Police Widows’ Pensions

Mark Williams Excerpts

Wednesday 15th March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered police widows’ pensions.

This important issue was brought to my attention by a constituent of mine, Diane, who sadly lost her husband in the line of duty when he was serving as a police officer. Years down the line, Diane met another man and fell in love. The couple decided they wanted to be together. They found that the position was that Diane had to choose between their future happiness and maintaining her eligibility for her late husband’s pension. She is not alone in her predicament; hundreds of other widows and widowers are left to make the same decision.

Fortunately, in 2014 Cathryn Hall, who is here today, started a petition entitled “Grant Police Widows Pensions for Life—Don’t Make Them Choose Between Future Happiness and Pensions”, which says it all. Cathryn has bravely shared her story so I am not breaching any confidentiality in recounting it. She became a widow at 24 years old following the death of her husband Colin, who served in the West Midlands police force for 21 years. Some years later, Cathryn was left with a difficult decision: should she maintain her eligibility for the pension, into which her late husband had contributed 11% of his salary, or move in with a new partner and lose it?

The petition gathered more than 115,000 signatures, so I am here to ask yet again why so many women such as Diane and Cathryn are forced to choose. The reason is that individuals widowed between 1980 and the early 2000s are covered by the Police Pensions Regulations 1987 and lose access to their spouse’s pension if they remarry or cohabit.

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. I, too, have constituents who feel strongly about the matter. Does she agree that campaigners also feel that there is injustice in the lack of parity of approach across the United Kingdom?

[Mrs Moon]

The hon. Gentleman is moving me forward in my speech, but yes, that is a major issue. The people who serve in United Kingdom police forces expect that should they lose their lives in the line of duty, all their families will be cared for in exactly the same way. The hon. Gentleman has pointed out a major cause of injustice, which we have come here today to rectify.

There was a welcome breakthrough in 2015, when reforms were introduced. I acknowledge that. The widows, widowers and civil partners of police killed in the line of duty and covered by the 1987 regulations now receive a pension for life if they were in receipt of a special augmented pension, remained unmarried and were not living with a new partner by 1 April 2015. That is a large number of caveats: what of those not covered? The inequality comes over loud and clear.

Serious Crime Bill [Lords]

Mark Williams Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

I would like to address my brief remarks exclusively to the proposals in clause 65 to reform criminal law on child neglect. A lot has been said about consensus, including by the Chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee, and this is one policy area where there has been a genuine cross-party consensus.

I reflect on the role of the Solicitor-General, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) and, not least, the late Paul Goggins, who did a huge amount of work on this issue. I had the privilege of working with him on my ill-fated attempt to reform this area of law through the Child Maltreatment Bill. In many ways, I am making the Second Reading speech I had hoped to make then—when a Member comes 13th in the ballot for private Members’ Bills, they are not often assured that opportunity. The Solicitor-General and I also attempted to secure a Back-Bench debate, but such was the progress with the Government, whom I endorse, that it was pulled.

My private Member’s Bill galvanised a five-year campaign by Action for Children to raise awareness of and to tackle child neglect. It has first-hand experience of too many children across the UK experiencing chronic neglect. However, I must reiterate the point about cross-party support and the role of Paul Goggins. I recall going to a meeting at the Ministry of Justice with the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), the formidable Lady Butler-Sloss and Paul Goggins to make the case to the Minister. It was a case that needed making. When we talked to officials, they were not totally convinced of the need for reform. However, the Government conceded a selective consultation and were won over by the outcome of that consultation. I commend them for that.

This is an important issue. The effects of emotional abuse have been shown to be lifelong and profound. I used to be a primary school teacher, and I could often see those early signs in the classroom. However, it moves on to neglected adolescents, who are estimated to be at least 25% more likely to experience problems such as delinquency, teenage pregnancy, low academic achievement and drug use. They are more likely than their peers to develop mental health problems and, as we know, are vastly over-represented in the criminal justice system.

In the vast majority of child neglect cases, the solution is to work with families to help parents create a safe, happy home environment where children can thrive. As part of my work, I visited Action for Children’s project in Romford and saw at first hand its family partners scheme. It is doing invaluable work with professionals working alongside families to make appropriate changes.

Sadly, however, not all cases of child neglect can be reversed through such interventions, and some cases require criminal law to punish cruelty to children. Yet, as we heard from the Home Secretary, section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, the legislation governing this area of law, is not fit for purpose and uses antiquated terminology dating back to the Poor Law Amendment Act 1868. Though in theory the terms “mental derangement” and “ill treatment” used in the 1933 Act might have initially been directed at non-physical harm, the 1981 Sheppard ruling in another place specifically restricted the offence to children’s physical, not emotional, needs, and that has been the law for children under 16 ever since.

I welcome the fact that, as I said, the Government have gone some considerable way—they have accepted that the term “ill treat” should be followed by “whether physically or otherwise” and that it should include emotional neglect; I am sure we are all grateful about that—but we need further clarification to make it absolutely clear that the ill treatment element of the offence will cover all forms of non-physical cruelty, including psychological neglect.

Very real practicalities are at stake because having two different legal codes presents real difficulties for the police and social workers who need to work together effectively in these cases. If they do not, it is the children and young people who will suffer, particularly those young people who need a better and more holistic approach to their protection. As one police officer put it to me, neglect can be acted upon currently for people under 16 only when it leads to physical harm. Many of those same officers were confused by the term “wilful”.

As the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate said in an intervention on the Home Secretary, the case for replacing the term “wilful” with “reckless” is strong and it makes crystal clear what we are talking about. I was going to ask the Home Secretary to reflect on this, but she indicated that she would, which I very much welcome. At the very least, we need updated guidance, with the Government stating that the term “wilful” is to be understood as equivalent to “reckless”, ensuring that criminal justice and social care professionals, as well as juries, fully understand the law.

I recently co-chaired—we all notoriously get invitations to these things—a meeting of the Westminster Education Forum seminar attended by local councillors, health care professionals, social workers, charities and the police among others, at which concerns were voiced about how the law could go too far, and how unintended consequences could happen.

We need to reiterate to those involved that this reform is not intended to criminalise vulnerable parents and carers, including those who do not have the capacity to change their behaviour; nor does it aim to prosecute parents who have difficulty physically or financially providing for their children. It is not about “bad parenting”—I use the term very loosely—although when the debate was being conducted earlier this year, that was the characterisation in some elements of the tabloid press. Neither is this about the Government prescribing how parents—I am a parent of four children—should raise their children; rather, this is about serious neglect.

I am sure that no Member would have any concerns about prosecuting an individual who persistently abused their partner or spouse, who locked them up in the evenings, forced them to defecate in a bedroom and to sleep on a bed riddled with maggots, and who refused to allow them to see their friends or wider family. How is it, then, that this kind of behaviour towards a spouse is currently considered criminal—before this Bill comes into force—but the same behaviour towards children is not? That is the issue. We simply cannot justify that.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman’s efforts in this area in the past. Is not the real issue this—that we agree that the Government’s intentions are good, but unless there is a degree of precision about what we are trying to achieve through this legislation, it could become another missed opportunity, leading to the confusion on which people have rested in the past as an excuse for inaction?

[Mr Williams]

I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is the challenge facing us in the short number of weeks ahead—to get this right. We have a golden opportunity. I remember going to meetings at the Ministry of Justice at the early stages, and this was not an issue or a priority. The Government have now moved a long way, and we do indeed need to use this opportunity to get it right.

The discrepancy in the current law is a barrier to the proper safeguarding of children. How are agencies meant to work together when they are not even looking for the same signs of neglect? That does not make sense. We need a common and precise definition of neglect that is understood by all agencies and includes clear reference to the emotional abuse of children. I am pleased that the Government have seen that, so I very much welcome clause 65, through which the Government have decided to tackle this issue. There remains more to be done to improve the Bill and ensure that we properly protect children from psychological abuse. In the meantime, I am heartened by the consensus among all parties on this most crucial of issues.

Newport Passport Office

Mark Williams Excerpts

Monday 25th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Jessica Morden]

That is an extremely good point, and of course Newport benefited from jobs in the Office for National Statistics, the Patent Office and the Prison Service.

I say respectfully to the Minister that the small office that is planned for Newport is not enough, and nobody in Newport is taken in by it. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch, the former Minister, was adamant that Wales must have its fair share of jobs and that the passport service must be a truly UK service. Is the Minister 100% certain that 45 staff can service all the emergency passport demand in Wales, the west country and parts of the west midlands, not to mention the cases from further afield that I mentioned earlier?

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Jessica Morden]

I am running out of time, but I give way to the hon. Gentleman for a tiny intervention.

[Mr Williams]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who is a real friend on this matter. She has got to the heart of it—it is about fairness, and an implicit part of a fairness agenda must be a meaningful dialogue with the National Assembly. I am afraid that has not happened.

[Jessica Morden]

It has not, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point.

Let us be clear: what is being offered is the loss of the regional passport application centre and its replacement with an interview office. That would be a downgrading of the service, which leads me to my final point. Staff and the PCS have real concerns that if the proposals were to go through, reduced staffing would make the passport a less secure document. British passports are regarded as the most secure in the world, and the basis of that confidence is the integrity and skills of the staff involved. The loss of staff will mean that the work will have to done by fewer people, and there will be an inevitable impact on customer service and security. Is the Minister really confident that the loss of jobs will not have an impact on security?

Only this weekend, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions said that people from the valleys should get on a bus to find work. Perhaps the Minister could tell us what town he is expecting the people of Newport to get a bus to if he proceeds with this proposal.