A letter to Stephen Timms... by Stephen Timms

On 1st May 2025, I was part of a small group of women who had a brief meeting with Stephen Timms, to discuss the cuts that Labour plan to make to social security. The meeting was difficult, because of the importance of the subject matter to us and our disbelief that Timms could truly support the cuts. You can read more about the meeting on my blog here, and on the Church Action on Poverty blog here.

I wrote a letter to Stephen Timms, but I did not write this letter alone. Spread throughout this letter are quotes from Timms himself, spoken in Parliament when Labour was still in opposition. So in part, this is a letter from Stephen Timms to Stephen Timms. I have posted a plain-read version first, without references and hyperlinks, as they can be distracting. Scroll down for a version with references and hyperlinks.There have been some modifications to make tenses and references to government relevant to the present day.

Plain-read version

Dear Sir Stephen Timms,

I wished to write my own letter to you, following the meeting on 1st May. This letter is, in part, a letter from one Christian to another. We know that whoever oppresses the poor shows contempt for God, but whoever is kind to the poor honours God. We are asked by God to remember the poor, and we are expected to be eager to do so. That is what God calls pure and undefiled religion, and is the kind of fast that he wants from his followers. God himself is a defender of those in need, standing up against those who would oppress and deny a decent living to those who cannot earn enough to support themselves. It is a dangerous position to be in, to be in opposition to a holy and perfect God.

But this is also a letter from one person to another.

It seems to me that Labour has lost touch with what people are having to deal with.  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.  We thought that when a Labour government was finally elected, you would protect the most vulnerable, who have so often had a kicking  from Conservative governments over the previous 14 years. If another kicking comes from Labour, dependence on foodbanks will get yet another large boost. And the foodbanks themselves are struggling now because donors cannot afford to give as much.

This country is a very long way from providing an adequate social security safety net.  Benefit levels are very low,  and there is a wealth of evidence that benefit levels are not meeting need.  There is no resilience in the support that is being provided, because the level is now so low.  There are significant public health impacts of this low level of social security support, making a contribution, for example, to the mental health crisis, which has hit so many people of working age in the UK since the pandemic.  Adding a mere £7 to the base rate of Universal Credit, which will already have been partially eroded by inflation by the time it is implemented, is not remotely enough to deal with the current inadequacies of social security.

There is growing evidence that disabled people are facing an especially tough time.  We know that poverty is particularly focused among families living with disability.  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.  A large number of people cannot work and they have to survive too. Surely, the Government must now respond to the immense pressure on those families.  The least well-off in our society need urgent help. As Sir John Major said, “Everyone needs to believe that The State cares about them.” There is no time to lose.

Instead, you plan to take £47/week or £97/week away from people who would be assessed as unfit for work under the WCA, depending upon the date at which they become ill/disabled, rather than being based on their actual incapacity for work. This makes Labour’s offer, of not enacting the temporary changes to the WCA that the Conservatives planned, a meaningless offer. Scrapping the WCA completely, and cutting the UC HE, is far worse than anything the Conservatives planned. Nor does it make sense that there should be a big discrepancy between the incomes of two people in otherwise identical circumstances based merely on the historical accident  of the date on which they first became ill.

Evidence suggests that insufficient means-tested benefits frequently necessitate PIP recipients to use their extra costs benefits to cover day-to-day living costs. But there is also a shortfall in support provided by PIP, which is significant enough to worsen physical and mental health outcomes, as well as to increase the likelihood of experiencing financial hardship. PIP levels are too low, and this challenge is exacerbated by insufficient income replacement benefits such as Universal Credit. There is a persuasive case that there should be a greater number of levels of support provided through PIP – both higher and lower – to reflect more accurately the experiences of claimants.

Labour should be introducing further levels of support through PIP and the Health Element of UC,  yet instead you are planning to make cuts to both. It is not okay, in this context, to suggest that Labour are behaving well because they are not enacting bad ideas of freezing PIP or introducing vouchers. Vouchers are certainly a terrible idea and shouldn’t even be considered. But taking PIP away completely from hundreds of thousands of people who need more, not less, support far outweighs any good achieved by not freezing PIP for those who do get to keep it.

JRF and Trussell estimate from pretty careful research that a single adult needs £120 per week to cover essentials: food, utilities, vital household items and travel.  There is a very strong case for reinstating the £20/week Covid uplift,  which would mean that if the 2020 UC rate with uplift were increased by inflation, we would reach the £120/week Essentials Guarantee. Anything less than this is a cop-out by Labour.

The safety net is now so inadequate that it is damaging the economy: it is too low to do its job properly.  A large-scale repair job will be needed in the near future.  Of the indirect levers available to the Government to stimulate an economy, measures that raise the incomes of low-income households are the most effective, and benefit increases are a good example.  Raising social security benefits not only helps hard-pressed families, but boosts the economy because the increase is likely to be spent.  Now is the time, not to scrap the WCA and make PIP harder to access, but to overhaul those assessment frameworks to something that is co-created with disabled people and focuses on providing the essential support and extra costs of living support that are needed.

The suggestion that sick and disabled people could make up a £47 or £97/week reduction in the UC Health Element by moving into employment is simply wrong. There is very clear evidence that employment support programmes do not make much difference to sick and disabled people who have been assessed as unfit for work under the WCA. Increases in employment rates are in the range of 0 – 4 people per 100 participants.  The New Deal for Disabled People is not relevant here, because many of the people who were supported through NDDP would never have been treated as unfit for work under the WCA.

We were told that this Government’s desire was to put sick and disabled people at the heart of everything they do. These policies to cut PIP and UC HE are not doing that; these are policies of grinding down. Social security has a job to do. Pushing it inexorably downwards  – and a measly £7 added to the base rate does not compensate for much, much bigger income losses in UC HE and PIP – means that it cannot do that job.

The problem is that Labour have lost the capacity to listen – to listen to their own Back Benchers, to the all-party Work and Pensions Committee, to people claiming Universal Credit and to the public.  Governments do lose touch, but I ask that you do not. I ask that you retain a recognition of the realities that people are dealing with. You need to grasp what this will do to families, even though Labour do not. It is not just about numbers on a spreadsheet. The proposed cuts to the UC HE and restrictions on PIP will leave the Social Security system unable to do the job we need it to do, and I ask that you reject these cuts.

Yours sincerely,

Stef Benstead

Version with references and hyperlinks:

Dear Sir Stephen Timms,

I wished to write my own letter to you, following the meeting on 1st May. This letter is, in part, a letter from one Christian to another. We know that whoever oppresses the poor shows contempt for God, but whoever is kind to the poor honours God. We are asked by God to remember the poor, and we are expected to be eager to do so. That is what God calls pure and undefiled religion, and is the kind of fast that he wants from his followers. God himself is a defender of those in need, standing up against those who would oppress and deny a decent living to those who cannot earn enough to support themselves. It is a dangerous position to be in, to be in opposition to a holy and perfect God.

But this is also a letter from one person to another.

It seems to me that Labour has lost touch with what people are having to deal with.[1] 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.[2] We thought that when a Labour government was finally elected, you would protect the most vulnerable, who have so often had a kicking[3] from Conservative governments over the previous 14 years. If another kicking comes from Labour, dependence on foodbanks will get yet another large boost. And the foodbanks themselves are struggling now because donors cannot afford to give as much.[4]

This country is a very long way from providing an adequate social security safety net.[5] Benefit levels are very low,[6] and there is a wealth of evidence that benefit levels are not meeting need.[7] There is no resilience in the support that is being provided, because the level is now so low.[8] There are significant public health impacts of this low level of social security support, making a contribution, for example, to the mental health crisis, which has hit so many people of working age in the UK since the pandemic.[9] Adding a mere £7 to the base rate of Universal Credit, which will already have been partially eroded by inflation by the time it is implemented, is not remotely enough to deal with the current inadequacies of social security.

There is growing evidence that disabled people are facing an especially tough time.[10] We know that poverty is particularly focused among families living with disability.[11] 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.[12] A large number of people cannot work and they have to survive too. Surely, the Government must now respond to the immense pressure on those families.[13] The least well-off in our society need urgent help. As Sir John Major said, “Everyone needs to believe that The State cares about them.” There is no time to lose.[14]

Instead, you plan to take £47/week or £97/week away from people who would be assessed as unfit for work under the WCA, depending upon the date at which they become ill/disabled, rather than being based on their actual incapacity for work. This makes Labour’s offer, of not enacting the temporary changes to the WCA that the Conservatives planned, a meaningless offer. Scrapping the WCA completely, and cutting the UC HE, is far worse than anything the Conservatives planned. Nor does it make sense that there should be a big discrepancy between the incomes of two people in otherwise identical circumstances based merely on the historical accident[15] of the date on which they first became ill.

Evidence suggests that insufficient means-tested benefits frequently necessitate PIP recipients to use their extra costs benefits to cover day-to-day living costs. But there is also a shortfall in support provided by PIP, which is significant enough to worsen physical and mental health outcomes, as well as to increase the likelihood of experiencing financial hardship. PIP levels are too low, and this challenge is exacerbated by insufficient income replacement benefits such as Universal Credit. There is a persuasive case that there should be a greater number of levels of support provided through PIP – both higher and lower – to reflect more accurately the experiences of claimants.[16]

Labour should be introducing further levels of support through PIP and the Health Element of UC,[17] yet instead you are planning to make cuts to both. It is not okay, in this context, to suggest that Labour are behaving well because they are not enacting bad ideas of freezing PIP or introducing vouchers. Vouchers are certainly a terrible idea and shouldn’t even be considered. But taking PIP away completely from hundreds of thousands of people who need more, not less, support far outweighs any good achieved by not freezing PIP for those who do get to keep it.

JRF and Trussell estimate from pretty careful research that a single adult needs £120 per week to cover essentials: food, utilities, vital household items and travel.[18] There is a very strong case for reinstating the £20/week Covid uplift,[19] which would mean that if the 2020 UC rate with uplift were increased by inflation, we would reach the £120/week Essentials Guarantee. Anything less than this is a cop-out by Labour.

The safety net is now so inadequate that it is damaging the economy: it is too low to do its job properly.[20] A large-scale repair job will be needed in the near future.[21] Of the indirect levers available to the Government to stimulate an economy, measures that raise the incomes of low-income households are the most effective, and benefit increases are a good example.[22] Raising social security benefits not only helps hard-pressed families, but boosts the economy because the increase is likely to be spent.[23] Now is the time, not to scrap the WCA and make PIP harder to access, but to overhaul those assessment frameworks to something that is co-created with disabled people and focuses on providing the essential support and extra costs of living support that are needed.[24]

The suggestion that sick and disabled people could make up a £47 or £97/week reduction in the UC Health Element by moving into employment is simply wrong. There is very clear evidence that employment support programmes do not make much difference to sick and disabled people who have been assessed as unfit for work under the WCA. Increases in employment rates are in the range of 0 – 4 people per 100 participants.[25] The New Deal for Disabled People is not relevant here, because many of the people who were supported through NDDP would never have been treated as unfit for work under the WCA.

We were told that this Government’s desire was to put sick and disabled people at the heart of everything they do. These policies to cut PIP and UC HE are not doing that; these are policies of grinding down. Social security has a job to do. Pushing it inexorably downwards[26] – and a measly £7 added to the base rate does not compensate for much, much bigger income losses in UC HE and PIP – means that it cannot do that job.[27]

The problem is that Labour have lost the capacity to listen – to listen to their own Back Benchers, to the all-party Work and Pensions Committee, to people claiming Universal Credit and to the public.[28] Governments do lose touch, but I ask that you do not. I ask that you retain a recognition of the realities that people are dealing with. You need to grasp what this will do to families, even though Labour do not. It is not just about numbers on a spreadsheet. The proposed cuts to the UC HE and restrictions on PIP will leave the Social Security system unable to do the job we need it to do, and I ask that you reject these cuts.[29]

Yours sincerely,

Stef Benstead

[25]  Employment Support for people assessed as unfit for work has included the following:

·        Greater Manchester Working Well, for WRAG/LCW recipients, had no impact on employment outcomes and saw just 1.6% of participants get and sustain work for 26 weeks.

·        Central London Working Capital, for WRAG/LCW recipients, saw 11-13% enter work with an estimated 1.7% due to CLWC. However, only 7.5% sustained work at 26 weeks, and the impact of CLWC on this was not estimated.

·        Work-Related Activity Pilot, Healthcare Pilot saw just 2% enter work and no impact from the pilot.

·        Work-Related Activity Pilot, Work Programme Pilot saw just 4% enter work and no impact from the pilot.

·        Work-Related Activity Pilot, Jobcentre Pilot saw 8% enter work compared to 4% in the control group, giving a 4% point employment impact of the pilot.

·        Additional Work Coach Support, for SG/LCWRA recipients, saw 11% of participants enter work compared to 8% of the control group. However, some people experienced worsened mental health because of the pilot, and others were supported to claim PIP or (if initially not on SG/LCWRA) move into the SG/LCWRA group.

The Learning and Work Institute estimated that 400,000-600,000 people would receive employment support under Labour's plans to spend £1.8bn. Based on a 0-4% point increase in employment rates (unweighted average of 1.45%), 0-24,000 (7,250) people would move into work under Labour's plans for employment support. This cannot remotely justify cuts to social security for hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people.

[1] Timms, S (15/09/2021), Universal Credit and Working Tax Credits, Hansard v700 c1005

[2] Timms, S (21/11/2022), Autumn Statement Resolutions, Hansard v723 c70 6:10pm

[3] Timms, S (19/10/2022) Economic Responsibility and a Plan for Growth, Hansard v720 c713 1:57pm

[4] Timms, S (19/10/2022) Economic Responsibility and a Plan for Growth, Hansard v720 c713-4 1:57pm

[5] Timms, S (06/02/2023) Social Security and Pensions, Hansard v727 c700 5:57pm

[6] Timms, S (04/07/2023) Department for Work and Pensions, Hansard v735 c715

[7] Work and Pensions Committee (2024) Benefit Levels in the UK. Second Report of Session 2023-24

[8] Timms, S (05/07/2022) Cost of Living, Hansard v717 c751

[9] Timms, S (06/03/2023) Social Security (Additional Payments) (No. 2) Bill, Hansard v729 c90

[10] Timms, S (06/02/2023) Social Security and Pensions, Hansard v727 c700

[11] Timms, S (24/11/2022) UN International Day of Persons with Disabilities, Hansard v723 c469

[12] Timms, S (21/11/2022) Autumn Statement Resolutions, Hansard v723 c70

[13] Timms, S (17/05/2022) Tackling Short-term and Long-term Cost of Living Increases, Hansard v714 c592

[14] Timms, S (17/05/2022) Tackling Short-term and Long-term Cost of Living Increases, Hansard v714 c592

[15] Timms, S (01/10/2020) Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill, Hansard v681 c567

[16] Work and Pensions Committee (2024) Benefit Levels in the UK. Second Report of Session 2023-24

The direct quotes read (emphasis in original): “We heard from a wide range of organisations that PIP levels were too low, and this challenge was exacerbated by insufficient income replacement benefits such as Universal Credit.”

“We heard that for some claimants, the shortfall in support provided was significant enough to worsen physical and mental health outcomes, as well as to increase their likelihood of experiencing financial hardship.”

“Evidence suggests that insufficient means-tested benefits frequently necessitate PIP recipients to use their extra costs benefits to cover day-to-day living costs.”

“There is a persuasive case that there should be a greater number of levels of support provided through PIP—both higher and lower—to reflect more accurately the experiences of claimants.”

[17] Work and Pensions Committee (2024) Benefit Levels in the UK. Second Report of Session 2023-24

[18] Timms, S (04/07/2023) Department for Work and Pensions, Hansard v735 c715

[19] Timms, S (01/10/2020) Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill, Hansard v681 c566

The direct quote is, “There is a very strong case for making the £20 a week increase permanent.”

[20] Timms, S (06/02/2023) Social Security and Pensions, Hansard v727, c698

[21] Timms, S (06/02/2023) Social Security and Pensions, Hansard v727 c700

[22] Timms, S (20/10/2020) Universal Credit: Covid-19, Hansard v682 c894

[23] Timms, S (01/12/2020) Legacy Benefits: Universal Credit, Hansard v685 c147

[24] De Cordova, M (24/11/2024) c472

The direct quote is, “Does he [i.e. Stephen Timms] agree that now is the time to overhaul those assessment frameworks to something that is co-created with disabled people, is less intrusive and focuses on providing the essential support and extra costs of living support that are needed?”

Stephen Timms replies, “I agree. There is a big job to be done, and involving disabled people in doing it would be an important part of the solution.”

[26] Timms, S (20/09/2021) Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill, Hansard v701 c75

[27] Timms, S (20/09/2021) Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill, Hansard v701 c75

[28] Timms, S (18/01/2021) Universal Credit and Working Tax Credit, Hansard v687 c650

The direct quote it, “The problem is that the Government have lost the capacity to listen—to listen to their own Back Benchers, to the all-party Work and Pensions Committee, to people claiming universal credit and to the public.”

[29] Timms, S (15/09/2021), Universal Credit and Working Tax Credits, Hansard v700 c1005

The direct quote is, “Governments do lose touch, but this House must not. We must retain a recognition of the realities that people are dealing with. We need to grasp what this will do to families, even though Ministers do not. It is not just about numbers on a spreadsheet… It will leave the system unable to do the job we need it to do, and the House must reject this cut.”