Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Stella Creasy

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 12th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I am sure the hon. Lady knows what she did; please withdraw any accusation of dishonesty.

[Stella Creasy]

Of course I withdraw that; I meant to say “open”. I want the hon. Member for Stone to be open, but he has not even bothered to have the courtesy to read Lords amendment 42B. If he had, his objection to the idea of a Statutory Instrument Committee looking at these amendments—[Interruption.] Well, I am sure he has made complaints to the Government, who have already written to the other European statutory instruments scrutiny Committee to say they will be doing exactly that. He opposes the idea of a report about what impact a statutory instrument might have. In any other language that is called an impact assessment; we get them on all sorts of pieces of legislation, but not on this.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Stella Creasy

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 24th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Stella Creasy is the last Opposition speaker, so I will give her a little latitude.

[Stella Creasy]

Perhaps the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth will tell the right hon. Member for North East Somerset that his ambitions to build on top of seal habitats may have to wait a little longer.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Stella Creasy

2nd reading
Tuesday 29th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Stella Creasy]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I know that he was frustrated by it. That is why I am speaking today. We have seen the frustration, and for three years women in Northern Ireland have seen multiple letters traded between Departments but little change. It is worth reflecting that even during the pandemic, women from Northern Ireland were still travelling to England and Wales, with 161 doing so in 2021 compared with 371 in 2020.

It is welcome to hear what Ministers have to say. We helped to give those women a voice in 2019, and through the Bill we want to see those women given delivery in 2022. I have some specific questions that I hope the Minister will be able to address. The Government have powers in the Bill to direct commissioning. We recognise that public services need to continue. Those services include healthcare and—let us be clear—abortion is healthcare. Those who have sought to threaten that have not protected devolution; they have simply harmed women, and in particular women from refugee and minority community backgrounds who have been the least able to take advantage of an ability to travel in the United Kingdom.

Previous Ministers have told me that, even under those powers, one of the operational actions is for women to continue to travel. I hope the Minister will recognise that that is not a satisfactory response, particularly when dealing with incredibly tragic cases in which, frankly, travelling creates a health risk. Will he set out how that will be dealt with? I recognise that there is a challenge with staffing and that we are asking Ministers to move quickly, although some of us might reflect that, in three years, it is not unrealistic to have asked for priority to be given to training and recruitment, because the direction of travel that I was told was coming by previous Secretaries of State should have been translated across. Will he set out how the Government will ensure that the service will be properly staffed not just in one or two locations but across Northern Ireland? We know that there are travel difficulties within Northern Ireland, so it is not enough to say to women, “The service that you might need does exist, but it is in a particular location.” We absolutely want to see those services start, but ultimately, when we talk about a safe, legal and local service, it really does need to be local, just as we seek similar provision for our constituents here in England, Wales and Scotland.

Another issue we have seen, which I hope this funding can help address, is that there are very clear reports that some are using the online nature of seeking guidance about where services are to cause harm. What I mean is that some people are using advertising, particularly on things like Google, to encourage women to go to services that are not about abortion, but are trying to deter women from having an abortion. One of the critical issues is how women will know how to access these services. Ministers have said that they hope that services will be available on the ground within the next 90 days, particularly services for between 10 weeks and 12 weeks. We know that access to pills is patchy, but access to medical procedures is non-existent. If women are seeking information about those services and how to access them, under this legislation, what powers will the Government have and what action will they take to make sure that those women are getting information about the right services—the actual abortion services—if they make that choice?

Finally, I want to make a plea to the Minister: there is still a stigma, as I know he understands. Contrary to what might have been said in this place, there is very clear evidence that the mood of people in Northern Ireland has shifted on this issue, as the mood of the people in Ireland shifted following the “repeal the eighth” campaign. There is widespread support for the provision of these new services and frustration at the delay that has taken place, but if those services are to survive, we need to address the stigma about working to support women who wish to have an abortion, and also having an abortion. I hope Ministers will talk about what they will do while we wait to see whether the Executive can be reformed, but also about what they will do to tackle that stigma, so that we can get the staffing and ensure that when a woman in Northern Ireland exercises her human right to choose to have an abortion, she does not face any further barriers.

As we have said, making laws—whether in this place or in devolved Administrations—requires more than just passing a Bill. It requires implementation and delivery, and the past three years have been a story of not delivering—of not meeting the promise that we made to those women in Northern Ireland. In passing this legislation today, and delivering on the work that has been done and the promise of that previous legislation, we have to show our homework, and that homework is both logistical and cultural. I hope Ministers recognise where these questions are coming from. They will have my support in working this through, and I welcome the words of the Secretary of State when he talks about this being an important provision. However, it is necessary to seek detail now, because we have had five different Secretaries of State, so many different letters and so little progress. The women in Northern Ireland who need this service deserve to be heard.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Following the next speaker, we will move on to the wind-ups. I call Jim Shannon.

Ministerial and other Maternity Allowances Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Stella Creasy

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Thursday 11th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is an honour to be part of the debate and the work that we are doing to bring forward this legislation. Let me congratulate the Attorney General, the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman), and wish her well in her forthcoming maternity leave. What is so powerful about this legislation is not just the clarity over her income but the clarity about her actual cover: she will be able to spend time with her child and not receive calls at three o’clock in the morning when the Attorney General is needed.

I welcome the Paymaster General’s comment that we need to do more. It is that which I wish to speak on particularly, because, as she has recognised, the Bill benefits only a very small number of women. To benefit only a very small number of women at this time in this country’s life is to fail to recognise the peril that may come from this legislation, which is not about its drafting but its scope. We are sending a message that maternity leave should be a perk conferred by an employer as a benefit—just as a company car would be—if we only pass this legislation.

The Paymaster General said that the Prime Minister believes it is wrong that a woman might have to leave work to care for a child, but in truth that is happening in workplaces across the country, and it involves thousands of women. During the pandemic, one in four women who are pregnant or a new mum have said that they have faced discrimination, and that they are losing their jobs or being furloughed. In that context, to work only with that small number of women is not just a missed opportunity, but potentially sets up a two-tier system for maternity leave in this country. As the people who make the laws, we send such a message to businesses regarding how they should treat pregnant women at our peril.

The Government are currently being taken to court by Pregnant Then Screwed because, when they calculated the self-employment income support scheme, they forgot about women who are self-employed and who took maternity leave. We have heard from many Members about our concerns for public life. It is not an accident that most women who enter public life, not just in this place but in local government and our Assemblies, tend to be older women who have already had children, or those who have chosen not to have them. Even in this Bill, we have yet to begin talking about fathers.

The Bill tells the lie that I was told two years ago when I was pregnant and asked for a locum to cover work in my constituency, so that my constituents would not feel short-changed by having a woman of childbearing age as their MP. However, as MPs, our employment status was too complicated to enable us to act. If we can pass a Bill in a day in this place to address that issue, we could do so much more to ensure that our public life is open to all women. It is a missed opportunity not just for local government, but for the staff who have worked with us in this building, who have terrible maternity rights.

Two years ago I fought for a locum. No other MP has been able to have that, even though I know colleagues across the House who have had terrible experiences of being pregnant and trying to get support. We cannot say, “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” On that basis, let me be clear: the Government have made commitments today but, as the suffragettes said, this must be about deeds not words.

Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker, you may be looking and me and thinking that during lockdown I have been attacking the pies a bit, and you would probably be right. But I am also pregnant with my second child. I am early on in my pregnancy. I should not have to reveal that, but I am doing so today to be clear to pregnant women around this country that they will find champions in this place, and it is not enough for us to act only for that small group of women at the top of our society. We must act for every woman to be able to take maternity leave.

We must make sure that legislation such as that proposed by the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) is given time in this House, and we must stop IPSA prevaricating, as it has done for the past two years. We must give every woman in this place the same rights that we are giving the Attorney General. Please, Paymaster General, it is time for deeds not words when it comes to maternity and paternity.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The very best wishes of the House to you, Stella, on your great news.

Equal Pay (Information and Claims)

Debate between Nigel Evans and Stella Creasy

1st reading & 1st reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 20th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to introduce a Bill to make provision for a right for employees to obtain information relating to the pay of a comparator; to reform remedies and time limits relating to equal pay; to provide a right to equal pay where a single source can rectify unequal pay; to amend the statutory statement of particulars to include equal pay; to provide for requirements on certain employers to publish information about the differences in pay between male and female employees and between employees of different ethnic origins; and for connected purposes.

Members could be forgiven for thinking that we have been here before, because women have been asking for equal pay since 1833. The first recorded instance was in Robert Owen’s labour exchange. I am sorry to say, as a Co-op MP, that it was not answered positively—I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed) would feel the same. One hundred and eighty-eight years later, we are still waiting. Last year alone, 30,000 equal pay claims were made at tribunal, and this year we have seen that the gender pay gap is increasing, not closing. That means that, in 2020, nine out of 10 women in this country work in companies or organisations that pay them less on average than their male counterparts.

I want to start by nailing the myth that it is the fault of the women themselves. It is not because they have kids or because they do not ask for pay rises. The evidence is crystal clear. Absolutely, there is a pay penalty for having a kid—I think we are all beginning to realise that—but it was there before the children were born. The evidence is also clear that women ask just as often as men for a pay rise, but men are four times more likely to receive it. The research shows that the impact of the gender pay gap comes from a mixture of things, including working for less productive companies, wanting to work part time, and good, old-fashioned discrimination. Even being a graduate does not help, as the pay gap begins early in many women’s careers.

We all miss out as a result of those inequalities. The Bank of England forecasts that ending the gender pay gap would add £600 billion to our economy by 2025, and ending discrimination against those from black and ethnic minority backgrounds in the workplace, as this Bill seeks to do, would add £24 billion a year to our GDP. Given that we are now facing an economic crisis, there has never been a better time finally to grapple with why, even in 2020, not everybody gets an equal day’s pay for an equal day’s work.

It is not as if women have not tried to act through the centuries. Following the impact of the Dagenham Ford strikers, Barbara Castle’s legendary Equal Pay Act 1970 was passed before I was even born. The subsequent film, “Made in Dagenham”, may have won awards, but an equal pay award in this country is often much harder to come by, because it requires legal action.

Pay discrimination is prevalent because it is hard to get pay transparency. Unless a woman knows that a man who is doing equal work to her is being paid more, she cannot know whether she is being paid equally. At present, getting that information all too often requires going to court because it is not available. Equal pay tribunals make up 12% of employment claims in this country, but 40% of claimants settle because it is more stressful to continue and a third withdraw their cases due to cost. Only 41% of claimants are legally represented at the tribunals. Little wonder that many companies have a “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach and never analyse the pay in the company or the pay gap for fear of generating the information that might assist a claim in the first place.

That strategy works. As the Fawcett Society, which is working on this Bill, points out, six in 10 working women do not know whether they are being paid less than a male counterpart, and only three in 10 agreed that their employer would be honest with them and tell them if they were. Little wonder that some major household names, from the BBC to Tesco and Asda, have dragged their heels on these issues, making legal action the only option for women. That is why I pay tribute to women such as Carrie Gracie and Samira Ahmed, who have been prepared to stick their neck out on this, because it is really difficult to do so.

When I introduced this Bill, one woman wrote to me—hon. Members will understand why this is an anonymous case study—“In my previous role, I hired two junior staff members within six months of each other: one male, one female, both the same age, the same pedigree, the same salary expectations, hired to do the same role, sitting side by side. When I sought sign-off from my male boss to pay the female candidate the same salary, I was asked to offer her a starting salary at the bottom of the salary range. They told me in the business they pay people the least they think they can get away with, and they think she will accept less.” When the woman challenged that behaviour and pointed out the equal pay disparity, and that it could lead to a tribunal, she found her own career stymied. The promotion that she had been promised was denied to her because she was told that she had been too pushy on equal pay.

The Bill is about righting those wrongs. It has been drafted by a panel of legal and human resources experts, chaired by the amazing Daphne Romney QC. It seeks to break the culture of discrimination and the culture of secrecy that causes it. I pay tribute to Baroness Margaret Prosser, who has led this work in the other place and is a fearless champion of equal pay. The Bill implements a right to know, to give women the right to request the pay data of their male counterparts. If they suspect that an individual or group may constitute a comparator, they would have a right to know that information so that they could make the comparison without having to go to court and make a formal request. This is something that is supported by the British public. A new poll from Savanta shows that 62% of people think that if a woman is not paid equally for doing the same job as a man, she should be given the information so that she can challenge the situation.

The Bill is not just about equal pay. Women of colour, for too long, have been left out of the conversation about equality in the workplace. Without examining both race and gender we fail to understand the intersectionality of pay discrimination. The Bank of England estimates that the black and ethnic-minority pay gap is 10%. It has narrowed even less than the gender pay gap in the past 25 years, and is 25% in London. Restoring gender pay-gap reporting and expanding the principle to ethnicity pay-gap reporting will help to open up action on the barriers that mean that talent is denied throughout businesses and the public sector.

The Government said that they would act on the ethnicity pay gap, but action has not been forthcoming. Indeed, it is troubling that in the pandemic the only bit of business reporting and accountability that the Government said that businesses did not need to undertake was gender pay-gap reporting. What happens when we remove that focus on tackling inequality in the workplace? Two weeks after this year’s deadline, having been told that they did not have to do it, 10,000 eligible companies had not submitted their figures.

When we look at the figures, we see that the gap has increased. If we continue just to ask nicely, nothing will happen and our economy will miss out as a result. The Minister for Equalities told me that she wanted more data before she improved the way we did gender pay-gap reporting and ethnicity reporting, but if we are not even asking for that, we will never get anywhere on this.

Addressing this inequality could not be more timely. A survey by Pregnant Then Screwed shows that it was mainly mothers who faced redundancy and inequality in the workplace in the pandemic, partly because they could not secure childcare so that they could go back to work. As early as May, a study by PwC showed that 78% of people who had lost their job during the pandemic were women. Axing the gender pay-gap reporting process sends the message that that does not matter, but it should matter to all of us, because of the impact on our economy and society.

For nearly 200 years, women have been asking for parity, and with the pandemic bearing down on us, we cannot afford to wait any longer for action. I may be signing my own political death warrant if history is anything to go by in raising these issues. Like the anonymous case study that I cited, the history on this is not good. In contrast to that film, the strikers in 1968 were not looking for equal pay—they had been unjustly graded at work—and they did not get equal pay; they received 92% of the pay received by their male counterparts. The resulting investigation and fury from raising the issue led to the Equal Pay Act 1970—at the cost of Barbara Castle’s career. We should never forget to pay tribute to her. Despite opposition from those in the Labour Government at the time to amendments on equal pay, she stuck her neck out for other women and forced that Bill through, but she was lost from the Cabinet as a result, prompting her to tell a sponsor of the Bill—and another legend when it comes to fighting for women’s rights—my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman),

“remember all Labour Prime Ministers are bastards”.

I hope that that will not be true, and I certainly hope that the Prime Minister will not fall into that type. My right hon. and learned Friend has made the case that this is a pro-business measure—we should all support it—which is why I am proud that it has support across the House.

That is not enough. The Minister needs to say, “Deeds not Words.” In 50 years, I hope that we have moved towards recognising that Barbara Castle was right. That discrimination is bad not just for those affected—it is bad for businesses and the economy as well. The measure now needs political will, so that we make sure that equal pay is not just a great fiction but a lived reality for everyone in this country.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I have been given no indication that anybody intends to oppose the hon. Lady.

[Stella Creasy]

Quite right, too!

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Stella Creasy, Caroline Nokes, Neil Gray, Nadia Whittome, Chris Bryant, Florence Eshalomi, Anne McLaughlin, Chris Evans, Bell Ribeiro-Addy, Christine Jardine, Caroline Lucas and Ms Harriet Harman present the Bill.

Stella Creasy accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read the Second time on Friday 13 November and to be printed (Bill 199).

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Barbara Castle was an absolute giant of a politician. I spoke to her often. I have happy memories of Barbara Castle.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Stella Creasy

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 28th April 2020 Commons Chamber

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope that you can hear me.

I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe) on her extraordinary maiden speech. It is difficult to make a maiden speech at the best of times. I think that her mum would have been extremely proud of her, and I join her in wishing her dad a happy birthday. Many Labour Members are extremely grateful for what she said about her predecessor.

This is a Bill that many of us have fought for, waited for and wanted for a long time. Before the covid-19 crisis, we had already seen the highest levels of domestic abuse in our society for the past five years, so we know that the pressure is as urgent as it is. I join my Front-Bench colleagues in calling for an emergency fund to tackle the issues created by covid-19 by providing a safe environment for everybody to stay at home in. I support the work of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) in relation to the Bill to ensure that we give women the rights they deserve.

In the short time available to me, I want to take up the Secretary of State’s challenge on how we can strengthen the Bill by setting out a number of areas in which I hope we, as a House, can make progress together. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) reminds us in a powerful speech every single year, when we get this wrong, we see the human cost.

First, we must see every victim in their own right—they are not a generic group of people. That is why we need to go further in protecting women who otherwise would find their immigration status a barrier to seeking help. It is also why we must recognise disabled women and ensure that our law works for them. We must look at the concept of what a personal relationship is. I look at the work that Stay Safe East has done on that; it makes a powerful case.

If we are to protect every woman and see her in her own right as a victim, we must also ensure that we protect every woman where she is a victim. I am very moved by the words of Claire Throssell, who talked about the tremendous strength of her sons, Jack and Paul, and the horrific experience they had in the family courts. As Claire has said:

“No parent should have to hold their children in their arms as they die knowing it’s at the hands of the other parent, someone who should love and cherish them.”

We need to go further in protecting people from unsafe contact, because we see in Claire’s case the damage that is done when that does not happen.

We need to push for the stalkers register that we were promised many years ago. There are too many women—Alice Ruggles, Jane Clough and many more—whom we have to honour, and Paladin is doing work in that area. We must also ensure that housing does not become a barrier to a victim of domestic abuse getting help. I stand with SafeLives and Barnardo’s in calling for an amendment to the Bill to ensure that there is a statutory duty on local authorities.

In my final minute, I want to flag the importance of us being a leader, not a follower, when it comes to tackling domestic abuse internationally. It is extremely concerning that although the UK, as a member of the Council of Europe, signed the Istanbul convention in 2014, we are one of the few countries that has not yet ratified it. As the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) pointed out, that means that there are challenges in how we treat women from minority communities, particularly migrants.

Ratification of the convention is also about our recognition that this is a gendered crime. Through the Bill, I hope that we can make progress on something that the Law Commission is looking at: recognising the misogyny behind crimes against women, and looking at misogyny as a hate crime. In particular, I look at the evidence from Nottinghamshire, where treating violence as a misogynistic act has transformed the way in which the police and other services are able to deal with it.

I hope that Ministers look forward to debating not only how we protect migrant women and disabled women, but the need to call this out for what it is: a hatred of women. It is about not creating a new crime, but recognising the importance and value of identifying it as such within our criminal justice system. When we hear the words of victims such as Claire or the families of Jane Clough and Alice Ruggles, we know that we cannot afford to lose this precious legislative moment. We have fought for it for so long. All of us across the House want the Bill to be the best it can be, so I look forward to working with Ministers to make sure that it is.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Thank you, Stella. I can reassure you that your speech was heard clearly and in its entirety in the Chamber.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Stella Creasy

Monday 19th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move amendment (b) to Lords amendment 51.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendments (c), (d), (e), (f) and Government amendments (g), (h), (i), (j), and (k) thereto.

Lords amendment 52, and amendment (a) thereto.

Lords amendments 59 and 68

Lords amendment 133 and Government amendments (a) to (c) thereto.

[Stella Creasy]

The need for legislation to create a distinctive offence of stalking has been clear for some time. I therefore start the debate by welcoming the Government’s willingness to respond to these calls for such legislation. Our amendments reflect the need to ensure that this opportunity for progress is not missed and that the evolution of these proposals continues so that they can truly meet the needs of those we wish to protect.

To put this case, I want to set out why we consider that the legislation as currently proposed is limited in its ability to deliver this protection, and what we learn from that in scrutinising the Government’s proposals that are on the table. We all now know that the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 has been unable to offer the protection from stalking required for its victims. It is estimated that there are currently 120,000 cases of stalking every year, but fewer than 4,500 were convicted of harassment in 2009; of those, only 565 were jailed.

The current legislation is not able to cope with stalking because these behaviours cannot be meaningfully defined by specific forms of contact. Rather, this is an offence about the impact of conduct or patterns of behaviour by those individuals who fixate on others and seek to cause distress, fear or alarm. The current legislation offers only the same tools that we have at present to deal with disputes between neighbours—and it has struggled to cope as a result.

The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 created two criminal offences of harassment and putting people in fear of violence, as well as providing for restraining orders, which are more well known, where a breach, in theory, can lead to an arrestable offence. We now know, however, that victims of stalking talk repeatedly about the frustrations caused by the police being required to see patterns of behaviour, examples of a breach or evidence that someone has repeatedly damaged property or acted in a certain way or created a fear of violence. Others have talked about the importance of training the police, magistrates and the Crown Prosecution Service to help them understand the range of acts that fall under stalking—including, especially, cyber-stalking. That is because it is a summary offence of harassment, and many felt that the police did not go far enough and did not allocate appropriate resources to investigating these cases, or frankly, that it was seen as simply not serious enough to warrant the effort. I shall return to the question of seriousness in a few moments.

It is little wonder that the recent inquiry into stalking found that 72% of victims were unhappy with the response they received from the criminal justice system, with the majority stating they had experienced stalking for over 18 months or more and through multiple forms of contact; yet only 47% said that their perpetrator was even charged. As Tracey Morgan, a key member of the inquiry panel into stalking has said:

“stalking is where domestic violence was 30 years ago. It’s seen as a joke; a celebrity problem. Victims are told they should be flattered by the attention”—

but we all know of the reality. We have heard the stories of people like Tracey whose lives were torn apart by a person who fixated upon them. We have heard of the ex-partners who torment men and women online and offline; we have heard of women such as Clare Bernal who was brutally murdered by her former boyfriend, despite warnings about his behaviour.

We know from other jurisdictions how having a specific offence of stalking can help to address these concerns. In the 10 years prior to the introduction of the offence of stalking in Scotland, Strathclyde police reported a total of 70 stalking-related prosecutions. In the first six months after legislation providing for a specific offence was enacted, there were 140 prosecutions in Strathclyde alone, and it is estimated that there will be between 500 and 600 in Scotland as a whole by the end of the year.

Consumer Credit and Debt Management

Debate between Nigel Evans and Stella Creasy

Thursday 3rd February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Stella Creasy]

It is a pity that the hon. Lady was not here at the start of the debate when I set out clearly that the proposal is not for an interest rate cap, but for a cap on the total cost of credit. As I said, that is a difference that makes all the difference to the efficacy of the proposals. That is why many groups that share the concerns in the research that the hon. Lady has set out, are not concerned about these proposals. I urge her to look closely at that distinction. I will press on now because many hon. Members wish to speak and I know that the Minister will have a substantial amount to say.

Another point that has been raised is that new provisions in the Consumer Credit Act 2006, which came into force recently, may well change the market. Although those provisions are welcome, the protection that they offer presumes that choice is open to consumers and that if they are simply equipped with clearer pricing and the chance to rethink loans, that will resolve the problems that we have discussed. Customers with no alternative, struggling to make ends meet, cannot exercise choice or avoid borrowing. If someone is tied to the train tracks, knowing when the train is coming makes only a limited difference to their chances of survival. Until we give consumers a level playing field by producing powers to cap costs, we will not change the dynamic of the relationship.

Others have argued that the powers needed already exist, and that the Competition Commission could investigate and act. Indeed, the Office of Fair Trading referred the home credit market to the commission in 2004, as the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) pointed out, and came up with various remedies. Here I turn to the views of Citizens Advice, which argues that the problems are getting worse, not better. That shows that those powers have not worked, so it is time to strengthen the intervention that we make in the market.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. The hon. Lady has already indicated that a lot of Back Benchers wish to get in. It was recommended that her speech should last 15 minutes, and she is way over that. Could she please bring her remarks to a close?

[Stella Creasy]

I will, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Finally, people have suggested that we need to introduce more competition by encouraging affordable lending, and I agree, but I do not see that there is a choice to be made between capping the costs of credit and supporting credit unions. Furthermore, it will take a long time for credit unions to become a serious, affordable alternative. In contrast, cutting rates would have an impact on people’s debts now.

I know that some people are concerned about the concept of regulation, but in the motion I simply urge the Government to close the loophole that they have created by saying that they will commit to regulation on the costs of store cards and credit cards but leave this vulnerable market untouched.

The weight of evidence means that I will hold firm in not accepting the amendment, as much as I welcome the strong cross-party support for the proposals. We all know that that support exists, and in these days of new politics I want to celebrate it, but I fear that the warm embrace of consideration could turn into the slow of death of progress without firm direction from the House. The longer we delay affirmative action, the longer our constituents will pay high rates.

Make no mistake, the problem will get worse, not better. As Uriah King of the American Center for Responsible Lending points out,

“payday lenders are aggressively seeking new markets because they are being curtailed here in the US”.

We can all see the consequences in our communities. One example of this is the uncle who came to me last year because his 16-year-old nephew had been given a £300 loan by a home credit agency. His family will struggle to repay that debt. He is angry, you bet, but he knows that it is all legal. What chance for the next generation if we do not act now? Mr Crook will be licking his lips at their predicament.

Let us not delay. There is evidence to support my proposals, and there is political will in the House for this to happen. Let us consider the motion a belated submission to the credit review, giving the Government a clear and urgent message that the time for capping costs has come. Voting for the amendment would dilute that message. The clock is ticking. Research by R3 shows that 44% of people in this country now struggle to make ends meet until pay day, and the problem will only get worse. Those people are our constituents, and they are our responsibility. I ask Members to please give them more than consideration—please give them action. Support the motion and protect the poorest consumers above the needs of loan sharks.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—