Romanians and Bulgarians (Benefits)

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I will, and I am at the moment. Since last year, we have been talking to colleagues in various countries, including Germany, about the need to deal with the Commission’s view. In a sense, the Commission is using free movement to enter the realm, I think, of social security, which has never been within its remit, and we have to challenge that. Up until now, Germany has been a little more ambivalent, but interestingly in the past two or three weeks it has suddenly begun to change its tune, and other countries, such as Spain, are coming into the group too. We have asked for urgent meetings immediately with that group—in the next two weeks—and I will raise this matter with it.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I, too, welcome the urgent question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), but I am sorry that the Secretary of State answered it in such partisan terms.

The benefits system needs to be fair, and to be seen to be fair. Over many decades, people have come to the UK and made a huge contribution to our economy and our society. The Government now need to look at the benefits and services to be provided, given the prospect of future European migration. We need a sensible and serious debate about credible changes, but the Secretary of State seems only to be floating some rather vague ideas without any sense of whether they can be delivered.

The Secretary of State plans to introduce universal credit from October, but roll-out has already been drastically delayed and fundamental questions are now being asked about the deliverability of the IT. If, as he suggested a moment ago, the Government are to change the rules in the system ahead of implementation, they risk making the delivery of universal credit even more chaotic than it is already set to be. Will he explain how the changes he now envisages will fit in with what is supposed to be being introduced already?

Over the weekend, we were tantalised with hints from Ministers that they wanted the system to be more contributory, but the changes they have made so far, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, are making it less contributory. Has the Secretary of State had a change of heart in favour of a more contributory approach? One other suggestion floated is for the introduction of ID cards. Are these the same ID cards that Ministers announced were scrapped straight after the election? Furthermore, will he and his colleagues do a much better job of enforcing the minimum wage? There have been no prosecutions for minimum wage infringements over the past two years, which has been part of the problem. Will he now put that right?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The changes are long overdue, and I would like to know why the right hon. Gentleman did not explain why the last Government did nothing about resolving the issue. He says that we should not be partisan, but he just has made a very partisan statement when an apology was all he needed to make. He needed only to say that he was sorry for the mess Labour left us in.

What we are talking about will have no practical effect on the implementation of universal credit, which, by the way, is proceeding exactly in accordance with plans. On the contributory principle—this is the point I wanted to make to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead—there is no magic wand. Let us bear it in mind that if it was a blanket contributory principle, we would end up paying a lot of benefits, such as winter fuel payments—an issue that, as the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) knows, was not resolved by his Government—to lots of people who had long since departed Britain. We are considering the matter, and universal credit will give us an ideal opportunity to embrace tax credits and, through this requirement, to start the process of change so that we can resist the pressure of paying tax credits—because they would no longer exist—to people who come to the UK for the first time and claim to be self-employed. That is the area I am looking at.

We need no lectures from the right hon. Gentleman about prosecutions for minimum wage infringements. The last Government’s record on this was so bad I wonder why the Opposition bother mentioning it at the Dispatch Box. We are trying to change it, and will change it, whereas the last Government gave way on every single issue in Europe from the moment they arrived.

Pensions and Social Security

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Wednesday 13th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. He will know that we have set a minimum increase of 2.5%, which is what we are having this year. Under that policy, it would now be impossible for us ever to go back to the days of 75p increases.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

Will the Minister confirm that the order contains a real-terms cut in the amount of the basic state pension?

[Steve Webb]

The right hon. Gentleman is well aware that the Government increase benefits in line with inflation in the year to September, as did his Government. He will know that inflation under the consumer prices index in the year to September was 2.2%, and we have increased not in line with inflation, but by more than inflation, at 2.5%.

[Stephen Timms]

rose—

[Steve Webb]

I have obviously dealt with the point, but I am happy to give way again.

[Stephen Timms]

The Minister will have heard today’s announcement that CPI is currently at 2.7%. Last year he claimed that he was introducing a substantial real-terms increase in the level of the basic state pension. On precisely the same terms he used last year, this order has a real-terms cut. Will he confirm that the order contains a real-terms cut in the level of the basic state pension?

[Steve Webb]

I well remember our exchanges last year, and I seem to recall that the right hon. Gentleman rejected that way of measuring things.

Our above-inflation increase will be £2.70 a week, taking the new level of the basic state pension to £110.15 a week. That means that from April 2013 the basic pension is forecast to be around 18% of average earnings. My right hon. and hon. Friends might be pleased to know that that is a higher share of average earnings than at any time in the past 20 years. Our triple-lock commitment means that the average person reaching state pension age in 2012 with a full basic pension can expect to receive an additional £12,000 in basic state pension over the course of their retirement.

Let me turn to additional state pensions, often referred to as state earnings-related pension schemes. This year SERPS pensions will rise by 2.2%, which means that the total state pension increase for someone with a full basic pension and average additional pension will be around £3.33 a week, or £175 a year. Unlike the Labour party, which froze SERPS in 2010, the coalition Government will, for the third year in a row, uprate SERPS by the full value of CPI.

Let me turn to pension credit. As I announced in my statement on 6 December, we have taken steps to ensure that the poorest pensioners will benefit from the effects of our triple lock. Each year the standard minimum guarantee must be increased by law at least in line with earnings. That means that the minimum increase this year would be 1.6%. However, we decided to increase the value of the standard minimum guarantee credit by 1.9% so that single people will receive the full increase of £2.70 a week, which is equal to the increase in the basic state pension, while couples will receive £4.15 a week. Consistent with our approach last year, the resources needed to pay that above-earnings increase to the standard minimum guarantee have been found by increasing the savings credit threshold, which means that those with higher levels of income will see less of an increase.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Webb]

Yes. My hon. Friend is right. The specific benefits for the extra costs of disability are all rising by the full 2.2%.

[Stephen Timms]

Will the Minister tell the House by how much the benefit paid to people in the ESA support group will go up overall under the order?

[Steve Webb]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the main rate of ESA will rise by 1%, which is just over 70p a week, and the addition that people in the support group receive will go up by 2.2%.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his explanation of the measures, albeit that it was brief. He reminded us, correctly, that this is the third year since the announcement of the triple lock for the basic state pension. There is absolutely no doubt that the triple lock has been a great success as a rhetorical device. The term has entered the lexicon, and I note that the Minister’s right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has gone one better and announced a quadruple lock for the Bill that she recently placed before the House.

While in rhetorical terms the triple lock has undoubtedly been successful, I am afraid that the reality has been rather different, because once again the increase in the state pension is less this year than it would have been if the uprating method previously used was still in place. In retail prices index terms, for the second year this is a real-terms cut in the value of the basic state pension, as well as—I made this point earlier—a real-terms cut in today’s consumer prices index rate.

[Mr Reid]

Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify what his party’s current policy is on uprating? Should it be CPI or RPI?

[Stephen Timms]

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

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

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

[Stephen Timms]

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

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

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

[Stephen Lloyd]

I have a lot of respect for the right hon. Gentleman’s honesty generally, and in particular in this area. Will he therefore agree with me that it is unfortunate that the Government in which he served as a Minister did not have a triple lock, otherwise pensioners all those years ago would not have received an uprate of only 75p?

[Stephen Timms]

Had the previous uprating RPI mechanism been in place, there would have been a larger pension increase this year and last year than has been delivered. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s comments about my honesty, so let me pay a tribute to him. As a man who is also frank, he will recognise that the last Government did an enormous amount, particularly through the introduction of pension credits, to reduce the extent of pensioner poverty. In the past, pensioners were always more likely to be poor than the population as a whole, but that ceased to be the case under the policies of the last Government. Indeed, pensioner poverty was halved, as my hon. Friends have said.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

The right hon. Gentleman highlights the pension credit, but if he truly believes that all pensioners should receive that extra money, why does he not support the Government’s idea to move towards a higher pension rate for all?

[Stephen Timms]

I am sure we will have an interesting debate on the Government’s proposals when the time comes, but there is no doubt that pension credits made enormous inroads—thankfully—into pensioner poverty in Britain.

[Mr Winnick]

Shortly after we were elected in 1997, did we not introduce both the non-means-tested winter fuel allowance, which the previous Tory Government had refused to do, and the free television licence for pensioners, which I had tried to introduce in a private Member’s Bill on Friday 16 January 1987, when the Tories opposed it with a three-line Whip?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his foresight in pushing for that change. I am delighted that, partly thanks to his work, the previous Government were able to deliver it. It is greatly appreciated by pensioners.

In my view, the triple lock has been a triumph of rhetoric, but a damp squib in reality. One can only hope that the quadruple lock delivers rather more for those following the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill than the triple lock has done, but perhaps we should be a bit kinder to the triple lock. Perhaps we should credit it at least with saving pensioners from the fate of strivers. The order locks in the strivers tax to working-age benefits for the coming years. Strivers are being hammered.

It is worth looking back at what the Minister said last year about working-age benefits. It is hard to believe now, but last year he announced a 5.2% increase in working-age benefits:

“These increases will ensure that the most vulnerable people in society are protected and that those looking for work get the support they need to move into the labour market.”—[Official Report, 23 February 2012; Vol. 540, c. 1046.]

How different is the picture today! After another 12 months of failed economic policy in which the economy has hardly grown and the Government’s forecasts for unemployment and borrowing have risen sharply, the most vulnerable are no longer being protected; they are being hammered and are paying the price for the failure of the Government’s economic policy and the Chancellor’s inability to deliver the steady growth and falling unemployment that he promised.

Let me remind the Minister of something else he said last year. He said that

“there were siren voices from some quarters suggesting that we could not afford, or that we should not go for, this inflation figure. He is absolutely right that the coalition parties decided that it was a priority. That is something that I am proud to be associated with.”—[Official Report, 23 February 2012; Vol. 540, c. 1045.]

I think we can safely assume that he is not proud to be associated with the shabby treatment of working-age people in the social security system. This year, the siren voices have won. This year, the coalition parties have decided that safeguarding strivers is not a priority. This year, and for the next two years, the most vulnerable are being kicked in the teeth. The measures will come into effect at the beginning of April, on the same day as the introduction of the tax cut for everyone earning over £150,000 a year.

[Steve Webb]

The right hon. Gentleman will have noticed that I did not use the word “strivers”. Will he clarify who he means by “strivers” and who he is excluding from that definition?

[Stephen Timms]

The term “strivers” refers to those who are working, who are often struggling to make ends meet and who are going to find things a good deal harder because tax credits are being uprated by only 1%. That is being done on exactly the same day as every one of the 8,000 people earning over £1 million a year will get a tax cut averaging over £2,000 a week. Let me remind the Minister that that will happen on the same day as the employment and support allowance paid to a single person aged over 25 goes up by 70p a week. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) reminded the House a few minutes ago about the 75p a week pension rise some time ago. This order will give the people I have just described a 70p a week increase, and that is a disgrace.

[Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, although strivers are the very people the Prime Minister has said he wants to protect, he will ultimately be damaging them as a result of the new regulations?

[Stephen Timms]

That is undoubtedly the case. The rhetoric and the reality are quite different.

[Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that the bedroom tax will also come into effect on 1 April? That means that a large group of people whose income has not gone up by very much will have to subsidise their housing costs to a far greater extent than they are doing at the moment.

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is fair to say that the bedroom tax is increasingly being seen as a hated tax across the country, as its impact becomes clearer and the date on which it will be applied approaches. It will make life a great deal harder for those people who have no option to move into a smaller place because there are no smaller places available in the council or housing association stock.

I commend to the Minister the speech made by the Bishop of Leicester in the other place in the Second Reading debate on the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill on Monday. He said of the Bill:

“It will depress hard-working families even further, remove much needed support for the vulnerable and unable to work, and potentially take us in the wrong direction for a generation, condemning countless children to poverty. It is a proposal that I cannot support.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 February 2013; Vol. 743, c. 471.]

He was speaking for Britain. The Resolution Foundation has pointed out that the measure is a strivers tax, and that well over half the savings from uprating working-age benefits by just 1% over three years will be taken from people in work, because tax credits are being cut in real terms.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) has pointed out that the provisions will hit women particularly hard. The House of Commons Library has calculated that two thirds of those hit will be women. The real-terms cut of £180 to statutory maternity pay has already been dubbed the “mummy tax”. Taking into account all the cuts that will affect a woman during pregnancy and the first year of her baby’s life, including maternity pay, pregnancy support, tax credits and child benefit, the loss adds up to an average of £1,700. So, on the day when the highest paid are getting a massive tax cut and the rich are getting a £3 billion tax giveaway, people who are striving will be hammered.

[Steve Webb]

The right hon. Gentleman’s words in Hansard will show that he is very concerned about all this. Will he therefore tell the House whether it is his intention to reverse any of these measures?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms]

The hon. Gentleman knows that we have demanded not only an inflation-level rise this year but a similar rise for both the two years covered by the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill. As to our policies for beyond the next election, he will have to await our manifesto, just as the whole country is eagerly awaiting it. It will tell him how we will put these problems right.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

Is my right hon. Friend as surprised as I am—I asked the Secretary of State for Scotland this question this morning—that it is a Liberal Democrat Minister who is about to give the biggest tax cut to millionaires the country has ever seen, while at the same time ensuring that people trying to do the right thing are worse off?

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That does surprise me very much because in opposition the Minister’s party used to champion reducing child poverty. In government, however, it has surrendered and is cutting in real terms the incomes of the poorest in what is frankly a craven surrender to the Tory party at its worst. It is implementing policies that even Mrs Thatcher did not dare propose.

[Kate Green]

My right hon. Friend is right. This order will simply make poor people poorer. Is it not absolutely cynical that, rather than face up to the fact that more children will be in poverty as a result of these miserable measures, the Government decide instead to change the definition of child poverty?

[Stephen Timms]

That appears to be what they are going to do, and it was striking that the impact assessment for the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill did not tell us what the impact on child poverty would be. After the election, the Minister and his colleagues started well and said, “Yes, we are serious about tackling child poverty; here are the figures.” They have stopped that now and it is difficult to get an answer out of them even with a parliamentary question. My hon. Friend is absolutely right—they apparently want to change the definition of child poverty, but they will not get away with it because we will be able to tell what is going on.

[Mr Winnick]

My right hon. Friend is being very generous with his time. Is he aware that, as someone who from time to time did not always agree with every aspect of the Labour Government during their 13 years—although I certainly did in the vast majority of cases—one of the things that most pleased me were the measures that lifted so many families out of poverty? Both Tony Blair and his successor as Prime Minister can be proud of that.

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is right. There was dramatic progress on reducing child poverty but, as I shall explain in a moment, all that ground will sadly be lost under the current Government’s policies. Those policies are hitting the disabled because, as the Minister said, although disability living allowance is being raised in line with the consumer prices index, employment and support allowance is not. On Second Reading of the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill the Secretary of State said that he was protecting people in the ESA support group. In fact he is not and, as the Minister confirmed, their benefit will be uprated by less than inflation—I know the hon. Member for Eastbourne has taken a close interest in that matter. Those people will see their income rise by less than inflation; they will have a real-terms cut.

As we have discussed, child poverty will rocket. The Institute for Fiscal Studies, where the Minister once had the task of compiling the statistics on child poverty, was already predicting on the basis of Government policies an increase in child poverty of 400,000 by 2015 and 800,000 by 2020.

[Stephen Lloyd]

I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s generosity in giving way. He mentioned the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Does he agree with its director, Paul Johnson, who said that

“the 1% uprating of welfare would start to put benefits back in line with earnings after welfare has grown twice as much as wages in recent years.”?

[Stephen Timms]

It would be particularly interesting to see a revised child poverty forecast from the Institute of Fiscal Studies, which I expect to appear before the Budget. We now know—as I say, these figures had to be dragged out of reluctant Ministers—that this order plus the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill will increase the number of children growing up below the poverty line by 200,000, including 100,000 in working families.

[Kate Green]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for allowing a further intervention. When Government Members say that the uprating of benefits is in line with the uprating of wages, including in the public sector, are we not talking about the exactly the same people who are facing a double whammy? Those receiving the 1% benefits uprating are the same as those receiving the 1% pay uprating.

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and we are talking about a large group of people. Indeed, the hon. Member for Eastbourne and I were on the radio together when somebody rang in whose total income was £71 a week. She was going to get an increase of 70p a week as a result of this order and she asked, “How am I supposed to manage?” To their credit, the hon. Gentleman and his friend from the Conservative party, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), could not give her an answer.

[Stephen Lloyd]

I recollect that radio programme. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will accept that the point was that surviving on £70 a week is a challenge for anyone in any circumstances, with or without a benefit uprate.

[Stephen Timms]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, but what was clear from that contributor was the despair at the prospect of a rise of only 70p a week. At a time when inflation is running at more than 2% and is likely to increase, according to the Bank of England inflation report published today, that is a very alarming prospect indeed.

[Mr Reid]

The right hon. Gentleman is being generous in taking interventions. I have been sitting listening and wondering what the Labour party’s policy is. If my memory is correct, he said earlier that CPI was currently 2.7%. Will he tell the House by how much all these benefits would have been increased if a Labour Government were in power?

[Stephen Timms]

I answered that point earlier. I was hoping the hon. Gentleman was going to tell us why, after he attacked us a few moments ago for the 75p pension rise of many years ago, he is this evening supporting a 70p increase for people such as those who are dependent on employment and support allowance in the work-related activity group. If he explained the conflict between the two positions he has taken, I would be very grateful to him.

[Mr Reid]

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will recall that I spoke in debate in support of an amendment to the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill to increase benefits in line with average earnings, and that is still my view. As he knows, the order is not amendable, so either we vote for the whole thing, including the triple lock for pensioners, or we vote against it, but my views are on the record.

[Stephen Timms]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying that he opposes what the Government are doing in this order.

I was talking about the impact on child poverty. We are expecting the revised projections from the Institute for Fiscal Studies ahead of the Budget. On the basis of the numbers that Ministers have reluctantly given us for the impact of this measure on child poverty, we will see a projected increase in child poverty of more than 500,000 by the expected date of the next election and 1 million by 2010. That is a shameful record indeed, undoing so many years of progress made in reducing child poverty by the previous Government, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) pointed out.

[Mr Reid]

I have put my views on the record, but the right hon. Gentleman has not answered the question I asked in my second intervention. What percentage increase does he think should be in the order this evening?

[Stephen Timms]

I will give the hon. Gentleman the answer I gave a few moments ago. We think there would have been a reasonable case for the Government to make a temporary change to the uprating methodology, from RPI—the previous methodology—to CPI, but unfortunately they did not do that. They came up with a proposal for a permanent change to the methodology, using CPI only, but now they are not even sticking to that and have reduced the figure further to 1%.

What if inflation rises sharply in the next few years? The Governor-designate of the Bank of England has suggested that there should be greater flexibility in the inflation target used by the Monetary Policy Committee. If inflation rises sharply, the consequences for working families—for strivers, struggling to get by at the moment and lumbered with a 1% rise hard-wired into law for next year and the following two years—do not bear thinking about. The Bank of England inflation report published today places a probability of 39% on inflation being over 3% before the end of this year. The fan chart shows possible figures of 5%. What would the consequences be for people who will see a 1% rise in their incomes for the next three years if inflation rose in that way?

Why are the Government doing this? Why have the siren voices won this year? It is because the Government’s economic policy has failed. Let us look at the three years covered by this order and the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill. Compare the spending on unemployment benefits over those three years, which was predicted in the Budget last year, with the spending predicted in the autumn statement, just a few months later. The forecast spending on unemployment benefits over those three years went up, just between the Budget and the autumn statement, by the same amount that this order and the Bill will save over those three years. That is what is happening—the Government are clawing back the increase in unemployment benefits resulting from the failure of their policies from those who receive those benefits.

[Stephen Lloyd]

The right hon. Gentleman talks about the failure of the Government’s economic policies. Does he accept two absolute facts—that this is the worst economic recession since the great depression, and that since the general election the coalition Government have generated 1 million extra private sector jobs?

[Stephen Timms]

The hon. Gentleman is undoubtedly right that this is a very serious financial crisis, although I do not remember Government Members making that point before the election. I ask him to justify to the House why, on the very day that these measures will take effect, millionaires will all get a tax cut averaging more than £2,000 a week.

[Stephen Lloyd]

Under the coalition Government, people on higher incomes will pay more tax than they did during the entire 13 years—except for 30 days—of the Labour Government, during one of the strongest and most powerful booms we had had for 40 years. Can the right hon. Gentleman defend that record?

[Stephen Timms]

What would the hon. Gentleman say to the woman we spoke to on the radio, who will get a 70p per week rise as a result of this order? How would he defend to her the fact that the Government whom he supports will give a tax cut of £2,000 a week to everybody who earns more than £1 million a year? For me, that is completely indefensible, although he may have a defence—

[Stephen Lloyd]

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the IFS and other bodies have said that under the coalition’s tax policies the wealthier will actually pay more tax than they did before?

[Stephen Timms]

It is the people at the bottom who are being clobbered by this measure, and that is clear from the analysis. The hon. Gentleman has not defended the tax cut—I do not blame him as I do not think it can be defended that millionaires should get this enormous tax cut on the very day that people such as the woman on the phone to us on Radio 5 Live will get a 70p per week rise.

[Ian Murray]

I think what the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) is trying to say is that the 50p tax rate created £7 billion of tax avoidance, so rather than going after the tax avoidance the Government have reduced the rate.

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is right: if it is an avoidance problem, the Treasury should address that.

Strivers will pay the price for the Government’s economic failure. The most vulnerable are being hammered and the rich are getting a tax cut. The solution is to get Britain back to work. That is why we have argued for our compulsory jobs guarantee. It will cost about £1 billion a year. We will pay for it by restricting the tax relief on pensions saving for those earning over £150,000 per year. We will guarantee anyone over 25 who has been in receipt of jobseeker’s allowance for two years the offer of a choice of jobs or a training position, and after that the payment of jobseeker’s allowance will cease.

The case for our compulsory jobs guarantee received a welcome boost from the Minister’s Department when it published an evaluation of the last Government’s future jobs fund. I am grateful to both Ministers who are in their places on the Front Bench for the publication of this helpful and informative evaluation. The evaluation pointed out just how successful the future jobs fund was in getting young people back to work. It estimated that the net benefit to society as a whole was £7,500 for every participant in the future jobs fund, and that is after taking account of all the costs of the initiative. Of the gross cost of some £750 million for the future jobs fund, over half was recouped by the Treasury in additional tax payments and reduced benefit payments. Our compulsory jobs guarantee will repeat that success for the over-25s. We will get Britain back to work; we will end this punishing spiral of increasing struggle for strivers and for the most vulnerable in order to fund, as the Government find they have to do, the price of ever-increasing unemployment.

The proposals in this order for working-age benefits are a disgrace, although the Minister made a perfectly fair point in his speech earlier—that an increase is better than no increase at all. The proposals for pensions uprating are worth having—I put it no more strongly than that—but the proposals for working-age benefits are shameful and quite contrary to everything the Minister’s party argued for when in opposition. I hope that in the course of this evening’s debate we will be able fully to expose that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Monday 28th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I was born and brought up in his constituency, so I well understand the challenges that Easington faces. We do want to encourage more people to invest in the area, and that is why I am keen to commend the work that has been done with the East Durham area partnership to encourage more people into work in Easington. We will look at how we can recommence publication of vacancy statistics shortly.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

Ministers often say that they have stopped people on Government schemes appearing in the labour market statistics as “in employment”. But recent analysis shows that of the claimed 500,000 increase in employment over the past 12 months, 214,000 people are in fact on Government schemes and mostly still claiming JSA. What is going on?

[Mr Speaker]

The question is exclusively on Easington, but the right hon. Gentleman has made his own point with delphic confidence.

Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Monday 21st January 2013 Commons Chamber

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

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

Clause 1

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

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

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

[The First Deputy Chairman]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

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

‘the Retail Prices Index measure of inflation.’.

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

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

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

Clause stand part.

[Stephen Timms]

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

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

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

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

As Citizens Advice points out:

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

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

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

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Do the Opposition want to make it more worth while to be in work than out of work, and if so, how would they do it?

[Stephen Timms]

We certainly want it to be more worth while for people to be in work, but forcing down the incomes of those who are out of work is not the way to do it.

Clause 1 affects mainly out-of-work benefits, but people struggling to make ends meet in work are hit as well. Schedule 1(b) means that the personal allowance used in the calculation of housing benefit for people in work will go up by only 1%, irrespective of what happens to rent levels.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Is it therefore the right hon. Gentleman’s and the Opposition’s policy that uprating should be not by 1%, but by inflation? Is that a commitment?

[Stephen Timms]

Uprating should indeed be in line with inflation, as it always was in the past.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stephen Timms]

I will make a little more progress, and then gladly give way again. As I was saying, schedule 1(b) means that housing benefit for people in work will be cut in real terms as well. We will return to that when we speak to amendment 17.

The change in the personal tax allowance, which we have heard a good deal about, will not do very much to help people who are in work on low incomes. Citizens Advice points out that

“any rise in net earnings leads to a reduction in housing benefit and council tax benefit.”

In addition, of course, the change will do nothing at all for people who are out of work.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

I listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman’s observation, but note that about 3,800 people in my constituency who are in work have been lifted out of tax altogether. Does he not believe that that is a step in the right direction?

[Stephen Timms]

Those people will lose council tax benefit, and if they are paying rent, they will lose housing benefit. Citizens Advice is right that the effect of the change in the threshold on people in low-income work is very low indeed.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Thirteen pence a week.

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend says that the change is 13p week, which is a derisory amount.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stephen Timms]

No—I will make progress before I give way again.

The Bill was designed by the Chancellor to promote his party’s narrow interest. Like a number of the Chancellor’s efforts of that kind, it has not worked out as he hoped, but let us be clear that the Government have restricted uprating to 1% for the coming year without a Bill and did not need a Bill to restrict uprating for future years. The Chancellor thought he could boost his party’s standing if he introduced a Bill, so we have one. Coalition Ministers are here to help advance the Chancellor’s cause.

In particular, it is ridiculous to announce now—before we know anything about the future course of inflation—by how much benefits will be uprated in more than two years’ time, which is well after the general election. The Opposition therefore reject the proposal to restrict the uprating of social security benefits and tax credits to 1%. As I have said, in our view, uprating should be in line with inflation and assessed, as it always has been, at the end of the preceding year.

The Secretary of State claimed in his speech on Second Reading that, as part of employment and support allowance, the support group is protected, but it is not. The Secretary of State said that people who are not in the support group will find that they are affected. That is true, but people in the support group will be hit as well. Citizens Advice has worked out that a lone parent with three children who is in the support group will lose £600 in 2015-16 because of the exponential way in which the Bill will grind down the incomes of people who are already hard-up. We will come back to that.

[Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)]

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the coalition of 60 Scottish charities that says that the Bill contradicts the principle that everyone should have a reasonable income in order to live a dignified life, and that many people in Scotland will be adversely affected by the Bill?

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, as are the organisations to which she refers. Indeed, as I shall say, there has been a widespread call along those lines pointing out the damage that the Bill will do. Disability Rights UK states:

“The Government has suggested that all disabled people are protected from the lower 1% increase in benefits. This is not the case.”

In fact, as the impact assessment tells us, disabled households are more likely than others to be hit by the changes in the Bill.

[James Duddridge]

The right hon. Gentleman has twice from the Dispatch Box repeated the commitment to uprate benefits by inflation. Is that the retail prices index or the consumer prices index, or has that yet to be decided?

[Stephen Timms]

That is a matter to be announced at the appropriate time. At the end of this year, we will set out how benefits should be uprated for the following year, as it always has been done, and at the end of next year for the year after that.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Stephen Timms]

I will make a little more progress and then I will gladly give way again.

In moving amendment 12, I wish to focus on the effect of clause 1, as it stands, on child poverty. Previously—reflecting the commitment in the coalition agreement to eradicate child poverty by 2020—the Government have published the effect of Budgets, spending reviews and autumn statements on child poverty. We know from the Institute for Fiscal Studies that, taking account of everything that the Government announced before the autumn statement, child poverty is set to go up by 400,000 by 2015 and 800,000 by 2020. In this autumn statement, they did not mention child poverty at all. There was no mention in the impact statement, where it should have been. I tabled a question and the Minister told me that he would reply as soon as possible: I am still waiting.

Despite the Government’s best efforts, the answer did slip out in an answer from a different Minister. In that, we read that the three years of uprating will increase child poverty by an additional 200,000 on top of the increase that is already due. That means that we are on track for 1 million more children below the poverty line by 2020. That is a devastating blow and will undo all the progress of the last 15 years.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

The powerful figures that the right hon. Gentleman cites show that this is a cruel and callous Bill. Given that that is the case, does he not think that Labour supporters might be disappointed that he will not commit now to re-link the upratings with RPI? Nor has Labour said that if it were to form a Government next time, they would reverse the Bill. Is not there a danger that people will think that it is all rhetoric and no action from the Opposition?

[Stephen Timms]

The time to announce how benefits would be uprated for next year is later this year in the normal way. The time for the following year is the end of next year. We reject the Bill, which is the Chancellor’s partisan and unprecedented device to set out the trajectory for two years’ time, before we know anything about the future course of inflation.

Ministers still say that they are committed to eradicating child poverty. It says so in the coalition agreement. That commitment is clearly now fictitious. The Bill is simply incompatible with that commitment. Ministers should stop pretending. They have given up on reducing child poverty. They have not just given up on publishing the numbers as they used to do: they have given up on delivering the goal as well. Now they are implementing policies that will force child poverty up.

[George Freeman]

Given that the last Government spent £150 billion on tax credits and achieved a 6% reduction in child poverty, does the right hon. Gentleman think that lifting 350,000 out of child poverty for a £2 billion investment in universal credit represents good value for money?

[Stephen Timms]

The policies of the previous Government reduced the number of children below the poverty line by 1.1 million. The policies of this Government are set to increase it by 1 million by 2020. That is a shameful record.

What we will have from April is a toxic combination of policies that will cut the highest rate of income tax and real-terms cuts in benefits and tax credits. Some 8,000 people who earn over £1 million a year will get a tax cut in April averaging more than £2,000 a week. Someone receiving the adult rate of jobseeker’s allowance will receive 71p a week. People are getting angry at what the Government are doing.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

The right hon. Gentleman may or may not think that the Bill is a partisan device by the Chancellor—and he may or may not be right—but in refusing to support either the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) or the various amendments tabled by Liberal Democrat Members, is not the Labour party being absolutely pathetic? It has the opportunity to do something about this and it is not taking it.

[Stephen Timms]

We will announce uprating policy in the normal way on the normal timetable, not on a date chosen by the Chancellor for his own partisan purposes.

I think the Minister knows that I have been looking back at his speech in the Child Poverty Bill Second Reading debate in July 2009—fewer than four years ago. It was an autobiographical speech, as he said at the time. He explained that his first job was with the Institute for Fiscal Studies, where he had the task in the 1980s of compiling its poverty statistics. He said that

“year after year the level of child poverty would remorselessly grow. A majority of people would do relatively well, enjoying tax cuts, and the people at the top would do exceptionally well, but year after year more and more children would find themselves in poverty.”

He said that he decided to become a politician because he

“was appalled at what was happening in our country to the most vulnerable people”—[Official Report, 20 July 2009; Vol. 496, c. 625.]

Now here he is, three and a half years later, arguing in this Committee for exactly the same combination of policies he condemned at the time: tax cuts for the highest paid and benefit cuts for the most vulnerable. Exactly as in the 1980s, as he knows better than anybody, the result is certain: child poverty rocketing. With the extra rise as a result of the Bill, if current policies are maintained it will go up by 1 million by 2020—right back up to the level he was logging at the IFS in the 1980s.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the most recent data demonstrate a reduction in child poverty last year of 300,000? If he disputes that, does he have any comment on the way the previous Government measured child poverty, and whether that measure should be changed?

[Stephen Timms]

Absolutely right—the policies of the previous Government have continued to have beneficial impacts, but as soon as this Government change the policy the numbers will rocket back up again. According to the IFS, child poverty will rise by 400,000 by 2015 and by 800,000 by 2020. On top of that, there will be an additional rise of 200,000 as a result of the Bill. That is what the Government’s policies are doing.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Of course, that is the figure the Government have been prepared to acknowledge in relation to relative income poverty, but they have said nothing about the impact on absolute poverty, material deprivation or persistent poverty—all measures they are signed up to in the Child Poverty Act 2010. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that they should publish the impact on those measures of poverty as well?

[Stephen Timms]

Absolutely. That is what they have done in previous Budgets and autumn statements; in this one there was silence. I agree with my hon. Friend that the Government should absolutely return to the practice they adopted after the election.

Like the Minister in the 1980s, anybody who cares about poverty and who is looking at what is set to happen to the most vulnerable in the next few years, will be appalled. Child poverty will be growing remorselessly once again—back to the policies of the 1980s and back to their consequences, too. There is enormous public concern about the effects of clause 1 and the Bill as a whole. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) referred to the coalition of organisations in Scotland who have written about their concern. The Child Poverty Action Group has said:

“The Bill is a cause of great concern.”

Barnardo’s has stated:

“This policy will punish children the most by trapping them in poverty and impacting on their lives, leading to poor health, poor qualifications and unemployment.”

Citizens Advice said:

“It is imperative, particularly whilst increases to earnings from work are restricted, that support for low earners received through the welfare system is not disconnected from inflationary measures to the cost of living.”

The Children’s Society said:

“Groups which are meant to be protected (such as households with somebody with a disability) are more likely to be affected than households without protection.”

In an open letter this morning, the chief executives of Catholic charities in Liverpool, Manchester and London warned of the threat the Bill

“poses to the fundamental well-being of disabled, unemployed and low paid people, as well as their families who are already buckling under the weight of recent changes to the welfare system.”

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at the facts, rather than scaremongering. The fact is that the child element of tax credit has gone up by 16% under this Government—£470. He really should look at the facts.

[Stephen Timms]

I simply ask the hon. Lady to look at all the other things the Government have done and at the Institute for Fiscal Studies assessment of the consequences for child poverty. As I have said, its assessment is that the number of children living below the poverty line will increase by 400,000 by 2015 and by 800,000 by 2020 and that there will be an additional rise of 200,000 as a direct result of the Bill.

The general secretary of USDAW, the shop workers’ union, has spoken of

“a kick in the teeth for working people that will fill many households with despair.”

Disability Rights UK has said:

“We are fearful that the Welfare Benefits UP-rating Bill will… impoverish thousands more disabled people.”

Homeless Link has said that

“the proposals contained in the Bill are grossly unfair, hitting the poorest in society the hardest.”

[Mr Redwood]

I just wonder how the right hon. Gentleman can forecast with such certainty this abrupt turnaround and deterioration until 2020. Does his forecast assume that there will be a Conservative Government for that second period?

[Stephen Timms]

The right hon. Gentleman should ask the Institute for Fiscal Studies, where the Minister served with considerable distinction in the 1980s. It has been a reliable guide in the past and will be in the future. The assumption is that the existing policies will continue.

This is a terrible Bill that is being rushed through in a disgraceful manner. It will hit very hard those people who are already struggling to make ends meet. It will hit women disproportionately hard. It will hit disabled people, including everyone in the support group for employment and support allowance. It will hit children, pushing 200,000 below the poverty line.

At a time when the coalition Government are—

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

What the right hon. Gentleman is saying sounds like a peroration, so I think that he might have accidentally dropped the page on which he was going to say where, if not from these measures, he would find the £3.5 billion. Where would he find the money?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms]

Of course, the background to this policy is the failure of the Government’s policy. If we look at the unemployment forecast set out at last year’s Budget and compare it with the forecast set out at the autumn statement, we will see that it will cost an extra £3 billion in additional benefits. What the Minister and the Chancellor should be doing is putting in place policies that will reduce unemployment, not see it continue to rise.

At a time when the coalition Government are handing the richest people a tax cut of £2,000 a week each, they have decided that people on jobseeker’s allowance can have only 71p each, 72p the year after, and 73p the year after that. To quote the Minister’s 2009 speech, it is “appalling”. I urge the Committee to support our amendment and vote against clause stand part.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I will speak briefly. I think that it is important that all of us who represent communities with a lot of deprivation, such as my constituency of Dover and Deal, make sure that the Government, or any Government, have policies that make work pay. About 5 million people in this country could work but do not. We need more of an incentive for people to realise their potential and do well in life. Part of that needs to be an economic incentive. Let me pray in aid the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer:

“We have to acknowledge that over the last five years, those on out-of-work benefits have seen their incomes rise twice as fast as those in work. With pay restraint in businesses and Government, average earnings have risen by about 10% since 2007. Out-of-work benefits have gone up by about 20%. That is not fair to working people who pay the taxes that fund them.”—[Official Report, 5 December 2012; Vol. 554, c. 879.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Redwood]

I have already expressed the view that I did not come to Parliament to impose such restrictions on people with very little income, that that is a difficult thing to have to do but that I quite understand why Front Benchers are in that position.

Yes, I will trust Ministers’ judgment today but I am also saying to them that there are those two important conditions. They have to watch the situation because if inflation starts to rise too far, things will be too tough, and it would be wrong not to recognise that. If there is not a sustained increase in the number of jobs, that, too, will make the policy difficult to sustain. I am hoping that the economic policy can kick in with lower price rises and more jobs, which would make the measure a little less unpalatable. However, surely nobody can say that they want to do this—it is not very pleasant—but what else can we do?

[Stephen Timms]

The right hon. Gentleman is making an interesting speech. However, is not a clear consequence of his argument that it is a serious mistake to be setting now the levels of benefits in two years’ time, when we just do not know what inflation will be in the meantime?

[Mr Redwood]

The Government are fighting for credibility with their general finances. They have a series of difficult decisions to make and have decided to make this decision. The Opposition cannot always come here and say that they must get the deficit down but never support anything that makes a contribution towards that. That is where they have great difficulties.

The Opposition have great difficulties today because they are coming here and saying that they do not like the measure, but will not support amendments that would mean that we were definitely going to pay a lot more. They have sufficient maturity to understand that the benefits bill is extremely large and difficult to manage.

I have one final thought to put to Ministers. The British public, who wish to see the benefit bill controlled and brought down, are keen for us to check up on eligibility, which causes more issues than anything else. Most of us feel extremely generous when it comes to eligibility for disabled people and we want the Government to do the best they possibly can, which might not be generous enough.

What we are worried about is extending eligibility too far—through the European Union rules, for example. I hope that that kind of thing will be pursued. I hear that the Prime Minister is now looking at the matter, but I do not think it is right that a large number of people should be able to come into the country and immediately start claiming benefits that other people, who have been settled here for a long time and are working hard, have had to pay into and make contributions towards. I hope that we will get better news and that there will be some kind of contributory principle or settlement before people can get those benefits, so that somebody who has been living here clearly becomes our responsibility after a sensible period.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Webb]

The hon. Lady will know perfectly well that the Labour Government never forecast poverty rates. She was a Work and Pensions Minister with—if I remember rightly—responsibility for child poverty, and never once forecast poverty rates, but in opposition she suddenly believes that this Government should do so. We will publish the annual figures that show the effects of all our policies and the state of the economy. That is what the public want to see.

Another question that resonates with my hon. Friends in the Liberal Democrats is why we are taking money off poor people and giving it to rich people. That is a summary of what was said. I worked for the IFS for nine years and have the highest regard for it, but, to be clear, when the IFS does its numbers, it does not count almost all the taxes on the rich we have introduced—it cannot, because it uses household surveys, to which the rich do not, on the whole, reply at all, partly because they are too busy salting their money away in Swiss bank accounts. [Interruption.] Not any more—we have tackled Swiss bank accounts to the tune of several billion pounds. We have increased the main rate of capital gains tax to 28%, which is a substantial increase.

The Labour party focuses on the wages of millionaires as if millionaires are those who earn a £1 million wage. However, millionaires on the whole are folk who have capital gains and properties. They pay stamp duty. They try to avoid paying tax, but we have been cracking down on that, and there is a further clampdown on pension tax relief. The vast majority of those gains for the Government are not counted in the IFS figures. The overall impact is that we are taking far more from the rich than Labour ever would have done. I can therefore assure my right hon. and hon. Friends that this is not a question of taking money from the poor when we could take it from the rich. Even the Budget that reduced the higher rate of tax from 50% to 45% raised many times more in other measures. As we have heard during the course of the debate, the 45p rate, which Opposition Members tell us they find morally repugnant, is 5% more than the Labour Government levied in 13 years.

Amendment 12 would create a vacuum instead of a policy. It would give us no credibility in the financial markets and drive up interest rates when we want to keep them low. Amendment 7 would reinstate the RPI, which even the official statistician says is not up to international standards, and cost £2.5 billion a year compared with the Government’s plans. I have no doubt that amendment 10, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives, is well-intended, but unfortunately it would tie the Government in to an above-inflation increase in 2015-16. The Liberal Democrats would not choose that as a priority, but I can assure him that the Bill, on top of the decisions the Government have made to prioritise the poor, will mean that benefits will rise in line with earnings over the period since the financial crisis. My hon. Friend wants that through his amendment, and that is what we will deliver through the Bill.

I therefore urge the Committee to reject the amendments and support the Bill.

[Stephen Timms]

We have had an interesting debate. The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr Kennedy), the former leader of the Minister’s party—the Liberal Democrats—described the Bill as a device dreamed up by the Chancellor, which was recognised on both sides of the Committee during the debate. The Government are bearing down on the incomes of the least well-off people because of the failure of their policies. I urge the Committee to support amendment 12 and to reject clause 1.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Will the Serjeant at Arms investigate the Aye Lobby? We seem to have a hold-up or a blockage of some kind.

Atos Work Capability Assessments

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Thursday 17th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

We have a heard a large number—26, I believe—of extraordinarily powerful speeches in the debate. There is no doubt that the current WCA arrangements are causing immense problems and anxiety for people for whom all hon. Members want anxiety to be minimised.

In opening the debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) mentioned the distress, indignation, fear and anger that have been caused. His assertion was amply supported by contributions from both sides of the House. We should not allow the system to continue. It needs fast and fundamental reform. I put it to the Minister—this struck me as I am sure it did him—that calls for such reform have come from both sides of the House, which does not often happen. It certainly happened today.

Part of the background to the debate is that a very small proportion of people who are placed by the WCA in the work-related activity group of ESA are getting into work. The invitation to tender for the Work programme said that the minimum performance standard would be that 5.5% of new applicants for ESA get into sustained job outcomes within one year, but the data published in November show that the proportion was 1%. The Work programme has performed terribly for the group of people we have spoken about in this debate.

What has gone wrong? The structure of the employment and support allowance is right. In the 1980s—my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) was absolutely right to remind the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) of this—thousands of people were encouraged to move from unemployment benefit to invalidity benefit in order to reduce headline unemployment. People who worked in benefit offices at that time have explained to me how staff were given incentives to encourage people to make that shift. Once they had gone on to invalidity benefit, later incapacity benefit, that was it—they were abandoned. No further support beyond the cash benefit was provided. It was only in 1997 that that began to change. It was recognised that the vast majority of people in receipt of incapacity benefit would prefer to be in employment, if they could be. Starting with the new deal for disabled people and later with pathways to work, new ideas were developed. Nothing previously had been done to practically support people with serious health impairments into work. The approach can be summarised as: work for those who were in a position to work, and support for those who were not.

Out of that experience was drawn the design of the employment and support allowance. From that, the work capability assessment was designed to allocate people into the three groups: fit for work, work-related activity group, and support group. That is the right structure and architecture for the benefit, but it is the assessment—the topic of this debate—that is now in doubt. The key problem is that very soon after the election, the Government announced that they would reassess the entire incapacity benefit case load on a very fast timetable. At that time, the WCA had been introduced less than two years previously. Problems were still being ironed out and the organisation had not properly bedded down, yet on to this still developing system was placed the enormous burden of reassessment. Atos tells us it carried out 1 million work capability assessments last year. The load has just been too much, resulting in the problems that we have heard about, and which have been expressed so impressively in this debate.

The Minister will be aware of a good deal of concern among disability rights organisations about the Employment and Support Allowance (Amendment) Regulations 2012. They were laid before Parliament just before Christmas on 17 December, and come into force on 28 January. They include the changes that will allow people recovering from cancer to go more frequently into the support group—a welcome change that was referred to by the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb). He said that the changes had already happened, but in fact they will take place on 28 January. A lot of people are worried that the regulations appear to give Atos permission to take account of non-existent, imaginary adaptations or medication in the assessment, and introduce a false distinction between physical and mental impairments. There is a lot of concern and I am sure the Minister is aware of it. Will he be able to say anything to address it?

The Government have recognised that the WCA needs modification. However, as we have heard from a number of speakers, they have gone about the task in an extraordinarily leisurely way, which has been described as “glacial” by a number of Members. I hope that the Minister can encourage us and tell us that the Department will now get a move on. I want to put to him a number of specific points. When will the changes to the descriptors for fluctuating conditions and mental health conditions, which were recommended months ago by the disability organisations, be implemented? He answered a question that I tabled last week on this, and there still seems to be a terrible, lackadaisical approach. He said:

“The Evidence Based Review (EBR) remains a priority for the Department and work is continuing at pace. The final report is due in 2013.”—[Official Report, 7 January 2013; Vol. 556, c. 180W.]

That was the first alarm signal, because his predecessor, in an answer on 25 June 2012, had told me that the final report would be due in spring 2013. Now the Minister is saying it will be in 2013. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East suggested that it will not be until autumn 2013. If that is right, that is another six-month delay. We really need to get a move on.

In his reply to me last week, the Minister said:

“We have undertaken extensive work with these charities throughout the summer”—

that was an answer last week, and the summer was the season before last. What happened in autumn?—

“to ensure that the ‘alternative’ WCA assessment combines recommendations from both the mental functioning and fluctuating conditions groups, and that the descriptors are suitable for testing.”—[Official Report, 7 January 2013; Vol. 556, c. 181-82W.]

The mental health descriptors were signed off by the charities in March last year. I really hope that the Minister will get the Department to get a move on and not just try these things out, which is what the evidence-based review—when it finally happens—will do, but introduce the changes that are clearly so urgently needed.

On progressive conditions, does it make sense to push everybody with a progressive condition, such as Parkinson’s disease, through regular reassessments when we all know that those conditions are only going to move in one direction and get worse. My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) made that point in an intervention. The Minister answered a question from me recently about this. He said:

“Around 360 people with Parkinson’s disease in the Work Related Activity Group have undergone a repeat assessment following their initial assessment…Of these, around 20 people…were found Fit for Work at their first repeat assessment.”—[Official Report, 15 January 2013; Vol. 556, c. 725W.]

No doubt some of them will have appealed and had their appeals upheld. Is it really worth putting 360 people with Parkinson’s disease through reassessments in order to find that perhaps 20 should be fit for work—although, as I say, a number of those would no doubt have been overturned? I also asked how much the reassessments were costing. As a number of Members pointed out, the Minister simply will not answer any questions about cost, on the grounds of commercial confidentiality. This is public money, and we need to know where this money is going and how it is being spent.

We need to make better provision for people to be able to supply their own supporting medical information in their assessment—a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton in opening the debate, and by the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon). The application form should be amended to invite people’s own supporting medical information, and Atos assessors need to be more open to being informed by that information.

Atos assessors should be told why previous assessments were overturned on appeal—a point raised with me by Atos itself some months ago. We have heard how often people have won their appeal, gone back to Atos and immediately been found fit for work again. Part of the problem is that Atos was never told why a person’s appeal was upheld. I believe that changes are in hand or perhaps have been introduced to assess that problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash), however, was among those who referred to the seriousness of this revolving door problem. It needs to be addressed. I was also troubled by what she said about the difficulties people had getting their assessments recorded. That was supposed to have been sorted out, but her comments, and those of others, suggest otherwise.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that although tribunal judges are giving brief statements of reasons, these are not enough to help the decision makers or Atos understand?

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend makes a telling point. That information needs to be provided.

The architecture of ESA is sound, but the assessment system is clearly not up to the load it is being asked to bear. That is why we need fundamental and much faster reform, with a much greater sense of urgency than we have seen from Ministers so far.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hoban]

I am going to make some progress, as I have only a few minutes left to speak before the next debate starts.

In March 2011, we also implemented the recommendations of a Department-led review of the work capability assessment, which included the expansion of the support group to cover more people with certain communication problems and severe disability due to mental health conditions.

Hon. Members have suggested that the assessment does not take account of fluctuating conditions, but that is not the case. It gives people with a fluctuating condition the opportunity to explain how their condition varies over time. It is not a tick-box assessment, as some have suggested. There is a discussion between the health care professional and the person making the claim for ESA to determine how their condition varies over time. The questionnaire that customers are sent has been redesigned for that purpose, and people are now asked to give more details about how their fluctuating condition affects them as an individual. If a person cannot carry out a function repeatedly and reliably, they will be treated as unable to carry out that function at all. We all recognise that the capacity of people with a fluctuating condition can change, and it is important that proper regard should be given to that fact.

I want to pick up on a point made by the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms). We have committed to a review of the descriptors for fluctuating conditions, and we are working closely with charities on that. We also need to ensure that any new descriptors are as good as, or better than, the existing ones, for the purpose of assessing someone’s condition. That work is going on at the moment.

[Stephen Timms]

rose—

[Mr Hoban]

I know that the right hon. Gentleman is keen to find out when that review will be published, but let me just say this. We want to make changes, if there is evidence to support such changes, and we need to ensure that that evidence is gathered and evaluated. I am as keen as he is to ensure that changes are made as quickly as possible, and that we make the right changes and the best changes to improve the process. I am not in any way seeking to delay the process—we want to ensure that it happens—but we have had to work quite hard to get the right descriptors that will provide the evidence on functional ability, and we are now assessing them.

[Stephen Timms]

rose—

[Mr Hoban]

I will not give way. I have only three or four minutes left and there is a bit more to say.

Some criticism has been made of Atos, with suggestions that—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

rose—

[Stephen Timms]

rose—

[Mr Hoban]

I have only four minutes left and I want to address some more questions.

Let me deal with the issue of Atos’s capability. Atos deals with 100,000 cases every month and it consistency meets the quality thresholds. Only 3.6% of assessments are below standard compared with a threshold of 5%. It receives complaints about only 0.6% of assessments. DWP decision makers return to Atos assessments that are inadequate for reaching a decision in only 0.2% of cases.

The hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) asked about the appeal rates. Let me be clear about the rate of successful appeals. Of all the fit-for-work decisions taken by the Department, only 15% are overturned on appeal. Only 15% of all the decisions we take, then, are overturned on appeal, which I think demonstrates that while we need to ensure that there is a proper appeals process, we should not be bandying around figures that misrepresent the level of successful appeals.

Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Tuesday 18th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mr Mark Hoban)]

I beg to move,

That this House considers that the draft Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived (European Union Document No. 15865/12 and Addenda 1 and 2) does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity for the reasons set out in Chapter 3 of the Twenty-second Report of the European Scrutiny Committee (HC 86-xxii); and in accordance with Article 6 of Protocol (No. 2) of the Lisbon Treaty on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, instructs the Clerk of the House to forward this reasoned opinion to the presidents of the European institutions.

This is the third time that I have moved a motion on this issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, is the inspiration behind this motion and I am pleased to support it. I welcome the ESC’s report on the European Commission’s proposal and I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss it on the Floor of the House.

The Government share the Committee’s view that the Commission’s proposal is not consistent with the principle of subsidiarity. The proposal would establish a new instrument: the fund for European aid for the most deprived. It is intended to replace, from 2014, the European Union’s food distribution programme for the most deprived people. The current programme distributes food stocks such as butter, milk powder, beef, sugar, rice and cereals, and in 2012 the budget has a ceiling of €500 million.

At present, 20 of the 27 member states participate. The main recipients are Italy, Spain, Poland, France and Romania. The UK has not participated since 1998, after which the previous Administration withdrew from the scheme. Both this Government and the previous Administration have opposed Commission proposals since 2008 to extend the programme and expand its social dimension. The UK has consistently set out its concern that the programme does not comply with subsidiarity.

Nothing in the Commission’s proposals changes our position. As the Committee points out eloquently in its report, the Commission has not provided a convincing justification of the need for EU action. Indeed, in many ways the new proposal is even more objectionable than the current programme. It will be used not only to provide food aid, but to purchase and distribute basic consumer goods. Whereas the current scheme is optional, the new scheme will be obligatory on member states and they will be required to provide match funding of at least 15% of the costs.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I understand the Minister’s case that this could perfectly well be undertaken by national Governments, but do the Government intend to give any help to the network of food banks that is growing at a rate of, I think, three a week up and down the country and for which there is a clear need?

[Mr Hoban]

Food banks are undertaken by the voluntary sector. I will come on to the ways in which the Government provide support to people on low incomes or who are benefit recipients, in order to demonstrate why we do not believe that this EU programme is right. Our principal objection, of course, is one of subsidiarity, echoing the ESC’s comments, but also reflecting the previous Government’s stance when they withdrew from the scheme.

[Mr Hoban]

The hon. Lady is a prolific tabler of questions on this matter and I have answered one or two for her today. This initiative is undertaken by the voluntary sector. The previous Government ignored the existence of food banks. Even at the height of the recession, when long-term unemployment doubled, the previous Government simply ignored them and pretended that they were not there. This Government acknowledge the existence of food banks. They play an important role and enable people on low incomes to get food, toiletries and other basic needs, and to use their incomes or benefits for other purposes. We also signpost people to food banks, but what nobody has done yet—this point has been made on a number of occasions—is analyse who uses food banks and why.

[Stephen Timms]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Hoban]

I want to make progress. This debate is about European proposals to spend taxpayers’ money and, if I remember rightly, the Labour party seems very keen to reduce the EU budget. We look forward to hearing what the right hon. Gentleman has to say. I do not know whether he is suggesting that we should enter this programme and that he supports obligatory participation. Perhaps he will clarify his position now.

[Stephen Timms]

Does the Minister accept that the number of people using food banks is bound to go up further in the coming 12 months?

[Mr Hoban]

I am not going to predict that. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has missed what has been happening recently. He should recognise that there are record numbers of people in work and that unemployment is falling. The number of people on out-of-work benefits has fallen by 199,000 since May 2010. I am not going to engage in making predictions, but I would have thought that he celebrates the fact that more people can look after their own families and that more people who want to work are getting into work, meeting that basic aspiration that we all want people to share.

The right hon. Gentleman did not say whether his party will sign up to the Commission’s proposal and whether they want to spend more taxpayers’ money in Europe. Hopefully he will mention that in his remarks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the Government’s position and look forward to hearing the European Scrutiny Committee’s views in due course.

First, we need to be absolutely clear that there is a large and growing need in the UK for the type of help that the fund would be designed to provide. The Minister mentioned FareShare a moment ago, and I notice that it gets a couple of mentions in the impact assessment of the fund, for example on page 100 of the bundle. As he rightly said, FareShare has never obtained any funding from the EU because the UK has not taken up the funding that is in place. It is slightly confusing that it is mentioned in the impact assessment, because that implies that it has been a beneficiary, but it has not. My understanding, however, is that €50 million is earmarked for the UK from the existing fund, none of which is currently handed over to the UK.

There is certainly a rapidly growing need for the service provided by FareShare and food banks such as those supported by the Trussell Trust, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) referred to a few minutes ago. The latest annual report from FareShare showed that it spent £1.6 million last year. As those who are responsible for FareShare say, a small fraction of the €50 million earmarked for the UK would enable it to transform what it is doing. FareShare provides food to 800 charities and, through them, to almost 40,000 people a day who would otherwise not have enough to eat. It is a wholesale operation supplying food to charities on the front line, and the food that it is distributes is sourced from food retailers and manufacturers, for whom the food is surplus to requirements.

A few minutes ago, the Minister said that everything was absolutely fine and that there really are not any problems in the UK: there are more people in work than ever before, and so on. However, the most recent annual FareShare report says:

“More people are suffering hardship and needing food support than ever before. Demand for our food is rocketing.”

The Minister, for reasons that I entirely understand, was unwilling to accept that the demand on food banks will go up in the next 12 months, but it will undoubtedly do so. Indeed, only yesterday, he sent me a written answer to a question that I tabled about the impact of the benefit cap in London. The information that he supplied was that, in London alone, 27,600 households will lose income when the benefit cap takes effect in April, and of those, 10,800 households will lose over £100 a week. There is no doubt at all in my mind or, I suspect, in the mind of any objective observer that the need for the kind of service that FareShare and food banks provide will only increase in the next few months.

The number of food banks supported by the Trussell Trust, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree said, is about to top the 300 mark. Three new food banks are set up every week, so the number has doubled over the past year. They are all Church-based, and involve Church members and non-members in their governance; there are 3,700 churches and 3,000 schools involved at the moment. As my hon. Friend pointed out, a quarter of a million people will receive food from a food bank in the course of this year. It is a remarkable and impressive initiative, but it is also a terrible indictment that so many people in Britain cannot afford basic food, and have to go to a food bank to obtain it.

[Luciana Berger]

We are the seventh most industrialised nation, and the number of people accessing emergency food aid has exploded. It was 26,000 under the Labour Government—I make that point, because it was 26,000 people too many—but I wish to reinforce the point that my right hon. Friend has just made. By the end of the year, a quarter of million people will have had to go to a food bank. If Members go to meet the people who go to a food bank they will see that they do not go in with smiling faces—they go in hanging their heads in shame. Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the Government should do everything in their power to make sure that no one needs to access emergency food aid in the UK?

[Stephen Timms]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend, who makes a powerful and telling point. As she will know, food banks work hard to minimise the loss of dignity involved in going to a food bank. For example, they often give out food in supermarket carrier bags so that it does not look as if people have been to a food bank. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is a terrible indictment of the state of our nation that a quarter of a million people have to do that this year, and the number, I confidently and regretfully predict, is bound to go up over the next few months.

Why has that terrible thing occurred? It is, of course, difficult to survive on benefits or on a low working income, and the Government’s plan to uprate benefits by less than inflation will undoubtedly make matters worse over the next few months—I have spoken already about the effects of the benefit cap that will take effect in April. The plight of those who lose more than £100 a week—as many will when the benefit cap comes in—will be desperate, and a surge of people will be driven to food banks, able to feed themselves and their families only as a result of the help they find there.

The Trussell Trust—this returns to the Minister’s direct responsibilities—makes the additional point that of the 250,000 recipients we have heard about this year, 100,000 are people for whom jobcentres have been too slow in making a payment or made a mistake. Food banks say that more people are turning up with no money because they have been sanctioned by Jobcentre Plus. Often, they have no idea why they have been sanctioned, and know only that they have got no money and must get food from the food bank.

[Luciana Berger]

My right hon. Friend will know that if someone goes to a food bank, they must tick a box giving the reason they have to access emergency food aid, and more than 40% say it is because of delays to their benefit payments. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that in an article in The Guardian, Ministers said they aim to ensure that 80% of recipients get benefits within 16 days? Sixteen days is long enough to wait for people who have no cushion or money at all, but what about the 20% of people who have to wait for more than 16 days? Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Interventions should be brief and one at a time. The hon. Lady has made her point.

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. As well as delays there is the problem of mistakes and people being wrongly sanctioned. Friday before last I met a young man in my constituency who has been sanctioned and told that he will lose benefits for 14 months because he is attending a residential course delivered by the Prince’s Trust. An agreement between Jobcentre Plus and the Prince’s Trust means that people on Prince’s Trust activities are not sanctioned if they are unable to sign on while on a residential activity, but in that case—and, I fear, in others—the agreement is not being properly implemented by the jobcentre.

[Luciana Berger]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and I hope not to intervene on him further. I have one more point for my final intervention. The Minister said that he welcomed the number of people who are in work, but we heard today that if people who access working tax credits call his Department’s phone line—I know this because my office called today—they are told that they have to wait three weeks for the form, and that when they get it back they must wait at least two weeks for it to be processed. Those are people in work who depend on additional funds to support them. Does he share my concern that although the Government are keen to see people in work, those are the very people who are being crucified?

[Stephen Timms]

That is an alarming report and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for passing it on. That matter will be on the Minister’s desk—[Interruption.] I beg his pardon; it will be on a desk in his former Department in the Treasury. There are worries—we have heard reports today—about delays in answering the phone at Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and I hope that my hon. Friend’s point will be addressed.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The problem is not only about delays in payments but about the complications of the system and changes in people’s circumstances, financially and otherwise. Such things all contribute to the problems for those claiming housing benefit, jobseeker’s allowance, income support and so on. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the issue is not just about the speed of the process, but about making the system easier for people?

[Stephen Timms]

Yes, the hon. Gentleman is right. One thing that worries me is growing reports of jobcentres taking a trigger-happy approach to sanctions. People do not know why they have been sanctioned; all they know is that their money is suddenly taken away. The network of jobcentres is the Minister’s direct responsibility.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Is the right hon. Gentleman arguing that, instead of sending a reasoned opinion on subsidiarity to the EU in respect of emergency aid, we should ask the EU to take over our social services budget?

[Stephen Timms]

I will come promptly to subsidiarity, which the hon. Gentleman properly asks me to address, but it is right first to set out the scale of the need for the kind of aid that, it is envisaged, would be supported through the fund.

The big need that exists is being addressed by organisations such as FareShare and the Trussell Trust network of food banks. There is absolutely no doubt that that need will rise in the coming year. However, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, the question is whether funding through the EU is the best way to organise the provision of that help. The European Scrutiny Committee, of which he is a member, makes the valid point that there is no reason why the support cannot be delivered through a national initiative rather than by the EU—I agree with the Minister’s point on that.

Setting up a fund at EU level is costly and bureaucratic, so I sympathise with the Committee’s concerns, but the problem is that the UK Government are not providing any such support. I therefore have some questions for the Minister and want to press him further. Does he accept that food banks and others provide a vital and indispensible service, and that without them tens of thousands in Britain would not have enough to eat in 2012? Given the changes that we know are coming in the welfare system over the next few months, does he accept that the problem is bound to get worse? To what extent are the Government interested in what organisations such as FareShare and food banks must do? Will he confirm—I am confident that this is true—that there is currently no UK Government support for them? I believe that local authorities have been able to help in some instances, but local authority funds are being tightly squeezed, so that source is diminishing.

Will the Minister explain why the UK does not take up the €50 million share of the existing EU food distribution programme? That is not a partisan point, but a genuine inquiry—I was part of a Government who took the same view as the Minister, although the problem was a great deal smaller at that time, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree has pointed out. No doubt there is a downside of taking up that aid, but it would be helpful if the Minister could explain what it is.

Is it not a bit rich of the UK Government to argue against the new programme on the ground that they could do the same thing perfectly well—they rightly point to the principle of subsidiarity—if they in fact have no intention of doing so? If the fund is set up—as the Minister has indicated, that could happen despite UK objections—will he consider making the UK share of the fund available to FareShare and others that do such a vital job?

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Monday 10th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

The evidence from the future jobs fund demonstrated that the taxpayer was never going to recover the money that was spent on it and that it was 20 times more expensive than the work experience scheme, which is similar to it and from which we are getting good outcomes. Taking into account Labour’s fiddled figures, youth unemployment is lower today than it was in May 2010.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

In the invitation to tender for the Work programme, the Minister’s Department said that if there was no programme at all 5% of people would secure job outcomes within 12 months. We now know that, under the programme, the figure was 2%. For people on employment and support allowance, it was 1%. Of the 9,500 people on employment and support allowance who used to be on incapacity benefit and who were referred to the Work programme in its first 14 months, only 30 secured job outcomes. The Minister told The Daily Telegraph that Work programme providers needed to “get their act together”. Why does he think that they are to blame?

[Mr Hoban]

The Work programme providers are responsible, and they are paid to get people into work. This is a much better value programme than its predecessors, but we need to get providers to raise their game. The figures released at the end of last month showed that job outcomes were rising and that the longer the programme had been functioning, the more people were getting into work. This is a good start, and it is a much more effective programme than the schemes introduced by the previous Labour Government.

Jobs and Social Security

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Wednesday 28th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

We have had a good debate to which the backdrop is yesterday’s publication of the first Work programme outcome data. One cannot help but admire the former employment Minister, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), who ensured that no data at all were published before the reshuffle and so secured his trouble-free ascent into the Cabinet, rather unfairly leaving the new Minister to face the music yesterday.

The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), at least, recognised that the figures published yesterday were disappointing, and he is absolutely right. The Secretary of State did not recognise that; in fact, he claimed the opposite. It has been suggested that we have been unfair in evaluating the performance of this programme after only 12 months, but all we have done is to apply the measures and the criteria set out by the Department for Work and Pensions itself. The invitation to tender for the Work programme says:

“DWP will set a non-intervention performance…reflecting the number of job outcomes that would be expected to occur in the absence of the Work Programme.”

It goes on to say that the figure would be 5% based on historical job-entry rates—that is, that it would expect 5% of people referred to achieve a job outcome within 12 months. It then says that it would expect the situation to be better than that, and so makes the figure up to 5.5%, adding:

“DWP expects that Providers will significantly exceed these minimum levels.”

We discovered yesterday that they did not significantly exceed 5.5%; in fact, they got nowhere near it. The BBC reported yesterday that the figure was 3.5%, but for the first month’s cohort it is 2%. Oddly, despite the fact that the DWP refers to the “key performance measure”, that number does not appear in the data published yesterday. Strangely, it has been omitted and we have to work it out for ourselves. Given that the Minister’s Department describes it as the key performance measure, will he give us his calculation of it based on yesterday’s data?

The Secretary of State suggested that we were unfairly taking the employment and support allowance data out of the numbers and therefore reducing them. In fact, the reverse is the case. The ESA data are by far the worst. The key performance measure for the ESA data comes to 1%—a disgraceful level of performance. The Minister needs to tell us what he is going to do to address the lamentable failure of the programme to help new ESA applicants.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) on her excellent maiden speech. The depth of her roots in the community she represents was very clear, and I know that she will robustly defend her constituents from failures of the kind that we are debating.

Ministers need to sort out specific problems with the design of the Work programme. First, for over a year we have been pointing to the folly of the secrecy in which the programme has been cloaked. With previous programmes, providers have gladly published their performance data so that everybody could see how they were getting on and make comparisons between them—it was simply taken for granted that that was what they did—but the previous Minister banned them from doing that. I wonder whether he read the “Open Public Services” White Paper that was published by the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General in the summer last year. It is worth a read. It asserts—rightly in my view—that:

“Open public services that are more accountable to the people they serve (both the users and the taxpayers who fund them) will be better services.”,

and that, importantly:

“Providers of public services from all sectors will need to publish information on performance and user satisfaction.”

Not only have Ministers not required providers to publish such information on the Work programme, they have actually banned them from doing so. Yesterday’s data were the first on job outcomes in almost 18 months since the programme began. If providers had published their own data, everyone would have seen quickly which approaches were working well—and which were not—and changes could have been made. As it is, we have had to wait almost 18 months, and that cloak of secrecy is one reason for the disappointing performance.

It would be useful to have data on Work programme user satisfaction, as the White Paper demanded, although I fear that after the drubbing yesterday, there is next to no chance of us getting it. Such data should be published because, as the Prime Minister argued in the foreword to the White Paper, that information would be a powerful lever for improvement. Will the Minister at least commit to lifting the ban on providers publishing their own performance data? The ban was imposed only to ensure no impediment to his predecessor’s appointment to the Cabinet, but since that has been accomplished, it should now be scrapped. Lift the veil and let the sun shine in!

I have a couple of other suggestions on how to salvage the programme and I want to pick up on a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) about skills. The Government have increased the number of apprenticeships—my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) rightly expressed some concern about what those have amounted to, but nevertheless, numbers have increased. Hardly anybody on the Work programme ever gets on an apprenticeship, however, although many should be able to—most people think that apprenticeships exist to help unemployed people develop skills to get into work—and I urge the Minister to work with his opposite number to make that possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) is right to say that we must address the current rate of unemployment among young black men, which is more than 50%, and the Work programme cannot be blind to the scale of the problem.

The Minister has spoken about what has gone wrong, and in an interview with The Daily Telegraph published on Saturday he made clear who he thought was to blame. He said it was “proving difficult” to return people to long-term work—he was getting his excuses in early—and the article stated that:

“He called on private firms…which have been given the task of retraining the long-term unemployed and placing them in jobs, to ‘get their act together’.”

So, it is their fault. Private firms are the reason the programme has not delivered—by the way, the Telegraph headline was:

“Just one in 20 aided by back to work scheme”.

Presumably that is what the Minister hinted at, but in fact the number was a great deal smaller. The Financial Times got the number right yesterday morning when it stated that

“the employment minister, will confirm the actual figure—which some believe could be as low as 3 per cent—when he publishes official statistics on Tuesday.”

The Minister reassures us that poor performance means the Government are saving money, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) said, that is no comfort for the young unemployed parent who is worried about paying for Christmas but has been parked and is not getting the help they need to get back to work. They do not want to know that the Government are saving money; they want the help they were promised to get a job.

Why has it gone so badly wrong? The Minister says that providers need to get their act together, but it is Ministers, not providers, who have got this so badly wrong. Ministers assured providers bidding for the Work programme that their economic policies would lead to steady growth and falling unemployment. They did not say those policies would lead to a double-dip recession, although tragically they did.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) is right: we need a plan B. It is not Work programme providers who must get their act together but Ministers who must come forward with policies to deliver jobs and growth. It is difficult to get people into jobs if there are no jobs. The lack of growth and jobs is hobbling the Work programme—no amount of providers getting their act together will change that.

The Work programme has fallen miles short. I hope the Minister comes clean on how far short. What is that key performance measure? It is not the providers’ fault. The Government promised steady growth and falling unemployment, but that has not happened. The providers are not to blame for the ludicrous ban on data, which has undermined the programme. I urge the Minister to announce tonight at least that that ban will be lifted.

I also ask the Minister to commit to address the truly appalling performance among applicants for employment and support allowance. Just 1% of those referred to the programme in the first three one-month cohorts were placed in a sustainable job. When will he sort those problems out?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hoban]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need to see programmes of reform to get people off benefit and into work. It is about making sure that we equip people with the skills they need in a 21st-century economy. Programmes such as the Work programme enable that to happen.

I was rather disappointed that we did not hear more from the shadow Minister about Labour’s bank bonus tax. This is a big feature of the motion before us today. Yet again, the Opposition trot out the bank payroll tax as the solution. The problem is that it is their solution for everything. How would they pay for a VAT cut? The bank payroll tax. Higher capital expenditure? The bank payroll tax. Reversing changes to child benefit? The bank payroll tax. At the last count, a tax that they think would raise £2 billion has been used 15 times over to fund tax cuts and spending increases.

[Stephen Timms]

rose—

[Mr Hoban]

I have three minutes left, so I am going to continue.

The other thing in the motion that neither the right hon. Gentleman nor the shadow Secretary of State referred to—[Interruption.] No, let me talk about something that they did not refer to in their motion. The right hon. Gentleman talked about the increased benefit bill—£20 billion. Is he actually saying, given that most of that relates to uprating, that he is opposed to uprating pensioners’ benefits? Is he opposed to the triple lock that we introduced? Does he want to see a return to the days when the previous Government increased the state pension by 75p? Is he really saying that that is what he is against? The reality is that that is part of the reason why we have seen the benefit bill rise, and that is also because we are seeing post-dated cheques left by the Opposition who, when they left government, told us there was no money left.

[Stephen Timms]

rose—

[Mr Hoban]

I am not going to give way. I want to try to address some of the points that have been raised in the debate.

It is clear that the Work programme is in place. What we saw yesterday was a snapshot—207,000 people have got into work as a consequence of the Work programme. The Opposition should be celebrating that achievement, not criticising it. In the same way that we heard nothing in their speeches to congratulate the private sector on creating 1 million net new jobs, they said nothing about falls in unemployment and nothing about the fact that the previous Government fiddled figures and that youth unemployment is now lower than when we came into office. They have no ideas. They complain about the welfare bill, but oppose measures to bring it down. They fail to acknowledge the doubling of long-term unemployment during the recession and the rise in youth unemployment even when the economy was growing. They fall back on the empty rhetoric of the bank payroll tax and hark back to schemes that were bad for the unemployed and bad for the taxpayer.

The truth is that more people are in work, fewer people are unemployed and youth unemployment is down. One million net new jobs have been created by the private sector since May 2010. We are making work pay by reforming the benefits system and introducing universal credit. There are 190,000 fewer people now on out-of-work benefits than there were in 2010. That is the scale of the welfare reform that we are introducing. Rather than condemning people to a lifetime on benefits, we are providing support to get them into work. We have provided more help for young people, through the £1 billion Youth Contract. The work experience element is cheaper and as effective as the future jobs fund jobs that the Opposition parade.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

The decommissioning of venues is already well under way, with the transference of temporary venues to new owners, whether it is the volleyball courts or the beach volleyball courts that were just round the corner from here, from which the sand has been taken and used to create tens of new volleyball courts throughout London, including one in Wimbledon park.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

T3. The Conservative party used to support a competitive telecommunications market. Why on earth are Ministers now establishing a new private sector monopoly in rural superfast broadband by simply handing all the Government subsidy over to BT?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

I cannot keep on making this point, but I will. We are not handing the money to BT. It is a competitive tendering process, and if BT wins the contracts that local authorities put out, that is a matter for those local authorities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson]

I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that we help working mothers who wish to work to play a full role in the labour market. That is also about ensuring that fathers who want to play a full role in parenting can do so. The ability to share parental leave between mums and dads in the way they choose, rather than how the Government dictate, is an important step towards achieving that goal.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

The Minister will be alarmed, as we all are, by the big rise in long-term unemployment among women over 50—up from 50,000 to 62,000 since the election. The Work programme, which is designed to address that, does not seem to be delivering. What more can the Government do?

[Jo Swinson]

We are looking into this issue in detail, because we want to ensure that this group of women, as with all unemployed people, are supported. The Work programme provides tailored and targeted support to the individual, which is what is needed, and we will report back to the House about what more can be done.

Universal Credit and Welfare Reform

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Tuesday 11th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Charlie Elphicke]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point. That is, indeed, the kernel of what universal credit is about: it gives a clear message that it pays to work and it is good to work. The Opposition call themselves the Labour party, yet too often when in office they gave the impression of being the non-labour party. This coalition is on the side of the working person—those who are working in a job in order to earn money and bring cash back to their families, and thereby to lift their children out of poverty.

It was often said in past times that the best cure for deprivation is a job. Many people in my constituency live in deprivation. It is important to get people back into work, to incentivise and encourage people to be in work and to make work pay; that is an important message to send. That is why I see universal credit as a message of optimism saying that we want everyone to play their role, and that everyone is expected to play their role and to be active in the workplace.

I support universal credit because it is a simpler system. It makes the situation easier to understand. There are not five different types of payments; there is just one simple payment. It is a fairer system, too. Rather than people losing 90p in the pound—thereby entirely disincentivising them from working harder to get a pay rise or from working longer hours—only 65p in the pound will be withdrawn, which incentivises them to work harder and for longer, and to bring more prosperity back to their families.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

Is the hon. Gentleman worried, as I am, about the proposals of some local authorities to add a 40p in the pound taper on council tax benefit on top of the 65p taper he has just talked about? Under that approach, people who earn more would get less because they would lose more benefit than they would gain in income.

[Charlie Elphicke]

The right hon. Gentleman knows, as I do, that the fine tuning of council tax is still under discussion and still under way, and I hope that that will come out in the wash. I represent a coastal constituency, so I watch that situation carefully, as I know my coastal MP colleagues have been doing. They, too, want to ensure that the low paid in our constituencies are not adversely hit. That is an important point, but it is a fine part of the detailing of the implementation of the policy rather than the overall purpose of the policy, which is to encourage work and to give people more money if they work harder, do better, skill up and get a better job. That is a really important thing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

This has been a thoughtful debate which has covered a lot of important ground.

Let me begin by endorsing the concept of universal credit. It is a good idea to bring different benefits together. The last Government looked forward to a single working-age benefit, and the present Government are right to take that idea forward. It ought to make it possible to simplify the system, strengthen work incentives, and make those incentives clearer. It is in the task of translating those noble aspirations—which every Member in the Chamber has shared this afternoon—into reality that Ministers are struggling so badly. The Treasury is worried; the Prime Minister is worried, as we discovered from the reshuffle last week; and, as we have heard in the debate, people in the system are worried. The wheels are wobbling, and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) pointed out, the public mood and, indeed, the mood on the Conservative Back Benches is becoming much chillier in regard to this initiative.

The first big thing that went wrong was the decision that the credit should not be universal after all. Council tax benefit, one of the most widely claimed benefits, has been left out. So we now face the prospect of a “not quite universal credit”. My right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) rightly observed that that was not the fault of the Secretary of State, who wanted council tax benefit to be included. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government wanted it to be excluded, and unfortunately the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government won. It is now becoming clear what a blunder that was.

As I mentioned earlier in an intervention, Welwyn and Hatfield district council is consulting on a 40% taper rate for council tax benefit, on top of the 65% taper rate for universal credit. If the council proceeds with that proposal, for every extra pound that people earn they will lose more than £1 of universal credit. That is precisely the kind of lunacy that universal credit was supposed to abolish. The idea was supposed to be that work should always pay. I think that that was supported by every Member who spoke today, and it was mentioned specifically by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle). However, thanks to the success of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government in winning a row with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, it will not now happen. Every council in the country will have its own council tax benefit scheme and its own taper, so people’s work incentives will depend on their postcode. So much, sadly, for simplicity.

[Mr Frank Field]

Is my right hon. Friend not being too kind to Treasury Ministers? The moneys for the rebates will be limited, and it will be up to local authorities to meet existing need, let alone new need.

[Stephen Timms]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The money is being cut by 10%, so councils must somehow come up with a scheme that will save 10% and will be introduced on a local basis. It will be chaotic. Many councils are saying that they will not be able to do it in time, and it will certainly mean that there will be no national taper that everyone can understand.

However, that is just the start of the problems. The project is not on schedule, despite what the Secretary of State said earlier. According to paragraph 21 on page 37 of his White Paper of November 2010, between October 2013 and April 2014

“All new claims for out-of-work support are treated as claims to Universal Credit. No new Jobseeker’s Allowance, Employment and Support Allowance, Income Support and Housing Benefit claims will be accepted.”

I believe that that is what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) was told. It is absolutely clear, but it is no longer true. A newsletter appeared on the Department for Work and Pensions website over the summer announcing that, in fact, that timetable will apply in only one Jobcentre Plus district per region. In all the other districts, the change will take place some time after October 2013 and by summer 2014. The timetable has slipped; it has been delayed from what was stated in the White Paper—I am delighted that the Secretary of State is back in his place. On the budget, to the end of the last financial year the project was due to spend £400 million. In fact, it spent £500 million. So it is already over budget, too.

I welcome what the Secretary of State said about online claims: he told us that the Department expects that at the beginning only about half of claims will be submitted online. That is a very significant change from what has been said until now in respect of the digital-by-default proposal. It would be helpful to know what will happen to the 50% who do not apply online. How will things work for them? When people have problems, who is going to help them? As my hon. Friends the Members for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) and for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) rightly pointed out, the introduction of universal credit will coincide with a drastic reduction in the availability of advice, just when people are supposed to be grappling with these new processes.

What about people’s documents? At the moment, people applying for housing benefit present their documents to the local authority. Where will they present them in future? Will people start turning up at jobcentres with their documents or will they be expected to post them somewhere—or will we no longer have the fraud checks that are currently built into the system?

This is supposed to be all about work incentives, but large numbers of people will find that their work incentives are worse. The Government apparently plan a simple income cut-off for free school meals. If people earn less than X, their children will be entitled to free school meals, but if they earn more than X, they will not. That is a disastrous new cliff edge—far worse than anything in the current system. It means that someone with three children who earns less than X will suddenly have to start paying out over £3,000 in school meal charges per year if their income increases above X by just a pound or two. That is a massive disincentive to people to increase their income.

We have been asking how Ministers are going to tackle this issue since March last year. We asked the Secretary of State when he would make up his mind when he gave evidence to the Welfare Reform Bill Committee. He said that

“during the Committee stage we should be in a much stronger position to make it much clearer how we will do that.”––[Official Report, Welfare Reform Public Bill Committee, 24 March 2011; c. 155, Q299.]

Some 18 months have now passed, and today the Secretary of State told us he is talking to various people about it. All this is supposed to be in place within 12 months from now and Ministers still cannot tell us what they will do, but it does appear that that very damaging feature will be part of the system.

I have asked about the publication of the business case. I believe that Ministers will not publish it because it projects that there will be no increase at all in the total number of hours worked as a result of the introduction of universal credit. In other words, the whole basis on which this project is being taken forward is flawed. That is partly because of the situation for second earners, which has been mentioned. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) asked the Secretary of State what would happen to hours worked. He did not answer, and I think I have just explained the reason why. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) pointed out, second earners in a couple face sharply worse work incentives than in the current system. We are going back to an outdated male breadwinner model, where the second person in the couple is not expected to work.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) pointed out, incentives for self-employment are terrible, too. Tax credits have encouraged self-employment, but, under universal credit, the DWP will assume after the first year that people are earning at least the minimum wage for every single hour they are working in self-employment.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that the Federation of Small Businesses is saying that this will be a disincentive to people to get up off their backsides and start their own businesses and get going? That suggests that something is fundamentally wrong.

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is because of the design that has been chosen. In July, the chair of the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group called for a rethink. He said:

“In many cases the income of self-employed earners will fall sharply making it, in some cases, uneconomic for them to continue to work.”

That is the opposite of what everybody in this debate has said universal credit is supposed to do, but that appears to be where we are heading. It is, I am afraid, a mess.

As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, a great deal of care was taken over the design of tax credits to ensure that mothers receive cash support for their children. All those safeguards are deliberately being removed from universal credit, which will cause serious problems.

I very much welcome what the Secretary of State said yesterday about refuges. As we know, Refuge has been saying that it will have to shut all its domestic violence shelters. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) was able to secure a pledge from the new Home Office Minister, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), that he will lobby DWP Ministers on that point, but how are the costs of other kinds of supported housing to be met? The Government concluded a consultation on that in October last year. Another year has passed, and nothing definite has been announced, and in one more year this is all supposed to be up and running.

As has been said, we do not know anything about how in-work conditionality will operate. I have not even mentioned Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ real-time information system for pay-as-you-earn. That is supposed to start from next April. Every company in the land is due to start reporting PAYE to HMRC not, as now, once a year after the end of the financial year, but every single month. The Government say it will all happen automatically through everybody’s computerised payroll systems, but what about small firms that do not have a computerised system? The Low Incomes Tax Reform Group says:

“Businesses will have to draw up two sets of accounts—one for HMRC, the other for DWP—and the latter will have to be done monthly, thereby massively increasing bureaucratic burdens.”

This is a mess. It has not been properly worked through. Key decisions have not yet been made. It is no wonder the Treasury and No. 10 are so worried. The House should be too, and should support our motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Webb]

Let me deal with that point directly. Under the current system, people who are below the tax and national insurance threshold and get tax credits and housing benefit lose 79p in the pound—that will fall to 65p. Under the current system, people who are above the tax and NI threshold and get tax credits and housing benefit lose 91p in the pound—that will fall to 76p. Under the new system, there will be almost no one who loses more than 80p in the pound, compared with 500,000 people who do so now. What is not to like about that? This is good news for work incentives.

[Stephen Timms]

What is the Department’s assessment of the effect of the introduction of universal credit on the number of hours worked in the UK economy?

[Steve Webb]

As the right hon. Gentleman well understands, the impact on every individual will be different, so we have not used a specific figure for the number of hours worked. However, what I have demonstrated is that the people who face the biggest barriers to working more hours will see cuts in their marginal rates and the people who face the biggest barriers to working at all will get more return for working. So this is good news for work incentives. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead referred to the people facing an increase in their marginal rate, but that increase is by four percentage points, from a median of 41 to 45. That is the trade-off. We give people an incentive to take work and we tackle the most severe marginal rates, while some people face a four percentage point increase. That seems to me to be a good trade-off.

Quite properly, a lot of hon. Members raised the issue of internet access. We want to make it absolutely clear that the proposition is digital by default, so if we can get people in on the internet and online, we will do so. However, as the Secretary of State said at the start, we fully recognise that not everybody is online and not everybody will be, so the core planning for the universal credit contains provision for people who will not be online.

Some of the figures we have heard grossly distort the extent to which people of working age in the benefit population are online these days. The evidence suggests that 74% of claimants—not of the whole population, but of claimants—have home broadband and that 41% of claimants do internet banking. To hear the speeches we have heard in this debate, one would not think that these people even knew what a computer looked like. It has been suggested in this debate that we have to avoid patronising people on benefits, and that is absolutely right. We want to support people who are not online—jobcentres will play a part in that and we are talking to local authorities about it—but let us see this as an opportunity to get more people to be internet savvy, online and more employable. Let us not condemn people; let us give them opportunities and training.

The impact of this measure is very important, and the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) asked about the equalities impact. We will publish an updated equalities impact assessment with the final regulations after the autumn statement.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) gave some bizarre figures about the impact of this reform on lone parents, and I do not know where he got them from. Lone parents gain from universal credit: 400,000 lone parents who rent will gain, as opposed to 200,000 who will have lower entitlement; there will be twice as many gainers as losers in that category. This reform will reduce child poverty, because we are spending huge sums of additional money at a time when money is tight. We are doing so because of our priority of making work pay.

We have heard discussion of the real-time information system, the fact that people’s benefit will be based on their current situation and the impact on business. This approach has been assessed as saving businesses £300 million a year. Those figures are signed off not by us, but by the Regulatory Policy Committee, which is a business-led organisation; they have been validated by business. Businesses are doing a lot of these calculations anyway, with the software doing it for them in most cases, but the streamlining of the system will save businesses cost overall. We are working closely with our colleagues at Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs; there has been close working between the two Departments. The Department for Work and Pensions is represented in the governance of HMRC’s real-time information programme at every level, and the DWP and HMRC have jointly presented to Parliament.

The right hon. Member for Birkenhead, in another bizarre, overstated allegation, said that there has been a mass exodus of senior civil servants on the programme. That is completely untrue. The senior responsible officer, Terry Moran, whom he will know from years gone by, has held that role since November 2010. The programme director has been in place since August 2011. At HMRC, the senior responsible officer for the real-time information service has retired—we still allow people to retire, even under our policies—but has been replaced by someone from the DWP. So the suggestion that people are just walking out the door is nonsense and is scaremongering.