Coronavirus: Supporting Businesses and Individuals

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) [V]]

Nearly a year into the restrictions necessitated by the pandemic, people are still falling through the cracks. After that length of time, they are no longer cracks: they are chasms that have been deliberately left open by the Government with millions trapped in them, like the women on maternity leave told by this Government that leave was in fact a holiday—a horrible piece of discrimination that could only have happened with our male Chancellor and male Prime Minister—or employees like the 80 staff of the Erskine Bridge hotel in my constituency who are relying on food banks and the kindness of their local community to make ends meet after they were all TUPE-ed but the HMRC report went through a day after the retrospective and arbitrary deadline for furlough.

Firing and rehiring has been almost endemic during this pandemic, which Minister after Minister has called unacceptable while refusing to act. That is unacceptable. Even in the middle of a pandemic, the Tory addiction to means testing and separating out the “deserving” and “undeserving” poor still carries on apace. Just as there are millions of people left with nothing or claiming universal credit, itself due to be slashed by over £1,000 next month, there are industries and businesses that appear to be favoured a lot. A lot of companies have made a lot of money from Government contracts in the past year. Those in the aviation sector are still waiting on the promises made by the Chancellor nearly a year ago when he spoke of a support package for airlines and airports. The reality is that we faced a potential collapse of many aviation businesses, with the loss of tens and perhaps hundreds of thousands of jobs, if that support was not forthcoming. At the very least, and for a start, it is time for the UK Government to follow the Scottish Government, again, and confirm 100% rates relief for aviation, in addition to all retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, for the next financial year. The level of indebtedness in the sector, particularly given the likely slow recovery to 2019 levels, is dangerous, and any further support simply cannot and must not be loans.

We will need that growth desperately if the first weeks of Brexit are anything to go by. Over recent weeks I have spoken to road hauliers and logistics businesses and their customers, some of whom need to fill in and process 35 separate documents to facilitate export to Europe when before they needed just one. Hauliers are seeing their vehicles returned to the UK empty and are now considering downsizing and letting drivers go. Scotland’s high-value and high-quality food and drink industry is also suffering. James Withers of Scotland Food and Drink said:

“What I do know is we sell £1.2bn of Scottish food into the European Union every year and that has got an awful lot more difficult, an awful lot more expensive and an awful lot slower.”

Other countries across Europe have managed to support their workers without the red tape and testing beloved of this Government. It is time that we followed their lead as we move out of this pandemic.

Towns Fund

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

From memory, the fund he is referring to was established by the Secretary of State at the Department for International Trade, but I will take his representations to my right hon. Friend and ensure that he gets a fulsome answer as quickly as possible.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I have to rush off after the Secretary of State’s answer for a Westminster Hall debate. The Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions estimated that Scotland will lose out on €840 million by 2027 due to the loss of access to EU regional development funds. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the funds apportioned to Scotland, assuming that they will be, from the stronger towns fund and the shared prosperity fund will make up that gap and that Scotland will not lose out on this substantial funding?

[Robert Jenrick]

We have made a manifesto commitment that I have repeated many times in this place that we will be bringing forward a UK shared prosperity fund. Further details on that will be set out at the spending review. It will ensure that all the nations of the United Kingdom receive the same level of funding in this Parliament as they received from the EU structural funds that we are moving away from.

Covid-19: Employment Rights

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Tuesday 17th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the covid-19 outbreak and employment rights.

It is fair to say that the pandemic has stress-tested a great many things across our civic, political and private lives. Day in, day out, jobs are being cut in many sectors across our economy. The jobs market is no exception, and neither, sadly, are employment rights. For far too many people an employment contract offers zero protection and has been rendered worthless, but despite some warm words the Government have not lifted a finger to help.

My interest in fire and rehire stems from my duty as a constituency MP for Glasgow airport, from my role as a transport spokesman and from my membership of the Transport Committee. Firing and rehiring emanates from the aviation sector, and in particular from British Airways. Among our first witnesses when the Committee looked at the impact of covid-19 on transport was Willie Walsh, the then chief executive of International Airlines Group, which owns British Airways. The company had just announced huge job losses—roughly 12,000 from a workforce of 42,000 were to be cut, while the reward, if that word can be used, for those who attempted to remain was a threat that they would be fired and rehired on reduced terms and conditions. For some, the reductions in net take-home pay were simply savage, with cuts of 40%, 50% or 60% not uncommon.

The workforce were understandably traumatised. I received hundreds upon hundreds of emails from British Airways staff. I spoke to cabin crew in tears at the treatment meted out by Mr Walsh and his willing deputy, Mr Cruz, and other BA management. It seems that Mr Walsh tried to make some of these changes a decade or so previously but failed; the pandemic has seemingly given him perfect cover to try again. I could not believe that that was legal. Perhaps naively, I thought that a contract and the law governing it would offer an employee and employer equal protection. Of course, we now see that there is no equality of arms whatsoever.

Following Mr Walsh’s appearance before the Committee, which it would be fair to say was not overflowing with modesty or contrition, further examples of firing and rehiring being deployed against thousands of workers came to light. That should not have come as a surprise to the Government. We and many other Members across the House had warned that without Government action other companies would follow in BA’s footsteps. Centrica British Gas has threatened over 20,000 employees with termination if they do not sign up to new, inferior contracts. Menzies Aviation, a ground handler at many UK airports, including Glasgow, assured me personally that it would not follow the British Airways lead but then copied and pasted its tactics for its own use. Heathrow, which other Members might touch on, is doing the same to its workforce. Unsurprisingly, many have voted for industrial action.

We should be crystal clear about what is happening and has happened. It is reprehensible to treat workers like this. It is counter-productive, self-destructive and flies in the face of what we in society should be willing to accept. In the words of a former Conservative Member, it is the “unacceptable face of capitalism.” Tory Ministers, including the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, have been queueing up to slate firing and rehiring, not least the Minister himself, who said last week:

“The very threat of fire and rehire is totally unacceptable”.—[Official Report, 10 November 2020; Vol. 683, c. 718.]

He slightly blotted his copybook just two minutes later, when he seemed to boast about the UK’s flexible labour markets and how easy it is to hire and indeed to fire workers. On that latter comment, I hope that he misspoke or that that was not what he intended, but that is how it came across to many people. The Minister and I met to discuss my fire and rehire Bill, which would outlaw the practice. He said that while the Government could not support the Bill he remained open to looking at further protections for workers in this area. Perhaps the change in management at No. 10 will allow a new and more collegiate approach on this issue. I know that it is a policy that many of the Minister’s colleagues are not pleased with. When he responds, will he say that he will work with me to strengthen workers’ protections in this area – perhaps in the Government’s Employment Bill? If he wishes to confirm it now, I would be happy to take an intervention, but if he will do so in his summing-up that would be good.

No one denies the unprecedented challenges facing business across the country. Aviation in particular has seen its business model receive its biggest shock since the war. There will be a debate on the issue tomorrow, so I will not go into detail, but as an example, Glasgow airport in my constituency has seen passenger numbers drop year on year by 83%, while some regional airports in England have seen drops of more than 90%. No serious person can argue that this is not a huge hit to an industry that has secured hundreds of thousands of jobs around these isles. The way to meet those challenges is by acting responsibly and being open with staff and trade unions about what the future might hold. In recent months, I have spoken to dozens of union reps, mostly from aviation but many from other industries too, and it is crystal clear that they recognise the position their employers are in. They know that change has to be on the table if their industry is to have a sustainable future. They are not reactionaries who want business and commerce preserved in aspic. They want their members and workers to be treated with respect, dignity and as partners as management come up with plans for the months and years ahead. A temporary problem, albeit for a more prolonged period than we would like, requires temporary solutions. Other airlines have managed to make such agreements with their work force. Threatening staff with the sack is not respectful, is undignified and is certainly not partnership.

I know that many Government Members—perhaps not the Minister—do not like to do so, but we should look at Europe. Partnership working is the norm, not the exception. The idea of management and workers coming together to plan a way forward, with the former working with rather than against the latter, is not some kind of socialist utopia. It is the stuff of advanced economies right across the continent—economies that are in most cases more advanced, wealthier and fairer than ours. That is not a coincidence. There is cross-party support for banning firing and rehiring. Members from every party in the House co-sponsored my Bill and I know that many Government Members are quietly supportive of the principles of the Bill.

Moving on from firing and rehiring, I welcomed furlough when the Chancellor announced it in March and I welcome its extension until next March, although the way in which that extension was announced and the way in which repeated calls for extension were flat-out ignored until the last minute—in fact, after the last minute—were sadly typical of the way the UK Government have handled employment and the economy over the past months. The U-turn has come far too late for thousands of workers made redundant after months of delays and uncertainty. Many good businesses have gone under and millions have been excluded completely. It is clearly still a system with many flaws, not least of which is the power it gives employers over workers, especially when those workers are worried for their jobs and livelihoods.

There is no appeal. An employee is entirely at the mercy and discretion of their employer as to whether to go on furlough or not. That is a lopsided arrangement. An employer can simply say that it is not worth the paperwork, terminate a worker’s contract and leave them to the pittance provided by the benefits system rather than furlough at 80%. The employee has zero rights under law to challenge, appeal or ask a third party to intervene.

Similarly, as we have seen in my constituency, where over 70 people have received no furlough payments due to flaws in the application process, there is no appeal to HMRC for any discretion. Over 70 households, instead of having access to furlough over the past eight months, have had to resort to food banks and the kindness of neighbours to get by, all because their employer was bought over and the change was not recorded by HMRC until one day after an entirely arbitrary furlough deadline was imposed retrospectively.

Returning to the aviation and travel sector and permanent part-year contracts that contain a provision to extend hours through the winter, I have been made aware that TUI is refusing to claim furlough payments for more than 500 permanent part-year employees on the basis that they are not extending the contracts this year due to lack of demand. However, the scheme has provision to claim for such employees, based on the amount earned in the same month last year or an average of monthly earnings for the tax year 2019-20. I hope that the Minister will join me in asking TUI and anyone else planning something similar to think again and to do the right thing. No one is asking for the furlough scheme to be a free for all, but it cannot be beyond the wit and imagination of the Treasury to come up with a system that gives some rights and power to the employee, rather than putting every single furlough egg in the employer’s basket and leaving workers with no recourse except to beg their bosses for some relief.

I welcome the Government’s introduction of bereavement leave for the parents of a deceased child. It is a decent and humane policy, and it deserves recognition. Now it is time to look at bereavement leave across the board and to give workers a right to paid time off at a time of grief and personal loss. That seems particularly pertinent when many have unfortunately lost a loved one to covid-19. It is a policy that would undoubtedly cost in the short term but could very well save money. Sue Ryder states that losing someone can have serious consequences not only for mental and physical health; it also costs the UK economy an estimated £23 billion a year due to presenteeism, absenteeism and reduced employment.

We have a situation whereby the UK’s sick pay system is, by a long way, the worst in western Europe. It is a system that has been shameful for years but is now being exposed as completely out of step with every single one of our neighbours and allies in Europe. Two years ago, the Council of Europe’s European Committee of Social Rights called the UK’s SSP system “manifestly inadequate”. In a sane world, that should have set off some kind of alarm in Whitehall, but here we are in the middle of a pandemic, asking people to self-isolate for the greater good yet providing a system of support that is manifestly inadequate.

Our nearest neighbours recognised the scale of the challenge right at the beginning of the pandemic. Ireland’s enhanced illness payment provides €350 a week to anyone who tests positive or has to self-isolate. Up to 10 weeks of payments can be made to people who have tested positive. It has ensured high compliance with self-isolation and helped provide some financial security for households who would receive a pittance if they lived in the UK.

There is no practical reason why the UK is so far behind our nearest neighbours; it is simply a matter of political choice and ideology. I know the Chancellor and his social media team are busy building the Rishi brand, and he would like to paint a picture of himself as the saviour of the economy, right down to delivering discounted katsu curries to diners’ tables. However, his signature strings are missing from a pledge to keep sick pay the lowest in Europe. His lack of photo ops to promote the UK’s position near the bottom of the league table perhaps says a lot about how well such boasts would go down with voters.

The Citizens Advice Bureau tells me that the current employment rights enforcement system is not up to task for dealing with the challenges exposed by the pandemic. Employees who have been unfairly treated have very few options for redress. For many people affected by the redundancy crisis, employment tribunals are the only place they can turn to in order to protect their rights and seek a fair outcome. There are currently six bodies that enforce employment rights in various ways: Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate, the Health and Safety Executive, local authorities and the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The situation is messy and piecemeal. Along with Citizens Advice Scotland and others, I welcome the proposal to set up a single enforcement body for employment rights. Can the Minister tell us when it will finally be introduced? Will it be included in the Employment Bill, and can he give us a timescale for that Bill?

My final point is brief and to the point. Surely the most basic of employment rights ought to be receiving a fair day’s wages for a fair day’s work. The UK Government’s national minimum wage, or the so-called living wage, is not a real living wage; it does not meet the minimum income needed for an acceptable living standard. The different rates of the living wage for young people are wholly unjust and discriminatory, and they do not take account of young people’s needs, responsibilities and living costs. The Chancellor could and should do what is right by increasing the statutory minimum wage and ending the age discrimination within it.

Rebuilding the economy after covid will become the biggest challenge that our society faces once the virus is under control. Workers must be part of that rebuilding and not treated as serfs. They and their families should not be threatened with financial disaster if they do not accept attacks on their pay and conditions. Enhanced employment rights are not just the right thing to do morally; they are the right thing to do economically. They ensure that workers have greater security, and therefore encourage spending within the economy, providing vital income and custom for our retail and service sectors.

The impact of covid has highlighted the fragility of many people’s working conditions—the fact that their family’s future hangs by a thread, which can be cut at a moment’s notice whenever management decides. That has to stop, and a much more equitable balance between employer and employee must be found as soon as possible, for the good of everyone on these islands.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

The reason why I am limiting interventions is that I want to leave the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North time at the end of the debate to sum up. I will clearly cover fire and rehire in a second.

Before doing so, I want to look at just some of the ways in which we have wrapped our arms around the economy and around businesses and employees. We have done that through the furlough scheme, which has allowed 1.2 million employers across the UK to furlough 9.6 million jobs. As we have heard, that scheme has been extended to the spring. With regard to the self-employment income support scheme, there is an increase under the third instalment of the grant, covering November to January.

It is also important that we help to get people, and particularly young people, back into work; we have heard about that from other hon. Members today. That is why, as we have announced, more than 19,000 jobs have been created so far through the kickstarter scheme, helping young people from across the country into the workplace and into a variety of sectors. In addition, 1.3 million businesses have had a Government-guaranteed loan to support their cash flow through the British Business Bank. That is delivering £8 billion to more than 98,000 SMEs—something close to my heart.

The hon. Gentleman talked about fire and rehire tactics. A key aspect of building back better is to continue championing a flexible and dynamic labour market, which gives employers the confidence to retain and hire staff, while maintaining a framework that protects individuals. For those who, sadly, lose their jobs, clear laws about unfair dismissal will ensure that their rights are protected. We have tightened the protections throughout the covid-19 pandemic. For example, we have made sure that statutory redundancy pay, statutory notice pay and unfair dismissal compensation are based on a furloughed employee’s normal pay rather than furlough pay. People who, sadly, are made redundant will receive the same level of financial compensation as they would if they had not been furloughed.

To understand better the issues in relation to fire and rehire, the Government are working with ACAS, and we are bringing together a number of roundtables with businesses, employee representatives and other bodies to discuss these issues in more detail. The House should be left in no doubt that this Government will always continue to stand behind workers and to stamp out unscrupulous practices where they occur.

We have responded swiftly and effectively to the pandemic.

[Gavin Newlands]

Will the Minister give way?

[Paul Scully]

I will come back to some of the hon. Gentleman’s points, but, yes, I will give way now.

[Gavin Newlands]

I am grateful, and I will keep my intervention brief. Can the Minister confirm, if he is having roundtable discussions about the practice of firing and rehiring, whether something might be brought forward in the employment Bill, when that Bill is eventually brought forward? If that is the case, will he work with me and others across the House to ensure that those provisions are good enough for the workers of this country?

[Paul Scully]

I will gladly work with the hon. Gentleman in continuing to discuss workers’ rights in this area and other areas. It is important that the employment Bill, when it does come, not only extends workers’ rights in the way that we talked about in our manifesto, but does so in a way that fully reflects the situation we are going through and the lessons learned from the pandemic.

Some hon. Members talked about pregnancy and maternity discrimination. That is not acceptable under any circumstances. We have continued to remind employers of their existing responsibilities under current legislation. Equalities legislation requires that employers must not discriminate in the workplace based on gender, pregnancy or maternity. Following the Government’s consultation in 2019, we are extending the redundancy protection period afforded to mothers on maternity leave to six months, once the new mother has returned to work, and to those taking adoption leave and shared parental leave.

We have taken steps to support new parents by passing emergency legislation that ensures that parents who are furloughed during the period, and are determined to be entitled to maternity, adoption and other family related statutory pay, do not lose out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Newlands]

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing today’s debate. As a former member of that Committee, I could feel the virtual slap on the wrist from the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), who is hundreds of miles away. I am grateful to Members for their attendance. The debate has been very well attended. It is a shame that the only Government Back Bencher was not able to speak this morning. I am grateful to Members’ support for the many issues discussed this morning, including the support for action on firing and rehiring.

The Minister pointed out that he had spent many years running small businesses. I also ran businesses and spent time as a business analyst, so I understand and support the need for flexibility, but that should not be at the expense of workers’ rights. There has to be an appropriate balance, and we do not have that balance in this country at this point in time. Although I remain perhaps naively hopeful for the employment Bill, if the Government continue to refuse to act, will they please devolve employment law to Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast? The Prime Minister seems to have dug himself a rather large hole on devolution at the moment, which is grist to the mill for the cause of Scottish independence. I bring that up for the benefit of the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), because she is a big, big fan of independence. [Laughter.]

I implore the Minister, as I said in my intervention, to listen and work with Members across the House when shaping the employment Bill. That work should include the abolition of firing and rehiring, and making sure we have appropriate protections for all workers in the United Kingdom. I thank hon. Members again, and I thank you, Sir Christopher.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the covid-19 outbreak and employment rights.

CCRC Decision on 44 Post Office Prosecutions

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Monday 5th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

It is up to Sir Wyn Williams how he wants to frame that inquiry, but it is absolutely set up for sub-postmasters to have their voices heard and to report back within about a year.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) [V]]

I thank the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and agree with what he said. This has been a dreadful affair during which neither the Post Office nor the Government have covered themselves in glory. A constituent of mine was sent to prison as a result of Horizon issues and was forced to sell their family home, leading to the breakdown of their marriage, yet in a letter to me the Government said they had no plans to prosecute anyone as a number of decision makers were involved. My constituent’s life is in tatters; who is going to be held responsible?

[Paul Scully]

On who is held responsible, let us wait for the response from Sir Wyn Williams and the independent inquiry. I know that, from Justice Fraser’s findings, some names have been recommended to the Crown Prosecution Service for it to discuss and investigate.

Draft Parental Bereavement Leave and Pay (Consequential Amendments to Subordinate Legislation) Regulations 2020

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2020 General Committees

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir David. I rise simply to reiterate the SNP’s support for this measure. I served on the Bill Committee for the 2018 Act. alongside my hon. Friends the Members for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) and for Glasgow East (David Linden). I record our thanks and support to the Members outlined by the Minister. I also thank the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) for her dogged work in this area, following her own personal tragedy. I must also commend my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran, who has spoken movingly on this issue following her own personal tragedy.

I echo the Minister in saying that this measure is about setting a minimum. I urge employers to go further where possible and necessary. No parent should lose out financially in the worst and most stressful moment of their lives.

Domestic Abuse and Homelessness

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Wednesday 12th June 2019 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) on bringing forward this matter for our consideration. It is always a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn). All Members who have spoken have given examples of why the system needs to do better. I am pleased to see the Minister in her place and I look forward to her response.

As always in these debates, I will give a Northern Ireland perspective and a couple of examples of how we can do better in Northern Ireland when it comes to domestic abuse and homelessness. Some of the shortcomings of the system that I see may replicate what everyone else has said so far. Domestic abuse is simply heartbreaking, and almost every week in my advice centre I deal with those issues on my constituents’ behalf. I am blessed to have extremely good, sympathetic and compassionate staff who can be a listening ear for the stories that are told, but also point people to where they need to go.

In the period from 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017, the Police Service of Northern Ireland recorded 29,166 incidents of domestic violence, 13,933 domestic crimes and three murders. That is in a small population of 1.8 million. Unfortunately, that is a fairly clear picture of things in Northern Ireland.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman underlines some stark statistics, and obviously each number represents a person. Although it was not in Northern Ireland, last week at the White Ribbon UK conference we were lucky enough to hear from Luke Hart, who gave extremely powerful and humbling testimony about his father killing his mother and sister, just days after he and his brother Ryan had managed to secure their freedom from the family home where they had been under coercive control and abuse, which had been normalised, for more than 30 years. It is about not just securing appropriate accommodation, but keeping the abused safe from the perpetrator thereafter. That is an additional requirement that we cannot forget when we are talking about ending homelessness caused by domestic abuse.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for sharing that story; it is a salient reminder to us all that there is a lot more to domestic abuse than meets the eye.

We are very pleased to have Women’s Aid refuges there to assist when needed, but they are frequently filled to capacity and must turn away women and their children. This debate enables us to look at how the system can respond better, because although Women’s Aid refuges can give assistance, more often than not it is the housing associations on the frontline that have to respond.

The relationship between domestic violence and homelessness is complex, as the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) made clear in his intervention. It is often underpinned by a range of factors such as gender inequality, socioeconomic disadvantage, mental ill health and poor access to income support and housing. Although domestic violence occurs in same-sex relationships and can happen to men, the overwhelming number of victims are women at the hands of a male partner or family member. That is the reality that I see in my constituency. In nearly every case, the victim feels as though they are tied into that unhealthy, bad relationship because they do not know where they will live with their children if they leave.

I will give an example of someone who came to me with a problem and did not know what to do, because they did not have the finances—the hon. Member for Great Grimsby referred to that at some length. I am dealing with a case where the partner of a young lady with three children threatened her with a knife, and her 13-year-old daughter heard it. That was the moment when the mother decided to do something, because until then, the threats, beatings and physical abuse had been only against her. At that moment, the mother realised that she was no longer the only one who was affected—although that had been bad enough.

The mother came into the office unsure what to do, as she and her partner both work. She does not understand the Housing Executive system and the allocation of points. I am sure the system in the rest of the United Kingdom is the same, but if it is not, it might help if I explain how the Housing Executive system works. She told my personal assistant, “I just don’t know how to get out with my three kids, but when my eldest daughter heard him say that, I knew I had to do something.” That was the catalyst. She said, “I can’t have her growing up and thinking that this is a normal situation.”

It has taken not threats against the mum, but threats against the future mental health of her children to make her take that step. She is still in that house while she tries to find a way forward. The sad fact is that because her mum and dad have a three-bedroom house, her situation is not classed as overcrowding. I will explain the system. She will automatically qualify for 70 points for being homeless. The threat of violence will probably mean another 20 points, because it is not a deep threat in the sense that someone could be murdered—she would get more points for that. The solution for that lady is to move in with her parents. She would have qualified for overcrowding and sharing points, but because her parents have a three-bedroom house, there are probably enough bedrooms available, so she will not get any overcrowding points and she may not get some of the sharing points.

We have to try to find a system that would enable that lady, who is suffering from domestic abuse, automatically and urgently to receive the necessary points to find her a house anywhere in Newtownards. Since she has to rely on the current system, she is trapped. That worries me. Under the system currently applied by the Housing Executive and the housing associations, she would need 150 or 160 points to get a house in Newtownards, so 70 points is a long way off what is necessary. We need a system that reflects that.

Deaths of Homeless People

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Thursday 20th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting the incredible work that is being done across the country and some of the many organisations that are doing it. I would like to pay particular tribute to the London homelessness charity, the Connection at St Martin’s, which had been working with the homeless man who sadly lost his life yesterday. I spent time last night at a homelessness shelter and I heard the stories of two men there. They told me about their difficult challenges and their different pathways into homelessness, both of which were very complex. That underlines the challenges and issues that we are dealing with, and shows why it is important that we take a broad, overarching approach to ensure that we can prevent, intervene and provide a sense of recovery. We must approach this with a concerted focus on all fronts.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

I should like to extend my sympathies to the family and friends of Mr Remes. The number of people sleeping rough has more than doubled since 2010, according to the Government’s own figures. Nearly 600 people died on the streets in England and Wales last year, yet the Secretary of State claimed this week that this was not the result of Government policies. Countless charities are pointing to cuts to public services as one of the main contributory factors to the shocking rise in homelessness. Would he consider visiting some of those organisations and hearing at first hand what everyone else in the country knows—namely, that austerity is pushing people on to the streets and putting lives at risk? With the roll-out of universal credit, charities are warning that up to 1 million vulnerable people are at risk of destitution and homelessness. Will he also commit to meeting the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and urging her to pause the roll-out of universal credit until it is clear that effective safeguards are in place to ensure that the system does not create a new tier of rough sleepers on our streets? Lastly, on homelessness and domestic abuse, will the Secretary of State tell me what action he is taking to ensure that the vulnerability test is not used as a gatekeeping tool by local authorities in England?

[James Brokenshire]

In relation to the hon. Gentleman’s last point, absolutely not. The Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs Wheeler), is working very closely on that.

The hon. Gentleman asked about universal credit. I point to the £1 billion in discretionary housing payments that the Department for Work and Pensions has put in place to protect the most vulnerable claimants. As I mentioned, we are working with the DWP. He asked me about a meeting—actually, the DWP is part of the core group that helped inform the work on the rough-sleeping strategy. Indeed, we are very much working in close concert with the DWP to ensure that, where improvements can be made, support is provided. I know that the Secretary of State is looking at these issues calmly and carefully.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned reaching out to those who work on the frontline. I speak regularly with a number of the charities and other organisations working on the frontline in this sector, and I will continue to make all the necessary visits to talk to those who have been sleeping rough to learn from their experiences and, as I have said, to take further action as required.

Secure Tenancies (Victims of Domestic Abuse) Bill [Lords]

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Monday 19th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—it is pleasure to see one of Renfrewshire’s ain back in the Chair for tonight’s debate.

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Clacton (Giles Watling), but I suggest—I mean no offence towards the hon. Gentleman or criticism of him whatsoever—that he does not need female relatives to give him permission to speak on gender equality or domestic violence. On social media and elsewhere, it has become common for men to list their daughters or their various female relatives as a preface to making comments on domestic violence or any related subject, but it is a societal issue, so we do not need permission to talk about it.

Despite this being a Bill that affects only England, I am nevertheless grateful to be able to participate in the debate and express my support for the Bill and the continued protection that it will hopefully provide to those fleeing domestic abuse. As we debate the Bill, which would be unnecessary in Scotland where we have not gone down the road of limiting tenancy agreements, it is worth reminding ourselves that the torment that survivors of domestic violence experience sadly does not end at the moment when they escape the violence and abuse. The traumatic events will have an impact on their lives long after they have fled from their abuser. Sadly, whether it be due to lack of space at local refuges or a lack of training or resources in local government, the system all too often lets down the abused, and often the children fleeing with them, at the most vulnerable point in their lives.

It can sometimes be too easy when discussing this issue to make it a binary debate focusing on the abused and the abuser, but abuse of any kind not only affects the person on whom the behaviour is directly inflicted but has an impact on the entire family and disrupts their lives, too. The decision to flee an abusive partner is not an easy one, particularly when children are involved, and the decision is often taken after months or years of abuse, or when the woman has simply reached breaking point or becomes concerned for the safety of her children. The crucial point to make is that they are extremely anxious and frightened, and they leave trusting that the local housing service will help them in their time of need and secure immediate accommodation for the family.

After speaking to several housing officers, I know that they are fully committed to helping women in such situations and leading them hand in hand through the often complicated housing system to avoid any further unnecessary stress. Unfortunately, though, as we have heard, schedule 7 to the Housing and Planning Act 2016 will require that new secure tenancies be offered for only between two and 10 years. When that legislation was being debated, hon. Members and peers from across both Houses rightly pointed out that it might mean those fleeing domestic violence losing their lifetime tenancies. This is a vital point, as we in Parliament really should not pass legislation that makes it harder for anybody to leave an abusive relationship. When somebody decides to escape violence, what they are looking for is safety, stability and security. The removal of a lifetime tenancy can remove that stability and security that survivors are seeking for themselves and their families. It is only right that we attempt to correct that, and I appreciate that the Bill has backing from Members from right across the House, as it rightly should, and that, in this case at least, the Government recognised this issue quickly and have taken action to fix it.

I mentioned previously that I have had discussions with housing officers, which provided evidence of their commitment to help those fleeing domestic violence, and that is backed up by my casework. However, as a member of the all-party group on domestic violence, I note the points made by Women’s Aid about the existence of a postcode lottery in how local authorities deal with domestic abuse cases. The “Nowhere to Turn” report highlights the variations in approach, finding that 19% of the women studied were prevented from making a homelessness application due to the housing officer’s assessment that “no local connection” existed and therefore the local authority had “no duty” to help the women and children who presented to it.

The report highlights how many local authorities are ill equipped to assist survivors appropriately and are still erecting administrative barriers in their way. Improving training and understanding is therefore crucial to ensuring that all survivors who need a secure tenancy when escaping domestic violence can access it. Training will help to break down some of the problems that exist, including the fact that too many officers still insist on a local connection when they assess someone’s housing needs. We need to accept that many survivors will flee to a different local authority area to get as far away from their abuser as possible.

Domestic abuse is not always an easy issue to deal with—in fact, it rarely is—so proper training is vital for those dealing with survivors in any capacity. For example, the Scottish Government have committed to training 14,000 police officers and staff to ensure that the new domestic abuse legislation can be implemented effectively. It would be good to hear the Minister commit to ensuring that all housing officers will be trained appropriately, ensuring that comprehensive, specialist and face-to-face training is delivered to them, as they are often the first point of contact. Furthermore, I hope she will lobby the Home Secretary to persuade her that all English and Welsh police officers and staff should be fully trained to deal with the Government’s new domestic abuse legislation, which we hope to see on the Floor of the House soon.

I know you like talking about Scotland, Madam Deputy Speaker, so let me make the point that it is likely that someone living in England will flee to Scotland, or indeed to Wales or Northern Ireland, to present as homeless to escape violence. I hope that the Government will keep us up to date on discussions with the devolved Governments to ensure that co-operation on helping those fleeing domestic violence extends into the constituent nations of the UK. As I have said many times before in this place, it matters not to me whether a woman is abused in Renfrew or Runcorn, Paisley or Penarth; this problem is societal, across the UK, and we need to work together to end it. So on this issue, at least, this Scottish nationalist fully supports a consistent approach across the UK.

Even though I welcome the fact that the UK Government are correcting a particular mistake with this Bill, they should not for one minute allow themselves to think that their work in this area is done. It would be remiss of me not to mention that their proposed funding model for short-term supported housing would be disastrous for refuges. During her International Women’s Day speech in Downing Street, the Prime Minister stated that she was committed to “sustainable funding”, which is welcome in itself but meaningless if refuges are still forced to close. I heard what the Minister said about the audit, but the Government need to fix this and provide clarity as soon as possible.

In conclusion, I welcome today’s Bill and hope that it will offer the safety, security and stability that people fleeing domestic violence are entitled to. However, the Government could and should be doing a lot more to help those experiencing abuse of any kind. We need to build on this legislation by introducing comprehensive training for housing officers to help eliminate the postcode lottery on the support provided. We must also be mindful of the very real threat of a changed funding model to the future of women’s refuges. This Bill aims to provide stability for those fleeing domestic abuse, but if the Government fail to provide a long-term, distinct and sustainable funding model to support women’s refuges, we face the strong possibility that centres will close, removing the safety, stability and security that survivors of domestic violence are looking for and should receive.