All 6 Petitions debates in the Commons on 2nd May 2023


Thu 27th Apr 2023

House of Commons (33) - Commons Chamber (12) / Written Statements (8) / Petitions (6) / Westminster Hall (4) / General Committees (3)

House of Lords (17) - Lords Chamber (12) / Grand Committee (5)


Wed 3rd May 2023
Share Page

Petitions

Tuesday 2nd May 2023

(1 year, 7 months ago)

Petitions
Share Debate
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Tuesday 2 May 2023
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page

Fuel Utility Company Fixed Tariff Cancellations

Tuesday 2nd May 2023

(1 year, 7 months ago)

Petitions
Share Debate
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
The petition of Adrian Paul,
Declares that energy companies are able to charge new home owners or renters higher prices by automatically placing them on new standard tariffs compared to their previous fixed tariffs; notes that a home owner may only have insufficient funds for just one monthly Direct Debit payment to be kicked off a fixed tariff; further notes that direct debits can be cancelled accidentally and that direct debits can be wrongly cancelled or set up incorrectly, causing further issues.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to work with OFGEM to make sure utility companies are not to be able to end home owners and renters lower fixed tariffs without a two month period of non-payment.
And the petitioners remain, etc.—[Official Report, 21 February 2023; Vol. 728, c. 1P.]
[P002804]
Observations from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Amanda Solloway):
Energy suppliers are required to offer terms to all domestic customers. However, the setting of energy tariffs is a commercial matter for individual energy suppliers.
Where a customer pays by fixed direct debit, energy suppliers are required to ensure that the amount is based on the best and most current information available, including energy consumption, and are required to explain the basis of how any amount has been determined. Energy suppliers typically review their customers’ direct debit arrangements twice a year, but customers can also contact their supplier at any time to request a review of their direct debit arrangement in line with their estimated annual consumption. A supplier must explain the reasons for any changes it makes to a customer’s direct debit arrangement and normally inform them of any change at least 10 days in advance.
The independent regulator, Ofgem, is required by law to set the energy price cap so that it protects customers of default tariffs from overpaying and allows an efficient supplier to finance its supply activities. All elements of the energy price cap are kept under review and adjustments can be made reflecting changes over time.
The energy price guarantee (EPG) currently supersedes the energy price cap as the main price protection for consumers. The EPG protects customers from increases in energy costs by limiting the amount suppliers can charge per unit of energy used. As announced in the spring Budget, the EPG will be extended at £2,500 for an additional three months to the end of June 2023.
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page

NHS Nurses, Paramedics and Auxiliary Staff Pay Rises

Tuesday 2nd May 2023

(1 year, 7 months ago)

Petitions
Share Debate
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
The petition of Adrian Paul,
Declares that millions of employed lower-tier nurses, paramedics and auxiliary staff, who are working directly for the NHS, are already significantly struggling to pay their rent or mortgage payments and pay their bills; notes that with the cost of living increase and inflation the ability for nurses and other NHS workers to pay their bills will become increasingly difficult.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to increase NHS salaries in line with inflation, year on year alongside free hospital parking for all nurses, doctors, paramedics and auxiliary staff.
And the petitioners remain, etc.—[Official Report, 21 February 2023; Vol. 728, c. 1P.]
[P002805]
Observations from the Minister for Health and Secondary Care (Will Quince):
On 16 March 2023, following constructive talks with health unions, the Government put forward a best and final offer for more than 1 million NHS staff on the Agenda for Change contract.
Under the offer, Agenda for Change staff would receive a non-consolidated award of 2% of an individual’s salary for 2022-23. This is on top of the pay increase they received for 2022-23 last year, as recommended by the independent pay review body process, worth at least £1,400. In addition, they would receive a one-off “NHS backlog bonus” which recognises the sustained pressure facing the NHS following the pandemic and the extraordinary effort that staff have been making to hit backlog recovery targets. The recovery bonus would be worth at least £1,250 to full-time staff and would be determined by an individual’s pay band. The average full-time nurse in pay band 5, for example, would receive £1,350.
For 2023-24, the Government are offering Agenda for Change staff a 5% consolidated increase in pay, worth at least £1,065 to full-time staff.
As a result of this package, a newly qualified nurse would see their salary go up by more than £2,750 over two years, from 2021-22 to 2023-24. On top of this they would also receive over £1,890 in one-off payments this year.
On top of the pay package, the offer includes a series of non-pay measures to support the NHS workforce.
The Government firmly believe this is a fair offer that rewards Agenda for Change staff and commits to a substantial pay rise in 2023-24 at a time when people across the country are facing cost of living pressures and there are multiple demands on the public finances.
The Royal College of Nursing (RCN), UNISON, the GMB, the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy and the British Dietetic Association recommended the offer to their members in pay consultations.
Unison and RCN consultations closed on 14 April and these unions have announced their results: RCN has rejected the offer, with 54% of RCN members voting to reject; and Unison has accepted the offer, with 74% of those voting opting to accept. Members of the other unions continue to vote in their consultations.
Free Hospital Parking
This is an issue for individual trusts to decide.
All NHS trusts that charge for hospital car parking provide free hospital car parking for those in great need, including NHS staff working overnight, frequent out-patient attenders, parents of children staying in hospital overnight and disabled blue badge holders.
NHS trusts should follow the NHS car parking guidance, which sets out best practice principles—for example, where charges exist, they should be reasonable for the area.
Throughout the pandemic, this Government supported our NHS staff however they could. That is why in March 2020 we introduced free hospital car parking for all NHS staff during the emergency covid-19 period.
It was right that this policy ended in April last year as we continue living with the virus.
The Government want to continue working constructively with trade unions to make the NHS a better place to work.
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page

Child Maintenance Services

Tuesday 2nd May 2023

(1 year, 7 months ago)

Petitions
Share Debate
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
The petition of Craig Bulman,
Declares that the petitioner is concerned regarding the number of suicides that have been linked with the activities of the CPA and the CMS, notes that incorrect assessments and inflation of arrears may have played a factor in the mental health of those who committed suicide.
The petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons urge the Government to open an independent investigation into the Child Maintenance Service and their assessment procedures.
And the petitioners remain etc. —[Official Report, 1 March 2023; Vol. 728, c. 5P.]
[P002810]
Observations from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies):
The Department strongly denies any suggestion of a causal link between the Child Maintenance Service and suicide. Suicide is a very complex and emotive issue and over-simplifying the causes and circumstances surrounding it is dangerous and misleading.
The Department recognises that socio-economic factors such as deprivation, unmanageable debt, poor housing, and unemployment may increase suicide risk. We also recognise that, tragically, some people experiencing an emotional crisis, such as a family break-up, may be more prone to suicidal ideation, but we refute the idea that this is attributable to the CMS in any way.
The maintenance calculation is designed to be affordable for paying parents, while ensuring they contribute a significant proportion of their income to support their children.
All calculation decisions made by the CMS can be appealed through the mandatory reconsideration process and beyond that, to the independent Tribunal Service. Where arrears do accrue, paying parents are notified immediately and the CMS will work with them to get payments back on track and discuss how to clear the arrears. Paying parents can ask to negotiate their arrears payments at any time which is made clear in the letters they are sent, and in conversations with the CMS.
The CMS has robust processes in place so that its caseworkers know how to respond if customers express an intention to harm themselves. Caseworkers use a complex needs toolkit with clear steps to support vulnerable clients including those at risk of suicide or self-harm as well as those who are facing domestic abuse. It is the CMS’s priority to handle these cases in a sensitive manner and ensure that vulnerable customers get the help and support they need to use the CMS safely.
In the rare instances where the Department is informed of a suicide, the case is moved to a specialist team to investigate. Any suggestion or allegation that the Department’s actions may have negatively contributed to a customer’s circumstances are fully investigated and the Department will conduct—or participate in—any inquest, internal process review or adult safeguarding board as necessary.
The Department would encourage anyone going through a difficult or traumatic time to seek help via their GP and/or access support such as that which is offered by the Samaritans and/or the mental health charity MIND. The Samaritans are available 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. They can be called on freephone 116 123, emailed at jo@samaritans.org, or to find the nearest branch, visit www.samaritans.org.
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page

Child Support Act

Tuesday 2nd May 2023

(1 year, 7 months ago)

Petitions
Share Debate
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
The petition of Craig Bulman,
Declares that the petitioner is concerned with section 33 of the Child Support Act 1991 and its compatibility with Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998; notes that the Child Maintenance Service (CMS) is securing liability orders for debts that are not owed and are in dispute; further notes that no evidence is provided by the CMS to substantiate the debt is owed by the Paying Parent, further declares that Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 states that it is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to address these concerns surrounding section 33 of the Child Support Act 1991 and its compatibility with Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
And the petitioners remain, etc.—[Official Report, 1 March 2023; Vol. 728, c. 5P.]
[P002808]
Observations from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies):
The Child Maintenance Service always encourages paying parents to pay their maintenance on time in order to avoid accrual of arrears. Where the paying parent fails to pay on time or in full, and arrears have started to accrue, the CMS will attempt to regain compliance. Paying parents are given warnings of the consequences of non-compliance and caseworkers will seek to establish reasons for missed payments, help parents get back on track with their payments and put a repayment plan in place. If an arrears notice has already been issued within the last 12 months, the CMS is not required to issue another before taking enforcement action.
If negotiations are unsuccessful and no payment is agreed, then enforcement action can be sought to restart the flow of money to ensure children get the financial support they deserve. The CMS must consider the welfare of any children involved in any decision regarding enforcement action. Safeguards are in place throughout the process to ensure enforcement action is reasonable and proportionate, and that paying parents are given adequate opportunities to raise any issues or objections. We are satisfied that section 33 of the 1991 Act, and the statutory child maintenance scheme and its operations as a whole, are compatible with article 6, and all other relevant articles of the ECHR, and with the Human Rights Act 1998.
Prior to enforcement action being taken, a liability order must be obtained. A liability order allows the CMS to have the debt the paying parents owes legally recognised by the court.
The CMS must make an application to the magistrates court—or sheriff court in Scotland—for an LO against the PP. In the application, the CMS must provide evidence that the debt has accrued and payments have been missed. The court will consider whether the debt in question has become payable and whether it has not been paid. However, the court has no jurisdiction to question the calculation on which the debt is based. If an appeal against the liability or calculation is pending, the court may decide to adjourn. The PP has the right to appear at the hearing but is not obliged to as the LO can be made in their absence. An LO can be appealed in a magistrates court under the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980.
The CMS generally would not proceed with the LO application if there is an ongoing appeal or any outstanding calculation issue where the outcome may impact arrears for the period of debt covered by the LO application. The CMS can however proceed with an application for any safe period of debt such as any period prior to the effective date of the disputed maintenance calculation, or if they are confident that the arrears balance is correct and will not be altered.
The Department recognises the importance of supporting individuals in order to protect their rights. There are steps the Secretary of State takes to ensure this happens.
The CMS will issue arrears warnings at least every 12 months, informing PPs of the consequences of non-compliance. Once a decision is made to proceed with an LO, a further specific warning letter is issued to inform the PP that the CMS will apply for an LO within seven days if the paying parent is in the UK, or 28 days if they are abroad. No further action is taken until the warning period has elapsed.
If the PP pays the full amount due within the notice period, the CMS will not proceed with the LO application. If part of the amount is paid, a decision will be made on whether the application will continue for the outstanding balance. The PP can still contact CMS to arrange an acceptable arrears arrangement.
If the PP disagrees with the amount of arrears due, they can appeal through the mandatory reconsideration process and beyond that, to the independent Tribunal Service. This must be done within the notice period otherwise the application will be made. The PP can only dispute the amount of arrears due, not the LO itself prior to the liability order being granted.
Before proceeding with an LO application, the CMS will attempt to contact the receiving parent to check whether they agree to enforcement action being taken, however the ultimate decision on whether to the proceed with the LO sits with the CMS. If the circumstances of the case are not appropriate for LO action at that time, the CMS can consider pausing the case for a suitable period of time before reinstating action to commence recovery of the arrears.
Lastly, a PP can ask to negotiate their arrears payments at any time. This is made clear in the letters they are sent.
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page

Detachment of Earnings Orders

Tuesday 2nd May 2023

(1 year, 7 months ago)

Petitions
Share Debate
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
The petition of Craig Bulman,
Declares that the Child Maintenance Service’s current policy on the enforcement of Detachment of Earnings Orders is not in accordance with the principles it should apply; notes that the CMS must provide factual evidence to the Paying Parents employer and Bank Manager that arrears are owed before such enforcement can commence; further notes that if arrears are in dispute DEO’s must not be enforced bank accounts must not be garnished and liability orders must not be granted; furthermore that the burden of proof lies upon the accuser to prove with factual evidence that a debt is owed by the Paying Parent.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take into account the concerns of the petitioner and work with the Child Maintenance Service to prevent the improper use of the Detachment of Earnings Orders.
And the petitioners remain, etc.—[Official Report, 1 March 2023; Vol. 728, c. 6P.]
[P002809]
Observations from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies):
The Child Maintenance Service always encourages paying parents to pay their maintenance on time, in order to avoid accrual of arrears.
What a paying parent has to pay is determined by their maintenance calculation. If the paying parent is not happy with the calculation, they can ask for a mandatory reconsideration of it by the CMS, and if they remain unhappy, they can appeal the calculation in an independent tribunal. If a paying parent does not dispute the calculation, or if any dispute results in its remaining unchanged, and the paying parent does not pay it, then collection methods are used which are intended to re-establish full compliance as quickly and effectively as possible.
Therefore, where a paying parent fails to pay maintenance payments on time or in full, the CMS will take action to re-establish compliance and collect any unpaid amounts that have accrued.
Paying parents are given warnings of the consequences of non-compliance and caseworkers will seek to establish reasons for missed payments, help parents get back on track with their payments and put a repayment plan in place. If an arrears notice has already been issued within the last 12 months, the CMS is not required to issue another before taking enforcement action. If negotiations are unsuccessful and no payment is agreed, then enforcement action can be sought to restart the flow of money to ensure children get the financial support they deserve.
If the paying parent is employed, the CMS will instruct that child maintenance payments are deducted from their salary using a deductions from earnings order. Employers are obliged by law to take this action. When a DEO is served, the CMS provides the employer with a figure to be deducted which usually includes ongoing maintenance, collection fees and arrears.
To ensure that the CMS protects the paying parent against financial hardship, the maximum amount an employer can deduct is 40% of the paying parent’s net wage. The 60% of net income that the paying parent is allowed to keep is known as the protected earnings proportion and helps to ensure parents have enough money for their living costs. If the paying parent’s protected earnings proportion means that the employer cannot deduct the full amount that is instructed because they have not received sufficient earnings, the employer deducts as much as possible while leaving the paying parent with 60% of their net earnings.
If the paying parent does not agree with the decision or they think it is wrong, they can formally ask for the decision to be changed. This is called an appeal. An appeal can only be based on one or both of the following reasons:
The order is not correct or does not contain enough information for the deductions to be made by an employer,
The payments made to the paying parent by the employer are not classed as earnings.
To appeal against the deduction from earnings order, they must write to the local magistrates court if they live in England, Wales or Northern Ireland; or to the local sheriff’s court if they live in Scotland. The appeal must be made within 28 days of the date on which the deduction from earnings order was sent—56 days if they do not live in the United Kingdom. They must specify which of the above reasons are applicable to the appeal.
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page