Social Security and Employment Support for Disabled People

Debate between Kate Green and Sarah Newton

Wednesday 6th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Newton]

I thank my hon. Friend for that very important question. She is absolutely right about the absolute commitment of my colleagues in the DWP to ensure that the Scottish Government can take on those powers. We have not created any delays whatsoever; the delays are all in Holyrood.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

A few moments ago, in Prime Minister’s questions, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) raised the case of a constituent who turned up for a disability assessment, was faced with a long wait and eventually had to rebook the appointment. The Prime Minister suggested that she or perhaps the Minister before us would look into the case, but it is not an isolated matter. I, too, have constituents with exactly the same experience, including a gentleman who last month at an appointment with the Centre for Health and Disability Assessments was forced to wait for an hour and 40 minutes, despite having told the CHDA that the nature of his condition meant that he would need to be seen very quickly.

I very much welcome the Minister’s offer to place in the Library information about the contract that has been issued to the assessment companies. We need to be able to scrutinise the performance standards and the rate at which the companies are achieving or failing to meet them. Will she repeat that commitment to the House, so that we can be absolutely clear that the information will be available to us?

[Sarah Newton]

I was not in Prime Minister’s questions to hear that particular example, but of course I will follow it up with great urgency. It is not acceptable for people to have appointments cancelled at the last minute or to be asked to wait. That is certainly not the service that we expect from our contractors.

I have made the commitment to publish the standards that we are insisting on in the contract. We monitor compliance with the standards very carefully, and there are penalties in the contract if people fall short of the high standards that we expect of them. Every person with a health condition or disability must be treated with respect and dignity.

Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Ratification of Convention) Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Kate Green and Sarah Newton

Committee Debate: House of Commons
Wednesday 1st February 2017 Public Bill Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sarah Newton)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mrs Main. I welcome the tone and spirit with which my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan opened this debate, and the opportunity to continue our work together. I am grateful to all hon. Members who have given up their time this afternoon; it is a pivotal day in Parliament, not just because we are talking about this very important Bill, but because of the debate in the Chamber, and I am grateful to those who have prioritised being in this Committee Room. It underlines the cross-party support for what we are doing.

We remain absolutely committed to ratifying the Istanbul convention. Combating violence against women and girls remains a top priority for the Government; the Prime Minister has made that absolutely clear, as have the Home Secretary and I. Since we signed the convention in 2012, the UK has made significant progress towards ratification. In most respects, we are already compliant with the convention’s requirements or we go further than them. We have put a range of measures in place to tackle VAWG—violence against women and girls—including criminalising forced marriage; allowing women to request information on their partner’s criminal history; introducing new laws on stalking and female genital mutilation; rolling out domestic violence protection orders; and introducing new domestic abuse offences.

We know that there is more to do. Last March, we published our new cross-Government VAWG strategy, which sets out our ambition that by the end of this Parliament no victim of abuse will be turned away from the support they need. To support that, we have increased funding, pledging £80 million through to 2020. We recently published a national statement of expectations, to set out what local commissioners need to put in place to ensure that their response to VAWG is effective; new guidance on domestic homicide reviews; and a new domestic abuse statistical tool and data set. We have announced our intention to introduce a new stalking protection order.

We are making progress, but before we ratify the convention we must ensure that the UK is fully compliant with it. There remains just one outstanding issue relating to extraterritorial jurisdiction, which I will call ETJ today for the purposes of brevity, that we have to address. Article 44 requires that all signatories take the necessary legislative measures to establish ETJ over any offence established in accordance with the convention. The UK already exercises ETJ in relation to many serious offences, including forced marriage, FGM and sexual offences against children. However, there are some VAWG offences to which it does not yet apply. Introducing ETJ for the remaining offences requires primary legislation and, as my colleagues at the Ministry of Justice have highlighted to Parliament, the Government will seek to legislate as soon as time allows.

In addition, Northern Ireland and Scotland also need to legislate on ETJ. We therefore need to allow sufficient time for their respective Governments to do that. We realise the importance of getting on with this matter. We liaise regularly with the devolved Administrations on VAWG and I have been in touch with my counterparts about the Bill. MOJ officials have also had informal contact with their counterparts about the ETJ requirements of article 44 and we will continue to liaise closely with the devolved Administrations on this issue. I am sure that all hon. Members know that, at the moment, that is quite challenging for Northern Ireland, given the situation there, but that does not diminish our commitment. Nevertheless, it means that we must be realistic about the amount of time that we need to spend on this issue.

On Second Reading, the Minister for Policing and the Fire Service made it clear that the Government supported the Bill in principle but that further consideration of the detail was needed. We have now had time to consider the Bill in detail and our intention is to propose amendments on Report. I would like to take this opportunity to set out the direction of, and rationale behind, those amendments.

Clause 1 would require the Government to take “all reasonable steps” necessary to ratify the convention

“as soon as reasonably practicable”.

The Government fully support the aim behind the clause, which is to ensure that we deliver on our commitment to ratify the convention. However, as Members will appreciate, because one of the steps that we and the devolved Administrations need to take will require primary legislation to introduce ETJ, there is a danger that the clause could be interpreted as imposing a duty on the Government to legislate. In effect, that would pre-empt the will of Parliament. Much as the Government always want to get our own way in Parliament, we cannot take that for granted. We must acknowledge the democratic processes that need to happen in Parliament.

Therefore, we will table an amendment to remove clause 1, while ensuring that the spirit behind it is captured by the remaining clauses. Once again, I would like to put on the record the Government’s commitment to ratifying the convention. The proposed removal of the clause does not change that in any way, shape or form.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I apologise if this is a stupid question, but I would be grateful for the Minister’s answer to it. I understand what she says about the will of Parliament. However, if this legislation were passed with the wording in the Bill, as tabled, would that not mean Parliament had expressed its will?

[Sarah Newton]

I have discussed this matter a great deal with the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, who is promoting the Bill, and taken a lot of advice from expert parliamentary draftsmen. We just want to make sure that there is absolutely no confusion in what we are attempting to do. When the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston has the opportunity to read the amendments—of course, there will be further opportunities to discuss the Bill on Report—I think she will see that in no way, shape or form are we diminishing the commitment that the Bill seeks to place on the Government to ratify the convention. We have been crystal clear: we want to ratify the convention. It is just a question of using the appropriate language to make sure that we put the matter beyond doubt.

We fully support the requirements of clause 2. It would introduce a requirement on the Government to lay a report, setting out the steps to be taken to enable the UK to ratify the convention and the timescale for doing that. However, we have concerns about the four-week timescale. The Committee will recognise the need to ensure that a more proportionate timeframe is in place, given that in order to set out when we intend to ratify, we need to be clear about the likely timescales for putting in place the necessary legislation on ETJ. We need a proper amount of time to have our discussions with the devolved Administrations so that we can give a realistic timeframe.

Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grant Bill

Debate between Kate Green and Sarah Newton

Tuesday 26th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green]

Absolutely. Although you will not want this evening’s debate to extend into the whole range of economic policy, Mr Deputy Speaker, clearly, a strategy for growth and increasing tax receipts will be vital to protect the poorest families.

[Sarah Newton]

I, too, appreciate the hon. Lady’s expertise, but I must point her to the growth in the UK economy, which I hope she is reading about in the newspapers. We should celebrate the fact that we have the second-fastest growth rate in the G20.

[Kate Green]

I very much welcome the growth in the UK economy in the third quarter of this year, but, with respect, it is early days for Government Members to take all the credit for that. I suspect that it was the fiscal stimulus put into the economy by the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer that underpinned the ability of businesses to continue to hire and of people to stay in work. All Labour Members genuinely hope that that long tail effect will continue, but we feel that it is at risk.

On the savings aspects of the Bill, I cannot understand the Government’s logic, given their stated ambitions to reduce inequality and to encourage a savings habit and, in the case of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the strong focus on helping people to reduce and stay out of debt. The child trust fund and saving gateway have helped low-income savers to acquire a savings habit and have assisted their money management. As child poverty has fallen since 2005, the child poverty impact of the measures is beside the point, because they have not diverted money from successful strategies to tackle child poverty, but are in addition to those strategies. They were intended to take on board the evidence of the protective effect of having an asset, which is especially important in social mobility.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green]

I think that the Government should be very wary about dismantling a scheme that has generated additional savings, for exactly the reason that my hon. Friend has given.

What concerns me most is the impact of the Bill on the Government’s commitment to reducing inequality. We already have a significantly unequal distribution of assets. Up to 20% of households have no assets at all. The highest-earning 10% hold half the assets, and two thirds of households have savings of less than £3,000. I accept that we are not handing on a proud record to the incoming Government, but I would have expected them to conduct a rigorous equality impact assessment of their own proposals as a result of their determination to do a little better than that.

The equality impact assessment that accompanies the Bill is thin in the extreme. It fails in any way to recognise the lower earning power in the labour market of women, disabled people and members of ethnic minorities: a lower earning power that translates into a lesser ability to set money aside in savings, and ultimately, therefore, into lower asset holding. Its analysis of the saving habits of members of ethnic minorities is scanty, although research from the Runnymede Trust would have informed the Government quite quickly that at least 60% of Asian and black British families have no savings at all. The fact that that is twice the number of white households in the same position should concern us greatly.

[Sarah Newton]

I am just as passionate about the inequalities in our country as Labour Members, and I am sure that I speak for all Conservative Members. Our drive to enter politics was prompted by a wish to end the vast inequalities that have arisen over the past decade. Does the hon. Lady agree that the best way to help people to help themselves in that regard is through education and employment?

[Kate Green]

It is not a case of either/or. We should be doing everything possible. We should be maximising families’ financial stability and security through education, employment and a redistribution of income and wealth.

One misconception should be properly analysed. It is absolutely not the case that inequality rose exponentially under Labour. In fact, it more or less flatlined. It rose a bit during the last couple of years of Labour government, but according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies—admittedly not the Government’s favourite think tank—without the measures taken by Labour between 1997 and 2010, given the trends experienced under the previous Conservative Government, it would have been very much worse.

The hon. Lady and other Members on the Government Benches are right to say that we are all anxious to reduce inequalities; what I do not understand is how on earth the Government think that proposals of this kind will do that. How on earth do they think that removing the saving gateway will address the gender inequality involved in the fact that women have 40% less in savings than men? How on earth do they think that removing the child trust fund and the saving gateway—benefits that provided extra money or extra access for people with disabilities—will deal with the inequality of disabled people?