Covid-19: Response and Excess Deaths

Debate between Christopher Chope and Danny Kruger

Thursday 18th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope]

The key question is: do the people who are being prescribed the antibiotics know that there is a risk that they will die as a result of them being prescribed? If so, they are told that, but nobody who was affected by the covid-19 vaccines was told that they were anything other than absolutely safe and effective. That is the basis upon which a lot of the litigation will be founded.

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Hon. Members are suggesting that the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risks. They suggest in these debates that there is always a balance to be made, and I agree. But do they acknowledge that there is a risk attached to the vaccine, and that the excess deaths that we are describing can be attributed to the vaccine? They might suggest that the risk is outweighed by the enormous benefit of the vaccine by saving lives, but if they are suggesting that there is a risk that could help explain the excess deaths, that is not the Government’s position. Their position is that there is no link between the vaccines and the excess deaths. If they are suggesting that there is a link but it is outweighed by the benefits, that is a different argument.

Covid-19 Vaccine Damage Payments Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Danny Kruger

2nd reading
Friday 20th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

This is a very serious issue, which I first raised in the House back in the summer of 2021, on 21 June, when I presented what was then called the Covid-19 Vaccine Damage Bill. That Bill was given a short Second Reading debate on Friday 10 September 2021, and at the time I described it as being

“about all those who have suffered injury or even death as a result of enlisting in the war against covid by being vaccinated.”

I went on to say:

“There is a lot more damage being done to our citizens as a result of covid-19 vaccinations than in any other vaccination programme in history. That does not mean…that it is not worth while, and I am…not an anti-vaxxer…but what is important is that, if people do the right thing, they should not be denied access to”

—reasonable—

“compensation”. —[Official Report, 10 September 2021; Vol. 700, c. 630-631.]

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his campaign on behalf of so many of all our constituents who write to us expressing concern about the vaccine programme and, in particular, about the injuries scheme. Does he agree that it is very wrong for the media, and indeed colleagues here, to castigate campaigners for the vaccine-injured for being conspiracy theorists, anti-vaxxers and troublemakers? As my hon. Friend says, these are people who took the vaccine in response to a call from Government, and they deserve the support of not only the health service but the Government themselves if they turn out to have been injured by it.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his generous comments. He himself has been a valuable member of the all-party parliamentary group on covid-19 vaccine damage, and he is right to say that many people—not just our constituents in this country, but people elsewhere—feel that they have been ignored by the powers that be. There is a glimmer of hope, in that during the public inquiry into covid-19, Lady Hallett, when discussing the terms of reference for what is called the fourth module of the inquiry—which will take place next July—seemed very much minded to deal with the issues that my hon. Friend has mentioned and about which I continue to be concerned.

In order to emphasise that this is not just a subject for the United Kingdom, let me mention a book that was published recently. I declare an interest, as one of the contributors. “Canary In a Covid World: How Propaganda and Censorship Changed Our (My) World” is described as

“A collection of essays from 34 contemporary thought leaders.”

In my own essay, I said a great deal about these issues, including about the failure of our own vaccine damage payment scheme to recognise that people had suffered harm and, in some cases, bereavement as a result of the vaccines. We could not, I said, continue to ignore these pressures. It was encouraging to learn about all that is happening in other parts of the world from contributors in Canada, the United States, the rest of Europe, Australia and New Zealand. I have here a House of Commons Library edition of the book, and I am going to return it to the Library, so if any other Members want to have a look at it, they can.

Caravan Site Licensing (Exemptions of Motor Homes) Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Danny Kruger

2nd reading
Friday 3rd February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton) on the success of his important Bill completing Second Reading, and I thank him for giving me time to say a little bit about the Caravan Site Licensing (Exemptions of Motor Homes) Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, you will be familiar with the expression—I think it is an old Arabic proverb—“The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on”. The issue here is that a lot has happened since the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act was introduced in 1960, because motor homes and campervans are increasingly used as a substitute for static or towed caravans. The latest information I have from the National Caravan Council is that there might be more than 500,000 towed touring caravans and some 365,000 caravans used as holiday homes, many of which would be park homes. I am pleased to say that earlier today the Mobile Homes (Pitch Fees) Bill received its Second Reading in the other place, and that legislation is now due hopefully to get on to the statute book before the end of March.

There are 225,000 motor homes in this country, apparently, and some 16,000 new registrations in the most recent year for which there are statistics. It is in that context that I have tabled this Bill, which would amend the provisions in the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960. That Act was based on a 1959 report by Sir Arton Wilson on the problems of people living in caravans, which found that the principal problem was unclear and insufficient legislation that gave neither local nor planning authorities power to deal with caravan housing. The Act came into force on 29 August 1960, and section 29 of that legislation defines a “caravan” as

“any structure designed or adapted for human habitation which is capable of being moved from one place to another (whether by being towed, or by being transported on a motor vehicle or trailer) and any motor vehicle so designed or adapted, but does not include—

(a) any railway rolling stock which is for the time being on rails forming part of a railway system, or

(b) any tent”.

and adds that

“‘caravan site’ has the meaning assigned to it by subsection (4) of section one of this Act”,

obviously relating to the same definition of caravans.

Since 1960, what we now know as motor homes have come into the marketplace. The earliest camper vans in Europe were introduced by Volkswagen in 1947, and were essentially motorised trollies, but we now have purpose-built, carriage-built motor homes in large quantity.

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the Mobile Homes (Pitch Fees) Bill having its Second Reading in the other place—I am delighted that that Bill is making such good progress, and look forward to its remaining stages.

I listened carefully to my hon. Friend’s definition of a motor home just now, and the exclusions, including a tent and so on. Is he aware of whether houseboats qualify as motor homes or park homes? They are homes that are capable of moving from one place to another, so it would be interesting to hear my hon. Friend’s view on that. I raise that question in the context of the Government’s commitment to support homes that receive their energy off-grid with their energy bills. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that that money could be made available to people living in park homes and houseboats rather quicker than it is at the moment?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I hope that the Mobile Homes (Pitch Fees) Bill will make progress. I share his disappointment that the 100,000-plus residents of park homes will have to wait until 27 February to be even able to register in order to qualify for help under the energy bills support scheme. As a member of the all-party parliamentary group on park homes, my hon. Friend knows how hard we have lobbied to try to get that money brought forward sooner, and it is a great disappointment that it has not been. As far as houseboats are concerned, I do not think a houseboat is a motor vehicle, which is the essence of what we are talking about here. In order for something to be a motor vehicle, its owner has to be able to register it with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, and I do not think that houseboats can be registered in that way.

Getting back to the point, the Bill would change the definition of “motor home” so that motor homes, alongside tents and railway sleepers, would be excluded from the definition of a caravan, and would thereby be excluded from the site licensing arrangements that exist for caravan sites. The consequence of that would be to give a big boost to the motor homes sector, and to all those who travel in motor homes and have staycations in them—indeed, quite a lot of people come to our country in motor homes. At the moment, those people are discriminated against: they find it very difficult to park their vehicles overnight in council car parks, for example, because those vehicles are regarded as caravans, and the council may quite reasonably have a prohibition on caravans or say that the site is not licensed for them.

However, a motor home nowadays is essentially a self-contained unit which does not need access to fresh water, waste water, chemical toilets and other elements that we would regard as essential on a camp site or caravan site. Because all that equipment is already on board—tanks of fresh water and waste water, as well as chemical toilets—motor homes should surely be given the flexibility to operate more widely and with less restriction.

The current legislation prevents us from treating motor homes in this country in the same way as they are treated on the continent. As those who use them may know, on the continent there are a great many “aires” where people can stop overnight in their motor homes, with few restrictions, and go about their business. We do not have an equivalent provision in England, although many more aires have been developed in Scotland, for different legislative reasons. There is a real opportunity here for us to deregulate the sector and bring it up to date. We can do that by redefining what we mean by a motor home, and making it clear that it is excluded from the provisions of the caravan site licensing legislation.

Covid-19 Vaccines: Safety

Debate between Christopher Chope and Danny Kruger

Monday 24th October 2022 Westminster Hall

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady—I absolutely agree. This is a very important moment in which the Minister can hear from Members speaking on behalf of their constituents. I encourage far greater engagement with citizens who have suffered from vaccine damage, or even lost loved ones to it.

There may be innocent explanations for the rather terrifying facts I have mentioned; I very much hope there are. If these are conspiracy theories, we need them to be comprehensively and courteously debunked.

To close, I have four questions for the Minister. First, will she review the vaccination of children? Children have strong naturally acquired immunity, and the chance of death from covid for a healthy child is one in 2 million. I believe we should follow other countries, such as Denmark, and stop vaccinating children altogether. I invite the Minister to review that aspect of the policy.

Secondly, will the Minister make representations in Government, and to Baroness Hallett, on broadening the terms of reference for her inquiry, so that they explicitly include the efficacy and safety of the vaccines? I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington says, and he is absolutely right: the inquiry terms of reference include mention of the vaccination programme and its effects. He may well be right that that is sufficient, and that the review will properly consider the topics that we are discussing. I hope so, but that needs to be made more explicit; I invite the Minister to comment on that.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I wrote to Baroness Hallett, asking her to ensure that the terms of reference specifically covered the safety and impact of vaccines. As a result of representations, not just from me but from others, the terms of reference were amended to make it quite clear that vaccines, their impact and the potential damage done by them are included.

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful for that clarification. It causes me concern to hear that it took my hon. Friend’s representations to ensure that the inquiry will consider the effect of the vaccines. We need to go further and talk about efficacy and safety, not just impact. We need to be explicit about what questions we want answers to. These issues need to be covered directly. We need the public inquiry to consider these matters, because of the compromised nature of medical regulation in our country. I mentioned that the MHRA is funded by the pharmaceutical companies that produce the drugs and vaccines that it regulates. There might be some universe in which that makes sense, but this is not it. I do not think that is right.

Thirdly, we need to do a lot more for the injured and bereaved, as the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) said. I agree with all the recommendations of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, and we will hear from him shortly on what needs to be done to raise the threshold for compensation for the injured, and the speed of payouts. I agree with him that we need clinics for people with adverse reactions, just as we do for people with long covid.

Finally, we need to change the power imbalance. I am sorry, on behalf of Parliament, that this is the first proper debate that we have had on this subject. I regret that victims and families have had to struggle so hard to get engagement of the system. I hope that the Minister agrees to meet some of the people here, and other representatives of families affected by the vaccines, for a proper exchange of information and ideas, and I hope that she will request that Dame June Raine of the MHRA meets them, rather than ignoring letters for months.

A new Government take over this week. I hope that the Minister, who was appointed only recently, will stay in post, and that we can start a new chapter in the story of covid. No more remote power telling people what to do. Let us put truth and justice back into public life, and restore trust in the experts on whom we rely.

Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979

Debate between Christopher Chope and Danny Kruger

Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I agree absolutely with the hon. Gentleman. I describe him as a veteran of this issue, because he was one of the Members who participated in the 2015 debate to which I referred.

Many of those who have written to me have indicated that even a payment of £177,000 would be totally inadequate for the injuries and financial losses that they have suffered, including loss of earnings and the cost of care. The range of adverse conditions caused by the vaccines is extensive. By way of example, Mr Julian Gooddy of Henley has given me permission to disclose his circumstances because of his frustration at the lack of understanding by the Government.

Two weeks after his vaccine, Mr Gooddy experienced acute pain throughout his body. He developed Bell’s palsy, required treatment for his left eye, which would not close, and suffered bowel incontinence and severe fatigue. Peripheral numbness and pain in his upper legs, feet, neck and hands then developed. He was in and out of the accident and emergency department at the John Radcliffe Hospital for two weeks, being prescribed steroids, pain killers and undertaking multiple MRI and CT scans, electromyographs and nerve conduction studies. He then collapsed at home in pain and was admitted as an in-patient for five days of intravenous immunoglobulin in an effort to halt the continuing nerve damage caused by the autoimmune response to the vaccine. He was then diagnosed with Guillain-Barré syndrome, which is an autoimmune disease in which the body attacks its own myelin sheath.

Does my hon. Friend the Minister, having listened to the circumstances of Mr Gooddy, believe that his case meets the 60% disablement threshold? I have received so many other reports of complicated symptoms, which have been a real nightmare for our hard-working NHS to address and for which there are, in many cases, no cure.

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

As we can tell from the distressing stories that my hon. Friend is telling, this is an important debate, and I regret the empty Chamber. He is a brave Member of the House who speaks his own mind in defiance of conventional wisdom. Does he agree that the same goes for a large number of doctors and scientists who are also defying conventional wisdom to raise concerns about the safety and efficacy of the vaccines, particularly when it comes to the vaccination of children, which the Government are now encouraging? Does he also agree that the Government should be as transparent and open as possible about the risks and the safety and efficacy of the vaccines?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Absolutely. I have been in correspondence with constituents who work at the Royal Bournemouth Hospital and Poole Hospital who have expressed their concerns. One of the reasons many people with medical expertise are worried about it is that they have seen such examples in their work.

My hon. Friend refers to the issue of encouraging more child vaccines to be administered, but if we are going to do that, as well as it being important for the parents of those children to appreciate the risk as they are thinking about it, surely we should be able to give them the secure knowledge that if something goes wrong and if against everybody’s expectations, those vaccines turn out to have dire and life-changing consequences that last for 40 or 50 years or longer, the Government are on their side. At the moment, I am afraid that there is no evidence that the Government are on the side of those hapless victims of vaccine damage.

In recent months, I have received hundreds of emails reporting deaths and serious illnesses involving immune thrombocytopenic purpura, which causes the number of blood platelets to be reduced. On 10 January, in question 100420, I asked the Minister what was being done to investigate the 427 suspected cases of that and if the Government will make it their policy to inform those affected of the availability of the vaccine damage payment scheme.

Following my point of order yesterday, complaining about the Government’s failure to respond to my questions, I received a response from the Minister yesterday evening, which stated:

“Following a scientific assessment of all the available data and a review by the Commission on Human Medicines’ COVID-19 Vaccines Benefit Risk Expert Working Group, it was determined that an association between the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine and TTS”—

thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome—

“was likely.”

I hope that she will unravel the jargon in that answer and confirm in simple terms that that means that in the cases to which I have referred, causation has now been established and there should be no bar to the compensation scheme coming into effect.

Will the Minister also answer the part of my question relating to whether the Government will notify those 427 families affected by that particular aspect of the availability of the VDPS? Surely that would be the most basic humane response. Why have the Government not responded to that at all? As you can probably tell, Mr Deputy Speaker, this is making me angry. In my point of order, I referred to five other named day questions that had not been answered and they remain unanswered. Will she apologise and explain?

Many correspondents from constituencies across the United Kingdom remain sceptical about whether they will qualify under the VDPS. The issue has all the hallmarks of becoming a bureaucratic nightmare for victims and their families. Why should the Government force those people to go through the ordeal and delay of having to seek expensive legal help instead of enabling their representatives in Parliament to be given the information necessary to establish their claims? That is why those parliamentary questions and this debate are relevant, because it would enable our constituents to establish their claims without having to go to the law.

The scale of this vaccine nightmare is now such that the number of vaccine damage cases exceeds all cases arising from previous vaccine programmes. In answer to question 92799, the Minister confirmed that, as at 15 December 2021, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency had received and analysed a total of 410,232 yellow card reports: 145,446 from people who received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, 240,065 from those who received the AstraZeneca vaccine and 24,721 from those who received the Moderna vaccine. Some patients were reported to have died shortly after vaccination: 666 in the Pfizer reports, 1,164 in the AstraZeneca reports and 23 in the Moderna reports. There are people dying from this vaccine, but not many—well, actually quite a large number, and far more than we see in the tragedies that quite rightly detain this House for hours on end. I think this is a tragedy that demands the attention of the House and of the Minister.

As not all those who died shortly after vaccination will have died because of the vaccine, I thought it was fair to ask a further question as to the number of such cases where the yellow card analysis showed that the death would have happened regardless of the vaccine or medicine being administered. I asked this question to help promote vaccine confidence and to prevent inaccurate conclusions from being reached. Much to my disappointment and dismay, that question has not been answered in a timely fashion or at all. Why not, one asks? Surely the Government must have this information, and their failure to produce it can only help further raise suspicions of a lack of transparency. The Government almost seem to be in denial about all this.

The reluctance of the Government to provide timely information is further exemplified by the delay in updating the information provided as at 15 December. Almost three months have now elapsed since then, and the Government have ducked my further question about sharing the results of the MHRA analysis of yellow cards for patients in respect of whom they were received. Since the last report, we have had a mass of booster vaccines, and some people have written to me saying that they have suffered dire consequences as a result.

I expect that, in her response, the Minister will point out that the vaccine damage payment scheme does not preclude individuals from bringing claims against the manufacturers for product liability. We know, however, that the Government decided to indemnify and thereby exclude manufacturers from potential liability, but we do not know the terms. In her answer to question 92800 of 14 February 2022, the Minister said that her Department is

“providing indemnities in the unexpected event of any adverse reactions that could not have been foreseen through the robust checks and procedures put in place.”

She said, however, that she was unable to provide information about the terms of those contracts between the Government and vaccine manufacturers as they are commercially sensitive. In those circumstances, should those who have suffered adverse reactions that could not have been foreseen through the robust checks and procedures put in place be making claims against the Government or the manufacturers, or both? I hope the Minister is listening to this question, because it is in the public interest that she gives a definitive answer. People are champing at the bit in wondering whether they need to make claims against the manufacturers or the Government, or whether they can rely on the VDPS.

In introducing the vaccine damage payment legislation in 1979, the then Secretary of State for Social Services, David Ennals, referred to the “humane motivation” of the legislation, and said that

“it is important, since its aim is to provide a measure of financial support to people severely disabled as a result of vaccination, and to their families and others involved in looking after them. There can be no doubt that those concerned pay a high price in terms of personal disablement…and that their families share in that price.

For most people, vaccination is a beneficial procedure, and it is right for the community to give financial aid and support to those who suffer as the result of vaccinations given as part of the public policy programme.”—[Official Report, 5 February 1979; Vol. 962, c. 32.]

That is what he said all those years ago, and those sentiments remain as relevant as ever today. I hope that, as a result of this debate, the Government will, through their actions, show that they share those sentiments. As the Prime Minister said, the victims of covid-19 vaccine damage are not statistics and “must not be ignored”—not for any longer, anyway.

Support for Children and Families: Covid-19

Debate between Christopher Chope and Danny Kruger

Tuesday 20th October 2020 Westminster Hall

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members for their patience during the security scare, but all has now been satisfactorily resolved. This is a one and a half hour debate; it will start now and finish at 25 minutes past 11. One Member has chosen to withdraw from the list as he will not be able to be here between 11 am and 11.25 am. If there are others in a similar position, they can notify the Chair accordingly.

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered support for children and families during the covid-19 outbreak.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) and my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) for supporting the application for this debate. We have become used to hearing that the pandemic has exacerbated the inequalities that existed in our society, and that we need to build back better. I do not intend to change that script. I want to start with some observations about family life under covid-19 and draw some lessons for the future.

I was very much a witness to the inequalities under lockdown. I spent it with my family in Wiltshire during the beautiful spring and early summer, watching the barley slowly ripen, under skies clear of planes; cycling on roads clear of cars. It was an idyllic existence. However, every day my inbox would fill with emails from families in crisis. I used to work with children and families at risk in disadvantaged parts of London, and I have some sense as to what parents in overcrowded accommodation without enough money must have been through this year. For families who were already in trouble, financially or emotionally, the pandemic has been a disaster. Rates of domestic violence have soared, alcohol and substance abuse have increased, people’s mental health has suffered, and, of course, poverty has worsened.

Save the Children reports that 40% of families have become worse off, and 20% of families have made use of food banks. Personal debt has risen dramatically, and children are the principal victims here, especially children with disabilities, looked-after children, and all those who really rely on support outside the home—support which in many cases disappeared during lockdown, and will remain unavailable in areas under local lockdowns.

I acknowledge how much the measures put in place by the Government have helped many of these families: universal credit, the brainchild of the my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), has worked with incredible efficiency. It is a tribute to him and the current Ministers, and to the thousands of officials and jobcentre staff who manage that system. The £20 per week uplift has been a lifeline for countless families. Likewise the mortgage holidays, the protection against eviction, the furlough scheme and the self-employment income support scheme. The Government put a defensive ring around families’ homes and incomes and I pay tribute to them.

I want to pay tribute not only to the Government, but to the families themselves, or should I say “the family” as an institution. The resilience, capability and adaptability and the hidden resources of care and skill that families found in this crisis are extraordinary. The families are the single most important system for what we used to call social security. They have been the most effective defence against disaster for children and adults. They are the single greatest asset that we have as a country.

I mention this because it is right that we focus on these dreadful problems, but we also need to consider the conditions for success, to accentuate the positive, as Bing Crosby said, not just eliminate the negative. However, to eliminate the negative first, I have two simple principles to suggest to address the current crisis for families.

The first principle is that of greater support around the family through more investment in the social infrastructure of communities, especially civil society, especially through the family hubs that my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton and others have championed so assiduously and that are found in the Conservative manifesto. I would also like to see expansion of the help to claim and the flexible support fund. We are inching towards the vision my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green has for what he called universal support: a package of help provided by charities and community groups alongside the cash provided by universal credit.

The second immediate step that we should be taking to eliminate the negative, in order to meet the needs of families in trouble right now, is to invest directly in them. I respect the arguments of those who want to maintain the £20 a week uplift for all UC claimants beyond next April, but I would point out that it would not only cost nearly £6 billion a year but that half of those claimants do not have children, and in my view we should focus on households with children, aka families.

Let me finish with some high-level thoughts on how to accentuate the positive and strengthen families from within over the long term, so that people are better insulated against whatever shocks and challenges the next decades will throw at us. Here, I have to challenge what I see as a malign alliance of left and right, or more specifically liberals on the left and the right, who are the dominant force in both our tribes. By the way, I exclude from my idea of “liberal” the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, a Liberal Democrat. Where is he? Not here—withdrawn. He is a sound conservative in my book, but he is not here to defend himself against my suggestion that he is not really a liberal but a good conservative.

Anyway, liberals of left and right might disagree on the proper size and role of Government, but they agree that government and society in general should not try to influence family life. I think they are wrong and that government should seek to influence family life, because it does so anyway; it influences the choices that people make all the time. When it pretends to be neutral, its influence is no less real but is a lot less positive.

The policies that we have created in this country over many decades actively, although not intentionally, pull families apart. Our housing policy has created the smallest homes and our jobs market has created the longest commutes in Europe. We have childcare subsidies that only work for people if they put their kids into a nursery for most of the day, and we have a higher education system that makes young people study far from home for jobs that only exist in big cities. We have a social care system that only pays out to people if they put their parents into residential care or makes them sell the family home to pay for it. Most of all, we actively disincentivise family stability by penalising couples who live together. We pay couples more in benefits if they live apart. We tax people as individuals, which means we tax single-earner couples particularly hard, and then we compensate them in benefits. We then punish them for coming off benefits and moving into work with a very high effective marginal tax rate. I recognise that universal credit has greatly reduced that rate, but it remains too high. We have high taxes and high benefits, and we still leave families in poverty.

In contrast to the malign alliance of liberals who think that family life is no business of wider society and of the Government, I have a view of what good looks like. Before I cause alarm—I can sense the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) beginning to twitch—I should emphasise that I am not conjuring up the 1950s, with the nuclear family centred on the housewife. As David Brooks has written, the 1950s nuclear family, the single-earner household living literally detached from wider kin and community, was a brief and unsuccessful experiment only made tolerable by Valium. As Mary Harrington has argued, the trad wife—#tradwife, as it is trendily known in some conservative circles—is a historic anomaly. The really traditional wife was a trade wife; she was not just a domestic consumer, but a fully engaged player in the local economy. What I am getting at is that we need to recognise and support the economy of households and not just of individuals. You will know, Sir Christopher, that the economy of households is actually a tautology, because the etymology of our word “economy” is in fact the Greek world word for household—the oikos. The oikos was the smallest viable social unit, the foundation of society, and we need to strengthen it.

Yes, that means support for one-earner couples. I applaud the work of the Centre for Social Justice and the Centre for Policy Studies, and “A Manifesto To Strengthen Families”, led by the friend of many of us here, David Burrowes. They all call for an end to the couple penalty in the tax system. When Nigel Lawson introduced individual taxation in 1990, he always intended to let married couples share their combined personal allowances if one of them did not do paid work. Mrs Thatcher— possibly like the hon. Member for Walthamstow, who in so many ways she resembles—was not sympathetic to stay-at-home mothers.

We need to get this matter right, so that people who choose to work—unpaid—by looking after children or elderly relatives, or by helping in their community, are not penalised for doing so. My idea of what good looks like is both more old-fashioned than in the 1950s and more progressive; it is both medieval and modern, which I am sure Members will agree is what we should be aiming for in all things. Two parents where possible, multigenerational where possible, with both parents able to work from or close to home, in paid employment or self-employment, or caring for others without pay, and engaged in the local community. That is the vision that I think would command the support of the public. Middle-class families such as mine had a glimpse of that model during the lockdown, and I hope we can achieve it for everyone.