House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
I beg to move, That the House sit in private.
Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 163).
Question negatived.
Child Support Collection (Domestic Abuse) Bill
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Before we get on to proceedings, I remind Members of the differences between Report and Third Reading. The scope of debate on Report is limited to the amendments I have selected. The scope of the Third Reading debate that follows will be the whole Bill, as it stands after Report. Members may wish to consider those points and then decide at which stage or stages they want to catch my eye.
New Clause 1
Collection of maintenance in Northern Ireland: cases involving domestic abuse
‘(1) The Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 (S.I. 1991/2628 (N.I. 23)) is amended as follows:
(2) In Article 7 (child support maintenance)—
(a) after paragraph (3) insert—
“(3A) Where a maintenance calculation has been made in response to an application under this Article, the Department may, if the person with care or the non-resident parent applies to the Department under this paragraph, arrange for the collection of the child support maintenance payable in accordance with the calculation if satisfied on the basis of evidence of a prescribed kind relating to relevant abusive behaviour that it is appropriate for such arrangements to be made.
(3B) For the purposes of paragraph (3A), ‘relevant abusive behaviour’ means—
(a) where the application under paragraph (3A) is made by the person with care, behaviour of the non-resident parent that is abusive of the person with care or of any child living in the same household with the person with care;
(b) where the application under paragraph (3A) is made by the non-resident parent, behaviour of the person with care that is abusive of the non-resident parent or of any child living in the same household with the non-resident parent.
(3C) What amounts to abusive behaviour for the purposes of paragraph (3B) is to be construed in the same way as is provided for in Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2021 (c.2 (N.I.)) (see sections 2, 3(2) and 4 of that Act).”;
(b) in paragraph (4) (purposes for which regulations may require information to be provided)—
(i) omit the “and” after sub-paragraph (b);
(ii) after sub-paragraph (c) insert “; and (d) the making by the Department of a determination for the purposes of paragraph (3A).”
(3) In Article 29(1) (collection of child support maintenance)—
(a) after “7(2A)” (as inserted by Article 127(3) of the Welfare Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 2015 (S.I. 2015/2006 (N.I. 1))) insert “and (3A)”;
(b) after “7(2)” insert “or (3A)”.
(4) In Article 48(2)(a) (regulations to be laid before Assembly after being made), before “9(1)” insert “7(3A),”.’—(Mims Davies.)
This new clause makes amendments to the Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 that correspond to those clause 1 of the Bill makes to the Child Support Act 1991 in respect of England and Wales and Scotland.
Brought up and read the First time.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 1, in clause 4, page 3, line 15, leave out “and Scotland” and insert “, Scotland and Northern Ireland”.
This amendment is consequential on NC1.
Amendment 2, page 3, line 16, after “(4)” insert “, (4A)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 3.
Amendment 3, page 3, line 20, at end insert—
“(4A) Section (Collection of maintenance in Northern Ireland: cases involving domestic abuse) comes into force at the same time as Article 127(2)(b) of the Welfare Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 2015 (S.I. 2015/2006 (N.I. 1)).”
This amendment provides for NC1 to come into force at the same time as amendments made by the Welfare Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 2015 to the Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1991.
Amendment 4, page 3, line 24, at end insert—
“(6A) The Department for Communities in Northern Ireland may by regulations make transitional or saving provision in connection with the coming into force of section (Collection of maintenance in Northern Ireland: cases involving domestic abuse).
(6B) The power to make regulations under subsection (6A) is exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I.1979/1573 (N.I. 12)).”
This amendment enables the Department for Communities in Northern Ireland to make transitional or saving provision in respect of Northern Ireland corresponding to that which may be made by the Secretary of State in respect of England, Wales and Scotland.
Mims Davies
New clause 1 makes amendments to the Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 that correspond to the amendments this Bill makes to the Child Support Act 1991 in respect of England, Wales and Scotland. The amendments make provision for Northern Ireland to allow victims of domestic abuse who use the Child Maintenance Service, to request the collect and pay service on the grounds of domestic abuse and where there is evidence of domestic abuse against the requesting parent or children in their household by the other parent.
Child maintenance is devolved in Northern Ireland; however, the Northern Ireland Assembly has typically made legislation that mirrors Great Britain. Due to the current suspension of the Assembly, it is not possible for Northern Ireland to make the necessary mirroring legislation at this time, although we all hope that situation will change as soon as possible.
As hon. Members will know from the Bill’s Second Reading and Committee stage, these proposals did not initially extend to Northern Ireland, as Northern Ireland colleagues were unable to obtain a legislative consent motion, which would be the normal process. However, as described, in the continued absence of a functioning Assembly, officials in the Department for Communities in Northern Ireland have confirmed that they wish Northern Ireland to be included within the scope of the changes proposed in the Bill, and I can confirm to the House that approval in principle has been obtained from the relevant officials of the Department for Communities.
In considering this new clause, I remind hon. Members what the Bill is intended to achieve: better support for victims of domestic abuse. The Bill will amend primary legislation to allow a parent, or a child in Scotland, to request the collect and pay service on the grounds of domestic abuse where there is evidence of abuse against them or children in their household. It is an important measure for domestic abuse victims who use the CMS, as they will be able to decide which service type is best for them and their circumstances.
I turn now to the amendments. Amendments 1 and 2 are consequential amendments. Amendment 3 provides for the new clause to come into force at the same time as amendments made by the Welfare Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 2015 to the Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1991. Amendment 4 will enable the Department for Communities in Northern Ireland to make transitional or saving provision corresponding to that which can be made by the Secretary of State in respect of England, Wales and Scotland.
This Government take the issue of domestic abuse extremely seriously, and the Child Maintenance Service is fully committed to ensuring that all parents get the right support and are safe when using the service. I am delighted that these important measures will be implemented in Northern Ireland. I am sure Members agree that this important protection should be available to people across the United Kingdom, so this amendment and the other consequential amendments will ensure that victims of domestic abuse in Northern Ireland can benefit from the provisions in the Bill.
Members have previously raised the issue of domestic abuse training. I want to reiterate that the CMS has substantially strengthened its procedures and processes through the introduction of mandatory training and new and updated tools for customers who are experiencing domestic abuse. The CMS will rightly be reviewing this training following the independent review. I remind the House that the application fee is waived for those who have suffered domestic abuse. The CMS will act as an intermediary in direct pay cases to facilitate the exchange of bank details, to ensure that no personal information is shared. The CMS provides information on how to set up bank accounts with a centralised sort code, which allows survivors of abuse to be safe and not to be traced.
During the passage of the Bill, it has been important for Members to understand how the wider Department for Work and Pensions can help people experiencing domestic abuse. I will take this opportunity to mention Ask for ANI, a code word scheme that allows domestic abuse victims to signal discreetly that they need support. This initiative, which was developed by the Home Office and supported by delivery partner Hestia, has been made available to over 500 pharmacies since January 2021. Anybody who is suffering from or fearful of domestic abuse can use Ask for ANI when they are engaging with the Child Maintenance Service, and they will be guided to a safe space to share their practical concerns and be offered support, perhaps by calling the police or reaching out to specialist domestic abuse services.
The DWP is committed, as part of the Home Office’s tackling domestic abuse plan, to piloting the Ask for ANI initiative in jobcentres, and those pilots are already under way in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I want to reiterate to anybody who is concerned about this matter, no matter where they are in the United Kingdom, that the Child Maintenance Service is there and able to support those who come forward.
The review set out some clear recommendations on how the CMS should respond to domestic abuse, and the Government published their response on 17 January 2023. The review finds that the CMS has worked very hard to develop and improve its domestic abuse practices. As Members will know, people who engage with the CMS often have the most complex cases and needs, so it is right that we have taken the chance to learn lessons and ensure that there are practical steps to help separated parents who are experiencing abuse to set up safe maintenance arrangements. As I said in relation to the amendments, this will be available across the United Kingdom. The Government have accepted eight out of 10 of these recommendations.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend, the Minister for Social Mobility, Youth and Progression for moving these important Government amendments. I was delighted to co-sign them. These new amendments will allow for the provisions in the Bill to include Northern Ireland. That will mean that domestic abuse victims, not just in our English constituencies, but throughout the United Kingdom, will benefit from the measures in this Bill. I am sure that all Members here today can recognise the importance of that.
The Minister has assured me that officials will be working closely with legal colleagues and the other Administrations across the United Kingdom to ensure that the provisions are implemented effectively. I thank all Members for joining me here today and for their support of this Bill.
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) for bringing this Bill before the House to address such an important issue. I expect that problems with the Child Maintenance Service and domestic abuse are some of the most universal and least partisan that my colleagues and I encounter in the course of our work.
As we know, domestic abuse is not limited to any particular group—anyone can be a victim. At the same time, it is helpful to recognise that the economic impact of domestic abuse is particularly severe for single mothers, who make up 90% of single-parent households, and whose opportunities to work may be limited by childcare. A study by the Institute for Fiscal Studies found that pre-pandemic, nearly half the children in single-parent households were living in poverty. Single parents are likely therefore to need childcare payments, because of the considerable costs associated with raising children, yet those who experience domestic abuse can find themselves still vulnerable to abusive behaviour through the structure of the CMS. Last year, the Public Accounts Committee concluded in its report on the CMS that the system is not—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I did put down the marker at the beginning that Members should be speaking to amendments on Report. He is making a Third Reading speech. He is welcome to retain the Floor, but he must stick to the amendments.
Paul Howell
My apologies, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will wait for Third Reading.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 1 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
Clause 4
Extent, commencement and short title
Amendments made: 1, page 3, line 15, leave out “and Scotland” and insert “, Scotland and Northern Ireland”.
This amendment is consequential on NC1.
Amendment 2, page 3, line 16, after “(4)” insert “, (4A)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 3.
Amendment 3, page 3, line 20, at end insert—
“(4A) Section (Collection of maintenance in Northern Ireland: cases involving domestic abuse) comes into force at the same time as Article 127(2)(b) of the Welfare Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 2015 (S.I. 2015/2006 (N.I. 1)).”
This amendment provides for NC1 to come into force at the same time as amendments made by the Welfare Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 2015 to the Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1991.
Amendment 4, page 3, line 24, at end insert—
“(6A) The Department for Communities in Northern Ireland may by regulations make transitional or saving provision in connection with the coming into force of section (Collection of maintenance in Northern Ireland: cases involving domestic abuse).
(6B) The power to make regulations under subsection (6A) is exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/1573 (N.I. 12)).” —(Mims Davies.)
This amendment enables the Department for Communities in Northern Ireland to make transitional or saving provision in respect of Northern Ireland corresponding to that which may be made by the Secretary of State in respect of England, Wales and Scotland.
Third Reading
Sally-Ann Hart
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
As many hon. Members heard me say on Second Reading, I emphasise that this Bill is an important measure for victims of domestic abuse who use the Child Maintenance Service. I am proud, delighted and grateful that it is being taken forward and has the support of the Government, as confirmed by the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove) on Second Reading, and reconfirmed in Committee by the Minister for Social Mobility, Youth and Progression, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies). I am pleased that she is here again today on behalf of the Government, and thank her profusely for her support and the support she has shown throughout the progression of the Bill.
Moving on to developments that have occurred since the Bill was in Committee, I am delighted that the independent review of the ways in which the CMS supports victims of domestic abuse has now been published, alongside the Government’s responses to its recommendations. Many of my hon. Friends highlighted that review on Second Reading and in Committee, so I am pleased that it has now been progressed. The Bill will strengthen support for domestic abuse victims by ensuring that victims of domestic abuse, who are overwhelmingly women, are able to avoid entirely any need to engage with the other parent if there is evidence of abuse, helping to make them as safe as possible when using the Child Maintenance Service. These proposals give victims of domestic abuse choice—another avenue to aid their escape and removal from an abusive partner or environment, while ensuring that victims have more protection than was previously the case.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I am delighted to be here today, as I was when the Bill was in Committee. As constituency MPs, I think we all know the issues that the CMS presents when domestic abuse is involved. Indeed, I have a constituent whose children are grown up, but who still has moneys outstanding as a result of the coercive control of domestic abuse, and her ex-partner still utilises that fact. I welcome my hon. Friend’s Bill, and hope very much that its provisions will help prevent those kinds of long-term abusive ongoing relationships.
Sally-Ann Hart
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and completely agree with her. I am absolutely confident that the Bill will help prevent those sorts of long-term coercive and abusive behaviours that many women and children have had to put up with over the years.
I reiterate how pleased I was to see the independent review published during the Bill’s passage, which makes a recommendation to do just what this Bill is advocating. The Bill will amend primary legislation to allow victims of domestic abuse to use the collect and pay service where there is evidence of domestic abuse against the requesting parent by the other party to the case, who could be the paying or the receiving parent, or even against children in their households by the other parent involved in the case. I am pleased that MPs from across the House agree on the importance of this Bill, as it is a key move to help deal with a more masked form of domestic abuse: financial abuse and coercion. The Bill also removes the additional threat of emotional abuse that can occur if direct pay is used.
By way of a reminder, the Child Maintenance Service aids the payment process of child maintenance between separated parents who cannot reach an agreement on their own following a separation—a challenging job done in very difficult circumstances. I am sure we all recognise that for some separated parents, it will be really difficult to co-operate, especially where there might have been a history of abuse. Once parents are in the system, the Child Maintenance Service manages child maintenance cases through one of two service types: direct pay and collect and pay. For direct pay, the CMS provides a calculation and a payment schedule, but payments are arranged privately between the two parents. For collect and pay, the CMS calculates the maintenance payment and then collects the money from the paying parent and pays it to the receiving parent. Current legislation means that the default option is direct pay, unless both parents agree to collect and pay or the paying parent demonstrates an unwillingness to pay their liability. The Bill will extend the option of collect and pay without the other parent’s consent if domestic abuse is evident, regardless of the payment history.
I know that the CMS already has safeguards for victims of domestic abuse. It ensures that there is no unwanted contact between parents, and in order for parents to use direct pay safely, it provides information on how they can set up a bank account with a centralised sort code so that they cannot be traced to a specific location. I reiterate that I am pleased that the provisions in the Bill will now include Northern Ireland, so that domestic abuse victims throughout the United Kingdom will benefit.
Finally, I thank all the women in my constituency and throughout the United Kingdom who have emailed me describing the horror of the coercive and controlling behaviour that many of their former partners have shown towards them over the years. They wanted to pour out what had happened to them. I very much hope—indeed, I am confident—that the Bill will prevent many more women and children from going through the trauma of coercive financial abuse in the coming years. I hope that all hon. Members agree that the Bill is worthy of our support, and I look forward to seeing it progress through the other House.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for calling him prematurely.
Paul Howell
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will start again.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) for bringing forward a private Member’s Bill to address such an important issue. I expect that problems with the Child Maintenance Service and domestic abuse are some of the most universal, least partisan issues my colleagues and I encounter in the course of our work. Domestic abuse is not limited to any particular group—anyone can be a victim. At the same time, it is helpful to recognise that the economic impact of domestic abuse is particularly severe for single mothers, who make up 90% of single-parent households and whose opportunities to work may be limited by childcare responsibilities.
Like many Members, I have had people come to my surgeries to talk about coercive, hidden abuse that is very difficult to get on the record. That does impact the decisions that are required in this space. A study by the IFS last year found that, pre-pandemic, nearly half of children in single-parent households were living in poverty. Single parents are likely to need child maintenance payments because of the considerable costs associated with raising children, yet those who have experienced domestic abuse can find themselves still vulnerable to abusive behaviour through the structure of the CMS.
Last year, the Public Accounts Committee concluded in its report on the CMS that the system is not designed to protect victims of domestic abuse, even if it may be the “safest and only way” for them to receive child maintenance payments from an ex-partner. The following is not a comprehensive list, but some ways abusers misuse child maintenance payments are: putting abusive messages in the payment reference; making payment dates unpredictable to interfere with benefit payments; and, in some cases, using the location of the bank account to find the area where the resident parent lives.
I understand why direct payments are the preferred method of child support payments for the CMS. In an ideal world, parents would be able to split amicably and divide the financial responsibility for raising their children equitably; unfortunately, that is often not the case. In situations where the relationship is not only difficult but abusive, it is simply unreasonable for the CMS to ask victims to arrange direct payments with abusers or find out their income details and workplaces themselves.
The Domestic Abuse Commissioner recommends that victims and survivors of domestic abuse are automatically offered the collect and pay option without fees. The Bill’s provision for either parent to object to direct pay on the grounds of domestic abuse represents a significant improvement in the law’s protection for survivors of domestic abuse. However, it fails to address some issues and I hope Ministers will consider introducing future legislation to tackle them.
It is, for instance, too easy for the paying parent to hide earnings by dropping from pay-as-you-earn on to self-employment and making the visibility of the numbers not good. That deprives children of the financial support they need, and from the Treasury’s perspective it contributes to tax avoidance. Once the paying parent is put on collect and pay, the relief for the resident parent may be temporary, however, and it is important that we deliver these proposed changes. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye for bringing the Bill forward.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) on bringing forward this incredibly important Bill. Domestic abuse is truly awful. It is insidious behaviour that goes on behind closed doors, making victims feel traumatised in their own homes. The point of the Bill is that domestic abuse does not necessarily stop when couples separate. It is unacceptable that this behaviour can continue through economic abuse after couples separate.
There have been many cases, including in my constituency, where the separated woman—it tends to be a woman—cannot after separation get payments through the Child Maintenance Service, and it is clear that their partner is withholding payments as a way of continuing their control over their victim through economic abuse. In the current system, there is no way the CMS can stop that; it simply does not have the power to do so. The current system allows the continued economic abuse of victims.
It is important to remember that it is not just the parent victim of abuse who is affected: the children are, too, as this money is used for their upkeep. There have been cases in my constituency where single-parent mothers could not get the funding and were clearly completely out of funds, and ultimately it was their children who suffered. That is utterly unacceptable.
It is therefore important to make a change so the CMS can, when there is abuse, put people on collect and pay services to break the link between abuser and abused. It is important that one parent cannot simply object to that; they must not continue to have a veto. I welcome the earlier amendment to make the Bill cover Northern Ireland. It is unconscionable that it does not cover the entire UK, but this is a devolved issue; however, we do not have a Northern Ireland Government at present.
I totally support the measures in the Bill, although there needs to be further thought on the charging structure: the maintenance liability of 20% for the paying parent seems fair, but the 4% charge on the receiving parent should be reconsidered. I wholeheartedly support the Bill and am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye for introducing it.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
It is a genuine pleasure to respond to this debate from the Opposition Front Bench. I thank and congratulate the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) on bringing this important Bill to the House and on all her hard work in this area. We fully support the Bill and see it as a welcome step in the right direction. Like colleagues before me, I pay tribute to the many organisations who work tirelessly to support victims of domestic abuse and who have campaigned on this issue, particularly Refuge, Gingerbread and Surviving Economic Abuse.
As we have heard, the Bill—which I know is fully supported by the Government—will make important changes to legislation to allow the Child Maintenance Service to collect and make payments on behalf of victims of domestic abuse without the consent of the ex-partner. This will, I am absolutely sure, come as a huge relief to many.
However, the Opposition remain concerned that there is still outstanding work to be done. On Second Reading and in Committee, Opposition colleagues including my hon. Friends the Members for Reading East (Matt Rodda) and for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) pressed the Department on the 4% charge payable by the receiving parent where collect and pay is used, and the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) has also raised that issue. In Committee, the Minister confirmed that the Government are
“willing to consider…where exemptions may be appropriate”.––[Official Report, Child Support Collection (Domestic Abuse) Public Bill Committee, 14 December 2022; c. 9.]
That is encouraging, but I again stress our view that victims of domestic abuse should be exempt from paying the 4% fee. I am aware that they are exempt from paying the £20 application fee, which is absolutely right, but they are then effectively penalised every month simply for using a service that stops them having to have contact with their abusive ex-partner. I hope we can all agree that that is grossly unfair.
Colleagues have mentioned the evidence requirements, which will be set out in secondary legislation. In Committee, the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye stated:
“The aim is to produce evidence requirements that are sensitive to the needs of domestic abuse victims and that have been carefully evaluated and tested.”
She went on to state that she had received assurances that the Department will work with colleagues in the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice and others
“to ensure that the definition of domestic abuse is consistent…across Government.”––[Official Report, Child Support Collection (Domestic Abuse) Public Bill Committee, 14 December 2022; c. 4.]
I take this opportunity to stress, as we have at all stages of the Bill, that it is vital for Ministers to get the evidence requirement right, as the effectiveness of the Bill hinges on it.
More widely, I call on the Government to ensure that victims of domestic abuse feel as safe as possible when using the CMS. Organisations such as Gingerbread and Surviving Economic Abuse have called for statutory guidance to set out the training CMS staff receive on domestic abuse, and in Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley pushed the training point. The Minister responded with robust promises that CMS processes and procedures have been strengthened substantially and that caseworkers are equipped with a toolkit to support customers experiencing abuse. I am sure we have all dealt with domestic abuse cases in the course of our constituency casework and seen at first hand how difficult it can be for victims to leave. The Government must do all they can to equip them with the tools they need to move forward with their lives, including on the vital issue of financial stability.
I will finish on a quick point about enforcement. Currently, very little appears to be done in cases where the paying parent does not meet their obligations. In cases of domestic abuse, that may leave already vulnerable victims and their families destitute. Although that falls slightly outside the direct scope of the Bill, I would be grateful for reassurances from the Minister in this area.
Despite those continuing concerns, I very much welcome the Bill and congratulate the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye wholeheartedly on getting it through to this stage. I hope the Government will continue to build on this legislation and, more widely, the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, to deliver a strong, co-ordinated cross-Government approach to domestic abuse.
Simon Fell
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) on bringing forward this important Bill and getting it to Third Reading. This is a really important issue. I think we have all had cases in our constituency surgeries—we have heard it from Members already—where people have brought the most horrific issues to us. It ranks as one of the top issues. The stories we hear about coercive control and the impact it has on people’s mental health and their ability to look after their children are profound. The steps in the Bill will go a long way to making the world a little bit better for people who are in some of the most difficult circumstances we see as constituency MPs.
Coercive control and financial abuse are just terrible; they are draining. They have impacts far beyond simple pounds and pence. We have all seen that impact, mainly on women and children, when abusers have made it difficult for their former partners by using money as a means of control. Of course, the majority of separated parents do the right thing—they pay their bills and support their children financially—but we see time and again that it is the few bad apples who really make life difficult. They are a reason to look again at the system and at reform.
It is fair to say that, until reasonably recently, financial abuse had been under-recognised as a form of domestic abuse. We need to recognise that predominantly female victims are cut off from sources of money by their partners as a form of control. Some 2.4 million people in England and Wales are estimated to have suffered some form of domestic abuse. In the UK, some reports estimate that one in eight adults—5.9 million people—have experienced economic abuse of some kind in their lifetime from a partner or family member. The majority of those—4.2 million—are women. It leaves them with no money for basic essentials such as food and clothing, and has a massive impact on children, who are the real victims but often overlooked. Having spoken to Citizens Advice in Barrow and in Ulverston, and the fantastic Women’s Community Matters in Barrow, I know just how much this matters and how much time it takes third-sector organisations to help to pick up the pieces and to support people who genuinely do not know where to turn, which is often why they end up with us.
The CMS already has safeguards in place for victims of domestic abuse. For instance, it ensures that there is no unwanted contact between parents, and provides information on how parents can set up a bank account with centralised sort codes so that they cannot be traced. We all acknowledge that any situation where former partners have to co-operate is going to be difficult, particularly when there has been domestic abuse. That is why the proposals in the Bill matter so much. They give victims of domestic abuse the choice to use collect and pay so that they can decide what is best for their personal circumstances. It gives them the freedom to avoid having to transact with the other parent where that is difficult and may lead to bad results. Hopefully, it will make them feel as safe as possible while using the Child Maintenance Service, particularly if the relationship with their former partner was abusive, and will protect them from ongoing coercion and abuse in financial arrangements.
Dozens of constituents have spoken to me during constituency surgeries about their issues and the abuse that they have been through. They have told me about the challenges not just for them but for their children, which affect their mental health, and the fragile relationships that they are trying to rebuild after separation and divorce. The Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye is an important step to helping them. I am sure that they will recognise that. This hidden abuse is hurtful and hateful. I am incredibly grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing the Bill forward, and I am glad to lend it my full support.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) for introducing this Bill. She is an absolute champion for her community, and I am sure her that constituents are very proud to have such a hard-working and committed Member of Parliament working for them.
Sadly, we all see stories of domestic abuse in our mailbags and in our constituency work. I am afraid that we see this kind of financial coercion and abuse all too often. Sadly, domestic abusers use it as a way to keep power and control over their partners and their children. I welcome the Bill because it means that women in particular can feel safer knowing that their abusive partners will not be able to find them or stop payments electronically.
Recently, constituents have started to come to me about the use of applications on telephones. Their partners have put applications on their phones to control the heating in the house and, unbeknown to my constituents, they are switching off the central heating and making life very unpleasant for them. Anything we can do to stop and cut off the abuse is very welcome. I welcome other Members’ comments about ensuring that the recipients of the payment are not subject to costly surcharges. I come from a single-parent family myself, and we know that single-parent families often struggle to afford everything, especially when an ex-partner is causing as many problems as they can, including by stopping income, causing problems with direct debit payments or interfering with benefit payments. I wholeheartedly support this important Bill and thank my hon. Friend for promoting it.
Mims Davies
There is so much to say and so much to respond to. I join hon. Members across the House in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) on navigating this important Bill to its Third Reading. I thank her for promoting the Bill and for her excellent contributions throughout its stages. Promoting a Bill is not easy. I absolutely commend her for her commitment and delivery.
I thank all hon. Members who have highlighted the importance of the Bill in better supporting those who have suffered domestic abuse. I also thank the Opposition for their support. My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) rightly raised the point that people avoid payment as a way of continuing to exert control, which is absolutely wrong. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) spoke about people continuing to using finances to control their former partners, which is completely unacceptable and shows why the Bill is so important. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Lia Nici), who understands single-parentdom as I do, spoke about the importance of tackling abuse and about systems and procedures can continue to facilitate abuse. That has to be stopped, which is what the Bill will do.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I welcome the Bill and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart). Does the Minister agree that the Bill builds on what the Government did in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, on the Bill Committee of which I was very proud to serve? This Bill sends a very clear message to survivors of domestic abuse that we will protect them all the way through, even after abuse has stopped, and that child maintenance support will not be used as another tool in the box by perpetrators of domestic abuse.
Mims Davies
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point, particularly as we approach International Women’s Day. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby spoke about the same issue. The Domestic Abuse Act brings children into scope, which is incredibly important. We know that abuse affects not just partners but whole families. I spent a very brief time as Minister responsible for safeguarding, but I would like to use this opportunity at the Dispatch Box to say that this is about criminality in the home. It is not acceptable, and it is not the way people should be behaving. We will make sure that these processes work for all types of families, who are very often in the most complex scenarios. Ultimately, using finance or any other form of weaponisation is absolutely wrong and abhorrent. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) for making that important point.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) mentioned the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), whom I have met and engaged with strongly. I have taken on board all her points about control and about training, and I will cover some of them in my remarks, if I may.
I fully agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) and join him in paying tribute to the third sector organisations that do so much in this space: they advise us on policy and insight and have been extremely helpful with the Bill. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work for his excellent contribution on Second Reading. I also thank my noble Friend Viscount Younger of Leckie, who has recently taken over day-to-day ministerial responsibility for the Child Maintenance Service. I work extremely strongly with him, and I know that he is fully committed to supporting the Bill’s important measures in the other place. I am grateful to all hon. Members who spoke in Committee and have helped to shape the Bill. I very much appreciate their important insights.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
I want to put on the record my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) on the incredible work she has done to get this important piece of legislation to this stage.
I join the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) in speaking about the third sector. There is a fantastic Stoke-on-Trent North resident called Laura Carter, who runs what was originally Mums of Stoke and is now Women of Stoke. She does incredible work helping women who are fleeing domestic violence to set up new homes and gathering donations of basic things, such as food, as well as beds, furniture and uniforms for children. I was formerly a teacher for eight and a half years and worked on safeguarding as a head of year. Does the Minister agree that it is absolutely disgusting that children are used as a weapon or tool to coercively control women, which is totally unfair and unnecessary, and that, as well as people who do that having to pay their fair share, we should use the legislation we have passed in the House to throw the rulebook at them and, where necessary, put them in jail?
Mims Davies
My hon. Friend characteristically highlights what is at the heart of what we see in many of our constituency meetings. As the daughter of a women from Stoke-on-Trent, I absolutely agree and thank him for giving a voice to his constituents and our communities, which is incredibly important.
I reiterate that the Government take domestic abuse extremely seriously. We have acted on this issue in a way that no Government have before. The CMS is fully committed to providing the right support and ensuring that it is safe for people to use the service. It seeks to tackle any stigma of what the Child Maintenance Service is about and how it can support people. I take this opportunity to remind people that domestic abuse can take many forms. Whether it is physical, emotional or financial abuse, violent or threatening behaviour or coercive control, the CMS has the procedures in place to ensure that cases are handled appropriately, whatever the circumstances. I hope the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford will understand that, and I will outline how we have moved some of those processes on.
For customers using the direct pay service, the CMS can act as an intermediary to facilitate the exchange of bank details to ensure that there is no unwanted contact between parents and that no personal information is shared, which is important. CMS caseworkers also provide information on how to set up bank accounts with a centralised sort code, which reduces the risk of a parent’s location being traced. I am aware that, in complex scenarios, people will be worried about sharing information. We need them to feel safe, so that children can be supported by their parents. The application fee is waived for survivors of domestic abuse, and CMS caseworkers will signpost people where necessary to suitable domestic abuse support organisations, which we have heard about today.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye said, throughout this Bill’s passage hon. Members have been keen to see the publication of the independent review of the ways in which the CMS supports victims of domestic abuse. I am pleased that it was published alongside the Government’s response and recommendations on 17 January. I was involved in those responses and the engagement with the third sector and stakeholders. Dr Samantha Callan has done a remarkably positive job in sharing the review’s recommendations as part of that publication.
As hon. Members will have seen, the independent review found that the CMS has worked hard to develop and improve its domestic abuse practices. Since that review was undertaken by Dr Callan, the CMS has implemented new domestic abuse training measures, including mandatory training for CMS staff on how to respond to domestic abuse cases, ensuring that its caseworkers are well equipped to support parents in those vulnerable situations. The training enables caseworkers to understand how domestic abuse can take various forms—physical, financial, emotional and psychological —so that the CMS can signpost customers to appropriate support such as domestic abuse advocacy groups and, if necessary, advise on contacting the police. Where parents do not feel able to do this, caseworkers will ask whether they are content for them to call the police on their behalf.
The CMS has also implemented a new call script that directly asks about abuse and signposts customers to very specific advice and, importantly, expertise. CMS caseworkers also have a complex needs toolkit, which includes clear steps to follow in order to support customers who are experiencing abuse. This toolkit is regularly reviewed and strengthened using customer insight. Again, the Minister in the other place and I are taking a clear interest in how the toolkit works.
However, as the review points out, there are further steps that the CMS can take. The Government have rightly accepted eight of the review’s 10 recommendations, and we are strongly committed to taking them forward and reviewing the training to ensure that it remains up to date and, most importantly, aligned with best practice.
I spoke earlier about the Ask for ANI pilot roll-out and extension, alongside our J9 interventions through Jobcentre Plus. I reiterate that, in the light of today’s amendments, the Department of Health in Northern Ireland has made pharmacies aware of the Ask for ANI scheme, too. Four jobs and benefits offices in the Department for Communities are also offering Ask for ANI support. Wherever people need help, there is a way for them to get support, which is important.
Dr Callan’s report also includes recommendations to enable cases to be moved to collect and pay where there is evidence of domestic abuse, which is precisely what this Bill aims to do. The Bill also amends primary legislation to allow for a parent or child in Scotland to request collect and pay on the grounds of domestic abuse where there is evidence of abuse against them or, indeed, against children in the household.
To get these proposals right, to target the right parents appropriately and to make sure we have the right evidence of domestic abuse, we will table secondary legislation.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Like my hon. Friend the Member for the two Cities, if I might put it that way—the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken)—I was heavily involved with the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. Does the Minister think it would be a good idea for children’s social workers, in particular, to wear body cameras to record what happens when they go into a home, to spot the signs of domestic abuse, rather than relying on hearsay evidence reported to their seniors when making key decisions about what happens to the child and, indeed, the abusive parent?
Mims Davies
I thank my hon. Friend for his remarkably insightful idea. Children’s social work is an incredibly brave and diverse job, as we are asking people to go into homes and make judgments. Of course, the police are now wearing body cameras, and Ministers should take note of his view. It is very difficult to look at both sides of the coin, and photographic evidence could be extremely helpful. I am sure that putting it on the record has strengthened his resolve, for which I thank him.
We will engage stakeholder groups including, my hon. Friend will note, the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice and the devolved Administrations, where appropriate, on secondary legislation to ensure that parents are fully supported. The secondary legislation will follow the affirmative procedure, so hon. Members will be able to vote on the proposals. We aim to produce robust evidence requirements that are fully sensitive to the needs of domestic abuse survivors, and we will ensure that all relevant data and insights are thoroughly considered.
I will make some progress, because there are other important Bills to debate this morning. I turn to the collection charges for the use of the collect and pay service, including the 20% on top of the maintenance liability for the paying parent and the 4% of the maintenance received by the receiving parent. Some hon. Members have expressed strong views on the issue. I understand their concerns, but they should note that the charges were introduced with the 2012 child maintenance scheme, which included charging, and has led to an increase in family-based arrangements that are, on the whole, much better for children—indeed, too few people have family arrangements.
We recognise, however, that many of the parents who need the support in the Bill are some of the most vulnerable. Given the circumstances, therefore, alongside the development of secondary legislation, we will look at the charging structure for the use of the collect and pay service, and how that will interact with the proposed changes for victims of domestic abuse in such cases. The secondary legislation will be brought forward as soon as parliamentary time allows. I hope that provides some reassurance to hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Vicky Foxcroft
I thank the Minister for her commitment to look into the issue and that it will be done in future. Can I press her further to give us some idea of when that might be?
Mims Davies
The hon. Lady should expect it to be early 2024, but I am keen to get on with it. I hope that is a timetable that we can stick to, but we will do our best to bring it about sooner.
On the Northern Ireland amendments, I reiterate that it is important for the measure to cover the whole United Kingdom. I thank all hon. Members and assure them that the Child Maintenance Service is fit for purpose and fully committed to supporting all parents to ensure that they have safe and agreeable arrangements that work for them. I pay huge credit to my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye for bringing the Bill forward and navigating its safe passage. I am pleased to reiterate the Government’s support for the Bill. We will continue to support and guide it as it moves through Parliament.
Sally-Ann Hart
With the leave of the House, I will take this opportunity to praise and thank the Minister and hon. Members on both sides of the House for their work and support throughout the process. I extend my appreciation and huge thanks to the Public Bill Office and the officials from the Department for Work and Pensions for their guidance and support, for which I am truly grateful. The support on both sides of the House further proves the overwhelming necessity for the Bill. The need to continue the Government’s essential work to protect women and children, predominantly, from falling victim to domestic abuse is vital. Through the Bill, more protection will be given to some of the most vulnerable in our society.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) for his moving contribution, including on the need for the CMS to keep a forensic eye on the paying parent’s earnings to stop them wriggling out of paying. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne), who highlighted his concerns.
I thank the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) for her kind words in support of the Bill. I agree that the 4% fee should be waived for victims, but I stress how important it is to get the Bill through Parliament unhindered as soon as possible. I am confident that that matter and the others that she raised are being considered by the relevant Departments and I welcome the Minister’s assurances on that. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell), who stressed the importance of parents looking after their children financially, and my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Lia Nici) for her contribution.
Getting children and families right—strengthening families—is vital for our communities, for my beautiful constituency of Hastings and Rye, and for our wider society. The Bill will strengthen the support that domestic abuse victims are offered when using the CMS by allowing them to decide what service type is best for their child maintenance case and their circumstances. I wish it success as it moves to the other House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Bill
Friday 3rd March 2023
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023 View all Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 3 March 2023 - (3 Mar 2023)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Felicity Buchan)
I beg to move amendment 1, page 4, line 37, at end insert—
“(4A) The provision that may be made by virtue of subsection (4)(c) includes provision for the Secretary of State to designate the district of every local housing authority in England.”
This amendment confirms that licensing regulations under clause 4(1) or (3) may provide for the Secretary of State to designate the district of every local housing authority in England for the purposes of the regulations.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 2, in clause 5, page 5, line 41, at end insert—
“(ba) conditions requiring the carrying out of assessments of the needs of residents (or potential residents) and relating to the conduct of such assessments;”.
This amendment enables licensing regulations under clause 4(1) or (3) to provide that conditions attached to a licence may include conditions relating to needs assessments.
Government amendment 3, in clause 6, page 7, line 4, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
“(a) each local housing authority in England,
(aa) each social services authority in England,”.
This amendment substitutes local housing authorities in England and social services authorities in England for the Local Government Association in the list of persons the Secretary of State must consult before making licensing regulations under clause 4(1) or (3).
Felicity Buchan
We have already heard earlier in the Bill’s passage that there is a real risk of rogue providers changing location in order to avoid regulation. I am determined to put a stop to the exploitation of vulnerable people through the provision of poor-quality supported housing. For the rogues this is a lucrative activity, which is incentive enough for them to move location in order to avoid impending regulation.
The Bill currently provides that licensing regulations may include provision under which the Secretary of State may designate the district of “a” local housing authority as subject to licensing. The amendment clarifies that such provision includes provision for the Secretary of State to designate every district in England as subject to licensing, which means that the Secretary of State could introduce universal local licensing by exercising a power to be conferred by the licensing regulations of clause 4 to designate every local housing authority district in England. It is important that this is set out clearly as an option. The licensing regulations must still make provision for a local housing authority to self-designate, and may require a local housing authority to do so if conditions are met.
I tabled amendment 1 because the Government need to be able to reset the system. We must be able to put a stop to providers simply moving to areas without a licensing scheme and setting up there. With universal local licensing, we could prevent a landlord who had failed a “fit and proper person” test in an area with a licensing scheme from simply relocating to an area without licensing, and thus potentially protect vulnerable residents. If universal local licensing is pursued—and I consider it to be an option—that will mean that all residents of supported housing, wherever they are in England, can take comfort from the fact that the national supported housings standards will be enforced, and action will be taken should a provider not meet them. That option must be available to the Secretary of State.
I want to reassure Members that the Government will consult on the detail of the licensing regime, as is required in the Bill. That, of course, includes consulting on the duty set out in clause 6 relating to the method of enforcing the national supported housing standards, and the effectiveness of the licensing regime. We remain determined that the regime should be light-touch in order to avoid overburdening good providers and local authorities, but also robust enough to force out those running supported housing for the wrong reasons. We will keep the licensing scheme under review to ensure that it is working as was intended. I hope that Members will agree to our making this change.
Let me now deal with Government amendment 2. I know that the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) cannot be present today because of future commitments, and he sent me his apologies. I am grateful to him for tabling a similar amendment in Committee, and I am pleased to be able to bring it back to the House today. In Committee he spoke of his concerns about how residents could access supported housing, and expressed particular concern about the problems experienced by residents who were mixed together inappropriately, as well as the increased advertising of supported housing provision on websites such as Gumtree and Zoopla. On the latter point, I can offer some reassurance. I recently met representatives of Gumtree, at their request, to discuss the practice by some supported housing providers of placing advertisements on its website. Gumtree, I am glad to say, has already started to crack down on these inappropriate advertisements and has expressed its willingness to continue to work with the Government on this matter. Members will know that Gumtree is not the only service that can enable rogue landlords to advertise poor-quality supported housing. The Government will work with these services to find solutions, and my amendment will also help.
In the report on exempt accommodation, the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee also raised the issue of access routes into supported housing. I am well aware that residents are finding their way into supported housing through a variety of routes, including websites, as I mentioned earlier, where landlords purport to be providing supported housing but are, in fact, perpetuating the abuse that we are here to tackle. At best, placing someone in supported housing without testing its suitability will mean that the right outcomes will not be achieved and the person will not be able to move on into independent living, if that is appropriate. At worst, failing to assess the residents’ needs is a clear indicator that genuine support is simply not being delivered at all, and that is not acceptable.
The hon. Member for Sheffield South East and I are in agreement that it is vital that the resident’s support needs are assessed, so that they can be given the right support in the right accommodation. Once these arrangements are in place, we would expect assessments to be carried out in advance of a resident moving into the accommodation, but, in some circumstances, we recognise that that may not be possible. None the less, all supported housing residents must have the confidence that they are living in the right place with the support that they need. Amendment 2 proposed by the Government delivers on that by adding to the list of conditions that may be attached to a supported housing licence at clause 5(3) conditions requiring the carrying out of assessments of the needs of residents, or potential residents, including in relation to the conduct of those needs assessments. The fine details will, of course, be subject to consultation, but this amendment demonstrates the importance that the House places on proper support being given to supported housing residents, tailored to their individual need. I hope Members agree with me on that.
Amendment 3 is more of a technical amendment. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for proposing this amendment in Committee and I am pleased to be able to return with it today. The amendment seeks to amend clause 6, following a request from the Local Government Association to be removed as a statutory consultee. The Bill includes a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to consult on a number of issues related to the measures in the Bill. As I have said in earlier debates, it is very important to me that we carefully test these measures for unintended consequences before implementation. As determined as I am to drive out poor provision and drive up standards in supported housing, I am equally determined to ensure that good providers can continue to support the vulnerable people who need these vital services.
The Local Government Association asked to be replaced as a statutory consultee by local authorities. Local authorities—or to use the language of the Bill, local housing authorities and social service authorities—will deliver many of the measures in the Bill. It is right that we seek their views before making regulations. In line with that request, the amendment removes the Local Government Association from the list of statutory consultees in clause 6 and replaces them with local housing authorities and social services authorities in England. The effect of the amendment is that the Secretary of State will have an obligation to consult local housing authorities and social service authorities on the design of the licensing regime before making regulations. I hope that hon. Members will agree with this amendment also.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
At this stage, I will confine my remarks to the three amendments tabled; I will have more to say on Third Reading. The amendments stem from the very healthy cross-party debate we had in Committee on four amendments that were tabled at that stage.
The first amendment, as the Minister has outlined, relates to clarification in the Bill, and it has my full support. The clear point is that it allows the Secretary of State
“to designate the district of every local housing authority in England”
for the purposes of the regulations. That confirms that licensing regulations may be provided by every local authority in England, as opposed to only a few; while possibly only a few will require such measures now, this is a rapidly growing market and we must ensure that the legislation is future-proofed and that rogue landlords are held to account throughout the country rather than, as the Minister rightly says, moving from one area to another.
I ask the Minister, when we look at the regulations that will underpin this legislation, to look at grouping local authorities together to form a licensing regime, rather than relying on relatively small district housing authorities, which may only have one or two units within their area and will therefore find it overbearing to have that regulation and a whole bureaucratic structure just within that area.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I welcome this Bill and, having served on the Bill Committee, I am aware of its importance. I welcome my hon. Friend’s point about grouping councils together and I highly recommend the Minister looking at that. I was responsible for bringing children’s services together with Hammersmith and Fulham and Kensington and Chelsea when I was children’s services lead at Westminster Council, so I know how important it is that we ensure that local authorities, where possible, can work together, not only to be more cost-effective, but to provide a better service.
Bob Blackman
There are also several advantages beyond those my hon. Friend mentions. Providers that provide across more than one district housing authority will then have one set of regulations to abide by rather than, potentially, a number of different ones. That was the original intent of the Bill: to ensure that we deal with the rogue landlords and encourage the good providers to carry on with the excellent work they do. We also need to ensure that no one can slip through the net as a rogue provider, so I am glad the Minister has put forward that proposal.
As my hon. Friend the Minister has said, various different providers are exploiting the system via internet and other social media activities. I recommend her taking a look at a new set-up called RoomMatch, which I believe is just about to be released, and which enables users to look at what providers are providing—both the quality of accommodation and the support provided—to assist those placing vulnerable people in those types of accommodation. At the same time, the people going into that type of accommodation can view it virtually before they get anywhere near it.
The amendment will prevent unlawful providers that have had regulations imposed as a result of the Bill by the local authority in which they operate from simply upping sticks and moving to a nearby authority that does not have regulations, and then continuing to exploit vulnerable tenants for vast quantities of money while still providing a shamefully inadequate level of care. That is the big challenge. Unfortunately, I have had experience of seeing some of that; it is truly dreadful what we put certain vulnerable people through. Allowing providers to set up somewhere else and continue to exploit people would leave the purpose of the Bill unachieved. I am delighted that the amendment has been tabled; I think it will prevent the worst-case scenario.
It may seem unlikely to some people that the aforementioned case could take place, but I have visited numerous examples of such supported housing. The set-up is extremely quick, and there are low start-up costs, so rogues can set up very quickly and far too easily. They do not need to obtain planning permission, because of the permitted development rights they acquire when providing supported accommodation. Consequently, they can immediately start up and falsely advertise the property on social media networks as good quality with a high level of care. Residents promptly apply, particularly because there is currently a limited amount of affordable housing in the private market.
Almost immediately, tenants are found, and the high rent payments start coming in. To be clear, this is an industry that, when abused, pulls in huge profit margins, so it is completely within the rogue landlord’s interest to set up in another district, even if it is only for a year, before the housing authority introduces regulations. I welcome this amendment, which will send the strongest possible signal to those who wish to abuse vulnerable tenants.
Amendment 2 will enable the licensing regulations under clause 4 to include in the list of conditions attached to a licence requirements related to the needs assessment of those looking to enter exempt accommodation and supported housing accommodation, and it has my complete support. I commend the excellent report that the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee did on this. Its Chairman, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), tabled the amendment in Committee, and I am glad that the Minister agreed to look at it further and refine it to make sure it was fit for purpose. I am glad that she has agreed to adopt the amendment, and I thank her and the hon. Member for Sheffield South East for their contributions and advice relating to it.
I emphasise that good providers have nothing to fear. I have been to many supported housing units where the first thing they do is conduct a needs assessment of the individuals. If a provider is possibly taking someone for two years, they need to assess their needs, so that they can provide the right level of support. It is a scandal that many rogue providers provide no support whatsoever. This amendment is extremely welcome. It has support from Members on both sides of the House and has been broadly welcomed and accepted by local authorities, housing providers and charitable bodies across the sector, which is incredibly reassuring.
At present, the Bill stipulates that the conditions that may be attached to a licence include conditions relating to the standard of accommodation; conditions relating to the use of accommodation; conditions relating to the provision of care, support or supervision; and conditions requiring compliance with national supported housing standards, when we eventually publish them. Amendment 2 will add to that:
“conditions requiring the carrying out of assessments of the needs of residents… and relating to the conduct of such assessments”.
Fundamentally, this means that residents of supported accommodation must have an initial assessment of the level of their needs, to ensure that they have access to the correct amount of care and appropriate care relating to their specific complex needs. As we are all aware, every case is unique, and no two individuals will have exactly the same requirements. I am confident that this amendment will help residents to receive the best care—helping them eventually to stand on their own two feet, rebuild their lives and probably enter the private housing market in future. Local authorities can be held responsible for initiating these assessments and ensuring enforcement by all supported housing providers in their districts. The amendment will ensure that every local authority carries that forward and achieves the best outcome for residents.
Amendment 3 stems from discussions with the Local Government Association; I declare an interest, as a vice-president of the LGA. The LGA is the body that was previously named, which meant that it was consulted on all aspects of licensing regulations. However, as a localist, I believe it is right that local housing authorities and social services authorities are the ones consulted, so that each authority can have its views taken into account by Ministers when decisions are made. Stipulating the LGA as a consultee risked local authorities, as delivery partners, not having the primary opportunity to consult on elements that they will consequently be responsible for enforcing, so amending the Bill in this way is clearly the right way forward. I am pleased that the Local Government Association is highly supportive of the amendment. It has assured me and other local authorities that it will continue to work with colleagues and officials across central Government, other local authorities and accommodation providers to support the future consultation on the Bill. As this will be the case, it has been explicitly named, as per the amendment. The amendment is extremely welcome; it clarifies a point, and I endorse it completely.
I am thankful to the Minister for honouring her pledges in Committee by tabling the amendments, which I wholeheartedly support.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Clause 5
Further provision about licensing regulations
Amendment made: 2, page 5, line 41, at end insert—
“(ba) conditions requiring the carrying out of assessments of the needs of residents (or potential residents) and relating to the conduct of such assessments;”.—(Felicity Buchan.)
This amendment enables licensing regulations under clause 4(1) or (3) to provide that conditions attached to a licence may include conditions relating to needs assessments.
Clause 6
Consultation
Amendment made: 3, page 7, line 4, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
“(a) each local housing authority in England,
(aa) each social services authority in England,”.—(Felicity Buchan.)
This amendment substitutes local housing authorities in England and social services authorities in England for the Local Government Association in the list of persons the Secretary of State must consult before making licensing regulations under clause 4(1) or (3).
Third Reading
Bob Blackman
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
When we are considering opportunities for private Members’ Bills and when we are drawn in the lottery for them, it is important that we consider what we are going to take forward. I am very conscious that I have met many Members who have been in this House for more than 20 years and have never been drawn in the ballot, and this is my second opportunity to propose a private Member’s Bill. [Interruption.] Members have to enter the ballot if they want to succeed.
My experience in 2016 with the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 was a key pointer, because Members have the choice of taking a Bill that the Government would like them to take, developing a Bill that the Government completely oppose and going down in flames, or developing their own. In both cases when I have been drawn, I have chosen the latter. That is not the easy route by any means, but when I had the opportunity to propose a private Member’s Bill, I wanted to make sure that I helped vulnerable people who cannot speak for themselves. That is why the Homelessness Reduction Act, the single biggest reform in housing for more than 40 years, came about.
This new Bill, the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Bill, deals with the vulnerable people who should be assisted as a result of the Homelessness Reduction Act. Both that Act and this Bill stem from reports published by Select Committees on which I have had the honour of serving: we have provided the evidence base and have almost carried out pre-legislative scrutiny on the Bills before we propose them.
I am pleased to speak to this Bill once more as it reaches Third Reading, and I am encouraged by the journey thus far. We have engaged in meaningful and constructive debate, leading to the fine-tuned edits that we have just made on Report. The main message of the Bill, however, remains the same: we want to prevent vulnerable tenants from being exploited by rogue landlords. My central message to the good providers out there—there are some brilliant organisations that help vulnerable people—is that they have nothing to fear from the new legislation. It is the rogues we are after—those who exploit vulnerable people.
As the cost of living crisis continues to affect residents across the country, the need for supported accommodation is growing rapidly. It is therefore vital that we regulate the market now, before many more vulnerable people are subjected to the horrors that are far too often demonstrated. Once again, I take the opportunity to recommend that individuals read the report of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, which is available from the Vote Office and other good bookshops: it is a right riveting read. That report highlighted the extent to which tenants were abused, forced and manipulated into damaging practices, whether it be prostitution, substance abuse or discouragement from work—I could go on. People are exploited in an unacceptable way.
The main reason that people are referred to supported housing is to receive the constructive support they need to transition back to normality, yet far too often, those people go backwards as a consequence of damaging malpractice. It is an issue that is popping up in more and more constituencies all over England, highlighting the need for prompt regulation. The sheer volume of money that landlords can make in this corrupt practice is so huge that once others learn of it, they jump on the bandwagon. It is a licence to print masses of money very quickly.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman; he may resume his speech in a few moments.
Debate interrupted.
Personal Statement
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Ind)
The report of the Independent Expert Panel into my conduct has been published today. I want to say how sorry I am for the upset and offence my behaviour caused last year. I wish to specifically apologise to the two complainants who were subject to my drunk and offensive behaviour and attitude. I cannot apologise enough for the harm and upset caused, and I am, frankly, ashamed of my conduct. It should not have happened. No one should leave any MP’s company so shocked or appalled at their inappropriate behaviour or failure to meet the standards rightly expected of this office.
I also apologise to my constituents in Southwark. They faithfully put their trust in me to stand up for their values here in Westminster in three consecutive general elections, and I failed to represent them in the way they deserve or a way they would recognise. I owe a debt of gratitude too large to ever repay to my constituents for the privilege of serving our wonderful, diverse community. I am ashamed that this apology is both necessary and overdue. I apologise to the members of my local Labour party, who also expect me to represent the best of our values in this place, and who last year I also let down so badly.
With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I also wish to thank the two complainants for their bravery. I do not doubt that it was not easy to submit the complaints. Their courage has ensured that standards have been upheld through an independent process that I was proud to support the establishment of, and that exists to tackle the problematic behaviour I sadly exhibited last year. It is right and proper that I have been held to account and sanctioned accordingly, and I take my punishment on the chin. I fully accept my failings and, again, express my sincere apologies. I will use the time for which I am suspended to reflect on self-improvement, and I have already undergone some training, including on tackling unconscious bias, which I recommend to all Members and their teams.
I owe the complainants my further gratitude for calling out my upsetting words and actions. It forced me to recognise that my drinking had become a dependency and to seek help. On 1 March this week, I celebrated a year since I stopped drinking, and I would not have been able to stop without their effective intervention. In the healthcare I have received since last February, it has also been made abundantly clear to me that, had I not stopped, my drinking would likely have caused a significant stroke or worse. Their intervention has quite possibly saved my life.
Going forward, I will remain abstinent to offer the greatest chance for my own health to continue to improve, for the best relationship with my daughter and family to continue to grow, and for the best service to my constituents to continue. I hope that in speaking out publicly about ending my alcohol dependency, I am also able to support others struggling to maintain or regain control.
In closing, I thank the Speaker’s Office and the wider parliamentary team, including the Whips, the Serjeant at Arms team and those in the health and wellbeing service, for all the support provided over the last 12 months, especially to enable me to stop drinking. I could not have done it without the tremendous help along the way, especially from my own small team who work wonders for Southwark, and who I will cherish even more for their hard work throughout the difficult, overstretched period I created for them in the last year.
Going forward, I will endeavour to be a stronger ally to the east and south-east Asian community in order to prove my apology to the journalist who had the courage to complain, as well as to my constituents, who too often see the downplaying of the discrimination and hate crime they experience, and to my own family, who I have let down. Two of my brothers have Chinese wives and I have two Chinese nieces and a nephew. I also need to show them that this was an aberration and ensure that they can, once again, be proud of me.
I wholly and unreservedly apologise again for my offensive language and behaviour last year. I know that I let a huge number of people down, and I am sorry to everyone who saw drink get the better of me. I am resolute that it will never happen again.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I thank the hon. Gentleman and trust that he will have the support of the whole House in maintaining his recovery.
Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Bill
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bob Blackman
I would like to say that the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), who has just given a personal statement, has been extremely supportive on the all-party parliamentary group for ending homelessness, and I hope we can welcome him back to helping in that regard.
As I was saying before the personal statement, the problem we are experiencing now in many parts of the country is rogue landlords jumping on the bandwagon with the ability literally to print money and exploit vulnerable tenants. The Select Committee report that I referred to highlighted that in many cases, the profit margins are even greater than illegal drug dealing, emphasising that the amount of housing benefit being taken from the public purse shows a clear abuse of the position.
I thank all Members who took part in the Bill Committee. It was an honour to have such an informed, esteemed and engaged group of people to ensure that any potential amendments were debated and considered in depth, taking into account any possible consequences that may arise, because we must look at the unintended consequences that may result from legislation. They were specifically: my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), the hon. Members for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) and for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne), my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke), the hon. Members for Birmingham, Erdington (Mrs Hamilton) and for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes), the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra), the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) and last, but by no means least, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Gary Sambrook). In addition, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Dr Wallis) and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) were not able to make the Committee, but their support was appreciated none the less. The comments, counsel and guidance from the Committee on the Bill were incredibly useful to ensure that all the amendments proposed were appropriate and complemented the Bill’s intentions.
Further, the Committee understood from the outset my vision for the Bill, which is that it is crucial that we drive out the rogue landlords and not hinder the brilliant work done by thousands of organisations across this country, who provide supported housing for those who really need it. I also thank the amazing Clerks in the Public Bill Office for the hard work they have put in to make all this possible. Anne-Marie Griffiths in particular has been on hand to direct the practicalities throughout the process, which has been integral in getting to Third Reading.
On the topic of thanks, I take the opportunity to thank everyone who has been involved in drafting, giving evidence, advising and collaborating on my Bill. It has been a busy 10 months since the private Member’s Bill ballot was announced. I am wondering what exactly I will do with my extra time once the Bill goes through its final stages. However, the development of the regulations and the consultations required will, I am sure, keep me actively involved.
I met a variety of providers to ensure that those providing a positive service in the sector will not be compromised as a result of the regulation. I have been overwhelmed by the number of providers that genuinely put the needs of tenants first to support and assist them in rebuilding their lives. I have hosted many webinars organised by Homeless Link, Crisis, the London Assembly, the National Housing Federation, the Local Government Association and Birmingham City Council, which provided me with an opportunity to hear directly from large-scale, small-scale and chain providers. That has been invaluable to get a much more detailed perspective and to resolve any anxieties they may retain about the introduction of this regulation.
Additionally, we have co-operated with and listened to many local authorities across England on the concerns and practicalities they envisage. That has helped to steer the conversation so that the regulation is clear and the appropriate guidance and standards will be available for an efficient licensing scheme to be created by local authorities. As the Bill hopefully moves on to the other place, and then begins enactment in the Department, I have assured all bodies that I will continue to hold them to account and ensure that no unintended consequences are caused or extra unnecessary burdens placed on highly principled providers.
Creating the Bill has been a lengthy and frequently uphill challenge, but it has enabled me to work with some incredible people coming together with one main goal. Some of them I was familiar with from my work in the housing sector and on my previous private Member’s Bill, which became the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017. Others I have met through this process, and their contributions have shaped the Bill enormously to this point. Crisis, the homelessness charity, has been integral at every stage, providing invaluable support and guidance at all hours of the day and night. Most notably, Jasmine Basran and Sarah Rowe have worked extensively on the policy and logistical aspects of the Bill, providing briefings, advice and counsel, as well as partaking in an unthinkable number of meetings that have taken place over the past nine months.
When I was first drawn in the private Member’s Bill ballot, I approached Crisis informing it I was contemplating the regulation of the exempt accommodation sector. Helpfully, it agreed that this was a beneficial Bill in vital demand and therefore agreed to help draft it, for which I am extremely grateful. Emily Batchelor, Beth Exworth and Martine Martin, who used to be my parliamentary assistant, have also provided enormous support in arranging press releases and briefings to colleagues across the House on the Bill, and in providing secretariat resources for the all-party group for ending homelessness, which I chair jointly with the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi). I have no doubt we will continue these conversations long into the future, to safeguard and review the impact of the Bill on the sector.
Justin Bates from Landmark Chambers was instrumental in drafting the Bill, with his expertise on housing, property and local government law; having edited the erudite “Encyclopaedia of Housing Law and Practice”, there is little Justin has not learned about the subject, and his knowledge of it has been crucial in drafting the text of the Bill. He astutely pulled together our vision to create a thorough and comprehensive Bill, which I am proud has made it to Third Reading, albeit with assistance from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. I hope it can go through the other place and receive Royal Assent without difficulties or complications.
As the House is aware, during this process we have had the advantage of working with three separate Ministers with the portfolio for housing and homelessness: my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson), who is in his place, and my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan) have all been influential in shaping the Bill, in several different ways and several different directions, and allowing it to reach this point. Their guidance, recommendations and flexibility throughout the last six months are hugely appreciated.
I have no doubt that those afflicted by homelessness can trust that their views will continue to be represented fervently and ardently by the current Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, in her relatively new role, and I appreciate the commitments she gave at the Dispatch Box on Second Reading and the amendments she has tabled to aid the Bill. I am confident that, as has been expanded upon, these three amendments will strengthen the Bill’s intentions.
Departmental officials have been a great help in drafting the Bill; they have engaged in countless meetings and conversations with my team and representatives of Crisis, supporting and advising Ministers efficiently on issues affecting the sector. I have also had the pleasure of meeting several direct witnesses of supported housing. Many colleagues in the Chamber today will have listened to Wayne and Ian, both from Crisis Skylight Birmingham, at the “Regulate the Rogues” briefing that took place just before Second Reading. Wayne and Ian both displayed admirable courage and openness when describing their experience of living in supported housing. I am sure we can all agree that sharing such tough times publicly in front of a large group of strangers—telling stories of pure exploitation and deceit—is no easy feat, and I thank them greatly for their vital contributions, which have helped spread awareness of the need to implement regulation and helped engender support for my Bill.
I want to thank the Whips team, as well, for bearing with us during the process; organising a Friday full of debates in the aftermath of a parliamentary away day is no mean feat, as I am sure they will agree, particularly with coach drivers and traffic. Finally, I thank my parliamentary assistant Hattie Shoosmith for all her work in organising meetings and drafting speeches and articles.
Regardless of how seasoned and experienced a Back Bencher is, watching their Bill go through its final stages in the Commons is a truly extraordinary moment. It puts into perspective the intensity of the journey and the impact the Bill will hopefully have when on the statute book. I am, however, especially mindful that this has been possible only thanks to my luck—although I am sure I have questioned on several occasions whether it was good or bad luck—in Madam Deputy Speaker, the Chairman of Ways and Means, drawing ball number 56 from her glass bowl. However, what matters is how we follow up on that luck.
I hope that the hard work of everyone who has been involved up to this point will be championed in the other place. It is an anxious part of the process for an hon. Member who can only watch from afar, but I am extremely grateful that my good friend Lord Best, who no doubt is in the Gallery today, will be a strong advocate for and custodian of the Bill.
The regulation that the Bill seeks to introduce will be a crucial step in supporting people who are in a compromised situation, whether that is because of substance abuse, domestic violence or leaving prison, or for any other reason. It will give them access to sufficient accommodation and a level of care that will aid their road to normalisation and to standing on their own two feet. It is therefore crucial that there be no complications or amendments in the other place that would hinder the Bill’s progression and allow rogue landlords to continue exploiting the public purse and risking the safety of their tenants.
I thank hon. Members for listening and look forward to hearing their contributions. I commend the Bill to the House.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for his excellent Bill, on which I was lucky enough to speak on Second Reading in November. I commend the Minister for her foresight in tabling the Government amendments to which we agreed on Report just now; I hope the whole House agrees that they are an additional benefit. The Bill’s intention has the potential to be misinterpreted, so let us be clear: it is there to protect people in supported accommodation and to support the most vulnerable members of society.
In South West Hertfordshire, we have good housing providers and we provide the right support. There are 136 units of supported housing provided by private registered providers in Three Rivers and 2,541 units of supported housing in Dacorum, of which 536 are provided by private registered providers and the rest by the district council. Unfortunately, there are loopholes in the current system that have been open to exploitation. There is evidence that unscrupulous landlords have been capitalising on those loopholes; I have had numerous pieces of correspondence from constituents saying that people are claiming uncapped housing benefits to make a profit.
The Bill will create a minimum standard for type and condition of premises, as well as for the care and support provided. There has been a clear correlation between high concentrations of exempt accommodation and antisocial behaviour and crime. Poor quality of housing—with every room, including communal areas, being turned into a bedroom to make a greater profit for the provider—has led to organised criminal gangs and increased levels of vermin and rubbish, with knock-on consequences for neighbours and for the community as a whole. That creates a risk that local support for these types of dwellings will be undermined.
Lack of data is a really important point that we have debated before in this Chamber. Some 153,700 households in Great Britain were housed in exempt accommodation in May 2021, but the lack of data means that the problem could be much more widespread than even that figure suggests. In some areas of the country, the number of people living in exempt accommodation has doubled in just a few years. That shows the urgency of the issue. Demand is growing and will continue to grow, so we really need to get a handle on this.
I am conscious that several excellent colleagues wish to speak, so I will shorten my comments and end with a point about taxpayers’ money. There is no publicly available data on Government expenditure on exempt accommodation. As we all know, the Government have no money—the money belongs to taxpayers—so we always need to think about value for money. We cannot just throw money at the issue. It is more than possible that the Government may need to spend even more, but we need a better understanding of the issue, and that will be driven by increased data. In the current economic climate, we need to be a lot more conscious of saving the pennies and the pounds.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I commend once again the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for introducing this extremely important Bill, and congratulate him on piloting it through Committee to its Third Reading today. Let me take the opportunity, as he did, to thank again all those who have contributed to the development and drafting of the Bill, including Justin Bates, Joe Thomas, Sam Lister, the team at Crisis and, we must not forget, the hon. Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes).
The Opposition regret how long we have had to wait for legislation to address exploitation and profiteering at the hands of rogue exempt accommodation operators, and the fact that progress in this area has been dependent on the ongoing success of the hon. Member for Harrow East in the private Member’s Bill ballot. We have been clear since the Bill was published that we support the measures in it, as a means to enhance local authority oversight of supported housing and enable local authorities to drive up standards in their areas. As we have long argued, a robust framework of national standards for the sector is essential. There is an open and shut case for better regulating the eligibility for—and therefore access to—exempt benefit claims at local level.
That said, our position has always been that the Bill could be strengthened in important ways. As the House may recall, we made a number of specific suggestions to that end on Second Reading. They included new planning powers to allow local authorities to proactively manage their local supported housing markets; enhanced provisions for national monitoring and oversight; augmenting the list of new banning order offences; and establishing evaluation and improvement notice procedures, so that local authorities can drive up standards without implementing a full licensing regime. We remain of the view that those suggestions have merit, and we believe that they will need to be revisited if the Bill fails to deliver in the way that we all hope it will.
We welcome the three Government amendments that have been incorporated into the Bill, particularly amendment 2, which was initially pressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) in Committee. As the Minister made clear, the amendment provides for conditions relating to needs assessments to be attached to a licence. We believe that the three amendments improve the legislation and we support them. However, although the Bill has undoubtedly been strengthened by their incorporation, there remain a number of important issues that we feel still need to be resolved, and I want to take the opportunity to speak briefly to three of them.
The first relates to methods of enforcing new national standards short of licensing. As hon. Members will know, although the Bill places a duty on all local authorities to publish a supported housing strategy, it does not require them all to implement a licensing scheme as a means of enforcing the new national supported housing standards that it introduces. On balance, we agree that the adoption of licensing of supported exempt accommodation should be optional. However, the fact that it will be gives rise to the possibility not only that local authorities with large amounts of badly run exempt accommodation could ultimately choose not to license, but that local authorities with limited resources or only one or two problematic providers will not be in a position to introduce licensing schemes and will therefore be unable to properly enforce new national standards.
We appreciate fully that the Government intend to consult on this matter under the duties set out in clause 6, but we urge Ministers to agree in principle now that there is a strong case for providing for a range of different enforcement options, in terms both of their strength and to whom they apply. In particular, we encourage the Minister to give serious consideration to giving local authorities powers analogous to those in part 1 of the Housing Act 2004, which provides for the housing health and safety rating system, hazard awareness notices and improvement notice procedures. As the Minister will know, outside large urban areas, most local authorities have only a handful of officers—if that—in their private rented sector teams. We need to ensure that there is a suite of options short of licensing that will allow smaller authorities to bear down on the problem.
The second issue relates to local authority resourcing. The Bill will place additional requirements on local authorities to carry out reviews of supported exempt accommodation in their districts and to publish supported housing strategies. In addition, authorities that believe it necessary to adopt licensing schemes and are in a position to do so will face additional costs as a result. In Committee, the Minister confirmed that a new burdens assessment will be made, but he seemed to imply that it would relate only to setting up supported housing strategies and the initial set-up of licensing schemes. We are therefore concerned that local authorities, ultimately, may not receive any support for ongoing costs, particularly in relation to licensing schemes. We would welcome some assurance from the Minister that the net additional cost of any new burdens arising from the Bill will be fully and properly funded and, if not, how the Government believe the ongoing costs can be made self-financing.
The third and final issue relates to the regulation of non-profit-making providers who let some properties at below-market rents, while letting others at market rents that are eligible for housing benefit support without coming within the scope of consumer regulation. We raised that matter at Committee stage of the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill, because it is a regulatory loophole that is being exploited by unscrupulous exempt accommodation providers, and this Bill contains no obvious provisions to close it. Indeed, our fear is that once the Bill receives Royal Assent, rogue providers of supported exempt accommodation will be incentivised to exploit the loophole in question further, as it will be one of the few that remain. We believe that the loophole can be successfully closed using the framework provided by the Bill, perhaps by using regulation to introduce passporting powers in respect of licensing schemes so that only those providers with a double-compliant grade could be automatically passported. I urge the Minister to give the matter further consideration and would be more than happy to engage with her on it.
Those specific concerns aside, we very much welcome the fact that the Bill will complete its passage today. It is not a panacea, but it will undoubtedly help to put rogue exempt accommodation operators out of business and better enable local authorities to drive up supported housing standards in their areas. In doing so, as the hon. Member for Harrow East said, it will improve the lives of some of the most vulnerable people in our society and bring relief to communities struggling to cope with the impact of concentrated numbers of badly run exempt accommodation properties. We recognise that today is a significant, important step forward and we are very pleased to give the Bill our support.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
I appreciate that many Members wish to speak, so I will keep my remarks brief. I thank and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who is a veteran in being successful in private Members’ Bills ballots. I have long watched him. I used him as an example when I was in the classroom teaching sixth-form A-level politics students and he put through the House the Homelessness Reduction Bill, now the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017. That is a fantastic piece of legislation, and it demonstrates the power that Back Benchers have to influence Government policy, engaging with all sides of the House to bring forward positive change. He deserves enormous credit for his incredible work to be a strong voice for, in many cases, the voiceless in our society.
I could not agree more on the importance of this Bill. We have really good providers in Stoke-on-Trent, whether Concrete or Brighter Futures. The latter charitable organisation is currently being supported by the Lord Mayor of Stoke-on-Trent, raising money to help people who have come out of prison, or who are recovering from alcohol and drug addiction and so on, to get set up in a home and rebuild their lives. They are fantastic examples of organisations that have, and will have, nothing to fear from this Bill, because they are fine examples of what a good landlord should be doing. It is absolutely correct that the only people who will loudly moan and groan about it are the rogue landlords who seek to profiteer off the back of hardship and misery, seeking to take advantage of the defenceless who they know will not have a strong voice.
I introduced my own private Members’ Bill to increase fines on rogue and absent landlords under section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, because of the degradation of the Price and Kensington Teapot Works by a rogue landlord, who allowed fires to be set up on site and used it as a dumping site. That important grade II* listed building in Longport is now rotting and is sadly probably damaged beyond repair. I thank the Minister and the team from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities for adopting my proposed legislation into the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, which is currently going through the House—I am lucky to be able to piggy-back off the back of Government legislation to get my own private Member’s Bill through the House.
On the scheme, I join the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), in his concern about the cost of implementation. Stoke-on-Trent City Council is the second poorest in terms of what it brings in through council tax. Some 94% of our properties are band A to D, so when we put up council tax by 1% it brings in £900,000, whereas a council in Surrey would bring in £13 million. It will therefore be really important to find the funds to ensure that we deliver the scheme. That financial support will have to come from the taxpayer via the Government to ensure it can be enforced. Stoke-on- Trent will have a higher than average use of that kind of supported accommodation. Stoke-on-Trent City Council has tried schemes, such as the landlord accreditation scheme in Portland Street in the Etruria and Hanley ward, which I represent, but sadly it was a voluntary scheme that only good landlords signed up to and took part in. Rogue landlords avoided it. That meant we did not really get the benefit of holding them to account.
I am very supportive of the universal local licensing scheme. We absolutely should be looking to hold landlords to account. They have the great honour of owning these properties, so it is only right that they look after the tenants who currently pay such extortionately high rents. Sadly, we are not building as many homes as I would like, to increase home ownership and drive down cost in the rental market.
The licensing regulations and, most importantly, the support package that have come forward are essential. As the Minister outlined perfectly in her speech, vulnerable people should be assessed before they move into a property and a tailored plan should be designed for them. These people are stakeholders in our society and they need that support to ensure that they get back on the ladder and do not have to rely on friends and families for support when they have their own lives to be concerned about.
We also have to make sure that we find such houses in appropriate places so that we are not clumping or clustering vulnerable people together. Sadly, that will attract levels of antisocial behaviour and will increase the presence of vile drug gangs or county lines gangs, as has happened especially in Stoke-on-Trent North, who try to push their filth on the streets around those who are vulnerable. We need to make sure that we do all we can in that regard to have a properly regulated licensing scheme. Once again, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East on his fantastic Bill.
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for bringing this important issue into the spotlight. It will be no surprise that I am pleased to endorse the Bill’s provisions and I am pleased that it has received cross-party support.
Let us keep in mind why the system exists. Simply, it acknowledges that the cost of managing shared supported accommodation can be higher than the average and that not-for-profit organisations’ supported housing services may be unviable if benefit levels are limited using the same rules as for mainstream private renting. What we have witnessed recently, however, is a minority of investors looking to maximise returns using the higher rents permitted by the exempt housing benefit schemes. In simple terms, unscrupulous agencies are now exploiting gaps in the regulatory regime to claim higher benefit levels while providing minimal levels of support, which often results in poor housing conditions and ineffective care and support for vulnerable residents. We cannot allow those practices to continue.
In the same way, however, I have concerns about absentee landlords in part of my Sedgefield constituency, who exploit the lower property costs in the north and do not look after their properties to the extent that they should for the tenants or for the local residents. Typically, they exploit the same cohort of vulnerable residents who we are talking about today.
Durham County Council has a registered landlords scheme that attempts to address failing landlords. I encourage it to urgently focus on the worst offenders, because too often it goes for the easy target of the good landlords. Landlords such as me want those people out—we want the worst offenders to be threatened—to ensure that we have the right accommodation for people. I have given a few specific cases to the council, such as places in Ferryhill and Station Town, where good streets are being undermined by the degradation of one property that pulls the whole area down. I would appreciate the council’s focus on that, because those absentee landlords just do not care.
That being said, when delivered well, exempt accommodation not only plays a useful role in providing good-quality transitional accommodation and support for people as they move on from homelessness, but often serves as a vital progenitor of social rehabilitation through the accommodation of some of society’s most marginalised groups. They include prison leavers, people leaving national asylum seeker services, people fleeing domestic abuse and others whose homelessness is compounded by factors such as substance dependence or mental health needs.
To that end, the crux of my contribution is to emphasise the urgent need for further investigation to quantify the scale and profile of exempt provision and the extent to which providers in any area are considered problematic. If the Bill is the first in an inevitable sequence of legislative proposals, we as legislators must be in full possession of quantifiable data. That is the only way to legislate effectively and responsibly as we crack down on the problem.
Regardless of the scale and the minor gaps in national data, however, it is clear that swift action is needed to safeguard the interests of those whose life chances are already being damaged by poor-quality exempt provision and to prevent further escalation of the problem. I commend the Bill.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak on Third Reading of this important Bill put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). Supported living—supported housing—gives some of the most vulnerable people in our communities a safe haven. It offers them the most choice and control over their lives, and a chance to live a life like everyone else around them. Supported living can have an enormous positive impact on an individual’s quality of life—from their physical and mental health to their engagement with the community.
In 2020, the Government announced the national statement of expectations for supported housing, setting out their vision for ways of working in the sector and recommendations for standards in accommodation. This was an important step in establishing what good supported housing looks like and how it can be achieved.
Most supported housing providers deliver high-quality accommodation and go above and beyond minimum standards. However, it is vital not only that all supported housing is of high quality, but that the people who need the support have the accommodation that meets their needs and allows them to thrive—the right support in the right place—and that the vulnerable are protected from unscrupulous people who seek to take advantage of them. There is no one-size-fits-all approach, but best practice also involves collaboration across housing, health, commissioners, providers and the third sector.
We have some fantastic supported housing organisations across beautiful Hastings and Rye—Aspens comes to mind, as well as Support 4 Independent Living. East Sussex County Council works really hard through its supported accommodation team to support providers who have houses, flats, or self-contained bedsits to provide accommodation, and assist tenants referred by adult social care services, and I am sure that the team would welcome this Bill. We have a very high level of need for supported housing services not only in Hastings and Rye, but across east Sussex, and local authority funding needs to better reflect this high need and I ask the Minister to consider that.
I note and welcome the Government’s amendments, further clarifying the licensing powers included in the Bill. This is a Bill that will help some of the most vulnerable in our society and I wish it well as it progresses through the House.
Felicity Buchan
It is a pleasure to speak briefly on Third Reading. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on introducing this important Bill, and I thank him for his tireless efforts. This crucial Bill is key to stopping the exploitation of vulnerable people by rogue landlords operating poor-quality supported housing. I am determined to put an end to this abuse of the system.
In parts of the country there has been a growth in accommodation with little or even no support being provided, but where landlords are charging extortionate levels of rent, paid for through housing benefit. That is an abuse of the system and it puts people who should be receiving support at risk. The Government had already set out our intention to regulate the supported housing sector, and my hon. Friend’s Bill will bring in that much-needed regulation.
Let me be clear: we will do what we have to do to get ahead and stay ahead of rogue providers and make sure that supported housing is of good quality for all residents. These vulnerable people have often already reached a crisis point and it is crucial that they get the support that they need and deserve to help rebuild their lives.
The Bill will ensure that supported housing is of good quality for the residents living in it and, as my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) said, also good value for money for the taxpayer. The Government have committed to acting as quickly as possible. To that end, I shall repeat the commitment that I made on Second Reading to make regulations for the licensing scheme within 18 months of the Bill’s passing. In reply to the shadow Minister’s question, let me confirm that there will be a new burdens assessment. We envisage that over time the licensing scheme will become self-funding, but there will be a proper new burdens assessment, and we would expect the set-up of the scheme to be included in that.
Let me end by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East for introducing this important Bill. I also thank the charity Crisis, and my predecessors in this role—my right hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson), who is present, and my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes). I thank all the members of the Select Committee, and all those who served on the Bill Committee, many of whom are here today. Finally, I thank all my officials who have helped me with the Bill, including Darrell Smith, Emma Stubbs, Sarah Carpenter, Richard Loftman and Cathy Page, our legal adviser Melissa Spurling, and my private secretary, Ed Culliney.
Bob Blackman
With the leave of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank all the Members who have spoken today, including my hon. Friends the Members for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra), for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) and for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart), as well as the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), whom I thank for his constructive support throughout the Bill’s passage, and, of course, my hon. Friend the Minister.
Thousands of organisations up and down the country do a brilliant job in helping vulnerable people. They have nothing to fear from this Bill, and we must keep emphasising that. Unfortunately, however, a growing number of rogue landlords are seeking to exploit the fact that vulnerable people need additional support and therefore have access to additional housing benefit and other additional benefits. It is right for them to have that access because they are vulnerable and need to rebuild their lives, but unfortunately an increasing number of rogues are seeking to exploit our generosity in helping them, so as the Bill leaves this House the message must be loud and clear: the time in which the rogue landlords have been able to exploit those vulnerable people is rapidly coming to an end.
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for her work, and for setting out her stall today with the regulations that we need to introduce and the consultations that are needed to ensure that we get those regulations right. Housing authorities throughout the country will need to consider setting up licensing arrangements, and they should start to think now about what they will need to do.
This is a proud moment for me. Having worked on the Bill for 10 months, I leave it in the excellent hands of my good friend Lord Best, who I am sure will ferry it safely through the other place towards Royal Assent and the statute book.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Equipment Theft (Prevention) Bill
Friday 3rd March 2023
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023 View all Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Throughout the Bill’s passage so far, I have sought to make the case for what is essentially a very simple idea, but one that could potentially have a huge impact on the people and businesses up and down the land who suffer so badly when the equipment that they need to go about their business is stolen. This applies predominantly to quad bikes and all-terrain vehicles, which are specified in the Bill, but secondary legislation would enable the Bill to be expanded to cover other equipment such as tradespeople’s tools.
When such equipment is stolen, it is not just a minor inconvenience. It is not just a case of saying, “Well, we will go down to the shops, or go on Amazon and order another.” Thefts such as these can put people out of work or out of business for days, weeks or even months, with considerable costs to meet before the insurance is paid—or indeed, in some cases, if it is paid. I am confident that the provisions in this Bill to demand that immobilisers are fitted to all new quads and all-terrain vehicles at point of sale and that forensic marking—of a standard that will make a significant difference—is applied to those pieces of machinery will, first, deter would-be criminals from stealing them in the first place and, secondly, give our hard-working police officers up and down the land a meaningful tool to be able to say, “We know where that piece of equipment came from. We know where it was stolen from. We know who the rightful owner is.” That will enable them not only to return it to the rightful owner, but, more significantly, prevent its resale, taking away the point of anybody’s wishing to steal it in the first place. Let us be honest: the thieves of quad bikes, machinery and equipment are not stealing those things to use them. They are not using the quad bikes to round up sheep anywhere; they are not stealing power tools to do some DIY at home. They are stealing that equipment to sell and monetise it, and if they cannot do so because of the forensic marking upon it, they will not steal it in the first place.
The genesis of this Bill was a community Facebook page in my Buckingham constituency, following a spate of thefts from trades vans in the town. Local people put their heads together and came up with the idea for a mechanism to disincentivise the resale of stolen goods, starting with trying to set up a national database of serial numbers. Over the months since I was lucky enough to be drawn in the private Member’s Bill ballot, I have worked closely with the police and many others to work out how we can make such a mechanism work. I give a lot of credit and thanks to Superintendent Andy Huddleston, a Northumbria officer who is the national lead on rural crime.
Through consultation with police forces, including my own home force in Thames Valley, where Superintendent Hutchings leads the rural crime taskforce, with other police officers, the National Farmers Union, the Countryside Alliance, the Country Land and Business Association and many farmers in my own patch, as well as the manufacturers and the organisations representing them, we came up with what I hope is a consensual set of measures that will make a difference. We have shaken down all the things that could get in the way; for example, the original idea of serial numbers was quickly dismissed, because for many manufacturers those serial numbers are not unique. Instead, we opted to put everything into forensic marking and to include measures on immobilisers specific to quad bikes.
Those less familiar with rural communities might ask, “Is this such a huge priority?” I must say categorically that it is. Quad bike thefts have been running at between 800 and 1,100 per year in recent years. Conferring with the police earlier today, I reconfirmed some of the latest figures. Let me give a comparison: in January 2022, across the country, 52 quad bikes were stolen, but in January this year that number was up to 78. The numbers for larger machinery, particularly agricultural machinery, are even more frightening: in January 2022 there were 29 thefts of large machines, but in January 2023, I am afraid the number was up to 131. In February 2022 it was 19, but in February this year it was 122.
Such theft is a considerable problem for rural communities across the whole of our United Kingdom; NFU Mutual, which insures the vast majority of agricultural machinery in the country, has released figures suggesting that it paid out approximately £2.2 million on agricultural thefts in 2021 alone. Likewise, the Countryside Alliance’s rural crime survey shows that 43% of respondents had been the victim of rural crime, with 32% of them saying that the crime was the theft of equipment.
Equipment theft is a huge problem that we have to tackle, and this framework Bill gives my right hon. Friend the Minister the ability in secondary legislation to define the forensic marking standards that are needed and, indeed, to expand forensic marking to equipment types beyond quad bikes, ATVs and side-by-sides. I am confident that this will make a massive difference by preventing crime and ensuring that people who rely on such equipment to go about their daily business, be that farming, food production or another trade, have much greater confidence that their equipment is safe and will be there when they start work.
I understand there is some criticism that the cost to the end user will be an additional burden but, given that forensic marking costs between £20 and £30 per product and an immobiliser fitted at the point of sale, rather than in the factory, costs between £70 and £100, the cost of ensuring that equipment is safe and has less chance of being stolen is not very high at all, particularly when we factor in the expected reduction in annual insurance premiums for such products, which many in the industry inform me will more than offset the initial cost of this measure at the point of purchasing a new quad bike, a new tractor GPS unit or whatever equipment it might be.
The police say the Bill will make a huge difference and, having grown up in a police family, I put an enormous amount of trust in our police. I want to ensure that the professionals who go out each day to keep us and our property safe have every power, resource, law and regulation they need to deter would-be criminals, and to bring to justice those who commit crime. I have great confidence that this Bill will do that.
I am grateful to the Minister for supporting the Bill’s passage so far. Likewise, I am grateful to the Opposition for supporting it on Second Reading and in Committee. I hope that spirit of co-operation will continue under the new shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock). With the support of colleagues, I look forward to the Bill passing and going to the other place before finally, I hope, becoming an Act.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith), my constituency neighbour, on introducing this important Bill, to which I am pleased to have contributed in Committee. It will be a fitting birthday present for him if it passes Third Reading today.
The Bill sets out much-needed changes that are straightforward, practical and will, as my hon. Friend says, no doubt help to reduce rural crime. From visiting farms in my constituency, I know how much the theft of machinery concerns farmers and the increasing impact it has had over the past few years. Indeed, the Countryside Alliance’s 2022 rural crime survey, which had more than 2,000 responses, underlines the extent of the problem, with 15% of respondents reporting having experienced the theft of agricultural machinery in that one year alone. Machinery theft was second only to fly-tipping.
As my hon. Friend says, it is no exaggeration to say that farmers depend on their machinery for their livelihood. Deprived of that equipment, farmers are simply unable to work as efficiently, and their ability to generate revenue is diminished. Not only that, but there is the costly, slow and sometimes stressful process of replacing the stolen machinery. It is crucial that farmers are given support to deter criminals from stealing their machinery and, in particular, the all-terrain vehicles specified in this Bill. It is crucial that farmers are given support to deter criminals from stealing their machinery and, in particular, the all-terrain vehicles specified in the Bill.
It is worth noting that demand for ATVs has grown recently at a rate that has outstripped the readily available supply. That, of course, increases the incentive for those with criminal intent, because they know they will be able to sell what they steal. The National Farmers Union has reported that members are having to wait three to six months to obtain one of these vehicles. That means the vehicles are especially lucrative because not only are they highly sought-after and easily portable, but there is a ready resale market in this country and, indeed, abroad. NFU Mutual’s annual rural crime survey stated that quad bike and ATV theft amounted to £2.2 million in 2021, which is not an insignificant sum.
Most of us will know from our own experience with cars that immobilisers are a tried and tested deterrent. When affixed to ATVs, they make them more secure. Their value is clear: since 1992, all new cars in the UK have been built with an immobiliser and, in the following 30 years, vehicle theft plummeted by an incredible 43%. While other factors may have contributed, data produced by the Home Office demonstrated a strong correlation between the increased fitting of immobilisers and the reduction in stolen vehicles. In the light of that, the standardised fitting of these devices on all new-build ATVs and the retrofitting of them to other vehicles prior to sale could prove to be a relatively cheap and highly effective approach.
My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham has had the foresight in his Bill to consider not only the prevention of theft, but, where that sadly fails, the recovery of ATVs that have been stolen. The forensic marking he described should enable police forces to identify the ATVs they recover and more easily return them to their rightful owners. Furthermore, requiring sellers to record details of the sale, including information about the vehicle and the buyer, is key to the success of the Bill’s aims and provides an appropriate audit trail.
I am pleased to hear that my right hon. Friend the Policing Minister is considering extending the Bill’s provisions, as and when appropriate, to go beyond ATVs and include other equipment and commercial tools—a subject that was much discussed in Committee. Tool theft regularly afflicts an array of trades beyond farming, such as roofers, electricians and plumbers. Presently, the second-hand tool market is unregulated. That means that sellers have no obligation to prove the origin of their items or even to evidence the original purchase. It has been argued quite understandably that this encourages and facilitates the theft of tools. As with farmers, not only is the loss of equipment an immediate financial loss for tradespeople; it prevents them from working and can disrupt the schedule of their building projects, causing frustration to them and their customers.
The help that my hon. Friend’s Bill provides is necessary and timely. It is not right that security is such a significant concern for many farmers. The provision of immobilisers, forensic marking and recording of the sale of ATVs will reduce the likelihood that they will fall victim to this crime, which, as I have outlined, has an impact well beyond the immediate loss of the vehicle. I applaud my hon. Friend for the work he has done. I am absolutely confident that farmers in my constituency, as well as his, and across the entire country would benefit from this legislation. I look forward to his Bill making its way on to the statute book as soon as possible.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) on reaching this stage, and I look forward to his Bill hopefully passing later today. I also wish him a happy birthday. The Bill makes important changes to prevent the theft and resale of equipment and tools that are essential to agricultural businesses in North West Norfolk and across the country. The Bill has a relatively limited initial scope aimed at preventing the theft of quad bikes and ATVs, but I was pleased, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) just referred to, that the Minister confirmed during Committee that the Government intend to extend the provisions beyond agricultural equipment to commercial tools as well.
There is currently no legal requirement to fit immobilisers or forensic marking to machinery and equipment, although some manufacturers choose to do so on a voluntary basis. By addressing that gap, the Bill will help to reduce this type of theft. In addition, the Bill allows the Secretary of State to require records to be kept relating to equipment that has been sold and its buyers.
Rural crime, in particular agricultural machinery theft, has a significant impact on my constituents. The proportion of suspects being charged for offences in towns and cities is 24% higher than in the countryside, and that imbalance must be addressed. Data published by NFU Mutual in its rural crime report of 2022 estimated the cost of rural theft to be £40 million, of which £5 million was in the east of England. Some £10 million was agricultural vehicle theft, but it is broader than that. Anyone who has watched the latest series of “Clarkson’s Farm” will have seen that it raised the issue of GPS devices being stolen regularly, and I hope the Bill will be extended to deal with that issue.
The Countryside Alliance’s rural crime survey presented stark statistics, with 32% of respondents reporting having experienced agricultural machinery theft, making it the second most reported crime, just 3% behind fly-tipping. Unsurprisingly, the rural crime survey found that agricultural machinery theft was respondents’ top priority for the police to tackle.
As we have heard, an estimated 900 to 1,200 quad bikes and ATVs are stolen each year, and this theft is damaging the livelihoods of farmers in my constituency and across the country. The cost of that theft is around £2.2 million. After a fall in the number of these thefts during the pandemic, for understandable reasons, they are now on the increase. Quad bikes and ATVs are essential to farming and land management, and have become a crucial piece of equipment to get around on a farm instead of using a tractor, whether that is to check livestock, move animals, move feedstock or set up fences, as well as many other uses.
I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham has consulted widely; he gave a long list of the organisations he has worked with to get the Bill to this position. I am confident from the evidence I have seen that regulations requiring immobilisers and forensic marking will lead to a substantial reduction in this type of theft. I noted with interest in the explanatory notes that the proportion of road vehicles with immobilisers fitted increased to 98% between 1993 and 2013, which led to a decline of up to 45% in such thefts.
There is also a wider problem of tool theft. A report found that nearly four in five tradespeople had experienced tool theft, which is a striking statistic. While the financial cost of this theft is more easily quantifiable, it also has a damaging impact on people’s health and wellbeing.
I represent a rural constituency, and I believe it is important to introduce the regulations on ATVs as soon as possible. The Minister has indicated that he wants to do so by Christmas. While I support the extension of the Bill’s provisions to cover more agricultural and other equipment, any extra time required to develop that extension should not affect the plan to have the regulations in place by Christmas. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham for his important work on getting the Bill to this stage, and I look forward to supporting it this afternoon.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
I am pleased to be able to contribute to the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) on bringing the Bill forward and wish him a happy birthday— penblwydd hapus.
The Bill introduces a number of solutions to the growing problem of the theft of quad bikes and other all-terrain vehicles. We know from the National Farmers Union that there are between 800 and 1,100 thefts of ATVs every year. Aside from the financial cost, which is bad enough, there is the issue of the physical replacement of these vehicles. That can take months and hampers the vital work that farmers do to feed us and provide other important things for our country; I am thinking especially of the hill farmers in north Wales, who are very hard hit by the theft of these sorts of vehicles.
The introduction of these common-sense solutions—immobilisers, forensic marking and the setting up of a registration database—is so sensible. At the risk of incurring Mr Deputy Speaker’s wrath, I make a plea for the use of SmartWater, which is so important for not just farm vehicles but all items, to discourage and deter thefts and enable the police to return stolen items to their rightful owners very quickly. Forensic marking is so important.
I do not mean to detain the House for too long. I am sure Members from across the House will join me in thanking the hon. Member for Buckingham for bringing this positive and proactive piece of legislation before the House today.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) on bringing forward this private Member’s Bill, and on his birthday as well—hopefully, seeing his Bill pass its Third Reading will be a fantastic birthday present for him. Like my various colleagues, I welcome the scope extension to include tradesmen and their tools, but I will concentrate my comments on the original rural focus of the Bill.
Like my various colleagues, I have a rural constituency; I have many farmers in my constituency, and whenever I ask them what their key concerns are and how we can help, rural crime is always one of their top concerns. Indeed, just at the end of last year, I had a meeting with local farmers in the village of Abington Pigotts, which incidentally has a wonderful pub called the Pig & Abbot. Anyone who is in the area should visit that pub. There were 30 farmers there, and we were talking about rural crime. I did a little poll: I asked, “Who has experienced rural crime in the past year?”, and every single one of those 30 farmers stuck up their hand. Every single one had been a victim of rural crime in the past year.
The police do their best. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham mentioned the hard work of the police, and I know they work hard in Cambridgeshire, but it is often very difficult to crack down on rural crime. As my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) mentioned, urban crimes have a 25% higher enforcement rate than rural crimes. That is not just in South Cambridgeshire, obviously, but in all rural areas: when the Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution did its big farming survey, 38% of farmers said that they had been victims of rural crime in the past year. Cereal farmers, who make up a large part of my farming community, are the hardest hit, with 51%—more than half—being victims of rural crime. As such, I fully appreciate and support the intent of the Bill.
It is easy for people to dismiss the seriousness of rural crime; it is often seen as something that we do not really need to worry about. Quad bikes and ATVs, which are the focus of the Bill, are often viewed as leisure vehicles by many members of the public—they see advertisements for quad bike adventures, something that can be done in my constituency as well—but for farmers, they are serious working vehicles. Various hon. Friends have mentioned how dependent farmers are on their equipment to make a living. For farmers, those quad bikes and ATVs make them far more efficient when covering large areas; without them, they simply cannot do the work. Many farmers work on very tight margins, and having farm equipment operational makes the difference between making money for the year, enabling them to pay their wages, and losing money. Having proper, working farm equipment is crucial to people’s livelihoods. That is why agricultural machinery theft was reported to be a top priority for the police to tackle in the 2020 rural crime survey.
Quad bikes and ATVs make particularly attractive targets. They are obviously transportable: a thief can load them on to a trailer or a lorry and whisk them away very easily. They often have poor security features that do little to deter those thieves. Their value on the second-hand market has increased recently, making them even more attractive as targets—that is because of the supply chain issues that make it quite difficult to order new ones, as we heard earlier. Currently, it takes three to six months to get a replacement vehicle, which is an incredibly long time for a farmer to cope without vital equipment.
As such, I fully welcome the measures in the Bill to clamp down on this problem: they make a lot of common sense. Cars have had immobilisers on them for over 20 years, and it is time that ATVs and quad bikes followed suit. Immobilisers act as a significant deterrent by making vehicles much harder to steal. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham mentioned, this is not just about making it easier to catch vehicles afterwards, but about deterring the crime in the first place.
A vehicle register also seems like a natural step to take, as better record keeping will help put an end to the grey markets that the criminals tend to operate in. During my research for this speech, I came across the CESAR scheme—the construction and agricultural equipment security and registration scheme—which has a database of ownership and covert markings. That scheme has reported a 60% decline in thefts since it came into operation in 2008, and I hope this Bill will be the catalyst for a similar trend in quad bikes and ATVs.
The Bill will save farmers much aggravation from the fallout and cost of theft. It will be good for police, because it will hopefully reduce the amount of work they have to do, and if there are cases of theft, they will be easier for police to track down and solve. It will also lead to a reduction in insurance premiums over time, which will be incredibly welcome for farmers while energy prices and the cost of living are so high.
This and any Bill that tackles rural crime will always have my wholehearted support. We need to level up our response to crimes committed outside cities. I am glad to see that organisations such as the NFU and the Countryside Alliance, which I know are important in my constituency and elsewhere, fully support the Bill. I support it, and I hope it makes speedy passage through the Lords.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) and wish him a very happy birthday. I say to other Members of the House that I believe the Bill we have in front of us is an important step in tackling the crime issues we have in this country, particularly in rural Britain and rural England.
I declare an interest to the House, as I am a tenant beef farmer’s son. I believe that the Bill will benefit farms across West Dorset and further afield, because it looks to mitigate the risks that come to pass when equipment is stolen. Those who have businesses in rural settings, particularly but not exclusively farmers, have had to deal with an appalling level of crime, and particularly theft, for far too long. I am pleased that the Bill brings forward measures to not just mitigate the situation but deter those thefts.
In West Dorset, I have been concerned about theft and crime. I am aware that the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), and his Department have done a lot of work in this space and will continue to do so. The Bill builds on the increase in police funding that we have seen in Dorset. We debated police funding in the House a few weeks ago, and I am very pleased to see the improvement for Dorset; for a long time it has been much wanted and called for. None the less, we still have difficulties, and the Bill brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham will help with them.
In the past year, we have seen 253 reported incidents of rural crime in Dorset—that is five per week. These are not all thefts of quad bikes or similar equipment; they are often thefts of expensive pieces of farm equipment, which can hugely interrupt local businesses, whether they are farmers, builders or other small businesses. It is hugely disruptive.
The most common type of rural crime in Dorset is the theft of machinery, tools and vehicles, which accounts for 43% of all reported incidents that we see. I am aware that the Bill does not include some of the other thefts we see, including animal rustling and so on. I hope that the Minister will take away from this debate the fact that I and, it is safe to say, my neighbouring colleagues in Dorset feel very strongly about those things. I hope we will see some progress accordingly.
In 2020, we had 23 reported incidents of theft of high-value farm machinery. Just so I am clear what we are talking about, that means tractors, telehandlers and other large equipment such as diggers and so on. As I said, that is hugely disruptive. I am very hopeful that the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham will make progress on dealing with that. The deterrent it brings will be hugely valuable. I congratulate him again on bringing forward the Bill, which will be of great value to all rural communities.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
This private Member’s Bill, brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith), seeks to prevent the theft and resale of equipment and tools used by tradespeople and agricultural and other businesses. Importantly, the Bill gives the Home Secretary the power to make regulations requiring immobilisers and forensic marking to be fitted to all new ATVs, quad bikes or other vehicles. Immobilisers will protect them against hot-wiring or the use of imitation keys by unscrupulous thieves, and forensic marking will help police officers to identify a vehicle easily using a handheld scanner or ultraviolet torch and verify the true owner. Those measures will make a stolen vehicle harder to sell on, which will have a deterrent effect.
I spoke on Second Reading in December, and I do not want to repeat myself, but theft is wrong, and the people who perpetrate theft are lazy. Theft not only harms the owner of the stolen items, because they suffer the loss, but it disrespects the owner and our society, and it devalues a person by deeming the items stolen more important than the victim of the theft. Theft also harms the thief, because it devalues them and makes it easier to steal more often.
Equipment and tool theft is common across the UK. Research by the Federation of Master Builders estimated that in 2019, eight in 10 builders had had their tools stolen. Tool theft is a concern for many tradespeople, and the most common targets are those who store and transport their equipment in vans. We have a problem with the rural theft of agricultural equipment, and I welcome the Countryside Alliance’s support for this Bill. It has assisted in developing the Bill, along with other stakeholders in farming, insurance, equipment manufacturing and the police.
The new 2022 rural crime survey shows that 43% of respondents reported having had a crime committed against them in the past year. Of those, 35% reported having experienced agricultural machinery theft. That was the second most reported crime, just 3 percentage points behind fly-tipping, which is another issue.
To coin a phrase, it is
“my belief, Watson, founded upon my experience, that the lowest and vilest valleys in London do not present a more dreadful record of sin than does the smiling and beautiful countryside.”
The theft of tools is an issue across trades, with roofers and electricians among those most likely to be victims of tool theft. In Committee, it was encouraging that the Government indicated that they intend to extend the Bill’s provisions beyond agricultural equipment to other commercial tools. I welcome the news that the Government will expand the scope of the Bill, and that the Home Office has established the stolen goods working group.
To conclude, I support this Bill and I congratulate my hon. Friend on it. I wish the Bill success as it moves to the other place.
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith), and also wish him a happy birthday. The Countryside Alliance recently conducted an annual survey of rural communities’ experiences and perceptions. The 2021 survey revealed that 43% of respondents reported having had a crime committed against them in the past year. Of those, 32% reported having experienced agricultural theft, which was the third most reported crime. In the 2020 survey, agricultural machinery theft was reported as respondents’ top priority for police to tackle. That is what the Bill is about.
In my case, a local farmer in Loughborough has recently been targeted, having had £2,000-worth of GPS equipment stolen from a tractor. He highlighted that it is a common occurrence and that he has already taken extensive security measures on the farm, which cost a great deal of money, following previous thefts, including locked gates at every entrance, video cameras, motion activation sirens and locks on all sheds. However, unfortunately, machinery often has to be left in the fields in remote locations during busy times of the year, which is when criminals tend to strike. I would therefore be keen for all types of farming equipment to be included in the registration process. He is a farmer whom I have met on many occasions. He is very hard-working—many farmers across the country are, but this gentleman works very hard indeed. It is wrong that he should have to think of these things, take all those measures and spend all that money.
The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations that require all-terrain vehicles and quad bikes to be fitted with immobilisers and forensic markings, and owners’ details to be registered on a database. On the first issue, the National Farmers Union has highlighted that shipping delays and the effects of the covid pandemic and Brexit are contributing to a rise in demand for both new and second-hand farm machinery. NFU members have reported that the lack of availability of ATVs has resulted in it taking three to six months to replace a stolen vehicle and that the cost has risen dramatically.
As waiting lists grow and market values soar, thieves are seeing quads and ATVs as expensive, easily portable, hot-ticket items with a ready resale market in this country and abroad. Thefts are therefore hitting farmers twice as hard because of the difficulties in getting replacement vehicles. The financial impact of these incidents is exacerbated further at a time when energy and feed costs are soaring. Requiring that new machinery be fitted with a prominent and visible engine immobiliser should provide a deterrent effect by making it harder to steal, thereby decreasing its attractiveness to thieves.
The second part of the Bill requires that owners’ details be registered on a database. That will make it easier for police to investigate thefts and return stolen goods to their owners. It will also make it easier for legitimate owners to demonstrate their title, in case that is required during an investigation into a suspected theft. That is a positive step and of immense importance to small businesses in Loughborough and beyond.
Last October, Tradespeople Against Tool Theft published a white paper exploring the realities of UK tradespeople who have had their tools stolen. The paper found that 78% of tradespeople surveyed have had their tools stolen, and that 38.5% have had them stolen from their van outside their home. Only 1% of tradespeople fully recovered their stolen tools. Some trades appear to be more desirable targets for thieves: 30% of carpenters have had their tools stolen four times or more.
A highly skilled plumber in my constituency has campaigned tirelessly on this issue at a national level with his campaign, #noVANber. A report of the campaign said:
“Based in Loughborough, independent plumber Peter Booth…launched a petition…aiming to get the issue of van theft taken more seriously. His #noVANber social media campaign calls on the Government to look at the increasing ways to protect tradespeople from van tool theft.”
A report by Powertools2U claimed that a van has its tools stolen every 23 minutes in the UK, with an average of 62 thefts per day. Mr Peter Booth added:
“I got tired of seeing photos and stories from tradespeople who had their vans targeted and tools stolen, stopping them from working. I didn’t think it was fair. I wanted to gather support using social media influence to try and get the Government to look at the possible ways to help make this crime less profitable for the culprits.”
The impact of equipment theft on victims can be wide-ranging, including the financial costs and the emotional and psychological impact. Financially, there is not only the cost of replacing the stolen equipment, but the potential loss of business due to the delays in sourcing new tools. The Federation of Master Builders found that over a builder’s career, they will typically lose £10,000-worth of tools and six working days to tool theft.
Alongside that, the FMB has reported that tool theft is causing 15% of builders to suffer from anxiety and 11% to suffer from depression. The chief executive of the FMB has said:
“Decisive action is needed to tackle tool theft. Eight in ten builders report that they have had tools stolen before. This is causing mental health issues amongst builders with reports of depression, anxiety, anger, frustration, stress and even suicidal thoughts.”
Peter Booth worked on his petition alongside my predecessor, the right hon. Nicky Morgan, now in the other place, and called on the Government to consider what more could be done to tackle van theft and tool theft. The petition was signed by 40, 262 people.
The Bill is a good framework, which will help farmers and small businesses. The farmers who feed our country and all tradespeople are the backbone of our economy and should be supported. I welcome the Bill and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham on his work on this topic—a very good use of a birthday.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith), a constituency neighbour. I understand that today is his birthday. I have done a little research and he is older than he looks, so I congratulate him on his fitness regime.
First, I thank Sarah Varley from my office for helping me research this debate. I have spoken about my beautiful constituency before; it is very much a green-belt area but 65% of it is agricultural land and rural crime unfortunately remains a big issue and is regularly brought up in my surgeries and in discussions and correspondence with my constituents.
Tradespeople and farmers are the workforce of our great country and we should do all we can to continue to support them, especially through these difficult economic times. The impact of the increased cost of living is very much felt by the frontline of our economy, which these individuals very much are. Some 89% of those in rural communities are concerned about inflation and the increase in the cost of living will, sadly, lead to an increase in rural crime.
Our farmers need our support. They have a very stressful job, working hard for extremely long hours, often with very few of the breaks and holidays that other sectors benefit from. Some 38% of respondents to a Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institute survey said rural crime is a source of stress to them; they should not have to accept that additional stress. Rural crime fell during the pandemic, yet it still cost the UK about £40 million in 2021. However, costs were over 40% higher in the same period last year. Rural crime is clearly regaining momentum.
In a recent NFU survey, 43% of respondents reported having fallen victim to at least one theft incident in the last year. Utility vehicles such as all-terrain vehicles and quad bikes are essential to farmers: they save a significant amount of labour, and are used for checking livestock, moving animals around the farm and other important farming tasks. Quad and ATV theft reported to NFU Mutual cost £2.2 million in 2021, and there has now, unfortunately, been an upward trend: almost half of quad and ATV thefts reported to NFU Mutual last year took place between September and December.
I had a surgery in Flaunden in my constituency last month, where Helen Savage discussed rural crime and fly-tipping, which was mentioned earlier. The Bill does not cover that, but it remains a big issue.
I am lucky to have an excellent police and crime commissioner, David Lloyd, and I will have a meeting with him later this month, when I intend to bring up these issues again. I also have regular conversations with the NFU through the roundtable, so I hear at first hand from the farming community.
Unfortunately, 78% of tradespeople report having had their tools stolen, yet only 1% have ever had them returned. Suspects are 25% more likely to be charged for crimes in urban areas than in the countryside. In 2021, suspects were charged in less than 7% of all recorded crime in rural areas. These figures send the wrong message, and I know the Minister will do all he can to ensure that we get the right message across.
In conclusion, I once again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham on this excellent piece of legislation. The additional support that it offers to tradespeople and farmers is warmly welcomed, as is the fact that it should be a deterrent for additional crime in the future. I wish the Bill a speedy passage in the other place and I look forward to it hopefully being warmly welcomed on both sides of the House and in the other place.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
It is not every day that we get the chance to debate an issue that commands such a high degree of consensus among Members of the House. I am glad to say that the Opposition continue to support the passage of the Bill sponsored by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith), and we of course welcome the Government’s support for it. I congratulate the hon. Member for Buckingham on getting the Bill to this stage. A little bird tells me that it is apparently his birthday today, so I add my congratulations on that as well.
I do not pretend to be an expert in this area—there are not many thefts of tractors or combine harvesters in my constituency. None the less, it is absolutely clear that the theft of vehicles and tools blights our rural communities. These are particularly pernicious crimes, because they attack the very basis on which farmers and tradespeople earn a living for themselves and their families. Although these are clearly long-standing problems, the need for action has perhaps become more pressing in these precarious economic times.
The Bill focuses primarily on the theft of vehicles, specifically all-terrain vehicles and quad bikes, which will be subject to new requirements for immobilisers and forensic markings to be fitted before they can be sold. Despite that relatively narrow focus, debates on Second Reading and in Committee reflected a widespread consensus among hon. Members that the scope of the changes should be expanded under the secondary legislation that the Bill enables.
In particular, tradespeople across the UK are facing serious problems as a result of tool theft, especially those who store their equipment in vans. According to data from surveys carried out by the Direct Line Group, more than half of roofers, electricians, plumbers and carpenters have been victims of such crimes. In Committee, the Minister said:
“my starting position is that if we are going to bring forward statutory instruments under the Bill to deal with ATVs, why not do the other tools at the same time?”––[Official Report, Equipment Theft (Prevention) Public Bill Committee, 1 February 2023; c. 10.]
That sounds like a sensible position, so can the Minister provide some further detail on the progress of the work to address any technical challenges that such regulations might face? Can he tell the House when he expects the relevant secondary legislation to be introduced?
It would be remiss of me not to raise the issue of enforcement. As my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) said on Second Reading:
“The Bill, if introduced, would be a formidable starting point, but there are no two ways about it: the underfunding and under-resourcing of our police forces have undermined their capabilities for more than a decade.”—[Official Report, 2 December 2022; Vol. 723, c. 1093.]
As is so often the case, the legislation will be only as effective as the level of prioritisation and resourcing for law enforcement and implementation is adequate. On that basis, I look forward to hearing from the Minister in more detail about how the Government will ensure that rates of detection and prosecution of such crimes will be improved.
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
It is a great pleasure to speak on this important Third Reading debate. I begin by thanking hon. Members for joining us, particularly those who may have been elsewhere yesterday and perhaps, in some cases, may have had quite a late night.
I extend a particularly warm thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) for taking the initiative and pursuing this private Member’s Bill with such eloquence, tenacity and ability. I congratulate him on corralling cross-party support from the Government, from Opposition Front Benchers and from hon. Members across the House, and I add my birthday felicitations to those that have been expressed. He has made a very good job of the Bill, which the Government have supported from the outset and which has received resounding support across the House on Second Reading, in Committee and today on Third Reading. It is a great example of Back Benchers, Government and law enforcement working together to protect hard-working people from various forms of theft.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), mentioned enforcement. A couple of days ago, I met Superintendent Huddleston, the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s rural crime co-ordinator, and David Exwood, vice-president of the National Farmers Union, to discuss the significant impact that the Bill will have on protecting farmers from the effects of such thefts on individuals and businesses. The theft of agricultural vehicles from a farmer can cause severe disruption to essential cultivation work, as well as risking animal welfare and putting livelihoods on the line.
We are almost at the end of our programme to recruit an extra 20,000 police officers. When the programme concludes in just a few weeks’ time, we will have more police officers across England and Wales than at any point in our country’s history. We will substantially exceed the previous peak under the last Labour Government and deliver record numbers of officers, including in rural areas, where they will be able to police laws such as the Bill. It is a Conservative Government who have delivered those record numbers.
As a result of the Bill, we expect a real decrease in the theft of all-terrain vehicles. The introduction of the extremely effective technology of immobilisers and forensic marking will certainly help to prevent and deter theft and, in the case of forensic marking, to enable detection. It will make it harder for criminals to sell on stolen machinery, which will have an important deterrent effect. We have heard about how the theft of agricultural machinery, particularly all-terrain vehicles, is of great concern, and we recognise the distress caused when such property is stolen.
As hon. Members including the shadow Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt) have said, there is a strong desire on both sides of the House to ensure that the statutory instruments made under the Bill go beyond all-terrain vehicles to include larger agricultural equipment and the tools used by tradespeople. To answer the shadow Minister’s question, I can confirm that my intention is to make statutory instruments under the Bill that deal not just with ATVs, but with other agricultural machinery and with tradespeople’s high-value tools. We will need to consult to ensure that we get the details right, but I would like us to cover all such equipment.
This excellent Bill will confer that flexibility. It may initially have been conceived with ATVs in mind, but its scope is far wider. Clause 1(2) will provide a statutory basis for secondary legislation to cover not just ATVs, but
“mechanically propelled vehicles that…have an engine capacity of at least 250 cubic centimeters”
and are designed for off-road use, which includes a whole load of other agricultural machinery. Clause 1(2)(b) clearly covers
“other equipment designed or adapted primarily for use in agricultural or commercial activities”,
including for builders and tradespeople. It strikes me as sensible to use the powers in the Bill to address that equipment as well.
Chris Philp
This is a good example of parliamentary scrutiny delivering improvements. Those issues were raised forcefully by my hon. Friend and others on Second Reading and in Committee. The Government can, should and will respond. We need proper consultations with industry groups and others to ensure that we get the details right, but it strikes me as an important thing to do, as Members on both sides of the House have pointed out. Without question, it will benefit the entire economy by reducing theft—I am happy to make that clear once again on Third Reading.
Those consultations are very important. We need to get the details right, as I have said. We will work with industry groups, the police-led national business crime centre and the combined industries theft solutions group to help us understand the details. We are grateful for the expertise that those bodies bring to bear in this area.
I would like to conclude—often the most popular line in my speeches—by putting on record my thanks to the National Farmers Union and the National Police Chiefs Council lead for construction and agricultural machinery theft, Superintendent Andy Huddleston, who I met just a few days ago, for their work developing the measures in the Bill. Most of all, I thank the birthday boy, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham, for the initiative he has shown in introducing the Bill.
Greg Smith
With the leave of the House, I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions, not least their kind words in wishing me a happy birthday. I recommend to all right hon. and hon. Members a sitting Friday as the perfect definition of what a good birthday looks like. In particular, I thank my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler), who has supported this Bill throughout. He pointed out that the demand right now is outstripping supply, which is giving a far greater urgency to the need for the provisions of the Bill.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), who like me is a fan of “Clarkson’s Farm,” which has done more to bring the British public closer to the realities of British farming than “Countryfile” has managed in decades. He pointed out that GPS units are a particularly targeted item of equipment at the moment, particularly as farms have moved to a reliance on GPS units for spraying, drilling and bringing the harvest in with the combine. The loss of that equipment has a massive impact on yields and on the ability to feed the nation.
The hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) made a very valid point about hill farmers’ reliance on quad bikes and ATVs. I do not have many hill farms in my constituency, but in many parts of the country that is incredibly important. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) referenced the Pig & Abbot pub rural crime survey. He highlighted that all 30 of the farmers he spoke to had been a victim of rural crime, underlying the necessity for the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) pointed out that we need to ensure that rural crime is a priority for the additional police officers that the Government are recruiting.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) for her support and for being one of the voices to push for the extension of the Bill into many other sectors, including tool theft. I have to give special thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt) for supporting me in the original iteration of this Bill as a ten-minute rule Bill a couple of years ago, all the way through Second Reading and in Committee, and now on Third Reading. I am very grateful for her support and her voice, as acknowledged by my right hon. Friend the Minister a few moments ago, to ensure that we got the Bill beyond just quad bikes and ATVs, to protect all our trades up and down the land from tool theft.
My hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra), another constituency neighbour, made a very valid point on the stress that equipment theft brings to farmers and tradespeople. When that equipment is gone, people cannot do their jobs and earn their living. Their livelihoods are brought under question, particularly in agriculture, because when the crops need to come in, they have to come in. If people have lost that equipment, it has a huge impact on food production and on animal welfare; the equipment is vital to ensuring that our farmers are able to deliver.
I am grateful once again to the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock). He may not have many combine or tractor thefts in his constituency, but I assure him that when a combine or other agricultural machinery is stolen, it has an impact on us all, because it affects the food production that farmers up and down the land are able to deliver. We will all go hungry if farmers are not able to do the work they want to do. I offer my sincere thanks and gratitude to the Opposition for supporting the Bill and enabling its smooth passage thus far.
My right hon. Friend the Minister has been a great support throughout the process. I have been grateful for our conversations outside the Chamber as well as those inside it and in Committee. I am grateful for the Government’s support and particularly grateful for his comments this afternoon that the Bill can go further and that the provisions in the Bill to enable him and the Home Secretary to bring in secondary legislation to expand its scope will make a huge difference in defending our farms, our tradespeople and everybody who depends on such equipment to go about their day-to-day lives. I am confident that the Bill will make a huge difference and I am grateful to the Minister for his enthusiasm and support in making it happen.
Finally, an enormous number of people have contributed to getting the Bill to where it is now. I once more place on record my thanks and gratitude to Superintendent Andy Huddleston and to Inspector Hutchings of the Thames Valley Police rural crime taskforce. I thank Anna Dawson and the whole office team at the Home Office for the support they have given throughout the process, from sitting with me in one of the first roundtables with manufacturers, at Yamaha in Reading, to getting the Bill to this point. I thank the NFU vice president David Exwood and the whole team at the National Farmers Union and NFU Mutual for their support.
I also put on record my thanks for the expert advice and efficiency of the Public Bill Office, particularly Anne-Marie Griffiths, who has supported me so ably in getting all the details and the right procedures in place for this Bill. I thank my senior parliamentary assistant, Ian Kelly, who has done an enormous amount of heavy lifting to support me in getting us to where we are today.
Finally, as hopefully the Bill leaves this House and goes to the other place, I thank my noble friend, Lord Blencathra. When he was a Member of this House, he specialised in talking out private Members’ Bills, but I am delighted that he has agreed to pilot this one through the House of Lords. I am very confident that he will do so with great skill and ability and ensure that this Bill, which can do so much for rural Britain, for our farmers and for our tradespeople, whichever trade they are in, can make a huge and lasting difference.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Offenders (Day of Release from Detention) Bill
Friday 3rd March 2023
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Offenders (Day of Release from Detention) Act 2023 View all Offenders (Day of Release from Detention) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Welcome to your place, Mr Deputy Speaker. At the outset I want to thank all those who have contributed to the debates and in Committee. I can report that we have received broad support from colleagues across the House, from those on the Government Benches, from the SNP and the Liberal Democrats—although that is not apparent right now—and from our colleagues on the Opposition Benches. I hope that approach will continue throughout the debate today and, if we are successful, that it does so when the Bill goes to the Lords.
Being released from prison on a Friday presents a unique challenge for offenders who want to change their lives and turn their back on crime. Friday releases can be fraught with practical challenges that derail that goal. This Bill seeks to change that. Approximately a third of all releases currently fall on a Friday and, like on any other weekday, many of those released will need to access essential support services such as local authority housing, substance misuse support or even mental health services. However, on a Friday there is a unique race against the clock to get to these services before they close for the day. Many of them close early on a Friday and are shut for the weekend. Many people are released not that close to home, so they have to navigate their way to the services within a very narrow window of opportunity, with one eye on the clock, knowing that the cliff edge of the weekend is present. That is a daunting challenge.
If the House will indulge me, I will give an example of why this matters. David Dunn is the director of a charity called Release Mates, which is a group of prison leavers in long-term recovery from addiction who recognise the need for support for men and women in the immediate hours following their release from custody. David wrote to me:
“Release Mates is waiting at the prison gate for a prison leaver, ensuring they have food and clothes, taking them for a breakfast, accompanying them to the mandatory day of release probation appointment, then to the job centre to ensure he/she has funds to survive. Often, we then accompany the prison leaver to their local police station where they are required to report as part of a court order, and wherever possible we try to link prison leavers in with drug and alcohol services and/or mental health support. Our work with female prisoners…is often more complex as we are sometimes required to attend children’s services appointments on the day of release.
Our experience is that the job we do with prison leavers is significantly more difficult on a Friday. We are often required to find emergency accommodation for prison leavers, which on other days of the week is difficult but on Fridays is almost impossible. The weekend closure of drug and alcohol services regularly sees addicted prison leavers on opiate substitute medication without a prescription after a Friday release, inevitably leading to a relapse to Class A drugs. Without wishing to be critical of the probation service, they can offer very little help after noon on a Friday. Sometimes we are simply unable to complete all the appointments which a prison leaver is required to attend in one day. If that day is a Friday, a vulnerable person is often left to fend for themselves for 3 days before receiving help. I do not like to think of the chances a prison leaver being released on a Friday has without the kind of support which we offer.”
It is David’s final point that the Bill seeks to answer. Failure to access vital support can increase an offender’s likelihood of reoffending. We know that the reoffending rate for adults released on a Friday is higher than for any other day of the week, and that those without stable accommodation on release are almost 50% more likely to reoffend.
By removing the barriers that a Friday release can bring, we can ensure that prison leavers have a better chance to access the support they need to reintegrate into the community so that victims and the public are protected. The law currently mandates that offenders due to be released on a Saturday or a Sunday, or on a bank or public holiday, must be released on the preceding day, provided it is a working day. Although this avoids releases on days when services are completely closed, the result is a bunching of releases on Fridays, with almost double the number of any other day of the week.
This Bill will amend the law to provide the Secretary of State for Justice with a discretionary power to bring forward an offender’s release date by up to two eligible working days where their release falls on a Friday, or to the day before a public or bank holiday. In practical terms, the power will be given to a prison governor, director or appropriate equivalent official in the youth establishment to apply the policy to bring forward an individual’s release date.
Evidence suggests that a Friday release has a disproport-ionate impact on those with complex needs, those who may have greater distances to travel once they are released and those with substance misuse or mental health needs. Such a power will promote a law-abiding reintegration into society by ensuring that those leaving custody can access the support services they need on release.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, and I entirely agree with him on the necessity of this Bill. Seeing the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), in his place reminds me of many moons ago, when I chaired the crime and disorder reduction partnership in Hammersmith and Fulham where, on a weekly basis, we saw the problem of prisoners released from all over the country, but particularly from Wormwood Scrubs, not being able to access housing and finding themselves in a very difficult place.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) on introducing the Bill. Does he agree that housing is key to ensuring that those leaving prison are able to go straight back into a good pattern, as opposed to potentially falling back into whichever crime got them into prison in the first place?
Simon Fell
My hon. Friend is right: accommodation is key. I know from speaking to my right hon. Friend the Minister that it is part of the puzzle that the Ministry of Justice is trying to bear down on. Ending Friday releases for vulnerable people is part of the challenge that we face, but stable accommodation, with the ability to gain access to bank accounts and mobile phones in order to register for services such as universal credit, is essential to helping people as they are released.
Like adults, children are more likely to be released on a Friday than on any other day. In addition to their inherent vulnerability as children, under-18s leaving custody have multiple and often complex needs, and a Friday release may mean going for two or even three days without meaningful contact with support services when they are at their most vulnerable. That is why the Bill applies to both adults and children sentenced to detention, and ensures that the same provisions exist across the youth estate.
Evidence shows that those who have the basics that they need on resettlement are far less likely to reoffend. The House has an opportunity to give offenders vital extra time in which to meet their probation officer or youth justice worker and gain access to support services such as healthcare ahead of the weekend, will which help to cut crime and ultimately make our streets safer. The fact is that many people released from prison, especially on Fridays, are almost set up to fail from the moment they step off the prison estate. If we support people as they come out of prison, we can play a key role in reducing the significant societal and individual costs of reoffending, leading to fewer victims of crime and fewer communities dealing with its impact.
The Bill is an important step towards doing that, and I sincerely hope the House will agree that by making the simple change that it proposes—varying the date of release for vulnerable people by up to 48 hours—we can relieve the time pressure, take away the cliff edge, and give people the best opportunity to make a fresh start. If we are serious about justice, if we are serious about helping people to rebuild stable and rewarding lives, and if we are interested in relieving prison capacity to improve outcomes and in reducing reoffending, passing the Bill is an important step in the right direction.
Sometimes it seems as if we in this place speak a different language from the one spoken in the world outside—a language that seems very different to the people we represent—but the Bill has reminded me that that is not the case. After Second Reading, my office in Barrow received a phone call from a serving prisoner, Gary, who had watched the proceedings on parliamentlive.tv. He had done better than many of the staff in my office! He is due for release on a Friday in August preceding a bank holiday weekend. Understandably, he is concerned about exactly the issue that the Bill seeks to address: being stranded without support or the ability to help himself for three days. It is no exaggeration to say that there are hundreds of Garys out there, all with the same concern, all wanting a fair chance to stand on their own two feet and to start a new life on release. I hope that by passing the Bill we will give them that chance: it is the very least that we can do.
I also hope that I have addressed, as fully as possible, the aims of the Bill and the positive impact that it will have, and I am proud to present it to the House for its Third Reading. In many respects it offers just a small change, but it is a change that will have a great and lasting impact for many people on leaving custody. I firmly believe that this is the right thing for us to do, and I hope that the House will join me in supporting it.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
I support the Bill wholeheartedly. I congratulate both my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mark Jenkinson) on introducing it before he entered the Government, and my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) on guiding it through the legislative process so thoroughly and well.
As many Members will know, I have a strong and passionate interest in reducing the number of victims of crime by improving the rehabilitation of offenders, having been a non-executive director of HM Prison and Probation Service and, for a very short time, the Minister responsible for prisons and probation. I was released very early; I am not sure that it was for entirely good behaviour. [Laughter.] I am very pleased that my successor has embraced the Bill and is doing such a fantastic job across the whole portfolio.
Prisons play an important part in the process of rehabilitation, with a wide range of classes, training courses and programmes that are designed to help people acquire the skills and habits they need to live a life free of crime once they are released. I praise the fantastic work that is done by teachers, tutors and coaches in our prisons. The job is not easy, but it can be extremely rewarding, and I am pleased that the Government are investing much more in prison education services and recruiting more staff to these vital positions.
However good the rehabilitation efforts are when somebody is in custody, one of the riskiest moments for reoffending is immediately after a prisoner is released. The order and structure of the prison environment suddenly disappear, and instead there is the potential for anxiety, confusion and temptation. This is the time when it is essential to get support in place to ensure that there is somewhere to live, something constructive to do and someone to go to for help and advice. What matters most when someone is released from jail is for them to be able to go immediately to a probation office, to sign up with a doctor, to go to their new accommodation and perhaps to visit the jobcentre. Those immediate first positive steps can make all the difference between going straight and going swiftly back behind bars.
Unfortunately, those crucial and relatively simple steps are impossible when someone is released on a Friday afternoon, has to travel for several hours to get home and then finds that all the services they need have closed for the weekend. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness said, the impact can be particularly severe for women, because they are frequently imprisoned even further from home than men are. It is a race against time that is rarely won by the person who has been newly freed from prison.
With a third of all releases taking place on a Friday, a significant number of people are at risk. This matters, because 80% of crime is committed by reoffenders, and reoffending overall costs the taxpayer £18 billion a year. If we in this place truly want to support people as they come out of prison and reduce that cost, we can play a role in doing so today by making the simple change of ending Friday releases, which will relieve the time pressure to access services, helping to ensure that newly released prisoners can have a fresh start.
While I accept that this is not a magic bullet to end reoffending, it will go some way to reduce the burden on the taxpayer, and it boils down to a simple administrative change, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness outlined admirably. The move is supported by charities, the voluntary sector, those working within the prison system, the probation service and ex-offenders themselves.
I draw particular attention to the work done by the charity Nacro, which has long campaigned for this change. Its 2021 report entitled “Friday Prison Releases: Collective Voices” says that
“Friday prison releases are needlessly setting people up to fail”.
It is hard to disagree. The report quotes a prison leaver as saying:
“I had to sleep at a fishing pit until the Monday because that was the next day the person [at the council] was back in her seat at work.”
There are other quotes in Nacro’s report that are worth highlighting, including from a prison:
“We have lots of issues with Friday releases, which are particularly problematic for people with substance misuse support needs”;
from the police:
“The police often have to pick up the pieces where people fall through the gaps, and this happens more often when people are released from prison on a Friday”;
from a council accommodation officer:
“People who leave prison on a Friday do not get the early intervention… which is unfair and is more likely to lead to further offending”;
and from the charity itself:
“I would say that most people who are released from prison on a Friday and need to report to the council for housing end up being homeless as they didn’t have the time”.
Nacro’s chief executive has said that ending Friday releases
“will give people the best chance at a second chance”.
I completely agree.
At a time of challenging public finances, this is a policy that will cost the taxpayer virtually nothing—perhaps just a bit of administration to update working practices and procedures. I am delighted that the Minister has confirmed on multiple occasions that the Government support this important Bill. I congratulate everybody who has been involved in getting it to this stage, including the officials from the Ministry of Justice, some of whom I recognise well, and especially my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness.
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
Today is an excellent day for this Chamber and the House of Commons, because we have some fantastic Bills coming through, and none more so than this one. I am delighted to speak in favour of the Bill.
The estimated economic and social cost of reoffending to this country is £18.1 billion a year. Researchers found that those who have chaotic experiences in the community before or after custody, such as insecure accommodation, employment needs or substance misuse, are more likely to reoffend. In 2018-19, approximately 40% of adult prisoners were released to unsettled accommodation, rough sleeping or homelessness, or their accommodation status was unknown on the first night of release. Around 42% of prisoners have either an alcohol or a drugs need, or both. The prisons strategy White Paper has set out a number of ways to improve the situation, including education services, dealing with dependency on drugs and help to get people into work following release, all of which are excellent ideas. They all cost money, though, and that money could be wasted if an ex-offender is leaving prison on a Friday with a few pounds in their pocket and potentially nowhere to go, with no agencies open to offer support over the weekend.
As a councillor on Charnwood Borough Council— I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, because I am still a councillor—I was lucky enough to chair a series of panels on reducing reoffending. I met not only ex-offenders, police and housing support officers, but local charities that work to support ex-offenders, which Loughborough simply could not do without. Charities such as Exaireo, Carpenters Arms, The Bridge and Futures Unlocked all offer outstanding service to ex-offenders and others from across the country, helping them to turn their life around. I have seen the work of those charities, which is exemplary, and I continue to support them in all they do.
As part of the panel’s work, we took evidence and made a series of recommendations. There are six pages of recommendations; I promise not to refer to all six pages right now, but I will refer to one, which states that
“the Panel makes representations to the local MPs, in respect of the day of the week prisoners are released from prison and highlighting the issues surrounding Friday release”.
The reason for that recommendation was that,
“Support for offenders was not readily available on a Friday or over the weekend. Therefore, a release earlier in the week provides officers with greater opportunities to divert offenders away from previous habits and friends towards services to provide support in respect of housing, benefits and health related issues.”
That work was done in 2011, so it has taken us some time, but I believe we are achieving such a great goal today.
If Members will indulge me for a moment, the BBC has today published an article on its website by Helen Catt, entitled “My Friday prison release led to a disastrous mistake”. I will read a passage, if I may:
“Prisoners vulnerable to addiction, mental health issues or homelessness will no longer be released on Fridays under new plans to cut reoffending. One prisoner who breached parole after being released on a Friday says he felt let down by the system. He told the BBC his story and what it says about prisoners at risk of lapsing back into a life of crime.
‘By the time I got to the housing department, it was a Friday afternoon and there was no-one there to see me. I knew the offices wouldn’t be open again until the Monday. I was quite fearful of where I was going to stay that night—I didn’t want to stay on the streets.’
Marc Conway was 17 years old when he was released, on a Friday, after three months in HMP Feltham young offenders’ institution in London. Without anywhere to go, he made what he describes as a ‘disastrous mistake’ and stayed with a ‘known associate’. In doing so, he broke his licence conditions and was recalled to prison to serve out the remaining three months of his sentence. ‘I felt like I had let people down, first and foremost, that I’d been recalled back to prison so soon,’ he said. ‘I was angry, I was resentful of the system. I felt the system had let me down again and I dread to think what I would have done that night if I didn’t have somewhere to stay.’
Marc has served a number of sentences for a range of serious offences, last leaving prison four-and-a-half years ago.”
However, in 2019 he was one of the people who pinned down the convicted terrorist on London bridge, after that person had fatally stabbed two people. That is a person we want in society; that is a person I believe we should help. Hopefully, by not releasing people on a Friday, we will be able to assist them much earlier on in the process after their initial crime, rather than having them spending four and half years in prison, as Mark did.
In conclusion, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mark Jenkinson), who originally introduced the Bill, and my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell), who has taken up the challenge. With one small Bill, they are going to make a huge difference to people’s lives. I thank them for doing so.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I join in congratulating my hon. Friends the Members for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) and for Workington (Mark Jenkinson), and all those involved in bringing forward this important piece of legislation. I look forward to it completing its passage today.
I am pleased to support the Bill, and the Government’s work in tackling reoffending rates, which have decreased over the last decade. The kernel of the Bill is to avoid the release of an offender on a Friday or the day preceding a bank holiday, by bringing their release date forward by one or two working days. Currently, the Criminal Justice Act 1961 provides that offenders who would otherwise be released on weekends, bank holidays or public holidays, are to be released the preceding day. That is meant to ensure that offenders can access services and accommodation on their day of release. As we have heard with stark examples, in reality, getting that timely support on a Friday is simply not practical due to early closing hours and the number of prisoners who are released.
The status quo is clearly self-defeating, as failure to access services can increase the risk of reoffending, which is something that we all want to reduce. We have heard about the importance of access to accommodation, which, in turn, is vital in helping people to access employment and training to support their rehabilitation. I am pleased that the Bill delivers on a key Government commitment in the prisons White Paper from 2021. The White Paper also set out how the Government want to rehabilitate criminals and reduce offending through work and training.
In particular, I support the partnerships that the Government are requiring prisons to have with businesses, to help train people and offer jobs on release. Prisons in the east of England have partnered with well-known businesses, such as Lotus and Bernard Matthews, as well as the manufacturing and construction sectors, to do precisely that. We know how important that is; offenders who get a job after coming out of prison are less likely to reoffend, but only 17% manage to get a job within a year of release. We need to put a lot more effort into increasing that number. I also welcome the Government’s progress on subsistence payments. In 2021, following a 26-year freeze, the Government increased the amount that is given to people on release for immediate essentials; that was increased in line with inflation last year, although it is still only £82.39.
We should recognise that the Bill involves people being released earlier than they would otherwise from their prison sentences. Our constituents are rightly concerned to see people serve the sentence they have been given, which is why I was pleased to support Government legislation to ensure that people serving the longest for the most serious offences serve more of their sentence. Clearly, on balance, there is a clear benefit to our constituents in releasing people a day or two earlier, although we need to have robust policy guidance and eligibility criteria to ensure public protection. I warmly welcome the Bill and look forward to it completing its passage.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild). I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) for bringing the Bill to the House. As far as I am concerned, people who end up in prison have gone through our process, they have been rightly convicted of offences, and they will serve their time. It is vital we give them the opportunity to rebuild their lives when they have served their sentence and come out.
When I brought forward the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, one of the areas I insisted on was ensuring that ex-offenders leaving prison were encouraged to rebuild their lives, that prison governors had a statutory duty to ensure they did so, and that they were referred to local housing authorities to be offered suitable accommodation. It is fair to say that I have harassed a number of Ministry of Justice Ministers over the past six years to ensure that prison governors carry out their statutory duties, so it is a great shame that is not happening as it should.
As has been said, one in three prisoners are released on a Friday at present. Housing authorities close their doors at 5 o’clock and unless the ex-offender is there in time, they are likely to have a choice of either sleeping rough or, worse still, returning to the area in which their crimes were originally committed and then mixing and mingling with the same people who got them into trouble in the first place. They are often left with £50 in their pocket and told, “Go away and don’t reoffend.” That is unacceptable today, particularly for people who have committed to rebuilding their lives and end up literally on the streets.
The support services people need are not there. I declare my interest as the co-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for ending homelessness. We have a clear indication and evidence from local authorities that there is no support over the weekends for prison leavers to obtain accommodation. They approach the housing authority and find it closed or unable to provide accommodation on an emergency basis, so that leaves them on the streets or with the alternative I have mentioned.
As has been said, other services are needed. GPs, jobcentres and advice centres all close at the end of Friday and do not open again until Monday. That leaves people in a desperate position that they should not have to face. They have frequently lost contact with their friends and family because of the fact they have been in imprisoned, and they literally have nowhere to go over the weekend. For many, the stability of prison, despite the conditions, and a roof and food is potentially better than being on the streets, because then they face a choice. Do they spend their money on a hotel room? Do they reoffend? What do they do? That is the key challenge. We have to prevent people from getting to that unacceptable position.
Given the weather, people will be being released today in freezing conditions and then facing that desperate choice. They have no stable living place to end up in, so the temptation to return to a life of crime is always there, and they may have people who will support them to return to that life of crime, rather than supporting them to rebuild their lives. It is clearly not in the interests of anyone that people are placed in that position.
This is a very simple Bill, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness for bringing it forward. We should be releasing prisoners during the week, allowing them to access services and to rebuild their lives. We do not want to see people returning to prison. We do not want people to reoffend; we want them to be good citizens. If we do send them back to prison, we should remember that it costs, on average, £43,000 to host a prisoner each year. In the public purse’s interests, this Bill is a sensible move.
In conclusion, I strongly support the Bill. It can lead to fewer crimes, fewer reoffending individuals and safer streets for us all, and that has to be in the interests of every single one of our constituents. What opposition could there be to such a Bill? It is good news, of course, that the Bill is welcomed on all sides. Finally, I would just say that prison governors and the people in the prison support service need to be thinking about how we support people to rebuild their lives, and to plan for it as they are coming up to their release dates, rather than it coming up as a sudden rush with people literally being put on the streets and told, “Go away and don’t reoffend.” That cannot be acceptable in today’s society. The Bill has to be in the interests of us all, and I commend it to the House.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
I am aware through my office that I have gone viral on Twitter for the fact that, unfortunately, we have criminals who blight the great constituency of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke. I referred to the scumbags who fly-tip, the scrotes who deal drugs and the savages who create their antisocial behaviour. I am not apologetic for calling out this wrong behaviour and for launching a safer streets petition for Tunstall, Cobridge and Smallthorne to get additional CCTV, new alley gates and better street lighting to help make our streets safer.
Despite some of the glares that my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) has been giving me throughout this debate to ensure that I stay on message, and the pressure that I can feel from my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell), I am proud to stand up and say that I am in full support of the Bill in front of us today, because, despite my rough exterior at times, I am a pragmatist at heart. Ultimately, the overriding evidence is clear that something is not working and that that is undermining the very thing that we want to achieve, which is reducing reoffending, helping people to restart their lives and bringing crime down in our local communities. The Bill is a very simple, very basic mechanism that provides some help with that process. I would find it bizarre if anybody had any opposition to the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mark Jenkinson), who initiated the Bill, is certainly no wet; in fact he is very dry. Even though his neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness, is a little damp, he is obviously very sound on these issues, so it is absolutely correct that we stand up and support him.
It seems very wrong to me that someone is not able to access any support services within a matter of hours of leaving prison, which could be hundreds of miles away from where they call home and from their support network of family and friends, who are good and trusted people who could guide them on the right path. It is completely abhorrent that someone should be left in such a vulnerable state. We are talking about people who will be suffering from drug and alcohol addiction. Their crime will have fed into those habits. Ultimately, these are people who need the right support and guidance, which links in with the fantastic legislation introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) that supports some of the most vulnerable people in our society. It is right, as he said earlier, that prison governors should use the discretion that they will be given to plan someone’s release, to plan support and to engage with the Probation Service much earlier in order to ensure that the said individual will be able to leave for a caring and nurturing environment.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury said, if we can achieve even a small reduction in reoffending, it will mean a lot less crime on our streets and a lot less police time being wasted on, in some cases, small and minor crimes. The police have major matters to deal with, such as those involving county lines gangs—those at the top end who are making the real money—and grooming gangs, who are difficult to catch, requiring hundreds of police to work thousands of hours to find out who is operating in our areas. There is also organised criminal activity such as theft and burglaries, white collar crime and online scams. All those things take an awful lot of police expertise and it is absolutely right, therefore, that we try to find a way to help people who have come out of prison. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness said earlier, it is perfectly reasonable, and common sense at its best, to release someone a day or two earlier than scheduled—we are not talking about weeks or months—so that we avoid the things that we have been talking about. I would like to believe, Mr Deputy Speaker, that common sense always prevails in this place, although my mother says that I lack that at the best of times.
Overall, this is a strong piece of legislation. I am glad that it has cross-party support. I hope that it will go through speedily and unamended in the other place: the quicker that we can get this on the statute books, the quicker that we can act.
I thought that the article that my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt) read out was incredibly powerful. I am not known for openly praising the BBC, but, still, let me give credit where credit is due. That story was of a 17-year-old boy—he is a boy at 17 years old—who was clearly vulnerable, who clearly felt alone, and who had no support network. He had fallen in with the nearest person he could find, but, sadly, that person was someone who should have been avoided. Therefore, through no fault of his own, that young man ended up back in prison for three months.
Let us not forget that it costs an awful lot of taxpayers’ money to look after an individual sitting in a prison cell day in, day out, when they could be out contributing to society and getting the education they deserve or a job with a salary that pays back into the system, giving them the self-confidence, self-worth and self-belief that they can go on to achieve many great things. It is frightfully important for us to remember that. The article made it plain and clear that this is a good Bill. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness and I wish him all success in getting it passed.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) on getting the Bill this far.
On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) expressed Labour’s support for the Bill. That support remains. In fact, the Opposition support it so much that we tried to bring the legislation in first with an amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. Given the cross-party support and the common-sense thinking behind the legislation, it was a surprise that the Government did not support Labour’s amendment on that occasion, and nor have they sought to bring forward similar legislation themselves. However, it seems—[Interruption.] The Minister chunters from a sedentary position. It seems that they are now on board, so we can all be grateful for that.
As I said, we think this is a sensible Bill, one that we hope will have a positive effect on reoffending rates, along with reducing the numbers of recently released prisoners who become homeless. Only 45% of people released from prison in 2021-22 had settled accommodation on their release. That means over half were released from prison with nowhere to go and had to use their first hours of freedom desperately searching for a safe and suitable place to sleep. Sadly, 11% of those people ended up homeless or sleeping rough. Studies have shown that safe and secure housing is key to stopping the cycle of reoffending. His Majesty’s inspectorate of probation found that
“the proportion of service users recalled or resentenced to custody within 12 months of release was almost double for those without settled accommodation.”
It is a stark contrast that a person who, until their day of release, had their housing, meals and medicine provided under one roof, is then left on a Friday afternoon with only the number of a probation officer and the address of a pharmacist. Many recently released prisoners then have a race against time to find a roof over their head, to apply for benefits to pay for food, housing and other necessities, and to visit their GP or pharmacist if they are part of a drug treatment programme. If a prisoner has willingly and successfully engaged in a drug treatment programme, then not ensuring enough time to get to a pharmacist upon release is tantamount to derailing that treatment programme.
When a prisoner is released it should be seen as a new start, where opportunities are presented and support is readily available, but all too often the opposite is true. We hope the Bill can go some way to rectifying that, but it is only a part of the picture. The rehabilitation of offenders starts within prisons, with better conditions, better education and training, support for mental health, help to repair broken family relationships, and more drug treatment programmes. If the Government are really serious about cutting reoffending, they could look at reducing the use of shorter sentences for non-violent offences. Research tells us that short sentences do not work, with 63% of those who serve a sentence of 12 months or less going on to reoffend within a year. One answer to that lies in effective community sentencing for those who commit non-violent offences. That would help to ease overcrowding and allow prisons to get their education programmes back up and running.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I feel I am digressing on to wider issues. Let me conclude by saying that the Opposition support the Bill. We think it is the right and sensible thing to do. We just add that it would be a missed opportunity for it to be thought the only thing that needs to be done to help cut reoffending.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Damian Hinds)
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) for his excellent work bringing this important Bill to the House and navigating it through to this stage. It is a great credit to him that there is such support for this legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mark Jenkinson) has played an important role in this Bill to date. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Aylesbury (Rob Butler), for Loughborough (Jane Hunt), for North West Norfolk (James Wild), for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), who spoke passionately about their local communities and the great work carried out by the voluntary and charitable sector, and with particular insight as local representatives. I also thank the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), who speaks for the Opposition, for the manner and content of his remarks in welcoming the Bill. It is a good and positive thing when we have legislation coming forward with wide support from different parties in the House and different perspectives and traditions to do something sensible in the interests of our society.
As the House has heard, the Bill ensures that offenders who have resettlement needs will no longer need to be released on a Friday or the day before a bank or public holiday. It will do that by enabling a release date to be brought forward by up to two eligible working days, so these offenders will be released earlier in the week. In practice, this means that offenders with resettlement needs will no longer face that race against the clock, which my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness set out, to find accommodation, access medication and access finance support all before services close for the weekend. As he outlined, that is particularly challenging for people with more complex needs, of whom there are many, such as drug dependency or mental health illness, and, crucially, for those with a long distance to travel before they can access those services. The Bill will achieve that by tackling the practical challenges that Friday releases can create. It will address the issues that can lead to an increased risk of reoffending by ensuring that custody leavers have a better chance to access the support they need to reintegrate into the community and to turn their back on a life of crime.
As my hon. Friend said, the Bill also applies to children sentenced to detention. It will ensure that the release provisions relating to Friday, bank and public holiday, and weekend releases exist in respect of all youth settings, including the recently created secure 16 to 19 school. Despite the various safeguards and legal duties that exist for children leaving custody, being released on a Friday still means that a child would go for at least two days with no meaningful contact with their youth justice worker exactly when they are at their most vulnerable.
Rob Butler
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the impact on young people and children is accentuated by the tremendous success there has been in reducing the number of children in custody from around 3,000 in 2007 to around 400 today? That means there are fewer secure settings for children, so they are frequently further from home and it takes them much longer on the day they are released to get to where they need to be.
Damian Hinds
My hon. Friend is spot on and speaks from great personal experience and expertise. It is true that far fewer children are being locked up than in 2010. We know that being incarcerated at a young age means people risk becoming more criminal and it exposes them to a whole range of different risks. Of course, sometimes that is exactly what we have to do—we must be able to imprison people where necessary—but where it is possible to avoid it, that is often better for the individual and for wider society. An effect of that, and this exists for women prisoners as well, is that a person is much more likely to be far away from home. Because there are fewer of these institutions, they are more spread out, so access to services, which my hon. Friend identifies is an issue, can be particularly acute for younger people.
In practice, it will be for heads of establishments to apply the power in bringing forward an offender’s release data. Aided by policy guidance, they can allow an offender additional time to resettle where it will support their reintegration into the community and reduce their risk of reoffending. As the House will be aware, the Government have made significant progress in tackling the £18 billion annual cost of reoffending and protecting the public.
Data show that the overall proven reoffending rate for adults decreased from 30.9% in 2009-10 to 25.6% in 2019-20, which is truly significant. The rate is still too high, however, and we have to do all we can to bring it down further. We are investing substantial sums to achieve that, including in prison leavers’ access to accommodation, about which several hon. Members on both sides of the House have spoken; and in building stronger links with employers through dedicated prison employment leads and prison employment advisory boards where business leaders can interface with their local prisons.
We have also seen encouraging improvements in employment rates for prisoners on release, which is an area where hon. Members can play an important role through their discussions with local employers by putting them in touch with this opportunity. We are also investing in offering more prisoners the chance to work while inside prison; developing the prison education service to raise the skills of offenders, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury also spoke; and increasing access to drugs rehabilitation through the recruitment of health and justice partnership co-ordinators to better link up services for offenders inside and beyond the prison perimeter. The hon. Member for Hammersmith was exactly right to identify that we need to think of it as a holistic process that starts inside and continues outside; it must be as linked up as possible.
We are also making large investments into youth justice to tackle offending by children. As my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough said, there is a lot that the Government and the Prison Service can do, but charities and voluntary organisations, including the four that she mentioned in her constituency, are an absolutely irreplaceable and fundamental part of that fabric.
Those interventions should improve resettlement opportunities for all offenders and help to reduce reoffending, but they cannot fully address all the practicalities that are presented by being released on a Friday. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East vividly illustrated that journey to the House. This common-sense Bill will help to achieve that. I reiterate my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness for bringing this important Bill before the House and I confirm again, with great pleasure, that the Government support it. I wish it all the best in its progress through the other place.
Simon Fell
With the leave of the House, I am incredibly grateful to friends—hon. Members on both sides of the House—for their support and valued contributions on the issue. Many have contributed on Second Reading, in Committee and on Third Reading, so I thank them all for the insight and passion that they brought to the debates. As constituency MPs, we all know people who have been affected by the issue, as has come out time and again.
I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mark Jenkinson), who passed responsibility for the Bill to me on his elevation to the Whips Office. He also kindly led the Committee stage ably and with real insight. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) has been a supporter of the cause in and out of office and I am grateful for his presence today—his passion for the subject is clear.
My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt) is similarly passionate and experienced on the issue. In fact, she may be the only MP—this may be a parliamentary first—to have lobbied to be on a Bill Committee. I am incredibly grateful for that. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) made a thoughtful speech about the importance of giving people on release access to employment. His point was well made and, I hope, well heard.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) spoke powerfully about the challenges offenders face on release and the injustice of people being given the opportunity to stand on their own two feet again but not being able to take that opportunity because structural barriers are in their way. I think one of the reasons my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), who I look down on from here, is so dry is the amount of hot air that emanates from him. [Laughter.] However, he made some serious points about why the Bill will make a difference on reoffending, which is what we all want.
Turning to those on the Opposition Benches, I greatly appreciate the thoughtful and contributory approach of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) and hope that when the Bill reaches the Lords it will be considered in a similar way. I should also thank the Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), who has been incredibly supportive through this process. His presence at the Dispatch Box is a real comfort. I know he is passionate not just about this part of dealing with the challenges faced by those being released, but about trying to get to the bottom of and improving the wider structural issues which my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East mentioned. I also thank his incredible team at the Ministry—not least Robyn, who has been a huge support to me and my hon. Friend the Member for Workington—and the Clerks in the Public Bill Office, whose guidance has been a great help.
I also thank my constituents who have spoken to me about this issue, as well as charities—not least Sam Julius and the team at Nacro who have campaigned so much on this issue—chaplains, faith groups, and third sector organisations including Switchback, the Community Chaplain Association, Release Mates and the Well Communities in Barrow, all of which have supplied case studies, and, more importantly, work day in, day out with offenders to get them on their feet following release against incredibly difficult odds. I hope the passing of this Bill will make those odds just a little bit better.
Finally, I thank my good friend Lord Bird, who has agreed to shepherd this Bill through the other place if—or when—it passes here today. He is the founder of The Big Issue and a passionate supporter and campaigner for social justice, and he knows more than most why this issue matters. The Bill is in good hands.
This small Bill will, I hope, make a very big difference. I thank Members from across the House for their support.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
May I say that it is a particular privilege for me to be in the Chair to hear the Third Reading passed as a young Simon Fell was formerly a researcher of mine.
Firearms Bill
Friday 3rd March 2023
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Firearms Act 2023 View all Firearms Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am honoured to speak in the Second Reading of this private Member’s Bill on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey), who cannot be here today. The Bill seeks to strengthen further this country’s already robust firearms controls in two important but distinct ways: by introducing a new offence to combat the unlawful manufacture of ammunition by criminals; and by closing a loophole in firearms law so the operator of a miniature rifle range must first be granted a firearms certificate by the police.
The ammunition measure in the Bill helps the police tackle unlawful manufacture by introducing a new offence of possessing component parts with the intent to assemble unauthorised quantities of complete ammunition. The police have raised concerns that the component parts of ammunition are too easy to obtain and are being used by criminals to manufacture whole rounds of ammunition. It might be helpful if I briefly list and explain what the components are and how they go together to make a round of ammunition: the gunpowder, used to propel a projectile from a firearm; the primer, an explosive compound that ignites the gunpowder; the projectile or bullet; and the cartridge case.
Controls on primers are set out in the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006. Section 35 makes it an offence to sell or purchase primers unless the purchaser is authorised to possess them, for example by being a registered firearms dealer or by holding a firearms certificate authorising them to possess a firearm or ammunition.
Controls on the possession of gunpowder are set out in the Explosives Regulations 2014. The regulations require that, with certain exceptions, anyone wanting to acquire or keep explosives must hold an explosives certificate issued by the police. The projectiles or bullets and the cartridge case are constructed of inert material. Those are not controlled, which can make the prosecution of certain cases by the police difficult. They may believe there is intent to produce ammunition unlawfully, but be unable to progress with certain criminal cases if the materials found are not controlled.
Assembly of ammunition requires various component parts to be used, including the restricted and unrestricted components. The new offence means that the police will be better able to prosecute cases where criminals are manufacturing ammunition, including where only some of the component parts are present, provided that intent is shown. That will be a significant step forward in helping the police to tackle gun crime.
I turn now to the second firearms matter addressed in the Bill, the controls on miniature rifle ranges. It would be fair to say that the current exemption in law for such ranges is a lesser-known area of firearms law. None the less, it is extremely important that we improve the legislative regulation around miniature rifle ranges.
At present, section 11(4) of the Firearms Act 1968 allows a
“person conducting or carrying on a miniature rifle range…or shooting gallery”,
at which only miniature rifles and ammunition
“not exceeding .23 inch calibre”
or air weapons are used, to purchase, acquire or possess miniature rifles or ammunition without a firearms certificate. Additionally, a person can use those rifles and ammunition at such a range without a certificate.
Although the term “miniature rifle” is used in the legislation, the firearms it applies to are lethal guns and are otherwise subject to the requirement for the holder to apply for a firearms certificate in order to possess them. The existing exception in section 11(4) of the Firearms Act means that a person can purchase firearms and operate a miniature rifle range at which others can shoot without a certificate, and therefore without having undergone the usual stringent police checks on a person’s suitability or police assessment of how they will safely store and use the firearm.
The police raised concerns that the exemption is a loophole in firearms law, which is vulnerable to abuse by criminals or terrorists seeking to access firearms and side-stepping the usual robust checks carried out by the police. The miniature rifle range exemption has been in existence for many years and is used extensively by small-bore rifle clubs to introduce newcomers to sport shooting. It is used by some schools and colleges, by activity centres offering target shooting, at game fairs and in a number of other legitimate environments.
Many would be severely affected if the exemption were removed entirely, as they would no longer be able to enable newcomers to try out target shooting in a safe and controlled environment. In recognition of that, the Bill preserves the benefits that the miniature rifle range exemption offers, while bringing in the appropriate controls by making it a requirement that the operator must be granted a firearms certificate by the police, having undergone all the necessary checks on suitability, security and good reason.
The Bill also more tightly defines what may be considered as a miniature rifle by restricting them to .22 rimfire guns, which are lower-powered rifles. There is concern that the current definition in the legislation of
“not exceeding .23 inch calibre”
could allow the use of more powerful firearms, which would not be suitable for use on a miniature rifle range by an uncertificated person, even with the necessary supervision and safety measures in place.
The Government consulted on introducing these two measures in the firearm safety consultation, which ran from 24 November 2020 until 16 February 2021. I am glad to say that both proposals were supported by the majority of respondents: 62% agreed that it should be
“an offence to possess component parts of ammunition with intent to manufacture unauthorised quantities of complete rounds of ammunition”;
73% agreed
“that the operator of a miniature rifle range should be required to hold a firearms certificate”;
and 74% agreed with the proposal to define miniature rifles more tightly to mean less powerful firearms not exceeding .22 rimfire.
Several respondents to the consultation made the point that ranges or shooting galleries in which only lower-powered air weapons are used should not be affected. In other words, there should be no requirement for the operator of an air weapons-only range to hold a firearms certificate; the legislative change should apply only to the more powerful and dangerous rifles about which law enforcement has raised concerns. I can offer a reassurance that it is the more powerful and dangerous licensed firearms that are the focus of the Bill’s changes. It will not alter the position with respect to ranges or galleries that use only lower-powered air weapons, namely air rifles of no more than 12 ft lb and air pistols of no more than 6 ft lb. Air weapons are, however, subject to a licensing regime in Scotland; the Bill will not affect that regime in any way.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a compelling case. I entirely support the Bill’s aims. Can he give a further reassurance that it seeks to close the loophole and ensure that people are properly checked before they can own and operate such ranges or weapons? In no way, shape or form does it seek to close down such ranges; it just puts better safeguards in place. Engaging in shooting sports and such activities is still fundamentally encouraged.
Simon Baynes
My hon. Friend perfectly sums up the Bill’s intent.
The Government response to the public consultation was published on 20 July 2022. It committed to taking measures forward on ammunition and miniature rifle ranges by making
“changes…to primary legislation…when Parliamentary time allows.”
The Bill is a consequence of that commitment to amend legislation to make our firearms laws even more robust, to tackle crime and to continue to improve public safety. I am grateful to the Minister and his officials for their help in preparing the Bill. It gives me great pleasure to commend it to the House.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
I am aware of time, so I will not go on for too long. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes) on moving the Bill’s Second Reading on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey), who is a fantastic champion in this House for his local community.
It all comes down to using more common sense, which is something that seems to be rife in Parliament on Fridays—we should probably try to inject a bit more from Mondays to Wednesdays. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) pointed out, the Bill simply closes a loophole. It is not about being anti-shooting range or even anti-gun owner, as long as people are responsible, go through all the checks and follow all the safety requirements. There are many people across the country who follow the rules and should be commended for doing so. The Bill is designed purely to ensure that people who have gone through the checks have the right to continue owning such weapons if they so wish. It will ensure that those who wish to go to a firing range and enjoy sporting activities can do so in the safest possible environment.
Personally, I have never owned a weapon. Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke does not have a shooting range, as far as I am aware; if it does have one, it is definitely illegal.
Anyone who obeys and follows the law has nothing to fear from this legislation, which will simply enable our brave police officers to carry out these checks to make sure that licences are given out to appropriate individuals. We should all welcome that, and it is particularly important for the protection of under-18s. When I look at the violence with weapons in the United States of America, although there is a constitutional right to own weapons there and it is not for us to intervene in that, the situation is clearly out of control in some parts of that great nation. It is important that we learn from the terrible disasters that have occurred in that nation and make our country as safe as possible by ensuring that our police have all the weapons at their disposal in terms of legislation to protect the communities we live in. I support the Bill, and I look forward to seeing it pass its Second Reading today.
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes) on taking on such a good Bill and my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey), who introduced it. The Bill deals with two aspects: miniature rifle ranges and the manufacture of ammunition. I will focus on miniature rifle ranges in my remarks.
There is an exemption in firearms law—section 11(4) of the Firearms Act 1968—that allows a person to run a rifle range or shooting gallery where only small calibre rifles or air weapons are used without the need for a firearms licence. Additionally, members of the public do not need a firearms licence to shoot at such a range or gallery. That exemption is widely used to introduce people to target shooting. Law enforcement has raised concerns that the exemption may allow unsuitable people to gain access to firearms, with consequent public safety risks.
The firearms safety consultation sought views on improving the controls on miniature rifle ranges while retaining the benefits that miniature rifle ranges present to shooting sports. The key proposal was that anyone who wishes to operate a miniature rifle range must apply for a firearms licence and undergo the necessary police checks into their background and security. Some 73% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the operator of a miniature rifle range should be required to have a firearms certificate, while 20% disagreed or strongly disagreed.
Nobody here is interested in stifling sport, least of all me, as the Member of Parliament for Loughborough—the epicentre of sport, in my considered opinion. We are looking to introduce restrictions that will enable law enforcement officers and other agencies to understand exactly who has these firearms and these ranges, to create a safer environment. That will be a good safeguard for those who run small rifle ranges, so that they have confidence that they and the people who attend their rifle ranges have been assessed. That is the main point I would like to make today.
To the average person in the street, a gun still looks like a gun, even if it is from a small rifle range, and we have to bear that in mind when considering the possible misuse by a very small percentage of users. It is important that we have robust restrictions, that we understand exactly who has these weapons and that we ensure they are used in a safe place. That is why I support the Bill.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey) on this important Bill and thank the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes) for presenting it and speaking on his behalf so eloquently.
It is frequently said that the UK has one of the toughest systems in the world for regulating the ownership of firearms. Members on both sides of the House will undoubtedly be thankful that that is the case but will also share the belief that we must never lose sight of the need to ensure that our laws and regulations remain fit for purpose. The licensing system currently in force dates back more than 50 years, having been established by the landmark Firearms Act 1968. While that groundbreaking law was a vital first step, we must never allow ourselves to fall into the trap of complacency. Despite the importance of the 1968 Act, it took the unspeakable tragedies of mass shootings in Hungerford and Dunblane to prompt further action to tighten up our laws in the 1980s and 1990s.
Today, the memories of five people—Maxine Davison, Stephen Washington, Kate Shepherd, Lee Martyn and Lee’s three-year-old daughter Sophie, who were shot dead in Plymouth in August 2021—cast a long shadow over this debate. We must not wait for another equally horrific event before we take the steps needed to bring the law up to date. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) for his passionate advocacy of measures to further restrict the ownership of dangerous weapons and to counter online radicalisation, and to the hon. Member for West Bromwich West for promoting the Bill.
The Bill’s intent is to,
“Make provision about the regulation of certain rifle ranges and shooting galleries; to make provision for an offence in relation to the possession of component parts of ammunition; and for connected purposes.”
I will take each point in turn. Clause 1 would make limited changes to the scope of provisions in the Firearms Act on the use of weapons at shooting ranges and galleries. It is not clear that the changes go far enough. For instance, the Government’s response to a consultation published last July announced plans to introduce a new requirement for operators of miniature rifle ranges to be issued with a firearms certificate. The response noted that that would require changes to primary legislation, but did not give a timescale. Perhaps the Minister could update the House on that point.
Clause 2 would introduce a new offence of possessing component parts of ammunition with intent to manufacture. That is an important step that reflects the widespread recognition that the law as it stands has not kept pace with changes in technology over recent years. Again, the changes do not appear to have gone as far as they could have. For instance, the offence created by clause 2 would apply to ownership of four primary components: bullets, cartridge cases, primers and propellants. Perhaps the Minister could tell us whether he is confident that even with those changes, the law would adequately reflect the application of recent technological developments such as 3D printing and other evolving technologies that make access to deadlier weapons significantly easier for those who seek them.
It is important to note that the new offence envisaged by clause 2 would require evidence of an intent to use components to manufacture ammunition. What can the Minister, or any hon. Member who supports the changes, tell us about the standard of proof that will apply when determining intent? How might attempts to evade detection be addressed as part of efforts to tackle such offences?
Finally, we should give consideration to the many important issues the Bill does not address. Do the Government plan to establish a new independent regulator for firearms licensing? Can we have an update on progress towards implementing the Government’s commitment to a national accredited training scheme for firearms enquiry officers? When will the new curriculum be introduced? What changes, if any, do the Government plan to make to the licensing process at national level? Will changes be made to the application fees for firearms certifications, which are currently £70 and £80, in order to more accurately reflect the actual cost of processing the applications, which can exceed £500? What steps will be taken to address the apparent surge in the number of temporary permits, which, according to recent reports, is a direct consequence of backlogs in the system, in order to fully ensure that weapons do not get into the wrong hands?
Finally, how will wider policy challenges, such as the urgent need for more effective action to tackle online radicalisation, be addressed in the weeks ahead? Will the Minister consider changes to the Online Safety Bill to strengthen the law in that area? All too often in the past, loopholes and weaknesses in our firearms laws were not addressed until it was too late. If there is one thing that Members of all political persuasions can agree on, it is that gun violence must be eradicated. I look forward to hearing more detail on the Government’s plans to achieve that objective.
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey) on introducing this private Member’s Bill and, of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes) on stepping into his place with such eloquence and command of the House, as we heard just a few moments ago.
Time is relatively short, so I am not going to repeat at length a description of the provisions that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), and my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South have both already covered. Suffice it to say that, as they have laid out, the Bill intends to more tightly define the legislation around miniature rifles to ensure that a limitation of .22 is placed on their calibre and that the people operating miniature rifle ranges need to have licences.
As others have laid out, clause 2 seeks to make it clear that having an intent to assemble components into ammunition will constitute an offence. As the Bill passes through Committee, we may want to make sure that we cover not only people intending to manufacture ammunition themselves, but those facilitating others to do so. However, that is a definitional detail that I am sure we can consider properly in the course of Committee proceedings.
The shadow Minister asked a number of questions. I am sure we will discuss them more on other occasions, but 3D printed weapons—either the weapons themselves or the components thereof—are treated the same as regular weapons. We will, of course, keep that under review. He asked about the fees charged for firearms licensing; as I said to the House a week or two ago, we have committed to consulting this year—probably in the summer or early autumn—about increasing those fees to make sure that the full costs are recovered by police forces. The question of accreditation of firearms examination officers is one that I discussed with the College of Policing’s chief executive, Andy Marsh, just this week. That is an area that we would like to see taken forward by policing, and it is something that the College of Policing will consider in conjunction with the National Police Chiefs’ Council.
On the question about firearms backlogs and temporary licences, I reviewed the data on that only yesterday and, of the 43 forces, I consider four to have unacceptably high backlogs. I will be communicating with the chief constables of those four forces in the very near future.
Last week or the week before, I made a statement on the terrible shootings that we have seen; as the shadow Minister knows, the Government are waiting for the prevention of future deaths report from the Plymouth coroner so that lessons can be learned and whatever changes need to be made can be made, in order to prevent appalling tragedies such as that. We will also consider the recommendations made by the Independent Office for Police Conduct, as well as a report by the Scottish Affairs Committee prompted by a tragedy that took place on the Isle of Skye. We will consider all three things together, and the Government will respond substantively within 60 days of receiving that prevention of future deaths report, which we believe we will receive in the very near future.
I am conscious that I have strayed somewhat beyond the strict topic of the Bill, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I wanted to answer some of the shadow Minister’s questions; we can discuss the others later. I put on record the Government’s support for the Bill. It is well constructed and will certainly contribute to public safety, and I look forward to working with right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House to make this excellent Bill law as soon as possible.
Simon Baynes
With the leave of the House, I will respond to the debate.
I will be very brief, but I want to thank colleagues on both sides of the House for their support for the Bill. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) for his customary common sense, and for making the point that we are not anti-ranges but in favour of closing loopholes and increasing safety. I have to say that I was somewhat relieved to hear that he had not owned a weapon personally. [Laughter.] I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt)—from the epicentre of sport—for pointing out that we are not seeking to stifle sport, and that these restrictions are intended to create a safer environment. I thank the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) for his supportive approach. His point that laws and regulations must remain fit for purpose is of course central to our aims. He spoke movingly about the horror of gun crime, and searchingly but constructively about the details of the Bill. I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for bringing his customary vigorous commitment and his wealth of experience to supporting the Bill and its further progress through the House, and also for doing the hon. Member for Aberavon the courtesy of answering his questions.
Finally, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey) for bringing the Bill to the point at which we have been able to discuss it today. It has been an honour for me to carry on his work in the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63).
Public Sector Exit Payments (Limitation) Bill
Friday 3rd March 2023
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Public Sector Exit Payments (Limitation) Bill 2022-23 View all Public Sector Exit Payments (Limitation) Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
There is quite a history to this subject, going back far too many years. Back in 2015, the Government resolved that something must be done about obscenely high public sector exit payments in excess of £95,000 each. At that stage it was estimated that they might be costing the taxpayer at least £250 million a year. The Government legislated to make provision for that to be changed and for exit payments in excess of £95,000 to be outlawed, but the consultation was much delayed.
In the 2017 Session of Parliament, I introduced a Bill to give a bit of impetus to the Government’s agenda, requiring the necessary regulations to be brought forward. I had previously been told by the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury that the Government were “delivering our manifesto commitment” to end these big payouts, and that:
“These reforms will ensure fairness and value for money across the public sector”.
In June 2017, I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the secondary legislation would be introduced, I was told that the Government were
“currently in the process of drafting the necessary regulations.”
As not much progress seemed to have been made, I asked the question again. On 4 December 2017, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury replied that before laying the necessary regulations,
“we will bring forward a consultation in the first quarter of 2018”.
As you might anticipate, Mr Deputy Speaker, no such consultation was forthcoming, so I then asked another question to find out what was happening. I was told:
“To ensure the successful implementation of these changes, a consultation will be brought forward in the next few months.”
That takes us to May 2018, when I asked a further question. In June that year, the Chief Secretary said that the Government “remains committed” to this policy, and that the regulations would be brought forward. Indeed, they were already being drafted, but were subject to “further iteration”. We then roll forward a few years, unfortunately, because the Government ultimately introduced the regulations in February 2021, but no sooner had they introduced the regulations than they decided that the regulations were inappropriate, so the regulations were revoked. What will happen next? We were told that the Government are still intent on pursuing this policy, but nothing much has happened since.
I received a letter from the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 20 October 2021 saying that he would not be able to support the private Member’s Bill I had tabled in the previous Session, but that
“we are continuing to consider and develop new policy initiatives to manage spending on exit payments, including an additional approvals process, and mechanisms for clawing back exit payments where individuals resume employment in the public sector within a particular time frame.”
What has happened since then? In August 2022, the Government issued a consultation paper, “Public Sector Exit Payments: a new controls process for high exit payments”, with which came some draft guidance. The consultation period was expected to expire on 17 October 2022. Have we received a Government response to that consultation? No, we have not.
This whole policy is still up in the air. With the news that the second permanent secretary to the Cabinet Office, Sue Gray, has just resigned, I ask this question, perhaps rhetorically: to what extent was she involved in trying to ensure that this clear Government policy has been frustrated for so many years? In one of my meetings with one of the Chief Secretaries to the Treasury involved in this matter, I said that it seems as though the policy of restricting public sector exit payments is being sabotaged by Treasury officials and other Government officials because they do not support it. This is a good example of where the civil service seems to be out of control. The Government need to regain control of the process, as it is unacceptable that something that was in our 2015 manifesto has still not been implemented.
I am pleased to have the opportunity again today to press the Government to get a grip of the subject, because we are no longer talking about £250 million of public sector exit payments in excess of £95,000. It is now probably getting on for £1 billion, for all I know—we do not have that information. The Government seem to be in denial. They will the end, but they do not seem to will the means. That is why I tabled this Bill, and it now gives the Minister an opportunity to make more promises of good intent and to tell us when these proposals will actually be implemented. Perhaps she can also tell us how much she thinks Sue Gray will be entitled to as her public sector exit payment.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) has shown his dogged determination in bringing this issue back to the House once again. My constituents feel angry when they see these massive payouts, often to people who reappear elsewhere in the public sector on another six-figure salary. That is why it is right that the Government legislated in 2015, which was a long time ago.
Perhaps unusually, I will highlight the good practice of the BBC, which has put in place a voluntary cap. It is £150,000, though, which is 50% higher than the one set out in the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015. Of course, the BBC did that only because it had paid £450,000 to a director-general who had been in post for only 54 days. I am sure my hon. Friend will share my concern at the figures in the latest annual report that over the past two years, the BBC has paid out £127 million in severance payments, with 430 of those payments in the bracket of £100,000 to £150,000. While part of that is about reducing headcount at the BBC, which is too large and needs to deliver much better value for the taxpayer, that is still a very high level of money.
The Government did bring forward the regulations, which were passed by both Houses back in September 2020, but regrettably, in the face of complaints from the unions and others, they were withdrawn over what counted as exit payment caps. It was quite a long list, including redundancy payments, payments to reduce actuarial reduction, payments under settlement agreements, severance payments, payment in the form of shares and payments on voluntary exits. There is obviously an issue that needs to be tackled. My hon. Friend spoke about the consultation published last August, and I think we would all be keen to hear from the Minister when the Government will be bringing forward measures and responding to that consultation, because it is time we dealt with this issue. We legislated for it back in 2015. It is now eight years on, and my constituents want to see action. They want to see an end to this high level of pay-outs.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) for bringing this Bill forward. It is on an incredibly important issue that has been the subject of massive public concern, as my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) pointed out, in relation to the BBC and in national Government. It is also of concern in local government. In my area, the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority hired a chief executive officer who left after eight months and was given a £169,000 payment package last year. Such sums of money are completely incomprehensible to members of the public who pay the taxes that go to such payments. That one was at an incredibly high level that breaches even the BBC guidelines.
There is a fundamental problem. I have been chief executive of two organisations, and one of the horrible things about running an organisation is that occasionally one needs to get rid of people and make payments to them. The statutory payments are incredibly low, so we tend to give payments above that. If someone is working for a private sector organisation, they have a strong incentive to try not to give out too much money. I always capped my payments at one year’s salary. I resisted ever paying out more than that.
In the public sector, it is not your money; you are giving taxpayers’ money away, and often senior managers may well have a conflict of interest. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch did not quite refer to it as that, but a lot of senior civil servants will be conscious that they may one day themselves be in a position where they will get a payout, so there is perhaps a personal incentive to make sure that the regime is not capped in any particular way and remains generous.
This is a legitimate issue and an issue of public concern. I had not realised that the payments were so much—they are in the region of £1 billion a year now, and that is fiscally significant. These are not tiny sums of money by national standards. It is frustrating that action has not been taken, when it was in the manifesto eight years ago in 2015. The Government have been repeatedly pushing at it. The consultation that closed last year repeated the point about the £95,000 cap. I should say that with inflation at 10%, that £95,000 is becoming worth less and less, and the cap will bite in at a lower level and more and more people will be affected by it. I would certainly be keen to hear from the Government what they intend to do to finally bring this measure in and implement it. In their consultation, they suggest two different mechanisms for control processes. I would also be keen to hear whether this is just for national Government. It should apply across other parts of the public sector and local government, too. I support the intent of the Bill, and I am keen to hear what the Government have to say.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
The Public Sector Exit Payments (Limitation) Bill, brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), has reached Second Reading today, and it does have merit in its endeavour to secure value for money for the taxpayer.
I understand that the Government believe that staff exits and exit payments have an important role to play as regards organisational changes in the public sector, and these exit payments need to be looked at through a rigorous process. After all, it is taxpayers’ money that is paying for such exit payments. I also understand that the Government are seeking to reduce the use of large exit payments in the public sector and are looking to develop guidance on it. There needs to be consistency and accountability about the use of such payments.
I note that the Government consultation closed in October 2022. During the last debate on the subject, the then Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), implied that the consultation would be brought forward. I hope that the Minister today might provide an update on the outcome of the consultation and the Government’s response. I draw attention to the merit of the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
We on the Labour Benches fully recognise the importance of achieving the best possible value for our taxpayers. I remind the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) and everyone who has spoken in support of the Bill, however, that the Government introduced a public sector exit payment cap in 2020 and it did not work. The cap failed to provide value for the taxpayer, it had numerous unintended consequences, and it adversely affected dedicated, long-serving public servants who earned relatively low salaries, often less than £25,000 a year. Indeed, due to those failings, in March 2021—less than a year after introducing the regulations—the Government were forced to U-turn and revoke the cap.
Let me take each failing in turn. First, far from saving taxpayers money, the cap produced additional costs. Because the regulations treated payments under a settlement agreement, but not employment tribunal awards, as an exit payment, they created a perverse incentive for people to go to tribunal. An employment tribunal is a time-consuming and costly legal process for a public sector employer to go through, and I remind hon. Members that that cost is passed on to the taxpayer.
Secondly, the cap had other unintended consequences—for example, it did not take into account an individual pension contribution, so through no fault of their own, long-serving staff over the age of 55 who were facing redundancy were hit by the regulations. They were obliged to take their pension if they lost their job, so their final exit payment, when combined with their redundancy pay, could easily exceed the £95,000 cap under the regulations.
Finally, when they introduced the cap, the Government initially said that the regulations were designed to prevent large exit payments to so-called public sector fat cats, but in reality the cap hit low-paid workers hardest. Long-serving local government workers, who earned as little as £23,000, were pulled into the cap when their pensions were taken into account.
All that was foreseen by public sector unions, including Unison, Unite, GMB, Prospect and the Public and Commercial Services Union, when the cap was first proposed, but Ministers refused to listen. The unions were left with no choice but to take the Government to judicial review, which wasted more time and more taxpayers’ money, before the Government finally admitted that the cap had unintended consequences and should be revoked.
The Labour party will therefore not support the Bill today. I advise the Government to do the same to avoid further embarrassment.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Victoria Atkins)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for her advice, but I first congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) on securing a Second Reading of the Bill. I thank him and several other hon. Friends for their continued focus on this important issue.
We value our public sector workers and the services they provide, but it is important to take a common-sense approach when considering the terms and conditions that should be on offer in the public sector, and to strike a fair balance between the interests of employees and taxpayers. Such payments must be fair and proportionate, and value for money must be achieved for the taxpayer. That is particularly pertinent at this time, when difficult decisions have had to be taken about the public finances and we look to squeeze more out of every pound of taxpayers’ money. Indeed, one of the Prime Minister’s five pledges is to ensure that our national debt is falling, so that we can secure the future of the public services on which so many rely. That is important because in recent years the Government have been concerned about the overall spending on exit payments, and the number of very large exit payments made to individuals.
Business without Debate
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 17 March.
National Health Service Co-Funding and Co-Payment Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 17 March.
Anonymity of Suspects Bill
Resumption of adjourned debate on Question (28 October 2022), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 17 March.
NHS England (Alternative Treatment) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 17 March.
Green Belt (Protection) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 17 March.
BBC LICENCE FEE NON-PAYMENT (DECRIMINALISATION FOR OVER-75s) BILL
Resumption of adjourned debate on Question (21 October 2022), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 17 March.
Renewable Liquid Heating Fuel Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 17 March.
Public Advocate (No. 2) Bill
Resumption of adjourned debate on Question (15 July), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 17 March.
Markets and Market Traders (Review of Support) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 17 March.
British Broadcasting Corporation (Privatisation) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 17 March.
Seizure of Russian State Assets and Support for Ukraine Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 17 March.
Pensions (Extension of Automatic Enrolment) (No. 2) Bill
Bill read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63).
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wish to raise a serious constitutional concern on an issue of how Parliament works with the civil service. It has always been understood that Members of this House should be able to work with senior civil servants, and talk freely and openly with them, knowing that they are impartial and not linked to any political party.
It has been widely reported, and confirmed, that the Labour party has looked to employ a second permanent secretary to become the chief of staff for the Leader of His Majesty’s Opposition. It is the same second permanent secretary who carried out, on behalf of the then Prime Minister, an investigation into alleged gatherings on Government premises at a time of covid restrictions. There have been widespread concerns as to how this appointment by the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) will interact with the current work of the Privileges Committee, which I understand is proposing to rely on the evidence of the Sue Gray report as its essential basis.
Mr Deputy Speaker, can you please guide us on how we can raise serious procedural concerns about this matter, given that the politics of the appointment have raised such significant concerns, and tell us whether the Chair has been given any notice of any statement forthcoming from Government on this serious and urgent matter?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. I have received no notification that there will be any statements today and, as we are moving straight to the Adjournment, that is very unlikely. There is an ongoing inquiry, as she has intimated. If she goes to the Table Office and inquires there, I am sure that she will get proper advice on how she may pursue the matter further.
Major Transport Infrastructure Construction
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
Among the numerous issues I have raised in this House over the past three and a bit years, there is one that stands out both for its magnitude and spread across my constituency, as well as for the number of times I have raised it: the impact of major infrastructure projects on rural areas such as mine in Buckinghamshire.
Before I come to my substantive comments, let me say that there is nothing that takes away my firmly held belief that the Government need to see sense and end the colossal waste of money, the unwanted project, ruinous on the taxpayer and destructive of communities, that is High Speed 2. However, I will focus my comments particularly on the impact that such big infrastructure projects have on the people who have to live around their construction.
Those projects are simply not designed with those impacted in mind. No community support scheme can possibly account for the upending of rural life that they bring for residents and businesses alike—and for their local elected representatives. Nothing can prepare those communities for the misery they face on a daily basis.
A substantial element of that misery comes from the appalling state in which these projects have left the rural roads network. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for coming to see that for himself the other week. Those roads are a lifeline for my constituents to reach work, schools and hospital appointments, yet in places they remain impassable and present a clear risk to all road users.
It is no coincidence that the worst roads are concentrated around the construction compounds, being pounded every day by heavy goods vehicles in volumes and with loads that they were not built to handle. Yet the meagre funds that these projects have been willing to contribute towards their repair, after much wrangling by me, my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) and Buckinghamshire Council, do not even scratch the surface. I am grateful that East West Rail recently agreed to fund the resurfacing of a number of roads in north Buckinghamshire, but there is a huge way to go yet.
That is far from being a good neighbour. Good neighbours clear up after themselves. It is clear that the damage we are seeing could only have come from the constant churn of HGVs in and out of these compounds—compounds that have swallowed up huge amounts of arable land, depriving countless farmers of their livelihoods. To make matters worse, the project’s contractors and management have treated them with contempt, from flooded fields to unpaid bills, unannounced visits and unbelievably long waits for answers to basic questions such as, “When will you come to clear up the litter that your contractors have strewn across my driveway?”
Indeed, the approach taken by these projects to land acquisition has been poor at best, inadequate at worst. In any case, the land taken from hard-working farmers is land unlikely to be returned in its previous productive state. No one at the project can say when, or how much of, the land taken from farmers under supposedly temporary possession—we all remember income tax was meant to be temporary—will be given back. To any farmer, this signals the end of the road. How can anyone possibly run a business having lost their main asset without knowing when it will be returned?
With every delay the project incurs, another farm risks going under. Over time, this has a devastating effect on the local rural economy, which is underpinned by farming through employment and the custom they bring. Take the Gosses in Quainton, who have been kept waiting months for answers on whether their land will in fact be split in two; or Deanne Wood in Twyford and Andy Hunter in Fleet Marston, both of whom have suffered terrible flooding as a result of HS2’s poor monitoring. Robert Withey’s father sadly passed away under the enormous stress and anxiety caused by the project taking over the family farm. Then there is Joseph Hodges, whose land lies not just in the railway’s path but where the enormous infrastructure maintenance depot will be built in the coming years, a facility which has no place in such a rural location, taking vast swathes of agricultural land away from those who depend on it.
Regardless of what sort of affected business we are talking about, the project has no means to compensate them. What were the proponents of the scheme thinking? It is well established that major infrastructure projects rarely run to time or budget. HS2 takes that to a whole new level, yet has no means to compensate those who have materially suffered under its weight. One example is the Prince of Wales pub in Steeple Claydon, a village which is surrounded by compounds on all sides. With so much construction concentrated in one small area, the seemingly endless road closures that each project supposedly requires have a knock-on effect for businesses that rely on customers travelling between villages, as well as for the hardworking employees of those businesses. When East West Rail shut Queen Catherine Road and HS2 shut Addison Road last year, the Prince of Wales lost approximately £3,000 in turnover a week, which is massive for any small village pub. That is on top of the 50%, 60% and 70% increases in gas and electricity bills we have seen recently. It is further estimated that the upcoming closure of Addison Road from February to the end of July this year will cost that pub another £50,000 in lost revenue, but no compensation is on the table.
The risk of businesses being caught in a perpetual cycle of endless road closures therefore goes far beyond the business itself. It deprives residents of long-standing community assets without any recompense or even so much as an acknowledgement of how devastating such losses are. Take Andy and Dan Price’s coach company Langston & Tasker, whose business by nature relies on the local road network to operate. A contracted provider of school transport for Buckinghamshire Council, they have also been caught in the road closure shuffle. Any roads they use risk covering their vehicles in mud or even often ripping tyres off their rims, yet they, too, have never been compensated for any of the damage undoubtedly caused by both HS2 and East West Rail’s construction vehicles. All the while, schoolchildren continually turn up late, having been kept waiting at the bus stop while HS2 and East West Rail HGVs come speeding past, putting at risk anyone unlucky enough to come face to face with a driver who is more interested in putting his own schedule above the safety of other road users.
For Langston & Tasker, Andy and Dan are having to deal with huge diversions, all of which put significant strain on company finances through added fuel cost and wear and tear: Buckingham Road closed, an additional 92 miles a day, or 460 miles a week; West Street closed, an additional 110 miles a day, or 550 miles a week; Queen Catherine Road closed, an additional 20 miles a day, or 100 miles a week on the bottom line for that bus company; and West Street and Queen Catherine Road closed, an additional 182 miles a day, or 910 miles extra per week for that company. That costs fuel, that costs tyres, that costs them their business.
Behind the scenes, the project’s directors have clearly lost control of their contractors, with one going so far as to seek planning permission for a training centre near Twyford, now downgraded to a storage facility, which I am extremely disappointed to report to House has been granted by the Planning Inspectorate. How on earth can a contractor be allowed to seek permission for something not in the Act, something so substantial and unsuitable for a rural environment, something so close to residents, on top of all the existing disruption that HS2 has brought on this community? This sets the worrying precedent for all rural communities that HS2 or any other major infrastructure project will happily let their contractors, which clearly have no regard for local residents and businesses, run rampant without so much as a slap on the wrist. This simply must change. The presumption must change and be flipped from what is convenient for the contractor to what is in the interests of the local people.
Our roads have suffered under the project’s weight. Across the network we are seeing key routes fall into seemingly terminal decline—key routes that have been taken over by HGVs going to and from compounds. Whether it is HS2, East West Rail or, frankly, any other project making use of the local road network, expectations have not remotely met reality. That is a prime example of the failure to account for the cumulative impact of multiple major infrastructure projects.
Another issue is the enormous burden that these projects place on our local authority—Buckinghamshire Council. Bucks council has valiantly stepped up to the plate and pushed back against these mega-projects when the plans—whether it be road closures, safety concerns over bridges, or unwarranted and, at times, illegal hedgerow or tree removal, harm the interests of residents and businesses across my constituency and the whole country. Time and again critical information has been withheld from the council by HS2 and East West Rail relating to road closures, traffic management and a whole host of other key aspects of construction. All too often the projects do not even talk to each other, let alone the council. That is all to the cost of our council tax payers. Fundamentally, the council should not be put in this position in the first place. The council has been forced to direct more and more resources to deal with something, in the form of HS2, that it did not want in the first place. Certainly, with East West Rail, however much benefit there may be from that particular railway and a new station at Winslow, whenever they happen to be delivered, it simply cannot be worth the detrimental state that contractors have left our entire area in during the process.
Even to this day, HS2 and East West Rail claim they are good neighbours. Yet, just this morning, I learned from residents of Comerford Way and McLernon Way that the track-laying train is due to arrive between 10 pm and 4 am right at the back of their houses. The disruption from that will be immense. No one should have to put up with all these issues from the projects, from cracked foundations in their homes, flooded fields where their crops once grew, roads that become impassable with potholes, and intimidating behaviour from the projects’ security teams. I could go on, but these problems cannot; they must be tackled head-on.
All major infrastructure projects based in rural areas must recognise their impact on local communities and take their responsibilities seriously. The Department for Transport must recognise this glaring flaw. Countless businesses in my constituency are demanding compensation for unreasonable and unfair treatment from all levels of the project, from contractors to senior management. No one has been willing to step up and take responsibility for the human impact that this ever-worsening situation is causing. Indeed, HS2 and East West Rail are both operating in isolation from reality—the reality of people’s lives and livelihoods, of public safety, of businesses going under, and of billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money that the project is consuming. That cannot be allowed to continue.
As we see in the news today talk of delays and ways to try to claw back some of that money, I urge the Minister, when he responds, to give a cast iron guarantee from that Dispatch Box that, as those cuts and delays are looked at, not one cut and not one delay will impact on my constituents or anyone affected by the construction of this project, not least in the mitigations that have been promised, such as the bund at Twyford. This project, HS2, East West Rail and all other infrastructure projects must be held better to account, and they must decide to change their behaviour in favour of local people and away from their own convenience.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Mr Butler has been given permission by the Member in charge of the Adjournment debate and the Minister responding to make a short contribution, and I have been informed.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) and the Minister for giving me permission to contribute. This is a very important debate on a topic that affects many of my constituents, too. For the sake of brevity, I shall focus my remarks on the biggest problem that Aylesbury faces from transport infrastructure construction. It will come as a surprise to nobody that that is HS2.
Almost every community along the 5.9 miles of railway that are now being built through my constituency, from Aylesbury to Wendover, Stoke Mandeville to Dunsmore, is affected by traffic delays and long diversions, noise and dust—all of it caused by that construction project. For any area, this would be challenging and deeply frustrating for residents and local businesses, but Aylesbury is a town that has long needed major investment in its road network to alleviate the existing congestion caused by housing development—the building of literally thousands of new houses. The addition of the largest infrastructure project in Europe now means that we have almost constant gridlock and abject misery.
Since the construction of HS2 began in earnest, my constituents have been contacting me continually to voice their frustration at the impact of traffic on their daily lives. Local businesses cite how it is reducing footfall in the town centre. One hairdresser told me, for example, how appointments are frequently being missed at her salon as so many people are stuck in jams caused by HS2. Missed appointments mean lost revenue.
The problems of constructing the railway are particularly well known to residents living on the western side of Aylesbury. My constituents in Fairford Leys often describe trying to exit their estate as a nightmare, due to the traffic management systems in place on the A418 Oxford Road. Indeed, not long after I was elected to this place, I was furious to discover that HS2 Ltd closed part of that road and caused utter gridlock, then telling me, “Oh, we miscalculated the traffic flows.” Miscalculation might be an easy word to HS2 Ltd; it is considerably more disruptive to the people of Fairford Leys.
Indeed, Fairford Leys is a perfect microcosm of what dealing with HS2 Ltd can be like on the ground. The company has refused now to reopen a path there that is extremely popular with walkers, despite residents saying that there is no sign of any work actually taking place at that spot. Not surprisingly, this has caused great upset and annoyance. HS2 Ltd’s decision to fence off areas in that same location and put up surveillance cameras has led to residents now saying that they feel besieged by this white elephant that none of them wanted in the first place. Of course, I take these concerns up with HS2 Ltd directly, but they should not be happening in the first place.
Put simply, if people want to drive on a road, HS2 makes their life a misery; if they want to walk on a path, HS2 makes their life a misery. Such inconvenience and intransigence lose HS2 Ltd even what little goodwill it has ever had, and it is already in very short supply. Unfortunately, we have many more years of this to come. Therefore, like my constituency neighbour, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister, who knows the local area well, to tell HS2 Ltd to get a grip and deliver on its promise to be a good neighbour, not the neighbour from hell.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Huw Merriman)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) for securing this debate, and I welcome the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler). There are three reasons for my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham to be cheerful: his Bill passed through the House earlier; he has secured this debate; and it is his birthday—a very happy birthday to him.
First, I would like to recognise the change and upheaval that major infrastructure transport projects such as HS2 and East West Rail bring to the communities they pass through. I say that as someone who grew up in Buckingham. Indeed, I will be in the fine village of Padbury in Buckingham for my niece’s wedding this weekend. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham will recall the visit that he and I embarked on around the Claydons and Padbury in January, so that I could see for myself the impact of the construction project on his constituents; I am grateful for his time.
HS2 construction is approaching its peak, and so, regrettably, is the level of disruption, with road closures, lorry movements and both visible and audible signs of construction in affected areas; I recognise that. While some unwelcome impacts on local people are unavoidable in major projects, I am determined as the Minister responsible for rail to ensure that HS2 Ltd and the East West Rail Alliance do their utmost to ensure that impacts are reduced as much as is reasonably possible. I expect the communities affected by the construction of these railways to be at the heart of their delivery plans.
I want to touch on the concerns raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Buckingham and for Aylesbury with regard to the construction of these projects. Earlier this week, I met the independent HS2 construction commissioner whom we have appointed to investigate construction complaints and help us understand the impacts of HS2’s delivery. That is just one of the ways in which we monitor not just the cost and efficiency of the project but how HS2 is being delivered to minimise the adverse impacts on local people.
HS2 Ltd, the East West Rail Alliance and their contractors are required to comply with exacting environmental requirements, including a comprehensive code of construction practice, which specifies measures to minimise the full range of impacts that any construction project has on affected people and communities. We also expect them to go further, where possible. For example, I am pleased to see HS2 pushing the boundaries for construction projects in areas such as air quality and carbon management.
I know that my hon. Friends will not entirely agree, but I want to reference the legacy and opportunities of these railway projects. Through their programme of innovation, they are leaving a legacy of improvements across the construction industry and providing a breadth of opportunities for local communities up and down the country. HS2 in particular is supporting over 29,000 jobs, and local places are already identifying opportunities to use it to support the delivery of more jobs, homes, investment and economic growth. Over 1,100 apprentices have been recruited on the HS2 programme since February 2017, and more than 2,500 businesses from across the UK have delivered work on HS2. More than 97% of the HS2 supply chain is UK-registered, and more than 60% is made up of small and medium-sized enterprises.
HS2 is committed to delivering no net loss to biodiversity on phases 1 and 2a. Similarly, on the first section of East West Rail and on HS2 phase 2b, there is a commitment to deliver a biodiversity net gain of 10%, to ensure that construction not only protects but enhances the natural environment that local communities can enjoy. To date, East West Rail has delivered 1,100 hectares, or over 240 acres, of new habitats at more than 20 different sites and planted 150,000 plants and trees. For its part, HS2 Ltd has created nearly 120 new sites and planted 845,000 trees.
Let me turn to the construction challenges. Despite all the efforts, the scale of these projects brings additional challenges, and I thank my hon. Friends for giving us some examples. The most important thing is that, where challenges or issues occur, we are committed to resolving them as quickly as possible and ensuring that lessons are learned for the future. My predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson), who is sitting on the Treasury Bench, did a fantastic job, and I want to continue his fine work by engaging with my hon. Friends.
My hon. Friends raised concerns about the extra damage to roads caused by heavy construction traffic. I am aware that both HS2 Ltd and the East West Rail Company have been working closely with Buckinghamshire Council in the last year to improve the way that such road repairs are managed. They have already allocated considerable resources to dealing with this particular problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham will be aware, from a letter that he has received from East West Rail, that it has formally agreed the scope of repairs required for approximately half of Buckinghamshire Council’s construction links. The first of those repairs were completed on Queen Catherine Road and Whaddon Road at the end of last year. The remaining repairs will be ongoing through 2023. The repairs will be co-ordinated with HS2 road closures, minimising disruption to local residents. I will meet my hon. Friend, Buckinghamshire Council, HS2 and East West Rail shortly, in a face-to-face meeting, to see what else needs to be done. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury would be most welcome to join that meeting so that we can focus on matters across his constituency.
To conclude, both HS2 and East West Rail are major projects that, in time, will bring major benefits, just like the Elizabeth line. However, at this point in time it is natural that people are more focused on the problems that we encounter along the way. I assure my hon. Friends that that is a key preoccupation for us, too. My Department will continue to investigate incidents that are brought to my attention, and we will push for improvements where we feel that they are necessary. As the Minister responsible for rail, I will continue to work with my hon. Friends and others to ensure that we get the delivery of infrastructure projects right. I thank my hon. Friends for their contributions.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Statements
Annual European Union Finances Statement
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
I am today laying before Parliament, “The European Union Finances Statement 2022 on the implementation of the Withdrawal and Trade and Cooperation Agreements’” (CP 759). This is an annual publication and the 42nd in the series.
This year’s edition is the second in the publication series to cover the UK outside the EU. It continues to include an updated government estimate of the financial settlement on withdrawal from the EU, which can be found in annex A, contributing figures in Chapters 2 and 4, and annex C outlines the cumulative payments with their constituent parts, along with HM Treasury’s forecast.
This year’s edition follows the model of the previous edition, based on the European Scrutiny Committee’s recommendations on how to present the information. The cut-off date for reporting for this publication is 31 December 2022, as these statements will continue to be published every calendar year. The focus of this statement remains the implementation of the withdrawal agreement and the trade and co-operation agreement.
Similar to last year, the statement separates backward-looking reporting on the payment of net liabilities made by the UK from HM Treasury’s forecast of outstanding liabilities. Chapter 2 gives a breakdown of the April and September 2022 invoices received from the EU, and their payment during that calendar year, of £5,030,023,023.
Chapter 3 of the statement provides detail on the verification arrangements that HM Treasury has undertaken. HM Treasury works with the European Commission and its implementing partners to ensure their systems and controls over financial reporting are suitable for the specific requirements of the withdrawal agreement. Chapter 4 breaks down forecast outstanding UK net liabilities to the EU from January 2023, providing a point estimate of £13.2 billion (€14.9 billion) of the total outstanding net liability to the EU.
HM Treasury estimates that the current net value of the financial settlement is £37.9 billion. This estimate is within the original estimated range of £35 billion to £39 billion and shows a material reduction against last year’s estimate of £42.5 billion. This is primarily due to the decrease in the estimation of the UK’s share of liability for EU pensions. Taking into account the financial settlement with the EU, the Government have determined how £14.6 billion of spending by 2024-25 can be allocated to their domestic priorities, rather than be sent in contributions to the EU.
HM Treasury has presented a reconciliation to the methodology adopted in previous years to enable comparison on a consistent basis. This is provided in annex A, along with an explanation of some the principal assumptions underpinning forecast methodologies prepared for different purposes.
This statement reports on the status of EU programme association in Chapter 5.
[HCWS599]
Spring Finance Bill 2023
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Victoria Atkins)
The spring Finance Bill 2023 will be published on 23 March. Explanatory notes on the Bill will be available in the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office.
As usual, a full copy of the Budget resolutions will be made available after the Chancellor’s Budget statement on 15 March. This includes resolutions made under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968 for those measures that are expected to come into effect ahead of Finance Bill Royal Assent.
In line with the approach to tax policy making set out in the Government’s documents “Tax Policy Making: a new approach”, published in 2010, and “The new Budget timetable and the tax policy making process”, published in 2017, the Government published draft legislation for the spring Finance Bill 2023 on 22 July 2022, which is available on gov.uk.
[HCWS600]
National Park Authorities: Additional Funding
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Trudy Harrison)
Our national parks protect some of our most precious landscapes and wildlife. The Government are providing £4.4 million in additional funding to the country’s 10 national park authorities to support them to deliver their services. This represents a 9% increase on their annual core grant. The Government provided an uplift on the core grant for AONBs—areas of outstanding natural beauty— last year.
The funding will help protect vital assets and will provide more opportunities for people to enjoy national parks. It could also be used to support access and engagement activities such as the creation of new trails, residential programmes and mobility schemes. It will support programmes helping to conserve the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of these protected landscapes.
In addition, the Government’s Farming in Protected Landscapes scheme will also be extended until March 2025. The programme has been delivered across 10 national parks and 34 AONBs since 2021. This will enable national park authorities and local AONB teams to continue delivering outcomes for nature, climate, people and place.
[HCWS598]
House of Lords
Pensions Dashboards (Prohibition of Indemnification) Bill
Friday 3rd March 2023
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Pensions Dashboards (Prohibition of Indemnification) Act 2023 View all Pensions Dashboards (Prohibition of Indemnification) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, in moving that the Pensions Dashboards (Prohibition of Indemnification) Bill be read a second time, I reassure noble Lords that these dashboards are totally different from the ones in the REUL Bill which have generated such excitement this week.
After gathering significant cross-party support in the other place, where Mary Robinson successfully steered the Bill through the parliamentary process, I am hopeful that it will receive a similarly positive reaction here. This is a simple yet important measure designed to safeguard the interests of those saving for their pension.
By way of background, I have a long-standing interest in pensions legislation, having spoken in the 1970s when Barbara Castle introduced the state earnings-related pension scheme, and more recently speaking about the potential benefits of the pensions dashboard during the passage of the pensions Act 2021. I see in their places today several aficionados from that debate.
With record numbers of people saving for retirement, it is more important than ever that people understand their pensions information and prepare for financial security in later life. Pensions dashboards will be digital tools available free of charge to consumers, designed to bring together individuals’ different pensions, including the state pension, in one place online. This will fundamentally change the way that people interact with their pensions, thereby helping to support more informed retirement planning.
As my noble friend the Minister will confirm, the Government continue to work closely with industry and their key delivery partners, such as the Pensions Dashboards Programme—which is part of the Money and Pensions Service—the Pensions Regulator and the Financial Conduct Authority, to progress this dashboards project. I am grateful to my noble friend for arranging meetings for noble Lords with the FCA to update us on that progress, and I am grateful to his officials for their briefing for this debate.
While it is true that millions of people are saving for their retirement, it is also the case that consumers are not generally well engaged with their different pensions. This has been highlighted by the FCA, which estimates that 53% of adults contributing to a defined contribution pension have not reviewed how much their DC pension pots are worth in the last 12 months. In addition to this, the Pensions Policy Institute estimates that over 2.8 million pension pots were considered to be lost in 2022, representing an increase of 73% since 2018. Pensions dashboards can help to address this issue by bringing together people’s various pensions, including state pension, in one place online. This will reconnect savers with their lost or forgotten pension pots, and by doing so will help people plan for their well-deserved retirement.
There is a requirement in the Pension Schemes Act 2021 for the Money and Pensions Service to provide a pensions dashboard service. This was a welcome addition to that Act which I pressed for at the time, along with other noble Lords. Moreover, it will also be possible for others to enter the market and provide dashboards, which will be bound by requirements set out in the Pensions Dashboards Regulations and regulated by the FCA. That will provide scope for innovation, helping to engage a broad range of users and meet the varied needs of the millions of people with pensions savings. Importantly, individuals will see the same information regardless of which dashboard service they use, and robust rules will be in place to ensure consumers’ interests are at the forefront of all dashboards.
The Pensions Dashboards Regulations 2022, which were approved by this House in November last year and subsequently came into force in December, place requirements for occupational pension schemes to be connected to a digital ecosystem designed by the Money and Pensions Service. These requirements include, for example, the need for pension schemes and providers to continue to comply with the connection, security and technical standards published from time to time by the Money and Pensions Service. There are also requirements relating to the provision of pensions information at the request of a pension scheme member.
Under the Pensions Dashboards Regulations, the Pensions Regulator may, if necessary, take enforcement action against trustees or managers of occupational pension schemes in the event of non-compliance. For each breach of the regulations, this could result in penalties being imposed of up to £5,000 for individuals or up to £50,000 in other cases, such as for corporate trustees. These are significant penalties, but the House may be surprised to hear that there is nothing in the legislation which prohibits the trustees or managers being reimbursed for those penalties using the assets of the pension scheme. My noble friend the Minister can confirm, but I understand that this was simply an oversight during the passage of the Pension Schemes Act 2021, and the omission escaped the eagle eyes of noble Lords scrutinising the Bill.
My Bill addresses this critical issue by making it a criminal offence for trustees or managers of occupational pension schemes to reimburse themselves from the assets of the pension scheme for penalties imposed for compliance breaches under the Pensions Dashboards Regulations. If a trustee or manager was found guilty of this offence, the Bill’s provisions would allow for a maximum sentence of up to two years in prison, or a fine, or both. This is intended to provide an effective deterrent to such unscrupulous behaviour.
The Bill does not place any new costs or requirements on occupational pension schemes but rather works by extending existing legislation which provides for a similar prohibition in a number of other areas of pensions legislation, including automatic enrolment. I hope noble Lords agree that it increases protection for pension savers from any unscrupulous persons. I look forward to working with the Minister and other noble Lords as we aim to secure its swift passage through the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Young on his excellent introduction and sponsorship of this important but limited Bill. I also congratulate our honourable friend Mary Robinson on introducing it in the other place. I am delighted that the Government and my noble friends on the Front Bench are supporting this Bill.
As my noble friend Lord Young has explained, the pensions dashboard should be, and I hope will be, an important element of the pensions landscape for ordinary people who have pensions savings and perhaps wish to know more about what they have in their pension fund. Given the complexities of pensions, and even with contributions going into them, so many people do not really understand or know quite how much money is going in on their behalf or how much is accumulating for them. So there is a job of work to do on financial education.
What is so important is that, once people can see all their pension information, they can be assured that the system in place to oversee the dashboards protects them. This Bill is an added element of the armoury that is so important in ensuring that rogue operators of a pensions dashboard would not be able to cover up their mistakes or pay for their mistakes by taking money out of individuals’ pension funds. It is hard to see how someone would argue against the measures in the Bill, which simply will mean that, if the person providing the dashboard or responsible for the dashboard is fined by the regulator for doing something against the rules, they cannot just take money out of the ordinary customers’ pension funds but would have to pay it themselves. Although my noble friend considers the penalties significant, one might argue whether a £5,000 fine, or even a £50,000 fine for a corporate, is sufficient to deter wrongdoing. I think the level of penalties is applicable across pensions and will, I hope, be sufficient to ensure that we have a safe system.
I have given my noble friend notice of a few questions I have about the dashboard, which are very important in terms of the programme itself, especially after the announcement yesterday by our honourable friend Laura Trott, the Pensions Minister, that the dashboard programme is going to be reset—whatever that might mean; we will find out soon.
The first question, which relates to the clear need to delay the introduction of this long-awaited measure, is on the security of Verify, or its alternative system, which is designed to protect members’ data. I do not know if my noble friend could update the House on that. Some of the problems were due to what we have learned recently about the errors in state pension records, especially for women, where many women have found that the information is incorrect and, in some cases, has been for many years—they were already in retirement and still had not had the correct amount. How is the department getting on with its correction exercise?
The other concern might be around the records and readiness of public sector pension schemes to connect to the dashboards. With the McCloud remedy needing to be implemented, there are going to be significant administration issues. Could my noble friend give us any comfort on that or an indication of timescales? I hope he can assure us that at least the Nest Pensions fund is ready for connection. That is a very large one, set up by the Government to cater for low-paid workers and people with small amounts of pension.
Finally, I ask for clarity from my noble friend on an issue I have raised so many times in this House, and have tried to insert in the legislation as it has been going through. What is the status of the checks on the accuracy of all pensions data? I understand that the fines we are discussing may be imposed if people fail to connect to a dashboard or do not have a service that works properly on the dashboard, but are there also fines and penalties for people who load incorrect data? It is not just about loading the information. Is there any requirement in law—and who would it fall upon and what would be the penalties for failure—to ensure that the pension information for each person has been checked and verified and is as accurate as that process could produce?
Overall, I welcome the Bill and am pleased that the Government are supporting it. I wish it safe, quick passage through the House.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, I can be very brief. We support this Bill and congratulate the honourable Mary Robinson MP on seeing the necessity for it, devising it and seeing its safe passage through the Commons. During that passage, the Bill attracted widespread and enthusiastic support from all sides, including from the Government themselves.
The Bill clearly fixes what could have been an extremely unfortunate loophole, and I confess to some chagrin that we did not spot the loophole at an earlier stage. I had thought that we had been pretty thorough—and lengthy—in our scrutiny. It is surely obvious that we should prevent trustees or fund managers who are fined for breach of the dashboard regulations reimbursing themselves from the funds of which they are trustees or managers. Equivalent prohibitions already exist for other aspects of pensions governance, and we clearly need to add the Bill’s prohibitions to that list.
We would also like to speed the progress of this Bill through this House, ideally unamended, to ensure that the loophole is closed quickly. We want to be able to prevent, for example, reimbursements for fines levied for failures to meet the required target dates for connection to the MaPS dashboard—although, as the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, just pointed out, that may not be quite so pressing as it was before yesterday.
Having said all that, there are just a few areas in which I would welcome a little more detail from the noble Lord, Lord Young, who has introduced this Bill with his customary clarity and fluency. I understand that for a breach of the dashboard regulations, such as a failure to connect to MaPS on time, TPR can issue a penalty notice of up to £5,000 where the trustee or manager is an individual, or up to £50,000 where the person is a body corporate. These do not seem to me to be very large amounts, especially given the resources available to large pension funds. How were these amounts decided on and why is it thought they will prove an adequate deterrent to noncompliance with the regulations?
I understand that, under the terms of the Bill in Clause 1, the penalty imposed for use of the pension funds to reimburse managers for fines imposed for breach of the regulations would be, on summary conviction, a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum and, if convicted on indictment, a maximum of a two-year prison sentence, a fine or both. What is the level of the statutory maximum fine, is there is a similar limit to the fine levied for conviction on indictment—because that does not does not appear to be clear in the Bill—and could the noble Lord say, for these penalties, as for the penalties for breach of the regulations themselves, how they were arrived at and how they were assessed as providing sufficient punishment for breaching, or disincentive to breach, the regulations? Finally, I ask the noble Lord for reassurance that the extent of the recovery of any funds illegally diverted as reimbursement for fines will be taken into account when deciding the appropriate penalty for that action.
I conclude by once again congratulating Mary Robinson and the noble Lord, Lord Young, on this Bill and wishing it a speedy passage.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this Second Reading debate and, in doing so, I declare my financial services interests as set out in the register. I congratulate Mary Robinson on securing this Private Member’s Bill: it is the model of what a Private Member’s Bill should do. My noble friend Lord Young said in his excellent introduction that it was specific and effective—and it is certainly that. Again, congratulations to Mary Robinson, my noble friend Lord Young and everybody who has helped in the preparation of the Bill to get it to this stage.
Pensions have somewhat lost their sheen since perhaps the 1970s, when my noble friend Lord Young spoke about them, yet, when you look at what is behind a pension, it still makes sense today. It is still a positive proposition to have something separate from the employer, protected by a trust structure, to set you up for your retirement. But, since the development of pensions, in relatively recent history, Equitable, Maxwell, Brown and other issues have taken the sheen off that pensions promise—but they should not. Perhaps there is a need for a great big branding exercise to be done.
Auto-enrolment has certainly played its part: perhaps we should all consider how best to rebrand what is fundamentally a very positive proposition for people to connect and commit to as early as possible in their working lives to ensure that security when they reach the age of retirement, be that 65, 66, 67, 68—or whenever that may come to all of us. To my noble friends the Minister and Lord Young, I say: should we not consider effective means to increase our efforts to promote the whole proposition of pensions as a positive means, which is potentially in need of rethinking but essentially a very good thing to have as part of our society and economy?
Moving to the issue at hand of dashboards, the simple and effective measure in the Bill is just that. Will my noble friend Lord Young or the Minister confirm that it simply brings into line the proposition which runs through all pensions legislation when it comes to the behaviour of trustees in such situations, so it is a clear and obvious reset of what the 2021 Act did not include? The great possibilities of pensions dashboards are in what we are able to do with data. If we have clear and coherent data and people are able to have it in real time on their devices, that can only be a positive thing, if the right levels of education, communication and understanding can also be put into that mix.
As my noble friend Lady Altmann asked: what is being done to ensure that that data is robust, reliable, consistent and the complete picture? It is true in this instance, but also across all that we may be able to do in fintech with the new technologies we have available to us, that it is only as good as the quality of the data that underpins it, and dashboards are the obvious, clear example in front of us today. That data point is critical to consider at every point to ensure that, when an individual looks at their dashboard, they can know that that is the real-time, accurate representation of what they hold across all their pension pots.
Finally, on the question of digital ID, again it is pertinent in this instance, as it is to everything we seek to do in a digital economy for the UK. None of this will work effectively unless we get to grips with digital ID. So is the Minister satisfied with the progress we are making on digital ID for the UK? Where are we currently and where will the responsibility for digital ID rest, with the changing departmental structure across Whitehall? Can he urge ministerial colleagues to further increase the pace in this digital ID work, because it is critical to so much of what we are trying to achieve? It must be secure, it must be reliable, it must cover all the issues around privacy, and we still have quite a journey to cover on that issue.
To conclude, again I offer congratulations to my noble friend Lord Young and Mary Robinson. This is a specific, clear and effective Private Member’s Bill. I wish it swift, safe speed into statute.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for introducing this Bill, and all noble Lords who have contributed. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Young, for his characteristically clear introduction. I commend him on his many years of service in the interests of debating pensions and, like him, I say it is nice to have those of us interested in pensions dashboards back together again. It is always good to get the band back together again, even if the pensions dashboards crew is about as un-rock and roll as it is possible to be. But it is lovely to be here today.
I have a long speech on the importance of pensions, which I am going to spare your Lordships this morning because, if nothing else, the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, has done a fine job of this and it is a very narrow Bill today. But since the discussion has ranged a bit more widely, I will say that we were supportive of the idea of pensions dashboards in the original legislation but that support came with a number of questions. Like so many things, things can be a good idea, but how they are done is crucial to whether they end up being a good idea. We raised questions about ID, data security, governance and redress. What happens when things go wrong? This is an unusual situation, where tens of billions of pounds of assets will be mandated by the state to be released and put on to this central spot. If something goes wrong, this is potentially very serious indeed.
I think that was amplified by the Government’s insistence on going with commercial dashboards from the outset. This House had to press to insist that a public dashboard be there from day one, but I still think the Government’s attachment to commercial dashboards raises some risks. Imagine for moment that you are a commercial pensions company. You can sit somebody down, show them your dashboard and say, “Look at your pots all over here. Let’s gather them all into one tidy pot in this corner. Should I just move them into this space?” It does not take very much imagination to consider the possibilities for mis-selling even within what is legal. Those questions have been raised and have yet to be satisfactorily answered.
The principle of today’s Bill is very simple. It is that the interests of pension scheme members should be protected from the actions of rogue trustees and others who fail in their statutory duties. The Bill, as we have heard, will make it a criminal offence for a trustee or scheme manager who is given a penalty for failing in their duties to dip into scheme funds to pay the penalty. Inasmuch as it aligns the position in relation to penalties for failure to fulfil dashboard requirements with those for other comparable penalties, the Bill seems straightforward and we are very happy to support it.
But I would like to add a few brief questions to those put to the noble Lord, Lord Young, and the Minister may wish to reflect his view as well, given the Government’s wholehearted support of this Private Member’s Bill. First, can somebody confirm to the House that this Bill simply replicates for dashboard-related breaches the prohibition in the Pensions Act 2004 which prevents trustees or managers using member funds to pay regulatory penalties; in other words, that there is nothing novel hidden in here?
Secondly, why was the provision not included in the Pension Schemes Act 2021? Was it, as the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Sharkey, have suggested, simply an oversight? If so, I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, should beat himself up. I do not think it is his job to bury in the small print details of how things may align with the original legislation. I certainly feel no guilt at all. Frankly, I am prone to feeling guilt but, on this occasion, I feel absolutely fine.
Thirdly, will it be permissible for trustees to be covered by indemnity insurance paid for out of scheme funds? I think this can be done elsewhere.
On a related point, when we debated the Pensions Dashboards Regulations on 15 November 2022, the then Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, said
“we accept that the regulatory requirements on trustees have grown a great deal over the years”.—[Official Report, 15/11/22; col. 839.]
It is always the case that rogue trustees can simply ignore the rules, but has the DWP made any assessment of whether there is a point at which the demands and risks of trusteeship might deter individuals and lead to a growth in the use of corporate trustees, and whether that might lead to a reduction in the important diversity of trustee experience which may be necessary to protect members’ interests?
My final question was going to be to ask whether trustees are ready for the first connection deadline on 31 August 2023. However—as the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, rightly pointed out—yesterday, from a clear blue sky, dropped a Written Ministerial Statement which was just 418 words long. It calmly and simply said that additional time would be needed to deliver the technology and for the
“industry to help facilitate the successful connection of a wide range of different IT systems to the dashboards digital architecture.”
The Minister continued:
“Given these delays, I have initiated a reset of the Pensions Dashboards Programme in which DWP will play a full role. The new Chair of the Programme Board will develop a new plan for delivery.”
The Statement also said:
“DWP will legislate at the earliest opportunity to amend the timing of these obligations”.
We do not know, therefore, when the start date will be, but given that we are not promised another update before the Summer Recess, presumably it is not imminent. Can somebody, either the mover or perhaps the Minister, tell the House what on earth has gone wrong? Is it technical? Is it problems with schemes? Is it data?
When did the Government know? Did they know when this Bill was going through another place just recently? Did they know when we debated the regulations in November in some considerable detail? I am really interested to know to what extent the problems associated with creating commercial dashboards and connecting them to the dashboard architecture from day one have contributed to the need for a reset. What does it mean that
“DWP will play a full role”
in the new programme? Was it not playing a full role already? Has that changed?
When will the Government legislate to delay the programme? Are there plans to amend, for example, the many forthcoming pensions regulations we have before us? Also, I wonder, given that there is now no urgency at all, would government legislation not be a better way to deal even with the matters under debate today than a Private Member’s Bill which has the wholehearted support of the Government?
The Government were so confident of being able to meet their dashboards timetable—–on which we challenged them—that they hardwired the connection dates for schemes into the schedule. It says that the “staging deadline” for
“master trust schemes that provide money purchase benefits only”
for 20,000 or more relevant members is 31 August 2023, and so on. They were that confident. But since then, because that was published, pension schemes have spent time and money scrabbling to get ready for those hard deadlines. I suspect the irony will strike them that we in Parliament are debating a Bill designed to ensure that trustees pay penalties if they do not get their schemes connected to the dashboards in a timely and appropriate manner and the DWP just slips out a Written Statement saying, “You know what, we are not going to make it for August, after all. We are just going to reset the programme and we will give you some kind of update before the summer.”
I know that things go wrong. I get this. I have been a special adviser in government. I have been involved in enough programmes. But when things go wrong, I think the House is owed an explanation of exactly what went wrong. I suggest to the Minister that one thing he might usefully do is to forward to his colleagues in another place the proceedings of this House on the original legislation, the debates on the regulations and the associated debates. The Government were warned that this was incredibly complex. They were warned about the issues about data, ID and all kinds of things. I think this may be a good opportunity, since we are to have a pause enforced, for the Minister to tell the House that he will take the opportunity both to engage with the concerns raised around the House and to brief the House on how these are going to be addressed. I look forward to the replies.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Young on his excellent introduction to the Bill. My noble friend has made it clear to the House that the Bill will increase protection for pension savers. It has the full backing of His Majesty’s Government, and it gives me great pleasure to speak in support of it today.
The introduction of automatic enrolment has been a resounding success in helping people save for retirement, on a scale which was hard to imagine just 10 years ago. It has normalised workplace pension saving, with more than 10.8 million workers being enrolled into a workplace pension to date, and £33 billion more saved in real terms in 2021 than in 2012.
This success has, at the same time, resulted in challenges for the Government, consumers and the pensions industry more broadly. Research by Aegon found that 73% of people have multiple retirement or pension plans. While it is usual for people to move around the labour market throughout their working lives, this can make it difficult for people to keep track of what they have saved. Indeed, research by Scottish Widows in October 2022 has shown that nearly half of workplace pension holders do not know how many pension pots they hold with previous employers.
Pensions dashboards will help to address these issues—and I will come back to the point raised on dashboards. They will put the saver in control and allow them to view information about their pensions, including the state pension, in one place online. By doing so, dashboards will enable savers to be reunited with pension pots they may have lost or forgotten about over many years. To highlight how significant the total value of lost pots may be, the Pensions Policy Institute suggested in its paper last year that it could be as high as £26.6 billion.
The Pensions Dashboards Programme is supervised by the Money and Pensions Service to deliver the technology underpinning dashboards. This is far from a straightforward task. It involves connecting thousands of pension schemes so that millions of consumers are able to search for their pensions.
Yesterday, as has been mentioned in the House this morning, the Government published a Written Ministerial Statement which explained that additional time is needed to deliver the complex and technical solutions to enable the connection of pension providers and schemes, in accordance with the connection deadlines set out in the Pensions Dashboards Regulations 2022 and the Financial Conduct Authority’s corresponding rules for pension providers. Given these delays, my honourable friend in the other place, the Minister for Pensions, has initiated a reset of the Pensions Dashboards Programme, in which the DWP will play a full role. This will include a new chair of the programme board and the development of a new plan for delivery.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, spoke about the importance of ensuring 100% quality and security for these dashboards. I cannot give her more detail on precisely what the reset will mean, which was the gist of her question, but the DWP will play more of a part in terms of those who are managing the dashboard, including MaPS—she will know more about that. But I will endeavour to update her and the House as soon as I can on progress. Obviously, the WMS has just come out, but she rightly asked these questions and that is as much as I can tell her.
The Government will also amend the Pensions Dashboards Regulations 2022 at the earliest opportunity to provide the pensions industry with clarity about the timings of its legal obligations. The Government will ensure that the pensions industry has adequate time and the necessary technical information to prepare for any revised connection deadlines. The Minister for Pensions will provide a further update to Parliament before the Summer Recess, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, mentioned.
However, none of this detracts from the importance of this Bill, which is needed irrespective of the timeline for delivery. The Pensions Dashboards Regulations 2022 set out detailed requirements for occupational pension schemes to be connected to a digital ecosystem, which will enable the provision of pensions information at the request of a pension scheme member. As set out in the Written Ministerial Statement, this framework for dashboards set out in the regulations remains fit for purpose. The Pensions Regulator may take enforcement action for non-compliance with any of the requirements in part 3 of the Pensions Dashboards Regulations. Once connected to the dashboards ecosystem, occupational pension schemes may be in breach of the regulations—for instance, if they fail to maintain connection to the digital architecture or fail to provide information within the timeframe set out in the regulations. In the event of non-compliance, the Pensions Regulator may issue penalty notices of up to £5,000 for individuals or up to £50,000 in other cases, such as those involving corporate trustees. Several questions were raised in this respect, notably by my noble friend Lady Altmann and the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey.
Having covered the basic penalties, I add that the Pensions Regulator is required by the Regulators’ Code to take a proportionate, consistent and targeted approach to enforcement. However, in the event of multiple compliance breaches, the regulations allow TPR to issue multiple penalty notices within the same document. The Pensions Regulator’s consultation on its compliance and enforcement policy closed on 24 February 2023. In that consultation, TPR set out its intention to consider the total amount of any penalties issued in the light of the circumstances of the breaches and the impact they have had. TPR expects to publish its consultation response and final compliance by the summer. Hopefully, this helps to answer the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey. We feel that the levels are consistent with other areas of pensions legislation. He may know more about that than me, but that is what we believe. Regarding the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, there is nothing novel in the approach we are taking in this respect.
My noble friends Lord Holmes and Lady Altmann raised the important issue of data accuracy checks. It is critical that savers be able to trust the information in front of them. Trustees and managers have existing legal obligations in respect of data quality, including the accuracy principle under UK GDPR, which requires organisations to ensure that data remains accurate and up to date. The Pensions Regulator has set out its expectations on data quality in its record-keeping guidance. This includes that data be measured at least once a year. The regulator’s guidance on dashboards is also clear that trustees and managers must ensure that the values provided are accurate, and it urges them to work with administrators to improve data if required.
Bringing us back to base, this Bill from my noble friend Lord Young focuses on solving one key issue: that current pensions legislation does not prevent a trustee or manager being reimbursed for these penalties using funds from the pension scheme. The Bill increases protection for pension savers by prohibiting trustees and managers of occupational personal pension schemes from being reimbursed out of scheme asset in respect of penalties imposed on them for non-compliance with the Pensions Dashboards Regulations. The Bill would achieve this by amending Section 256 of the Pensions Act 2004, which already provides similar prohibition in other areas of pensions legislation. I confirm to my noble friend Lord Young—the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, mentioned this as well—that that was indeed an oversight. It did indeed escape the eagle-eyed lawyers—including that of the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, so I am sure that he can be forgiven.
Under the Bill’s proposals, if a trustee or manager were to be reimbursed, and knew or had reasonable grounds to believe that they had been so reimbursed, they would be guilty of a criminal offence unless they had taken all reasonable steps to ensure that they were not so reimbursed. Should a trustee or manager be found guilty, the provisions of the Bill allow a maximum sentence of up to two years in prison, or a fine, or both. Additionally, were any amount to be paid out of the assets of a scheme in such a way, the Pensions Regulator would have the power to issue civil penalties to any trustee or manager which fails to take all reasonable steps to secure compliance.
The Bill has been drafted to make provision across the United Kingdom. As noble Lords will know, pensions policy is transferred to the Northern Ireland Assembly and the usual process would be for the Assembly to provide a legislative consent Motion for any provision relating to a transferred area. However, the Government’s position is that if the Northern Ireland Assembly is unable to consider the matter before the final amending stage of the Bill, it should proceed unamended. Ultimately, the Government are of the view that it would be wrong for these protections not to extend to pension members in Northern Ireland.
A number of questions were raised in relation to and beyond this Bill. My noble friend Lady Altmann asked about NEST and its readiness for connection. The announcement yesterday allows the programme to develop a firmer footing and put it on a path to successful delivery, including ensuring that all data providers can connect safely and securely. The programme and DWP have been in regular contact with NEST and will continue to be over the coming months, to support it in preparing to meet its connection duties when the revised timeline is in place.
My noble friend Lady Altmann also asked about One Login, the successor to Verify. As she may know, there are currently more than 340 services on GOV.UK, with around 190 accounts accessed via 44 different sign-in methods. GOV.UK One Login will replace these with a single ubiquitous way for users to sign in and prove their identity. It will improve inclusion and save millions of pounds through collaboration, efficient service delivery and tackling fraud across departmental boundaries. Development of GOV.UK One Login is progressing at pace, and I can reassure my noble friend Lord Holmes that the core of the system has been launched—its sign-in element, a web-based identity verification journey and a fast-track identity-checking app. There are currently five live services using One Login, with more services expected to onboard in 2023-24. The Cabinet Office and the Government Digital Service are working closely with central government departments to ensure that the programme meets their and their users’ needs.
My noble friend Lady Altmann asked about security and the alternative to Verify. The Pensions Dashboards Programme has procured an interim identity service provider, whose contract runs until January 2024. The service it provides is aligned with the Government Digital Service’s good practice guide. The Money and Pensions Service is engaging with officials in the Cabinet Office and the Government Digital Service, as well as the wider market, building on the engagement work undertaken in 2020, to identify all possible options that may comprise its new identity service delivery model.
Returning to the Bill, the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, raised an important point about trustees using schemes to buy indemnity insurance. I can reassure her that the Bill would make it a specific criminal offence for pension scheme trustees or managers to reimburse themselves using the assets of the pension scheme in respect of penalties. It also includes taking out an indemnity policy but having the cost of that reimbursed through the scheme.
The noble Baroness also asked about—I am paraphrasing what she said—a chilling effect, particularly for non-professional trustees; it is a very good point. The Government acknowledge that many trustees do an excellent job, often on a voluntary basis. The vast majority of trustees are in schemes with fewer than 99 members and so would be outside the scope of these regulations unless they connected to pensions dashboards voluntarily. While we accept that the regulatory requirements on trustees have grown a great deal over the years, this is only right given what is at stake, since we are talking about the pensions savings of millions of people. The Pensions Regulator will provide an extensive programme of communications to support trustees to meet the requirements in the pensions dashboards regulations.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, asked about the statutory maximum fine in relation to summary conviction. I may have covered that, but I will write to him if I have not answered the question; I hope that is helpful.
To conclude, I am firm in my view that everyone rightfully deserves protection for their pension savings; we all know that, and that is exactly what the Bill does. It is a simple Bill in that it will extend a prohibition in existing legislation rather than placing new requirements or additional costs on to occupational pension schemes. However, the proposals under the Bill are powerful enough to swiftly deter any rogue actors from reimbursing themselves using pension assets that belong to hard-working people. I hope that the House recognises that and supports its passage today.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and for their support for this modest legislation. As my noble friend Lady Altmann said, the Bill is impossible to oppose, and I hope that optimistic forecast is carried out. She raised issues about penalties. My noble friend the Minister answered that, but so far as this Bill is concerned it seems to me that two years in prison is quite a severe deterrent for anyone who seeks to break the rule set out in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, fired at me four technical questions about penalties, and I am grateful to him. Fortunately, the bullets were intercepted by my noble friend the Minister, who answered them. As we have heard, if by any chance the replies do not come up to standard, my noble friend has promised to write to the noble Lord.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Holmes, who reminded us about the success of auto-enrolment. I agree with what he said about the need to promote early investment in pensions to get the benefit of the magic of compound interest. He also touched on a subject close to my heart; namely, digital identification and the history of the Verify programme. My noble friend the Minister dealt with that, but as I understand it, rather than wait for the Government to come up with their solution, the programme dashboard is developing an interim programme which will be compatible with the one the Government end up with.
Those who came along to listen to the longer speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, on pensions will have been disappointed, as she decided not to deliver it. We look forward to hearing that on a separate occasion. She referred to the Written Ministerial Statement announcing a delay in the programme. I want to congratulate the Whitehall wordsmith who came up with the expression “initiated a reset”. I think the train operating companies will want to follow that example, and I look forward to hearing on Monday that Great Western Railway has “initiated a reset” to the 8.14 from Cookham to Paddington.
Finally, I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister, who answered, I hope, all the questions that were theoretically directed at me. He reminded us of the large sum of money—£26 billion—represented by “lost” pensions and reminded us about the complexity of the plumbing involved in getting the dashboard going. I am also very grateful to him for his comprehensive reply to the debate and for the Government’s support.
Employment (Allocation of Tips) Bill
Friday 3rd March 2023
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Employment (Allocation of Tips) Act 2023 View all Employment (Allocation of Tips) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, this is a Bill entirely about fairness. Indeed, a Member of the other House said to me only this morning, “What is there not to like?”. It was started in the other place by my honourable friend the Member for Watford, Dean Russell, and then continued—for reasons which I will not bore you with—by my honourable friend the Member for Ynys Môn, Virginia Crosbie. What the Bill does is quite simple: it creates a legal obligation on employers to pass on tips, gratuities, service charges—for ease of reference, I shall refer to all these as “tips”—to employees in full. The only deductions permitted are those required or permitted under other statutory provisions, specifically tax law.
Which of us has not wondered, or indeed asked, a waitress or waiter whether that person gets the extortionate service charges that often end up on the end of our Bills? We do not expect businesses to take a slice of anything we pay for service, so this Bill will create a level playing field for businesses that already pass on tips to workers in a fair and transparent way. At the core of the Bill is the creation of a legal obligation for employers to distribute all tips to workers without any deductions; this includes mandatory and discretionary service charges which are added automatically on to customers’ Bills by some hospitality venues. When customers pay service charges, they—we—expect them to go to workers in full, and they jolly well should.
Ensuring that tips are passed on to workers in full, with no deductions by employers, could make a real difference to workers’ incomes. We are talking typically about workers in hospitality such as restaurants, but it would also apply elsewhere; for instance, in taxi services such as Uber, croupiers in casinos or hairdressers. Where employers receive tips directly from customers or have control or significant influence over the distribution of tips which workers receive directly, the Bill will create that legal obligation for them to distribute those tips to workers in a fair and transparent manner. The obligation will attach to the total amount of the qualifying tips paid at, or otherwise attributable to, a place of business of the employer.
To clarify, the Bill does not cover tips which employers do not receive or have control or significant influence over. For example, if workers receive cash tips, perhaps put in a physical pot, and divide them between themselves without any control or significant influence from the employer, those tips are not affected by the Bill. It will not interfere with existing tipping arrangements where employers do not influence or make deductions from tip allocations.
It is important that we retain flexibility for employers to choose how to distribute tips so long as that distribution is fair. Some employers may choose to use a tronc system to distribute tips—I actually knew what a tronc system was, but, for clarity, it is an arrangement commonly used in the hospitality sector where an employer delegates the collection, allocation, and distribution of tips to a person or persons who are known as a “tronc master” or a “tronc operator”; that person is often, in a restaurant for instance, the head waiter. The Bill does not seek to regulate the operators of independent tronc systems, although the employer will need to be satisfied that it is fair overall to make arrangements for distribution through a tronc.
The Bill includes provisions for the Secretary of State to issue a statutory code of practice which will promote fairness and transparency in relation to the distribution of qualifying tips, gratuities and service charges, and help tribunals determine whether it is fair for an employer to make certain tronc arrangements. Employment tribunals must have regard to relevant provisions of the code when determining whether an allocation of tips, or making certain tronc arrangements, is fair, and the code of practice will consider some of the factors which may be relevant to fairness.
The reason for the code is to capture the nuances of fair tipping practices across and within sectors. We need to ensure that we put in place a framework that appreciates the differences from business to business and allows flexibility. However, to reassure noble Peers, there will be a full consultation on the code with subsequent approval by both Houses—or not, of course.
Transparency is a crucial part of the Bill and information plays a significant role. The Bill creates an obligation on employers to have a written policy on dealing with tips, which must be made available to all workers. In order for workers to understand whether their tips have been distributed fairly, the Bill also creates a new right for workers to make a request for information relating to their individual tipping record and the overall amount of tips that the business has received in a given time period. This does not add any onerous obligations or regulations on an employer or business—apart, one might say, from writing a policy—for most employers will already have a system in place for the fair distribution of tips.
The Bill will be enforced by workers through the employment tribunal system, and provides tribunals with remedies and situations where an employer has made deductions from tips or not allocated tips in a fair and transparent way. For general knowledge, I point out that the majority of employment disputes are settled before they reach an employment tribunal, and we expect referrals to such a tribunal under the Bill to be relatively rare or unusual.
If an employer does not allocate tips fairly between workers, the employment tribunal can order the employer to revise any allocation of tips that it has previously made, recommend that the employer deals with tips in a certain way or make a payment to a worker or a number of workers of the employer, so that they receive the tips that they should have received. It might also compensate workers for any related financial loss attributable to a breach of these provisions by up to £5,000.
I hope this gives an overview of the Bill and the provisions within it. As my honourable friend down the other end said, “What is there not to like?” Both parties opposite, Labour and the Liberal Democrats, raised no problems with the Bill during Committee in the Commons—they raised a few issues, but not real problems—and support the Bill.
I hope noble Lords from all sides of the House will join me in helping the Bill succeed. It is an opportunity to bring back change that will positively impact those businesses that are already doing the right thing and, especially, those workers who receive tips. I beg to move.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to support the Bill sponsored by the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, and to anticipate its provisions finally reaching the statute book. In opening Second Reading, he outlined the Bill’s functions with thoroughness and lucidity. I beg to say that the longer I spend in this building the more I realise that we are all on a political journey. I hope that his enthusiasm for and championing of a Bill that makes a real and positive difference to some of the lowest-paid workers in our country is an indication that he has come a long way from where he was in 1997-98, as evidenced by his voting record on the then National Minimum Wage Bill.
I began by saying that it is a pleasure to support the Bill. It is an equal pleasure—a number of noble Lords may repeat this remark—to do so without caveat or reservation. It engages a simple question of equity: money given in tips to serving staff should be theirs without fear of depredation from their employers. This question is particularly acute when the hospitality industry is attempting to regain its feet after the pandemic and is being further buffeted by rising energy prices, the cost of living crisis and, more importantly, labour shortages. This should encourage people to work in the industry, knowing the prevalence of the problem that it addresses.
The Bill is comprehensive in scope, extending the legal right to a fair allocation of tips not merely to directly employed workers but to agency staff and those allocated tips through a third-party tronc scheme. I must admit that I did not know what a tronc scheme was until I read the Bill. Crucially, under Clause 4, it ensures that workers receive tips no later than the end of the month following the month in which they were paid by customers. I also welcome the measures in the Bill giving adequate scope for enforcement, and commend those involved in the Bill’s drafting and ensuring its passage through the other place. I look forward to these legal protections being extended to hospitality workers as soon as possible.
That last point leads me to ask why this has taken so long. The first call for evidence for this legislation was put out by the then Department for Business, Innovation and Skills in August 2015. Since then, we have had five different Prime Ministers, eight Secretaries of State and innumerable reshuffles among junior Ministers. Indeed, not only does the government department that published that call for evidence no longer exist, even its successor department has gone the way of Nineveh and Tyre. This measure has been included in two general election manifestos and four Queen’s Speeches, and has been the subject of two consultations. It is fair to say that, were the staff who are the subject of the Bill to adopt such a laggardly approach to their own work, the allocation of tips would be a purely academic exercise.
This should cause us seriously to reflect on the efficiency of government over the last eight years. The Bill is limited in scope, rights an obvious wrong and has cross-party support. If a measure of such comparative simplicity can take eight years to pass, something has gone profoundly wrong with our lawmaking in this country. I will resist the temptation to reach outside the scope of today’s proceedings to consider the silting effect that the necessity of dealing with Brexit and its consequences has had on our legislative efficiency, but will merely leave it hanging in juxtaposition to my points earlier.
I welcome the Bill and once again commend the work that the unions, other workers’ campaigning groups and parliamentarians on all sides have done in ensuring that it is now likely to reach the statute book. It will have my full support as it passes through your Lordships’ House.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Robathan for introducing this small but important Bill, especially as, like many noble Lords, I have been a receiver of tips, not only a giver. Although the loophole has been closed so that tips cannot be relied on by employers not paying the national minimum wage, tips are often given to those on that lowest lawful wage and can be a vital part of overall wages. Back in the day, it was so encouraging on a long shift in the local gastropub to open the drawer and see a number of paper notes along with the coins in the tips bowl. It really was an incentive for the rest of the shift and an extra bonus when saving for university.
It is only right to have a distribution policy that is fair and for employees, not the employer. It is often a personal payment, such as by a lone woman travelling home at night in a cab or Uber, when the driver gets you home safely and you know that they have waited until you are safely inside the building before driving off. These extra kindnesses really matter and should be rewarded personally.
I welcome, in Clause 6, that there should be a written policy to enable claims to be taken to the employment tribunal, giving employees the requisite information, but it would be good if that policy were simple enough to be on display for customers. I think Clause 6 limits it only to workers. How tips are distributed can affect whether a customer wants to give a tip. It can also change the way that tips are given. Like my noble friend Lord Robathan, I have often asked waiting staff and given cash if I am informed that they will not get a tip given by a card payment.
The Bill has also intrigued me. Although I am aware that my noble friend cannot answer the following question directly, I ask: what happens to gratuities added to bills paid by card in the dining rooms or guest rooms in Parliament? I hope that he will pass that question to the relevant authorities so that noble Lords will know the answer.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Browne, that it is sad to note the many commitments that have been made on this matter. I particularly cite October 2018, when the Conservative Party made a commitment to bring this into law, but it has taken four and a half years since then to legislate. It is also sad to note that it is necessary to use the law to achieve what should be normal employer behaviour. As my noble friend said, what is there not to like? Many or most employers, apparently including Uber, pass on tips paid electronically, but it is not always the case.
Sadly, the compensation orders against rogue employers, in Clause 8, might not be enough. I hope that the media will keep a watchful eye, as it is really only their revelations, with the transparency they give and the shame attended to them, that bring about the best sanctions. I anticipate that we will see some class actions brought in response to enable employees to have their requisite compensation orders and get their money back. I welcome the Bill and hope that it has a swift passage through Parliament.
Lord Mitchell (Lab)
My Lords, if it were not for tips, I probably would not be standing here today. In the mid-1960s, I was living in New York, studying for my master’s degree in business administration at Columbia University. Sadly for me, I had no money, and New York city is no place to be poor, so I got a job as a waiter at a restaurant enticingly called Your Father’s Mustache. It was located in Greenwich Village; it was noisy and crowded, and it sold beer and cocktails, burgers and huge sandwiches—I loved it. I worked four nights a week, starting at 9 pm and finishing at 3 am. It was hard work, especially because, by 8.30 am the next day, I had to be at my class, all prepared. My basic pay was 99 cents per hour, minimum wage, plus tips. Being English, at the time of the Beatles I achieved some degree of notoriety, and I was good at hustling for tips. I would earn about $60 per evening—and that was in 1965.
In the days before credit cards it was all about cash tips. I learned about dynamic tipping—assessing the customer and working out how best to maximise my reward. Most important of all was positioning the change on the tray so that he took the coins and notes nearest to him and left me with the tip I felt I deserved. For me, it was the difference between happiness and misery. I secured my MBA, returned to London, had a fulfilling career in IT, and here I am today. Without those tips, who knows how it might have turned out?
All this is to emphasise as strongly as I can that my heart and soul are with the recipients of tips. I know just how crucial these payments are to those who work in pubs, bars and restaurants. I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, as well as Dean Russell in the other place, for introducing this Private Member’s Bill, which now has Government support. It is a vital Bill, and when it becomes an Act it will give certainty of earnings and security to many hundreds of thousands of people who work in the hospitality industry.
I would like to raise a few areas where I believe we are at risk of unintended consequences. I ask the noble Lord to consider these points, and I would welcome the opportunity to meet him prior to the Bill going to Committee.
The first point concerns agency workers. I fully understand why, at first glance, it seems equitable that agency workers qualify for sharing in the tip allocation on the same basis as directly employed staff. But I am told that agency rates have now gravitated upwards, to the extent that there is now an implicit tipping share built into the daily fee. Therefore, if agency people also share in an establishment’s tips, does it not mean that, in effect, they get the benefit of the tip twice over? That cannot make sense. If it stays as the Bill proposes, will that not mean that many staff will move towards being hired as agency workers rather than direct employees? That cannot be a good thing.
The second point concerns credit card payments. I know that fundamental to this Bill is the concept that employees should participate in the sum total of all tips, with no deductions. However, I think credit card charges should be exempted. If there is a built-in tip of, say, 12.5%, and the total bill is paid by credit card, which most bills are, then the establishment will have to pay the credit card charge on not only the base cost but the tip portion of the bill. Surely the credit card fee is a direct cost of the transaction, and the restaurant and the staff should bear that cost proportionately. My suggestion is that a maximum deduction of up to 2% should be netted off from the tipping pool. That does no more than cover the additional cost to the business arising from the customer’s generosity, and with a maximum rate set to avoid any abuse or excessive deduction from an unscrupulous operator.
Finally, I would like to address the issue of multiple-site operators. The Bill as it stands states that the tipping pool should originate from the bar or restaurant where the employee works. That makes sense. But there are many restaurants and bars which have associated premises, and it is not uncommon for staff to be transferred from one to another. Imagine a situation where a successful restaurant wants to open another restaurant and wants to transfer skilled staff from one to the other to get the place up and going, or where a business operates a large establishment which generates significant tips and a smaller restaurant a mile down the road with a much lower level of tips. New restaurants take time to find their feet and build up clientele. Operators will, from time to time, need to move staff from one premises to another, perhaps to cover illness or staff shortages. If the Bill stays unamended, it will remove the incentive for staff to move from a successful restaurant to a start-up, or from a larger site to a smaller one. That does not make sense. Surely a group should have the facility to amalgamate its tipping pool across multiple restaurants.
As I said, I would welcome the opportunity to discuss these issues with the noble Lord. The hospitality industry was battered by Covid, and now it is being battered by inflation and staff shortages. We have a good Bill before us. We should do all we can to minimise the burden on employer and employee alike.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell. He raised a number of interesting points, particularly around agency workers, credit card fees and new premises. I hope the Minister will be a in position to respond to some of those, because I hope that the Bill will get a speedy passage through the House. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, for explaining the concept of dynamic tipping to us, which he clearly made great use of if, all those years ago, he was securing $60 per evening—which was then a very significant sum of money—to assist him in his studies.
As the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, said, what is there not to like? I subscribe to that view. This is about fairness for the 2 million people who receive tips as part of their employment. As the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, said, this will help to increase low incomes, and that aspect of the Bill should not be understated.
Like others, I share the concern, as a customer, around what happens when I pay a tip or a service charge, and what the meanings of the terms that are used on the bill actually are. We should say that many businesses operate good systems for ensuring that tips and gratuities reach the staff customers intend them for. However, when I pay a service charge, I expect it to go to the staff providing the service, through a system that is transparent and which they understand. I have not seen a case for any part of the service charge being deducted for the employer’s benefit, although I think there is an issue around the credit card charge, which the Minister might like to clarify when he replies.
The new code of practice is going to be extremely important. It will need extensive publicity to ensure that the new requirements are being met, particularly those in Clauses 2 and 3. That will require substantial publicity through unions and social media. I hope the Government will support that process and that the Minister might be able to advise the House of the Government’s intentions to make sure the publicity reaches those who will benefit from it.
Like other speakers, I am absolutely delighted to give our support to the Bill. I wish it full speed through all its stages in this House.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, there cannot be anyone in this House who has not been affected by, and thought about, tipping. We all face the question of how much, and whether an amount added automatically can be removed without embarrassment. On many occasions, we wonder about the etiquette of tipping or not tipping. I had thought that it was less likely that many of us had been on the receiving end, except when we were younger. But, having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, I will never again not think of how a young person to whom I am giving a tip might in fact be a future Peer.
Nevertheless, there are both detailed and broad questions that can be raised. The insertions that Sections 27D and 27F made into the Employment Rights Act have fairness as their theme. It is not defined. How can it be applied, or how can issues between employees and tronc operators be handled when the troncs are operated independently of the employer? The tronc system also means that, if a customer really wants to reward a particular employee, the tip may still go into a pool if that is how the tronc system is set up. Where tronc systems exist, there is little incentive for employers to offer much beyond the legal minimum wage levels. The more they pay, the higher the national insurance and other wage-related costs mount, which does not apply to tips, and, if the employer pays more, he or she will still remain obliged to distribute the tip income.
Proposed new Section 27G requires a tip to be paid out by the end of the month following its payment by the customer. But there is no definition of what is meant by paid. Charges in hotels may be accumulated during the stay: for example, the tip might be added at the time of the meal, but payment by the customer might be added long after. Payment might be delayed or even never received, or the charge in question to which a tip was added at a particular time might have to be reversed or reduced later due to error or disputes.
While the Bill rightly calls for information to be supplied to the employee, it could be argued that best practice means that explanation of the treatment of tips and service charges should be included for the customer on menus and tariffs. Given the lack of uniform standards, and the variety of systems and technicalities involved, it would be difficult to explain these in simple terms, let alone ones for which there is room on a menu.
Let me range to a broader level. Will this legislation serve only to cement out-of-date pay practices that will serve to inhibit the hospitality industry’s recruitment efforts? Pricing and employment practices in that industry need to be brought into line with best practice. Instead of relying on tips, employers need to be able to set salaries that offer fair and competitive levels of pay and provide prospects for promotion, bonuses and recognition of long service. The employee needs to know exactly how much they will be earning and ensure that they benefit fully from pension and other pay-related benefits such as holiday and sickness pay. Those pay-related benefits should relate to their total earnings. Those full earnings should be liable for tax. Employees and employers affected by tips should be subject to the same tax and national insurance contributions as any other business. They are not now, because of the special arrangements affecting tips. Ideally, all prices quoted by service and hospitality businesses should be fully inclusive, with no additions expected. Customers would be relieved and grateful.
In sum, the Bill as it stands needs more definition, which may yet be found in the guidance to be issued. But, overall, it is backward-looking rather than forward-looking, and many of us wish that there could be some end or curtailment to the system of tips. Will the Minister tell the House why it was thought necessary to set in stone schemes that could be said to be out of date?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, who spoke with her customary lucidity and insight on some legal points, which I may also address.
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Robathan, in presenting the case so powerfully and with such clarity, and my honourable friends in the other place, the honourable Members for Watford and Ynys Môn.
I will come to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton. I very much agree about the great length of discussions, consultations and abortive legislation that we have had on this issue. We need to address this.
The measure is simple and straightforward. There are some profound legal issues, and indeed some cultural issues, which the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, touched on. I share some concerns that she has addressed about how the practice of tipping has come to be seen as a substitute for wages in some cases. It is growing more extensive: I am told that, when you buy a sandwich in some delicatessens, you are invited to make a tip to the person in the shop making it for you. This is not an attractive practice. What happens in Singapore, for example, where people just do not tip, has its attractions: then, the wage reflects the job that is done.
However, we are where we are. I strongly support this measure, because I do not think that we will get to that position in the short term, and we need something that is fair to employees, as my noble friend said. The current system is not. Only in cases where there has been much adverse publicity have some notable restaurant chains, such as Pizza Express, altered their practice. They used to deduct a portion of the tip made on a credit or debit card payment and retain it. That is clearly unfair. I do not think that it happens so much with cash payments made to employees: that would be contrary to Section 1 of the Theft Act, and I do not think it necessarily happens. But during the pandemic, we have seen more people paying their bills by credit or debit card: it is clearly the norm.
The Bill is attractive because it will end that, and I have just one or two questions. It is attractive not least because now when we go into restaurants we will not have to ask the employee, “Are you getting the tip?” I asked this question last night, and I am pleased to say that they were. Every time you go to a restaurant, you feel obliged to ensure that the tip is going to the employee. Clearly, in many cases, it is. I do not want to suggest that all restaurants and hospitality outlets are unfair. They are not: I think the great mass are now passing it on. But this will rectify the practice.
I have a concern about publicity. We need to ensure that there is publicity behind this legislation, so that not just employees but members of the public—bearing in mind that, in this context, many members of the public will be coming from overseas—are aware of the practice, so that they can reflect that in how they give the tip and be assured that it is going to the employee.
There is a case about the tronc system, which the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, referred to. When somebody leaves a tip, they may want it to go to just the individual who is serving them. On the other hand, a tronc system will mean, in practice, that some of that goes to the kitchen staff and those behind the scenes. I would personally want to do that, but not everybody does. This needs to be dealt with in separate legislation. This piece of legislation should go forward: it has taken too long already.
This brings me back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Browne. I wanted to address this in speaking briefly today. We need to look at a situation where something that has virtually universal support takes at least eight years—admittedly, some of that when the pandemic slowed things down a bit—to get to the statute book. It is crazy. Something that is divisive, in the sense that it divides opinion, would get to the statute book much more quickly. Can the Minister take this back to his department and push for the issue to be taken further elsewhere? Where there is virtually universal agreement on something, can we not have a fast-track system to ensure that it gets to the statute book? Listening today—and I am sure it was the same in the other place—nobody really objects to the Bill in fundamental terms, and it would be very desirable if we could find a way of fast-tracking it, perhaps from this House, where we are more used to working across the aisle.
With that, I once more congratulate my noble friend on what he has done in ensuring that this is the focus, that there is unity here and that we are able to pass this legislation.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, it is a real pleasure to contribute to this debate and to follow very well-informed contributions, based on experience. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, for introducing the Bill, to my noble friend Lord Browne—I do not think I have ever heard him make such a positive speech on any topic—and to the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, who made some interesting points. The questions of the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, on agency staff and credit card charges are obviously very important. I do feel for the Minister: he thinks he is going to be introducing something universally popular and we are all going to say, “Well done”, and he ends up with a bunch of technical questions; but that is us doing our job. The points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, about the culture of tipping were very interesting and not something I had thought about before today. I thank her for that, and we must simply see this as a step in the right direction, not the destination. The points about information for customers, so that they know what is happening to the payments they are making, were very important. The awkwardness for the employee when asked if they will get the tip—referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne—which forces them to decide between being honest and undermining their employer, is a difficult situation, even though we as customers are asking with the very best of intentions. That is something we have all encountered.
The Labour Party has obviously been supportive of this direction of travel for a very long time. There is a great deal of overlap between the position of these Benches and the measures in the Bill. We think that all tips, service charges and gratuities should go to workers in full, and that employers must not charge processing fees. The Bill’s provisions cover agency staff, which is good, and give workers the right to ask for records and recourse, which is vital. I thank the trade union Unite, which has for years been raising and campaigning on this issue. Alongside this, we are committed to bringing in a mechanism for collective grievances at work which would enable employees to bring a grievance against their employer to ACAS, as a collective. We believe that this would help to enforce fair tips more strongly.
It is useful to outline where we are as a party, where that overlaps with the Bill and what to do when we think things are not working correctly. As was indicated in the debate, how we advertise and ensure that all employers are aware of this change in law is very important, as is how it will be enforced and how staff can raise problems in the confidence that doing so will not be detrimental to them. There should be no deductions, including processing charges, apart from statutory taxes. The written policy on how tips are allocated needs to be made clear to staff when they start employment, and employers should ensure that all tips are allocated fairly through a TRONC who is genuinely independent of the business. For larger business, it should be stipulated that the TRONC should not be chosen from senior management personnel and should have the genuine consent of the workforce. Obviously, smaller business would not be subject to that, as it would not be practical. This should be underpinned by a statutory code of practice, be extended to agency workers and enforced by employment tribunals through ACAS. We would also reform and update the HMRC E24 guidance to simplify it, ensure it reflects updated requirements and make it easier to understand.
This is a welcome Bill. It may not deal with absolutely everything on this topic, but when the Government do something sensible, we should acknowledge that—perhaps balloons, a carnival or lighting some candles might also be appropriate. After the week I have had with the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, it is a pleasure to welcome this, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Johnson of Lainston) (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, very much indeed—she could always give me a tip for the work we are doing today, but I do not expect one. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Robathan for bringing this Bill forward, and I also make special mention of Dean Russell, the honourable Member for Watford, for the tireless work he engaged in to make sure that after a long period, this very important matter is now placed before this House.
It comes down to a simple matter of fairness. As customers, we were all surprised by this, and I was certainly surprised to discover that the tip I gave when I went to get my family pizza was not going to the staff—the people in the restaurant who were expecting it, and whom I was expecting to pay. For me, this is as much a matter of accurate description, to ensure that what people are saying is happening actually is. At the end of the day, this Government are committed to fairness and ensuring that employees get the right rewards that it is expected they will receive. I am delighted to take this Bill forward today.
I will go through some of the points that were raised. I covered the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, in that now absolutely is the time. Looking back over the last few years, we were disturbed by the Covid crisis, but the initial voluntary scheme simply did not work, which was a pity. In my experience, the majority of restaurateurs are good, honest hardworking people, and it is important to highlight that running a restaurant is not a straightforward business, particularly for small restaurants. Restaurants and pubs are important to our community, and it is important that we support them and do not impose onerous legislation on them. But unfortunately, because the voluntary code of practice was not a success—and that had to be borne out in time—we were obliged to go into a consultation, and here we are. There is no looking back from this point, but it has taken a while for good reason.
Regarding the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, I do not know whether Your Father’s Moustache is still in existence, but it sounds like he was earning more then—adjusted for inflation—than he might be being paid to attend the House today. I must therefore question his business acumen, quite apart from his patriotism.
I will cover some of the important points that have been raised, first, on agency workers. At the core of the Bill, the honourable Member for Watford and other officials have been trying to work out how to make this fair. It is considered in principle fair to pay temporary staff in a place of hospitality for the work they do. It would seem appropriate that, if someone works for a period in a restaurant or pub, they be rewarded with a share of the tips, commensurate with their input. Having said that, there have been comments—such as those of the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell—about additional pay for agency workers as opposed to full-time workers, who may be more committed to an establishment. This matter will be covered in the consultation and will be included in the guidance issued by the Secretary of State, which will eventually appear in the code of practice. It is not necessarily straightforward, and it is important that practices already in place in establishments passing on the full quantity of tips be able to continue. I believe that they will be able to continue with smoothing out the fairness between agency workers paid at different rates and full-time staff who are paid at potentially lower rates for their full commitment to the establishment. This is a principles-based activity, based on what is fair, and the system should be designed to ensure a smoothing out of that, but it is certainly worth raising.
The Bill is quite specific that credit card charges may not be passed on to the employee—to clarify, they may not be deducted. We feel that is important because it creates a level playing field for all employers in making sure that there is no discrimination. We found that under the voluntary code various different charges were being levied—the so-called administration charges—from 2% up to 10%. The reason we believe the voluntary code was not working is precisely that employers were starting to impose fixed-cost charges on tips that we felt were not right to go to the employee, so we have not allowed for credit card charges. There may be other charges that need to be considered in the consultation, but they will come out during that discussion. However, that is an important principle that has been laid out and made clear.
Multisite operations have been mentioned. That topic has arisen quite a lot in these discussions. We have sympathy regarding the complexities. Again, let us return to the principle of fairness and what is right. A lot of this will come out in the consultation and will be developed into the code of practice, but the principle here is that the unit itself—the restaurant or pub—is the economic entity that will allocate the tips to the individuals working in that place of employment. The Bill is designed specifically to ensure that that is the case. It is not designed to allow large corporations to pool tips and allocate them accordingly. We are trying to draw a line between the gratuity or pourboire given by the customer to the person who has been serving them and those around them. That is an important point of principle. I am sure this will be discussed in the consultation period, but I want to make it clear that currently it is specifically to ensure that a single site is the recipient of the tip process and then that is distributed accordingly.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, raised the importance of the consultation process, as did my noble friend Lord Bourne and the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, and of ensuring that it is widely publicised. We do not necessarily have the resources in this instance to embark upon a highly expensive publicity campaign but actually I do not think that will be necessary. If any noble Lords in this House have been involved in this process, they will have been contacted by large numbers of restaurateurs and recipients of tips to ensure that their views are clearly heard. This is an emotive subject that commands a lot of popular appeal. We will make every effort to ensure that the consultation is widely held and that people are aware of the opportunities to contribute to the consultation process in order to effect a strong code of practice.
On the point about publicity and how to project an establishment’s tip policy to clients, it is clearly stated in the legislation that it has to be available to the employee on day one when they arrive, it has to be clearly stated, and it must be available for clients as soon as we have developed the code of practice so that they can see, if they wish, what the tip practice is. There is currently no specification to put an extended tip policy on the receipt or whatever—I think that might be rather cumbersome—but it should certainly be available to the client. More important than a technical description of how every dollar is allocated among the staff is the knowledge that we are putting in place today, thanks to the good work of my colleagues, a fair system where clients and customers who tip staff know that all that money is going to the deserving workforce who have created the environment and given the service that has been received.
The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, made a series of extremely thoughtful points. I too have enjoyed the concept of a troncmaster, which is a phrase that has only recently come into my vocabulary. That is a very practical way of delivering fairness among employees. In the work that I have done, I have been struck by how straightforward and sensible this system is, and we want to keep it sensible and straightforward. I emphasise that we are not trying to increase bureaucracy and burdens upon hard-working restaurateurs, innkeepers and pub owners. That is not what this is about. It is about fairness and making sure that the majority of restaurateurs who do the right thing are able to do so in a continuing fashion, and that the people who do not are made to.
The tronc system allows for an independent person, often someone associated with the restaurant—they might be its accountant or whatever, which is perfectly reasonable—to make sure that there is a fair allocation of tips. I understand that there are some troncmasters who franchise their operations so that there are multiple troncmasters, so there is a job there if the $60-a-day tip does not continue to come to the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, in terms of making sure that there is a fair allocation. That seems to me to be an effective way of doing it. It was asked whether it was current and appropriate; we think so, and we have very much factored that into the legislation.
I do not want to go on too long but there was an important point about the monthly pay cycle. It is worth noting that in this House, when you go to one of the restaurants or eateries and you leave a gratuity, as I do—I hope I am known as a generous tipper—that money is accumulated over the year and then paid out in January to all the staff in the House of Lords. That includes the doorkeepers and the secretarial staff, though I am not sure whether it includes Hansard, the clerks and so on. The point is that this is more complicated than it seems. In the consultation we will work to ensure that fairness is the basis of this rather than procedure. The reason why we have the one-month payment cycle—that is, one month after money has been received—is to ensure that employers pay the staff on time for the work that they do when it comes to passing on tips from customers. That is absolutely right and it should be the core principle. Frankly, we should resist trying to find mechanisms and delays around that process, while at the same time understanding the importance of making sure that people who have systems that are fair can still operate, given the flexibility required.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Bourne for supporting a fast-track process. I do not think the House of Lords is necessarily known for its fast-track processes. I would not necessarily encourage any circumventing of our marvellous and ancient processes, but I agree that we should get on with it, and we are pleased to be doing so.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, for the comments that she made. I will say only that if she has a chance to engage with us, she will see that the code of practice will be detailed and there will be written policies. I do not believe we have suggested using ACAS as a process for managing organisations that do not pass tips on in full as they should; instead, it goes through the employment tribunal system. Whether that is run by ACAS I do not know, but we would certainly be delighted to engage on how the process should work. But we want to keep this quite light-touch. The last thing we want to see is employees having to go through complicated and cumbersome legal processes for something that should involve pretty immediate redress. If the noble Baroness has the opportunity to go through the legislation, she will see the detail that is there for relatively rapid redress processes.
To conclude, bringing forward these new regulations will protect millions of workers, among them many of the lowest paid across a wide variety of sectors, and give them an avenue to seek remedies. Consumers will rest assured that the tips they leave are going, as intended, to reward the good service and hard work of staff rather than lining the pockets of bosses. Additionally, those business that are already doing the right thing—passing on tips to workers in full without deductions—will be confident that they are not at risk of being undercut by their less reputable competitors, which is a very important point.
These new measures are backed by government evidence and analysis, with a full impact assessment of the measures having been published. Continued stakeholder engagement will ensure that we do not inadvertently disallow arrangements that are considered fair in some workplaces, as I have mentioned, meaning that we can continue to promote fairness for both businesses and their staff.
The Government are pleased to support these new measures and we are glad to see the level of support for them across the House. I have greatly appreciated that during today’s debate. All waiters and other restaurant staff will look to us, I hope, as a beacon of fairness as we bring this legislation into force. I look forward to continuing to work with my noble friend Lord Robathan to support the passage of the Bill.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I apologise to Members present because I should have declared an interest at the beginning, although admittedly it is over half a century out of date. When I was at school, I did a bit of waiting, though not much, and I remember the joy that I had when someone left a £5 note—which was worth something in those days—on the table. My children, who are in their early 20s, have done a bit of waiting more recently. They got paid, of course, but they also got tips, and they were very happy with those.
I should warn my noble friend Lady Berridge and the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, that there will most certainly be a great deal of resistance from our excellent waiting staff in the Peers’ Dining Room should they wish to take up their past careers in waiting, especially if the noble Lord can get as much tipping as he used to get in New York.
I thank my noble friend the Minister for signalling the Government’s continuing support for the Bill and for answering most of the questions.
I would like to refer to three points that were raised. First, the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, raised the question of agency workers. We should be aware—I hope the code of practice will be—of being too prescriptive on how much an employer pays either his own staff or agency workers, because I do not think that is really up to us to determine.
Secondly, on credit cards, personally I have a rather ordinary little credit card. I did a bit of research and apparently the charges on that would be something over 1%. Of course, if you have a gold Amex card—I do not know whether anyone in this place does—I understand it goes as high as 3%. That is surely up to the person who has the gold card. All these credit card charges are already discounted by restaurants and other places. Those who already pay the whole service charge do not in general discount it and take money out for the credit card charges, which would probably be more complicated than it was worth.
Thirdly and finally, I agree with my noble friend Lord Bourne and the noble Lord, Lord Browne, that it is rather sad—I will put it no more strongly than that—how long it takes to get a very simple bit of legislation through Parliament.
I hope noble Lords on both sides can agree that this is an important, if small, piece of legislation which would ensure fairness and transparency for both workers and employers. This is an opportunity to increase consumer confidence, which we have all heard about, create a level playing field for businesses and help ensure that hard-working individuals—often, as has been pointed out, the lowest paid—get the money they have been given and deserve for their work.
Protection from Redundancy (Pregnancy and Family Leave) Bill
Friday 3rd March 2023
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Protection from Redundancy (Pregnancy and Family Leave) Act 2023 View all Protection from Redundancy (Pregnancy and Family Leave) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bertin (Con)
I begin by thanking the honourable Member for Barnsley Central for all his hard work in taking this Bill through the other place. Thanks to his considerable effort, expertise and enthusiasm, we have a workable Bill which is supported by the Government and all political parties and by key external stakeholders, including the CBI. It was even described as a “group hug” in the other place in Committee. I do not think we do enough political group hugging, so I sincerely hope I can deliver the same joined-up spirit today.
I pay tribute to the officials at the Department for Business and Trade for their excellent work in supporting the Bill and in supporting me. I echo also the honourable Member for Barnsley Central’s sincere thanks to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the TUC—that is not something noble Lords will hear me say often, but I do thank it on this Bill—the Royal College of Midwives, UNISON, Pregnant Then Screwed—which has been a very powerful campaigning group on this issue; I know that many women will be grateful for its efforts—the Fawcett Society and the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. All these groups have been instrumental in making this Bill happen.
To give noble Lords some context on this legislation and why it matters, according to figures from a report commissioned by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, at least 54,000 women a year get pushed out of the workforce after becoming pregnant. I had to double-check that figure—I thought it must be a typo or the number must span over 10 years, but it does not. That equates to one in nine women either being dismissed, made compulsorily redundant, or being treated so poorly that they felt they had to leave their job.
Further to that, in 2018 YouGov conducted a survey to understand managers’ attitudes around pregnancy and maternity discrimination. Almost half of employers agreed it was quite reasonable to ask women during the recruitment process whether they have young children. One-third believed that women who become pregnant and new mothers in work are generally less interested in their career progression. Four in 10 employers agreed that pregnancy in the workplace put an unnecessary cost burden on them. That was in 2018 but I would be surprised if those attitudes had changed radically, so we still have some way to go on this issue. I think we can all agree that the figure of 54,000 women being pushed out of work does not belong in a progressive and modern society.
Becoming a parent is the most exciting and rewarding, but often the most challenging, thing that a person can do. I am lucky enough—or mad enough, depending on which day you catch me—to have done it three times. But it is also an anxious time, from the minute you find out you are pregnant to the moment you hold your baby—God willing—and during all the months and years that follow. I believe very strongly that no woman should ever have to fear losing her job because she is pregnant or because she has taken her entitled leave.
The current regulations under the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Maternity and Parental Leave etc. Regulations—MAPLE for short, which is how I will refer to them, for the sake of all our sanities—put a woman on maternity leave in a preferential position in a redundancy situation so that she goes to the back of the queue when jobs are being cut. There are parallel regulations, as many noble Lords will be aware, which have the same effect for parents taking adoption leave or shared parental leave.
The point of the Bill is to extend the redundancy protection I have described into the period of pregnancy and for a longer period after the return to work, thus alleviating much of the anxiety around job security that a pregnant woman or a new parent may face. The clauses in the Bill are simple but important. They will give the Secretary of State a new power so that regulations on redundancy can be made during a protected period of pregnancy and an amended power so that regulations on redundancy can be made during or after a period of relevant leave. That relevant leave is currently maternity leave, adoption leave or shared parental leave.
I am very glad that shared parental leave is included in this extended protection. We must get better in this country at encouraging fathers and partners to take up a proportion of their shared leave. Nearly all the evidence points to improved family outcomes, and legislation such as this, although not a silver bullet, helps maintain momentum in that culture shift. I think attitudes have improved in this regard but let us be under no illusions: uptake is still very low. I am sure there are financial reasons and quite understandable financial considerations for that and that is not something we can hope to settle in this debate.
Let us also acknowledge that, in some industries and companies, a father taking a decent chunk of parental leave is still akin to committing career suicide. I think that this macho way of thinking has a big impact on us gaining real equality between the sexes. Big, profitable organisations should be running towards generous shared parental leave schemes. They want their talent pipelines to be stuffed with great women as well as men and this is one way to do it—we know that. Until the burden of responsibility is shared more evenly in those early years, I do not think we will ever really achieve real equality between the sexes in the workforce.
Going back briefly to the technicalities of the Bill, clearly these are delegated powers in the clauses I referred to earlier. Noble Lords, quite rightly, are often concerned that we should be clear about the need for delegated powers and how these will be used. The Bill deals with matters linked to existing delegated powers. To achieve a consistent effect, provisions are therefore drafted in similar terms in the Bill. The powers in the Bill mirror, in so far as it is possible, the approach in the existing MAPLE legislation. These have been on the statute book for some time and are well understood by employers and the legal community. I reassure noble Lords that the Bill is clear that regulations made under the new powers will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and that Parliament will have the opportunity to debate and consider the detail the regulations set out. I am delighted that last night the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s report said:
“There is nothing in this private member’s Bill which we would wish to draw to the attention of the House”.
I hope that reassures noble Lords.
Redundancy protection will apply from the point a woman tells her employer she is pregnant and for 18 months after the birth of the child, covering the period of parental leave and a return-to-work period. The 18-month period of redundancy protection means that a mother returning from 12 months of maternity leave will receive six months’ additional protection when she goes back to work. It is a very simple approach, allowing both new parents and their employers to easily understand those requirements and it accommodates parents who make use of shared parental leave which can be taken in discontinuous blocks.
I know that the Government continue to work very constructively with stakeholders who really understand this issue inside out—I want to praise the Government on that—on the finer detail of how it will work and how the legislation will be most effective. Indeed, there are ongoing discussions with the Government on several areas, the most contentious perhaps being the qualifying period. Currently, there is a proposal to include in the regulations a qualifying period of six consecutive weeks of family leave before you are entitled to these redundancy protections. I urge the Government to reach an agreement whereby maternity leave is exempt from that period. Such a threshold could inadvertently leave a new mother, who may be forced to curtail her leave for whatever reason, doubly unprotected and vulnerable. I fully back keeping a qualifying period for shared parental leave; this feels just and reasonable, and encourages a meaningful uptake—why that is so important was discussed earlier.
In conclusion, this Bill is a welcome strengthening of the redundancy protection for pregnant women and parents. Not only will it prevent unscrupulous employers discriminating against pregnant women—as we have seen that they still do, and can do—but it acknowledges that you are not necessarily on a level playing field as soon as you come back from your maternity leave, or your shared parental leave, if you have taken a significant amount. To be put on a level playing field in a round of job cuts is simply not fair when you have come straight back from your leave.
This is a progressive policy, which I am proud to be involved in. I thank all noble Lords in advance of this debate for their contributions. The Bill will make a real difference to people’s lives—to the woman telling her boss, not with trepidation but now with confidence, that she is pregnant, and to the mother returning to work after maternity leave, knowing that her job is safer and more secure. This is a small step, but it has wider significance. It is a statement about the sort of society we are and want to be, one that protects and values parents, and the sort of economy that we are trying to build, one that makes the most of all its talents. I beg to move.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, for the second time today, it is a pleasure to support a Bill. I am only sorry that my noble friend Lady Chapman is not here to hear me make the second most enthusiastic speech that I have ever made in your Lordships’ House. It is a particular pleasure to do so as we approach International Women’s Day next week. Noble Lords will be aware of an analysis published by the World Economic Forum which found that the pandemic has slowed the global trend towards gender equality by more than three decades. In that context, this Bill will make a real contribution towards a more equitable working environment for women in this country.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, not only on sponsoring the Bill but on making, if I may say so, a profoundly convincing case for it. It was a speech that only a working mother could make, all the more powerful in being made by a Member of your Lordships’ House who has been at the very centre of government in this country. She reminded us that the genesis of the Bill can, in part, be traced back to 2015, and research commissioned by the Cameron Government. She shared some of the findings of that and other research. That research found that, disturbingly, 77% of mothers surveyed had faced some form of discrimination or disadvantage during pregnancy or maternity leave, or when returning to work from maternity leave. More worrying still was the attitude of the employers surveyed. Despite years of equality legislation and attempts to change people’s attitudes, some 70% said they felt a woman should reveal if she were pregnant during the recruitment process and, more egregiously, 25% felt that they were entitled to ask a woman about her plans to have children in future. As we have heard, more recent work undertaken to assess the impact of the pandemic on expectant mothers at work suggests that a quarter had experienced unfair treatment, with this being significantly more probable at the lowest end of the income scale.
In the Second Reading of the Bill in the other place, the Bill’s sponsor invoked the redundancy protection model in Germany—and indeed this same model was commended by the Women and Equalities Select Committee in 2016 when reporting on this same issue. Although a straightforward transposition of the German model into UK legislation is impossible, the Bill as it stands comes as close to extending those same protections into UK law as is possible, while taking into account the divergences between the two countries. I am bound to say that those divergences are significantly to our disadvantage.
As it happens, I have friends in Munich with young children, and, in the margins of the Munich Security Conference, which I attended a couple of weeks ago, I visited them. It is astonishing the degree to which they, their employers and the whole environment benefits extraordinarily from the German attitude to the support of families with children. It is not the only aspect of German employment policy that we could learn from, but we should learn more from it because it is consistent not only with a positive attitude to children, and their growth and development, but with a successful industrial economy in the modern global world.
This legislation will strengthen the Equality Act 2010, which already prohibits discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy and prevents employers laying off new mothers by extending redundancy protections to six months. I shall not labour this point, because it is directly analogous to something that I addressed at greater length in my remarks in the debate immediately preceding this one. However, it is frustrating that repeated commitments from the Government to introduce an employment Bill, of which these provisions were to be part, have failed to materialise. Each year there are somewhere in the region of half a million pregnant women in the workplace. This is not, therefore, a peripheral issue or something artificially amplified by sections of our community but something which will, in some form, affect all of us. Given that we have been promised action on this since 2016, with an employment Bill eventually being included in the 2019 Queen’s Speech before Covid derailed the legislative programme, why has it taken seven years, pricked by the spur of a Private Member’s Bill, for the Government to consent to act on this issue?
My hope and expectation is that the Bill will have universal support as it passes through your Lordships’ House. I do not wish to take up time that could otherwise be filled by the expression of full-throated support by other noble Lords, but I would like to mention the issue of employment tribunals. The Bill today, and the consequent regulations to be made by the Minister, will not apply a comprehensive blanket ban on making a pregnant woman or those on parental leave redundant, but it will markedly strengthen their chances of making a successful claim of unfair dismissal through the employment tribunal system. However, that system is, if not broken, at least hugely dysfunctional.
Figures released by the Ministry of Justice a few weeks ago show that it takes an average of 49 weeks for a case to be heard by a tribunal. It is a grim irony that, as it stands, the average wait for a new mother to receive justice would be longer than her pregnancy. It is worth emphasising that this is simply the time until the first hearing, which in many cases is only the start of an elongated process that is further bedevilled by delay. If the Government wish this Bill to be effective and to really protect pregnant women and new mothers, as I am sure they do, their first priority must be to bring down the tribunal backlog, currently at close to half a million cases. Simply citing the pressures of Covid is not good enough. Waiting times have been lengthening since tribunal fees were declared unlawful in 2017. When the Minister responds, I would be very grateful if this question could be addressed.
I close by commending once again the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, for the thoroughness and care that she has displayed in bringing this Bill before your Lordships’ House today. She offers us a good opportunity to show your Lordships’ support for it to progress, I hope swiftly, into law.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Browne. We are in danger of basking in his enthusiasm, having had two speeches in succession.
There is only a small number of speakers in this debate, but that reflects the fact that, to use a phrase we heard when discussing the previous Bill, this seems like a slam dunk. It is a Bill that we should not be speaking against. In advance of his speech, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Leong, to his first Front-Bench speech—the first of many, we hope. My speech will be relatively short, because the preceding speakers have covered a whole tranche of it. The noble Baroness set out a compelling case for the Bill, which I have to say, as did the noble Lord, Lord Browne, has been a long time coming.
The Bill owes its existence to 2019, when the Government announced that they would extend redundancy protections, but of course it goes back much further than that. The Queen’s Speech in 2019 contained a government commitment to introduce an employment Bill, as we have just heard, that would extend redundancy protections and prevent maternity discrimination, among other things. To date, we have not seen that employment Bill, and it was not included in the Queen’s Speech in 2021 or 2022. I ask the Minister if I am right in saying that this tranche of government-supported Private Members’ Bills, which in a sense fillet some aspects of that employment Bill, is a sign that we will not be seeing an employment Bill in this Parliament. Many of us are beginning to draw that conclusion. We would say, and I am sure other Members of your Lordships’ House would agree, that that is a tremendous shame. There is a huge amount of work that needs to be done in that employment Bill, and many people will be disappointed.
I turn to the Private Member’s Bill in hand. It is very good that the Government are choosing to support the Bill, which was led by Dan Jarvis in the Commons and so eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, here. It is a big step forward, and they are both to be very much credited for bringing it forward. I am delighted that it will receive government support—and of course it will receive support from these Benches.
As we know, the Bill will enable the Secretary of State to make regulations about protection from redundancy during and after pregnancy, and for six months after returning from maternity, adoption or shared parental leave. The Bill will deliver the government commitment that was made in 2019. Sometimes it is good to recognise that Bills come in different ways; most of us work on primary legislation in an adversarial way, and it is good to see us joining across the House to welcome this.
A real driving force behind the Bill was the 2016 EHRC landmark investigation into pregnancy and maternity discrimination at work. It came up with the need to extend the period covered by existing protections against unfair selection for redundancy under Regulation 10 of the Maternity and Parental Leave etc. Regulations 1999, so as to cover both pregnancy and the six-month period after returning to work from maternity, adoption or shared parental leave.
Like the noble Baroness, I was shocked by the numbers; I had to go back and look at them. There seems to be agreement that 54,000 new mothers do not go back to their job after maternity leave. That is a huge waste of human capital, as well as undermining the family economies of some of our poorer families across the country. The noble Baroness cited 2018 data. Unison has provided me with a briefing which refers to a TUC survey in 2020 of more than 3,000 women, and the numbers are very similar: one in four women had experienced unfair treatment at work, including being singled out for redundancy and furlough—which was another version, in a sense. It is very much at the low-paid end where most of this happens. Low-paid women—those earning less than £23,000 a year—were much more likely than women with higher salaries to be victims of this sort of discrimination. Gong forward with the Bill will therefore have a discriminatory advantage both in terms of sex and the economy.
Those of us who have worked in business know that it is really important to give women who come back from maternity leave a proper opportunity to get their feet back under the table and to get back into the system. The Bill will make it impossible for unscrupulous employers to get rid of women in a way that has clearly been happening systematically across the country.
As we have heard, the Bill received support from the Government and MPs from all parties during its passage through the House of Commons. There have been voices beyond your Lordships’ House that say that it does not address all the underlying issues within the legal system. I am sure this is true, but it undeniably moves things forward, and for that reason it has our full support.
The noble Lord, Lord Browne, cited the German experience. I have quite a lot of experience of that, having worked for businesses that had a big footprint in continental Europe. I add to that the experience of Sweden, which is even further down the road of cultural change. The way that Swedish employment law operates has created a family-centric culture in that country. I do not pretend that the Bill will achieve that, but it is certainly a step in the right direction.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my honourable friend in the other place, the Member for Barnsley Central, Dan Jarvis, and congratulate him on his important Bill. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, for sponsoring the Bill and introducing it with a passionate and powerful presentation. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his very warm welcome. I always look forward to hearing my noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton’s enthusiastic speeches. I thank everyone for their contributions on the Bill.
Many noble Lords will recall this feeling: the sense of anticipation and trepidation; the gratitude for the work of the team around you; and the hope that the delivery will be successful, sensing that after this day your life will never quite be the same again. The first time, one cannot help but feel especially anxious, despite knowing that some people have been through this experience many times. I am of course referring to standing at the Dispatch Box to speak in support of a Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, have already mentioned that some 54,000 new parents each year are potentially affected by the issues addressed in the Bill. Delays since 2019 mean that a further 200,000 people may have faced dismissal or compulsory redundancy because of pregnancy, marring what should be a joyful, if exhausting, time in their lives. So although this has taken a rather long time, I am pleased that, at Third Reading in the other place, the Government committed to supporting the Bill. I can confirm that the Labour Party also gives its full support.
Let me be very clear. The Bill should not be seen as providing the absolute minimum baseline for how employers should respect and treat their female employees. As many noble Lords will be aware, some of the charities working in this space do not support the Bill because they do not feel it goes far enough.
While I recognise those concerns, I argue that although the Bill is not a silver bullet, it is at least a step in the right direction. But, if we delay it any further, we should be mindful of the 54,000 people each year who will not be protected by the support that it offers. Of course, there is more to be done in changing attitudes and improving legislation. I was disappointed to discover that five years after the Equality Act 2010 became law, a survey showed that one-quarter—one-quarter!—of employers still felt it was reasonable to ask women about their plans to have children, and almost three-quarters felt that women should declare if they were pregnant during recruitment. While I hope that these attitudes will have improved since 2015, I am sure that they will not have disappeared.
The world of work and the demographics of the workforce in this 21st century are going to be completely different from what many of us experienced in our younger days. The cost of housing means that most young couples need two incomes to run a household, and especially—as many of us can testify—to bring up a family. Birth rates are historically low. Furthermore, the proportion of people of working age in relation to those in retirement is falling. This has been aggravated since the pandemic by the increase of people in early middle age leaving the workforce, as vacancy rates testify. We should be supporting—not penalising—people who want to remain in work. Furthermore, it is in the interests of employers, who want to attract the best and brightest employees of the future. We should remember that around 60% of UK graduates are now women, so it makes sense to have policies and practices around maternity which offer security and support, free from fears of discrimination.
The increasing shift to hybrid working in many jobs—it will only increase as technology develops—should permit innovative and creative solutions to some of the physical and mental challenges faced during pregnancy and early parenthood. While we should encourage employers to do far more than the statutory minimum, the Bill should reassure new parents—and those who tragically lose their babies through miscarriages—that they do not have to become embroiled in litigation or expensive and long tribunal processes at what will always be an incredibly stressful time.
While I do not want to get ahead of myself, I draw the attention of those in your Lordships’ House who are concerned that this does not go far enough to Labour’s A New Deal for Working People. My party has committed to
“extending statutory maternity and paternity leave, introducing the right to bereavement leave and strengthening protections for pregnant women by making it unlawful to dismiss a woman who is pregnant for six months after her return, except in specific circumstances.”
Under a future Labour government, I feel sure that we will be revising and revisiting this legislation and addressing the concerns of those who feel that the Bill does not go far enough.
I urge noble Lords to support the Bill, which represents the minimum that new parents should expect from employers as they begin one of the most important, joyful and essential journeys—though often challenging and sleep-starved—that a human being can make: bringing a new life into this world. I urge noble Lords that we turbocharge this Bill through this House—and perhaps we can set a precedent by having a political group hug.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Johnson of Lainston) (Con)
Hear, hear. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Leong, on a fabulous first outing at the Dispatch Box. I believe that he was in the same cohort as myself in October last year. Like him, I feel like a troop in some war film; I arrived as a fresh recruit and a musket was thrust into my hand, and I was pushed forward to the front line. I thought that he acquitted himself beautifully, and I look forward to many hours debating with him over the next few years. This is a subject that is clearly extremely dear to both our hearts. I really do feel deeply moved by the words I have heard during this debate. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, for introducing the Bill today and for her comments and technical coverage, which were extremely useful. It is an honour for me, as a father, to confirm this Government’s ongoing support for this absolutely essential Bill. I also pay tribute to Dan Jarvis for initiating the process that led to us being able to be here at this moment debating such an important and clearly right topic.
Pregnancy and maternity discrimination has been a cause for concern for some time, as has been raised by noble Lords today. The noble Baroness highlighted the research which showed that 54,000 women are forced out of work a year; that was also echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Browne. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, commented that 54,000 women were not returning to work after maternity, but I am sure he misquoted this point. I am only emphasising it because of the important fact that, actually, these are women coming back after maternity who are being forced out of work. It is not of their choosing. This is on top of mothers who are coming back to work and feeling pressured to leave the workforce. It is a separate point and an enormous number. These figures are absolutely shocking. In 2017, the Women and Equalities Select Committee undertook an inquiry into pregnancy and maternity discrimination. Its headline conclusion was that
“pregnant women and mothers report more discrimination and poor treatment at work now than they did a decade ago.”
We would like to think that we have a progression in our society, in terms of respect for and understanding the vitality of motherhood in our workplaces. It is tragic to discover that, according to this evidence, it is not the case. It is absolutely right that this Government are taking forward these moves in supporting this Private Member’s Bill.
I will cover some of the comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Browne and Lord Fox, based around the systems of other countries. I too investigated what other countries do with interest. We should aim for the very best policies that we can to encourage these sentiments and activities. However, given where and how the German and Swedish systems operate, I think the processes and proposals here go a long way towards achieving our ambitions, as noble Lords were right to say. As is often the case in legislation, this is a journey. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Fox, will agree that it is essential that we put this in place now so these measures can be built on. I believe there are sentiment or cultural changes that will come from further legislation. I support this as a result while paying attention to, investigating and noting what other countries aspire to so that we may also aspire to those levels.
I will turn to some of the other points. In January 2019, the Government consulted on extending redundancy protection for women and new parents. We received 643 responses, which is a considerably high number for these sorts of consultations. The majority strongly agreed or agreed—and this refers to the question of whether or not we are going far enough—that six months would be an appropriate period of “return to work” for redundancy protection purposes, and that protection should be extended to parents who have taken adoption leave and shared parental leave. This shows we have struck a very sensible and appropriate approach. The noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, raised an important point about the entitlement period—if I have the phrase right. This will be covered in the consultation process which will follow the Bill. That is important, as is right that there is a threshold limit for some elements of shared parental leave. That would only be fair and proper and, given our direction of travel, would fit in well. I stress to this House that these are major steps in ensuring that parents can return to work and be protected. That is what this is about.
I stress that in November 2019 the Conservative manifesto—we were discussing manifestos earlier and the noble Lord, Lord Leong, mentioned his party’s manifesto going forward, so I would like to look at our party manifesto historically—made a commitment on redundancy protection.
Questions have been raised about an employment Bill and why we are doing this now. There are no plans, as far as I am aware, to bring in an employment Bill. That is why it is all the more important that the Bills that we are discussing today are enacted, since they form an important component of how we wish to run our employment legislation. In 2019 the Government published a consultation on this issue and announced steps to bring forward legislation to implement these changes. We are pleased to support this Private Member’s Bill, because it delivers stronger redundancy protections for pregnant women and those returning from parental leave.
I am also extremely pleased at the degree of cross-party co-operation and support in the other place. It is a testament to the strength of our system that we can work across parties, put aside our rivalries and deliver change which will make a real and positive impact on people’s lives. However, I would not like the noble Lord, Lord Leong, to think that every debate with me will be so amicable as to either begin or end with a group hug.
There are a few technical details before to I come to a conclusion. As set out by my noble friend Lady Bertin, the Bill will give the Secretary of State the power through regulations to extend the MAPLE protection into pregnancy and for a period following the birth of a child covering the return to work period. The existing redundancy protection that applies when a parent is taking relevant leave will remain unchanged. The result will be that redundancy protection will apply consistently from the point when a woman tells her employer she is pregnant all the way through to 18 months after the child is born.
I am very aware, as I am sure noble Lords are, that businesses have to accommodate these important changes. We think it is essential for the way we wish to structure and construct our society. We also believe it is essential in order to have a sustainable workforce that we bring these measures to bear. However, it is not the Government’s intention needlessly to burden businesses with excessive regulatory burdens. I think we would agree with that, since they power our economy. This Private Member’s Bill does one thing which I think is very important: it makes it much simpler for businesses. Maternity legislation can be complex, and by having a very simple timeframe, as I have just described, redundancy protection will apply consistently from the point a woman tells her employer she is pregnant all the way through to 18 months after the child is born: it is clear for everyone to understand. I think that is very important indeed. I hope that businesses see this as a clarification rather than a confusion, and I know that the general public will be pleased to see the simplicity and clarity of this approach.
I am also pleased to reassure this House that the powers in this Bill as far as possible mirror the provisions relating to the existing MAPLE regulation 1999. I believe we had confirmation of that yesterday or the day before, when the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee published its report stating simply that there was nothing in the Bill to which it wished to draw the attention of the House. I hope this is ample reassurance for noble Lords.
To conclude, these measures will provide valuable support and protection for pregnant women and parents after parental leave. The Government are pleased to support this Private Member’s Bill and to deliver our manifesto commitment. Supporting this Bill is in line with our ongoing commitment to supporting workers, working mothers and parents and building a high-skilled, highly productive, high-wage and fair economy. I believe it is simple for business, and I believe it is absolutely the right thing to do on our journey to building a better society. I look forward to continuing to work with my noble friend Lady Bertin as the Bill progresses through the House.
Baroness Bertin (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions today. There were numerous contributions, which I take as a positive sign. They were so supportive that I would like to acknowledge each one. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Browne, made a very powerful speech. He told an anecdote about Germany and how culturally different we are. It does not get more high-powered than the Munich Security Conference. Acknowledging that children are part of every element of life is something that we need to get better at in this country. Culture change takes a long time, but legislation can sound the starting gun for that, although this Bill is not going to solve everything. The noble Lord made good points on tribunals as well. I will not comment on that here, but I do hear what he is saying, if I could put it that way.
I say a big thank you to the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I was very grateful for his speech and also for acknowledging that when we have agreement we must agree with each other—and we definitely need to do a bit more group hugging. I think the public want that from us. Where we can agree, we should come together, even if we are on other sides of the fence. He made a very important point, which it is right to acknowledge: some organisations have not been necessarily 100% behind this Bill. It is a very hackneyed phrase, and I hate to use it, but of course if you had a blank sheet of paper maybe you would start again and do things slightly differently. We do not, and we must be careful that we do not let perfection get in the way of good.
The noble Lord, Lord Leong, made that point very well. I had not realised that this was his first outing on the Front Bench, so I feel very honoured to be part of the beginning of this chapter. I very much enjoyed his speech. I thought it was very well made, and I hope to have many more interactions with the noble Lord going forward. Again, I am very grateful to him for his robust defence of the Bill and for acknowledging that some organisations—not many, but some—have pushed back on it.
I also appreciate the point about birth rates falling. Being a parent these days is really quite tough. When I think back to when my mother was raising us, the homework levels now are so much higher, and the pressures that we have to run with as parents. It does not surprise me at all that people are thinking, “D’you know what? I don’t really fancy this”. It is very expensive and the pressures are there. I think it is right to acknowledge that. We must support, not penalise, parents who want to remain in the workplace, particularly mothers. We must double down on that.
Finally, I thank my noble friend Lord Johnson for the Government’s response. It was a very eloquent and thorough reply. The Government have obviously thought long and hard about this subject. We must acknowledge that they are very committed to this issue. We have moved very far forward. On timing, we always want to do these things a lot quicker, but the reality of government and the challenges that the Government face mean that that is not always possible. I think that we should acknowledge the progress that has been made under this Conservative Government. It has been a progressive time in office, and I am proud of that.
My noble friend also talked about the vitality of motherhood in the workplace. No self-respecting company or organisation should think, “How can we get mothers out of the workplace?” What a disgrace. We should be thinking, “How can we get mothers back into the workplace?” They offer so much and their organisations are far richer for them.
My noble friend also said that we were on a journey and that we would build upon it, and I look forward to walking with him on that route. Manifestos have been mentioned. I hope and am certain that the Conservative manifesto will give a very strong and powerful offering to parents. It must, because that is the way to electoral victory. I therefore invite noble Lords to support the Second Reading of the Bill.
Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Carer’s Leave Bill
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, the Long Title of the Bill is:
“A Bill to make provision about unpaid leave for employees with caring responsibilities”,
and that is what it will do. The Bill will give new rights to at least 2 million employees who have unpaid caring responsibilities, supporting them to remain in work and improving their health and well-being. It will also support employers’ retention and recruitment and increase their productivity. I must confess to a level of trepidation in making this speech which I did not expect to have. I spend most of my waking hours looking at legislation for what will not work and thinking of ways to explain to Ministers why things should not happen. It is a very unusual position I find myself in to be promoting the benefits and importance of a piece of legislation, so I beg your Lordships’ indulgence as I make this attempt.
I speak as the party’s business department lead, and I must confess to feeling something of a carpetbagger in supporting the Bill. The real credit for getting to this point lies on other shoulders, and it is on those shoulders that I now clamber. In particular, I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, and my noble friend Lady Tyler. I look forward to hearing from them later, as I do from all other noble Lords who will speak. The role of the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, in bringing the issues facing carers to the fore has been exceptional and extends back decades—I did ask her, and I established that “decades” is the right word. Her counsel on the Bill has been invaluable, as has the counsel of my noble friend Lady Tyler. I am sure she will mention her Private Member’s Bill, which presages this one. The other shoulders on which I clamber belong to my honourable friend in the other place Wendy Chamberlain MP, who is standing at the Bar. It was thanks to Wendy that the Bill successfully passed all stages in the House of Commons on 3 February this year with no amendments, receiving support from the Government and MPs across the House. I am looking forward with anticipation to hearing the Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Johnson—and anticipate his support. I thank his department for its help in preparing for this debate.
As I have said, the Bill has received strong support from all quarters: 85 MPs have explicitly stated public support for it and it has been endorsed by over 140 organisations, including small and large employers, trade unions, employer representative groups, local and national carer organisations and the APPG on Carers. Indeed, I was very pleased to meet a number of exemplar employers, both large and small, earlier this week to hear about their experiences of already providing carer’s leave and the positive impact that it is having on both their workforce and their business. They explained and brought home in human terms, and indeed business terms, how this leave is beneficial.
I also heard from two carers, both of whom are here with us today, who told me how invaluable it was to be able to take carer’s leave to better juggle work and care. I thank them for taking some time off and coming to your Lordships’ House. Again, they reinforced the human side of what we are discussing today. It really does matter—and it matters to an awful lot of people. Carers UK, which helped to facilitate many of these meetings, has been leading on this issue for years. The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, has been very much a part of that. Its research has uncovered that at least 2 million people—probably millions more—in paid employment are unpaid carers, so this is a significant issue.
The stresses and strains of having to juggle paid employment with unpaid care has led to hundreds of thousands of carers leaving the labour market or reducing their hours in work. This is at a time when recruitment into all forms of business is almost at a crisis level. More than 500,000 people—half a million—left the workforce between 2018 and 2020 because of the lack of support, 600 people per day on average. The acute shortage of social care support is also placing additional unsustainable pressure on carers and making it harder for them to manage both work and care. Caring has intensified too, with the proportion of unpaid carers providing significant care—over 20 hours per week—increasing by 42% since 2020, so they are having to do more caring, often as a result of less other care being available to their families. Many carers now report—it is no wonder—that they are exhausted and burned out, especially those who find the process of juggling so difficult. The Bill will help to meet some of that huge caring challenge. Again, it does not pretend to sweep all the issues away, but it is an important step.
I will summarise the main elements of the Bill. It will provide powers to make regulations to create an entitlement to carer’s leave. It does this by inserting new provisions into the Employment Rights Act 1996. The leave will be unpaid and will be for the purpose of caring for a dependant with a long-term care need. All employees who meet the qualifying criteria will be entitled to the leave, no matter how long they have worked for their employer. It will be available to take in blocks from as small as half a day to up to a week in total at least—depending on future legislation—over a 12-month period.
I now go to the qualifying criteria. First, the person must be providing care for, or arranging for the care of, a dependant with a long-term care need. The definition of “dependant” is broadly drawn, and we should be very pleased about that, because it will make things a lot easier to manage and administer. The Minister talked about simplicity, and the breadth of drawing creates simplicity in the delivery. The Bill states that
“a person is a dependant of an employee if they … reasonably rely on the employee to provide or arrange care”—
“reasonably rely” is an important phrase in this Bill. This is a helpful safety net and ensures that a wide range of relationships are in scope, wider than just immediate family members.
Secondly, the definition of long-term care need is similarly broad. In the Bill,
“a dependant of an employee has a ‘long-term care need’ if—
(i) they have an illness or injury (whether physical or mental) that requires, or is likely to require, care for more than three months,
(ii) they have a disability for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, or
(iii) they require care for a reason connected with their old age.”
The Bill also requires that regulations set out the employee’s rights regarding their existing terms and conditions while on leave and have their right to return to work once they have finished their leave. The reference to terms and conditions does not, of course, include pay. As I have said, this is an unpaid leave right.
I believe it is important that the right to carer’s leave should work for both employees and employers. This is why employees will be required to give reasonable notice to take their leave, which enables employers to make necessary arrangements to manage their absence. In fact, in many cases, carers are having to use short-term sick leave or phone in sick to meet the care responsibilities they have. This is far less easy for an employer to manage than having advance knowledge that something is happening, where they can know the day and the hour, so it is actually a big advantage for employers.
The detail of notice requirements will be a matter for regulations, but the Government’s consultation response makes it clear that the notice period requirements may be similar to those for taking annual leave, which should keep the landscape simple for those requesting and responding to requests for this leave. I should remind your Lordships that there is a separate cover for emergency issues, which does not come within the Bill.
Employees have a right to carer’s leave, so it is stronger than a right to request, but the Bill acknowledges that there might be situations where it will be challenging for the employer to grant the leave requested. Therefore, an employer will be entitled to postpone the leave, but they may not deny a request. Clearly, this will be about the relationship between the employee and the employer, but the employee has a right. The aim of this approach is to ensure that employers engage with their employees so that they can agree on a suitable date. As with other employment rights, an employee will be able to make a complaint to an employment tribunal where their employer has unreasonably postponed or prevented them from taking carer’s leave.
I shall say just a few words about the general and delegated powers, because details of how the provision will work will be set out in secondary legislation. There are delegated powers in this Bill, and noble Lords, including me, have often been concerned, rightly, about the way in which delegated powers will be used. In this instance, the delegated powers will allow the Secretary of State to set out the extent of the leave entitlement and when it will be taken, and employee entitlements while on leave and on return to work. They will also allow for regulations to cover procedural requirements around notice periods and postponement, and the consequences of failing to follow requirements.
This is all wholly consistent with the approach taken to family leave rights generally. That consistency makes it clearer and easier for employees, employers and the legal community, and is a sensible and pragmatic approach. I was delighted that the DPRRC yesterday expressed no concerns with the secondary legislation in the Bill.
In conclusion, I encourage noble Lords to engage with the Bill. I think we all want it to succeed and to pass through your Lordships’ House as quickly and easily as possible. We have an opportunity here to make a real difference to the lives of those who will seek to rely on this entitlement in future, and the people for whom they care. I hope that with the support of noble Lords, we can take that opportunity and deliver legislation that can make a change for the better. I beg to move.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I might be the first to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on his choice of subject and the excellent speech he made in support of it, to which I will add a brief footnote to demonstrate the support from my side of the House for his Bill, but also to focus on its application to young carers. Having spent much of the week listening to the noble Lord making critical comments about pieces of legislation, it was a refreshing change to hear him speak so positively about this one, and I congratulate him on getting a clear round from the Delegated Powers Committee.
Last month, the ONS published the second phase of data relating to unpaid care from the 2021 census, and the Carers Trust, to which I am grateful for its briefing, has produced an interesting note on what those census figures mean in relation to young carers and young adult carers. The headline was that the 2021 census figures showed a significant decrease in the number of young carers and young adult carers identified through the census, compared with 2011. I happen to believe that there are a number of reasons why those figures underrepresent the number of young carers, but there was a significant increase in the proportion of children and young adults providing significant levels of care, with over 140,000 young carers and young adult carers caring for more than 20 hours a week. Astonishingly, there are still close to 50,000 children and young adults providing more than 50 hours of care a week—the equivalent of a full-time job—which in many cases they have to reconcile with their commitments to education. The data also highlighted how young carers and young adult carers in England and Wales were more likely to be living in areas of high deprivation compared with their peers without caring responsibilities, and there is a message there for the Government’s levelling-up agenda.
While many of these young carers are still at school or college, a significant number are working and they struggle to balance caring with paid work. In the latest survey by the Carers Trust, 45% of young carers and young adult carers said that they were “always” or “usually” struggling to balance caring with paid work. Fewer than half of young carers and young adult carers said that they either “always” or “usually” get help from work to balance caring in their life.
By providing unpaid carers with a legal right to request additional leave because of their caring responsibilities, the noble Lord’s Bill will help reduce the need for carers to use annual leave or to give up work entirely because of their caring responsibilities, such as medical appointments or recovery from procedures.
One of the additional benefits of the noble Lord’s Bill is that it should lead to increased awareness about the needs of unpaid carers and should ensure that all employers have processes to identify unpaid carers from the point of application and also record which staff have caring responsibilities. It also has the potential to normalise conversations in the workplace about caring. This is something which will particularly benefit young adult carers, who say that they find it difficult to identify themselves as unpaid carers to their employers. I am interested in the final section of Part 1 of the noble Lord’s Bill, which provides a bit of a stick in that employers could be liable to pay compensation if they ignore the obligations in the Bill.
Finally, I support the Bill. I look forward to other speeches, in particular from the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, who has been campaigning on this issue for as long as I have known her, which I suspect is even longer than the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has. I support this legislation.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Young, and I thank him and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for their very kind words. It has always been a privilege to be working for carers and I have always been fired up by being in contact with carers and being inspired by their contribution and their need. It is a pleasure that John and Patrick, two carers, are with us below Bar today.
Your Lordships will know that the Bill in front of us represents an issue that is close to my heart and that when it comes to Private Members’ Bills I have previous form. It goes right back to 1995, when my much-respected colleague, the late Malcolm Wicks, took the first Private Member’s Bill for carers through the House of Commons. I was not in your Lordships’ House then, but I was chief executive of Carers UK and doing what Carers UK continues to do: providing support and leading the campaigning to get better recognition for carers, as it has been doing for more than 50 years in one guise or another.
That first Bill, the Carers (Recognition and Services) Bill, was not all that we wanted it to be, but it was a vital milestone in the fight—and I use the word “fight” advisedly—for recognition of carers. We learned in that particular fight a very important lesson: it is better to get something on the statute book and use it subsequently to move on rather than risk the ideal being the enemy of the good.
That lesson was further learned in two more Private Members’ Bills, by which time I was a Member of your Lordships’ House and had the honour of seeing them through this House. It is a lesson I have firmly in my mind today as we contemplate this Bill, so ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. Its provisions are modest—some might say modest in the extreme—but they are of great significance.
Many of us have campaigned for many years to secure additional rights to better support people who are juggling paid work alongside their unpaid caring responsibilities. Indeed, I remember very well the Caring Costs campaign that Carers UK set up nearly 30 years ago. Interestingly, it was funded by a government grant—we must bear that in mind, perhaps. It was a ground-breaking piece of work which looked at unpaid carers’ experiences of being out of work and what would make a difference to them being able to return to work. That report from 1996 recommended a week’s, even two weeks’, unpaid leave for carers to be able to combine work and care, so this Bill has been a long time coming.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, will no doubt tell the House, she has tried previously on several occasions to bring forward legislation—unsuccessfully. I am therefore very pleased that this Bill, brought forward by Wendy Chamberlain MP last year, following the absence of an employment Bill, has made it this far.
As we have heard already, millions of people provide unpaid care to family members and friends in communities across the United Kingdom. While many do so gladly, willingly and with love, it often comes at great personal cost because carers do not receive the support and recognition they need.
A key benefit of the Bill will be to raise the profile of unpaid carers further by helping employers and other employees better understand what caring is. It is too often seen as a private matter and, as we have heard, carers are reluctant to identify themselves. The word “carer” is still not well understood and is often muddled up with “care worker”—although nowadays, thankfully, your computer is a little less likely to change it to “career”, as it always used to do.
While carers face many challenges, one area that can be particularly difficult is continuing to remain in paid employment while providing unpaid care. All too often, the assumption is made that you simply cannot do this—it has to be one or the other. I have lost count of the number of carers who have said to me, “It was a no-brainer. When my mother was going to be discharged from hospital, they automatically assumed that I was going to give up my job to care for her.”
The latest Family Resources Survey finds, as we have heard, that 2 million people undertake paid employment alongside their caring responsibilities. Research from Carers UK indicates that these numbers could be far higher, because of carers’ reluctance to identify themselves. So it is only right that we take steps to support carers to remain in work where they want to do so.
The stresses and strains of having to combine work and care have led to hundreds of thousands of carers having to leave the labour market or reduce their hours of work, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Fox. Having to leave work has a significant impact on carers’ finances, of course. Carers UK found that two in five carers who have given up work or reduced their working hours to care were around £10,000 to £20,000 per year worse off as a direct result. It also has a negative impact on carers’ pensions; more than half of unpaid carers are unable to save anything for retirement. This has huge implications for carers and the economy in the long term, with many left penniless in later life with the resulting effects and stress on the benefits system.
Beyond income, staying in paid work has a significant emotional effect on carers who can manage to do it. We know that mental well-being is higher among working carers in organisations that provide support than among those that provide no support. As one carer said, “I currently work two days a week and find hospital appointments clashing with workdays very stressful. I feel guilty about asking to swap days or take time off and guilty about not being able to attend appointments. A policy that allowed me unpaid leave would be good. I don’t think my employer is aware or understands what caring is like.” That is the case with many employers, although we must also pay tribute to the many employers that have taken up the carers’ cause and aim to provide support in their places of work.
However, while the Bill has significant benefits to carers themselves—supporting them to remain in work and improving their health and well-being—there are sound economic reasons for ensuring that carers are able to remain in work. The UK economy and the productivity of business and employers, including the public and voluntary sectors, depend on retaining their skilled and knowledgeable staff. Crucially, that increasingly includes employees who are trying to combine work with unpaid caring responsibilities. We know how many skills carers develop during their caring lives—not just the obvious caring skills but organisational and administrative skills, which can be of great value to employers.
Certain sectors of our economy are particularly reliant on employees who combine working and caring. For instance, the latest NHS England staff survey found that one in three NHS staff also provides unpaid care. It is vital that they are supported to remain in work, especially considering the current health and care workforce shortages, of which we are all only too well aware.
The Bill’s provisions will also have a positive effect on employers. Evidence shows that providing carer’s leave leads to increased productivity for employers by improving their staff retention rates, reducing their recruitment costs—we all know how much it costs to recruit a new member of staff—and supporting the health and well-being of their workforce, leading to far less absenteeism. The Bill will also bring economic gains for the Treasury through increased productivity, as more carers will be able to stay in work rather than having to reduce their hours or leave the labour market altogether, and thus pay more tax to HMRC.
It is clear to me that all parties will benefit from this legislation; it is a win-win situation. The Bill is well drafted and allows for the flexibility that is necessary for it to work in practice for both employees and employers. It is particularly welcome that the Bill will enable employees to take carer’s leave to care for a very wide range of people: a spouse or civil partner, a child, a parent, a person who lives in the same household or a person who may not be living in the same household but who still relies on you to provide care, and of course the definition of “dependant”, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, is widely defined, and that is very welcome too.
The Bill also allows employees to take carer’s leave for a wide range of reasons, such as providing personal or practical support, helping with official or financial matters including phoning and being on the internet, providing personal and medical care, or making care arrangements. Anyone who has ever tried to make such arrangements knows just how time consuming that is: making contacts, being passed from one to another and inevitably waiting for the call backs which do not come.
While we still need to go further in providing support for carers to help them to continue work and care, I see this Bill as a vital first step and as a commitment that in future we can ensure them even more rights in their workplaces, and I will look forward to participating in that legislation in the future.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley. Her knowledge and expertise on this subject are unequalled in this Chamber. As she said, the Bill has been a long time coming and it is a vital first stage—and it is indeed that. I thank my noble friend Lord Fox for his detailed explanation of the Bill and congratulate my colleague in the other place, Wendy Chamberlain MP, for piloting the Bill to this stage. I am very pleased to support this Bill at Second Reading and I hope your Lordships will be pleased to support it and take it through to its next stage.
In an ideal world, I would prefer to see carer’s leave as a paid right. Indeed, many employers would subscribe to that, and many do it already. It is a good employment practice, the cost is minor and the employer will be more likely to keep valuable staff at a time when recruitment is getting harder.
The Bill has identified a clear gap in current legislation, in that it is not about emergency help or care for children who are ill, which are already legislated for, but it is about long-term, day-to-day caring needs for dependants and those close to the carer. As our population ages, this will become increasingly important. Crucially, the administration of the scheme is reduced to the minimum. Simplification matters because it means that those benefiting from it can follow the necessary procedures easily.
A key issue will be publicity. I was very struck by the comment of the sponsor in the House of Commons, Wendy Chamberlain MP, that
“a significant issue is simply getting carers to recognise themselves as such”.—[Official Report, Commons, Carer’s Leave Bill Committee, 9/11/22; col. 5.]
The more the Government can do to promote the new right to carer’s leave, the better the outcomes will be.
More and more people are going to need extra personal support as they grow older. Family members will mostly be providing it. We need to encourage those helping provide care to do so without giving up work, because the cost of care to a family would otherwise exceed the level of their income. We need them to stay in employment.
Seven million people are providing unpaid care when in paid work. That is a very large number. The economy needs them to stay in paid work, so this Bill really does matter. I welcome the Bill having completed its passage through the House of Commons without amendment. I hope that it will do likewise in this House and that the regulations are passed as soon as possible.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester
My Lords, I am pleased to speak in wholehearted support of this Bill. It has been a pleasure to hear other speeches and to receive briefings on this significant area of our common life. I look forward to hearing other speeches and thank those who have introduced the Bill.
The Bill is an important step forward in showing carers that although their efforts may not be waged, they are very much valued. It might not go as far as could be hoped, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has said, in that it provides for unpaid rather than paid leave, but it is undoubtedly a step in the right direction.
I see three key features of this Bill: first, the provision of leave for anyone with caring responsibilities, not just those who care for people in their household; secondly, guaranteeing this leave as a day one right; and thirdly, allowing for it to be taken flexibly. These three features show that the Bill recognises the variety of unpaid carers on whom society depends and the distinct challenges they face.
I draw your Lordships’ attention to the Archbishops’ Commission on Reimagining Care. The report, Care and Support Reimagined: A National Care Covenant for England, was published just a few weeks ago. Paid leave for carers and the right to request flexibility from day one of hire were among the commission’s recommendations. That report, like the authors and champions of this Bill, recognises the difficulties of juggling responsibilities to one’s employers and to the people one cares for. When that balancing act becomes unsustainable, millions of people give up work or reduce their hours in order to care for loved ones. If they do so, further financial pressure is added to their load. In return for providing care worth some £132 billion a year, more than a million unpaid carers are living in poverty.
There are psychological and spiritual as well as financial benefits to being able to stay in work. As one of my colleagues, Carolyn, who cares for her son, told me, for many carers including herself, being able to remain in work forms a vital part of their own well-being and positive mental health. Being able to contribute beyond their caring responsibilities is all part of feeling that their lives have purpose, meaning and consequence. This was echoed at a recent gathering of carers, parents and grandparents of children with special educational needs and disabilities which my wife and I hosted at our house. Many spoke of the loneliness of being a carer and the need for wider support networks, which can of course include colleagues at work.
Having the right to a week’s leave will therefore help many unpaid carers to continue working, with the support for their well-being and household finances which that entails. However, it is important to state that we all stand to benefit from their skills, talents and experience remaining in the workforce. The phenomenal costs of recruitment and retention, which have already been mentioned, point to the spiritual truth that no one is a fungible economic unit. I and my diocese would be much poorer without people such as Carolyn—without their compassion, empathy, sensitivity and wisdom. She enriches us not despite her caring experience, but because of it. This Bill should therefore be passed not as an act of pity, but as a recognition of our collective debt and gratitude to one another and our interdependence on one another.
Returning briefly to the Archbishops’ Commission, its report sees paid leave for carers as just one part of a more radical and ambitious vision. The Christian belief is that we are all made in the image of God, that it is not good for any of us to be alone, and that giving and receiving care is fundamental to human flourishing. This wider values-based vision of the commission encourages a revolution in our attitudes to disability and ageing, recognising that every single person is of equal value and dignity and must be treated as such. This vision includes the aim to make social care a universal entitlement, and that this should be person-centred care, designed with people, not imposed on them. At its heart is a call for a national care covenant which sets out the distinct roles and responsibilities not just of government but of all of us as citizens and neighbours.
I commend the archbishops’ report to your Lordships, as it outlines both the fundamental values and the specific steps which could bring a compassionate, inclusive and sustainable care system into being. I invite employers to venture beyond the letter of the Bill and enter into its spirit by giving carers active support, recognition and affirmation, as well as respite. For every workplace would profit immeasurably by learning from those who give themselves fully to the well-being of others.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, at the outset I take this opportunity to acknowledge the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, who led the earlier debate so magnificently. The ambitions of her Bill were the fundamental objectives of many campaigns, and of a project a number of women set up in Tower Hamlets called the maternity services liaison advocacy scheme. It is a joy to see that the noble Baroness was speaking, and I am sorry I missed the debate. It is also an honour and a personal privilege to be taking part in this debate, and I want to humbly thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his thorough introduction; he need not have worried at all.
Many statistics on unpaid carers are constantly bandied about, but the facts are glaring; indeed, we know that many more carers are not in the public eye or paid for by the public purse. Like many hundreds of thousands of families, we have cared for our loving and beautiful 44 year-old son—a young man who inspires us every day—without a shred of the public care system support which may or may not have been in place. Very early on in our professional and business careers, the decision had to be made that, as parents, one of us would need to stay at home to ensure that our son was safe and cared for.
I can tell your Lordships that even enlightened local authorities were less than pleasant when women, in particular, sought time off for caring responsibilities, which in many instances counted against their career progression. Not much appears to have changed for substantial numbers of carers on zero-hours contracts or for poorly paid part-time workers who are almost certainly unlikely to gain from the proposed Bill. However, I keep hoping that one of these days, our Government’s compassionate and caring conservatism, levelling up and all the other “ism” ambitions will eventually eradicate these horrible, cruel, medieval working conditions in the world’s sixth largest economy. As a society, if we can afford to spend billions on crap PPE and weapons of war, we can also empower with a decent and just wage the army of social carers and family carers who are upholding our nation.
For those in our social welfare system, £69 for 24/7 carer’s allowance, which has increased by only £15 over the last decade, is an insult. I can understand why many families such as ours simply opt out of the system. Many families may not even be aware of these cumbersome systems, or able to navigate them for this miserly amount. It is therefore important that changes are relayed through the NHS and DWP systems to ensure that these entitlements are known to carers.
I welcome these proposals for the carer’s leave entitlement. With hand on heart, I say that they are a long time coming. More than four decades ago, as one of the founders and the manager of a project, I ensured that all members of our all-women staff team had written into their contract their entitlement to childcare and other care responsibilities, including emergency provisions, as the Bill aspires to do. This decision was critical to keep and foster talented and skilled women staff members, many of whom would otherwise have left and given up their employment. Many are still forced to choose, even today, as powerfully advocated by noble Lords during the Second Reading of the Protection from Redundancy (Pregnancy and Family Leave) Bill. I believe that our practice was pioneering in the 1980s and had a transformative impact on local services and statutory and voluntary organisations. Local and national leadership are critical. I believe that most employers will be supportive, given the available statistics: almost every household will face these dilemmas in their home sooner or later.
We are all too familiar with “A week is a long time in politics”. Well, let me say that providing care and support for vulnerable loved ones with special physical or emotional needs is a lifetime of devotion. We must do all we can to prevent it becoming an untold toil. The flexibility and wide-ranging application proposed by the Bill are therefore welcome.
I have a generic point. Regardless of whether there are 10 million or 1 million carers, it would be more comforting if the Government recognised—they must—that family support systems are holding up an otherwise totally broken system of social care. From all the facts, well rehearsed in this Chamber, we see that we are not valuing carers and their real worth enough, in any way. Every family such as ours is still holding up, not only when the formal care systems are broken, to make sure that our vulnerable loved ones live with dignity and independence.
It appears to have become customary to heroise individuals or families as a way of illustrating the impact of our policies and legislation on some service users. The question for me is not about one individual experience or my personal experience, which is painful and lifelong enough. As legislators, we are responsible for making a difference to many more families, communities and those in wider society who so often cannot access benefits or services. Therefore, gender and other equality impact assessments of the Bill are absolutely a must to realise the aspiration behind the deliberation in this Chamber. It has far-reaching implications that can change people’s lives.
I am thankful to the many children’s and other carers’ organisations that have written to me, and I am always beholden to my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley who has campaigned for social and economic justice for carers for so long and so relentlessly. I salute her constantly, and very often in this Chamber.
I ask the Minister to write to me with details of how government departments reach out to communities hitherto beyond the reach of many respected national organisations, particularly communities in inner cities and deprived areas. How do government departments relay information on rights to families at the coalface of social and financial isolation? Consistency in our policies should be joined up, and not undermine access to information. For example, government departments are now routinely cutting or shutting down phone lines, instead directing service users to online services on the assumption that everyone has access to a smartphone or a computer. It is not so, and we know the facts about digital exclusion. We also know, and heard throughout the pandemic, of the impact of digital exclusion on the most vulnerable and needy. When they cannot afford food or energy bills, the upkeep of broadband or a computer device is pretty much out of the reach of most of them. We must therefore take the utmost care to undertake an impact analysis of all the legislative and procedural frameworks on carers and other vulnerable groups who suffer disproportionately.
As a community campaigner, I say that there is so much more to discuss, including the cutbacks and desperate shortage in social care, and the lack of respite and adequate day care facilities or holiday provision, all of which are putting huge extra pressures—I will not use the word “burden”—on families already stretched beyond their capacity. We speak of civilised society, and surely the heroic and unrelenting support that carers in their millions provide speaks volumes about our civility and honour. We are already saving the Government hundreds of billions, and none of us should rest here until there is full recognition and parity of employment rights for carers. So with great joy I support these good, small steps.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, we have had a very good debate on this important Private Member’s Bill, and I thank my noble friend Lord Fox for his excellent introduction. For me, the debate has underlined once again why carers’ lives can be so difficult, despite caring usually being undertaken out of love and deep familial bonds. As we have heard, caring unpaid for a family member, friend or neighbour is a reality for many millions of people across the UK and is something that almost everyone will experience at some point in their life. It can take many forms: it can be day-to-day physical caring, washing, dressing, feeding those who cannot care for themselves; it can be making medical appointments, accompanying people, arranging for paid care; it can be helping a housebound elderly neighbour.
But caring for a loved one can come at high personal costs. Many carers find that their own relationships are negatively affected, and they can face their own health problems as a result of their caring role. With the huge pressures and backlogs across the NHS, with the difficulty all too often of getting appointments with a GP or a hospital, and the record level of demand for social care services at a time when the social care workforce is depleted, many carers are simply not getting the support that they need.
That is essentially what this Bill is designed to address, albeit that we are only at the start of what I hope is a much longer journey. “A vital first step” is how it has been described today. But today’s debate has amply demonstrated how carer’s leave will make a difference to carers’ lives. We have already heard the latest estimates showing that over 7 million people in this country are juggling work and unpaid care, and every year more than 1.9 million people in paid employment become unpaid carers. This is not a sideshow; this is something affecting large segments of the population. We have today heard very movingly the stresses and strains of having to juggle paid work alongside unpaid care, without the support that is so often needed, and how it has left many carers exhausted and burned out.
Unfortunately, as we have heard, these pressures have led to hundreds of thousands of people having to drop out of the labour market or reduce their hours—at a time when their skills are much needed to the wider economy. We know and have heard that having a supportive employer and the ability to take time off work can help mitigate those pressures. Indeed, two-thirds of working carers who have already had access to unpaid carer’s leave through their own employer’s enlightened employment practices have told Carers UK that it really made their caring role easier. I spoke recently to some carers who were juggling working and caring, and I was very struck by what one lady said to me. She said, “I no longer have to hide the fact that I am a carer.” I can well remember feeling that I needed to hide my own personal caring responsibilities when I was in a full-time job, and I would have loved to feel that what I was trying to do was both above board and legitimate. I hope that this legislation will normalise and legitimise those struggling to do both.
I was also very pleased recently, along with my noble friend Lord Fox, to meet some leading employers in this field, large and small, to hear at first hand about their experiences of already providing carer’s leave and the positive impacts that doing so had on their businesses, particularly in terms of staff retention. For this to really work, it must have real benefits to employers and employees. That is the beauty of this Bill, which, by creating a new entitlement for employees to take up to a week of unpaid leave a year, will really help. Yes, it is modest—we all understand that—but it will provide increased flexibility to unpaid carers who are balancing paid employment with their caring responsibilities. I hope above all that, for many more of them, it will mean not having to make that invidious choice between caring and working.
In addition, the Bill will support carers with their finances, particularly in the longer term, and help with pensions. The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, reminded us of the number of carers who, because they have to give up their job altogether or reduce their working hours, become significantly worse off. This fall in income is often accompanied by a sharp increase in household costs as a result of the additional costs of ill health and disability. In the middle of a cost of living crisis, that is enough to tip many people over the edge.
Of course, everything comes with a cost, and we need to be up front about that. But I was struck last week when reading some research that suggested that UK companies can save up to £4.8 billion a year in unplanned absences and a further £3.4 billion in improved retention by adopting working practices to support employees with caring responsibilities. It might not be a strict comparison, but it is interesting to note that the impact assessment for the Bill says that the direct costs will be very small—only £4.7 million for one-off familiarisation costs for this new legislation, plus the recurring familiarisation costs. I call that quite a return.
I want to draw attention, as I have in the past, to the impact of unpaid caring on women and those caring for children with long-term disabilities. The Bill would particularly support women to stay in work, as they are more likely to be juggling work and care and more likely to be in part-time than full-time work. Carers UK research has shown that, while the average person has a 50:50 chance of caring by the age of 50, on average women can expect to take on caring responsibilities more than a decade earlier than men. Likewise, the Family Resources Survey shows that women aged 45 to 64 are most likely to be carers and more likely than men to provide informal care across all age groups, except for those aged 85 and over. It is welcome that the impact assessment produced for the Bill recognises:
“In the context of the gender pay gap, the fact that women are more likely to provide care means that they are more likely to face adverse employment effects associated with caring i.e., lower earnings and leaving the labour market.”
It is welcome that the Bill also provides much-needed support for those who are juggling work with caring for a child with a long-term disability. People in this situation often face extreme pressures and challenges, and it is right that they should be able to take advantage of the provisions in this Bill, building on the rights that they already have under unpaid parental leave.
Finally, it is instructive to see how other countries provide support to employees trying to juggle work and care. In preparing for this debate, I did a bit of research. The fact is that the UK currently lags behind other countries when it comes to workplace rights for carers. Many already have some form of carer’s leave in place—of course, it differs—including Japan, Canada, the USA, Germany, Ireland, France, Belgium and Sweden. So I think it is right that we are looking to close this gap. Indeed, there are some interesting and innovative approaches to family leave and carer’s leave adopted in other countries that we would do well to study—a point I know the Minister made in the previous debate.
To conclude, I am delighted that after many years of trying, we finally have an opportunity to ensure that carers are better supported to remain in work by providing them with additional rights at work to make their lives more flexible and manageable. It is a cause that I, like so many others in this Chamber, have long championed. I do not pretend to have anything like the pedigree of the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, to whom we all owe a huge debt of gratitude. However, as she mentioned, I have tried several times—most recently in 2016—to introduce a carer’s leave entitlement Bill. Sadly, as is the way of these things, it never received a Second Reading. So one of my messages today is to never give up hope. An opportunity may well come along, sometimes when you least expect it. I give huge thanks to my honourable friend Wendy Chamberlain, and of course to Carers UK for everything it has done. I very much hope that this time we can get these vital employment rights for carers on to the statute book, which is why I am giving my noble friend’s Bill my full support.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for sponsoring the Bill before us today on this important matter, and indeed his colleague Wendy Chamberlain MP in the other place for initially sponsoring it. I note the cross-party support in the other place, as has been mentioned today, and I hope we can move forward in the same spirit. I also add my thanks for all the different briefing papers we have received—from Carers UK, for example, and the MS Society.
I particularly pick up on the reference the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester made to the Archbishops’ Commission on Reimagining Care. I, too, recommend it to those who have not had a chance to look at its recommendations. It was my great privilege to work closely with Anna Dixon in her former role at the Centre for Ageing Better when I was the leader of Leeds City Council. So many of the pieces of work we did there have informed my views on how we need to move forward on this issue.
I also pay tribute to the other speakers in the debate for their passion and obvious long-term commitment to this agenda and for standing up for the most deserving in our society—all those unsung heroes who do so much to support their loved ones. Indeed, as we have heard today, many noble Lords have personal, as well as professional, experience of these matters; I note the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin. These are incredibly important insights that we need to use to inform our discussions and policies as we take them forward. I pay particular tribute to my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley and thank her for her inspirational speech, and I acknowledge her wealth of experience in these matters.
We fully support the Bill, although we believe that carer’s leave should be paid. We have to ask why it has taken the Government so long to introduce legislation, therefore necessitating its introduction by Private Member’s Bill. We remain disappointed that the promised employment Bill has not materialised. However, we acknowledge that this is a significant moment to take a step in the right direction, and we believe we should seize the moment. It is also worth noting that, under the proposals set out in Labour’s New Deal for Working People, the next Labour Government will legislate to ensure that working people can respond to family emergencies as and when they arise, without being left out of pocket.
As so many have said, unpaid carers are among the many unrecognised stars of the health and care sector. They step in to support friends and family with care so that those people can retain some of their independence and dignity. We need to emphasise, particularly with International Women’s Day approaching next week, how important it is to point out that, tragically, the highest proportion of unpaid carers are women. The highest proportion fall in the 50 to 59 age group, where a staggering one in five women are estimated to be carers. Since the Covid-19 pandemic, there are 350,000 more people over 50 who are economically inactive, with health cited as the largest single reason but caring and family responsibilities coming second.
Carers UK has stated that granting unpaid carers the right to carer’s leave would improve the finances of carers who would no longer have to reduce their working hours or give up work altogether. I think we all took on board the points outlined by my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley about the impact on mental health and, as the right reverend Prelate mentioned, the impact of loneliness.
The scale of the issue is huge. We have heard many figures today. Carers UK estimates that there are 7 million people in paid work who also provide unpaid care. Every year an estimated 1.9 million people in work become carers, and there is evidence of many using up their holiday entitlement to provide cover as needed. An estimated one in seven juggle work and care, with the Joseph Rowntree Foundation stating that over 1 million carers are living in poverty, feeling “abandoned by society”.
In the 2017 to 2019 parliamentary Session, the House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee held an inquiry on employment support for carers. Its May 2018 report, Employment Support for Carers, stated:
“Balancing care with paid employment is a tricky juggling act”—
I think that is putting it mildly—which, as we have heard, causes many carers to either give up work or reduce their hours. It said that this was costly to the individual, who can lose financial security and may need to recruit a replacement. In addition, it found that there was an economic cost as
“productivity, and ultimately tax revenues, suffer from people who want to work, or work more, being avoidably unable to do so”.
Putting my business and trade hat on, I will say, like the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that the impact on the economy is profound and needs to be taken into account by the Government, particularly by the Treasury. I will not repeat the figures that the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, quoted, but they are stark and significant. Indeed, our Adult Social Care Committee estimated in its excellent report a loss to the Exchequer of £2.9 billion in carer’s benefits and lost tax revenues.
We welcome the broad definition of reasons for needing carer’s leave and the fact that the definition of “dependant” is also broadly drawn. These definitions are often misunderstood, and further clarity is indeed welcome.
I particularly welcome the reference to young carers made by the noble Lord, Lord Young. He raised the links to deprivation and that awful tendency of those in this category to suffer in silence and not to come forward and claim any support that might be available to them. Given the important role that unpaid carers play and the fact that so many of them find themselves in precarious financial positions, especially with the soaring cost of living crisis, the situation is simply unacceptable. Through this process, the ability to raise the profile of the issues is very important.
I feel that it is impossible to talk in this debate without referencing the urgent need to tackle the crisis of social care in this country—across all age groups, those caring for both children and adults with disabilities, respite need and home care, as well as in the residential sector. It would be very helpful in this debate to have an update on progress in this area.
I very much look forward to the Minister’s response. I hope that, in line with other contributors’ support today, we will hear that the Government support this important Bill’s passage so that we can start to move forward on the journey to give carers support and to continue to increase awareness for those who so desperately need, and richly deserve, our support.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Johnson of Lainston) (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for introducing this debate. It was a highly eloquent, extremely thoughtful, very technical and, frankly, quite moving introduction to what I think we all agree is a most essential Bill. I also thank Wendy Chamberlain for initiating this process in the other place and the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, who clearly has been an inspiration to many in this House. She is an inspiration to me and has helped drive this agenda for many years. I hope that the noble Baroness feels a sense of satisfaction as she sits here participating in this debate, where we can now as a group “do something about it”, as they say. I personally appreciate the enormous support the noble Baroness has given to this process.
I would like to cover three specific areas in terms of why the Government are so keen to support the Bill. First, this is good for business. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, covered this from her expertise in her trade and economy role. Many other noble Lords also focused on this important point. We cannot afford for so many individuals to leave the workforce if we can possibly avoid it. I will talk about the moral case for that in a moment, but purely commercially, it does not make sense. It is an economic disaster that people are forced to leave employment in order to care. The figure quoted, of £2.9 billion, seems to me to understate the cost to the economy of this situation. Coming at this from a relatively dry economic standpoint, as someone who is not a proponent, fundamentally, of excessive regulation or additional burdens on businesses, I believe this is absolutely the opposite. It is an essential lubrication to the opportunity for businesses to prosper and for more people to come back into the workforce. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, wisely said, it will allow us to raise the profile of carers. It will allow people to better understand the business case for being able to combine work and caring. It will also help businesses understand the importance of retaining their staff and engendering good relations with their employees. I am absolutely convinced, as are the Government, that the business case for this Bill is paramount and incontrovertible.
Secondly, the Bill reflects the relevant role that carers play in our society. I was appalled to hear of some of the costs that the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, mentioned, of between £10,000 and £20,000, the well-established losses to pension contributions, and the poverty levels in which many carers find themselves on account of having to give up work to do the right thing.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester raised a number of issues which have confluence with these points. I have not read the report of the Archbishops’ Commission on Reimagining Care. I would be grateful if he would be kind enough to make a copy available to me, and I will certainly invest some time in it.
Other noble Lords raised the issue of the economic cost to carers, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Blake and Lady Tyler. The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, had to hide her caring responsibilities from her employer. My noble friend Lord Young asked whether employers are obliged to keep a register of carers in their companies. They will be obliged to record people who say they are carers—clearly the process to obtain the unpaid leave will necessitate that type of information—but they are not obliged to undertake a survey of their staff. I do not believe it is a requirement for registration when you join a firm. I think this initial stage is probably satisfactory, but it is certainly something that should be kept under review.
We hope this legislation will start to change the attitudes of businesses and individuals so that we can be proud to be carers, and businesses can be proud to have carers in their businesses and to support them in an appropriate way, as they would those in other occupations, such as the Territorial Army or whatever it may be, who have important work to do and whom they want to retain. This is a very relevant incentive—not that I am comparing those two roles, but I hope noble Lords understand what I am trying to imply.
The noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, made important points that I would like to address relating to making sure that the profile and value of carers is appropriately raised. Their importance to society must not be understated. For me, this Government and, I am sure, all of us in this House, it is better that we have an effective voluntary care system for dependants from loved ones, friends, neighbours and relations as a principle in how we structure our society and community. We believe firmly in that, so any measures that enable this type of society—a society of people bound together through love—is more powerful than any state support that could be provided to an individual, so I emphasise to the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, my support for her remarks.
I am also very aware of the noble Baroness’s comments around signposting entitlements to carers. It is important that we have a variety of different signpost mechanisms. They are, on the whole, the traditional mechanisms of websites, through ACAS and the tribunal system and similar government information portals, but I am not unaware of the need to raise the profile of this principle. I hope that debates such as this and the work of noble Lords will ensure we can continue to do this.
I am also aware of the issue around minority information portals. The Government are very committed to ensuring that all language communities are fully covered, but if there is anything that I can do personally to magnify this situation to any specific community, I would be keen to hear. This is ongoing work. I am sure all input will be well received. I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, asked me to write to her with specific details. I will be delighted to do so, and that may instigate further debate.
I hope I have covered everyone’s specific points. I express my gratitude to all sides of the House for the moving and powerful way that we have come together to very clearly put all our support behind something that is very straightforward, easy to administer, essential for our economy, right for the moral fibre of our nation in terms of keeping carers in work, and will benefit society fundamentally in the long term as well as raising the profile of this issue so that we can be proud to be carers and workers.
I turn now to some of the specifics that it would be useful to have on record. The Bill will create a highly flexible new leave right with low administration requirements. It will be available from the first day of employment, so people will be able to take their one-week entitlement in blocks as small as half a day or, indeed, for the full week. Both “dependant” and “long-term care need” are defined in the Bill, as has been raised. This is important, and these definitions are very broad, as has been welcomed. This ensures that leave is available for the widest possible range of long-term caring scenarios.
The Bill also keeps the administration process as light as possible. It is our intention that the associated regulations will state that an employer cannot demand that an employee present documentation in support of a leave request. I think we all agree that that is a relevant point. It is not for people to justify their actions; that raises even higher hurdles and barriers around the situation we are discussing. This helps the employee, who may not wish to divulge details of the health and well-being of their relative or friend. It also helps the employer, frankly, as it will relieve them of the responsibility of storing and managing that data effectively.
In conclusion, the Government are pleased to support this Private Member’s Bill and deliver our manifesto commitment. I thank again the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for bringing the Bill before us today, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, for her endeavour and her journey to where we stand now. I thank all noble Lords who have participated in the debate. Many have spoken passionately about their personal experience of caring for loved ones. I hope that in future, for many unpaid carers, this new leave right will make it that little bit easier to balance their work and caring commitments, and that their lives will be a little bit better for that. This is why I want to see the Bill succeed. We have an opportunity here today to make a real difference to the lives of those who seek to rely upon carer’s leave in the future.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I join the Minister in thanking noble Lords for their contributions today. When I saw the speakers’ list, I suspected that we would have a good debate, but it has exceeded those expectations. I think it has been a wonderful debate and I understand that even the Deputy Speaker refused to leave the Woolsack in order to be able to hear the end of it. I start by specifically thanking the Minister: the care and the detail with which he replied to the debate is a very good sign, and I am really delighted by that. I am afraid I will have to pull him up on one thing. He suggested that the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, might be satisfied: I can warn him, from what little I know of the noble Baroness, that she will be at his door tomorrow with the next requirement.
I would like to pick a few of the bones out of this debate, because it has brought together a wide variety of issues. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young, for bringing up the issue of young carers and young adult carers, because I failed to bring it forward, and I am delighted that he was able to do it. He also talked about workplaces being aware of how many carers they have. My noble friend Lord Shipley pointed out that there are an awful lot of hidden carers within the workforce. Even those businesses that have very well-defined carer systems, carer passports and whatever else do not unearth all the carers they have, so there is an awful lot of work to do, both at a governmental and societal level and at a granular level in businesses, particularly in small and medium businesses where they do not have the HR processes and the systems or the people to do this work.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, said a lot of interesting things, but I will pick out her point about trying to remove the guilt from this process—the guilt of the employee having to go and ask, cap in hand, for time to do a very important task for the person for whom they care. By putting that into a process, we start removing that guilt. My noble friend Lord Shipley mentioned the ageing population, and this is crucial. The demographic, as it goes forward, is going to drive the need for care, year on year, to an even higher level than we see today.
I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester for his contribution. He talked about valuing carers, and so many carers in the current situation do not feel valued by people around them. He talked about dignity, and I think part of what we are trying to do is create an element of dignity. The right reverend Prelate also talked about interdependence, with so many, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, said, feeling lonely. These are key issues. This was picked up by the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, who talked about her own personal experience, which was quite moving, as well as the wider issue about how this is a real challenge in the harder-to-reach communities in our society, and I thank her for her delivery. My noble friend Lady Tyler talked about not having to make the choice between caring and working, not having to walk out of your work because you cannot manage the process of day-to-day life.
I am now going to do what most Ministers seem to do, which is shuffle a few pieces of paper. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, and everybody else for their support, but I did have some trepidation that one of your Lordships was going to come up, not necessarily with an excoriating review of what we had here but with a whole catalogue full of massive improvements. We all know there is more to be done, and I am sure, as I have just said, there will be lots of people wanting to suggest what that should be. But the sense I got from the Chamber is that there are not going to be lots of amendments coming forward, because the way we get this Bill through quickly, or indeed get it through at all, is without amendments—by accepting what we have and moving on. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, for her, I think, cry of: “Forwards. Let us seize the moment”. I ask your Lordships to join with us, with the Minister and me, to seize that moment, and I invite noble Lords to support a Second Reading of the Bill.