Child Support Collection (Domestic Abuse) Bill

Debate between Jess Phillips and Mims Davies

Committee stage
Wednesday 14th December 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Jess Phillips]

Is the Minister aware that if someone who has a job tries to get into a refuge, it is almost impossible to pay the cost of living in that refuge? The vast majority of people who live in a domestic abuse refuge are benefit dependent. In case after case, year after year, if women in work come forward, the decision is to leave their job or get out of the situation; and nothing has been done about that. Although the issue is important in jobcentres, the current situation is discriminatory.

[Mims Davies]

I thank the hon. Lady for that point. That is exactly why the EDAC and working with employers is vital.

[Jess Phillips]

What about the benefits system?

[Mims Davies]

I will come to that. It is vital for employers to have that advice, so that they can understand such a situation and support people—if those people are in work, or if they are coming out of a refuge situation and want to go into work. I am very aware of the benefits situation that the hon. Lady mentioned; it is part of my new portfolio and something I am looking at. I will be happy to engage with the hon. Lady. It concerns me deeply as a woman. If I were in that situation, it would be difficult to move forward. I take her point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mims Davies]

Very much so. This legislation is important for anyone in a perilous situation at home. To be clear, such abuse is criminality in the home. If it took place on our neighbour’s front lawn or down the precinct, it would be criminal. Whoever is involved and however it is brought about, it is criminality. For anyone involved in domestic abuse—anyone perpetrating it, male or female, and whether on a male or a female—it is criminality, fair and square. Those people it is happening to should be empowered and supported to come forward. I thank my right hon. Friend for making that point.

Let me make some progress. I will discuss why the Bill came about, which we have touched on briefly. The CMS processes and policies are regularly reviewed and kept in line with best practice. The Department commissioned an independent review of the way in which the CMS supports survivors of domestic abuse, because we want to take practical steps to ensure that those who have suffered domestic abuse can use the CMS safely and with confidence.

We have learned lessons from customers’ experiences and acted on their feedback. We have consulted with stakeholders, some of whom we have heard about today. The Independent Case Examiner—ICE—who is the complaints arbitrator, highlighted a case where a paying parent was allowed access to direct pay, despite there being a non-molestation order in place. That is incredibly worrying. We need to make sure we have aligned our policy in accordance with the ICE view that that was inappropriate, despite the paying parent paying their maintenance in full and on time.

We are not complacent with this. The day-to-day policy sits with my noble Friend in the other place, Baroness Stedman-Scott. She is very strident that the CMS must be at its best. We must learn when things go wrong, and we must be strident in pursuit of parents doing the right thing for their children. We can all agree on that.

The collection charges are applied to all CMS collect and pay cases. The charges are 20% on top of the liability for the paying parent, and 4% of the maintenance received for the receiving parent. I appreciate and understand colleagues’ points. The charges were originally introduced to provide both parents with an incentive to collaborate. Running the collect and pay service incurs costs to the taxpayer. It is therefore reasonable for most parents to contribute towards running this service.

However, we recognise that many parents who the Bill aims to support could be among the most vulnerable groups, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye has said. Full consideration is being given to exempting victims of domestic abuse from collection charges, although collection charges do not form part of the primary legislation and are set out in secondary legislation. We are clear that charges on the whole are the right approach, but we are willing to consider, and are rightly considering, where exemptions may be appropriate. I hope that reassures the Committee.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley asked about domestic abuse training. We have substantially strengthened the CMS procedures and processes to support customers experiencing domestic abuse, and to help them to tell us what is going on. I hope this reassures the hon. Member: with particular input from Women’s Aid, a programme of domestic abuse training has been designed and delivered for all CMS caseworkers. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member knows different and is concerned, I am happy to hear more from her and from Women’s Aid.

Let me provide some details. The training recognises that domestic abuse can take various forms, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch. It can be physical, psychological, emotional and financial. The training gives appropriate signposting to domestic abuse support groups, and advice on contacting the police if necessary. If customers do not feel able to do that, they are asked whether they are content for the Child Maintenance Service to do so on their behalf. We are strident in making sure that those people engage with us and are supported.

[Jess Phillips]

As a professional in this area, even from the description of the training I have concerns about the line being taken. For example, I would never tell somebody that I was going to call the police unless there was a genuine threat to their life in that moment. The training is not designed or delivered by Women’s Aid; there has been a conversation with Women’s Aid. I urge the Department to have independent specialist training by professionals.

[Mims Davies]

I am telling the Committee the steps we have taken to secure better training for the people on our phones, but I appreciate the hon. Lady’s point and that her for it. A complex needs toolkit has been developed for caseworkers that includes clear steps to follow to support customers who are experiencing abuse. The toolkit is regularly reviewed and strengthened on the basis of customer insight to ensure that we evaluate the effectiveness of the guidance and training on domestic abuse. This is a complex area that I cannot cover fully in Committee, but I am happy to take the hon. Lady’s points, including on Women’s Aid, to the service as a challenge. I hope that comforts her.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Jess Phillips and Mims Davies

3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 3rd sitting: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 8th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Jess Phillips]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes a very good point, unfortunately. The thing that we might get, as the leave campaign said, is a squashing of workers’ rights; the thing that we will not get is £350 million going into the NHS. If only there was a level of consistency in what we have been promised.

[Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)]

I have always enjoyed working on the Women and Equalities Committee, which has been incredibly harmonious, listening to both men’s and women’s voices. I understand the spirit of new clause 100, but I find it faintly objectionable—I know who I am addressing this to in using that phraseology—to criticise our Prime Minister in talking about women’s rights and equalities, because she has led the way on tackling female genital mutilation, making sure that workers in particular areas have better life chances, and tackling coercive control. May I implore the hon. Lady to believe that Conservative Members, particularly our Prime Minister, do believe in the rights of those both male and female?

[Jess Phillips]

I have absolutely no doubt that some Conservative Members care about women’s rights, but I have lots of evidence to suggest that some absolutely do not, and need, frankly, a good, strong talking to by our Prime Minister. It is because I know how committed the Prime Minister has been to dealing with issues of violence against women like FGM, and cross-border issues to do with FGM, that I cannot understand why she would whip her party not to vote for this.

When Ministers are at the negotiating table thinking about the competitiveness of the UK economy, what will be high on their list? Will it be how to ensure that we protect and enhance workers’ rights or women’s rights—I think we can see the answer on the Government Front Bench—or will it be to undercut our EU neighbours by becoming a low-regulation, low-tax economy? The esteemed High Court justice Dame Laura Cox has said:

“Some of the basic rights that we now take for granted—pregnancy and maternity rights, part-time workers’ rights, equal pay for work of equal value—are all at risk if the UK becomes a low regulation economy.”

Is that the true destination of these negotiations? Can the Minister give us an assurance that powers in the great—or otherwise—repeal Bill will not be used to remove any equality and employment rights at a later date? Will the rights of part-time workers, pregnant women at work and women fighting for equal pay really be safe with them, whatever happens?