Women’s State Pension Age: Ombudsman Report

Debate between Nigel Evans and Wendy Chamberlain

Thursday 16th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Your comments stand on the record.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I certainly was not suggesting that to the Minister. I am saying that I have two different versions of events. The WASPI campaign is saying that the draft report was seen by the DWP at the end of last year, and I have a written response from the Government saying that it was not. If the response to the written parliamentary question is found to be inaccurate, I would be grateful if the Minister wrote to me to confirm that. If he is unable to conform that in his closing remarks, I would be grateful if he would place that letter in the Commons Library. I have done a lot of work with the Minister. Previously he was heavily involved with me in the all-party parliamentary group on ending the need for food banks, so I know that he cares about people, but I really do not want to hear in his closing remarks that this is just the Department being thorough.

Like many here, I have met WASPI women, and the campaigners who stand in the rain outside Parliament on Budget days. I have spoken to group leaders and to my constituents. The one message they want me to bring here today is that they are dying. They are dying without the DWP admitting to its errors, without any acknowledgement of the impact that this has had on their lives, without compensation, and without resolution. Frankly, they now feel that the Government are waiting for them to die, in order for the problem literally to cease to exist. WASPI women deserve compensation—that is not just my view or the view of many Members in the House; it is the view of the ombudsman. If we in this place cannot adhere to the findings of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, what message are we sending from this place generally?

Police Conduct and David Carrick

Debate between Nigel Evans and Wendy Chamberlain

Tuesday 17th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I remind Members that aspects of this issue are sub judice. Please stay well away from anything relating to things that are still before the courts.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I too commend the bravery of the women involved in this case, but some of them would not have needed to be brave if action had been taken. As a former police officer I am disgusted and ashamed by what I have heard. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner has said that 800 of his officers are under investigation. Has the Home Secretary requested similar figures from other police forces? What is the impact on the operational capability of police officers? Finally, as the Mother of the House rightly pointed out, police officers are not employed. They are not subject to employment law; they are appointed. Staff associations within the police service, such as the Police Federation, play a very important role in disciplinary and conduct issues. What engagement is the Home Secretary having with them?

Easter Adjournment

Debate between Nigel Evans and Wendy Chamberlain

Thursday 31st March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

May I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as well as Mr Deputy Speaker, Mr Speaker, the other Madam Deputy Speaker and the whole House a happy and peaceful recess? Like other hon. Members, I will raise a few outstanding issues.

In the last few months, I have been in correspondence with the Department for Work and Pensions, trying to ensure that those held on remand but not subsequently charged do not lose their benefits. That is what the rules say, but a lack of proper guidance for DWP staff means that I have ended up with several constituents who have lost their benefits or been wrongly transferred to universal credit. The Leader of the House may know that once someone has been inadvertently transferred to universal credit, there is no way back. I was promised a meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley), on 13 January, and I hope that the Leader of the House will take the message back that I would still very much like that meeting.

While I do not want to make prolonged correspondence the theme of my remarks, I turn to the seasonal agricultural worker scheme, about which I first wrote to the Government in April last year. North East Fife is famous for many things, and its soft fruit and agriculture is part of that. I am sure that the Leader of the House, given his other vocation, is aware of that. However, there is no doubt that the labour shortages that we have experienced since the UK left the EU have put farms in my constituency under significant strain.

Last year, the additional contractors appointed to administer the scheme were appointed too late for the season in Scotland, so, by the time additional contractors came into place, the jobs were gone and the work was already happening. I am keen for that not to happen again, but I am concerned that it is. A food security debate is ongoing in Westminster Hall, and ensuring food security is becoming ever more critical. There are not enough placements under the seasonal agricultural worker scheme, associated costs are too high and guidance changes—sometimes it feels like it is changing as we speak—so farmers cannot prepare. Nobody is saying that people in the sector should not have good wages, but the minimum wage requirements that have been put in place for migrant workers are higher than the national living wage. Those farmers have already made price decisions and worked with their supply chains, and they are now being asked to absorb the additional costs. Squeezed farmers are already struggling and that will only put further pressure on food prices for our constituents.

I was grateful to meet Lord Offord from the Scotland Office about that issue. I was hoping that there would be a roundtable and further discussions with the Home Office. The Scottish Affairs Committee visited Perthshire and Tayside at the beginning of this month to look, particularly, at the issue of horticulture, as part of a short inquiry. We wrote to the Home Office two weeks ago to express serious concerns. We all want food on our tables rather than rotting in the fields. We want affordable food as well as support for our families, and we need to ensure that schemes are made fit for purpose as a matter of urgency. I am concerned about what this means for North East Fife.

To follow on from the comments from the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), I notify the House that I have written to the Home Secretary this week to raise my concerns about the appointment of Sir Stephen House as the acting Metropolitan Police Commissioner. Hon. Members may wonder why the MP for North East Fife is concerned about that, but those who have heard me speak in the Chamber know of my background as a police officer. I served in Lothian and Borders police until 2011, but someone does not have to have been in the police in Scotland to understand the legacy that Sir Stephen House left behind in the national police force and Police Scotland. That included the decision to allow armed officers to attend routine incidents, stop and search for juveniles and changes to the call handling system in the new national force, where routine failures led to a woman being left in her car for three days following a crash and subsequently dying. I have to mention the continuous and excellent work that my colleague in the Scottish Parliament, Willie Rennie—the MSP for North East Fife—did with the Bell family in that regard.

I am very concerned, because Sir Stephen was deemed not fit to lead Scotland’s police force in 2015, which was when he retired, and I ask why, even on a temporary basis, he has been considered fit to lead the UK’s largest force. I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch about the recruitment process for the new commissioner and I hope that that is done as soon as possible. Sir Stephen has been Dame Cressida’s deputy for the past few years and we have all been in this Chamber too many times listening to the Minister for Crime and Policing responding to issues in the Metropolitan police. I hope that the Home Secretary moves that recruitment process forward quickly.

I will end on a positive note, with an odd declaration of interest: as a result of being the MP for North East Fife, I sit on the board of trustees for the St Andrews Links trust, which runs all the golf courses in St Andrews, so I am usually a popular person at certain times of the year. I am delighted to say that the 150th Open will be coming to St Andrews in July, and I do so because, when we get to the next Adjournment debate before the summer recess—I am delighted that that debate will be named after Sir David Amess; it sounds like a very fitting tribute—the Open will have taken place. It is appropriate to mention that because I have raised support for golf, support for golf tourism and St Andrews throughout my time here, and I very much hope that Members across the House who would like to come to St Andrews this July to celebrate that international sporting event will be in a position to do so.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Put me down for two tickets, please.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Wendy Chamberlain

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 10th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I will call Mr Scully to close the debate no later than 2.30 pm.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today, having been unable to do so on Monday.

Because of the international law-breaking clauses, I believe that insufficient attention has been given to how this Bill affects the devolution settlements, which is a matter of great regret. Throughout its passage, my colleagues and I have been keen to work constructively on that aspect. Now that the law-breaking parts have been taken out of the legislation, I hope we can ensure that the voices of the devolved nations are listened to.

At earlier stages I tabled amendments to ensure that the devolved Administrations had input into the membership of the Competition and Markets Authority, following the precedent set by the Scotland Act 1998. The Lords have made amendments to the common framework and the functioning of the Office for the Internal Market, and on engagement with the devolved Administrations—amendments that build on the devolution settlement rather than undermine it.

I have found the Government’s rationale for refusing these changes to be highly frustrating. A case in point is the interaction between the common frameworks and the UK internal market. Why do we need this legislation when the common market frameworks have buy-in from all the devolved nations? The Government tell us it is because the internal market deals with cross-sector issues, whereas the common frameworks deal with specific sectors. Yet when the Minister appeared before the Scottish Affairs Committee, I asked him whether he could give an example of a cross-sector issue that the Bill will help to solve. He could not. When he wrote to the Committee on this matter—I am grateful to him for doing so—he said:

“We would refer you to pages 81-83 of the White Paper, which sketch out a cross-sector example in the form of an illustrative supply chain in the agri-food area.”

I think that says it all. The Government cannot provide a real-life example of an affected product that is cross-sector. Indeed, the implication in the White Paper is that there are no common frameworks in those different sectors. I do not see how, if the common frameworks are in place, there should be an impact. Therefore, there is no need for the Bill’s provisions.

The Government’s refusal to support Lords amendments on common frameworks, in particular amendments 1B, 1C and 1D, is therefore frustrating, but I am also concerned by the Minister’s response to the Committee on the role of the Office for the Internal Market, which will have huge powers. The worry is that parties involved in trade deals—the example I gave in the Committee was that of US investors—could sue the devolved Administrations or indeed the CMA. The Minister’s response to that point was:

“The CMA is therefore able to accept reporting requests from bodies and individuals with relevant concerns connected to”

the operation of the internal market,

“including those from outside of the UK.”

Although the letter then suggests that such reports would not interfere in devolved competences, can the Minister confirm that, by submitting a request to the CMA, foreign investors could potentially interfere with devolved Administrations? If the CMA refuses such a request, could those foreign investors then challenge that in the court?

The Minister has insisted that is not a political Bill, but given that the Paymaster General just this morning was unable to confirm to me whether the Government would bring forward international law-breaching clauses in future business, such as the Taxation (Post-transition Period) Bill, which the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) referred to, if the outcome of the EU negotiations is no deal, then it is clearly nothing but.

Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme

Debate between Nigel Evans and Wendy Chamberlain

Thursday 17th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) on securing this important debate. Last week’s Opposition day debate on the furlough scheme demonstrated that there is huge demand in all parts of the House for raising constituents’ cases, so we have a welcome further opportunity to do that today. Since March, we have all been receiving a huge amount of correspondence from constituents whose livelihoods have been affected by the pandemic. I wish to take a moment to pay tribute to my casework team, who were newly hired just as the pandemic hit and have done a fantastic job in getting up to speed and directing so many constituents to the different, varied and sometimes complex support schemes run by local authorities, the Scottish Government and the UK Government.

Across the whole of Fife nearly 30% of all employees were furloughed. That is a huge number and I give credit to the Treasury for its implementation of the scheme. It is an example of how pooling and sharing resources has allowed the prevention of huge job losses. We have already heard today that all this is put in jeopardy if the scheme ends next month unilaterally, and I re-echo the calls that have been made. I cannot stress enough how vital the scheme is to so many businesses in my constituency. But for all the good the furlough has done, the painful reality for a not insignificant minority of people is that they have missed out on the scheme, for reasons that are, in essence, arbitrary. I welcome the recognition of that in the motion.

For some, that reason is just a date. One of my constituents had not been in work, he started a new job on 29 February and the cut-off date meant he was ineligible for the scheme. He was let go from his job and there was no recent employer to rehire him. Another constituent was placed in a similar situation. She was switching employment just as covid-19 hit, and her new employer could not open the business because of the lockdown and so simply could not take her on. The rules of the job retention scheme were adjusted so that old employers could rehire those people caught in limbo, but that was a workaround, not a solution that is an any way meaningful. She was eligible for furlough but was not furloughed because her old employer refused to rehire her so that she could be furloughed, although that would have come at no cost to them. So she has missed out and instead has had to apply for jobseeker’s allowance.

Even for those who were furloughed the scheme has not always been perfect. One constituent, a childcare agency worker on a zero-hours contract, contacted me because the way furlough is calculated has meant that her regular full-time hours are not considered, and she has experienced an incredibly severe drop in earnings. That has meant an incredibly tough few months trying to survive on very little.

Those are three cases, but there are many more. For thousands of people in my constituency, this has been a difficult year. A lot of people who never thought they would be relying on our welfare system are now doing so because they did not meet arbitrary eligibility criteria and slipped through the gaps. It will now be clear to so many people that what is deemed as our “safety net” does not work. As we look to rebuild, I hope we will reflect on our welfare system and on whether it provides the right support for those who need it. I am increasingly convinced that a more substantial, universal safety net has to be the way forward.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

To sit down at 2.45 pm, I call Jim Shannon.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Wendy Chamberlain

Report stage & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 30th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We have to move on, sorry.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I speak in support of new clause 38, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), and new clause 36, tabled by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), both of which I have signed.

The largest employer in my constituency is the University of St Andrews. I visited there back in February as part of the Royal Society’s parliamentary pairing scheme. I enjoyed seeing the amazing work that is being undertaken by researchers from across the EU and beyond and supported by EU funding. Their status and the funding that supports their ground-breaking work are both at risk. As of May 2020, more than 9,000 EU nationals in Fife have applied for settled status, yet nearly 4,000 are either still waiting for a final decision or have only been granted pre-settled status. I am not convinced that the Home Office will be properly able to manage the settled status applications of my constituents and the 3 million other EU citizens living in this country. Providing no certainty is no way to treat them. A British Futures report estimates that the difficulties in navigating the application system and the lack of awareness of the process will result in 175,000 EU citizens living in the UK with an insecure immigration status or no status at all. We risk the denial of legal rights of jobs, homes and medical care to EU nationals who are entitled to them but cannot prove it, and that is not right. That is why I speak in favour of new clause 38, which would ensure that all EU citizens have settled status and require the Government to make available physical proof of that status.

A particular concern has been raised with me by constituents relating to comprehensive sickness insurance and I thank Fife4europe for its representations to me in this regard. CSI was not a requirement for settled status until Government policy appeared to change on 15 May this year. EU citizens who are students or classed as self-sufficient do now need it. That is unjust. There was no CSI requirement for a number of years, and many of my constituents who are EU citizens are understandably concerned. There are some urgent questions for the Government to answer. Why has the requirement been introduced at this time? What are the reasons for it? What steps are the Secretary of State and the Minister taking to ensure that EU nationals are aware of this new requirement? Will it be applied retrospectively? What does it mean for applications currently being considered? I ask the Minister to provide clarity on this issue.

There has been little communication, zero justification and the cloud of uncertainty over EU citizens is growing. My constituents are concerned that the retrospective application of the CSI requirement could be used to prevent people from attaining settled status and prevent those who do have settled status from gaining citizenship. The fact that EU citizens in my constituency are worried about this indicates the total lack of trust and communication between the Government and these individuals, who have been left frustrated and concerned by intolerable delays. Therefore, I urge Members to support new clause 36 in the name of the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, which would ensure that not having CSI could not be used to disqualify an EU citizen with settled status from citizenship

Finally, I would like briefly to address the role for workers in our agricultural sector.  I welcome new clause 37, tabled by the Leader of the Opposition, which would require the Government to publish data on where skill shortages are in our economy. If we do not have the data, we will not be able properly to assess our agricultural needs. Farms in my constituency have access to the seasonal workers pilot scheme, but it is clear that we need a lot more people to be able to come here to work under the scheme. The figure of 10,000 was almost plucked from thin air. It was clearly never going to be sufficient.

Obviously there are challenges this year in relation to covid, but farmers are being told that they need almost to go back in time in how they harvest their crops, and that is simply not sustainable. I commend the local workers who are working on our farms—some during furlough—but we should note that fruit picking is no longer some part-time hobby occupation. These are operations with multiple complex supply chains that cannot operate on a hand-to-mouth basis while waiting to hear what crumbs the Government are going to provide to augment the workforce. I must also mention that many of the workers who come from abroad also train other people. The Government simply have to do more in this regard.

Migration and Scotland

Debate between Nigel Evans and Wendy Chamberlain

Tuesday 11th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Chamberlain]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Before the hon. Lady comes back into the debate, can I just advise her gently that the amendment was not selected and therefore should not be referred to in any depth during the debate?