Rape and Sexual Abuse Support Services: Redcar and Cleveland

Anna Turley Excerpts

Tuesday 30th April 2019 Westminster Hall

[Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered funding for rape and sexual abuse support services in Redcar and Cleveland.

As always, it is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I was pleased to secure this debate to once again bring to the Minister’s attention the crisis facing rape and sexual abuse victims in my constituency. I have raised this crucial issue in writing and on the Floor of the House, but the response from the Government has been disappointing. I have been given the same response about the money the Government are investing in domestic and sexual violence and abuse services, which is welcome, but it simply does not reflect the realities on the ground in my area.

In response to my question in the Chamber last week about the cuts to rape and sexual abuse funding, I was told about the Government’s work on domestic violence. While domestic violence is extremely important, and I wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s Domestic Abuse Bill, I was talking about rape and sexual assault services, not about domestic violence. So I am glad to have the debate today to specifically focus on EVA Women’s Aid, which is a fantastic charity in my constituency that does amazing work supporting vulnerable women and children who survive rape, sexual abuse and violence and childhood sexual abuse.

EVA provides services across a 94 square mile area, and last year it supported nearly 1,000 vulnerable women and many children. It goes without saying that the support provided is a lifeline to clients, with whom the charity has worked hard and carefully, often over a long period, to develop sensitive, caring and trusting relationships. That trust is vital to enable victims to get the support they need. Because of that record, EVA is a well-respected organisation in the local community, held in high esteem by local people and led brilliantly by Richinda and her fantastic team of staff. I pay tribute to them today. Women feel comfortable approaching EVA because they know its reputation, how many women the charity has cared for and the respect and esteem in which it is held in the local community. That is why the removal of EVA’s grant from the Ministry of Justice’s rape and sexual abuse support fund is a devastating decision, which I urge the Minister to reconsider.

Since 2014, EVA has received funding from the rape and sexual abuse support fund to carry out its important work. The funding accounts for 15% of EVA’s revenue and is a significant source of income for a small local charity. In March, EVA was informed, without any prior warning or expectation, that its bid to renew the funding for the 2019-2022 period had been unsuccessful. That decision means that from the end of June the Borough of Redcar and Cleveland will not have the sexual violence support services and specialist counselling that EVA currently offers to children and young people of all genders, and to adult females. That includes support services for victims of child sexual abuse, which we know to be a crucial issue, and the number of people coming forward is increasing.

EVA is now trying desperately to make up the shortfall and save these crucial services. It has exhausted all other avenues, from the local police and crime commissioner to the local authority and clinical commissioning group. In areas like mine, the reality is that the budgets and funds of those organisations are already stretched. They have already had to make cuts to services and they do not have reserves of unallocated funding with which to step in and rescue services, such as those provided by EVA. Those services will have to go by the wayside if the funding is not found.

The PCC and the NHS jointly fund independent sexual violence adviser services and a sexual assault referral centre, which are highly valued and important, but they are not responsible for funding longer-term therapeutic counselling of the type EVA provides, which is vital. We cannot continue just to respond to crisis after crisis; we have to support people in the long term, which is exactly what EVA does. That is why I am raising this issue with the Ministry of Justice once again.

Ministers simply cannot pass the issue down to police and crime commissioners. Until now, the funding has been directly provided to EVA from central Government and it is central Government who have taken the decision to withdraw it, with very little notice and with devastating consequences. The three-month extension to June to allow for “necessary adjustments”, as stated in the ministerial response I received, is welcome but inadequate. At this point in the funding cycle, when organisations already have commissioning arrangements in place, this is just a stay of execution on the closure of services. Five of EVA’s 23 staff could be affected by the decision. They are specially trained rape counsellors who provide specialist support, and they could now be lost, along with all their skills, experience and training, because of short-sighted funding decisions that have not taken into account the impact on many vulnerable women in my constituency.

EVA received notification of the cut on the same day that the Government announced a funding increase of £24 million over three years for victims of rape and sexual assault. The victims Minister celebrated, saying that the Government are

“supporting more centres than ever”.

That would be a welcome development, but it is not the truth in Redcar and Cleveland and it is not what we are seeing. In reality, we are seeing a cut to vital services. While I appreciate that Arch North East is being funded to provide support for sexual abuse victims in the Cleveland police area, I understand it is receiving a similar amount to its previous funding allocation. It will have little extra capacity to support the residents of Redcar and Cleveland, who EVA currently caters for.

I do not know how familiar the Minister is with Cleveland; it is a huge geographic area, with a lot of rural, former mining villages and accessibility issues, as our buses are very expensive. Making one grant allocation for the whole area covered by the Cleveland police and crime commissioner fails to appreciate the different communities and demographics covered, as well as the fact that many women will only come forward to organisations and charities that they know, trust and feel secure with. Asking them to travel and to face a new and unknown organisation is going to put many women off accessing services.

[Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate and the powerful speech she is giving. It can be incredibly difficult for women to come forward. In south Yorkshire, where my constituency is, 3.5% of rapes result in a charge; nationally, it is only 4.1%. These figures are absolutely shocking and appallingly low. Does my hon. Friend agree that cuts to services, such as the one she is talking about and others across the country, will only make the situation worse and reduce the number of people, predominantly women, coming forward?

[Anna Turley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The levels of conviction for rape are a national scandal; more has to be done. The idea that we are seeing cuts to services and safe spaces for women coming forward is shocking. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend because not only is she here today defending her constituents and standing up for vulnerable women, but she ran the London marathon last weekend in support of a local domestic violence and rape charity. She’s talking the talk, as well as walking the walk or running the run; I congratulate her on that.

The geographic diversity of my area and the inaccessibility is a huge issue; it means many women will not access the services or be able to afford to access the services they need. The funding decision comes at a time when demand for independent specialist provision for survivors of sexual violence and abuse is at unprecedented levels. The message I hear from the workforce on the ground is that they are seeing services shrinking and provision is not meeting the level that is needed. The decision also demonstrates the risk of smaller organisations and charities, and the valuable, community-focused services they bring to the table, being squeezed out by larger organisations.

Indeed, the report by the all-party parliamentary group on sexual violence on the funding and commissioning of sexual violence and abuse services, published last year, found a huge contradiction in the way in which services are commissioned. There is supposed to be a move towards local commissioning to achieve tailored, locally appropriate solutions, which would be welcome, but that is countered by funding pressures on commissioners, who too often let large service contracts to single, generic providers in order to deliver savings through economies of scale. This approach is evidently happening with national commissioning too, and it will force small but vital, well-loved and respected providers, like EVA, out of the picture.

I will take a moment of the Minister’s time to share feedback from service users at EVA’s centre that highlights why the services matter. It is easy to talk about figures, cuts and national services in this place, but the reality is that we are talking about the lives of the most vulnerable women, who we must support and protect. These are the voices of women from my area who have reached out and sought EVA’s help after suffering horrific sexual abuse. Karen says:

“Your service gave me a lifeline when I was at rock bottom and didn’t know where else to turn, and I’ll never forget that. I don’t know what my fate would have been without you.”

Nadia says:

“The counselling service gave me back my life. I’d be stuck in a nightmare if it had not been for EVA.”

Angela says:

“I now have the strength to face my issues. You have helped me realise I haven’t done anything wrong but was vulnerable and taken advantage of”.

Finally, Jane says:

“Counselling has helped me feel sane through the weeks. I thought I was going crazy. It has helped me start figuring out what to do about my circumstances and historic abuse”.

I am sure the Minister agrees that here are real people facing terrible situations, who would have nowhere to go if not for the services EVA provided. It is vital that we support them and enable them to get the support and provision they need. It is clear from those personal accounts how much EVA’s service users value the local, individually tailored support that they trust. As I am sure the Minister recognises, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) said, it can take a huge amount of courage to come forward and seek help after the kinds of horrific ordeals these women have gone through. This funding decision risks closing the door on that option for many women and children in Redcar and Cleveland, so today I ask the Minister once again to please revisit this funding decision. I would love to invite him to visit Redcar and see EVA’s fantastic services for himself. If the Government are truly committed to supporting more centres than ever and ensuring that every victim of sexual violence receives the full package of support they need, then I urge him to look at this one more time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Anna Turley Excerpts

Tuesday 5th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Rory Stewart]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Managing Islamist extremists in prison means that, as well as identifying them and gathering intelligence on them, it is sometimes necessary to remove them from the general population to prevent them from radicalising other people. We have therefore set up two separation units, one of which is in Frankland Prison, and a third will shortly be set up in a new high-security prison. Such units are a vital element of managing extremists.

[Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)]

2. What assessment he has made of the effect of the decline in the number of people receiving legal aid for early legal help on access to justice.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lucy Frazer)]

The hon. Lady is right to draw attention to the importance of early legal help. If a problem can be solved at an early stage, it can be prevented from escalating later. That is why the Department spent nearly £100 million on early legal help last year.

[Anna Turley]

I appreciate the Minister’s response, but the cuts in legal aid are having a devastating effect. One of my constituents is seeking legal aid after leaving a coercive, controlling relationship in which she suffered not just physical but financial abuse. Her former partner left significant debts in her name. She works, but she does not qualify for legal aid now due to her salary. Because the payments are taken out under court order before she receives her pay, she is left with no money for legal costs. He gets legal aid because he works. Surely this is not fair, and will the Minister review it?

Oral Answers to Questions

Anna Turley Excerpts

Tuesday 25th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gyimah]

I pay tribute to the work done by the staff at Dickson House and all who work in approved premises around the country—they do a great job. Accommodating ex-offenders when they leave approved premises is an important issue. We are working with the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Local Government Association on ways in which we can improve this, including by improving statutory guidance.

[Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)]

T4. My constituent, 29-year-old father Alex Everington, was the victim of a road crash that left him paralysed from the neck down. His dad Ian said:“He can never take care of himself. He will never have a normal life…How do you explain this to a 10-year-old child?” Ian Maughan was found guilty of causing serious injury by dangerous driving. He had taken cannabis before the crash, and he had 81 previous offences, including a catalogue of motoring offences. At the time of the crash, he had been banned for careless driving. He received a sentence of just three years and four months, despite having destroyed Alex’s life. Will the Minister pledge to consider the effectiveness of driving bans and, crucially, to look again at the length of sentences for causing injury by dangerous driving?

[Mr Gyimah]

I firmly believe that the punishment must fit the crime. In the case of dangerous driving, there is a need for the law to be toughened up, which was why we launched a consultation to achieve precisely that last year. Obviously a general election is coming up, but if a Conservative Government are elected, I am sure we will see through these vital reforms.

Animal Cruelty: Sentencing

Anna Turley Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2016 Westminster Hall

[Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered sentencing for animal cruelty.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank all colleagues who have come to discuss this important issue, and I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Justice for his time. I hope that he and his officials will listen carefully to this debate and realise that there is an animal abuse crisis in this country, and that it is in their power to do something about it. I hope that on the back of this debate, they will work with me before my private Member’s Bill to increase sentencing for animal cruelty is debated on 24 February next year.

The origins of my interest in the issue of animal cruelty go back to March this year, when a horrific case of abuse emerged in my constituency. Andrew Frankish, aged 22, and his brother Daniel Frankish, aged 19, from Redcar were convicted of causing unnecessary suffering to a protected animal. On several mobile phone clips filmed by the younger man, Andrew is shown picking up a bulldog at the top of some wooden stairs before repeatedly throwing her down them. On one occasion, he lifts her high over his head. Inspectors from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals said that the footage was the most distressing that they had ever seen. The video is widely available on the internet.

I hope, Mr Hollobone, that you will allow me to quote at some length the RSPCA inspector who dealt with the case, because it is important to get the full picture. RSPCA inspector Gemma Lynch said that Baby the bulldog, who was put down three months later after losing the use of her back legs, was

“totally submissive throughout, not even making a noise when she lands on the stairs, bouncing to the foot of them where there is a baby gate which she crashes into before hitting the ground. Frankish is saying things like ‘one, two, three’ before hurling her down them. He is clearly enjoying himself. He’s laughing and smiling. The whole horrible ordeal seems to be for his and the younger man’s entertainment, for fun. One clip shows him stamping on her neck repeatedly at the bottom of the stairs, then picking her up and throwing her to the ground with force over and over again. He’s laughing hysterically.

Another clip shows him standing on Baby’s chest with his full body weight at the top of the stairs, before jumping up and down on her. This is the only time you hear her make a noise, and she is crying throughout. The younger man says, ‘See if we can make it scream any more. We should throw it down the stairs by its ears’, before Frankish picks her up against the wall and head-butts her twice, then throws her down the stairs again. Everyone who has seen the video says it’s the most distressing thing they’ve ever seen. These are people who have seen a lot of horrible things.”

The two men pleaded guilty to causing unnecessary suffering to Baby the bulldog by subjecting her to unnecessary physical violence, an offence under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. What sentence did those two brothers receive for such unspeakable and horrific acts? A suspended sentence, six months’ tagged curfew between the hours of 8 pm and 6 am and £300 in costs. No one can feel that the justice system did its job that day.

What makes the situation even more concerning is that the case only came to light, two years after the abuse took place, because the mobile phone footage was on a memory card found on a supermarket floor by a member of the public. It makes me wonder how much abuse is taking place behind closed doors across the country, against defenceless animals who cannot speak up and who depend on their owners for food, comfort and a life of love and care, free from abuse or neglect.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this crucial debate. Everyone is sickened to hear what she just described. All too often, such individuals are abusing not just animals but vulnerable adults and children; there is a huge amount of evidence showing that link. While considering sentencing, should we not also be considering putting these—words fail me to describe the disgust I feel for them—individuals on a register for potential abuse of humans as well?

[Anna Turley]

My hon. Friend is right. In my discussions with the RSPCA and others, one issue that has come to light is that people can be banned for life from keeping an animal, but we have no way to enforce it at the moment. A register is potentially an important idea, and one that I hope the Government will consider as part of the discussion and debate on my Bill.

On researching how the two brothers could have received such an impossibly lenient sentence for a vicious, premeditated assault, I was astonished to find that the maximum sentence for any form of animal abuse is just six months’ custody. Incredibly, it has not changed since the Protection of Animals Act 1911. In 1911, one could see animals at circuses and monkeys on the shoulders of organ grinders on street corners; the Act was introduced essentially to make it an offence to override or overload animals pulling loads on the street.

Under the last Labour Government, the issue was meant to be dealt with by the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which made provision to increase sentencing for a person found guilty of such offences to be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, or a fine not exceeding £20,000. Incredibly, however, the provision to increase prison sentences was never enacted, so people who inflict cruelty on animals or make them fight for money can currently receive a maximum of only six months’ imprisonment should the magistrate deem a custodial sentence suitable. The public rightly find that hard to understand or accept as appropriate.

Since the incident of the Frankish brothers came to my attention, I decided to try to amend the law to ensure that sentences fit the crime. Just days after I applied for this debate, another two incidents in my constituency brought the issue back to the news agenda. A small dog was found buried alive in woods near Redcar on 19 October, with a nail hammered into its head. I am unable to discuss the case in more detail due to an ongoing criminal investigation, but on the same day, two sheep were found battered with a blunt instrument.

The people of my constituency have been horrified by all these cases, and it is important to pay tribute to their response. After hearing of the Frankish brothers incident and that of Scamp, the dog who was found with a nail in his head, they held vigils for the animals, with hundreds of people coming to lay flowers and candles and send two messages loudly and defiantly. First, the perpetrators do not represent our community. People in Redcar are decent and kind. I know many passionate animal lovers, and I meet some wonderful dog owners as I walk my own dog on Redcar beach or the Eston hills. Secondly, they are angry. They feel that the criminal justice system is letting them down. The police were called to the defence of one of the Frankish brothers after they were threatened. I do not condone such violence, but I fear greatly that that is what happens when the criminal justice system fails and people do not believe that a sentence fits a crime.

On researching my Bill, I was shocked by the number of horrific cases I came across. I read of a dismembered cat left on a war memorial, strangled cats, a deer with a tree branch forced up its backside and a McDonald’s bag over its head, a flock of 20 ducks strangled with cable around their necks and boiling liquid poured on a puppy. Just last week, a Shetland pony was found dead near Sunderland, its body slashed and its bottom lip, mane and genitals cut off. The list of horrific attacks goes on and on.

The RSPCA receives and investigates thousands of complaints about cruelty to animals each year. For example, it received 143,004 complaints in 2015, and 1,781 people were successfully prosecuted. Of the convictions in 2015, 50% were for cruelty offences under section 4 of the 2006 Act and 1.8% were for fighting offences under section 8. The latter acts of cruelty are some of the most extreme. For all cases, current punishments do not appear to fit the crime. During the last five years, the maximum fine imposed on anyone prosecuted by the RSPCA under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 was just £15,000, representing £2,500 for each of six offences. The courts often take the position that unless someone can repay a fine and costs incurred within a reasonable period, there is no point imposing large fines. That suggests to me that the focus should be on prison sentences.

I urge those who think that the crime of abusing defenceless animals is worth less serious attention than abusing people to look at the evidence, predominantly from the United States but also more recently from Europe, showing connections between the two. A 2001 to 2004 study by the Chicago police department

“revealed a startling propensity for offenders charged with crimes against animals to commit other violent offences toward human victims.”

Of those arrested for animal crimes, 65% had been arrested for battery against another person. Of the 36 convicted multiple murderers questioned in one study, 46% admitted committing acts of animal torture as adolescents. Of seven school shootings that took place across the United States between 1997 and 2001, all involved boys who had previously committed acts of animal cruelty.

Because abusers target the powerless, crimes against animals, spouses, children, and the elderly often go hand in hand. Children who abuse animals may be repeating a lesson learned at home. Like their parents, they are reacting to anger or frustration with violence. Their violence is directed at the only individual in the family who is more vulnerable than they are—an animal. Professor Frank Ascione of the University of Denver graduate school of social work says:

“The research is pretty clear that there are connections between animal abuse and domestic violence and child abuse.”

According to a six-year gold-standard study conducted in 11 metropolitan cities in the US, pet abuse is one of four predictors of domestic partner violence. In both domestic violence and child abuse situations, abusers may manipulate and control their human victims through threatened or actual violence against family pets. Researchers have found that between 71% and 83% of women entering domestic violence shelters reported that their partners also abused or killed the family pet. Another study found that in families under supervision for the physical abuse of their children, pet abuse was concurrent in 88% of the families.

In the UK, a new academic study—the first of its kind in Europe—by researchers at Teesside University has also identified a link between animal abuse and domestic violence. The study of young people in eastern Europe found that violence breeds violence. Adolescent males who had experienced domestic violence either showed displaced aggression against animals or progressed to committing violence against family members. The findings point towards a worrying cycle of abuse in society if violence is not addressed or properly challenged.

I return to sentencing, and some comparisons with our devolved colleagues. In its recent review of the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, the Northern Ireland Assembly increased the maximum penalty on summary conviction for the offences of causing unnecessary suffering and animal fighting to 12 months’ imprisonment, a fine not exceeding £20,000, or both. The maximum prison sentence for those found guilty on indictment was increased from two years to five years. It should be noted that Northern Ireland is currently the only part of the UK that provides for more serious animal welfare offences to be tried in a Crown court. Up in Scotland, the Scottish Government have recently committed to reviewing penalties under the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006. If we look around the world, we can see that the maximum penalty for animal cruelty in Australia is five years and in Germany it is three years; six months here in the UK seems comparatively paltry, especially when we call ourselves a nation of animal lovers.

In addition to the examples from our colleagues in the devolved nations, there is a precedent for tougher sentencing in other UK legislation on the treatment of animals. Under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, a person can go to prison for three years if their dog injures a guide dog. In 2015, the Law Commission’s review of wildlife law recommended two years’ imprisonment for cruelty towards wildlife.

It should of course be noted that in 2015, all fines for animal welfare offences that were previously set at level 5 on the standard scale—including those at or above the equivalent level—were increased to unlimited fines. Nevertheless, fines are clearly not working. The fact still stands that under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, the sentence for an offence under section 4 on unnecessary suffering, section 8 on animal fighting, and section 9 on the duty of the person responsible for the animal to ensure welfare, is imprisonment for up to just six months. The lack of sentencing available to the courts severely blunts the Act as the existing jail terms are far too low to deter offenders, especially if we consider the fact that reductions can be given for early guilty pleas and the possibility of suspended rather than custodial sentences.

Such woefully inadequate sentences must be addressed if they are to be punishments that fit the cruelty inflicted on animals. My private Member’s Bill, which will have its Second Reading in February, will seek to increase the custodial sentence for animal cruelty from six months to five years, in line with the recent changes in Northern Ireland. If we are to continue declaring ourselves a nation of animal lovers, it is about time we showed it by sending out the message that we take animal cruelty seriously.

I thank the RSPCA, the Dogs Trust, Battersea Dogs Home and the League Against Cruel Sports for their support for my Bill. I place on record my particular thanks to the staff at the RSPCA, who do a fantastic job dealing with some horrific cases and some situations that require real bravery. I commend them for the cases that they bring to conviction, such as that of the Frankish brothers. It is vital that we have their unique expertise to bring such cases to justice, and they deserve to see the sentencing process support their efforts.

Finally, I want to say a word about Baby the bulldog and the dog named Scamp. We will probably never know the full level of cruelty and torture these silent and defenceless animals endured. We can only begin to imagine the pain they experienced and the fear they felt. We cannot undo the suffering that man has done to them, but we can show each other that that kind of cruelty has no place in our communities, and that such depraved behaviour will face the punishment that it deserves. I am grateful for having been able to introduce this debate. I urge the Minister to put right the injustice by supporting my Bill in February.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Turley]

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for that response, which was thoughtful and considered. We appreciate the tone and the openness with which he is engaging with us, and the fact that he is keen to look forward. I hope that as we build towards the Bill we can continue to have that conversation, both with the Minister and with DEFRA. I appreciate that.

I was glad that the Minister referred to the Teesside University research, which is groundbreaking and symbolic in making the link between animal cruelty and abuse of human beings. It should be considered in the context of the Minister’s point about relevance and severity within sentencing more broadly. Although I take his point about consistency and parity, it is important to acknowledge that there are already many inconsistencies in sentencing in the criminal justice system. There is already no parity, so, for me, that cannot be a reason to strike out the idea of raising a sentence.

I appreciated the Minister’s point about looking at whether animal cruelty sentences can be referred to the Court of Appeal, if we feel that they are not sufficiently strong. That is really important and deserves more exploration.

I am grateful to all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate today. We have seen a real strength of feeling and a sense of support around sentencing. The issue of a register of offenders, raised by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello), is important and warrants more investigation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) said, not least because of the link to social services. We are talking not just about people who might be put on a register, but people who have undertaken serious offences. I do not think it is considerably onerous for organisations to undertake a quick online check, as they might already do for a criminal record or something of that nature.

A number of hon. Members raised points about education and awareness. They were absolutely right. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), in a very moving speech, talked about culture change within the judiciary and society, and about taking offences seriously so that if we do raise the sentencing limit, they are dealt with with due diligence. The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) is absolutely right about broader awareness, and I pay tribute again to charities that do that work.

Oral Answers to Questions

Anna Turley Excerpts

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)]

11. What assessment he has made of the ease of access for children to appropriate legal representation.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities and Family Justice (Caroline Dinenage)]

The Government believe it is important for children and young people to have access to justice. That is why we have made sure that legal aid funding is available for the highest priority cases, including many that are of relevance to children.

[Anna Turley]

The director of the Youth Justice Legal Centre has said that many children are more reliant on the advice and support of their security guard than on their solicitor or legal team. What other steps are the Government taking to ensure that children and young people have access to proper support so that they can participate in a process that could affect the rest of their lives?

[Caroline Dinenage]

We are monitoring closely the impact of any changes—we keep this constantly under review—and we would be very concerned if there was any evidence that vulnerable children were not getting the help they needed.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill (Third sitting)

Anna Turley Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Jess Phillips]

I do.

[Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q 153 I would like to go back to the points about the financial robustness of housing associations and surpluses and so on. David, could you tell us a bit more about the geographical disparity in that? It is my understanding that, particularly in terms of assets, housing associations in London will be substantially better off than housing associations in, say, Teesside in my area. Could you say something more about what that geographical picture looks like, and the different geographical implications of this policy?

David Orr: Yes, of course, you are quite right that the basic financial strength of organisations varies hugely. If they are in an area where assets are very high value, their business has a greater degree of financial robustness underpinning it than an organisation in an area where the asset value is very low. It is more possible in some parts of the country to trade assets, and therefore maintain financial stability, than it is in others.

The impact goes back to one of the things I was saying earlier. This is a measure that sounds simple, single and straightforward, but it has a profoundly different impact for organisations in different parts of the country. In my introductory remarks I said that for some organisations, not because they are inefficient but because of accidents of history and geography, this decision could mean that they will collapse.

Having an efficiency challenge is one thing, but imposing a new measure that has the direct effect of making it impossible for good, well-run, well-managed, efficient organisations to survive is not helpful.

[Kate Green]

Q 154 There are other measures in the Bill that will have an impact on housing associations and local authorities in relation to rent. I am thinking particularly of the four-year freeze and the reduction in the household benefit cap. Can I start by asking Councillor Porter your assessment of the overall effect of those measures in the Bill on local authorities and, in particular, pressure on discretionary housing payments?

Gary Porter: For the purposes of what we have been saying today, we have put the freeze and the reduction in the same space. So, all the numbers that we have used have been like the £2.6 billion that we are going to be light because of the freeze and the reduction. They are not different numbers; they are the same numbers.

In terms of the impact of discretionary payments, I am afraid that I cannot answer that at the moment, but I will ensure that one of the members of staff who are supposed to be minding me today has made a note of it, and we will give you that back in writing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hannah Bardell]

Q 174 On the point about the IFS, I understand that it cannot measure child poverty, but what you are talking about is income and the effect that the cuts, versus the lift in the minimum wage, is going to have on people, which is significant. Surely a measure of income against child poverty is very important in that instance—we recognise that.

Dr Callan: If the Government activity is in raising people’s skills and raising people’s expectations of what they can do and that is where the effort is directed, with people getting help to move up and out of tax credits, it is a completely different way of seeing it.

One final thing. I do not think that we are doing this too quickly. The Centre for Social Justice has been writing about this and provoking a debate since 2007 on whether we should be simply looking at income levels or whether we should be tackling root causes. Eight years have already passed; I think we need to do something about it with the political will that is there.

Professor Gordon: Improving skills and improving the quality of services such as education and health are very important, but the scientific evidence shows that money matters. If you raise the income of children in poor families, child wellbeing increases across the whole range of measures. The targets were not met in 2010, although they were reasonably close—they are on track, possibly. When those targets were first introduced, Britain was ranked at the bottom of the UNICEF league table for child wellbeing. By 2010, as things had improved, there were fewer poor children in terms of low income and Britain had moved up to the middle of the ranking for rich countries. That is across a broad range of measures, in independent research by UNICEF.

There is, of course, also a whole lot of UK research that shows, as Alison said, that there was more money spent on better-quality food, on education equipment for children and a whole range of positive things that improved child wellbeing. Attainment among poor children also increased, in terms of education.

Matt Padley: We looked at research recently that points out that those who are most likely to gain from the national living wage are those without children, which I think adds some context. Increasing wages at the bottom is not necessarily going to have an impact on households with children.

[Anna Turley]

Q 175 I have been harrumphing all the way through because so many of the questions I was going to ask have basically been answered. I was going to ask the panel a very simple question. Do you think it is possible to measure child poverty and life chances, without taking financial income into account? I think we have heard a very emphatic “No”, “No”, and “No”, although I am not sure about Dr Callan. I was really shocked to hear you say in your introductory comments that financial income is a symptom, but that families and things such as addiction are drivers of poverty. I find that a very simplistic and narrow view. The rest of the panel said quite emphatically that income is a driver of a lot of the other outcomes that we see in life chances.

Dr Callan: If you look at why people have low earnings, it is not—that is why the living wage is so important, that is why doing more hours is important and people upping their skills, so that they can earn more is important, rather than just, “The Government’s going to sort it all out.” That is what I am trying to get at. We do not want to take all agency out of the hands of people and say, “Whatever you do, don’t worry. We’ll look after you; we’ll top you up.”

We should not be subsiding firms. Firms should be paying enough so that people can work their way out of poverty. Just now people have told me that it is laughable to talk about working your way out of poverty. I agree when wages are so low. That is why we need a whole package of things, but not necessarily setting targets around income levels, for all the reasons I have said.

Matt Padley: But if the living wage, for instance, is a way out of poverty, then surely it is important to measure those who have low incomes. Without a low-income measure, knowing who is above or below the living wage—

[The Chair]

This is not a debate among the panel. Thank you for that. Professor Gordon and then Alison.

Professor Gordon: We have just completed the largest and most comprehensive study of poverty that has ever occurred in the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Corri Wilson]

Q 201 I would like to ask you the same question that I asked the last panel. Much of the proposed legislation is borne out of an assumption that those on benefits face the same choices as those in work. Do you agree with that?

Julia Unwin: I do not agree that there is a huge distinction between those on benefits and those in work, because we know that a significant proportion of people in work are on benefits and tax credits—there was an earlier discussion about housing benefits, for example. People are moving around the labour market in a very dynamic and frequently very damaging way, but once you are on benefits and out of work, it is very hard to make the sorts of choice that better-off people are able to make. We ask people on benefits to take enormous personal risks, and I think that point is very well made.

Dr Niemietz: Ideally, they should be in a situation where they broadly make the same choices and the same trade-off. That is not the way the benefits system is currently structured, because you have ring-fenced elements for particular expenses—you get an amount for childcare, an amount for housing and an amount for something else. If that were somehow wrapped up in a single payment and it was then left to people to make their choices, their everyday lives and the trade-offs they make would become more similar to those of working people.

[Anna Turley]

Q 202 What are your views on—this is one of the most controversial aspects of the Bill—limiting tax credits to two children? What do you think the impact of that will be, particularly for the most disadvantaged and larger families?

Julia Unwin: One thing we know is that tax credits do not influence behaviour in the linear way that many people expect. Given my description of people coming in and out of dependency on benefits and tax credits, there is no way of knowing at what stage in someone’s life they will require those tax credits. I simply do not believe that people choose to have more children in the sure and certain knowledge that tax credits will bail them out. That is not how decision making works in most households that I have come across.

I think the impact could be very damaging for larger households. I would go back to the even more substantive issue, which is the concern about where families on benefits with more than three children will live and how they will afford to live. That strikes me as deeply problematic for families who have been on benefits for some time, and particularly those who find themselves on benefits.

Dr Niemietz: This links back to the earlier question about whether people on benefits make the same choices in the same way as people who are not on benefits. If you do not qualify for child tax credits, your income does not automatically go up because you have a third child. I do not see anything wrong with replicating that situation for people whose income mostly consists of state transfers.

[Hannah Bardell]

Q 203 Thank you both for coming today. Julia, in your recent report you said that the new legislation is, at best, a sideways step. I would argue that it is a retrograde step. In the light of what you said, which is very interesting, do you welcome the fact that Scotland and Wales will retain their own targets and will try their best under the current framework to do things in their own way? I would welcome comments from both of you on conditionality. In particular, you mentioned the years of research that you have done on parents with young children, who are not required to work not until their children are three. We know that the new legislation will suggest that parents of one-year-old children are going to have to start looking for work. What kind of impact will that have on children and, in particular, single parents with very young children, who will have to go back into the workplace?

Julia Unwin: We said it is a sideways move, and I think it is, although we debated long and hard about whether it is a sideways or backwards move. It takes away the real opportunity that the Bill presented to have a life chances strategy and look at all the different drivers across the Government. The Government do not hold the levers. For too many years we have assumed that the Government can fix the issue of poverty. Welfare and credits really matter, but so too do the nature of the labour market and what happens at a local and regional level. They are all different drivers. What matters is that we work together to improve life chances. Nobody can look at the UK at the moment without recognising that the different parts of the UK will be going in very different ways on this. As a member of a research organisation, I welcome it because it is interesting. From the point of view of children in Scotland, it is welcome that the Scottish Government have decided to keep the target and the focus on this issue. I hope the rest of the UK will take note that this is an opportunity to look at life chances and to protect something for the next generation.

Dr Niemietz: I am very much in favour of the conditionality of benefits. We have seen in places such as Wisconsin in the US that making welfare more conditional can work and can help get people back into work. It also helps to restore public confidence in the benefit system. Increasing conditionality is an alternative to simply cutting benefits. It is not about saying, “We are taking money away from you,” but saying, “We are attaching strings to those payments.” That is a way to increase public confidence. The perception that it is being overused largely comes from the fact that, so far, conditionality has not played the role that it could play.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill (Second sitting)

Anna Turley Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Jess Phillips]

Q 11 Apologies for being a bit late; I was stuck in the Chamber.

My questions have been largely answered, but I have some real concerns about the advice sections you are talking about. In my experiences of women and domestic violence, their husbands leave and they are left with the mortgage of a property. They have never worked and would find it difficult to get into work.

I am concerned about the advice, but I am also concerned about what detail is not in the Bill. I am confused. It is confusing enough, let alone if you are a vulnerable person in a difficult situation. I wonder if you have some concerns about the detail and whether you will need more detail before you can give firm conclusions about whether this is going to be terrible for the claimants.

Paul Broadhead: Yes, the detail will tell us the exact process—how this will work, who will provide information and all that final detail. That is not here at the moment. We are talking at a bit of a conceptual level, but I think we are generally supportive. Both parties are supportive of moving this to a loan in most cases, but we have concerns about the mechanism for delivering that advice and ensuring that there are not unintended consequences. There is a lot still to be worked out in the secondary legislation.

Paul Smee: We have offered to get down and work closely with DWP Ministers on the detail. We have a lot of experience within the lending community of how to deal with people who are in arrears and how to handle them sympathetically. We will be very keen to work with officials to come up with detailed proposals that work for the industry and for the claimants.

[Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q 12 Building on that point about the lack of detail in the Bill, one of the biggest concerns you have raised is the huge number of existing claimants, but there is no detail on how they will be dealt with. What are your thoughts on how they should be dealt with? How serious is it that the detail is not there?

Paul Broadhead: Many, in fact more than half, of the existing claimants are in receipt of pension credit, so we are talking about a certain type of individual and we need to ensure that the advice is right. Many of these people have been long-term claimants, so we need fully to understand that change. The timetable for delivery is challenging. There could be an argument—I am not saying there is, because it depends on the Government’s delivery plans—for saying, “Okay, on 1 April 2018, this applies to new claimants,” and we then make sure that we take our time to ensure that everyone understands the effect of the change on their circumstances. Perhaps we could put that back 12 months or so for existing claimants, but it needs to be considered very carefully so that we do not end up with unintended consequences. We have talked about debt—whether it is debt or not and whether it is going to be repaid—and many of these people will not like the thought of debt and might put themselves in a more difficult position than is needed.

Paul Smee: I hope that the Government can come to an early conclusion about the channel through which the advice will be given, because we would want to work with those who are giving the advice in order to understand their position.

[Corri Wilson (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)]

Q 13 What effect, if any, would the potential increase of sanctions have on the entitlement period? If there were breaks in claims, would that have an effect?

Paul Smee: I am not sure I can answer that off the top of my head. I would not expect there to be any, but if I find that there is, I will drop you a note.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will come back to Kate Green with some more questions, but first Anna Turley, because she has to go at four o’clock.

[Anna Turley]

Q 63 The Disability Benefits Consortium submission made reference to possible knock-on effects in other areas as a result of the abolition of the WRAG. Do you agree and what do you think the knock-on implications could be?

Sophie Corlett: I don’t know whether you meant just within the DWP area or more broadly, but our anecdotal information is that since the welfare changes there has been a big knock-on effect in health terms in the number of people who have become much more unwell, partly because of the stress of sanctions and expecting to lose their money, but also because people who have less money are more likely to fall into debt, and that has a very toxic relationship with mental health problems. We are aware of that link.

[The Chair]

Anna, are you happy with that?

[Anna Turley]

Q 64 I was thinking more broadly: anything from mental health to housing.

[The Chair]

Let us have a quick answer from everyone on this important question.

Roy O'Shaughnessy: First, none of us wants to see anyone disadvantaged by the changes that are coming in the Bill. That is first and foremost. I do not think there is enough actual evidence yet to make conclusions about how significant the changes have been or will be going forward. There were two community hubs that we self-financed, where we literally took a health-based approach to the challenges that our customers were facing. We provided food and meals. We had a JCP desk in the centre. The Work Foundation just concluded their report a few days ago. We have not assimilated it all yet, but the thing that stood out was that we have achieved a statistically important uplift in the results of those hardest-to-reach customers, the ones with the greatest barriers to employment, with illness.

Two main things stood out. There is a significant difference. The vast majority of the customers in those two hubs have a much better experience than those in our other centres, and our staff are happier working with those customers because they have more resources to deal with their needs. So my view is that organisations like ours at the table will need to work very closely with Government to take that learning and try and put it into practice, to mitigate those cases where it would be adversely affecting individuals.

Elliot Dunster: I would echo some of those points. It might be a useful time to think a bit about disabled people’s lives as well. Lots of disabled people are in receipt of social care, for example, and a third of social care users are disabled people. It would be interesting, as part of the discussions the Committee has, to think about how those systems interact with the back-to-work support that disabled people get. How do the conversations that local authorities have about the provision of social care for disabled people interact with the employment support that disabled people get? Currently, those two things feel quite far apart from the disabled person’s perspective. That might be an example of where two different parts of two different systems could work better together to support people into work.

Laura Cockram: Just building on Elliot’s point, a number of different cuts have happened, and there has been no cumulative impact assessment of the cuts that have taken place since 2010, whether that is the closure of the ILF or the social care cuts to local authority budgets. So I think there is a wider concern. If we are pushing people who are not ready to work, as Sophie has said, back into work earlier or too early, there could be some knock-on impacts on the healthcare system, where we know there are already funding concerns. We might be pushing problems around the systems, rather than dealing with them.

Gareth Parry: Our view would be that disabled people do not not get jobs because they are disabled; they do not get work because of a whole series of barriers that get in the way, some of which are disability-related and many of which are not. I would certainly support, from other things that have been said, the idea of a more holistic approach to somebody—the idea of a key worker-type approach, where somebody helps that individual to overcome all their barriers.

We have some evidence in our organisation that about two thirds of the barriers that disabled people say they face and stop them getting work are actually nothing to do with their disability. It is about transport, housing, debt, health—a whole load of issues. It is going to be interesting to see the evidence base that comes out of the three Jobcentre Plus pathfinders that are running. They are using the concept of a specialist employment adviser, who is going to take that more rounded, holistic approach. The evidence that comes out of that pilot is going to be really interesting.