Backbench Business Committee

Representations: Backbench Debates

Tuesday 12 March 2019

Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 12 March 2019.

Watch the meeting

Members present: Ian Mearns (Chair); Bob Blackman; Patricia Gibson; Nigel Mills; Jess Phillips; and Alex Sobel.

Questions 1-10

Witnesses

I: Ged Killen

II: John Lamont

III: Norman Lamb and Helen Hayes

Written evidence from witnesses:

– [Add names of witnesses and hyperlink to submissions]

              Ged Killen made representations.

Q1                Chair: Good afternoon and welcome to the Backbench Business Committee. We have three applications in front of us, and the first is from Ged Killen on IR35 tax reforms.

              Ged Killen: Thank you for having me here. I have applied for a 90-minute debate in Westminster Hall on IR35 tax changes. I have had many emails about this issue, and I know that colleagues across the House have as well. In principle, the reforms are trying to tackle tax avoidance in the form of disguised employment, with which I am by no means in disagreement, but the people who have contacted me are often genuinely freelance workers. An IT contractor got in contact to say that he works in the way he does to support his son who is disabled, and he is very concerned that the changes could have an impact on the way he does that work. The changes have already come in in the public sector, so he has some experience of that already, and this is about rolling it out to the private sector.

A range of issues have been brought to my attention by other signatories of the application, including concerns about the fact that people will be treated as employees for tax purposes but will not enjoy the employment rights that go along with that. Also, the “check employment status” tool is considered by many contractors as ineffective in determining a person’s employee status, and there is the likelihood, which we have seen in the public sector already, that in the private sector companies will seek to take a blanket approach in order to avoid falling foul of the rules, which will mean that people end up being treated as employees when they really shouldn’t be, and that can lead to a recruitment crisis.

This is an opportunity for Members to put their concerns to the Minister. I know that the Government is currently consulting on the changes, again, and this would be a good opportunity for people to raise the various concerns that have been brought to them by their constituents.

Q2                Bob Blackman: In terms of your application, you have, I think, 13 speakers on your list. Normally we would be saying—I think this is your first application to our Committee—

Ged Killen: No.

Q3                Bob Blackman: Okay, well, we would normally be asking for about seven or eight for a 90-minute debate and probably 14 or 15 for a three-hour debate, so you come very close to the cusp of a three-hour debate. I know that this is a very important issue. Our other slight problem is that all our Tuesday slots are taken up until after Easter—assuming we get an Easter recess—but there is the possibility of a Westminster Hall debate on a Thursday if you were minded to take it. Given the level of interest, we could extend the application to three hours, if that would be something you could fill.

Ged Killen: Yes, I think that would be fine. I would be happy with that.

Q4                Bob Blackman: Even if it was the last day before the recess?

Ged Killen: I can’t speak for everyone who has put their name to the application, but I know that I would be there. I am not sure whether others would feel the same.

Chair: We are being teasers, because you might not get a recess. Thank you very much, Ged. We will be discussing whether applications are correct this afternoon, and then we will try to prioritise, but we have very little time. As you can imagine, we will try to accommodate you if we can.

Ged Killen: Sure. Thank you.

              John Lamont made representations.

Q5                Chair: Next up we have John Lamont on the devolution of welfare.

              John Lamont: Thank you. I am applying for a 90-minute Westminster Hall debate.

The Scotland Act 2016 devolved 11 DWP benefits to the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Government currently has the power to legislate on these benefits, and on 1 April 2020 will gain executive competence for disability benefits. The benefits are significant and account for about £3 billion of benefits, or around 15% of the total expenditure on benefits in Scotland. The Department for Work and Pensions has been working with the Scottish Government on the devolution and control of the benefits, and the Scottish Government plans to replace PIP, DLA, attendance allowance and carers allowance, which the Scottish Government had originally committed to completing before the end of the current Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Government has now said that this process will not be completed until 2024. The DWP has also confirmed that it has been asked by the Scottish Government to maintain administrative control over severe disability allowance indefinitely. The DWP has also confirmed that it will continue to deliver those benefits on behalf of the Scottish Government until Social Security Scotland has the capacity to take on this role.

This raises questions about the process of devolving control over the benefits from the DWP to the Scottish Government, about the costs to the Department for Work and Pensions of continuing to administer the benefits, and about making sure that welfare recipients continue to receive payments.

As well as the delays surrounding the devolution of these powers, the Scottish Parliament has been given the power to top up benefits, award discretionary payments and create new benefits. There is currently disagreement between the Scottish and UK Governments about the effect of those powers.

A final technical point that is an issue particular to my constituency is the devolution of the cold weather payments, which has implications for my constituents, as some of them share postcodes with the north of England. A number of MPs have indicated that they would like to speak in the debate, including from my own party and from the Labour party, and I would expect more to express interest if I am successful in this application.

Q6                Alex Sobel: I am afraid to say that you have quite a lot of people who have signed this who are ineligible to sign a Backbench Business debate: there are three Conservative PPSs, and a Labour shadow Minister. That means that you are quite a long way short in terms of the number of names that you need. Do you think you would be able to get more names of Back Benchers?

              John Lamont: I suspect I could. To be fair, we were slightly unclear about the guidance, because point 1 of the guidance on the application form notes that lead Members cannot be Ministers of the Crown, Parliamentary Private Secretaries or principal Opposition Front Bench spokesmen. However, point 3 states that Members who want to take part in the debate should not be Ministers of the Crown or principal Opposition Front Bench spokesmen. PPSs clearly do not fall into that category in point 3. Although I accept that they cannot lead debates, based on the guidance I think they can still participate.

Alex Sobel: That is not how we have interpreted it before, is it?

Chair: Who actually participates in the debate is usually different to the list presented to the Committee—that is quite often the case. By and large, we have frowned upon Government PPSs being part of the application in terms of getting the requisite number.

Alex Sobel: And shadow Ministers.

Chair: Yes. However, you are looking for a 90-minute debate. I would have thought that even with those exemptions you probably have just about enough anyway, but we will double-check that.

Patricia Gibson: I think this is an excellent debate. We know that the Scottish Government have already rolled out the carer’s allowance, the best start grant, the funeral expenses scheme and young carers, but you are right: the debate draws attention to the extremely complex nature of bringing in different benefits. We know that, because the Tory Government have seen a vast number of errors and delays because they vastly underestimated how long they needed for reforms to start.

We just need to look at the transfer from DLA to PIP, which was due to finish it 2015. It will now finish in 2021. Universal credit, due for completion in 2017, will now be completed in 2023. It is important that we learn those lessons, and that the Scottish Government make sure that no claimants are harmed or suffer detriment. I think the debate is extremely timely, and I would welcome the opportunity to speak in it.

Jess Phillips: To go to Alex’s point, one of the reasons we do not allow PPSs to be named is because they already have the ear of the Government. In this instance, however, they do not have the ear of the Government that they are talking about, because it is a devolved matter. For future reference for the Committee, because it is an issue of the Scottish Government, it is slightly more complicated.

Patricia Gibson: I don’t know if that applies. They do not need the ear of the Scottish Government, because they will argue that powers should not be transferred to Scotland, which requires the ear of the UK Government.

Jess Phillips: Okay, fair. I just thought I would throw that in.

Chair: The other thing I would add is custom and practice. We have made exceptions to the normal rules about who can sign up when it applies to particular geographical areas, because it restricts the number of people who would be interested. We have done that for Cornwall and the south-west, Wales and the north-east of England.

Jess Phillips: Seaside towns as well, I think, in the past.

Chair: Yes. I think we might be okay.

Bob Blackman: I think it would help if the title of the application was “Devolution of welfare to the Scottish Parliament”. You have talked about the devolution of welfare, but the body of the text is all about Scotland, not Wales or Northern Ireland.

Patricia Gibson: It is always about Scotland.

Jess Phillips: Says the SNP.

Chair: I’m not sure if we just had the debate. Not to worry.

Norman Lamb and Helen Hayes made representations.

Q7                Chair: Lastly this afternoon, we have Norman Lamb and Helen Hayes on reducing restrictive intervention of children and young people. This is about restraint?

              Norman Lamb: It is, yes. We feel that this is an incredibly important subject that is largely hidden from public view. When I was a Minister in the Department of Health, we issued new guidance on the restraint of adults, with the aim of ending the use of prone restraint—face-down restraint—because it had been associated with several deaths and seemed to be dangerous.

There are all sorts of consequences of using restraint, particularly if you are dealing with someone who has been traumatised in the past—perhaps if they have suffered sexual abuse or something like that—and it is endemic in the system. When we issued that guidance, the plan was that it should be followed with guidance for children. That was in 2014. Of course, there is a difficulty, because the Department for Education is the lead, so I was not directly responsible for that new guidance. We are now in 2019, and we are still waiting.

Various surveys have been undertaken that show that the use of force is endemic in the system, and we know that children get injured. However, there is not even an obligation to inform parents when potentially significant force is used against a child, and there is no duty to report the number of occasions when restraint has been used, as there now is with adults.

This is a completely hidden area. When you think about residential schools, children’s homes, health units and assessment and treatment centres—particularly for children with mental ill health, a learning disability or autism—these are very vulnerable children, and we have no idea what is going on across the system.

We feel that this debate is really important to put pressure on the Government to get on and publish that guidance. Draft guidance was issued last year that many felt was not good enough; it was more about how restraint should be used, rather than how to avoid using it. We know that, in the majority of occasions, it is possible to avoid it completely if staff are properly trained.

We feel that this is really important. We have applied for a three-hour debate in the Chamber, with a motion that calls on the Government to publish the guidance. Apropos of your previous discussion, we have included Steve Reed, who is a shadow Minister, because he took his Bill through Parliament and now has it on the statute book. He has an acute interest in this issue and is very keen to speak in the debate. That is why he is on the list, if that is okay?

              Helen Hayes: I have very little to add to what Norman said, except that my insight into this area came out of a constituency case a couple of years ago of a young man with autism who was in a secure mental health hospital. When I visited him there, his parents had found that he was bruised and had suffered a broken wrist. He was not able to communicate what had happened to him, but it was pretty evident that those injuries had occurred as a consequence of restraint.

It was also clear to me that that practice was widespread in that institution. I am pretty confident that there are young people in every constituency in this country who are vulnerable and are in settings that are not equipped to appropriately manage and de-escalate their behaviour—the cause of which is often anxiety, rather than aggression—and who are therefore subject to inappropriate restraint.

I agree with Norman completely that the need to bring this very hidden issue into the open, and exert as much pressure from this place as we can on the Government to bring forward advice and a strengthening of the guidance as soon as possible, is really important.

Q8                Bob Blackman: Can I ask one quick question about the subject matter? What is the alternative? You talked, I think, about outlawing face-down restraint. What would be the alternative to that particular approach?

Norman Lamb: Let me give you an example. When I was a Minister, I went and visited a girl in the same institution, St Andrews in Northampton. She was 16 years old. She had been there for nearly two years, subject to constant use of restraint. We initiated a review that got her discharged. From the day she was discharged to when I visited her two years later, she had not been subject to restraint on a single occasion, all because the staff had been trained in how autism affected that individual. This is all about how you train staff. The insight, when you go to places where they have a policy of not using restraint, is that you realise it is possible in most cases—not all, but most cases—to avoid it completely, and when you do have to use it, to avoid using prone restraint because that is the most dangerous of all.

Helen Hayes: The same is true of my constituent, who was being restrained, we think, in the main in order to administer medication to calm his behaviour. Again, it was a big battle, but we managed to get him out and into a community setting where he is only on one, relatively mild, medication to control anxiety a little bit, with no big injections and absolutely no need for restraint, because they understand how to manage his behaviour. It speaks to the much bigger issue of the lack of expertise and understanding across the system, but it is avoidable.

Bob Blackman: Okay. I did not want to have the debate now, but I was genuinely interested.

Q9                Chair: So it is really more about the use of person-centred management?

Norman Lamb: Very much so, and increasing the understanding and awareness of how to deal with people who have complex conditions such as autism, learning disabilities or mental health, etc.

Helen Hayes: And the leadership role of Government in clarifying what should and should not happen in those settings.

Q10            Chair: Would it be the DFE answering the debate?

Norman Lamb: It would. I think it is planned as joint guidance now between DFE and Health, but DFE take the lead.

Chair: Thank you very much indeed. Are there any more questions? In that case, thank you very much for your application. That concludes this afternoon’s public utterances from us. We will now go into private session. Thank you very much indeed.