Sir Stephen Timms
MP for East Ham · Labour · United Kingdom
“I agree with the hon. Gentleman. If he would like to send me details of that particular case, I will happily look into it. On the subject of people with hearing impairments, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equalities and I will be meeting the British Sign Language Advisory Board this afternoon.”
“Better outcomes require early identification and support for girls and young women with special educational needs, including dyslexia. That is the aim of the SEND reforms and the development of national inclusion standards.”
“Autistic people and people with ADHD have been struggling to get the right support at the right time. Recommendations from Professor Karen Guldberg’s neurodivergence task and finish group directly informed the SEND reforms that were published earlier this year.”
“The Equality Act 2010 places a duty on public bodies to make reasonable adjustments, so that disabled people are not put at a disadvantage by accessibility challenges.”
“The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. This benefit is there to contribute to the additional costs of disability. Too often, what has happened—my hon.”
“I think we can take the hon. Member’s question as a tacit recognition that in 14 years the previous Government should have done something to fix these problems. The steering group is clear that the provision of cash to meet the additional costs of disability is vital.”
The complete record
Every one of 5,185 lines we hold for Sir Stephen Timms, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 71 of 104.
“Trends in sanctions are better understood by looking at the number and type of sanction decisions—which are routinely published (the last publication, covering sanctions to end June 2013, was published in November 2013” —[ Official Report , 5 February 2014; Vol. 575, c. 268W.] Again, the information was provided in the format requested on 25 March 2013, so I could not understand the rationale for that answer saying that it could not be done in the format I had requested. The Minister’s suggestion to me that trends in sanctions are better understood by asking something else made it hard to avoid the inference that she simply did not want to reveal the answer, as her predecessor willingly had done. On 9 April this year, I tried again, at column 300W, and was equally unsuccessful.”
“30W.] I was puzzled by that, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I know you understand, because a perfectly good answer had been provided to the same question three months earlier. Early this year I had another go, as I told Mr Speaker, in a three-page letter which he described in responding to my point of order as “a substantial academic essay”. I should say that I also forwarded that letter to the office of the Minister, so that she knew exactly what the simple and straightforward question was to which I was seeking an answer through this debate. The current Minister, who is in her place today and who had by then taken over, told me in a written answer on 5 February, at column 268W: “The information is not available in the format requested.”
“Once the financial year 2012-13 was over, I again tabled a written parliamentary question to obtain an updated answer to my earlier question, in order to find out how much had been withheld in the second half of the financial year 2012-13—that is, after the changes introduced in October 2012. This time, the Minister’s predecessor provided me with a much less helpful answer. Dated 24 June 2013, it appears at column 30W: “An estimate of the amount withheld as a result of benefit sanctions cannot be made for a number of reasons. Primarily, we do not know what benefits and payments the claimants would have received had the sanctions not been applied.” —[ Official Report , 24 June 2013; Vol. 565, c.”
“It struck me that that was the beginning of an explanation for why so many people had been forced to use a food bank as a result of a sanction: the amount of money being taken away was greatly increased. Those data went up to October 2012. In that month, a new and significantly harsher system of sanctions was introduced. The minimum period for a sanction was increased to four weeks and it became possible to remove claimants’ benefits for a full three years. We do not yet know precisely how many people have received a three-year benefit sanction, but it appears that the number is already over 1,000 across the country, so there seems little doubt that following the tenfold increase between the election and October 2012, the amount being withheld in sanctions must have increased substantially further since October 2012.”
“Early last year, I tabled a parliamentary question to ask not how many people had been sanctioned, but how much money was being taken away from them all. I received an answer from the Minister’s predecessor on 25 March last year which I found very helpful. The Minister’s answer showed that in the year before the election, the amount of benefit withheld from fixed JSA sanctions was £11 million—that is, a little less than £1 million per month. In April to October 2012—the latest period for which data were available at that time—the amount was £60 million, so £10 million per month. That represents a tenfold increase in the amount withheld, as opposed to a twofold rise in the number of people affected.”
“Published official figures show that the number of people sanctioned rose from about half a million in the year before the election to a million in the past year. That figure includes sanctions subsequently overturned on appeal. The Minister has been quoted as saying, and has said from time to time, that only a very small fraction of claimants receive a sanction. That is a fair comment about any given month, but in fact about a quarter of jobseeker’s allowance claimants get a sanction at some point during their claim. The increase from half a million to a million is obviously a big one, but it is not clear why, from very few people before the election, the number forced to use a food bank because of a sanction has rocketed to a quarter of a million.”
“All I am really asking for is an update of the table provided on 25 March 2013. I take the point that such a table would need a caveat attached to it and that people would need to be told that it is not what it might at first appear to be, but if we just had an updated version, the House would be happy.”
“On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can you advise me whether it is in order for the Minister to say that she is not going to answer a question because she thinks that the answer would be misleading? Surely it is for Members of the House to determine what information they want and for Ministers to provide that information.”
“Let us hope he delivers, but that was exactly what the Trussell Trust wanted to speak to him about well over a year ago, when he refused to engage.”
“Thanks to no less an authority than the National Audit Office and its report on universal credit, we know that he has established a good news culture in his Department: telling the truth about the effects of his policies is simply not allowed. Having failed to get a meeting with the Secretary of State, the Trussell Trust wrote to the welfare reform Minister, Lord Freud, who wrote back on 30 August saying he was “unable to take up your offer of a meeting”. Ministers did not want to know what was really going on. Last week, faced at last with the truth from the all-party inquiry—heaven knows what pressure the Secretary of State put on his hon. Friends who signed up to the inquiry—the Secretary of State made a concession. He said he would do much more to raise awareness of interim payments—at last!”
“638.] I hope he will at some point explain to us what the distinction is between not agreeing to meet and refusing to meet, because he did not meet the trust. The article tells us not only that the Secretary of State did not meet the Trussell Trust, but that in his reply to the letter he accused the Trussell Trust of publicity seeking. What gets under the skin of the Secretary of State, whom I am delighted to see in his place, is that the Trussell Trust refuses to shut up about how many people are turning up to its food banks. He was simply unwilling to face up to the consequences for the hundreds of thousands of people forced by his policies to go hungry.”
“The interviews with almost 1,000 users in three food banks showed that well over half were there because of problems with the benefit system. The bulk of the problem is in the DWP. The all-party inquiry confirms that, yet no DWP Minister is going to defend the woeful record of the Department in this debate. A newspaper article on 22 December last year told us that the chairman of the Trussell Trust repeatedly asked the Secretary State last year to meet to discuss the problems in the DWP that were driving people to food banks. The Secretary of State did not meet the Trussell Trust. Last week in the House he told us: “I have never refused to meet it”. —[ Official Report , 8 December 2014; Vol. 589, c.”
““Hunger stalks the land.” That is the conclusion of the all-party parliamentary inquiry into hunger in the UK. I welcome that inquiry. Thanks to the members of that inquiry and the report they have produced, the truth, so long denied by Ministers, must now be faced: a lot of people in Britain are going hungry. I want to add my tribute to the volunteers responding to hunger. We have heard a good deal about the Trussell Trust. It has 400 food banks operating from 1,200 locations, every single one of them based on a church. Last month, the report it was responsible for, with others—referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) in her excellent speech and launched at the meeting chaired by the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy)—set out the facts.”
“We have all met members of the Trussell Trust. The Secretary of State refused to meet the chairman. [Interruption.] Ah, I think we are getting somewhere. He tells us that members of his staff met—”
“The big problem is with sanctions, as we have heard: between 19% and 28% of food bank visits are the result of benefit sanctions. As Government Members have confirmed, including the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), enormous pressure is being placed on advisers to sanction people, whether or not those sanctions are justified. We have all-party recognition that hunger is stalking the land. The all-party inquiry is right. We need a strategy to end hunger, and a big part of that will involve putting right the terrible problems in the DWP, but with DWP Ministers not even willing to take part in this debate, it will take a change of Government to do it.”
“The Secretary of State refused to meet the chairman of the Trussell Trust, because he wanted to explain to him the problems that the policies of his Department were causing for the hundreds of thousands of people having to go to food banks as a result. As we now know, the big reason so many people are going to food banks is delays in benefit payments. Whenever that is raised, Ministers say that delays in benefit payments have fallen. The all-party inquiry has shed some welcome light on the matter. It wrote: “We found that the Department for Work and Pensions does not currently collect information on the length of time taken for benefit payments to be made.” It is not surprising they do not know what is going on, because they do not collect the information.”
“The international child abduction charity, Reunite, reports that the wrongful overseas retention of children is up by 30% so far this year. We need urgent action to implement the welcome recent recommendation from the Law Commission that wrongful retention should be made a criminal offence. Will the Minister say when the Government will respond to that recommendation, and can he give a date by which we can expect to see the legislation that is needed?”
“The current corporation tax rate is the lowest in the G7 and there are good reasons why that is the case. However, on small business Saturday last weekend, many of us were reminded of the heavy burden of business rates. Would it not be better, instead of reducing the corporation tax rate further, to use the same money to reduce business rates?”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you assist me in obtaining from the Department for Work and Pensions information which I have been trying to obtain for over a year? In a written answer in March last year, the then Employment Minister told me that the amount of jobseeker’s allowance withheld in fixed sanctions had gone up more than tenfold between the election and October 2012. In October 2012, a new, harsher, sanctions regime was introduced, and I have been trying to obtain an updated answer to my question ever since. I have been given various reasons why the question cannot be answered, none of which I think is convincing. Can you give me advice or assistance in obtaining the information I seek?”
“Research published last month by the Trussell Trust, Church Action on Poverty, the Church of England and another organisation—Oxfam—showed that more than half the rocketing demand at food banks was caused by problems in the benefits system, not least by the hated bedroom tax, but also by escalating payment delays, contrary to what the Minister for Disabled People, said a moment ago. Will the Tory welfare waste party now follow the U-turn its coalition partners took and realise that the bedroom tax has to go?”
“Q7. The Prime Minister said that his economic policy would eradicate the deficit in this Parliament. All he can claim today is that after four years it came down by a third, but in the past few months it has been going up. Will he accept that the big fall in real wages since the election is a large part of the explanation for why his economic policy has fallen so far short on its central objective?”
“The Chancellor has recognised that he will not deliver on his commitment to eradicate the deficit in this Parliament. Will he also recognise that a large part of the reason for the failure is that, as the OBR has acknowledged, tax receipts have been hard hit by the fall in real wages since the general election?”
“I have also tried to find out with a written question how many jobseeker’s allowance claimants have been issued with a three-year benefit sanction. Some people have been sanctioned for three whole years—not four or six weeks, as we have heard—in each month since October 2012.”
“I have since tried repeatedly to get an update on that figure, and the Minister yesterday provided a written answer in response to my latest attempt. She said: “The Department has never estimated the amount of benefit withheld as a result of benefit sanctions.” That clearly is not true, because her answer goes on to refer to the written answer of 25 March 2013, with its reference to the table—so the Department has previously provided an answer to my question. The Minister goes on to explain why her answer does not have a very helpful figure, but I am today tabling a further question to ask whether she will at least do the calculation again, so that we can see what has happened in the intervening period.”
“Member for Fareham (Mr Hoban), gave a helpful answer on 25 March 2013, with a table showing “the total amount of jobseeker’s allowance (JSA) withheld to the nearest £ million…as a result of fixed sanctions in each of the last four years up to 22 October 2012”. —[ Official Report , 25 March 2013; Vol. 560, c. 986W.] The table showed that in 2009-10—just before the election—£11 million was withheld. In 2010-11 the figure was £43 million, so it quadrupled after the election. In 2011-12 it was £45 million and in 2012-13, up to October 2012—so just for the first half of that financial year—it was £60 million. Therefore, taking the whole of 2012-13, benefit was being withheld at approximately 10 times the rate for the year before the general election.”
“Dr Webster comments—and this picks up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore)— “The DWP has not provided any explanation for the increase in ESA sanctions.” There has been a dramatic increase in the number of ESA claimants being sanctioned, and it is not clear why. The number of sanctions is one thing; another issue is their severity. To try to get a handle on that I tabled a series of questions asking for the total amount of benefit withheld as a result of benefit sanctions in each of the past four years. The Minister’s predecessor, the hon.”
“He tells us that there were an estimated 1.03 million jobseeker’s allowance and employment and support allowance sanctions in the year to 30 June 2014, before reconsiderations and appeals, compared with 564,000 in the last 12 months of the previous Government; so the number of sanctions handed out has roughly doubled. Dr Webster says that JSA claimants are “sanctioned at the rate of 6.92% per month before reconsiderations and appeals”. Ministers sometimes say that the vast majority of benefit recipients are not sanctioned, but 7% of JSA claimants are sanctioned per month, and Dr Webster also says that about a quarter of JSA claimants get a sanction at some point during their claim. He also makes the point that ESA claimants were sanctioned at the rate of 1.16% per month in June 2014.”
“647W.] So regular reviews of Jobcentre Plus advisers feature the number of sanctions issued. That is part of the assessment. I am told that the expectation is that advisers should give out at least eight sanctions per month and that if they do not they are usually, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central mentioned, placed on a performance improvement plan, to help them pull their socks up and get them to give out more sanctions in the future. The Minister may be able to explain the difference between that arrangement and targets for sanctions. Clearly, in practice, targets are set for the application of sanctions by Jobcentre Plus staff, and if they do not meet the expectation they are in trouble. Dr David Webster, of the university of Glasgow, has just published his latest briefing on benefit sanctions.”
“There has been some discussion in the debate about the contentious issue of targets for sanctions. I am sure that the Minister will reaffirm in a few minutes that there are no targets for sanctions, but it is clear that that is not how many Jobcentre Plus staff understand the position. Indeed, it is not too difficult to find out why they think that there are targets for the implementation of sanctions. The Minister provided a written answer on 15 October 2013 to my question on whether Jobcentre Plus advisers’ regular personal reviews included discussions of the number of benefit sanctions that they handed out. She confirmed: “Jobcentre Plus uses advisers’ personal reviews to monitor performance, to inform these they use a variety of performance data, including sanctions referrals.”— —[ Official Report , 15 October 2013; Vol. 568, c.”
“Such things seem still to be happening at the moment. Certainly a very large number of jobseekers now feel that jobcentre staff are there primarily not to help them but to catch them out and find grounds for sanctioning them. That has done terrible damage to the reputation of jobcentres. I am sure that the perception is often unfair, but it is very widely held because of the destructive preoccupation with sanctioning. At some point, a major programme of renewal for Jobcentre Plus will be needed. The Select Committee on Work and Pensions was right to make the case that as a first step jobcentres should be evaluated on the basis not of benefit off-flow, with all the perverse incentives that that has created, but of sustained job outcomes—the same measure used in the case of Work programme providers.”
“Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) both mentioned one of the most harrowing cases, involving the diabetic ex-soldier David Clapson, who died, as his sister said, “penniless, starving and alone”, because three weeks after his benefit was stopped for missing a jobcentre appointment his electricity card had run out and his refrigerator was not working, so he was not able to keep the insulin on which his life depended. He died as a result. That is an extreme case and should not have happened. No one in the Chamber today became a politician to preside over such harrowing events. We need changes to prevent them. I want the Minister to tell us more about the implementation of the Oakley review, whose recommendations were designed to introduce such changes.”
“I welcome the opportunity to respond to the debate, and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) on securing it. I also congratulate Sheffield Citizens Advice and Tim Arnold, who produced the report that was the basis of much of what my hon. Friend said. I welcome the thoughtful debate, with contributions on both sides expressing grave concern about what has been happening with benefit sanctions. My hon. Friend made the point that sanctions have been part of the social security system since it was established. It is right that there should be sanctions for people in receipt of benefits who do things they should not. However, it is clear that the sanctions system has gone badly wrong, that in too many cases it is no longer fair and proportionate, and that terrible damage is resulting from that. The hon.”
“The hon. Gentleman called at the outset for a de-escalation of tensions in the region. Does he agree that the announcement of the intention for a new settlement has precisely the opposite effect and that if new settlements were to proceed, that would make the two-state solution totally unviable?”
“The CBI business manifesto was published last month. It highlights “the shameful state of careers provision in English schools”. It emphasises that girls in particular are losing out, but states that everyone is suffering as a result of what seems to be the virtual collapse of careers education. Why has the situation been allowed to get this bad, and what is the Secretary of State going to do to fix it?”
“I wonder why not; normally, I would have expected there to be an impact assessment with an estimate. Will the Minister comment, first, on whether I am right—that there is no estimate or at least none has been published so far—and, if so, the reason for that? Will the Minister set out his intentions over the numerous sets of regulations that are envisaged? Is he able to tell us at this stage which of those sets of regulations are going to be subject to the affirmative as opposed to the negative procedure, so that we can be assured of future debate about those more detailed provisions when they become available?”
“As it is, there will, of course, be many mistakes in the 70 pages, or whatever, of new material in front of the House for our brief debate this afternoon. We can only hope that Members in the other place will spot them and be able to put them right, but things are bound to go wrong. Having said that, I think that the risks are significantly less in this group of amendments than they are in the next, on which I will have more to say. However, it is troubling that there is so much new and technical material here. I wanted to ask about one particular point. As the Minister has said, the new clauses are imposing new obligations on scheme trustees. As I understand it—I may be mistaken; if I am, I know that the Minister will correct me—the Government have not provided an estimate of the cost of meeting those obligations for scheme trustees.”
“Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) have pointed out, it is pretty extraordinary and very unsatisfactory that in an important Bill, which has in total 55 clauses, we should at this very late stage be debating 33 Government new clauses and 72 new Government amendments. The Minister knows very well that this is not a field in which haste is fruitful. He attempted in his response to one intervention to make a virtue of the fact that he was “picking these things up in real time.” What he actually means is “making it up on the hoof.” I do not think that is a good way to legislate on pensions. The scope for mistakes in drafting very technical measures such as these is too great. The point of having proper parliamentary scrutiny is to spot problems early and to allow for them to be corrected.”
“Given the current cost of living crisis, it is certainly the case that people struggling to set aside money for the future need access to pension schemes that they can trust to give good value for money and to provide them with a decent income in retirement. We welcome the improved opportunities that we hope the Bill will provide, as we have throughout the debates on the Bill. A lot of important detail is still to come; this is an enabling Bill. However, as interventions from my hon. Friends the Members for Edmonton (Mr. Love) and for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) and from the right hon.”
“As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, we have not tabled amendments on Report. Of course, we debated in Committee three Opposition amendments, but we were sadly unsuccessful. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has tabled an amendment, which will provide us with a little relief when we get to the second group; at least it will not be entirely Government material on the amendment paper. I commend the hon. Gentleman for his amendment, and he is right that the Opposition have not tabled amendments today.”
“Now Aviva, Britain’s largest insurer, is paying compensation and increasing the annual payouts of hundreds of customers after discovering staff sold inappropriate deals.””
“The challenges were helpfully illuminated by the article on the front page of The Daily Telegraph on Saturday which said, “Pension mis-selling: scandal hits 100,000 retired savers a year”. The article explained that “one in four pensioners who retired with a private pension in the past seven years is entitled to a larger annual pension income. Savers with medical conditions including diabetes, high blood pressure and even smokers should have been offered an increased annuity based on their lower life expectancy.” It went on to say that “just seven per cent of those who are entitled to the increased pay outs have automatically received them. Studies indicate the true figure should be closer to 60 per cent.”
“That is rather different from what was said by the Financial Conduct Authority when it launched its consultation on guidance. It seemed to envisage something rather more substantial than the Minister suggested in his remarks, but the FCA will produce only the standards; Her Majesty’s Treasury will oversee the drafting of the guidance. Nobody can yet feel confident about what will emerge from that process. A number of questions must be asked, such as the one posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr Love) earlier. It is not clear even who exactly will pay for the advice or through what mechanism it will be paid for. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on how he envisages that process working.”
“I would welcome the Minister’s comments on the extent to which he believes the changes before the House will meet those tests. The annual workplace pension survey carried out by the National Association of Pension Funds this year showed that only 19% of savers feel very capable of knowing what to do with their savings. That is ahead of the very major changes about to take effect, and we can be certain that consumer bewilderment will rocket from next April. The new arrangements are supposed to be in place from that date—in less than six months—but we do not yet know how they will work. In previous discussion about the form that the guidance will take, the Minister said that “it is not formal, detailed or product-specific”.”
“I appreciate that the Minister had no choice but to introduce these measures at the same time as the implementation of the Budget changes, but he will recognise, as the House certainly will, that there is a danger, in providing so little opportunity for the House to conduct proper scrutiny, of creating serious problems and a future mis-selling scandal. We have set out three tests for the new flexibility. First, is there reliable advice for people saving for their retirement? Secondly, is the system fair to those on middle and lower incomes who want to secure retirement income? Thirdly, are the Government confident that the changes will not result in extra costs to the state, either through social care costs or by increasing the cost of housing benefit?”
“We are now embarking on a debate on 27 Government new clauses, 40 new Government amendments and—providing welcome relief—an amendment from the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) and the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow). The changes the Government have announced will introduce much-increased flexibility for savers, which is welcome. They will also make the pensions market more diverse and complicated and lead to a whole new range of products about which consumers have not had to make decisions in the past. Of course it is right that safeguards need to be in place to protect savers adequately from the danger of being taken advantage of, as we have seen happen in this market in the past. We are dealing with an area full of technicalities, some of which we have just been hearing about, and fraught with difficulty.”
“Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) asked whether the guidance would take account of other financial assets beyond DC pension savings. That is a good question.”
“Legal and General has highlighted the lesson from the pilot that it undertook with public support—that in practice the guidance on offer will very likely not be taken up. As the Minister knows, the take-up was very small—2.5%—in the pilot that it set up and supported. If that happens on a significant scale when these arrangements come into force next year, it opens up the possibility of very large-scale new consumer detriment. JustRetirement, along with others, is right to argue that by introducing a second line of defence requirement, the FCA can apply a crucial brake against this potential future consumer detriment by requiring providers to check consumers’ circumstances when they come to access their DC pension savings. The hon.”
“The same ABI data show external annuity sales—that is, annuities bought on the open market—down from 49% to 35% in the third quarter of this year. Internal annuity sales, where an annuity is bought from the incumbent pension provider, have increased from 51% to 65% in the same period. The overall share of enhanced annuity sales has fallen from 28% to 22%. The ABI data highlight the risk of the kind of consumer detriment described in the article in The Daily Telegraph on Saturday. Together, they suggest that problems will continue unless the Financial Conduct Authority intervenes actively. Just Retirement makes the point particularly strongly and effectively that there is an urgent need for a second line of defence requirement for providers. What happens if the guidance on offer is not taken up? That is not provided for in the amendments.”
“We welcomed the new flexibility that is being provided. I hope the guidance that we are legislating for will deliver the improvement that the hon. Gentleman describes, but we cannot yet be confident that that will be the case. This brief debate gives us an opportunity to press the Minister to give us rather more reassurance about that. I shall refer to some of the comments of JustRetirement, one of the companies that the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) mentioned. The most recent Association of British Insurers data show that overall annuity sales are down 14% from the second quarter of this year, and by 56% compared with the third quarter of last year. Consumers are presumably waiting until the reforms go live in April next year before deciding how to use their defined contribution pension savings.”
“I fear my hon. Friend is right. If in practice only a tiny proportion of people, or even a modest proportion, take up the guidance being offered, there is every chance of very serious problems in this market in the future. The House cannot be satisfied with that likelihood. A number of organisations have pressed vigorously for a second line of defence requirement and they make a telling case. Proceeding without that safeguard will leave many consumers exposed—we should bear in mind that this is all supposed to happen from next April—making people guinea pigs and opening up the real possibility of another mis-selling scandal in the coming months.”