Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jim Cunningham and Will Quince

Monday 1st July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Will Quince]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. We continue to provide a strong safety net through the welfare system for those who need extra support and, as I have said, people use food banks for many and varied reasons. We review research carried out by organisations, including the Trussell Trust, to add to our understanding of food bank use. I intend to work far more closely with the Trussell Trust and other food bank providers, including other stakeholders in this area. I want food bank providers and jobcentres to work far more closely together so that we can better understand the issues and then put in place the interventions to make the situation better.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

A few weeks ago, I and a colleague of mine visited a major food bank in Coventry. One of the lessons we learned from the food bank in Coventry—it has nine outlets throughout Coventry and Warwickshire—is that universal credit is forcing people to use food banks. What is the Minister going to do to sort out the problem that people have who are forced to use food banks? Surely we should have another look at universal credit and abolish it, because it is not working.

[Will Quince]

I am sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman’s example. If I get a chance to visit his local food bank, I will certainly do so, but I have to stress that no claimant needs to wait more than five weeks to receive their first regular universal credit payment. We have listened to feedback on how we can support our claimants and made improvements, such as extending advances, removing waiting days and introducing housing benefit run-on. I will continue to work with the Trussell Trust and others to improve our system in any way we can.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. The Government remain committed to tackling poverty so that we can make a lasting difference to long-term outcomes. I am pleased to say that the Government have lifted 400,000 people out of absolute poverty since 2010, and income inequality has fallen.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

T9. Have the Government come to a view on Philip Alston’s report on poverty in the UK?

Family Law

Debate between Jim Cunningham and Will Quince

Tuesday 11th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 9 May, be approved.

These regulations amend child maintenance legislation to enable the delivery of the child maintenance compliance and arrears strategy.

We all know that, when parents work well together, their children fare better. A reformed child maintenance scheme based on that principle was launched in 2012 and administered by the Child Maintenance Service. This scheme was designed to encourage parents to work together following separation and, where possible, to make a private family-based arrangement for the child. Where parents are not able to do this, the statutory scheme is there as a fall-back option. I am pleased to say that, following staged implementation, the service is working well and largely avoiding the problems that beset the previous statutory child maintenance schemes. As the reformed scheme has been implemented, we have listened to the issues that hon. Members and external stakeholders have raised. This valuable input has informed our new child maintenance compliance and arrears strategy.

Last November, this House approved regulations tackling a number of those issues, closing down loopholes, introducing tough new sanctions for those who evade their responsibilities and dealing with the historic arrears that built up under the Child Support Agency. This second set of regulations supporting the compliance and arrears strategy builds on those made last November. It includes provisions to make deductions from benefit fairer, to address uncollectable debt and to improve information-gathering processes, alongside amendments to the calculation and fees regulations so that they better reflect the intent of the 2012 reforms.

Let me turn first to the changes to powers to make deductions from benefits. All parents have an obligation to support their children regardless of their financial circumstances. Parents on benefits are liable to pay the flat rate of maintenance of £7 per week. If they do not pay voluntarily, we can take deductions directly from their benefit payment, plus a collection fee of £1.40. There are different rules surrounding what may be taken for ongoing maintenance and what may be taken for arrears.

The Child Maintenance Service can currently make weekly deductions of £8.40—a flat rate of maintenance at £7, plus a £1.40 collection fee—towards ongoing maintenance from certain benefits, and £1.20 towards arrears from a smaller number of benefits. In some cases, a total of £9.60 a week can be deducted. I want to make this policy fairer for all parents involved.

The regulations enable deductions towards arrears to be made from the same benefits from which the Child Maintenance Service can deduct ongoing maintenance. They also ensure that the service can deduct a maximum of £8.40 a week in all cases. They will stop deductions towards arrears and ongoing maintenance being taken at the same time, with arrears deductions being taken only after ongoing liability has been satisfied. This removes all current inconsistencies and means that arrears of child maintenance can be cleared at a faster rate.

I am also proposing specific changes to deductions from universal credit. The Child Maintenance Service can already deduct £8.40 towards ongoing maintenance from universal credit, if the paying parent has no income from employment. The new regulations will allow the Child Maintenance Service to do the same where the paying parent has earnings in line with other benefits. This will only apply in cases where the paying parent is liable to pay only the flat rate—that is, based on earnings of £100 a week or less. This change means there will be a more efficient and consistent approach to clients on UC with similar financial circumstances.

Let me turn to the proposals regarding protected trust deeds. A protected trust deed is an arrangement in Scots law between a debtor and their creditors. In Scots law, child maintenance arrears that are covered by the deed cannot be collected once a parent enters into its terms. Although dividends may be received towards arrears while the deed is in operation, once it expires any arrears covered by the deed are legally uncollectable. At present, any child maintenance arrears are still held on child maintenance computer systems, even though they are no longer enforceable. The regulations will extend our write-off powers to cover arrears within the terms of a protected trust deed, once that deed has expired. This change keeps our legislation in line with that in Scotland and provides clarity to parents about the status of these arrears. It also stops the Child Maintenance Service holding information about uncollectable arrears indefinitely at a cost to the taxpayer.

There are occasions when child maintenance agents need to access premises to gather information, using powers of entry—whether to trace a parent, to recover child maintenance arrears or to ensure that the child maintenance calculation is as accurate as possible. We do this in a limited number of cases and when other measures to collect this information have failed. In line with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, we propose an additional safeguard to protect the public from unnecessary intrusion. The regulations require an inspector to apply for a judicial warrant where they are refused or expect to be refused access to premises, or where they cannot contact the occupier. Although the Child Maintenance Service cannot use its powers of entry to access a wholly private dwelling, this change would reassure the public that independent judicial consideration has been given to any request for inspection. I expect only about 20 judicial warrants to be sought per year, and the occupiers of these premises will have all the usual rights of appeal via magistrates courts in England and Wales, or sheriff courts in Scotland.

I am also proposing changes to the manner in which the Child Maintenance Service requests information from certain organisations. Mortgage lenders and occupational pension providers can be a valuable source of information where there is a need to trace a parent, to calculate a maintenance liability or to decide on the best enforcement power to use. To collect this information currently, the Child Maintenance Service has to arrange for one of our inspectors to visit. Repeat visits are often needed when the information is not readily available, and that can be costly and time-consuming. The regulations add mortgage lenders and occupational pension providers to the list of persons who are legally required to provide the service with information; that information is provided in writing, on request.

When calculating child maintenance, the Child Maintenance Service aims to produce a fair reflection of what the paying parent can afford. This is usually based on the taxable income figure provided by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. The income figure given to the Child Maintenance Service by HMRC is currently provided after any deductions for pension contributions, but before non-taxable allowable expenses are disregarded. Parents need to notify the service to get those non-taxable expenses disregarded from their income figure. I propose a change in the legislation to make it clear in law that the income figure used to calculate maintenance must be used after allowable expenses have been disregarded.

The regulations also include a small technical change to collection fees, which were introduced in 2014 and were aimed at encouraging collaboration. They accrue alongside ongoing maintenance and, as with maintenance liability, accumulate when left unpaid. Collection of these outstanding fees can be enforced as though they were unpaid child maintenance. The regulatory changes that I am proposing clarify this policy intent and will provide the courts with a clear direction on fees when a liability order is sought.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Who decides on the level of fee—the court or the Department?

[Will Quince]

The fees and charges—20% for the paying parent and 4% for the receiving parent—are set by the Child Maintenance Service.

The regulations build on the success of the child maintenance reforms, further developing collection measures and information-gathering powers, helping to make child maintenance fairer for all parents and ensuring that we fully deliver on the commitments in the compliance and arrears strategy. I commend the regulations to the House.

Delay Repay: Great Eastern Main Line

Debate between Jim Cunningham and Will Quince

Wednesday 30th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Will Quince]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is right; nobody should be standing on a train for this length of time. Nobody should be standing to get to London Liverpool Street from average commuter towns like Chelmsford or Colchester, or even as far as Norwich. The journey from Chelmsford is about 40 minutes, from Colchester it is about 55 minutes and from Norwich it is one hour and 45 minutes or even two hours; we hope to get that down to one hour and 45 minutes with the new trains. Increased capacity will come with the new trains, but there is a massive issue with standing. It is not uncommon to see people—indeed, I have done it myself—standing between Colchester and London. That is not acceptable.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

The west coast main line is not as bad, but we often have cancellations, and people stand at Euston waiting but are not told the reason for the cancellation. There is an argument for new rolling stock, whether on the hon. Gentleman’s line or the west coast main line. I agree with his point about fares. The public have got so used to fares being increased that they feel helpless to do anything about it. Fares are far too high now.

[Will Quince]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Fares are an interesting point. Of course everyone would like to see rail fares come down, but most people say that they want their fare to represent better value for money. We are fortunate that we are getting a brand new fleet of trains, at a cost of some £1.4 billion, but to set that in context, we have waited in some cases 40 years for it. Some of our rolling stock is decades old—in fact, I think some of it even breaches standards in 2019, so it needs to be replaced in any event.

I think the public are clear about what they want: punctual services. In the unfortunate event that that is not possible, adequate compensation for the delay must be available. I would be the first to argue that we should focus our efforts on improving the reliability of the service. Rail users would rather not face delays than receive compensation.

I have raised this issue numerous times with Greater Anglia, which has assured me and colleagues that it is investing more than £20 million in improving the performance of its existing trains. As I mentioned, it is also engaged in a £1.4 billion investment programme over the next two years to replace its current models with new trains, the first of which are due to enter service on the line this year. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), that will increase capacity on our line, with 1,043 carriages available compared with 937 at the moment. That is good news. It is long overdue—sadly, like some of the trains leaving Colchester—but I welcome these announcements.

We must not forget Network Rail, as most of the delays on our line fall under its remit. Members of Parliament from across our region, ably led by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), have called for repair and renewal work on our line as part of the great eastern main line taskforce. We have helped to secure £2 billion as a funding settlement for our line, and we will start to see the benefits of these works in reduced delays and disruption.

I wish to touch on the sensitive and incredibly sad issue of suicide, as I know that fatalities on the line are often the cause of the longest delays. I want to reassure rail users that Members of Parliament from across this House on our line have been working closely with Greater Anglia, Network Rail and the Department to do all we can to put measures in place to try to reduce and minimise the number of people who are, tragically, taking their own lives on our lines.

I hope I have set out why there are good reasons for optimism. I appreciate that I was relatively disparaging about our rail service to start with, but a lot of constituents would feel exactly the same.

Offensive Weapons Bill

Debate between Jim Cunningham and Will Quince

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons
Wednesday 27th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Will Quince]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. It is important to note, though, that although in the past people have thought, “This isn’t a problem for us—this isn’t something that our children would be involved in,” the reality is that it is now quite the opposite. These grooming gangs are looking for people who are not stereotypical. They are looking for children who are particularly vulnerable, and that is not just children from socially deprived backgrounds or from council housing estates—the people one would perhaps automatically associate with being easy prey for some of these grooming gangs—but the young people who are easiest to groom and are less likely to be stopped and searched by a police officer. The enemy is at the gate, and to think that our own children and the children of middle-class families are not as affected as anybody else is a myth. It is a dangerous assumption not to think that every single part of our society and every town in our country is affected, and even rural areas. We should absolutely send out the message loud and clear that this affects everybody’s children, not just somebody else’s.

On root causes, we need to take a much tougher stance on antisocial behaviour. If we do not take a tougher stance on very low-level crime, it will be easier for people to think that other crimes are acceptable. A policing focus on drugs would be particularly helpful. To tackle the issues, we really need to understand the root causes. The strategy goes some way towards achieving that, but there is more work to do.

Let me turn to the specifics of the Bill. There is no reason whatsoever for under-18s to be able to buy these weapons, nor for them to carry them in public, so I very much welcome the Government’s position. There is also no reason to possess certain weapons in private properties. There is no justification for having zombie knives, knuckle dusters and death stars, even in private possession.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Successive Governments have failed to tackle the knife culture in this country, so in a way this is not really a political thing. We have had instances in Coventry, going back around 20-odd years, of people giving evidence in court and the individual being given a sentence, but then visiting them as a punishment. That is one part of the whole argument about witness protection schemes.

[Will Quince]

The hon. Gentleman raises a good point. There is no easy answer to this issue; if there was, successive Governments would have addressed it. That was why I was making the point that to really address knife crime and why people carry weapons, we need to understand the root causes and then put in place interventions at numerous points on the journey towards criminality. Even when someone has entered criminality, we should intervene at the earliest possible opportunity to try to break the cycle and turn someone’s life around.

On the online sale of weapons, I very much welcome the banning of the delivery of knives and corrosives brought online, and especially the fact that they will no longer be deliverable to residential addresses. I agree with the position in the Bill: there is no reason why such items cannot be purchased in person. The Bill goes some way to addressing the move towards online purchases, but I have a couple of questions for the Minister. Have we looked into age verification on delivery, which is an option that already exists for a number of products? I appreciate that there are some flaws with that approach, but I think there is something in it to be teased out in Committee. Have we assessed the possibility of individuals getting these weapons delivered to workplaces instead? So many people have even private parcels delivered to their workplaces, so we must ensure that there is no loophole for people to purchase corrosives or knives using that route.

On retailers, have we done any liaison with retailers on theft? If we are to make knives more difficult to come across—I refer back to what I said about these items being in most of our kitchens up and down the country—what work has been done on theft? I can walk into any Sainsbury’s or Tesco store—other supermarkets are, of course, available—and notice that in the kitchen aisle it is only the high-value knives that have any kind of security tag. Some of the very sharp, low-priced knives are just there on the shelves for anybody to pick up. I should also point out that they are not even always above the height that children can reach, which is perhaps another point that needs to be considered. I am not sure whether we need to go as far as having all knives behind a counter so we have to request one, as we do with cigarettes. Perhaps we should look at some kind of security tagging of knives, especially sharp knives. I do not know whether we have looked at having cabinets in shops. I am conscious that that is not the panacea; it will not fix the issue, but it might go some way towards making it harder for individuals to get hold of a knife.

As has been said by many hon. Members, constituents have raised firearms as an issue. Although I represent a wholly urban constituency, I have a number of people who are interested in firearms for sporting purposes. I have some sympathy with the Government’s view on the banning of .50 calibre rifles for civilian ownership. These are very high-powered rifles that can punch through armour. I know that they have been banned in California under Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Inevitably, with any such policy, we must make sure that it is evidence based. I understand that there is a case of one of these weapons being stolen, but it was recovered very quickly by the police. We need to make sure that our policy is evidence based. We are talking about a very small number of these weapons. As far as I understand it, we do not have any evidence of these weapons having been used in crimes.

Homelessness

Debate between Jim Cunningham and Will Quince

Tuesday 27th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans).

There is no inevitability about homelessness. In 21st-century Britain, there is no reason for anybody to sleep rough on our streets. It is perhaps too easy to walk past a rough sleeper and pretend that they are not there, and to think that the individual before us must have done something wrong—that they are a drug addict or alcoholic, someone to be fearful of and stay away from. We must break this taboo. Every rough sleeper is somebody’s son or daughter and every or any single one of us could be in that position within a small number of unfortunate life events. We must never forget that.

It cannot be said enough that one person sleeping rough on our streets is one person too many. In last year’s autumn Budget, the Chancellor announced £28 million of funding for three Housing First pilots in Manchester, Liverpool and the west midlands. That was such an important move, because the underlying causes of homelessness, and, in particular, rough sleeping, are incredibly complex. To suggest that they are attributable to any single cause is to display an unwillingness truly to understand the issue.

The more we can learn about what forces people on to our streets, the better we can target preventive support, yet there are some things that we do know. If we look at the 2016-17 Combined Homelessness and Information Network figures for London, we can see that among those who were interviewed the single biggest reason given by new rough sleepers for leaving their previous accommodation was the loss of a tenancy, yet that was not because they were evicted for antisocial behaviour or rent arrears. Individuals were asked to leave, most likely through section 21 notices from their landlords. The second biggest reason was relationship breakdown, which is not all that unexpected given that young single men are rarely considered a priority need unless they are vulnerable. We need to consider both issues to see how rough sleeping can be prevented, but it is more important to ensure that there are support services in place for those already sleeping rough on our streets.

The CHAIN report found that 47% of the rough sleepers that the network spoke to had mental health support needs, 44% had alcohol support needs and 35% had drug support needs. That underlines the problem in trying to tackle this issue: rough sleeping is not simply a homelessness problem. All too often we hear stories of individuals who have been helped off the streets and into temporary accommodation but who do not get the support they need to address the root causes so, unfortunately, they end up back on the streets.

Addiction can also affect people’s ability to enter emergency accommodation. In my experience, those sleeping rough on our streets cannot stay at the local night shelter or hostel because they have an alcohol or drug addiction. That is why Housing First is so important. We need to get vulnerable people off the streets and into stable accommodation so that we can help them with their underlying support needs.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

We do not have to go too far from here—just down to Victoria—to see people living rough on the streets. I often wonder why nothing has been done about them, and I see them regularly down there. There is another factor too. Homeless families have been exploited by landlords and are in overcrowded accommodation, and some of them are evicted because they cannot afford to pay the rents, so we should think about building council housing for a change as well.

[Will Quince]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I want specifically to talk about rough sleeping, and he raises a point about wider homelessness. I have no doubt that colleagues across the Chamber will speak more widely about homelessness, but I want to talk about rough sleeping, which does not necessarily fall into the category of families. It tends predominantly to involve young single men and young single women.

We do not have to look too widely across the world to see that Housing First is working and helping rough sleepers with the most complex needs.