European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 (Rule of Law)

Debate between Steve McCabe and Patricia Gibson

Monday 9th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Steve McCabe]

I totally agree.

[Patricia Gibson]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that, during this debate, we have heard two irreconcilable positions from Conservative Members? We have heard that the Government will obey the law, but we have also heard that the Government will deliver Brexit, do or die, on 31 October. Those two things are self-evidently contradictory, and therefore the conclusion must be that there are back-door shenanigans going on to evade the law, stretching every sinew to do so.

[Steve McCabe]

The terrible fear is that the Prime Minister and other members of the Government are saying one thing and doing another, which is what the recent resignation of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions seemed to reveal.

It seems straightforward. If this man and this Government carry on like this, they will be responsible for destroying the very institutions in which the rule of law and democratic politics are based. We should all be fearful of a Government who are intent on moving down that road.

Smart Meters Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Steve McCabe and Patricia Gibson

Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 28th November 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Steve McCabe]

I accept that, although I interpret “satisfaction” to also mean satisfaction with the delivery and benefit of the meter.

What I am asking for is self-explanatory. It will not do us any good if I keep going on about it. I have made the point to the Minister, so he knows why I think it is important.

[Patricia Gibson]

I shall be brief. I agree with everything that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak said—I fear that this is turning into a bit of a mutual admiration society. I will say no more, except that, alongside the public awareness for which the new clause calls, we would expect public confidence and transparency. The Minister has talked a great deal today about transparency. What I would like, but suspect I will not get, is an assurance from the Minister on public awareness and the confidence we would expect to come with it. Customers have raised the issue with me, and I know that it has also been raised in other arenas. They fear that when their energy usage is known in such detail, it will be used, at some point in the future, as a lever to smooth out demand by having different price bands.

Peak times such as 4 o’clock to 7 o’clock are a real worry for families who are already struggling with energy bills—indeed, with all their bills. We have talked about nudging, and people are concerned that this might be used as a way of nudging their behaviour and when they use their energy, and about what they should do during peak times to avoid using energy as much as they possibly can—that is not entirely possible for everybody. The fear is that this measure may be used to raise charges.

Smart Meters Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Steve McCabe and Patricia Gibson

Committee Debate: 1st Sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st November 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

Q Like probably most people in this room, I can see that there are benefits to smart meters, but I wonder whether I could put to you a number of concerns that have been raised specifically with me about the roll-out. Perhaps they might explain the difficulty in penetrating the market as quickly and deeply as we would like at this stage, and indeed by 2020.

Would you like to comment on concerns, raised by trading standards, that not enough of the energy companies are making it clear to consumers that they can refuse a smart meter if they wish? There are real concerns that some energy companies may be guilty of breaching the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

What do you think about the idea that consumers are being sold the meters—by “sold” I am talking about the idea—as free, when we all know that in fact they are not free? The other thing is that, as far as I am aware, some of the models rely quite heavily on a wi-fi signal, which may or may not be available to all consumers. I may have got that wrong, because I am not terribly technically minded.

One of my concerns is what we do with the information when we have it. If we imagine a future where everybody has a smart meter, will that be used to charge a higher rate for electricity usage during peak times, when families cannot avoid using it? Will the need to use electricity at specific times be used to increase the price in the market?

I realise I am throwing a list at you, and I apologise for that. The idea that you pay for what you use is attractive to consumers, but the fact is that when a smart meter is installed on your property, as I know from my own experience, your direct debit bill stays exactly the same, because they spread it over the year. Yes, you are paying for what you use, but when you reduce your usage, your monthly or quarterly bill does not necessarily go down. What are your thoughts on that, given that it is sold comprehensively as, “You only pay for what you use”? You do, but not necessarily at the time when you use it. You will also know that there are concerns about the security of the data. I know that I have given you a long list, but I would be very interested to hear your thoughts.

Audrey Gallacher: I will run through it as quickly as possible. The questions you have raised are all legitimate ones, which are discussed on an ongoing basis through the programme. There is a lot of scrutiny and oversight of the programme, and everybody is working hard to get it right, so your questions are the right ones.

Loads of stuff has been done on security. This will not be happening over the internet, and GCHQ has been all over it. There are really strict security protocols; you will probably have experts in later today who will know more about it than I do, but if there is anything that we should be worried about in the programme, it is not security. A lot has been done there, for obvious reasons. It is a critical national infrastructure, not to mention the impact on individual consumers in their own home if something goes wrong. I would take some comfort that we have that.

The question of deemed appointments is a tricky one. This is an opt-in programme. The Government’s manifesto commitment is that customers should be offered a smart meter, but suppliers have an obligation to install them by 2020, so it is already quite a complex policy environment. Companies have to go out there and sell the benefits of smart meters and encourage consumers to take them. We are working hard to do that. We have also had some feedback from Ofgem, the regulator, that companies should be taking a much more assertive approach, because we have heard reports that they are really struggling to get people to take a day off work to stay in the house and get the smart meter installed.

We need to sell the benefits and we also have to try to encourage people. Clearly, there is a line there that should not be crossed, because it is not currently a mandatory programme. At some point in the future, we might want to think about the policy framework to ensure that we get as many meters out there as possible, and not just for the individual consumer benefits they would bring—a whole business case around the programme is predicated on as many people as possible having meters. We need to be really careful on communications: sell the benefits and encourage people to get meters, but do not cross that line. That is really important.

Thirdly, you currently pay for metering equipment. It is free at the point of installation, so there should be no charge. Let us be quite clear that nobody will be charged up front, but, like everything else in the energy system, there is an associated cost, whether it is the pipes and wires getting the gas and electricity to users or the metering equipment, right down to the customer service. The key is to make sure that it is done as efficiently as possible. It is a competitive market and it is really important that costs are kept down.

I have a lot of sympathy with the point about direct debits and budgets, but we know from research that people like to spread the cost of their energy over the year. They do not want to see big spikes on their bills—high bills in the winter when they are using loads and nothing in the summer when the gas central heating is off. Smart meters should allow customers to move to an option where they can pay monthly as they go, but for a lot of people direct debit is a budgeting tool and has been very popular.

As for the future, Bill spoke about what he is doing for prepayment meter customers. Some analysis suggests that when everybody has smart meters, up to 50% will not be paying by direct debit, but on a pay-as-you-go basis, as with mobile phones. You will probably see the market and how people engage with their energy supply and pay for it radically changing as we roll this out. That will be good, if there are innovations and benefits. Obviously, we need to make sure that people are adequately protected and know what they are doing from a trading standards perspective.

Finally, on data, a lot of protocols are in place to make sure that we are quite clear that it is customers’ data coming out of the meters. People can opt out of more granular data collection. If you do not want information to be taken daily, you can opt out of that. Right now, it is taken monthly. If the supplier wants to take data from the smart meter every half hour, the customer has to provide consent. A lot of rules have been put in place to ensure that data use and privacy are at the forefront of the programme.

Bill Bullen: A couple of points are relevant to us. First, on customers accepting meters, until the prepay price cap came in we were typically saving customers something like £100 compared with the big six, if they switched to a prepay meter. Whether that counts as being free or not, I do not know, but they were clearly making significant financial savings from switching to smart prepay. That is one of the reasons customers do it, in addition to the other benefits.

Clearly, we are a competitive company. Customers could always refuse to take our product; if they want to stick with a dumb meter, they are entitled to. Something like 80% of the prepay market still has not switched to smart, but 20% has, so more and more are doing so.

Audrey has already answered the point about direct debits. People are going to switch more to pay-as-you-go and be totally in control of the balance. We think that is going to be much more important going forward. Basically, people can take total control over their budget.

[Steve McCabe]

Q I have three quick questions. If I have this right, the programme is behind schedule, the cost is escalating and the Minister now wants to increase the timescale and take extra powers. What needs to be done to ensure that this thing stays on track and within cost and does not become an albatross for the consumer?

Bill Bullen: That is difficult. We are already a long way down the track of delays and cost escalations. Consumers already pay a significant chunk of their bill towards the Government’s smart meter programme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve McCabe]

Q But it is wrong for anyone to phone up and say, “You are legally obliged to have one.” That person is clearly breaching the code of practice.

Rob Salter-Church: That is right. We gather data on a regular basis on suppliers’ compliance with the code of practice. If we saw a systematic problem, then we would take action against a supplier.

[Patricia Gibson]

Q I want to probe this a little further; I raised it with the previous witness and I would be interested in your thoughts, given that you are in charge of the code of practice. Trading standards have raised concerns that there are potential offences being committed under the misleading actions provision of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations Act 2008. They have said that these infractions may be being committed because some energy suppliers are giving the impression that smart meter installation is compulsory. What are your thoughts on that? Have you had any contact or dialogue with trading standards on their very serious concerns?

Rob Salter-Church: The first thing I would do is to reiterate what I said earlier: we expect suppliers to be very clear that there is no compulsion on consumers to have a smart meter. We are driving suppliers to be as clear as they can on what the benefits are, so that customers want to have a smart meter.

In answer to your point about trading standards, we engage with a range of organisations, including Citizen’s Advice, and we do from time to time talk to trading standards to gather information about where there are potential licence breaches. We would take action. I do not believe that I have had a discussion with trading standards, but I can check whether there has been one between the organisations and write in, if that is helpful.

Work Capability Assessments

Debate between Steve McCabe and Patricia Gibson

Tuesday 9th February 2016 Westminster Hall

[Steve McCabe]

The hon. Lady has mentioned progressive conditions and delays that sometimes happen with mandatory reconsiderations. Can she think of any logical reason for the Government’s refusal to give statistics on the outcome of mandatory reconsiderations? Is there any obvious explanation for the withholding of that information?

[Patricia Gibson]

I am afraid the only possible reason I can think of for that is that the information does not present the work capability assessments in a flattering light. I leave others to draw their own conclusions about how bad it might be.

The worst thing about the system is that those caught up in the controversy and confusion are people with long-term health conditions, and some of the most vulnerable people in our communities. There is a lot of consensus in the Chamber about the need for an urgent review of the work capability assessment. As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) pointed out, the cost is increasing, and it is expected that £595 million will be paid for 3.4 million assessments—about £190 per assessment. There has also been a problem with the recruitment of enough medical professionals to meet the demands of the assessments. At least £76 million of taxpayers’ money has been wasted through the failure to get a new IT system up and running more than two years after it was supposed to be in place. As has been mentioned, the National Audit Office report, which was released only last month, revealed that

“recent performance shows the Department has not tackled—and may even have exacerbated—some of these problems when setting up recent contracts”.

Preventing Violence Against Women: Role of Men

Debate between Steve McCabe and Patricia Gibson

Thursday 4th February 2016 Westminster Hall

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

Like all the speakers before me, I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Gillan. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) and the other Members who were involved in securing this debate.

Gender-based violence is a function of gender inequality and the abuse of male power and privilege. It takes the form of actions that result in physical, sexual and psychological harm or suffering to women and children, or of affronts to their human dignity, including the threat of such acts. It is men—not all men, but a tiny minority—who predominantly carry out such violence, and it is women who are predominantly the victims of it.

Talking about gender-based violence highlights the need to understand violence in the context of women’s subordinate status in society. It cannot be understood in isolation from the norms, social structures and gender roles in the community, which greatly heighten women’s vulnerability to violence. For far too long the issue has been confined to the shadows, and what has gone on behind closed doors has remained private. Violence should never be considered private. An attack on one woman by a male perpetrator is an attack on all women, because it goes to the heart of how the perpetrator views women and their relation to men. How we recognise and respond to such violence goes to the heart of the kind of society we seek to build. Violence against women should never be confined to the shadows, and it is shocking that it ever was. Thankfully, times have changed and our society is beginning to shine a bright light on the issue. No woman should ever feel trapped in a cycle of violence, and no man should ever feel that perpetrating violence against his partner is a private matter.

Shamefully, in 2013-14 almost 60,000 incidents of domestic abuse were recorded by the police in Scotland, and that figure increased by 2.5% in 2014-15. As we know, the real figure is likely to be much higher, because domestic abuse is under-reported for a variety of reasons. The latest figures show that women make up the overwhelming majority—80%—of victims of domestic abuse. The overwhelming majority—94%—of serious sexual assaults are carried out by men, 83% of victims know the offender and 54% of victims identify the perpetrator as their partner. That is a matter of deep concern to all of us, because violence against women—indeed, violence against anyone—is a fundamental violation of human rights.

We must recognise the role that men can and must play in preventing and countering violence, particularly violence against women. It is important to acknowledge, as other hon. Members have pointed out, that the vast majority of men are not violent towards women, but the evidence shows that such violence is perpetrated overwhelmingly by men. Although it is important to deal with the aftermath of such violence, we must confront its root causes and reflect on the role of men. Specifically, we must address the attitudes, behaviour, identities and relationships of men who exhibit violence. Many men understand that it is important that we engage them in this debate, and we must underline the fact that they have a positive role to play in helping to prevent violence against women.

It is heartening that so many men across Scotland, the UK and the globe support the white ribbon campaign. The campaign aims to raise awareness among men and boys, promote discussion and provide information and resources to support personal and collective action by men. I am delighted that my local authority, North Ayrshire Council, participated in and supported the white ribbon campaign’s 16 days of action. It joined millions across the world in that international crusade. North Ayrshire Council has its own comprehensive violence against women strategy.

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

Several Members have referred to the importance of teaching positive relationships and personal, social, health and economic education in schools. Does the hon. Lady agree that we need to think seriously about the process of the socialisation of young men—particularly those who grow up without a role model, those with violent or serial fathers and those who have no access to information and no role models other than people who are violent in relationships? We must concentrate on that crucial area if we want to make a sea change.

[Patricia Gibson]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very valid point. In Scotland we are trying to recruit more male primary school teachers to provide positive role models for young boys who lack them at home and in their wider family circle. I understand that that is happening across the United Kingdom, and it is to be encouraged and supported. There other social outlets, too. For example, schools can identify children who do not have positive male role models and direct them towards activities such as football clubs.

Our ultimate goal must be to create a society in which women are equal to men and feel safe and respected. I am proud that the Scottish Government have committed to achieving that goal in Scotland. They have provided record levels of funding and introduced legislation to ensure that Scotland works towards the prevention and eradication of all forms of violence against women. I will not go over the ground that my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North covered, but there have been many funding initiatives in Scotland to tackle the issue. The Caledonian system works with men convicted of domestic abuse offences to address the underlying causes of their behaviour and to further protect women. Only a few days ago, the Social Justice Secretary in the Scottish Government, Alex Neil MSP, announced more funding for women’s support groups across Scotland, but there is clearly much more to do.

If a mother is not safe in her own home, it is extremely unlikely that her children will be. Children frequently come to the attention of agencies when the severity and length of the mother’s exposure to abuse compromises her ability to nurture and care for her children. Make no mistake, living with domestic abuse is a form of emotional abuse for children. Many children can vividly describe incidents of violence in the home and their feelings of terror, powerlessness and fear. Children may also witness coercive, intimidating or manipulative behaviour, or direct threats. Such behaviour is as frightening and harmful as physical violence, and its long-term effect on children cannot be measured.

Although some women manage to escape from their violent partner, that can have a profoundly damaging effect on their children and can leave them distressed and confused. That deep sense of loss can cause lifelong emotional scars. Therefore, when men inflict violence on their partner, they harm people other than the woman against whom the violence is directed.

The Scottish Government are committed to Clare’s law, which my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North spoke about. I will not go over that ground again, but that is a powerful example of the constructive role that men can play in preventing violence against women. In Ayrshire—my neck of the woods—interesting things are happening. Individuals who have committed domestic violence are monitored by the police. At times when spikes in domestic violence are anticipated, such as the festive period, the police deploy domestic abuse cars manned by officers dedicated to dealing with domestic abuse. Visits similar to interventions are paid to those known by the police to have a history of committing domestic abuse, to proactively let them know that such behaviour will be pursued and to divert them from it.

I urge the Minister to reflect on the fact that to escape from domestic abuse, women need to be financially independent from their partner. Women experiencing domestic abuse face many barriers when trying to escape from that situation. Universal credit will replace benefit payments that are paid separately to each member of a couple with a single payment to one claimant in the household. That will increase women’s financial dependence, prevent them from leaving abusive homes and increase the risk of harm to them and their children.

It is essential that we engage positively with men—our important allies in tackling the problem of men who exhibit abusive behaviour. Rather than imposing a sense of guilt and shame on all men, we must make every effort to ensure that men understand that they are able to play a crucial part as positive role models in the prevention of violence against women. By challenging the attitudes of peers, by teaching our children from a young age about equality between the sexes and by refusing to condone the objectification and commercial sexual exploitation of women at any level, the prevention of violence against women can be achieved through the positive engagement of non-perpetrating men, who make up the vast majority of men out there.