Agricultural Property Relief
Torsten Bell Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Carmichael
The Minister is shaking his head. I wonder whether the hon. Lady would join me in inviting him to intervene to explain why that fact is wrong.
Ann Davies
I do not know whether the Minister would like to do so now or at the end. It is up to him.
Torsten Bell
I will at some length explain why the remarks that the right hon. Gentleman just made—
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. If Members wish to make an intervention, they should stand to do so. It is up to the person who is speaking whether to accept an intervention.
I was going to say this at the end of Ann Davies’s speech, but I will say it now. This debate is oversubscribed, so I will put a time limit on speeches. Members should make short interventions, because interventions will mean less time for those people who have put in to speak.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) on securing this debate and for engaging with many different pronunciations of the name of her constituency over the course of the last hour and a half. She rightly makes a powerful case for Welsh farming, which all of us in south Wales would like to reinforce.
We will not all agree on the policy under discussion today, but we all agree that topics such as this are important to many and should be properly discussed in this place—ideally at a lower temperature than in this room. I have listened closely to the contributions to the debate, and I thank all hon. Members for setting out their views and for speaking on behalf of not only their constituents, but their acquaintances, friends and family members. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) made a clear case about the emotional, not just economic, importance of land to farmers and farming families. Most of us will have someone close to us who farms, but even those who do not will recognise the huge contribution that our farmers make to our food security, our economy and our rural communities. None of us takes those contributions for granted, and we have heard that today.
Before I turn to the specific points raised by hon. Members, I will briefly—I promise it will be brief—set out the context for the Budget decisions we are debating. This Government’s inheritance matters, however much the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) declines to mention it. We had unsustainable public finances, equally unsustainable and struggling public services, councils going bust and prisons overflowing, so tough decisions were unavoidable in the Budget if we were to restore economic stability, fix the public finances and support public service. That is the backdrop to the decision to reform agricultural property relief.
That decision was not taken lightly, but it was a necessary decision, not least because rural communities lose out more than most when health, transport and council services across the UK do not live up to the standards that any of us expect. It was the right decision, because the Government will maintain significant levels of inheritance tax relief for agricultural property, far beyond what is available for most assets, because we recognise the role that those reliefs play in supporting farmers.
The debate is really about how we balance the objectives of protecting family farms with the public finances and public services. The status quo—the full, unlimited exemption introduced in 1992—has become unsustainable. The benefits have become far too heavily skewed towards the wealthiest estates. Some 40% of agricultural property relief benefits the top 7% of estates making claims. The top 2% claim 22% of the relief, which means 37 estates are claiming £119 million in a single—
John Glen
The Minister is a serious economist with a serious track record in analysing public finances. With all due respect, given the significant uncertainty and the fact that numerous organisations representing farming interests outside the party political debate have asked serious questions about the deliverability of the scheme and the amount of money that will be raised, surely he must accept that there is time for people such as he to work with officials to find better ways of finding the sums that he says he needs—I am not disputing that—to do the right thing by the farming communities of this country and not cause the unintended damage that will clearly take effect.
Torsten Bell
I thank the right hon. Member for his kind words, even though I cannot agree with everything that followed. I will come on to some of the points that he raised shortly. I think this will come up several times in the course of what remains of the debate, but we cannot use farm valuation data to make claims about inheritance tax claims. On the latter, we have the actual data for the claims made, which is what we rely on.
Several hon. Members rose—
Torsten Bell
I will make some progress and then I will give way.
We see a similar picture for business property relief. It is in large part these reliefs that mean the largest estates pay materially lower rates of inheritance tax than more modest estates. That undermines faith in the fairness of our tax system more generally. Given the pressures we face, it cannot be right to leave this system unreformed, which is a point the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) made well.
That is the context and the rationale for the changes to how we will target agricultural property relief and business property relief from April 2026. Contrary to the claims that these reliefs are being scrapped, which I am afraid to say were repeated by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) just now, we will continue to provide significant tax relief, including for small farms and businesses. Individuals will still benefit from 100% relief for the first £1 million of combined business and agricultural assets. Importantly, the relief sits on top of all the other spousal exemption and nil-rate bands. Depending on people’s circumstances, up to £3 million can be passed on by a couple to their children or grandchildren free of inheritance tax.
Jim Shannon
I will try to be brief. On the rateable value, which the Minister mentioned earlier, my understanding after talking to the legal person of the Ulster Farmers’ Union is that the rateable value is based on whether the farm was handed over in the 1970s, in the 1980s, in the 1990s or even in the 2000s, but the rateable value does not show the real value of the land. Therefore, it is a flawed system. If it is a flawed system, the Minister needs to go back to the very beginning and look at it. I say that respectfully; I am not trying to catch anybody out. I am just saying that if something is not right, then get it right.
Torsten Bell
The point I was making was about the hon. Member’s point that the relief had been scrapped; I was just making the point that the reliefs have certainly not been scrapped and that they remain very generous indeed.
Beyond the thresholds I mentioned, the 50% relief will continue and there will be a reduced marginal inheritance tax rate of 20%, rather than the standard 40%. Furthermore, in response to the points raised by several Members today about the cash-flow challenges that some farms face, particularly after bad years like last year, I will point out that heirs can spread the payments over 10 years interest-free, which is a benefit that is not seen anywhere else in the inheritance tax system.
Mr Carmichael
If people are looking at a £400,000 bill, which is what they would pay on a £3 million farm, and they earn £25,000 a year, they will still struggle to make that payment in 10 years; in fact, it would be downright impossible. That is how the land gets sold.
Torsten Bell
I will not comment on the individual example the right hon. Gentleman gave, but in general he is right to say that there can be large variations in the profits of farms between years and between farms. That is partly why the tax system already allows us—uniquely for farmers—to average profits over periods of time. Obviously, our advice to all farmers who think they will be affected by the change is that they should seek advice in turn.
I turn to the impact that these reforms will have, as that has been the central focus of most comments today.
Torsten Bell
I will make some progress.
In 2026-27, up to 520 estates claiming agricultural property relief, including those that also claim business property relief, are expected to pay more as a result of this change. That means that around three quarters of estates claiming agricultural property relief will not pay any more than they do now.
The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) asked questions about business property relief and specifically about claims that are not covered by agricultural property relief. Around three quarters of estates claiming business property relief alone—that is, the same proportion that have agricultural property relief, once we exclude those only holding alternative investment market or AIM shares, which are often held for the purpose of avoiding inheritance tax—will not pay any more inheritance tax in 2026-27. All estates making claims for these reliefs will continue to receive generous support, at a total cost of £1.1 billion to the Exchequer. The system will remain more generous than it was before 1992, when inheritance tax was applied at a maximum rate of 50%, including on the first £1 million that was passed on.
Several Members have implied that the change will end the passing-down of farms between generations. I gently point out in response that farmers, agricultural landowners and small business owners did not receive 100% relief on inheritance tax for almost all of the 20th century, yet farms and businesses were very much passed down between generations. Indeed, the tax system will continue to support that process. As the Institute of Fiscal Studies has said, our reforms will:
“still leave…land much more lightly taxed than most other assets”.
These changes should also be seen in the wider context of support we are providing for farmers and rural communities. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) was wrong in his comments about the Office for Budget Responsibility, as the document produced this week provides no new information. However, he was right about the importance of food security, as was the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe). That is why the Budget committed £5 billion to farming over the next two years, including the biggest budget for sustainable food production in our history. It also committed £60 million to help farmers affected by the unprecedented wet weather last winter. The wider tax system will also continue to support farming—tenants as well as owners—including through exemptions from business rates, the use of rebated diesel and the ability, as I said, to average tax affairs over a number of years.
As we have heard today, the reforms to inheritance tax generate strong views. I understand that. I recognise that a small number of estates will have to pay more. I have not hidden from that today, nor in conversations—
Robbie Moore
Will the Minister confirm when he and the Government will start listening to the points being made by everybody outside this place—different stakeholders, banks, accountants—
Robbie Moore
And supermarkets. The Minister and Government are, dare I say it, alone on this point.
Secondly, as he did not allow my intervention earlier, will the Minister confirm why the Government are not taking into account the value and the size of agricultural units when projecting the impact the changes will have on family farming businesses and farming businesses?
Torsten Bell
The hon. Gentleman raises the question of supermarkets. Supermarkets can talk but there is a lot they could do directly to support our farmers—
Torsten Bell
I listened to the question and I will make more progress. I have not hidden from what I have heard from individuals across the country about this issue in recent months, including from talking to farmers in mid-Wales and East Anglia. Reform of the reliefs is necessary if we are serious about putting our public finances on a stable footing and repairing our broken public services, including the schools, hospitals and roads that communities across the UK—
Torsten Bell
No, I am going to finish. Communities across the UK, including in rural areas, rely on those things every single day. We have taken these decisions to make the system fairer and more sustainable and the decisions come alongside significant new investments in farming and support for small business.
Thank you, Mr Stringer, and all those who have spoken today, in particular the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin for securing the debate. I look forward to her concluding remarks.
Automatic Enrolment: Earnings Trigger and Qualifying Earnings Band Review 2025-26
Torsten Bell Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Torsten Bell)
Automatic enrolment into workplace pensions has transformed workplace pension saving for millions of workers. The Government are committed to looking at long-term steps we can take to further improve pension outcomes.
I have completed this year’s annual statutory review of the thresholds within automatic enrolment. The main focus of this year’s annual statutory review of the AE earnings trigger and lower and upper earnings limits of the qualifying earnings band—the AE thresholds—has been to ensure the continued stability of AE for employers and individuals. It is important that AE works for individuals, supporting those for whom it makes economic sense to save towards their pensions while also ensuring affordability for employers and taxpayers.
The thresholds review has therefore concluded that all AE thresholds for 2025-26 will be maintained at their 2024-25 levels.
The 2025-26 annual thresholds
The automatic enrolment earnings trigger will remain at £10,000.
The lower earnings limit of the qualifying earnings band will remain at £6,240.
The upper earnings limit of the qualifying earnings band will remain at £50,270.
The analysis supporting the review will be published and a copy will be placed in the Library of the House. It will be available on the www.gov.uk website, following publication.
[HCWS376]
Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation
Torsten Bell Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
It is a pleasure to serve under you today, Dr Murrison.
I thank the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for securing a debate on this important topic. I also thank him, if slightly less enthusiastically, for its timing, which is on my first day in office. That fact also explains the delay in answering the named day question put by the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), which he referred to in his contribution to the debate.
I am under no illusion that everyone in this Chamber, or almost everyone in this Chamber, will agree with everything that I am about to say. However, all of us who have listened to this debate and to the important points made by right hon. and hon. Members have benefited from it, and we all recognise the context of this debate, which is the squeeze on living standards that has affected women born in the 1950s just as it has the entire country.
The issues that we are discussing today are important to many women, including my aunt in west Wales, who was born in 1955 and who pays particularly close attention to these issues. I spoke to her last night as part of my preparation for this debate and she would agree with the points made by the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood), and by my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), that women of her generation have faced many difficulties and particular discrimination. People have spoken powerfully about that.
It is therefore right that this debate gives the long-held concerns of those women the consideration they deserve, just as it was right that the Government considered those concerns in making the decision that we are debating today. That is also why my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq), was the first Minister in eight years to meet WASPI Ltd, why the Government considered the ombudsman’s investigations and reports in detail, and why we look closely at what Parliament has said on this subject. Although I understand that the outcome was disappointing for many, the decision was based on the evidence.
Before I set out how we reached that decision, as the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) requested, it is worth reiterating the point that several Members have made: the ombudsman’s report was not about the decision in 1995 to increase the state pension age for women, or the decision in 2011 to accelerate that increase. Those decisions were the focus of remarks by many Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck). They were taken by Parliament, including by many Members who are here today, and they were upheld by the Court of Appeal in 2020.
Sir John Hayes
I welcome the Minister to his place; I appreciate that this debate is his first outing and his comments about the timing are well made. However, the WASPI campaigners have never made that case; they have never said that they were against the equalisation. What they said, and rightly so, is that they were not properly informed and that is precisely what the then ombudsman confirmed in his report. Will the Minister just answer this simple question? The ombudsman said that he felt it was unlikely the DWP would respond to his report—it was sad that he should have to say that. The ombudsman proposed—unusually, in his words—that the matter be laid before Parliament. Will the Minister use his endeavours to ensure Parliament gets to vote on the ombudsman’s recommendations?
Torsten Bell
We have already had a long statement in the main Chamber. The point of debates like this one today is to make sure that the Government are held accountable for their decisions.
Torsten Bell
I will make some progress and give way later on. There has also been, as has been raised, the opportunity for all parties to call for more time and for votes in the main Chamber. I am sure the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings will take that up with his party in the months ahead. I will make some progress and take more interventions as we proceed.
The ombudsman’s investigation concerned the more specific question of how changes in the state pension age were communicated to women, like my aunt, born in the 1950s. The Government started sending personalised letters in April 2009, but the ombudsman concluded we should have started 28 months earlier. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has apologised for that delay. We are determined to learn the lessons so that we avoid similar mistakes happening again. First, we will work with the ombudsman to develop a detailed action plan, identifying and addressing lessons from this and other PHSO investigations. Secondly, we are committed to providing clear and sufficient notice of any changes in the state pension age so that people can plan for their retirement. Thirdly, the Secretary of State has directed the Department to develop a clear and transparent communication strategy for state pension changes; work on that has already begun. This will build on changes that are already under way, such as our online “Check your State Pension forecast” service, which provides a forecast of the level of state pension, but also information about when people can take it.
The ombudsman looked at six cases and concluded that DWP provided adequate and accurate information on changes to the state pension age between 1995 and 2004. However, they also found that decisions made between 2005 and 2007 led to a 28-month delay in sending out letters to women born in the 1950s, many of whom are here with us today. The ombudsman said that those delays did not result in women suffering from direct financial loss, but that there was maladministration, and we agree.
Ayoub Khan
In spite of what the ombudsman has recommended, it is clear that the current Prime Minister recognised and advocated throughout the country that WASPI women were dealt an enormous injustice. It is a principle of democracy where we advocate for something when we want power, we ought to deliver once we get power to maintain trust and confidence. In spite of what the ombudsman recommends, does the Minister agree that the Prime Minister should honour what he advocated?
Torsten Bell
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. The Labour party did oppose the acceleration of the state pension age in the early part of the last decade, but he and many other Members will have noticed very viscerally that the Labour party lost many elections since then. Parliament made a decision and the courts have since endorsed that decision. There was maladministration and we must learn the lessons.
Grahame Morris
I appreciate that being newly in post is difficult, but can I clarify something? The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), said that the changes were introduced in 1995—I believe under John Major—but the acceleration of the changes was in 2011-12, under the coalition Government. I think Steve Webb was the pensions Minister. My hon. Friend the Minister says that there was no financial loss, but there must be a financial loss for the women affected. We could argue whether that is justified. We certainly cannot argue that a majority in Parliament passed it. The women must have suffered a financial loss because of having to wait another six years before getting their pension.
Torsten Bell
I thank my hon. Friend on two fronts for his intervention. First, because he has reinforced the point that I just made, which was that we are struggling to distinguish between the rights and wrongs of the original decision about the state pension age, the equalisation in 1995, the acceleration in 2011 and the ombudsman’s report, which is focused narrowly on the communication of those decisions. On a second front, he reminds us that it was in fact George Osborne who said that the acceleration of the state pension rises was the single biggest saving that he made. He boasted about it, but that is a separate issue.
Torsten Bell
I think I should make some progress and give way later. I want to get on to the bit that most Members might not agree with, but at least will explain what we are doing, because we do not agree with the ombudsman’s approach to injustice or indeed to remedy. The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) and the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) rightly noted that is unusual, and it should be unusual. However it is also not unprecedented.
The decision not to introduce a compensation scheme was difficult and complex. The ombudsman assumed, despite evidence to the contrary, that sending letters earlier would have fundamentally changed what women knew and how they acted. However research from 2014 shows that only one in four people who are sent unsolicited letters actually remembers receiving and reading them. The ombudsman does not address this evidence.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Will he confirm whether the Government’s decision and their claim that only 10% of women affected were unaware of the state pension change is based on a survey from 2006 involving just 210 respondents?
Torsten Bell
If my hon. Friend will allow me to make some progress, I will come to exactly that point shortly.
There was considerable awareness that the state pension age was increasing. I think everyone agrees on that even if they do not agree about the research itself. The research used by the ombudsman, from 2004, shows that 73% of people then aged 45 to 54 were aware that the state pension age was going up. Further research shows that, by 2006—when the ombudsman finds that the direct mailing should have begun—90% of women aged 45 to 54 were aware that the state pension age was increasing. We therefore cannot accept that, in the vast majority of cases—and I appreciate it is in the vast majority of cases—sending letters earlier would have affected whether women knew their state pension age was rising or increased their opportunities to make an informed decision. It would not be reasonable—
Sir John Hayes
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me for a second time. To be clear about this: there are two issues at stake here—how many women knew, and how communications would have affected that. The fact of the matter is that the ombudsman’s report—I have it in my hand—says
“Research reported in 2004 showed that only 43% of all women affected by the 1995 Pensions Act knew their State Pension age was 65, or between 60 and 65.”
That is a clear majority of women who did not know. Therefore the only debate is whether communicating with them would have been effective. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) said, if it would not have been effective, what is the point in Government communicating at all?
Torsten Bell
I was not going to go into this detail, but the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings is inviting me to return to some of my past lives with the details of surveys. The 43% figure that he is referring to refers to all women. What the ombudsman did not do is look at the same survey and look at the women who were affected by this change, who were obviously slightly later in life and much more likely to know about their state pension age. That is where the higher figures I am quoting come from. It is from the same survey as used by the ombudsman, but it is focused on the women who are actually affected by the change.
Richard Burgon
I thank the Minister for giving way and I congratulate him on his appointment. However, to get to the crux of this: when the decision our Government have made on this was announced—and there is much to be proud of in what it has done since the general election—my jaw hit the floor. I was flabbergasted. It is my belief that the vast majority of Labour MPs could not believe it when it was announced. That pales into insignificance compared to the reaction of the WASPI women who I and others have been proud to support in my Leeds East constituency and elsewhere. My last point is that, before this decision was made, I said to the WASPI women outside Parliament that justice delayed is justice denied. This is worse than that. I thought I was just trying to compel our Government to hurry up and make a decision. This is not justice delayed is justice denied. As it stands, unless we do something, this is justice denied full stop.
Torsten Bell
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and for his brief congratulations on my appointment prior to his wider comments. I would say gently that he and I both stood on the same manifesto which did not promise to provide compensation, and lots of Members have talked about trust in this Chamber. There was a clear choice not to make that promise in the manifesto.
Torsten Bell
I really must make some progress because we are about to run out of time.
It would not be a reasonable or fair use of taxpayer money to pay compensation to people whose circumstances would be the same today even if the maladministration had never occurred. A compensation scheme would cost up to £10.5 billion, less than the scheme previously proposed by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) but still a significant amount.
The ombudsman is clear that, as a matter of principle, redress and compensation should normally reflect individual impact. The Department considered at length whether a tailored scheme could be delivered, but it was simply not a viable option. The ombudsman’s report acknowledges the cost and administrative burden of assessing the individual circumstances of 3.5 million women born in the 1950s. Indeed, it took the ombudsman nearly six years to investigate just the six sample cases. To set up a scheme and invite 3.5 million women to set out their detailed personal circumstances would take years and thousands of staff.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Will the Minister give way on that point?
Torsten Bell
I must make some progress.
We also do not believe that paying a flat rate to all women would be a fair or proportionate use of taxpayers’ money. I want to address the questions asked by several hon. Members about the specific research findings. It is important to say that the evidence on what women knew about the state pension age changes is robust. The same research was used by the ombudsman, who clearly did not have concerns about its validity.
I have heard hon. Members make powerful speeches today and I understand the strength of feeling on this issue, not least from my aunt. Many women born in the 1950s worked hard in paid jobs, often balancing that with raising a family. The Government have a responsibility to take their concerns seriously, which is why Ministers listened, reflected and carefully considered this complex decision. As custodians of the public purse, however, we must also ensure that decisions are rooted in evidence and are fair to everyone.
The fact remains that the vast majority of women knew that the state pension age was increasing. Even for those who did not, we know that sending letters earlier would not have made a difference in most cases. [Interruption.] Although I know that that decision will be disappointing, as we are hearing, and many have been frustrated by watching this debate drag on for years, we believe it is the right course of action. Of course, it is also right that the Government should be held to account for that decision, as is happening today.
Jeremy Corbyn
I congratulate the Minister on his appointment. I think I am right in saying that it is unprecedented for the Government to reject in its entirety an ombudsman’s report and offer absolutely nothing. Those women were led up the garden path in the last election, and before that, by people saying that compensation was going to be paid. The Minister needs to explain why the Government are simply ignoring the plight of those women.
Torsten Bell
It is an important issue, and we have been listening to the plight of those women for many years—and rightly so. Important and powerful cases have been made by many hon. Members, but I have set out why the Government have made that decision.
We will continue to help women born in the 1950s and pensioners across the UK by investing a crucial £22 billion into NHS England this year and next, with consequentials for the Welsh and Scottish Governments.
Torsten Bell
No, I will not.
The biggest betrayal of our older generations is the state of our health service. We will also boost the state pension by up to £1,900 by the end of this Parliament. As the new Pensions Minister, I know that nothing is more important than providing a foundation for the secure retirement that everyone deserves after a lifetime of work.
Oral Answers to Questions
Torsten Bell Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Stephen Timms
As I mentioned earlier, we are committed to reviewing universal credit. The way it works means that in each assessment period—each month—there is a new calculation based on the income that the person has received, as reported by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. However, I would be very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to talk about how the system needs to be improved further.
Torsten Bell (Swansea West) (Lab)
Sir Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The threshold will increase on 7 April next year, and all current claimants will receive an annual uprating letter in the spring that will set out the new limit. As I mentioned a moment ago, 60,000 new unpaid carers will also become eligible for the allowance at that point.
Oral Answers to Questions
Torsten Bell Excerpts(1 year, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Stephen Timms
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am not familiar with the arrangements in Northern Ireland, but certainly in the rest of the UK it is very clear that contractors ideally need to pay up-front, buy tickets and give them to the jobseeker before they embark on their journey, or, if not, reimburse them very quickly on production of a receipt.
Torsten Bell (Swansea West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)
Tackling child poverty is a top priority for the new Government, and a personal priority for me. Children cannot fulfil their potential without food in their belly or a decent roof over their head, and we cannot fulfil our potential as a country when the talents of so many are left behind. That is why our new child poverty taskforce will drive action across every area of government to drive up family income, drive down family costs and give every child the best start in life.
Torsten Bell
I welcome the establishment of the child poverty taskforce. How will the taskforce ensure that lessons, including on the role of housing costs in driving up relative poverty and the necessity of growth to drive down absolute poverty, will be learnt from previous attempts to drive down child poverty in Wales and across the UK?
Liz Kendall
My hon. Friend makes a very important point about learning the lessons from the last time we were in government and lifted more than 600,000 children out of poverty, and looking at similarities and differences, not least that there are more children growing up in poverty in households, whether in the private rented sector or in social housing, and that there are more children growing up poor in a household where somebody works. Getting and creating more good quality jobs, and helping families into those jobs, is absolutely a crucial part of our child poverty plan.