Domestic Abuse Bill

Victoria Atkins Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)]

I pay massive tribute, as everybody has done, to those who have spoken, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford West (Naz Shah) and for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield), and the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), whose contribution was so moving. When we in this place talk about these things, people really are watching. Victims of domestic abuse will today feel that we care about them, and even if that is all we achieve today, that is a good thing to have done.

I notice that during this debate, Prorogation 2.0 has been announced. Somebody sent me a tweet saying that there is a view that Parliament will prorogue—sorry, shut down—again. I want assurances from the Minister, when she sums up, that we will use Standing Order No. 80A—

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)]

I am delighted to be able to confirm that. Indeed, the carry-over motion is on today’s Order Paper. The Bill is carrying on.

[Jess Phillips]

Super-duper. I am delighted to hear that.

As everybody else has said, it has been an honour to work on the Bill over the past three years—I wish it had been only one or two—not only with Front Benchers on both sides on the Chamber, but with the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and others who are no longer on the Front Bench, including the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes). She spoke of having listened; I feel delighted to have been in the meeting about migrant women under the Bill that she spoke about so eloquently. Also, I should mention the people sitting in the Box—the civil servants we have worked with to get the Bill in front of us today, and to carry it over. It has been a real privilege to help ensure that this place recognises the effect of domestic abuse on our communities.

For the past three weeks, I have been fighting for us to come back to this place just for the sake of this moment, this day—just so that we could get this Bill back into this place. I found myself in the treasured position of defender of the Domestic Abuse Bill, as though it were mine. It is not mine; it is a Government Bill, and that needs saying. However, as a defender of the Bill, I will defend the point that improvements certainly need to be made to it.

As the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North stated, in the Bill’s next stages we absolutely must aim for it to be for all victims and all women—I am not afraid to say “all women” in this context. I truly mean that. It does not matter what a person’s status is; if my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury has taught us anything today, it is that it does not matter who someone is; the primary thing we should see when they first disclose abuse is what happened to them. It should not matter if they were born in this country, if they are here on a spousal, student or refugee visa, or if they are an EU citizen. What we should see in front of us is the person, and we should ask what we can do to help them. The Bill needs a huge amount of work in that area—not just around migrant women, but around disabled and older women and LGBT people.

With all the good work being done in here and across Departments we still need to stop essentially just seeing a benefit-dependent woman with a couple of kids in a refuge. Disabled women are being turned away. I ran refuges and I think we had two disability access beds out of hundreds of beds. It is simply not enough any more. We live in a society where we have to take need into account, no matter what. We have to take into account the likelihood of someone being abused if, for instance, they are a carer or have someone caring for them who can easily control them.

I want to say one final thing—I could speak for weeks and weeks, but I won’t. The statutory duty on refuge accommodation is so welcome. I had to explain to my husband what it was when the Ministers rang to tell me they were going to do it. I was not allowed to tell anyone, but I really wanted to tell someone. My husband was slightly nonplussed. We were promised at the time of that brilliant step forward that there would be £90 million in the next comprehensive spending review. We have now had that comprehensive spending review and it was not in there. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us where the cash will come from.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)]

I hope that colleagues will forgive me if I depart from what Ministers normally do in winding up—which is to look at our files and the prepared speeches that our wonderful officials write for us—and speak from my heart because this has been an extraordinary debate. We have had the most compelling, the most heartfelt, the most heartbreaking examples of domestic abuse laid out before us. I cannot hope to do justice to those accounts in the short time that I have, but I will do my best. Any points that I have not been able to cover, I will, of course, write to hon. Members and put letters in the Library.

There have been 38 Back-Bench speeches in this debate and every single one has had an extraordinary contribution to make to the Bill. I should say that I am particularly grateful to the Lord Chancellor, who joins me on the Front Bench. I also want to record my thanks to the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), who is replacing—if he can be replaced—my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar) in working through this Bill. I want to record my thanks to them.

In those 38 speeches, many, many experiences—horrific experiences—have been put before us. Hon. Members have very much drawn us into the lives, the suffering and, as I have said, the heartbreak of millions of our fellow citizens, whether constituents or not.

There are a few names out of an incredibly long list that I will mention because they have caused such an impact in the Chamber and, indeed, outside the Chamber. The first is that of Natalie Connolly. My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) and, indeed, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), the Mother of the House, set out the agony that the Connolly family have gone through in the case coming before the court concerning their dear daughter, Natalie, the facts of that case and of similar cases. I cannot help but be horrified by some of the experiences that victims of sadomasochistic sexual acts, which defendants then claim as a defence in court, have gone through. It is extraordinary and I will very much go away and reflect on the matter. It may not be this Bill that deals with that, but I do think that we must look at it very carefully and see what more can be done.

The next set of names that I think the House was touched by—I am very mindful that Claire is here in the Gallery—are those of Claire, Jack and Paul Throssell, represented very ably by their Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith). I have had the privilege of meeting Claire and listening to her experiences at first hand. I would challenge anyone not to be incredibly moved by Claire’s story and not to be haunted by her story for many, many days after they have heard it, so I thank and salute Claire for being here today and working on behalf of other victims.

The hon. Member for Leigh (Jo Platt) mentioned Leanne and Nikita. I thank her for bringing their experiences into this debate.

Then we move on to our friends and colleagues who have themselves been incredibly brave in describing their own experiences. My friend the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) talked about her mother Zoora, and of course about her own experience of forced marriage. I am very keen that we all understand that although the words “forced marriage”, “FGM” and so on are not in the Bill, they are examples of the categories of behaviour that we have set out in the definition, and they will be in the statutory guidance, so people should be under no illusion: we consider those acts within intimate relationships to be examples of domestic abuse.

Then, of course, there was the account of our friend the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield). I sat here listening and thinking, “She is doing a very good job of representing her constituent. This is a terribly sad tale.” It was not until she said, “and then you introduce him to the leader of your party” that I shook myself a bit and thought, “My goodness—are we on a journey different from the one that I had anticipated?” She used words that every person who works in the field of domestic abuse will recognise, such as “hyper-alert” and “abject rage”. She spoke of bills piling up and finding out months later that they were unpaid. And then there was the final phrase: “emotionally exhausting”. The hon. Lady has done more to further the cause for victims of domestic abuse today than we have seen in a very long time, and I thank her sincerely for her contribution.

This Bill is truly groundbreaking, and I am delighted that we have agreement on that. I fully accept and acknowledge that we are not all agreed about parts of it, and of course that will come through in the scrutiny of the Bill. But we have this Bill before us today because of the determination, commitment and grit of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). I think it is extremely telling that, after some 20 years on the Opposition and Government Front Benches, she has chosen as her first contribution to speak in this debate about a cause that is very close to her heart. I am extremely grateful to her not just for her contribution today, but for the fact that we have this Bill and are driving this work forward in Government.

There are other colleagues I feel obliged to mention, because I see this as a Bill that is owned by the entire House. I must thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), who started the journey by bringing in, with the Lord Chancellor, the controlling or coercive behaviour offence. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), who was my predecessor in this role and who insisted on the terminology of economic abuse being included in the definition, because our understanding of it is so much better than it was even a few years ago. Though wanting to spare the blushes of a member of the Whips Office, I must also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) because when he was on the Front Bench in another guise, he worked hard on the secure tenancies provision that we now see in the Bill.

As I say, I consider this to be a Bill that is owned by the whole House, and I thank colleagues across the House for their work not just today, but in the run-up to Second Reading. That includes, of course, the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris). I tried to learn some Welsh before I got to this part of my speech, but I am afraid that it is beyond me. I also thank the “professional feminist”, the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), who does so much work —work that we are now much more comfortable talking about—tackling the perpetrators, including serial perpetrators, to stop the cycle of abuse.

I also thank the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) for his work on cross-examination—it is always a pleasure to work with him—and, of course, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), who has been and continues to be a staunch advocate for victims of domestic abuse. I look forward to grappling with some of the more difficult issues with her in due course.

I am delighted that the Bill received the level of pre-legislative scrutiny that it did through the Joint Committee, which was chaired so ably by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller). Her leadership and that of others on the Committee has meant that the Bill is in a better place than it was before they scrutinised it. We have accepted many of the Committee’s recommendations and there are still recommendations that we are working on and may add in Committee. I thank every member of the Committee and its Chair.

The hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) asked Ministers to be open hearted. We are absolutely open hearted in admitting that this Bill is not yet in the place that it should be. It has to be perfected through scrutiny. In particular, hon. Members have rightly raised the issue of refuges. Hon. Members may recall that, when the Bill was introduced, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s consultation on refuge accommodation was still live, so by definition we could not make amendments to the Bill or add clauses at that stage. However, we are working through the consultation responses and I am confident that we will be able to move amendments in Committee, which I very much hope will meet with hon. Members’ approval.

I am conscious, too, of the comments made by the hon. Member for Bradford West and others about specialist services. I myself have been on a learning curve when it comes to the particular requirements of women who are perhaps suffering cultural difficulties as well as abuse, in the more conventional sense that we would understand, in the home. That will very much form part of our review of those services.

Colleagues have also rightly been holding me to account on funding. This year’s spending review, being a one-year review, is unusual, but we are clear that funding will be a priority in the 2020 spending review and we will push for appropriate funding for all the important services that hon. Members have mentioned.

I also acknowledge the concerns about migrant women. Women—all people who are suffering domestic abuse—must be viewed as victims first and foremost. We have not got it right yet with migrant women, but we are conducting a review, as we told the Joint Committee we would. We are looking at everything and will do our very best to bring forward those proposals in Committee. There might be things that we can do that do not need to be in primary legislation. The House should bear with us while we work through the review and we will see what more we can do.

Colleagues have rightly mentioned the definition. There have been many thoughts about whether it goes quite far enough. I am very conscious of the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), who raised the impossible situation that a constituent and their family found themselves in with a person—a therapist—in a trusted position. There are concerns about positions of trust. [Interruption.]

I have just had my dress tugged, because if I do not sit down before 7 o’clock, the Bill will fall, so forgive me if I stop mid-sentence, Madam Deputy Speaker. I very much hear colleagues’ concerns about the definition and, if I may tackle the gendered point, we absolutely acknowledge that domestic abuse predominantly affects women. However, we are conscious that, of the estimated 2 million victims in our country, about a third are male. We cannot ignore those victims. In fairness, I do not think that anyone is suggesting that we should, but we are going to make the gendered nature of the crime apparent on the face of the statutory guidance, which I think will be significant.

To sum up, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead said, this statute is only part of the solution. There is consensus that we all have to ensure that people begin to understand what domestic abuse entails, that the relationships that they are entering into are not healthy and that girls growing up can expect much better from relationships in their adulthood. That is absolutely what this law and the non-legislative measures are directed at. The Bill is vital, but there is so much more that we need to do to ensure that everybody understands that domestic abuse is everyone’s business.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Thank you. What an excellent, thoughtful, constructive, calm debate. I sincerely hope that those who observe our proceedings will see just how well Members of this House behaved when we were bringing about an important piece of legislation that actually affects the lives of millions of people.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Domestic Abuse Bill (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Domestic Abuse Bill:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 21 November 2019.

(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading

(4) Proceedings on Consideration and any proceedings in legislative grand committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on Consideration are commenced.

(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.— (Mr Marcus Jones.)

Question agreed to.

Domestic Abuse Bill (Money)

Queen’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Domestic Abuse Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:

(a) any expenditure incurred by virtue of the Act by a Minister of the Crown; and

(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable by virtue of any other Act out of money so provide.—(Mr Marcus Jones.)

Question agreed to.

Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Bill

Victoria Atkins Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 20th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I would prefer the inclusion of an additional subsection, which I think would meet his point. It would state that the Bill covered a person employed for the purpose of providing, or engaged to provide, healthcare services within the meaning of section 64 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, subsection—I cannot read the little number. I agree that it is something that we need to address.

[Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

I welcome the Bill and I will support it, given the opportunity. Does the hon. Gentleman consider that clause 3 includes jailers—people who look after defendants in court while they are waiting for trials and so on? If not, perhaps some thought should be given to that. The cells at court can be volatile places and the people who work in that environment might be at risk.

[Chris Bryant]

That is another matter for us to tease out, of course. Clause 3(1)(e) is clear in referring to

“a person (other than a prison officer) employed or engaged to carry out functions in a custodial institution”.

I think that that would cover such people, but—

[Victoria Atkins]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I have no choice.

[Victoria Atkins]

I jumped to clause 3(3), which defines a custodial institution, and I do not read that as including cells at court. This might be a matter for the Committee.

[Chris Bryant]

I feel as though we are already in Committee. The hon. Lady makes a good point. Once a barrister, always a barrister; I am not sure whether she is being paid by the word or by the intervention. [Interruption.] Sorry; there had to be one anti-lawyer comment today.

The third thing that the Bill does is make provision for the taking of samples when an assailant has spat at an emergency worker. It makes it an offence punishable by a fine of up to £500 for an assailant unreasonably to refuse to give an intimate sample, such as a blood sample. That matters, because so many officers and emergency workers have been spat at and lived in anxiety for months about whether they had contracted a communicable disease.

I want to be very careful about how people refer to HIV in particular, but I have had one example of a police officer—I met him yesterday—who was spat at, with the saliva entering his eye and mouth. The assailant refused to give a sample, and the police officer had a false positive test for hepatitis B, which created enormous anxiety. His wife and children had to be tested as well. I just do not think that that situation is appropriate, and I hope the Bill will help to change it.

Some have argued that the Bill is unnecessary because the sentencing guidelines already deal with the matter. In particular, they say that the guidelines on assault occasioning bodily harm—section 47 offences from the Offences Against the Person Act 1861—state that the court should consider the fact that the offence was

“committed against those working in the public sector or providing a service to the public”

an aggravating factor. I believe that that is drawn far too widely in the guidelines, and I want to throw a cordon sanitaire specifically around our emergency workers.

The sentencing guidelines also make it clear, as they have to by law, that there are two categories of aggravating factor: statutory, such as previous convictions and offences committed while on bail, which have been mandated by Parliament in statute law; and a non-exhaustive list of other factors, including location, timing, an attempt to conceal evidence and 14 other factors. The point is that the fact that the assault leading to bodily harm was on an emergency worker is not a statutory aggravating factor, and my Bill would make it just such a factor.

Those who argue that that is unnecessary are arguing against the very concept of statutory aggravating factors, including hate crimes. I believe that the country now widely accepts the proposition that such factors should exist. Moreover, the victims of hate crimes say that the very fact that the court has to state that the homophobic or racial element of the offence is an aggravating factor gives them a sense that justice is being done. Part of the fury that 999 workers feel is caused by the fact that that element is never stated in open court, but now it will be.

Paragraph 4.12(c) of “The Code for Crown Prosecutors” states:

“A prosecution is also more likely if the offence has been committed against a victim who was at the time a person serving the public.”

That, too, is written in the widest possible terms, and I am trying to enhance the protection specifically for emergency workers, because they put themselves in harm’s way on a daily basis.

Every single one of us knows that merely introducing a new offence will not put a sudden end to such assaults, and there is much else that we need to do to protect our emergency workers. This comes to a point that was made earlier: one reason many prosecutions are not brought is that the perpetrator is a vulnerable patient suffering from a condition that makes them violent. The health worker, who wants only the best for their patient, is understandably reluctant to press for a prosecution. A hospital might be so keen to keep out of the news that it will be reluctant to summon the police.

The truth is that if a mental health unit or an accident and emergency unit is under-staffed, it is far more difficult to maintain order and secure the safety of staff and patients. It should be a fundamental duty of any organisation that employs people in such circumstances to make sure its staff are safe. Someone who rocks up at A&E drunk or high and is told that they will have to wait for several hours is, of course, more likely to get aggressive and violent than someone who is seen swiftly. I do not say that to excuse anyone—of course I do not; violence against medical staff is morally offensive and medically counterproductive, and we should adopt a zero-tolerance attitude towards it—but health bodies need to put the safety of their staff at the top of their list of priorities, and the Government must give the NHS the resources it needs.

I am not going to make many partisan points, but it is incomprehensible to me why the Government are going to cancel NHS Protect, which provides the statistics on this—without such statistics, we would not have been able to have this debate—and will rely only on staff surveys to get such statistics in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who has fought a magnificent campaign over the past 12 months. We worked together when I was a Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Home Office. I commend her for seeing this legislation through with the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). The scenes she describes are upsetting and just plain wrong. Does she agree that investing in body-worn cameras for police officers will help them to secure convictions, and, I hope, higher sentences, and perhaps save them from the arduous task of having to give evidence in court and be cross-examined to explain what happened? The videos will show what happened to them and I hope that will increase convictions in these circumstances.

[Holly Lynch]

I am really grateful for the hon. Lady’s intervention. I thank her for her support. We had an open dialogue when she was in her previous role, which was incredibly helpful. She is absolutely right that body-worn video has given frontline officers in particular the assurance that, should they be confronted in that way, there will be an evidence base that will help to secure prosecutions in court, which is what we all want.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

I am not going to thank the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) but I am going to pay tribute to him, and to the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), who has worked so very hard on this issue.

I was not planning to speak—that may have been to the relief of everyone in the Chamber—but I have been moved to do so by the examples given, and the strength of feeling displayed, by Members right across the House. This is one of those wonderful occasions in this place when we do the right thing and come together to make real change that will help real people in our constituencies who make such a difference to our lives.

I would like to pay tribute to Lincolnshire police, who this summer, in the largest ever slavery case, managed to secure the convictions of eight people from the same family who had enslaved vulnerable people and treated them despicably—very violently. The police managed to secure not only convictions, but sentences totalling 80 years. The police showed great bravery, which they show on a daily basis, walking into caravans and houses. I hope the Bill will go some way to supporting that bravery.

My constituency is very rural, which means that often when there is a medical emergency it is not paramedics who come to people’s assistance but volunteer first responders, in particular volunteers for LIVES, which is based in Horncastle. I am delighted that clause 3(2) covers not just paramedics who are formally employed by the NHS, but volunteer first responders who help the NHS. I join colleagues who have set out food for thought on issues such as a maximum sentence for conviction on indictment in saying that the Bill Committee needs to examine such issues. I too would happily sit on the Committee, if the hon. Member for Rhondda needs further help.

I will finish with the words of a constituent who works for Lincolnshire police. He puts it far better than I can:

“We deserve to be able to go home to our families and not be injured or worse.”

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Victoria Atkins Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 11th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

I will endeavour to follow the plea of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) and deliver what I hope will be a thoughtful speech. She may not agree with every point, but I promise her that I have been thinking about it a great deal as I have sat through the debate not just today, but on Thursday. That has given me quite a lot of time to do so.

I have approached this debate as I would have done if I had been instructed in a case in my previous career. We have the end point, whereby the United Kingdom is leaving Europe. Can we achieve that end in a smooth way that provides as much certainty around the norm as possible? Indeed, I believe that the Government must achieve that in the smoothest way possible for all our constituents and all the businesses upon which our economy relies. Ensuring a smooth exit is the right thing to do legally, morally and economically. There has been talk in the Chamber today about the impact on business, and we know that having successful businesses and a growing economy are the things that create jobs and help to pay for the services we care about, such as the national health service. It is in the interests of each and every one of us for the Government to achieve the smoothest possible transition out of the EU.

How do we achieve that? The Bill starts from the premise that EU law will be transferred into British law. At this stage, there are no changes; there is purely a replication across from EU law into the British legal system. Let us not forget that that is quite a lot of law—40 years’ worth of law making—and it is an enormous task. What measures can the Government realistically take to achieve it? I have listened with great care to Members on both sides of the House, but particularly Opposition Members, who plan to vote against the Bill tonight. I have listened to what they have said about the process, and there are indeed some points on which areas of agreement can be found across the House, but I have not yet heard anyone come up with a different way of doing this in the very short timeframe we have. It seems to me that we have to work on the basis that the wholesale adoption of EU law is the way to go, and I foresee in the years to come that this Parliament will play a very active role in deciding which laws it likes and which it does not.

I want to inject just a touch of realpolitik. After two days of debating the power grab, as it is called by some, by the Executive, I suspect that any Minister seeking to exercise the powers under clauses 7, 9 and 17 will be very careful in so exercising them, because they know that many eagle-eyed people on both sides of the House will ensure that they behave properly and within the spirit of the law.

[Mr Hendrick]

Many of us have a beef not with the way in which the laws will be transferred from Europe to the UK, but with the way in which the laws will be treated afterwards. The sweeping powers that the Bill provides will make it possible for Ministers to abuse powers that they have not been given by the electorate. This House should have control of that, not Ministers by their gerrymandering in this Bill.

[Victoria Atkins]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention because it gives me the opportunity to mention the sunset clauses in relation to both clauses 7 and 9. I will not make Ministers’ lives easy, because I note that there is no corresponding sunset clause in relation to clause 17, but it may well be possible to discuss that in Committee. We have the comfort of knowing, however, that clause 9 will stop once exit day has happened and that clause 7 will operate for two years thereafter.

As I have said, I have had the pleasure of listening to two days of debate on this Bill, and the quality of debate has been excellent. There have been some very thoughtful suggestions about how the Bill can be perfected, and I have been emailed, as have many colleagues, by constituents with their thoughts on the Bill. In particular, I note the concerns about triaging SIs. I also note the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) about infractions, and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) about the Francovich rulings. I am sure that Ministers have listened to those points and will bear them in mind on this—let us face it—unprecedented legal course that we are taking. It is a very exciting time: it is not what I voted for, but we are in it and we have to make the best of it now. We must ensure the smoothest possible exit from the EU to our new place in the world.

I will end with this point: in 2015, I stood on a manifesto commitment that I would support the Conservative Government in holding a referendum and then in honouring its result. Tonight, I will vote to repeal the 1972 Act and to start the smooth process of transition. It is a promise made and a promise kept. We in this House are often accused of not keeping our promises, but this is a promise that I feel morally and democratically obliged to keep, and keep it I will.

International Women’s Day 2016

Victoria Atkins Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

I hope that you will not think it boastful of me, Mr Speaker, if I declare that my constituency of Louth and Horncastle in Lincolnshire leads where others follow, particularly when it comes to electing female MPs, for I am not the first female MP to represent the seat. In 1921 the good people of Louth elected Margaret Wintringham. She has an important place in history; she was the first English-born female MP in this place, and the third ever female MP elected to this place. Fast-forward to 2015, and I am the 428th female MP, because since 1918 only 450 women have been elected to this place. That total is lower than the number of men in the House of Commons just in this Parliament. Therefore, when people ask why we need campaigns such as International Women’s Day, I have to say that sadly we do not need to look too far.

We need more women in politics, not just in the House of Commons but across the board. We need more women, of every party, standing up for local communities in councils. We need more women reporting on national and local politics. We need more women shaping policies in think-tanks and universities across the country. We need more women in Whitehall advising Ministers on implementing policies. We need that not because women’s experiences are in any way better or worse than men’s, but because they are different. We must reflect the experiences of women and men across the country.

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend think that we perhaps do not have so many women in higher positions because women are not so good at putting themselves forward in the systems that are in place, which they have to go through to get to those positions? Men—I obviously have massive admiration for our colleagues—are very good at that, but women are not so good. I have two daughters going through the process now.

[Victoria Atkins]

I congratulate my hon. Friend’s daughters. A lot of women are perhaps used to being the power behind the throne, to use a well-worn phrase. I hope that one of the things we have done today, in celebrating International Women’s Day and inviting young women from our constituencies into the House of Commons, is to give those young women a little more confidence and courage in putting themselves forward when they want to achieve something.

Let me return to 1921 for a moment. My predecessor Mrs Wintringham campaigned on an issue that, sadly, is familiar to us in 2016: equal pay. After 95 years, there is still inequality of pay. We know that the situation is getting better, and the Government are doing a great deal to tackle it, but I welcome the promise of my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) to hold them to account so that we can do even better.

Why does any of this matter? It matters because it is the right thing to do. It matters when we meet young women in our constituencies. Today, I have had the pleasure of being visited by two young constituents, Jessica and Ellie—they made the trip down from Louth and Horncastle, which is three hours’ drive at best. They have seen Downing Street, they have seen this place in action and they have listened to the 50:50 panel. That is all important stuff, which I hope will really energise and enthuse them in their careers in the future. For Jessica and Ellie, and for the millions of women across our constituencies, this debate is so important. However, this is not just about today; it is about what we do from now until the next International Women’s Day and beyond.

I am pleased that the Chamber has been so busy this afternoon. May I say thank you to all the male Members of Parliament who have come to support the campaign? Although women may form 51% of the population, we must not forget that men form the other 49%. I may just have been terribly controversial there without meaning it, but anyway, I thank everyone who has supported the debate.

Transitional State Pension Arrangements for Women

Victoria Atkins Excerpts

Wednesday 24th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Nobody in this House can doubt the sincerity of the WASPI campaign or the number of women who have signed the petition, but as this is the fifth debate, we should start with what has changed since the last one. Today’s motion is all about bringing forward “transitional arrangements”, and those are the precise words used on the WASPI campaign’s petition. They sound fairly harmless, but what are these transitional arrangements?

In the last debate, the shadow Pensions Minister, who is in her place, included a specific proposal—a perfectly reasonable one—about extending pension credit. However, that had been specifically ruled out by WASPI spokeswomen in evidence to the Select Committee. Today, the shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, like the Scottish National party spokesman, talked passionately about doing the right thing, but they did not say what that was, what their commitment is or what their parties would do if they were ever in the position—in some cases, that is unlikely—of actually being responsible for the finances of the pension arrangements for the United Kingdom. There is a serious danger of Opposition Members, in their sympathy for the cause of the WASPI campaign, leading these women up the garden path—encouraging them with sympathy but giving no commitment whatsoever.

It is important that the House understands for what these women are mainly asking. It is exactly as I spelled it out from their Facebook page in the last debate. It is to ask for

“all women born in the 50s”—

to be—

“in the same financial position they would have been in had they been born on or before…April 1950.”

That is their main ask and it would reverse the 1995 Act in important ways. What would that cost? Since the last debate, the Department for Work and Pensions has provided data to the Select Committee, showing that the cost is much, much greater than any of us imagined. There would be an immediate cost of £29 billion in 2016-17—bigger than the entire budget for Scotland. The total cost up to 2020 alone would be £77 billion.

When I discuss this issue with my wife and my sisters and others born in the 1950s and I explain to them that pensions are paid every year not out of some magic protected pot called national insurance, but out of general taxpayer-provided revenue paid by the next generation—our children and our grandchildren—none of them believes that that cost of £77 billion is remotely practicable.

[Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Richard Graham]

I had better not.

That is why the Opposition will never make that proposal or agree to it under any circumstances. The question is whether any other arrangements are possible. The other potential arrangements are being considered by the Select Committee in a report on the new state pension Act, which will include a section specifically on the WASPI campaign. Members should wait until that report has come out—it will be only about three weeks from now—and the conclusions may be seen and studied by everyone, and then they will see the real impact and the real cost of some of the suggestions that have been made today.

We should be clear about this: the WASPI campaign is genuine and it is principled. Its members care passionately. They feel that they have been badly treated, but this House has an obligation not to mislead them and pretend that things will be done when they will never be done. That is why the main ask is not possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

In the past few months I have met a number of constituents who have been impacted by these changes. They detailed how the increases in the state pension age have had an impact on them owing to their being on the wrong side of the dateline. I have every sympathy with them, and I understand their frustration.

I spoke during the Back-Bench business debate on this matter on 7 January, and I congratulated the WASPI campaign on driving the debate. Although it is true that any criteria changes regarding pensions, benefits or taxation in general are always going to have an impact on some people, I am conscious that many of the individuals we are talking about have worked for decades on the basis that they would receive their pensions at a prescribed time. However, I am also conscious that when actuaries calculated life expectancy, and therefore the number of years for which a pension would pay out, they did not expect it to reach the level that many currently enjoy, and they would not have anticipated the current rising levels of health. Those factors have driven successive Governments, and most OECD nations, to increase the pension age.

The issue I have with the motion is that it deals with legislation that was settled in previous Parliaments. It implores the use of

“transitional arrangements for women adversely affected”.

My understanding is that when the last set of changes were made in 2011, a transitional programme was implemented, to the tune of over £1 billion. In order to manage expectations, it would be better if the motion had recognised that changing these rules for those impacted would cost £39 billion and then outlined where the additional money would be saved in Government spending in order to pay for it to be delivered. I spoke earlier today about the need for the Government to continue to support spending on mental health provision, particularly for young people. Would that be hit? Would it be the police budget, the subject of the next Opposition day motion, which is critical about the lack of funding?

I stood on a manifesto commitment pledging the delivery of a budget surplus by 2020, which means that compensation in this matter would have to be paid for by another group of my constituents. Opposition parties also attempted to cost their commitments in their manifestos. I do not recall finding a commitment to reverse this policy, and it concerns me that we are not managing expectations. This issue is already settled, and none of the parties seeking to reopen it has explained where the £39 billion hit would be taken were we to rip up the equalisation rules.

[Victoria Atkins]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, because it enables me to make the point that I wanted to make to the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black). To put this in context, if we compare the £39 billion with the approximately £120 billion annual spend on the NHS, we begin to see how difficult it is to make the sums add up. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Huw Merriman]

I absolutely do. When it comes to footing the bill, I also have concerns about another age group in my constituency—those in their 20s and 30s. They are sometimes referred to as the packhorse generation because they are saddled with debts from university, which I, and many others of my age group and those older than me did not have to endure; they are less likely to be in receipt of occupational pension schemes; they are paying high rents and struggling to afford a home of their own; and they are likely to be the subject of pension changes in decades to come, if life expectancy continues to increase.

Half-measured mitigation, even if it were introduced, would reveal the next pension age group to be impacted, and we would never be able to move on. The issue of pensions is becoming increasingly vexed. Post-retirement life expectancy is undoubtedly much greater than was envisaged when pensions calculators were put in place. Additionally, with advances allowing those in their sixties to remain fit and active, many people in their sixties and beyond are working in a manner that was not envisaged when those pensions calculators were put in place.

There has been a general change in life and working-age expectancy, which we all rightly celebrate because it shows that many people are living longer and leading fitter lives in their advanced years. However, it also means that there is a funding gap, and to avoid placing a financial obligation on those in their 20s and 30s, who are struggling to get on, the country has had to revise the pension age to take into account the changes in life and work expectancy.

This is a settled matter. Until it can be explained to me which of the current spending commitments will be axed to cover the cost of this £39 billion change, I cannot support this motion.

Police Grant Report (England and Wales)

Victoria Atkins Excerpts

Wednesday 10th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

I will give way once more and then I will come to my closing remarks.

[Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

Will the Minister join me in congratulating the Conservative candidate in the Lincolnshire PCC elections on introducing special constables—parish constables—who will look after the very remote rural areas of Lincolnshire, giving those communities a policing figure they know they can go to for help and advice?

[Mike Penning]

I have spent quite a bit of time in Lincolnshire over the years, and was lobbied extensively by the chief constable and the commissioner for a change to the funding formula. The sort of innovation we have seen in places such as Lincolnshire, with the parish specials, rural mounted specials and so on, is exactly the sort of thing we would like to see replicated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con)]

I am very grateful for the opportunity to add my comments to this important debate. Policing and local policing is a subject about which I feel very strongly and in which I take a great interest.

Policing and crime rates are a huge concern to my constituents, as they are to all our constituents. My postbag, as regularly, I am sure, as those of other hon. Members, contains letters from constituents asking what the Government are doing to bring down crime rates. I welcome the reduction in crime during recent years, but I recognise the need to make savings. I commend the Home Office on the very tough decisions it took during the last Parliament. I express huge welcome for the announcement in the autumn statement that we will certainly keep police funding on a stable basis. I particularly welcome the flexibility over the precept, especially for forces with the lowest precepts in the country, such as Essex.

Given my constituents’ natural concerns about current crime rates, I took it upon myself to enrol in the police service parliamentary scheme. I strongly recommend it to all hon. Members. It is quite a time commitment—at least 20 days are spent in different parts of the police force—but it has given me a very strong and valuable insight into the true pressures on our police, the challenges for modern policing, and the changes and innovations that the police need to bring in and are bringing in. I want to put on the record my enormous gratitude to Chief Constable Stephen Kavanagh of Essex police and all those I have been out with. They have made me feel extremely welcome and have been very supportive.

I have had some extraordinary opportunities on the scheme. I have been out with the Juno teams, which are tackling domestic violence, and seen for myself the enormous efforts made by the police in their approach to domestic violence. For example, I have seen how quickly they have adopted our new stalking legislation and how closely focused they are on it. That is part of their approach to hidden harms.

[Victoria Atkins]

Is my hon. Friend aware of the welcome police officers have given to the introduction of on-body cameras? One of the great hopes for the cameras is that they will greatly assist in prosecuting domestic violence cases.

[Rebecca Harris]

Absolutely. I have seen officers in action with their cameras, which they can use, for example, when entering the scene of a domestic dispute to which they have been called. As they arrive, they can record evidence of their own that they can use in court. When the victim of domestic violence is, for whatever reason, nervous, reluctant or intimidated about coming forward, they can prosecute on her behalf. That is an enormous innovation. It relies on the police remembering to turn the cameras on, however, so they are doing good training on that. It is a great innovation, and the police are very pleased to have it.

I have visited a custody suite. Hon. Members will understand my reluctance to be photographed anywhere near the cells. I can well imagine the comments on webpages about the picture of any Member of Parliament in the cells. I have seen the pressures that the police face there, and the teething processes involved in trying, not without difficulty, to modernise and to move to new technology. I have been out with CID, and I have seen the forensic labs. I also went to a drugs factory, which was very interesting. A Member of Parliament does not often get the opportunity to go into a cannabis factory. I have also seen how the police are dealing with the problem of modern-day slavery, which they were not geared up to deal with in previous decades. I have seen the sensitivity with which they approach finding out about what they call the “gardener”, who is sometimes left in such factories without any real means of escape.

There are big changes in the way that our police are policing and big differences in the kind of crimes they have to police. They are spectacular in standing up to the challenge of doing all that in difficult funding circumstances. I must say that I have been overwhelming struck by the sheer commitment and dedication of our police officers. I definitely expected to find professionalism, but I must admit that I did not anticipate just how passionate they are about their work and the extent to which they really care about the communities they serve. Again, I put on the record my thanks to them and to Chief Constable Stephen Kavanagh for helping with the scheme, and I say to hon. Members, “Do it.” All hon. Members should take that opportunity, because it makes a huge difference.

Essex police, whose motto is “Sworn to Serve”, has long been an efficient force. I could wax lyrical about Essex police for a long time, because when I was in publishing, we produced a book about the history of the constabulary. It is a very long, honourable and proud constabulary. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary has repeatedly found that Essex police force provides better value for money than other police forces. It already has a very close programme of collaboration with Kent police, as was mentioned earlier, including significant sharing of back-office functions, and it is collaborating increasingly closely with other forces in the east of England. It also has one of the lowest reserves in the country, so it has not had the option of absorbing extra costs and pressures by reducing its reserves. That makes the fact that it has managed to be so successful in what it does all the more remarkable. It is right, however, that it should continually look for efficiencies to ensure that public money is spent on keeping the public safe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

It is fitting that we are having this debate in the same week that the Prime Minister made a speech on his groundbreaking reforms in our prison system. One startling fact in his speech was that 70% of prisoners have at least seven previous convictions. If we can improve recidivism rates, it will inevitably have an impact on the resources available to police officers. These reforms to the prison system and to the police funding formula are compassionate and they are to be welcomed because they will also help to prevent crime.

My right hon. Friend the Policing Minister is to be congratulated on acting on the promise to review the police funding formula—something promised by others over the years but never actually done; it has now been done by the Minister and the Home Secretary. He is also to be congratulated on protecting the policing budget in the autumn statement and on making real blue light reform possible, enabling the police, the ambulance and the fire services to work together. I shall deal quickly with each in turn.

On the police funding formula, Lincolnshire is the police constabulary in my constituency, which is a very rural part of the world that has been particularly badly affected by the old police funding formula, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). The Lincolnshire chief constable—and, indeed, some of his colleagues and other chief constables—has been very brave in challenging the funding formula. Not every chief constable has made the same progress as him on efficiency savings. He has written an excellent book, “The Structure of Police Finance—Informing the Debate”, which helped me when I needed to put various questions to chief constables in my work on the Home Affairs Select Committee. The Select Committee has found that some forces have extraordinarily generous reserves of savings. The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Committee Chairman, invited chief constables and police and crime commissioners to give evidence and we heard from some that they had reserves of up to £60 million. Since then, I have learned that the West Midlands force has a reserve of £153 million. Rather than have that money sitting in a bank account, we should surely spend it wisely to protect the public.

[Jack Dromey]

The hon. Lady mentions the money of the West Midlands police service, but it is overwhelmingly earmarked for the rationalisation of buildings in order to save money in the medium and longer term and for the recruitment of new police officers. I know Neil Rhodes well, and he is a fine chief constable. He was right to call for a review of the police funding formula, so does the hon. Lady share his dismay and my dismay that, as a consequence of the omnishambles within the Home Office before Christmas, we are stuck with the existing arrangements?

[Victoria Atkins]

It is certainly true that the chief constable was excited at the prospect of the new funding formula and how it might help his constabulary. It is as it is, but I received a letter from the chief constable last month saying that the constabulary has made further bold bids for transformational funding, which it is excited about in connection with blue light funding. I shall come on to that later.

As we have heard, the overall police budget is going to be protected—up to £900 million by 2019-20—and there is going to be a real-terms increase to £670 million for policing and counter-terrorism next year. There is also to be an increase in transformation funding to help with issues such as cybercrime.

I see in their places three members of the Joint Committee that has scrutinised the draft Investigatory Powers Bill, which is going to report tomorrow. During our work on that Committee we have heard about the changing nature of the threats facing our country and local policing, whether it be in respect of counter-terrorism or the challenges faced by police officers investigating missing persons. That, however, is for another debate and another time.

My final point is about making blue light collaboration possible. In a village in my constituency, Woodhall Spa, fire officers are trained to step in as ambulance workers, because they will be on the scene before the ambulances arrive. That is a great improvement, and the more we see of it the better. When I had the pleasure of visiting police stations in both Louth and Horncastle before Christmas to thank the officers for their work, I was interested to see that Louth police station was next door to the fire station. There must be room for the services to work together in helping to protect the public.

There have been suggestions from the Opposition that Members do not appreciate the work of police officers. That is simply wrong. I had the pleasure and privilege of working with excellent police and law enforcement officers in my previous career, and I am delighted that Lincolnshire constabulary will be hosting its annual awards in March to celebrate the bravery and commitment of officers in our county. I have been invited to the ceremony. Sadly, I shall probably not be able to go because I shall be here, but I wish them well. I am sure that the whole House wishes each and every police officer in our country well for the future, and is grateful for the work that they have done already.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

If the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) stands up, he will be called.

Psychoactive Substances Bill [Lords]

Victoria Atkins Excerpts

Wednesday 20th January 2016 Commons Chamber

We have also tabled amendment 13. The Scottish National party has welcomed the Government’s move towards criminalising supply and not necessarily criminalising possession, but we have tabled the amendment to try to prevent the counterproductive criminalisation of young people who purchase a psychoactive substance together, with one of them placing the order using money from the wider group. At that moment, that individual would be at risk of being criminalised for supplying a psychoactive substance. However, the effects on public health—and indeed on the group members’ finances—are indistinguishable from the effects had they all purchased the substance individually.

[Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

I am sure that the hon. Lady knows that the situation she has just described in which youths place an order with a dealer and then distribute the substance among their friends is entirely consistent with the law as set out in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The message is that if you buy the drug and then distribute it, you are a supplier in the eyes of the law. I would be interested to know why she thinks there should be a distinction between these substances and the more serious drugs that are dealt with under the 1971 Act. Surely we are still trying to achieve the same aim: to stop the supply of harmful substances.

[Anne McLaughlin]

My understanding was that we were trying not to mirror the Misuse of Drugs Act. We have moved on, and this Bill is not about criminalising individuals for possession, as they can be under the Act. The Bill does not have to mirror the Act exactly. The key issue is the effect that criminalising a young person for a foolish mistake can have on their life chances. Drugs blight enough lives already—that is certainly the case in my constituency—and we do not need to penalise someone who is acting on behalf of his or her peer group, a small group of friends, without any financial motive. These young people are not drug suppliers. Obviously, we might question the sense of their decision to buy drugs, but it should not be a criminal offence. A young person could be pressurised by their peer group to purchase these substances, and they might do so in order to gain the recognition of their peers, but if they were caught they could end up with a substantial criminal conviction.

[Victoria Atkins]

Surely the point is to introduce clarity to the young people that the hon. Lady is describing. Ecstasy is a class A drug, and if a young person buys it, they risk going to prison for a very long time if they are prosecuted and convicted. If a young person buys one of these new psychoactive substances that is minimally different from MDMA, and the dealers get round the problem by saying that it is just a little bit different from ecstasy and therefore does not fall under the 1971 Act, that young person could be placed in a very difficult position. They would have to be a scientist to know the difference between the two substances. My question is: should we not be encouraging clarity to differentiate between those drugs, to enable young people to know that they should not be buying those substances and distributing them?

[Anne McLaughlin]

I am not arguing that we should not be discouraging young people in that way. I am arguing that if someone buys these substances for themselves and a couple of friends, we should not criminalise them as though they were drug dealers when they clearly are not. I worry that, further down the line, Members of this House will be contacted by the parents of someone who has foolishly purchased such a substance on behalf of himself and one or two friends and has been convicted of supplying drugs. That young person’s life chances would be greatly diminished. Of course we hope they will be discouraged by our telling them what will happen to them if they make these purchases, but I certainly do not think we should punish them and label them as a drug dealer for stupidly buying stuff for their friends. On the whole, people pass a strong moral judgment on anyone with any kind of a conviction relating to drugs, but an even stronger judgment is passed on anyone convicted of supplying drugs. We are talking about a young person getting these substances for himself and his friends, not a young person who has become a drug dealer, yet that is what the conviction would be for.

State Pension Age (Women)

Victoria Atkins Excerpts

Thursday 7th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I will come on to the practical solution later in my speech.

Women have told me that their other major concern is that, even when they have been notified, they have not had enough time to prepare for the major changes in their lives. One of my constituents is 62 years of age and she was due to retire at 62 years and three months. However, she will now have to work until she is 65. Understandably, that has caused a great deal of distress and uncertainty for her, because she had been planning to retire in a few months’ time. Her plan was to co-ordinate her retirement with the birth of her grandchildren so that she could look after them and not have to resort to having the Government pay for their childcare. The changes have thrown her life into turmoil and, of course, the Government will now end up paying for that childcare.

Another constituent has told me that, anticipating retirement at 60, she took voluntary redundancy aged 58 and a half when her company was seeking to downsize. She was later informed that she will not be able to access her state person until she is 66 years of age. She now finds herself unemployed and having difficulty finding another job, because of her age. She has been left in financial hardship as a result of not being notified about the changes to the state pension age until it was too late. She is not the only example; many thousands of women across the United Kingdom are in the same boat.

The discrepancy of two years and two months for women born between April and December 1953 is simply confusing and unfair. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government were told as much in the debates in 2011. It means that, for some constituents, the difference is about £14,000, which is a lot of money. Again, it is not just a few of my constituents who have been affected, but women across the country.

Hundreds of thousands of women have had significant changes imposed on them not just once, but twice, with a lack of appropriate notification, and retirement plans have been shattered, with devastating consequences. The Government seem to have failed to recognise the severe impact that the speed of the implementation of those changes has had on those women. The changes have not affected men to the same extent, as their state pension age has not been increased by such a large amount and they have had much more notice. The pension system has historically discriminated against women, and the new changes are yet another example of that.

I urge the Government to reconsider the provisions and to diminish their impact by making transitional arrangements that are fairer for those women affected.

[Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

I have listened with great interest to the hon. Lady’s speech and to those of other Labour Members, particularly to their references to transitional arrangements. I wonder whether she could help me. What does she mean by and what would she suggest as “transitional arrangements”, how much will they cost and how will we find the money?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I am glad that the hon. Lady has given me extra time for this speech. There are many different ways in which to deal with the issue; there is not one panacea or simple solution. If the Government want a comprehensive response from me about the way forward, I am very happy to put together a detailed plan about how to deal with this issue.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill (Third sitting)

Victoria Atkins Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2015 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Who is “we” in this context?

Professor Gordon: The University of Bristol and a consortium of eight other universities: about 120 academics were involved, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council. We looked at employment in terms of stress, control, physical conditions, security and satisfaction. We looked at the bottom 20%, the worst conditions of employment, and we found that there were very high rates of child poverty, that the health and wellbeing of children and adults where parents worked in those conditions was no better than for the unemployed.

Although it is often argued that it is a stepping stone to better employment if you go into one of these bad low-paid jobs with bad conditions, about a third of people in those jobs have been stuck there with no prospect of improvement. So it is not just about low pay in those jobs; it is also about regulation to ensure that the physical working environment is safe and that people have some control and flexibility over their jobs, and to ensure that they have some kind of security in those jobs. Those bad working conditions harm the children, as well as the adults, in those households.

Alison Garnham: I just wanted to point out briefly, in answer to what Samantha was saying, that when child poverty was falling, it was not just about raising people’s incomes. Tax credits and child benefit were important, but there were also other things going on. There was the first childcare strategy, there was welfare to work and there was a big increase in lone parent employment. In fact, the increase in lone parent employment from 45% to 57% accounts for a third of the falls in child poverty between 1998 and 2010. All of things that Samantha is talking about are still all of the things that you need to do. It is not just about improving income, but they then have an impact on the poverty figures, and that is what we are looking for.

[Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

Q 176 I want to look specifically at the troubled families programme, which is helping to tackle deep-rooted problems in families. What effect is that programme having on child poverty? That question is for all the panel.

Professor Gordon: The troubled families idea came out of some work that was done for the Cabinet Office on multiple social exclusion by ourselves at Bristol, York, the National Centre for Social Research and the Cabinet Office itself. It looked at some families that had multiple difficulties—five or more problems. They were about 2%, on a guesstimate, although there is quite a lot of uncertainty and we had data only for England. It only looks at people who have multiple problems, of which poverty may or may not have been one of those problems. It can only have quite a small effect on poverty overall. Although, for those families, high quality social work, and combined and improving services are obviously very good things, it will not affect child poverty overall.

[Victoria Atkins]

Q 177 Well, it will for those children.

Professor Gordon: For a small number of children.

Dr Callan: I was in the Isle of Wight recently, looking at the family hubs that I mentioned a bit earlier. They are putting their troubled families programme very much at the heart of how they are helping families right across the Isle of Wight. It does not mean that they are treating all the families as troubled families. The fairly narrow criteria have been broadened. It is enabling that transformation and reorganisation of services, so that you do not have families with multiple problems having multiple professionals trying to help them and further complicating things.

In terms of how the programme is affecting children growing up in poor life circumstances, if it is driving more effective local government working and ensuring that far more people are getting family support than they were, it can be a really a good thing, for all the reasons that I have said. It is about getting underneath the life chances—things such as why children are not going to school, why the parents are not getting into work and so on. Health is also hugely important—the mental health and addiction issues that many families face.

[Victoria Atkins]

Q 178 Just touching on that—I know that Anna raised this as well, and this is a very specific example—if a parent has an addiction of some sort, it can mean that the family income, sadly, is being spent to support that addiction, rather than to help the child grow up and so on. My broader question to the panel is that we have heard a lot about income, but is it not just as vital to focus on how that income is spent, as Alison said, on fresh fruit and vegetables and so on, rather than—I think you gave this example—on tobacco and alcohol?

Dr Callan: That is really important. CSJ works with several hundred organisations that are working in the community to help tackle these root causes. I have gone and visited a lot. I have talked to a lot of people who have used the services they offer. One thing that people say is, “I feel so bad about how my addiction is affecting my kids that when I get a dollop of cash I just want to treat them.” It is so understandable; it is kind of spending out of guilt. They may be buying them fantastic food, but—I am not saying this is everybody—there is a sense of “If I have money, I will buy them expensive luxuries because I had to make up for the fact that I haven’t been emotionally available as a parent.” You may think that is just an anecdote, but if it is happening in lots of families where there are addictions—that is what we are hearing from people working at the grassroots level—we have to pay attention because there may be money going to that family, but it is not, as you say, necessarily improving the future life chances for the children.

Professor Gordon: Alcohol and drug dependency are devastating for families and obviously a key issue in child protection services, but it has to be remembered that the overwhelming majority of families where someone has an alcohol dependency or even a drug dependency are not poor. They have higher incomes—sometimes very high incomes. It is a very important issue for child wellbeing and life chances, but tackling that will not necessarily reduce child poverty. There are very few households in which alcohol and drug dependency is causing child poverty.

Alison Garnham: I agree with that. Alcohol and drug dependency are not a good indicator of poverty. Troubled families is allowing and funding a lot of local authorities to do a lot of admirable work with very disadvantaged families. Part of the problem is tracking it. We do not actually have much evidence yet about how it is doing, partly because the schemes are different in different areas, so the data is not comparable. It will be a while before we are able to tell what impact it has actually had.

[Victoria Atkins]

Q 179 Drawing on that, the other indicator the legislation allows for focuses on children’s attainment at key stage 4. How important is that key stage to helping us to understand a child’s life chances?

Professor Gordon: The indicator will be only for England; it will not be for the whole of the UK. Also, I would have thought that was an indicator that the Education Minister should report rather than the DWP Minister. It will also change, because the grading system will change, so it will be reported and then the next set of reports will not be comparable with the previous set, so you will not know whether things have got worse or better for either of the two indicators suggested. So although it is important, it has not been very well thought through as an indicator, because it will not mean anything for at least a few years. There is also no target attached, as there is in Wales, for example.

[Victoria Atkins]

Q 180 You have been talking about income a lot, and the point I am trying to make is that there is an holistic approach in this Bill and the Finance Bill. We have discussed the national living wage, the higher personal allowance in tax, free childcare and so on, which are factors against which the Government will be judged on child poverty and how the low-paid are faring generally. Do you accept that these factors in the Bill are part of a general package?

Professor Gordon: The indicator will not be meaningful. It will be only for England and it will not be comparable. Because of the grading changes from A to E to 1 to 9 and because the boundaries are changing, you will not know whether it has got better or worse.

Dr Callan: I think we absolutely have to look at educational attainment. Children doing well, perhaps against all the odds, boosts their self-esteem. A really quick point: if we are saying that we are not interested in the kids of people who have addictions or high incomes, actually that high income can be drained away completely almost overnight by addictions. That is exactly the reason why we need to look at the lives of all children across our country rather than just the ones that seem to be under those financial circumstances.

[The Chair]

A quick response from the next two panel members.

Alison Garnham: Everybody wants a multidimensional approach to child poverty. Everybody wants to look at housing, health, education. All of these things are relevant factors and they should all be tracked, but you will not know whether you have made any progress unless you have got some indicators that show if that has improved the family’s circumstances.

Matt Padley: Many of the things you are talking about may indeed have an impact on child poverty levels and may have an impact on income. Generally, what we have all been saying is that you need something that is multidimensional, not something that just measures income.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill (Second sitting)

Victoria Atkins Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2015 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Emily, I am going to interrupt you, if I may. I have got a list. We will come back to you towards the end—there is plenty of time. Victoria Atkins, followed by Corri Wilson.

[Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

Q 35 This question is picking up on the evidence Octavia has just given. Is it right that the £26,000 benefit cap in place at the moment is equivalent to approximately £34,000 of gross income if you are working?

Octavia Holland: That is my understanding.

[Victoria Atkins]

Q 36 What help is given to people with gross incomes of £34,000?

Octavia Holland: Obviously, the help given to people varies greatly depending on their circumstances. If you were a single parent or a couple-parent family living in a high-rent area with several children, you could well be receiving support with that amount. [Interruption.]

[Victoria Atkins]

Forgive me, the ladies opposite are not giving evidence. [Interruption.]

[The Chair]

Order.

[Victoria Atkins]

Q 37 The point is that £34,000 gross income is, for most people, getting on for a decent salary

Octavia Holland: I think it very much depends on their circumstances. If you were a single parent or a couple-parent family living in central London in a high-rent area on a £34,000 income, you would receive some kind of support and you would be struggling to make ends meet.

[Victoria Atkins]

Q 38 If I may say so, you have hit the nub of why this legislation is being introduced in this format. In my constituency, which is not in London—a lot of people live outside London—the median salary is £490 a week. The fact that the different rates of living are now going to be reflected in the different rates of benefit caps in the new legislation is fairer across the country, both in terms of the cost of living in London and outside London, and also to those people who are getting up in the morning and going to work and earning £490 a week in my constituency.

Octavia Holland: What is important is that benefits reflect the needs of a family. The benefit cap is making a break in that, so the needs of a family and the support it receives are broken. There are all sorts of reasons why a single parent or a couple-parent family could find themselves out of work. It might be for a short-term period. If the benefit cap pushes a family in central London, with several children in a school part-way through their education, to move away from that area, that is going to have all sorts of long-term costs for the state further down the line, because there will not be the support network that they have there. There is evidence that suggests that if children have to keep changing schools, their results suffer, so I think we need to think about the needs of these families.

[Victoria Atkins]

Q 39 I want to follow up with one last question. Approximately four in 10 households earn less than £23,000 in London, and less than £20,000 outside London. Do you accept that?

Octavia Holland: I would be interested in seeing a breakdown of how many children those families have got and where they live. It is difficult to reach those ballpark conclusions without looking at the details.

[Victoria Atkins]

I am sorry, I was just asking about the rate of the salary.

Tony Wilson: There is an important point here. What drives the experience of the benefit cap is having children and living in the private rented sector. Families with children often have quite high entitlements to tax credits. For example, a family with earnings of £26,000 and three children would receive £5,500 in tax credits. They would also receive £2,500 in child benefit, and they would likely be receiving housing benefit if they were in the private rented sector. So benefits do exist for people on low pay as well as for people out of work. Essentially, a lower benefit cap brings more people into the benefit cap, but these are often people with large families in the private rented sector who would be receiving support in work.

[Corri Wilson]

Q 40 This is a question for Kirsty and Tony. How can you incentivise people who have been assessed as ill to get back to work? When we are capping people who receive severe disablement allowance, how is this treating people fairly?

Tony Wilson: Can I make two quick points to add to Kirsty’s really good, comprehensive list of what works in supporting disabled people and those with health conditions? One further thing is early intervention. One thing we could do much better to incentivise and support is to intervene much earlier. We intervene very late. By the time somebody has got through the work capability assessment and the ESA, they have probably been out of work for a year or more, although they might have been previously in work. Early intervention is really important. The earlier we can engage people, the easier it is and the more effectively we can incentivise a quick return to work.

In terms of financial incentives, for example, one thing that was abolished in 2011 was the in-work credit, which was a payment made to people who were claiming incapacity benefit or ESA when they returned to work. The in-work credit was paid at about £50 a week for 26 weeks. We did a qualitative evaluation of that; there was never a formal impact assessment of it. There is very good literature around financial incentives to individuals when they move into work, internationally. It is not something tested very well here. We should look at how we create financial incentives. It is a behavioural tool to support people to make the transition into work and help to meet the transitional costs of work.

As others have said, I have significant concerns around the incentive and disincentive effects of the changes to the ESA WRAG. As much as anything, the most likely effect is to further increase the cliff edge between the support group and the rest of the benefits system. It will probably make the WCA even more of a mess. It will clog up the system even more with appeals and problems. We need the fundamental reform that Charlotte talked about.

Kirsty McHugh: One of the positive things over the past few years has been the introduction of the Health and Work Service. We need to stop people becoming long-term sick to begin with. The early intervention with the employer is important so that when somebody becomes ill, they are prepared to keep them in work. We need to keep an eye out to ensure that that is doing what we want it to.

A lot of people get assessed to death. They go through the personal independence payment assessment and the WCA. They are assessed by the employment providers. We could probably streamline some of that process—that is the outsourced sector and the DWP element. At the moment we are not sharing those assessments in a sensible way. We could probably take some costs out of the system and make life much easier for the people who are subject to it if some of those system issues were more effective than they are currently.