Compensation (London Capital & Finance plc and Fraud Compensation Fund) Bill (First sitting)

Peter Grant Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 15th June 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Mr McFadden]

Q Are you telling us that it was a difficult thing to swallow but you now have the systems in place to deal with it?

Sheree Howard: I was not in the FCA at the time, but it was a very large assumption of remit. We have changed systems. We have implemented various programmes highlighted in Dame Elizabeth’s report on delivering effective supervision and effective authorisation programmes.

As I have already outlined, the financial services market is not sitting still; the FCA cannot sit still—hence the changes that are under way and will be a fact of life going forward. We are undertaking a significant programme to ensure that we invest in digital and data and have much greater access to the information, given the quantum of firms that we oversee.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Q May I start with the witnesses from the Financial Services Compensation Scheme? I am happy to let you decide among yourselves who is best placed to answer. One of the major problems with LCF was that mini-bonds were unregulated, and the same applies to a lot of other unregulated businesses involved in the same activity. If a decision was taken to make the sale of mini-bonds a regulated activity, would it cause administrative difficulties for the FSCS to start to include them in its compensation scheme?

James Darbyshire: I don’t think it would cause administrative difficulties; it would just mean an additional area of coverage for the FSCS. The cost to levy payers—to the financial services industry—would potentially go up, depending on whether there were any failures involving mini-bonds.

[Peter Grant]

Q Are you able to give an indication of how many claims or inquiries the scheme receives from people who turn out not to be entitled to compensation because their investments were unregulated?

Simon Wilson: Unfortunately, I cannot give an accurate figure, but I would be happy to look it up and come back to the Committee.

[Peter Grant]

Q I appreciate that you did not have notice of the question, but would it be fair to say that a number of investors come to the Financial Services Compensation Scheme and discover that their investments are not covered?

Simon Wilson: We certainly get calls and contact from our customers regarding investments that they made that we are unable to protect—that is correct.

[Peter Grant]

Q I shall direct my questions on the Financial Conduct Authority to Ms Howard, but if she wants to pass them on to Mr Jones please feel free to do so. The Financial Conduct Authority uses the term “unsophisticated investors” to described investors for whom investment is not a way of life but tends to be an occasional activity, investing a pension or redundancy lump sum. Do you believe that these investors understand that a company that is regulated by the FCA—that is allowed to display the FCA logo on its website—might still be involved in the sale of unregulated investments? Do they fully understand that distinction?

Sheree Howard: I will look to my colleague Robin in a moment, but Dame Elizabeth Gloster’s report highlighted the halo effect that occurred in LCF. It was unique as it was an authorised firm issuing mini-bonds, which are not regulated although the firm was authorised for other activity but was not undertaking regulated activity.

On whether unsophisticated customers understand that, we are seeking ways of working with our partners to enhance that understanding. There is certain information on that in the financial services register, but people who invest little may not understand that, so it is an area of focus for us, including thinking about how we might most effectively act against that halo effect. That includes strengthening our gateway—our authorisations process—implementing a nursery, where we look at firms shortly after to ensure that they operate in line with our norms and standards. We are looking to do that as part of our transformation programme, as well as considering legislative routes that might help—for example, not having the logo and the FCA name.

[The Chair]

May I ask witnesses to keep their responses as short as possible so that we can get in more questions from Members? Mr Grant, will you make this your final question, please?

[Peter Grant]

Q Possibly—depending on the answer.

Ms Howard, another major problem has been not the unregulated activities carried out by regulated organisations, but unregulated companies that hide behind the fact that some company associated with it is regulated—for example, if a regulated company gives section 21 authorisation for its marketing materials. I will ask the same question again: do the people being encouraged to make these investments understand that the fact that marketing material is issued by a company registered with the FCA does not mean that its activity is regulated?

Sheree Howard: In evidence as part of LCF there was substantial discussion of the financial promotions regime—of the section 21 approval regime in particular. The Government are currently considering changes to that regime to help to improve understanding by making it a specific gateway so that we can test firms that wish to give such approvals to ensure that they do so appropriately. That should help to ensure that consumers understand better.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

Q I thank the witnesses for their time in giving evidence this morning. As the shadow pensions Minister, I have a series of questions on pensions, but I preface them by pointing out to those watching proceedings today who are not pensions experts that there have been some absolutely dreadful pensions scams.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I turn now to the SNP spokesperson, Mr Peter Grant.

[Peter Grant]

Q Thank you, Ms Ghani. The Fraud Compensation Fund comes into operation only when fraud or misappropriation has been established, certainly in the view of the board. How much of a delay does that cause between the collapse of a company and the people who had put into that company getting their compensation?

David Taylor: From the point at which an application is made to us, through to our making a payment into the scheme, we would estimate that it takes somewhere between six and 18 months to process that application and establish whether the various necessary tests have been satisfied, particularly a loss to the scheme due to dishonesty, and whether all other avenues for redress have been exhausted, because we are the fund of last resort. Once the application comes to us, it is relatively quick. However, in relation to the schemes that we are talking about here, people have been waiting for some time as a result of the uncertainty about the eligibility of those schemes for FCF compensation.

[The Chair]

Can we ensure that the questions are in scope, Mr Grant?

[Peter Grant]

Q Thank you, Ms Ghani. Secondly, Mr Taylor, can you outline the basis of your calculation or estimate that the cost from historical cases will be around £350 million? Is there an appreciable risk that the cost could be significantly higher than that?

David Taylor: The way that these cases typically work is that when they become known, the Pensions Regulator appoints a professional trustee to manage the case and to seek to bring in any assets that they can, any claims against the wrongdoers and so forth. The information that we have on the amount of claims is based on information that we have gleaned to date from the professional trustees and/or the Pensions Regulator. We have been liaising with them for some years in relation to these cases.

Inevitably, it is not until they make their formal application to us and provide us with all the documentation that we can really get into the numbers, so we have greater certainty about the numbers that have already applied, perhaps slightly less certainty about the longer-term pipeline.

I think it is fair to say that, based on everything that we have done to date, we are reasonably confident about the order of magnitude of the claims that we know about. There is no legal reason why we could not get more claims in future, so I cannot say, no, that number is not going to go up. For the reasons I mentioned earlier, about these claims not being so relevant anymore, we would perhaps be slightly surprised if it went up a great deal.

[The Chair]

I now call Mr Matt Rodda.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I call the SNP spokesperson, Mr Peter Grant.

[Peter Grant]

Q Thank you, Ms Ghani, and good morning to all of our witnesses.

Dame Elizabeth, may I come to you first? You will be aware that there are amendments that the Committee will consider later that ask for the Secretary of State to be required to report various things to Parliament. In particular, one amendment asks for a report within six months on progress towards the implementation of the recommendations in your report. Clearly, not all of the recommendations will be implemented within six months, but in your view what would be a reasonable time scale for Parliament to ask the Secretary of State to come back and give us an update as to what had been achieved by that point?

Dame Elizabeth Gloster: Thank you for the question; I don’t think I am really qualified, in terms of parliamentary process, to answer it. What I can say is that it was a matter for the FCA to determine how it responds to my recommendation, and my report specifically said that any such response should involve an assurance exercise to confirm that any of the steps, whether recommended by me or otherwise, to cure the defects in the regulation process have indeed achieved the desired objective.

I believe that implementation of my recommendations should be closely monitored, but I don’t really have a view as to whether that means the Secretary of State should be required to lay a report before Parliament, or, if they are, within what timescale. There may be other ways of monitoring progress in relation to the implementation of my recommendations, such as via the Treasury Committee or otherwise.

I think that is the best answer that I can give you.

[Peter Grant]

Q Thank you very much for that. Perhaps I can frame the question in a different way: would it be reasonable to expect to see significant progress within six months in the implementation of your recommendations?

Dame Elizabeth Gloster: I would hope so, but I am not saying that in an informed way. Nevertheless, since the FCA has had my recommendations, as indeed has the Treasury, for some months how, I would hope that they are cracking ahead with implementing the recommendations right now. I suspect that the answer to your question is probably “Yes, it would be reasonable”.

[Peter Grant]

Q Thank you. I have a final question for you, Dame Elizabeth. We hear a lot about phrases such as “mini-bonds” and “mis-selling”. Can those concepts be defined clearly enough to form the basis for a wider legal compensation scheme, if Parliament and the Government were minded to do so?

Dame Elizabeth Gloster: Well, I am a lawyer, so I can define anything, I suspect—[Laughter.] At the time, mini-bonds were not defined and nobody really knew what was being referred to. But, yes, of course you can define a bond that has particular attributes and define it as a mini-bond. It is a slightly open-ended question, but I would have thought that the answer is yes, you can define a bond with particular attributes that might or might not attract protection.

I do not know whether either of my colleagues want to come in on that answer.

[Peter Grant]

I can see on the screens that they are shaking their heads, so we will take that as a “no”. For the record, I do not know whether the camera showed this, but one of the lawyers on the Committee was jumping for joy and waving his arms about when you announced, Dame Elizabeth, that a lawyer can define anything when asked to do so. You have one friend on the Committee.

Dame Elizabeth Gloster: I am not expecting people to agree with that comment; it was only a frivolous comment.

[Peter Grant]

Q I turn now to Mr Agathangelou for the Transparency Task Force. I have a question for you that is similar to the one I just asked Dame Elizabeth. You are aware that there are two amendments asking for the Secretary of State to be required to bring reports back to Parliament, which essentially start to look at the wider issues of investment, mis-selling, regulation and compensation. Do you agree that there is a need for something like that to be brought back to Parliament and, if so, why?

Andy Agathangelou: I certainly do agree. The reason I agree is because there is a mountain of evidence suggesting that there are many similar cases to LCF—Connaught, Lendy, FundingSecure, Blackmore Bond, Exmount, Bentley Global, Store First, Park First, Premier FX, Woodford.

We have to ask ourselves one fundamental question: do we want the public to have good reason to have trust and confidence in our financial ecosystem? If the answer is yes, it follows that we must also want the public to have confidence and trust in the financial regulatory framework that oversees it. Unless we get to that point, we cannot have what we want, which is a system that we can all rely on.

I would argue very strongly indeed that we must look at, for example, Blackmore Bond. The evidence is crystal clear that there has been catastrophic regulatory failure. We need to do what is uncomfortable and open up the can of worms that is there, and the can of worms that is within Premier FX. We need to have the courage to recognise that things have gone wrong. We do not need to make it in any way personal—this is a systemic issue. We will only start addressing these problems if we move away from short-term, tactical, reactive responses to long-term, strategic, proactive responses. I and the many members of our organisation would be very pleased if Parliament were to decide to properly investigate the many other catastrophic regulatory failures that have taken place.

[The Chair]

I ask witnesses to make sure that you are on mute if you are not speaking, and to keep answers short. Mr Grant, is this your final question?

[Peter Grant]

Q Yes. I just want to ask Mr Bishop if he has anything to add.

Mark Bishop: Yes. I strongly endorse what my colleague Andy Agathangelou said and I would like to add a little more information.

As far as I am concerned, the debate is about what happens when the regulator fails in its statutory duty to protect consumers. There are a number of options. The consumers can bear the costs, and that is tough; the consumers can be compensated by the Treasury; or they can be compensated by the FCA.

At the moment, there is no effective route to be compensated by the FCA, because in the Financial Services Act 2012, Parliament—rightly or wrongly—gave the FCA broad exemption from civil liability. It is almost impossible to sue. There is a very narrow carve-out on breach of human rights and acting in bad faith. At some point, someone is going to try the human rights angle, but I do not think anyone has successfully done so yet, because the costs are high and the FCA effectively has unlimited resources.

Knowing that it gave that exemption, Parliament also created a complaints scheme. Unfortunately, it then allowed the FCA to specify the complaints scheme. As a result, the FCA has determined that it cannot give out material levels of redress and it cannot give out any redress where there is an allegation that the regulator has failed in its statutory duty—it has been negligent or it has just not done the job properly. In effect, there is no route for consumers to receive redress. There is a need to create one.

There are big ways of doing that, such as having a royal commission, as happened in Australia. There are also simple, pragmatic, quick ways of doing it. Modifying the Bill so that it could deal with other legacy cases of regulatory failure would be a very sensible way to do it.

[The Chair]

I call Matt Rodda.

Compensation (London Capital & Finance plc and Fraud Compensation Fund) Bill

Peter Grant Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 8th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) [V]]

I am pleased to be able to speak in this short debate and to confirm that the SNP will not oppose Second Reading, but I am angry and frustrated that the debate needs to take place at all. Most parts of the legislation are only necessary because of a catalogue of failures of Government, of legislation and of regulators.

I will speak first about the second of the two parts, on the Pension Protection Fund. One of the first times I spoke in Parliament, just a few days after my maiden speech, I expressed concerns about pension liberation scams. I asked the then Secretary of State what steps the Government were taking to protect people from them, to make sure changing the rules would not just make open season for the scammers. We now know that the answer to that question is that the Government were doing nothing, or if they were doing anything, they did not do nearly enough. Some £350 million has been stolen from people’s pensions using these scams. Those pensioners should be compensated from the Pension Protection Fund, and I would support a provision in clause 2 to allow that to happen.

Clause 1 sets up the promised compensation scheme for victims of the London Capital & Finance scandal. About 11,000 people were affected, of whom 2,000 got some compensation and 9,000 got nothing. I do not think any of the 11,000 understand why some qualified for compensation and some did not. It is very welcome that the Bill will provide some redress for the 9,000 or so bondholders who would have otherwise got nothing. It is welcome, but it is not enough.

The House of Commons Library has described the Government’s decision to set up the compensation scheme as “a somewhat exceptional response.” The response is exceptional, but the scandal to which it responds is anything but. It is the latest, and sadly almost certainly not the last, in a roll of shame that includes Equitable Life, Premier FX, Connaught, Henley pensions, Blackmore Bond and many others. The victims of some of these schemes get compensation, but tens of thousands get nothing.

Blackmore Bond, for example, went into administration in May 2020 and its bondholders are unlikely to see any of the £46 million investment that the company’s directors had promised them was safe and guaranteed. One of my constituents lost his £40,000 life savings to Blackmore Bond. I have to disagree with the Minister’s claim that LCF was unique or even distinctive in any material way from Blackmore Bond and various other mini-bond failures. LCF hid behind its own FCA registration knowing that it had nothing to do with the products it was selling. Blackmore Bond hid behind the FCA registration of other companies that acted as its representatives. The intention in all cases was clear: to mislead investors as to the degree of protection that the Financial Conduct Authority would give them, when in most cases the companies knew that the FCA would give no protection whatever.

Like LCF, Blackmore Bond could have been stopped much sooner if the Financial Conduct Authority had acted on the warnings it was receiving as long ago as early 2017. One came from an eyewitness who offered to let the FCA into his office to watch and listen at first hand to the “unlawful” telephone sales practices that the company’s representatives, Amyma Ltd, were using—his words, not mine. It took two and a half years for the FCA to remove Amyma’s right to act as authorised representatives. Several months later, again as part of its response to the collapse of LCF, the FCA banned the sale of mini-bonds to small retail investors. Some £26 million of the total investor losses in Blackmore Bond were from bonds sold after March 2017—after the Financial Conduct Authority had enough information to take decisive action, but before it had taken the action that was needed.

I want to see legislation, or possibly even an amendment to this Bill, that makes schemes similar to the LCF compensation scheme available to victims of other pension and investment scams without them having to wait for a public inquiry and a new Act of Parliament for every single one. I want to see the Government getting serious about dealing with the shysters and charlatans who too often seem to walk away unscathed from these scandals, or more likely get driven away in their chauffeur-driven luxury cars, leaving their victims in many cases almost destitute. I want to see a regulatory regime that works, not just to compensate the victims at public expense, but to stop the crooks and chancers from being able to con people out of their money in the first place.

The fact that the Minister admitted in his opening speech that paying compensation to all victims of pension or investment scams would place an unacceptable burden on the public finances is one of the biggest admissions of regulatory failure by any Government Minister that I can ever remember. While we welcome the steps taken in the Bill, the message very clearly from the Scottish National party, as it was from the Labour Front-Bench spokesman a few minutes ago, is that this is not even enough to be the start of the action needed to make people’s pensions and investments safe from the crooks.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Grant Excerpts

Monday 8th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)]

What assessment she has made of the implications for her Department’s policies of Budget 2021.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

What assessment she has made of the implications for her Department’s policies of Budget 2021.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)]

Since the start of the pandemic, our priority as a Government has been to protect lives and people’s livelihoods. That is why we are continuing to give our support, extending the temporary £20 a week increase in universal credit for a further six months, taking it well beyond the end of this national lockdown. I should point out to the House that total welfare spending in Great Britain for 2020-21 now stands at an estimated £238 billion, 11.4% of GDP. Alongside that, the Budget confirmed the ongoing measures that we will be taking as part of our plan for jobs, including the expected starting of the restart programme, particularly focused on long-term unemployed, before the summer recess.

[Dr Coffey]

Discussions between Ministers are normally confidential, but the answer is no, the reason being that we have a process that was put in place as a temporary measure relating to covid. The rationale for that was set out last year. I encourage the hon. Lady to genuinely consider encouraging people who are still on legacy benefits to go to independent benefits calculators to see whether they would automatically be better off under universal credit. Universal credit has been a huge success during the last 12 months—if not the years before that, but it has particularly shown its worth—and I genuinely encourage people to really consider whether they would be financially better off moving benefits now rather than waiting, potentially, to be managed-migrated in the next few years.

[Peter Grant [V]]

I think the Minister has possibly given the game away there by linking an explanation of her refusal to ask for an uplift to legacy benefits to an attempt to pressurise my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) into pushing her constituents to move from a useless system of legacy benefits to an equally useless system of universal credit.

Does the Secretary of State not accept that the fact that universal credit had to be increased by £20 a week as soon as lockdown was imposed is a clear indication that the underlying rate of payment of universal credit is not adequate for people to live on? I defy anyone on the Conservative Benches to live on universal credit for more than a few weeks, never mind two to three years. Will the Secretary of State now accept that the underlying rate of universal credit is utterly inadequate and that the £20 uplift, as a minimum, should be made permanent with immediate effect?

[Dr Coffey]

No, I do not accept that, and I want to be clear. It has been explained to the House in multiple ways over the past year why that decision, which the Chancellor announced last year, was taken at the time. Let us be straight about this: universal credit is working and will continue to work. It worries me how many Members of Parliament criticise universal credit when it is clearly working. It has done what it was designed to do. For those people who have had their hours reduced, universal credit has kicked in and the payments have gone up. Frankly, unlike in the last recession, in 2008, when the Labour party did nothing to help with some of the financial instability that people were going through, I am very proud of what we have undertaken by investing over £7 billion extra in the welfare system in this last year.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Grant Excerpts

Monday 25th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

My right hon. Friend raises an important issue. Within the last year, we have reviewed parts of the complaints process. I am also conscious that my noble Friend Baroness Stedman-Scott, who leads on this, has arranged for more resources to go into the independent case examiner. It would be helpful if my right hon. Friend could share with me or with the noble Baroness the precise details, so that we can investigate what has happened.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) [V]]

Most of my constituency has hardly seen temperatures above freezing since before the turn of the year. Pensioners in around 200 other parts of the United Kingdom are now getting the cold weather payments they are entitled to, but because of rules set out by the Department, thousands of pensioners in my constituency do not qualify for a single penny. Could the Secretary of State explain how that is fair?

[Dr Coffey]

I am not sure which specific payments the hon. Gentleman is referring to. I have highlighted, as has the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince), the warm home discount scheme. There are other winter grant schemes, which have specific criteria. If the hon. Gentleman would like to contact one of the Ministers in the Department directly, I am sure that we can look into that casework for him.

Universal Credit: Delayed Roll-Out

Peter Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Will the Minister reconsider the ill-advised and, frankly, insulting use of the word “scaremongering”? It is not scaremongering when food banks talk about a massive increase in demand, and when local authorities report huge increases in rent arrears; nor is it scaremongering for local authorities to report having to spend a lot of their scarce resources to make up for the shortfalls of universal credit. If the Minister wants to insult me by accusing me of scare- mongering, that is fair enough; when he insults me for raising the concerns of my constituents, he insults my constituents. Will he apologise for that, and will he reconsider the inflammatory language he has used?

[Will Quince]

I meet stakeholders in relation to the Department every single week, and I take the concerns and issues they raise very seriously because they are largely based on evidence. When I refer to scaremongering, I refer to the tone and language and rhetoric so often used by Opposition Members.

I did not quite get to answer the question by the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar) and in fairness, I should. He mentioned hard-working people. It is important to stress that income inequality has been falling under this Government in real terms. The national living wage will rise to £8.72 in April, and to £10.50 by 2024. Our tax changes will make a basic rate taxpayer more than £1,200 better off. We have doubled the free childcare available to working parents. We are doing a huge amount to tackle the cost of living and to support working parents.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Grant Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Justin Tomlinson]

It would be a pleasure to thank those volunteers doing so much to create new opportunities for disabled people, which is something I know my hon. Friend, as their MP, regularly champions, as I have seen at first hand on some very good visits there.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

T4. This morning, at the start of Challenge Poverty week, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation published a report entitled “Poverty in Scotland 2019”, which looks into some of the reasons why poverty levels in Scotland are not quite as bad as those in the rest of the United Kingdom. One of the major factors that it identifies is the much greater availability of affordable housing, and, in particular, the impact of nearly 20 years of council house building, and the fact that the Scottish Government have built 87,000 affordable houses since 2007. Does the Minister agree that, while he may claim that work is the best way out of poverty, unaffordable housing is a sure-fire way into poverty? Will the UK Government learn the lessons of what is happening in Scotland, and make social and council housing something to be celebrated instead of something to be demonised?

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

I do agree with the hon. Gentleman that secure and stable accommodation is one route out of poverty. It will come as no surprise to him that I raise this issue regularly with my counterpart at the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government. I have been pushing the Ministry to consider providing more affordable homes, and homes for social rent, as one of its policy initiatives.

Child Maintenance Service: Payment Recovery from Absent Parents

Peter Grant Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd October 2019 Westminster Hall

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the performance of the Child Maintenance Service in recovering payments from absent parents.

I would hope that everyone agrees that parents should continue to take financial responsibility for their children after the break-up of a relationship. We must understand that relationship break-up can often be a disturbing and distressing time for everybody, often leaving behind a great deal of bad feeling. It is not easy in such circumstances to come to an arrangement that is fair on both partners and, most of all, fair on the children. The criticisms that I will be directing today at the Child Maintenance Service, and its predecessor the Child Support Agency, should not be taken as an indication that I do not appreciate the difficult circumstances in which it has to operate.

Many absent parents do their best to care for their children, and I do not want to give the impression that everybody whose relationship has broken up is trying to avoid their responsibilities. Sadly, however, some people see the break-up of a relationship as an opportunity to abandon all responsibilities for their children. The Child Maintenance Service owes it to those children and to the resident parent to ensure that the absent parent complies with their legal and moral responsibilities. We are not talking about forcing somebody to pay to give their children a life of luxury. Indeed, we are often talking about forcing somebody to pay money that they can well afford in order to keep their own children out of poverty. The Child Maintenance Service is sometimes not good enough at getting money from people who can afford it, and we sometimes see it pursuing people for payments that they quite clearly cannot afford.

I am grateful to several organisations that have provided me with background information not only for this debate, but to support my caseworkers in dealing with a significant number of requests for help from constituents. Fife Gingerbread does an enormous amount of good work in my constituency and elsewhere in Fife. My caseworkers also find the Child Poverty Action Group’s child support handbook indispensable, and that will be the same in every constituency across these islands.

Several individuals have also shared their experiences with me. I do not have time to go into any of them in great detail, and some of cannot be aired in public for reasons of confidentiality. In addition, some of the issues that have been raised—serious though they are—do not really fall within the remit of this debate because they relate, for example, to the regulations around exactly how somebody’s income is determined, which causes a great deal of anger, sometimes among the paying parents and sometimes for the receiving parents. I make that point because it will not be possible to go into most of these cases in any kind of detail in the time available. I have also been approached by several colleagues who want to speak in the debate or to intervene, so I want to give time for that as well.

I see too many cases in which it is obvious that a parent is determined to avoid their responsibilities and that they can get away with it—sometimes for years at a time—which is just not good enough. It is far too easy, for example, to hide income from the Child Maintenance Service, which too often leaves it to the resident parent to produce the evidence that their ex-partner is effectively committing fraud. That is bad enough at the best of times, but if the resident parent has been the victim of domestic abuse or financially coercive and controlling behaviour, it is wholly unacceptable to make them responsible for ensuring that the other parent of their children complies with their legal responsibilities.

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech on an issue that I have raised in the past. Several constituents who are the resident parent have not received any money for years, and a common theme or trend seems to be that the paying parent claims to have given up paid work or become self-employed in order to hide their income. That totally thwarts the whole purpose of the Child Maintenance Service. Does my hon. Friend agree that the CMS must pull out all the stops to find a way to prevent that from happening, maintain its charter commitment and ensure that the child is at the heart of everything?

[Peter Grant]

Absolutely. I do not think we will ever have a set of regulations that everyone agrees with. If a relationship between two people has completely broken down, the one who is paying will think they are paying too much, and the one who is receiving payment will think they are not getting enough. Surely, if the rules are based on someone’s income, however, it should be no easier for them to hide their income from their children than it is to hide it from the Inland Revenue.

I have assisted constituents affected by HMRC loan charge, as well as a constituent who was pursued to a ridiculous degree for a relatively small debt that they turned out not to owe to HMRC. Many resident parents in my constituency would like a fraction of that diligence to be used by the CMS when it chases down money that is owed not to the Government but to children who often desperately need it.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Does he agree that more must be done to reconcile reported earnings with the lifestyle of the absent father or mother? I have seen parents in my constituency who give their child £10.50 a week, yet they drive a brand-new BMW, have the newest of gear and have that kind of lifestyle. An absent father must be allowed to live, but it should be difficult for them to disregard their financial obligations. We must make that more difficult.

[Peter Grant]

I agree with that entirely.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. I have a constituent who is owed a substantial sum by an absent father, who lives very comfortably and flies in and out of the UK with no apparent difficulty. The only answer my constituent gets is that the service cannot touch him because it cannot establish a UK address for him. Does my hon. Friend agree that such cases need more than just ministerial hand-wringing, and that concrete action to seize passports or assets could be in order?

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

Absolutely, and I will come on to some of the new powers that have recently been given to the Child Maintenance Service. Although those powers are draconian, there will be instances when they have to be used. Deliberately concealing income from people who you know want only to provide for your children should be a criminal offence. It is not a matter for the civil courts or for civil adjudication. If someone falsifies their tax returns, they go to jail, so if they falsify returns provided to assess their financial liability for their own kids, they should also go to jail.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have a constituent who has not received payment for years. Their former partner has moved home and jobs, and keeps changing bank account. They also disposed of two properties, yet that money is untraceable. Surely people should not be able to open new bank accounts if they owe all that money.

[Peter Grant]

Again, I entirely agree. I have had female constituents who use one name in their family and one in their professional work. They have difficulty opening two bank accounts, so it seems strange that others are able to get away with opening bank accounts all over the place.

Last year the powers available to the Child Maintenance Service were extended. I found it concerning to read the evidence submitted to the Work and Pensions Committee in 2016, because it seemed that the Department for Work and Pensions did not understood the difference between collection powers and enforcement powers. The DWP can implement collection powers immediately through the Child Maintenance Service—it does not need anybody’s permission—but enforcement powers are more severe and need the consent of the courts. If those who write the evidence for a parliamentary Select Committee are vague about the distinction between those two powers, it is no wonder that parents and children who are waiting for their money sometimes get confused about what the powers are.

Some powers that the Child Maintenance Service has should not be allowed as a form of debt enforcement, and even in certain cases I do not think that imprisoning someone for not paying their dues is acceptable. It should be an imprisonable offence if somebody falsifies information, but not if they refuse to pay money that has been established as owed. I certainly would not want any seizing of property, warrant sale or auction to happen in Scotland. One of the first private Members’ Bills put through the Scottish Parliament was to outlaw what I believe to be a barbaric practice. In a civilised country, there are other ways to carry out debt collection, without such draconian and barbaric actions. For example, we could restrict someone’s ability to open new bank accounts.

[Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Peter Grant]

I need to make a bit of progress. If I have time later, I will give way to the hon. Lady. I am grateful for her interest in the debate.

Something that has been a major concern for many of my constituents recently is the Child Maintenance Service’s decision to write off debts that somebody has been owed for a significant time. Sometimes that is a relatively small amount of money, but it can open up all the old wounds again if the parent who is owed that money suddenly gets a letter from the CMS after 10 years, having heard nothing from it, as happened to one of my constituents recently.

Another constituent has been asked to agree to writing off a debt of £18,000 that she is owed for the children she has raised on her own. Her children are now grown up, and people could argue that they do not need the money, but the person who owes the money certainly does not need it. I do not think that is acceptable, any more than it would be acceptable for the HMRC to decide not to bother chasing somebody who owed £18,000 of tax. In the case I have referred to, the Child Maintenance Service knows where the absent parent is. It knows where he lives, it knows where he works and it knows his bank account details, so there is no excuse whatsoever not to require him to enter into some kind of arrangement to pay his children the money he owes.

[The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)]

On that specific point, they will have been contacted. If that information is available and they would like that £18,000 debt to be pursued, it would be, and it would be a priority.

[Peter Grant]

Interestingly enough, when I contacted the Child Maintenance Service about that specific case, it promised to give us a fuller response by 3 October, so it has about 20 minutes left. If we finish a wee bit early, the Minister might be able to get on to his colleagues and ensure that they honour that. Of course, it may be that they have responded during the time that I have been on my feet.

Far too often, the parent who has the main responsibility for looking after the children physically is left to fight battle after battle with the CMS to get the money that is theirs and their children’s by right. Often, they feel as if the CMS is not working with them, but is almost acting as an obstacle to them. Far too often, when I look through the cases that have come in to my office since I was elected, the final point is that the parent has just given up and feels it is not worth chasing things up. Very often, they can no longer stand the stress of being forced to continue to contact somebody who, quite frankly, they never want to hear from again because of the way that person treated them while they were together. It is not only a tragedy, but a scandal, if somebody is forced to give up the fight for what they are legally entitled to simply because a Government agency has not supported them enough in the process.

[Ruth George]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this important debate. Like him, my caseworkers and I have found it incredibly frustrating to try to get through to the CMS, both in cases where there is a claimant making a claim and where the CMS holds wrong information on a defendant. Just trying to get the CMS to look at that is very difficult. Does he agree that the fact that universal credit now takes account of maintenance income, whether or not it is received, will make recipients who are due that money even poorer if they do not receive it, and that that is a double whammy for them and often for their children as well? It just adds to the injustice of the situation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

The hon. Lady makes a valid point. Those of us who are old enough to remember it would do well to recall that the original version of the Child Support Agency was set up not to help the children, but as a way of getting somebody else to pay the children’s maintenance costs to save the DWP or its predecessor a wee bit of money. That legacy can be seen sometimes in the fact that the CMS, through the DWP, is simply not as enthusiastic about pursuing money that is owed to other people as it would be if it were pursuing money owed to itself.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Peter Grant]

I think I can give way once more, and then I will have to move on.

[Stephen Timms]

I was looking through my records this afternoon, and I saw that I wrote to the Child Support Agency on behalf of one of my constituents on 30 September 1999. She finally received a first, partial payment on 1 August 2018. It took 19 years. Is the hon. Gentleman as unsurprised as I am that people, as he says, just give up?

[Peter Grant]

I just wish that I could wait 19 years before paying the bills that come into my constituency office with more regularity. I would love to think that the example the right hon. Gentleman raises was unique, but I do not think it is. What is the point of a child maintenance system that does not pay anything to the child until they are 18 or 19 and have left school, and possibly left home and gone to university? The children need the money when they are two, three and four years old, not when they are in their 20s. In a case I mentioned earlier, the children were literally grown up and had left home. Some were married, some were at university. As a point of principle, the parent was determined to carry on fighting, but he knows perfectly well that the money will not make any difference to his children. They have had the experience of being brought up when money was desperately tight.

A completely incomprehensible aspect to the write-off scheme is that the process the Child Maintenance Service has to go through before it can write off historical arrears depends, reasonably enough, on the level and value of the arrears, but that, by its own admission,

“significant policy, operational and IT issues beset the 1993 and 2003 schemes which contributed to the build-up of considerable arrears of unpaid maintenance”.

In another document, it admitted that it cannot always be sure how much the arrears are. How can it be fair for the CMS to say that it can write off an amount of arrears because it is small enough within the scheme that it does not need the receiving parent’s permission, and at the same time to say, “We don’t really know how much the arrears are, because our record-keeping system was so appalling in the past”?

A great deal more could be said, but I know that colleagues want to speak as well, so I will bring my comments to a close. First, however, I want to add something that was not in my original speech. I decided to do that when I realised that, while we are having this debate, our colleagues in the main Chamber will, hopefully, be agreeing to the Second Reading of the Domestic Abuse Bill.

I cannot go into much detail about some of the cases I have had, because people are still under threat from ex-partners, but I hope the Minister can explain how someone whose partner has been convicted repeatedly of assault can hide their income from the Child Maintenance Service for more than three years after the CMS has been alerted to where the money was, where it was going and how it was being hidden. It was hidden in such a way that, if I had the same authorisation to visit premises and to make inquiries as the CMS and HMRC, I could have found it, as any of us could, within 20 minutes. It was not an elaborate offshore scheme; it was a very simple accounting practice that HMRC and the Child Maintenance Service know about.

How can it be that someone who has been and still is a victim of coercive financial control is told that it is entirely up to her to find evidence that her ex-partner is committing fraud against her and probably against HMRC as well? How can that be acceptable? Why is the Child Maintenance Service not working more closely with HMRC, so that when they get information that points clearly to a large-scale criminal evasion of tax by somebody whose address and place of work is a matter of public record, they can take action? How can it take three years for them even to begin an investigation? When the Minister sums up, I hope he can answer that question, as well as responding to the other comments I have made.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

I realise that I must be very brief, so I thank everybody who has contributed to today’s debate. A couple of points: first, people do not need a clever accountant to hide their money; they only need an accountant who knows how to set up a private limited company, and it then takes years to find it. Secondly, we do not need to be Sherlock Holmes to find these scams; we only need a Facebook account, and then we can see the luxury yachts, the holidays, the umpteen fancy houses and so on. If somebody on benefits was boasting about their wealth to that extent, the DWP would have them very quickly. That is the speed at which we should be chasing down money from other people as well—

Universal Credit: Managed Migration

Peter Grant Excerpts

Monday 22nd July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

The right hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware that, in addition to the advances, the housing benefit run-on and the legacy benefits run-on will come in next year, and they are effectively part of the transitional arrangements being offered to the pool of people who are having their migration managed. He has raised this matter before. I have bent over backwards to ensure that we get funds to people as soon as possible, and former Secretaries of State have done the same, but I know that some people still have concerns about what more we can do to ensure that people on the lowest incomes are supported at the moment of difficulty when they move from one benefit to another. I will always take an open mind to looking what we can learn from that going forward.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I recently received confirmation that one of my constituents, with the support of my constituency office team, had been awarded more than £2,000 in benefits that had been wrongly withheld. While that was welcome—he certainly welcomed it—why should somebody have to go to the MP, and why should an MP’s staff spend days and days on an individual case just to get somebody the money that is theirs by right?

For 18 months, my constituents have been used as guinea pigs for a failed and failing system. During that time, rent arrears have increased, food bank usage has increased and personal debt has increased. One of the Secretary of State’s ministerial colleagues actually suggested that the reason for the increase in food bank use might be that everybody knows where the food bank is, but nobody can find the jobcentre. Glenrothes jobcentre is right next to the bus station, and someone cannot get a bus in or out of Glenrothes without going past the jobcentre. Does the Secretary of State believe her colleague that the increase in food bank use in my constituency is because a high-profile jobcentre has become invisible, or would it be more honest to say that food bank use is increasing because my constituents and many others are victims of a welfare system that is no longer fit for purpose?

[Amber Rudd]

I simply do not recognise the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation either of my ministerial colleagues or of the intention of universal credit. The hon. Gentleman describes his jobcentre in some detail, and I expect he knows some of the work coaches who do such a remarkably good job engaging with individuals and trying to help them into work. I ask him to remember that before he describes the system as not fit for purpose. The former system was not fit for purpose, with six different benefits from three different places and no personal interaction. Universal credit is much more positive for his constituents and for mine.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Grant Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

I thank my hon. Friend for fighting so hard for his constituents and making sure that the most vulnerable in his constituency are well represented and looked after by their Member of Parliament. I believe he was referring to the tribunal reviews that take place when there are PIP appeals. We are working with Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service to make sure that we speed up the process to ensure that the waits are not so long.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

It is all very well for the Secretary of State to say nice words about light-touch reassessment, but she will be aware of the case I raised last week in which a constituent whose condition worsened was assessed and lost her benefit as a result, and she will be aware of the case I have previously raised of the constituent whose leg was amputated and who was then assessed, on the basis of a phone call, as being able to walk four times further than he could the previous year on the basis of a work assessment. When are we going to see the reality of these assessments match up to the nice cuddly words we get from the Secretary of State, instead of their being used as a brutal and inhuman way to take people off benefit?

[Amber Rudd]

I would caution the hon. Gentleman about being so negative about an assessment that, yes, works for the vast majority of people. Only a certain number of the appeals get through and only 5% of the total number of assessments are overturned. I do not want people generally who are listening to and watching this exchange to think that the assessments are something to be fearful of. The people who conduct these assessments are sympathetic, thoughtful people who try to give the right answers. [Interruption.] Yes, they are. I urge the hon. Gentleman to let me know if he has a particular case or cases, because I or the relevant Minister will always talk to him and make sure that the outcome is settled.

Social Security

Peter Grant Excerpts

Wednesday 6th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I am pleased to be able to contribute to this debate. The Whips Office asked me whether I would like to contribute because my constituency historically had a strong mining tradition, and I am particularly pleased to take part because 3,000 or so people lose their life to mesothelioma each year.

In August 2008 one of those who lost their life to the disease was John MacDougall, then the Member of Parliament for the constituency I have the privilege to represent. John was only 60 years old, and he should have had years and years of active life ahead of him. He had given 26 years of service to the people as a councillor and as a Member of Parliament, and for many years before that he had been a trade unionist. It is a tragic irony that while John, through his trade union activities, was working for safer working conditions for his colleagues at the Rosyth dockyard and, later, at the Methil oil rig yard he was working in an environment that led to his tragic early death, denying him and his family the active retirement he had a right to expect.

The last time I remember seeing John—as far as I know, it was the last public activity he was able to carry out—was at an event organised by a stalwart of Fife Council, Willie Clarke, as part of a campaign to get proper recognition and proper compensation for former miners and others whose lives were blighted by pneumoconiosis. It seems appropriate to mark both John and Willie today. Willie gave 43 years’ service as a councillor in Fife, and he retired in 2016.

I think the reason for these regulations today and for why there is a statutory compensation scheme for miners, plumbers and others who suffer from these terrible diseases, is the determination of people like Willie Clarke. As a councillor and as a National Union of Mineworkers official, he worked with other officials in the NUM and in other trade unions. Without them, I do not think we would have a statutory scheme today, so I pay tribute to Willie, the late John MacDougall and others who have gone before us. They deserve the credit for our having this scheme.

The scheme is not perfect, and it can be criticised, but it has to be better than what we had before. Until we had a statutory compensation scheme, people had to take their employer through the courts. As the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) mentioned, the compensation to a family for the loss of a loved one is often much, much less than the compensation paid to a patient who has to live with the consequences of their illness. That fact has been abused mercilessly by employers and others for decades. Often the reason for delays and so-called “complications” in compensation cases was purely down to the fact that the employer knew that if they could keep the case going until the claimant died, the size of any compensation payment would be significantly reduced. This was an insidious, vile and evil way to treat people, when they had often given years of service to companies, but that was what the business interests of employers often dictated. Again, I pay tribute to those who have helped to make sure that such a situation has been significantly improved. It has not been entirely sorted out, but things are better than they were in years gone by.

My grandad, Peter Quinn, whose name I am proud to bear, died when I was 10. I only remember him as an old man, one who was usually sick. He had to get a downstairs bathroom installed in his house and convert a front room into a bedroom because he could not get up and down the stairs. He could hardly walk the length of his garden—that is what I remember of him—but he was not much older than I am today. He had been a plumber all his days, which is clearly what caused the damage to his lungs and ended his life prematurely, as it ended the lives of tens of thousands, and possibly millions, of hard-working people the length and breadth of these islands. Those who are left behind and still have to live with the consequences of these appalling diseases deserve all the help we can give them, as do their families and loved ones.

I certainly support the proposal being put forward today. I was not surprised, because I already knew this, but it was disappointing that the Minister said there is not a statutory entitlement for these payments to be increased by the rate of inflation every year. Why is there not? Surely it is time to say to these people, “We think that the compensation that people like you will get in five years’ time should be worth the same in real terms as the money you are getting just now.” It should not need a decision of Parliament to accept—or, in theory, to reject—that increase. This is not money given to people to let them live in luxury. It is given to people as inadequate compensation for the loss of many years of their life and, very often, for the loss of quality life during the years they have left. We are talking about the people who made this collection of nations what it is. We would not have the economy we have today were it not for the shipyards in places such as Burntisland, which John MacDougall represented for so long, and for the mines, which produced massive wealth for so few, but which also destroyed the lives and livelihoods of so many. It is therefore appropriate that we continue to operate this compensation scheme and give, as an absolute minimum, an increase that allows people to keep pace with inflation.

However, I urge the Minister to give serious consideration to amending the legislation so that in future these increases in benefits can be made automatically. There should not be any option for this House to impose what would, in effect, be a reduction in real terms. I support the inflationary increase now, but I hope that by this time next year this increase, and perhaps a wee bit more, will be given automatically as a matter of right and not at the discretion of this House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Newton]

My right hon. Friend makes a really important point. I have already committed to taking this matter away, but this debate has been very valuable. As we have seen from the quality and range of contributions, this debate has allowed the time for Members to raise a lot of important matters. Quite rightly, we have roamed far and wide, but this was an important debate none the less.

[Peter Grant]

Following on from the comments of the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning), with respect I do not think that the opportunity for us to talk to ourselves—and possibly to people watching—for an hour or so justifies the potential uncertainty for sufferers. Just now, they do not know how much they are going to get next year or the year after. I would quite happily forgo the chance to listen to my own voice for 10 minutes if I knew that my constituents could be certain for the rest of their lives that their payments would always keep up with inflation. This is the fourth time in three weeks that businesses has collapsed hours early, so there are plenty of other opportunities—through the Backbench Business Committee and elsewhere—to have these debates if Members so wish. I appreciate that the Minister cannot give a definite answer from the Dispatch Box just now, but I really hope that she will take this point back to her colleagues and come back with a positive answer at some point in the future.