Supported Housing

Debate between Richard Graham and Madeleine Moon

Thursday 18th January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I echo the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) in expressing my joy at serving under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Sharma, and at welcoming our new Minister, the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs Wheeler). As previous speakers mentioned, she brings to the role considerable experience, particularly of local government and how these things work or do not work.

I suspect that there will be a degree of similarity in some of the speeches, because the issues are relatively similar, although we will all have slightly different approaches to them. I am happy to echo the comments of my friend, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, about the Joint Select Committee report. The hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) played an educating role for me, coming as I did from the Department for Work and Pensions side. It was the right hon. Member for Birkenhead who talked me into taking up something outside the comfort zone of the Work and Pensions Committee’s normal remit. It was a fascinating experience.

In his introductory remarks, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) suggested that the aim of the Joint Select Committee’s report was to make the Government feel uncomfortable, but I am afraid that was not my objective at all. I felt that our job was to try to come up with solutions to what has been a pretty difficult issue for a long time. If one needed confirmation of that, there is the fact that among the emails that we received from various charities and lobbying groups was an interesting email from the charity Homeless Link, which said it

“recognises the challenge facing policy makers—it is a hugely complex sector, making finding solutions equally complex. However, supported housing provides a lifeline for thousands of vulnerable people and it is therefore imperative that we get it right.”

I think that all of us would agree with every word of that. Homeless Link went on to say that it

“welcomes the Government’s commitments around homelessness and rough sleeping.”

That is a very promising start.

The brief from the Communities and Local Government Committee rightly highlights the areas in which the joint report, the Committee and the wider sector are very supportive of the Government’s initial report in October 2017, responding to our recommendations in April. Crucially, the Government decided not to apply local housing allowance rates to tenants in supported housing. That was a clear recommendation in our report, and arguably the single most important one. I welcome the Government’s response in October, and hope that all right hon. and hon. Members here do likewise. My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), who was the Minister for this portfolio at the time, made it clear that, broadly speaking, the Government’s response built on the report that we had submitted.

The right hon. Member for Birkenhead and the hon. Member for Sheffield South East both highlighted that there remains concern about what I would call the issue of the guarantee. For example, I received an email from Joe Feeley, the chief executive of Emmaus in Gloucestershire, which does an outstanding job for the people it helps, in which he said:

“Although the proposals state that funding for supported housing costs would be ring fenced, we are concerned that in the long term this is difficult to guarantee.”

The right hon. Member for Birkenhead made precisely the same point. Philosophically, we might all take the view that it is pretty difficult for any Government to guarantee everything forever, but it would be helpful if the new Minister could reassure Emmaus, and Members across the House, about how supporting housing costs will be ring-fenced, and the Government’s intention to continue that throughout the life of this Parliament.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because I am here specifically to speak about Emmaus. One of Emmaus’s concerns is that it may be limited to the two-year period of funding. It would be so helpful if the Minister confirmed today that, although we cannot have an open-ended commitment, it will be a lot longer than two years.

[Richard Graham]

I am grateful for that intervention, because clearly the two-year issue is one aspect of this matter. However, I think the wider issue is probably around the definition of “short term”, as has been mentioned. I had an interesting briefing from representatives of Rethink Mental Illness, who said that they

“warmly welcome the decision not to proceed with the LHA cap, and to place long-term supported housing funding on a sustainable footing.”

However, they went on to raise

“concerns about some of the proposals for ‘short-term’ supported housing”,

which I think is normally defined as being under two years. That seems to be the issue that worries Rethink Mental Illness and other mental health organisations. Rethink Mental Illness has issued a joint letter with nine other organisations, aiming to tie down a little the definitions of “short term” and “very short term”. I hope that the Minister can shed some light on that, but we will all have to bear in mind that the consultation closes on, I think, 23 January. It will be difficult for the Government to say too much in advance of that, so I assume that the main purpose of today’s debate is for us to get our points in before the Government’s response to the consultation, which will no doubt include some of these points from charities.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Richard Graham and Madeleine Moon

Committee: 8th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 20th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Moon]

I took that intervention from my hon. Friend because she is a Welsh colleague, and she and her constituents will also be affected by these job losses in automotive and steel. This was nothing to do with rejecting an intervention from the Conservative Benches; it was about giving the Welsh voice prominence in this place, just for a change. Welsh workers are deeply affected by these industries, and it is appalling that the Welsh Government have not been given the information that they need to do what they can. It is equally appalling that we as elected Members are not being given the information that we need to work to protect the people we were elected to protect. The typically patriarchal attitude towards the workforce revealed by the impact assessments that have been done so far is deeply worrying. I do not think that any in-depth analysis of the financial impact has been done.

Interestingly, I was in the USA last week at a defence conference, during which the question of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and a potential free trade agreement with the UK came up. A very senior member of the Trump Administration told us that the US had an ambition for access to all services in each other’s markets and that it was particularly keen to have access to the UK’s financial services. We were told, however, that it would not be as keen if the US was subject to the European Court of Justice, because it would not want its companies to have such judicial oversight. I think that tells us everything we need to know about the importance of our remaining in the customs union and the single market and being subject to the European Court of Justice. That is how we will protect not only our workforce but the consumers who buy the products that they produce.

[Richard Graham]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), who has spoken so well today, and indeed throughout these debates. This is the first time that I have risen to speak on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, and I do so because I wish to add a little to what has already been said about amendment 348. I do not intend to revisit the arguments put forward in the previous Humble Address, or the decisions taken by our Select Committee. That issue has been dealt with, but since the shadow Minister hinted that the Opposition would come back to it, I want to focus on the substance of the amendment and on why I disagree with it so strongly.

It is my belief that what amendment 348 seeks to achieve is without precedent in the history of negotiations by our country. It would require the Government to publish their economic impact assessments of the policy options for withdrawal from the EU. However, the missing words at the end are “during our negotiations on withdrawal from the EU”. Those missing words matter, because this is a particularly important negotiation for our nation—nobody is any doubt about that—and because this is a particularly delicate time. The Government start negotiations on the implementation period and on our future relationship with the EU soon after the new year. On the other side of the negotiating table, the EU has made it absolutely clear that it will not be publishing all its research. We will therefore certainly not see any published analysis, let alone any impact assessments relating to, for example, what no deal would mean for specific ports in northern Europe, or to any potential drop in GDP for the town of Calais.

Police Widows Pensions

Debate between Richard Graham and Madeleine Moon

Wednesday 25th February 2015 Westminster Hall

[Richard Graham]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, which was precisely the trigger that made me find the campaign so compelling. The changes made last November for the armed forces should apply in the same way, retrospectively. Despite the fact that Governments do not like retrospective legislation, the precedent has been set—he is absolutely right.

I will run through the technical issue to which my hon. Friend just referred. The campaign that Cathryn Hall is leading is to some extent about fairness. Before 2006, police widows, widowers or surviving civil partners automatically lost their pension if they remarried or lived with a new partner. That effectively compelled them and their dependents to choose between future financial security but loneliness at home, and the opportunity for happiness, but with the financial loss of the pension.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is not just the widows, but the children who are impacted by these decisions? As a Parliament, we talk a great deal about the importance of children being brought up within a loving family. If we are condemning widows and widowers to live alone and to have their children outside of a loving family, that is also wrong and something we should address and right.

[Richard Graham]

As so often, the hon. Lady makes a good point. Children are often the people we do not mention when we discuss these issues, but they can suffer the most. I am grateful to her.

What changed in 2006 was society’s perception of fairness, and the new scheme in 2006 recognised that. All new recruits since 2006 and anyone who transferred to the new scheme—there were some who did not—now knows that should the worst happen, their loved ones will receive their pension for life, irrespective of whether the survivor remarries or forms a new partnership. That applies to unmarried but cohabiting partners, too. The new regulations did not apply retrospectively to those who had left the service before 2006 or had died before that date. For those who are penalised in that way, such as Cathryn Hall, the many who are here today and the other 800 to 900 widows and widowers—most of them are widows—it must be frustrating to have remarried and seen financial disadvantage relative to those who were widowed later. It is an issue of fairness.

Things have changed. The regulations on police pensions in Northern Ireland changed last year and, more significantly, a very similar rule was amended for the armed forces so that from April this year, all widows and widowers of our armed forces can remarry or live with a new partner without losing their pension. That change is retrospective, and it sets a precedent for further change. What is true for soldiers, sailors and airmen and women is also true for our police. Having to deal with the consequences of a husband or wife having died in the course of duty is no less ghastly if that happened on the streets of one of our cities, rather than a dusty path in Helmand province. I hope that the Minister, who has seen active service in uniform, will be sympathetic to the case being made. In an e-mail that he sent to Cathryn Hall fairly recently, he rightly highlighted that it is appropriate for Ministers to be able to make changes when a compelling case is made. I know that the Minister is a man who understands the duties of those who serve in uniform, and the responsibilities of Government to those who are left behind when they are either killed or die in accidents while on duty. I also know that his Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), is supportive of the case being made by the group of widows and widowers who care so passionately about the opportunity for happiness and to retain their pension.

[Richard Graham]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: the Government do have a good record of trying to right problems and issues inherited from the past—one could call them historical leftovers. It is to the benefit of many people when a Government are able to tackle such issues with the fairness and justice they deserve. That is why today’s debate is timely. It comes some three months after the Government rightly addressed what could be described as an injustice for the widows and widowers of members of the armed forces. Today’s debate gives the Minister for Policing an opportunity to spell out the challenges, in his view, in getting a similar injustice addressed for the widows and widowers of the constabularies of this country.

There are many such cases. This morning I have met widows from Scotland, Lancashire, Yorkshire and all parts of southern England, as well as two from my own county. I am wearing a badge on their behalf, and all the widows and widowers present are wearing it as well, as a symbol of their unity in trying to resolve the problems with the 1987 police pension scheme.

[Mrs Moon]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way very briefly?

[Richard Graham]

Very briefly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Moon]

I just want to ensure that the House knows that Diane Burns is here from Wales as well. We have representation from throughout the UK.

[Richard Graham]

Yes; the hon. Lady has spoken for Wales.

I hope the Minister will address the fundamental problem. I understand that his dilemma is one of trying to balance different issues, not least that of cost, which is always on the mind of any Government—perhaps this one in particular, bearing in mind the huge debts that were inherited—but I want the Minister to consider one particular point today. In his letter of 11 February, he wrote to me:

“You mentioned in your letter the changes made in respect of Armed Forces widows’ pensions. The special circumstances of military personnel and their families presented a compelling argument for that change, supported by the Armed Force covenant. Armed Forces personnel have often been moved with little notice around the world and have been encouraged to take their families with them.”

Although it was certainly the case historically that armed forces personnel were often posted around the world with their families, the situation has changed considerably.

Police officers have been posted all around the country and, indeed, as the Minister knows, in Northern Ireland, in situations of difficulty. There is at least one widow present today whose husband was on duty with the police force in Bosnia, and there will be others in Cyprus and other parts of the world. If the argument in favour of armed forces widows’ pensions is about their being moved and so not being able to create a normal working life and build up a pension of their own, the same argument can be made—to a considerable extent, at least—for the families of serving police officers. I hope that argument will not be used to prevent the widows and widowers who have signed Cathryn Hall’s petition from receiving justice.