Autumn Statement Resolutions

Debate between Stephen Timms and Simon Clarke

Monday 21st November 2022 Commons Chamber

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

On 10 November, a week before the Chancellor stood up to make his statement, the Trussell Trust published its latest figures on the number of emergency food parcels that it has delivered over the first six months of this financial year. The number was 1.3 million, which is an increase of one third on the previous year, and it looks as though around 2.5 million will be delivered over this financial year as a whole. That will be a more than fortyfold increase compared with the number of emergency food parcels handed out by Trussell Trust food banks in 2010-11.

Why is the number so much more in this financial year than it was in the previous financial year? Part of the reason is undoubtedly that there has been a big real-terms cut in benefit levels this year. Universal credit was increased by 3.1% in April, when inflation was nearly 10%. According to the House of Commons Library, the consequence of that is that the headline rate of benefit is at its lowest level in real terms for 40 years—since 1982-83. Of course, a real-terms cut this year means significantly more people being forced to go to food banks than in the previous year.

I was interested to hear the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke) say that he would not have increased benefits in line with inflation next year. In September I asked the then Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), what his intention was on uprating benefits and he did not answer, but I suspect that what was said by the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland, who was a leading member of that Administration, speaks for that Government as a whole and that benefits would probably not have been increased in line with inflation. That would have meant several hundred thousand more people going to food banks in the coming year. The question we have to ask ourselves is why our economy is failing so badly that so many people are unable to obtain, through their work and other efforts, the means to sustain the absolute basics of living for themselves and their families.

I am extremely relieved, then, that the Chancellor announced that benefits will be uprated properly next April in line with the usual formula, meaning there will be a 10.1% rise. I do not think that will significantly reduce the problem of people going to food banks, but it should at least ensure that that problem will not get a great deal worse next year, as it has this year. For that we can be thankful.

I am also pleased that the benefit cap is to be uprated. It was introduced in 2012, and at the time we were told that it was to constrain the total of benefit that a household could receive in relation to median earnings. There was some sort of rationale given for the level that was set. But then it was frozen—there was no link at all with median earnings beyond the initial announcement—until 2016. That was the only time the benefit cap was changed, and it was significantly reduced, to another, lower level, whose significance was never explained to us, except that it was a lot less than the level at which the cap had been introduced.

Now, thankfully, the Chancellor is finally going to uprate the level next year by 10%, in line with inflation, but surely it should be uprated each year. If there is some rationale for the level at which the cap is set—presumably it is linked to inflation in some way—we ought to know what that rationale is, and then it should be raised each year. All this time that the level has been frozen, more people have crashed into it each year and had to go to food banks to obtain the means to maintain their lives and those of their families. So I am very relieved that the cap will finally be uprated—although it is a one-off—next April.

As I understand the statement published by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, he has conducted a review of the level of the benefit cap—something that he is required by law to do every five years. I very much hope he will publish that review, so that we can see what the rationale is for the level at which the cap has been set and get some idea of what the Government’s intentions are for the future of that level. The Secretary of State will be coming to the Select Committee next week—we look forward very much to our discussion with him—when I hope he will be able to tell us that that review will be published.

But as my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State rightly pointed out, the thing that has not been uprated is the local housing allowance. It is worth spending a moment on the history of this, because the local housing allowance, which limits how much housing support can be provided, was initially set at 50% of the median rent in each area. The idea was that support would cover at least half the homes available for rent in the area. In 2011 it was reduced to 30%, so that it would cover only the cheapest three in 10 homes available to rent in the area, and then it was frozen for years—it was not increased at all. People increasingly had to dip into the rest of their benefit to pay their rent, and the pressure on them became tighter and tighter—until the beginning of the pandemic, when it was raised back up to 30%.

That was a very helpful move, but since then the level has been frozen again, and we are told that it will also be frozen next year. That will be three years in which it has not been raised at all, despite the fact that, as my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State rightly pointed out, rents are surging, and the only way people can pay the rent is by dipping into the other benefit they receive, which is supposed to meet their other living costs. I think the idea is that, by keeping the local housing allowance down, the Government will restrain the increase in rents, but I have seen no evidence at all that that is happening; it is just making things harder and harder for families.

I agree with what the Chancellor said about inactivity. There is a big problem with the large number of people—again, my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench made this point—who have dropped out of the labour market since the pandemic. The former Prime Minister told the House 12 times, between November 2021 and July this year, that we had more people in employment than before the pandemic. That was not true, he knew it was untrue, and what the Chancellor said is correct: a lot of people have stopped working. We do not quite know what they are living on—whether they have dipped into their pensions earlier, or what is happening. The Chancellor is right that that needs to be addressed. We need to find ways of giving incentives and encouraging people to return to work. Again, we look forward to discussing that with the Secretary of State at the Work and Pensions Committee meeting next Wednesday.

I want finally to come back to the points I made at the start. Can we not all agree there must be a serious effort to reduce dependence on food banks? We cannot keep on, year after year, seeing hundreds of thousands more people having to go to a food bank, including people who are working, in some cases full time, who are unable to obtain enough to sustain their life and the lives of their family members. Surely, where people are working a full week, that ought to be enough to sustain their costs. Where people are unable to work due to illness or disability, surely our society ought to be able to support them sufficiently. They should not have to go to a food bank.

[Mr Clarke]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a persuasive case for the need to ensure that work pays. Does he recognise that one of the most welcome measures in the Chancellor’s autumn statement was the increase in the national living wage, which will stand at well over £10 from next April?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am glad that it is being raised; it certainly needs to be, and it will need to go further. The right hon. Gentleman would probably agree that if someone is working full time at the legal minimum allowed, that ought to be enough to enable them to live and to support their family, but at the moment it is not. Why is that, and what are we going to do to put it right? Part of the answer must be an adequate social security safety net. We do not have that at the moment, and we are going to need it in future.

National Insurance Contributions (Increase of Thresholds) Bill

Debate between Stephen Timms and Simon Clarke

2nd reading
Thursday 24th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

I would say two things. First, there is a raft of measures in place in the package announced yesterday precisely determined to help people on the lowest incomes, including, notably, the doubling of the household support fund to £1 billion, the action that we have already taken in cutting the universal credit taper rate, and the biggest cut that we have ever made to fuel duty. These are all things we have done, on top of the energy price package announced in February, that are designed to help people on the lowest incomes. Secondly, I hold the office of Chief Secretary, and I remember the Labour predecessor who left the note saying that there is no money left. I do not want to be in a position where I hand over a note to any successor of mine saying that there is an equivalent situation.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Clarke]

I give way to another predecessor.

[Stephen Timms]

It has been reported overnight that people on universal credit will see only about half of the gain from the measure that the Minister is bringing forward compared with those who are not on universal credit because the portion of people’s income that will not now be subject to 12% national insurance will instead be subject to the universal credit taper at 55%. Is that assessment correct?

[Mr Clarke]

We are determined to help people on universal credit to keep more of what they earn. I have not seen the assessment to which the right hon. Gentleman alludes, but I will look at it. It is certainly our ambition to keep bringing down the taper rate so that people get to keep more of what they earn. In that regard, I will certainly look at the analysis to which he directs me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clarke]

Indeed, I absolutely do recognise what my hon. Friend says. The IFS has described raising the NICs threshold as

“the best way to help low and middle earners through the tax system”,

so he is absolutely right in what he says.

[Stephen Timms]

Mike Brewer, who used to be with the Institute for Fiscal Studies, has said this morning about the value of the £330 figure to the average employee:

“If you are getting UC, then you lose 55% of that to a reduced UC award.”

I think that is a major issue for the House in evaluating the measure that the Chief Secretary is bringing forward. Could he please urgently clarify for us whether that is indeed the case?

[Mr Clarke]

As I said in response to the right hon. Gentleman’s earlier remark, I will of course look at what he is saying. I recognise fully that we want to make sure that we allow people to keep as much as possible of what they earn, and it is our ambition to keep reducing the tax burden on the lowest earners, including through action on the taper rate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clarke]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She is a fantastic champion for Hastings and Rye, which I recognise is a part of the south-east that perfectly demonstrates that communities face very significant challenges in all parts of the United Kingdom. Sometimes the levelling up question is seen as the north and the midlands against the south, but her constituency is a very good demonstration of why communities in the south-east also need support. She is absolutely right in what she says. This is a Government with a strong track record of delivering for people who need the most help. It is worth noting in that regard that, as a result of the Bill, over 2 million people will be taken out of paying class 1 and class 4 NICs and the health and social care levy altogether, including, of course, in Hastings and Rye.

[Stephen Timms]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Clarke]

I should make some further progress, I think.

The Government recognise that implementing the Bill is a big change for many employers and payroll software providers, so I want to add a few words about the timeline for when we are implementing the changes. We believe that the date in early July strikes the appropriate balance between ensuring—this speaks to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart)—that people benefit from the increase as soon as possible, while giving employers and payroll software providers time to update and test their systems so that the change can be delivered safely. That will avoid millions of taxpayers having to make manual claims for refunds at the end of the tax year and employers from having to make major payroll corrections. Clearly, that is a situation we want to avoid.

The Government are also acutely aware of the huge pressures faced by those working for themselves but earning low amounts as a result of the rising cost of living. To support that group, the Bill gives the Treasury a power to lay an affirmative statutory instrument. It will mean that from April those with profits between £6,725 and £11,908 will not pay class 2 NICs. That will rise to £12,570 from April 2023. The measure will benefit half a million self-employed people, saving them up to £165 a year. As I just mentioned, that group will still be able to receive NIC credits, just as they have done in the past.

[Mr Clarke]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury will be replying to the later stages of the Bill’s passage and will be able to provide direct confirmation that HMRC is focused on that issue. It is critical that HMRC plays its full role in delivering the measures as seamlessly as possible, and I know that it will.

[Stephen Timms]

Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury give way?

[Mr Clarke]

I will, I will, I will.

[Stephen Timms]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and I apologise for intervening once again. He has made it clear that he is not able to answer the question about the effect of this measure on people claiming universal credit. Can he commit the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to giving us an answer on that point before the end of the debate? It is an important issue for the House to take into account when determining its decision on this measure.

[Mr Clarke]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that point. My right hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary will do her best to provide an answer based on the information that our officials can provide. It is important, obviously, that we answer questions correctly. It is worth noting that the universal credit taper rate has been reduced from 63% to 55% and the universal credit work allowance has been increased by £500 a year to help make work pay. That is a tax cut for the lowest paid in society worth around £1.9 billion in the financial year that is just about to begin. It means that 1.7 million households will on average keep around an extra £1,000. We will do our best to respond to the specific question that the right hon. Gentleman raises.

The effect on an individual’s ability to access contributory benefits and to build up state pension entitlement will be unaffected as a result of the changes to class 2 NICs. Taken together with the increase in the primary threshold and the lower profits limit, we will meet in full our commitment to ensure that the first £12,500 an individual earns is free of tax, clearly illustrating that this is a Government who make good on their promises to the people of this country.