. The economy has grown by more than 50% in real terms over that period, but we are being asked to agree that support for unemployed families should be no higher at all in real terms than it was 30 years ago. As a proportion of average earnings, support for unemployed families will be the lowest since the modern welfare state was introduced in 1948. The Library tells me that it will be lower as a proportion of average earnings than it was when unemployment benefit was first introduced in 1911.

We are told that the Government’s priority is levelling up. This policy is not levelling up; this is a policy of grinding down. Social security has a job to do—an important job that we all recognise needs to be done. Pushing it inexorably downwards when prices are surging upwards means that it cannot do that job. People cannot focus on getting a job if they are worrying about whether they can afford to eat their next meal.

Speaking to the Committee last week, Ministers from the Department could give no reason at all for the Government choosing to set the rate of universal credit so low, other than as a consequence of historical accidents. They said that the Government had made no assessment of the impact of ending the £20 a week uplift on people claiming, nor of how many people would be pushed into poverty as a result. The Legatum Institute has today published research suggesting that the number of people in poverty will go up by 840,000, including 290,000 children, if the uplift is removed. The Government have also made no new estimate of the annual cost of keeping the uplift.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that often in the briefings used there is a kind of mistake in that they talk about this as being an unemployment benefit? It is not, because it combines tax credits, so putting investment into this is more likely to get people through and into work than taking it out. That is the point I was going to make but was not able to.

[Stephen Timms]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a very important point that I agree with. It is a vital fact, often not understood, that universal credit is an in-work benefit as well as an out-of-work benefit. I think that 40% of universal credit claimants are in work. We have taken evidence in the Select Committee from working parents receiving universal credit who are having quite a hard time at the moment and are going to have a very hard time indeed if they lose the £86 a month that they will if the uplift is removed.

The cost of keeping the uplift, the figure that we are given, is £6 billion a year, but—the hon. Member for Amber Valley drew attention to this in the Select Committee last week—that figure was calculated when lockdown was still in place and job vacancies were much lower, so presumably the cost would be less if the uplift was kept.

The Bill misses the chance—the Liberal Democrats’ reasoned amendment gives us the opportunity to reflect on this—to address this very serious flaw in the Government’s current intentions. We are heading into an extremely difficult period for both working families and unemployed families who depend on universal credit, because of price rises across the board.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)]

I thank the 13 colleagues who have contributed to a wide-ranging debate. The Bill makes technical changes to set aside the earnings link for 2022-23. We will instead increase the relevant pensions and benefits by at least the higher of inflation or 2.5%. This approach will ensure that pensioners’ spending power is preserved and that they are protected from the higher cost of living, but it will also take into account the difficult decisions elsewhere across public spending.

The practical reality is that many issues were raised tonight, not least pensioner poverty. I would respectfully remind the House that pensioner poverty is going down, not up. As a result of the triple lock since 2010, the full yearly basic state pension has increased by £2,050 in cash terms. There are 200,000 fewer pensioners in absolute poverty, both before and after housing costs, as compared with 2009-10, and material deprivation—an alternative way of measuring poverty—is at an all-time low of 6% of pensioners.

[Stephen Timms]

Will the Minister give way?

[Guy Opperman]

One second.

It is worth reminding ourselves that the spending on state pension used to be £99 per person, and less than £60 billion in total—when in fact the right hon. Gentleman was the Pensions Minister under the Labour Government. Those figures are now up to £137 or to £179, and to £105 billion.

[Stephen Timms]

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way, and I am delighted he is still in his post. He talked about pensioner poverty, but rather idiosyncratically, he is using the absolute measure. The much more widely used measure is the relative measure of poverty, on which the analysis of Independent Age is based, and on that much more widely used measure, pensioner poverty is of course going up.

[Guy Opperman]

I am not going to repeat the points I have made, but I manifestly disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. I would point out that we could add on the £24 billion of top-ups that this Government put forward over and above the £105 billion of state pension, so with respect we are in disagreement. There is also a significant degree of support for winter fuel, NHS prescriptions, free eye tests, the over-75s free TV licence and a variety of other matters.

Universal Credit and Working Tax Credits

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Commons Chamber

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

Just this week, the official jobs statistics showed that more people are getting back into work and there is a record number of vacancies. That is a tribute to the British people and businesses. It shows that our plan for jobs is working. It shows that our comprehensive and unprecedented support for citizens and corporations as well as the NHS, in trying to protect lives and livelihoods, has worked. After the terrible personal and economic impact of covid, boosted by the successful vaccination roll-out, Britain is now rebounding.

It was right that we took prompt and decisive action to support our nation during this challenging time. We had the job retention scheme, the self-employment grants, the VAT changes, the business rates relief, the suspension of evictions for people and businesses who were renting—I could go on. We could only do that, though, because we went into the global pandemic with strong economic foundations built as a result of 10 years of Conservative measures to restore the nation’s finances after the financial crisis on Labour’s watch, when, memorably, there was no money left. Those measures included a sustained focus on supporting people to move into and progress in work through universal credit, with the highest level of employment ever seen in this country just before covid hit.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

If this cut goes ahead, with £20 a week taken off universal credit, it will reduce the support for an unemployed family to the lowest level as a proportion of average earnings at any time since the welfare state was established after the second world war. How can that possibly be justified?

[Dr Coffey]

As I will probably say a bit later as well, this was indeed a temporary uplift, recognising the financial impact on people newly unemployed and that the uplift would be somewhat of a cushion for their financial circumstances. However, do bear in mind all the other support that we have given to help families get back on their feet, all the other elements that we have used to help people manage the cost of living, as well as the extra welfare grants that we targeted specifically through local councils. They have all been actions to help people, and we are helping people back into work, and better-paid work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I very much welcome the argument that the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) has just set out, and I am grateful to him for reaffirming his support for the £20 a week rise. Like him, I want to focus on the question of adequacy.

If this cut goes ahead, it will reduce real-terms support for an out-of-work family to the lowest level since Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister. The economy has grown by more than 50% in real terms since then, but the Government’s proposal is that support for unemployed families should not have grown at all over those 30 years. That support will be about one seventh of average earnings, which is, as I said in my intervention on the Secretary of State, the lowest proportion of average earnings it has been since 1948. The Secretary of State made no attempt to justify why it was so low. I invited her to do so, but she did not, and of course it cannot be justified. The House of Commons Library tells us that, if we go back to 1911 when unemployment benefit was introduced, it was set at a higher level as a proportion of average earnings than the system will deliver if this cut goes ahead. The cut will take effect just as we are seeing prices surge, including food prices, as we have seen in today’s inflation figures, and energy bills, with the Ofgem price cap lifted.

The Work and Pensions Committee heard last week from a lone father of two children who told us what this was going to mean for him:

“The uplift sent some relief and for that to be removed is going to leave us with that big question again: do I go hungry, do my kids go hungry or do we keep the house warm?”

Somebody worrying about how to buy their next meal is not going to be able to focus on finding a decent job. Taking away £20 a week will leave the level of support below the basic minimum that is needed and that we require the system to provide.

The cut will hit working families hard as well. The Committee heard from working lone parents who will lose £86 a month from their income. One of them told us that

“if one of the children gets a party invite—which some weeks is my worst nightmare because then I have to find the money for them to be able to do that—it is kind of a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul all of the time anyway. There have been months where I have to decide which bill I am not going to pay this month...you are constantly playing catch-up on utilities particularly...The extra £86 a month has allowed for us not to be doing that so much.”

And that is a parent who is in full-time employment. If this cut goes ahead, it will reduce support for working parents and unemployed parents below the basic minimum that we all want people to have to enable them to look for a job, or for a better job, and to care for their children—things we all want them to do. We will instead be imposing grinding hardship on a very large number of people at a time of surging costs and inflation. Taking away the £20 a week now will mean that the level of support provided will be less in real terms, given today’s inflation figures, than the support that was available going into the pandemic.

The Government have lost touch with what people are having to deal with. The Secretary of State’s claim that people could make up the extra £20 a week by working an extra two hours is simply wrong. Governments do lose touch, but this House must not. We must retain a recognition of the realities that people are dealing with. We need to grasp what this will do to families, even though Ministers do not. It is not just about numbers on a spreadsheet. Half of those claiming universal credit only started doing so during the pandemic. They are not returning to their former level of support. Many will have to get used to a lower income than they have ever had to cope with, and that will come as a rude shock to those who were convinced at the 2019 election, maybe for the first time, that the Conservative party understood what they were dealing with. Every former Work and Pensions Secretary since 2010 opposes the cut, as the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire reminded us. It will leave the system unable to do the job we need it to do, and the House must reject this cut.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Monday 13th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

The estimated cost for a year of the extension of universal credit is about £5 billion. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has set out, and we have updated the plan for jobs today, we want to invest in people to make sure that they can not only get into work, but get into better-paid work as well. That is why with a variety of levers, such as the lifetime skills guarantee, and all the work we are doing for people out of work at the moment, including the sector-based work academy programme, alongside some of our other programmes, we have a really good record of getting people into well-paid work, and that is where our focus has to be.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

Single parents who are in work told the Work and Pensions Committee last week how hard they are going to find it to sustain the £87 a month fall in their income that this cut will deliver. One witness told us that he is going to have to skip meals to make sure that his children do not have to. Surely social security must be better than that.

[Dr Coffey]

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will direct that person to go and have a chat with the work coach. I do not know the status of that individual, exactly what paid employment they are in right now or their situation with childcare, but I remind him that 85% of the cost of childcare can be claimed by people on universal credit. One of the directions we want to encourage individuals to go in is to go and talk to their work coaches so that we can help them get on in life and be more prosperous.

Pensions Update

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Tuesday 7th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

Is it still the Secretary of State’s view that it is important that the level of the basic state pension keeps track with earnings over time, as the coalition pension reforms assumed? If so, will it not require some further adjustment after these two exceptional years? Given that pensioner poverty was starting to increase before the pandemic, after a long period in which, as she said, that did not happen, what will her Department do to increase the currently very low take-up of pension credit?

[Dr Coffey]

In response to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman’s question, the legislation is there regarding the earnings link and we are maintaining that. We will be doing further analysis to understand what proportion of median earnings the pension will be, but I have no plans to change aspects of it. We think it is a sensible approach that we have taken to redress the balance, which had moved away.

Forgive me, but I have forgotten the second part of the right hon. Gentleman’s question. [Hon. Members: “Pension credit.”] Okay. The thing about pension credit is that it is split in two: the income guarantee and the savings credit. As I said to the House, our estimate is that 75% of people we think could be eligible take up the income side of pension credit, but the savings side has a much lower take-up. That is because sometimes when people do the calculation, it may be just 1p or 2p a week and they may not think it worth while to do the whole application. However, even with the savings credit side of pension credit come things like the free TV licence and access to other benefits, so we encourage people to take it up. With the income side, we estimate that three in four eligible pensioners are taking it up.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Monday 28th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Will Quince]

The hon. Gentleman knows that I will not be able to comment on live litigation, but what I would say is that we do have a comprehensive childcare offer, both as a Government and specifically as a Department. I would also say that, unlike the previous benefit system, in which childcare costs could be up to 70% recoverable, in universal credit the figure is 85%, so it is a far more generous system.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has told the Work and Pensions Committee that cutting £20 a week from universal credit in October will reduce unemployment support to the lowest level for over 30 years at exactly the point when unemployment is being increased by the ending of the furlough scheme, and that it will also pull 400,000 people, including many children, below the poverty line. What assessment will the Minister make of the impact of that cut on child poverty before the cut goes ahead?

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Monday 17th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

Hard-working, law-abiding families without indefinite leave to remain have not had as much support as others during the covid-19 outbreak because of the effect of the no recourse to public funds condition. Some of those families have been able to benefit from the job retention scheme, so how will they be supported after that scheme closes in September?

[Will Quince]

The right hon. Member knows that we are restricted, as per legislation, in what we can do in relation to the benefits system and those with no recourse to public funds. I know this is an issue that he cares very passionately about and has raised numerous times. I would certainly be very happy to raise this issue with the Immigration Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster)—and if we have a meeting, I will certainly invite the right hon. Member along.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Monday 8th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

My hon. Friend is right to point out that removing the threshold has enabled a number of institutions to apply directly to kickstart. The example he highlights was already under way, but it just shows some of the fantastic opportunities that this scheme can offer young people. By creating so many of these roles, with the wider variety of roles that we are seeing, we are reducing the risk of long-term unemployment for hundreds of thousands of young people, and we will continue to keep the House updated on progress.

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

Kickstart is only for young people claiming universal credit. Many disabled young people claim employment and support allowance instead. Will the Secretary of State consider extending kickstart to include disabled young people who are not eligible for it at the moment?

Income Tax (Charge)

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Thursday 4th March 2021 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to respond to the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) in this Budget debate. I think it is fair to say that, since the start of the pandemic, our priority as a Government has been to protect the lives and livelihoods of people right across this country. That is why my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, over the last year and again in this Budget, have taken unprecedented steps to support British people and businesses, including help for those who need it most. That includes further measures using our fiscal firepower to revitalise our economy, get people back into existing jobs and encourage investment to help create new jobs.

Let us remind ourselves of the steps we have already taken. Through the furlough scheme, we have supported more than 11 million jobs. This unprecedented cushion of support has helped millions of people to stay connected to their employers who could otherwise have been made redundant. Through the self-employment income support scheme, we have helped more than 2.5 million self-employed workers with grants and business loans, as well as targeted support for those on benefits.

Not everyone was fortunate enough to be furloughed, though, and through the £20 a week increase to universal credit, we ensured that those who faced a drop in earnings or were newly out of work received extra support during this difficult period. I am proud of our swift action at the start of the pandemic and throughout to support an extra 3 million people through universal credit and other benefits. That has been thanks to the hugely dedicated staff of the Department for Work and Pensions, which I consider to be the Department of Wonderful People, who delivered that support competently and compassionately.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will have seen the evidence that disabled people have seen a big increase in their grocery costs during the pandemic, and yet people claiming employment and support allowance have had no extra help at all. Why have they not been supported?

[Dr Coffey]

As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, and as the Chancellor has said repeatedly, there was a specific reflection at the time of introducing the extra £20 a week uplift to recognise the issues regarding people who were newly unemployed. I am conscious that the right hon. Gentleman’s Select Committee is undertaking an inquiry on people with disability and employment, and we will provide evidence in due course, when we can perhaps discuss that matter further.

[Dr Coffey]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting the really good work undertaken by officials. I would also like to thank my ministerial team, because we have worked together to do this. Indeed, arm’s length bodies such as the Health and Safety Executive have also done really good work in trying to ensure that workplaces are safe, helping employers to ensure that that is the case and minimising the transmission of this wretched coronavirus that we have endured. I will bear in mind his thoughts, but I do not think it is in the interests of the DWP to take on the DVLA as well.

Last week, the Prime Minister set out the road map that will lead us out of lockdown and back to the way of life that we are all eager to enjoy. As we all play our part in controlling coronavirus, and after a particularly wretched winter, we are ratcheting up for what I hope will be a spectacular summer. But we know that recovery will not be instantaneous for everyone, which is why the Prime Minister said explicitly that we would not just pull the rug out from under people’s feet as we start to see light at the end of the tunnel. That is why yesterday my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out targeted measures in the Budget that would deliver on that commitment to help people and businesses through these next few months as we open the economy and deliver on our plan for jobs, helping people who are still impacted by coronavirus to get back into work.

First, to support low-income households we will extend the temporary £20 increase to universal credit for a further six months, on a monthly basis, taking it well beyond the end of this national lockdown. Working tax credits are administered by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and claimants will receive a one-off covid support payment of £500—this is largely driven by the way that system works operationally. That is in addition to all the other Government support for people on low incomes, be that support with some of the most expensive bits of the cost of living, through things such as the increase to the local housing allowance, which is going to be preserved in cash terms, or with other elements, such as through council tax support.

[Stephen Timms]

The Secretary of State said that the universal credit uplift would be extended on a monthly basis. Does that mean that if circumstances warrant it, the uplift will be continued beyond September of this year?

[Dr Coffey]

The clear intention is that this is an extension of six months, because that will take this well beyond the aspect of the national lockdown. I was particularly making the point about monthly payments because I have always been clear that this is about UC continuing on a monthly, rather than one-off, basis, and that would be the preferred approach. I am pleased that the Chancellor has agreed with me on that and on making sure we keep that regular payment uplift for the next six months.

Secondly, we have self-employed people on UC, and in addition to the further help through our self-employment income support scheme we will suspend the minimum income floor for a further three months. That means that hundreds of thousands of people will continue to receive financial support based on their current actual earnings, rather than on the assumed amounts we would normally undertake through the gainfully self-employed test.

Thirdly, the further extensions of the furlough scheme to the end of September represent a huge investment in people, keeping them connected to their current jobs and employers. I urge employers and employees to take full advantage of this additional time of furlough to get ready to return to work, and do the training and refresher courses, so they are ready to hit the ground running as their business fully reopens. Taken together, I believe that these temporary extensions will provide essential support as we move along the road map, restart the economy and transition to our full recovery.

Thanks partly to the extension of the furlough scheme, the OBR is now expecting a better jobs outlook than it was in its November forecast, with unemployment now expected to peak at 6.5% at the end of this year, instead of 7.5%, which was its previous forecast. Although that represents a third of a million fewer people than the OBR previously forecast, I fully recognise that the OBR is still predicting that, sadly, unemployment will rise by a further half a million people compared with now. As we have always said, we cannot, sadly, save every existing job, but my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out yesterday extraordinary measures of support to help businesses stay in business and to create new jobs. The supercharged super-deduction on capital investment is exactly the kind of initiative that can stimulate businesses to invest here in Britain, leading to brand new jobs.

I am very conscious of what the hon. Member for Oxford East said, which is why we have undertaken significant work across government on our labour market sector plans in working through the opportunities we can create, not only by resurrecting some businesses and sectors that have been temporarily affected by the lockdowns but to bring in new jobs. I particularly commend initiatives such as the freeports, which we know will be creating tens of thousands of extra jobs right around the country. I was delighted that Freeport East was successful, as it covers the ports of Felixstowe and Harwich, one of which is in my constituency. It was a great pleasure to work with businesses across Essex and Suffolk to make that happen, particularly with the creation of a green hydrogen energy hub. That is really important investment that will be coming now thanks to the freeport initiative, and I know that the same will be happening right across the country. I can see people in this Chamber, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), whose constituents will benefit from her ports coming together to be a freeport.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I expected the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) to complain about the fact that this was a massively tax-raising Budget. I am not sure whether, perhaps in a coded way, he was doing so, but it did reverse policies on income tax thresholds and corporation tax rates that have been central to Tory policy for 10 years.

We all understand the reason why the Chancellor made these announcements, but I must say it was unedifying to watch him yesterday hand out funding on such a brazenly party political basis. However, the real criticism of yesterday, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) spelled out in her opening speech today, is the absence of vision. The Financial Times says this morning that

“the needed long-term vision for a country facing an uncertain future is absent.”

We need much better than that.

I want to focus on points of particular interest to the Select Committee on Work and Pensions. I am relieved that the £20 uplift to universal credit will not be scrapped this month. That should have been announced weeks ago; I have no doubt that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was doing her level best to achieve that, but it should not have been left until yesterday. However, the uplift is going to be scrapped in September. Tax rises are being delayed until next year, because, as the Chancellor recognised, we will not have a proper recovery until then. Why then is the universal credit cut not also being deferred for 12 months, as the Select Committee recommended? A total of £20 a week is to be cut from unemployment benefit in September, just as furlough ends and unemployment reaches its peak. The House of Commons Library tells me that the only precedent for that is the 10% cut in unemployment benefit introduced by the National Government in 1931.

There is no additional support in the Budget for people claiming legacy benefits. The Government should not simply ignore the needs of all those who, because of Government policy, claim benefits relying on outdated computer systems. Disabled people, above all, have lost out. They have seen big cost rises in the pandemic—I hope the Secretary of State, having told the Committee that she had not seen evidence of that, has now seen the clear evidence—through not being able to shop around as normal, but they have had no extra help. That is unforgiveable.

The previous Work and Pensions Committee welcomed the commitment in 2019 to new statistics for measuring poverty based on work by the Social Metrics Commission. That has ground to a halt. The Secretary of State said last month that she has no plans to restart it. Baroness Stroud, the Social Metrics Commission chair, told the Committee that

“we are going into Budgets and Spending Reviews and we are spending £200 billion, but we have no sense at all as to the impact on poverty.”

The Committee has commissioned me to write to the Prime Minister to ask for an assurance that the Government remain committed to this work, and, if they are, for a timetable to restart it.

The DWP is investigating historic underpayments of the state pension to some married women, to widows and to people over 80, which were first highlighted by the former Pensions Minister Steve Webb. The OBR Economic and fiscal outlook report says that

“it will cost around £3 billion over the six years to 2025-26 to address these underpayments, with costs peaking at £0.7 billion”

in the coming financial year. Those are eye-watering numbers, which we look forward to hearing more about.

The Chancellor announced yesterday, as the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) rightly reminded us, a new highly skilled migrants scheme. For that to work, problems faced by existing highly skilled migrants need to be addressed. Many have been left high and dry in the pandemic by the “no recourse to public funds” condition, as research published today by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants points out. As the hon. Lady correctly said, large numbers have been refused visa renewal on spurious grounds of historical tax discrepancies, long since corrected and sorted out. A new scheme will require a welcoming, not a hostile, environment, and that will require a major change at the Home Office.

I welcome bringing forward to April the increase in the period over which universal credit advances will be recovered to 24 months, and the reduction, as the Secretary mentioned, of the maximum rate of deductions to 25% of the standard allowance. The Committee had recommended that that should be done “no later than April”, so I particularly welcome that. We also called for the cap on deductions to be reduced further, to 10%. The minimum income floor for self-employed people claiming universal credit will be suspended for a further three months until the end of July. Where is the evaluation of the minimum income floor first announced in 2018? The Red Book announced investment to tackle “welfare fraud and error.” Fraud and error is at the highest level ever recorded for a DWP benefit with universal credit. It will be very interesting for the Committee to see exactly how that new investment will be spent.