Draft Social Security Coordination (Regulation (EC) No 987/2009) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 Draft Social Security Coordination (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and Council Regulation (EC) No 859/2003) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 Draft Social Security Coordination (Regulation (EC) No 574/72) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 Draft Social Security Coordination (Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, EEA Agreement and Swiss Agreement) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Mike Amesbury Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2019 General Committees

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I thank the Minister for outlining the Government’s position on the regulations. I am less thankful to the Government for causing us once again to be in a Committee discussing detailed statutory instruments, regulations and amendments that will affect thousands of people, when we have little or no idea of exactly what our relationship with the European Union will be in just a few days’ time.

In June 2018, there were 3.7 million EU nationals living in the UK. The most recent figure we have, which is for 2017, put the number of UK nationals living in other EU states, excluding Ireland, at 750,000 people. The current situation is causing incredible uncertainty for those people.

As we all know, Brexit is a divisive issue. From where we are now, it seems we can all agree that the statement made by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) in July 2016 that,

“Getting out of the EU can be quick and easy—the UK holds most of the cards in any negotiation”,

has not aged well. Certainly, from the explanatory notes associated with the regulations, it does not appear that we hold all the cards; in fact, quite the opposite. Having read the regulations in detail, if this is “quick and easy”, I would hate to see what constitutes technical, difficult and protracted. However, we are where we are.

Unfortunately, there is the strong possibility of no deal in nine days’ time. That is the crux of the issue. Paragraph 2.4 of the explanatory note states:

“The whole system…relies on cooperation and reciprocity from other Member States”—

as the Minister rightly said—

“but we cannot assume this would continue in a no deal scenario. It will not be possible to impose reciprocal obligations on Member States…such as requiring that they cooperate with the UK”

to provide information. Indeed, the regulations adopted yesterday by the European Council reaffirm this.

Countries usually have a minimum number of qualifying years for a state pension. When people move between one EU member state and another, the system for social security co-ordination allows contributions made in one member state to count towards the state pension of another. There are nearly half a million retired people—some 468,000 of them—living in other EU states where they draw a UK state pension. The largest numbers are in Ireland, where there are 132,700, and Spain, where there are 106,400, but there are 67,000 living in France, 42,100 in Germany and 35,200 in Italy. Those figures include not only UK citizens, but citizens of other EU states who have worked in the UK and built up pension and social security entitlements here.

The UK state pension is already the lowest in the OECD and the state pensions of people drawing them in other EU states have been hit by the devaluation of sterling following Brexit. What assessment has the Minister made of the likelihood and consequences of any member state refusing to co-operate? Does the Minister have a more recent estimate of the number of people who could be affected should this scenario occur?

The explanatory memorandum tells us:

“These instruments aim to ensure that citizens’ rights are protected”—

as the Minister rightly said—

“as far as possible in a no-deal scenario.”

That is a necessary and welcome aim, but we should all be concerned by the phrase “as far as possible”, because it leaves open the suggestion that citizens may not be protected. Indeed, the intention to remove article 4 of regulation 883/2004 reaffirms that. What assessment has the Minister made of the likelihood of individuals’ rights being affected in a no-deal scenario? What rights are they and what might the consequences be?

One of the key concerns is data-sharing. The regulations enable the Government to ask claimants to provide relevant data, within a reasonable time, to determine competence because an EU member state has not been able to do so when asked. What assessment have the Government made of claimants’ ability to source and provide that information in a manner acceptable to the Government? Will the Government produce guidance to assist claimants so that they know what they might need and what they might need to do in order to provide the necessary information?

We are told that if the information provided by the claimant is insufficient, the UK will no longer be required to fulfil any obligation under the co-ordination regulations. The UK will, of course, cease to be represented on the bodies that deal with disputes in this area and will no longer have those powers or functions. What, if anything, does the Minister think will replace those bodies, and what safeguards are there to ensure that individuals are not left in complete limbo, given the absence of the provisional payments that exist in the EU system?

There is particular concern about medical assessments, employment and support allowance, and state pensions. The Government already have a record of underpayments in this kind of circumstance—for example, 210,000 people are currently affected by ESA underpayments. What assessment has the Minister made of the capacity and ability of the Department to avoid any problems in this area?

We hope that the Minister can provide satisfactory answers to our questions, and we look forward to hearing them and responding constructively. What is not satisfactory, however, is the fact that we are having to do this at all. Paragraph 11.1 of the explanatory notes states:

“In the event of a no deal scenario, guidance will be provided in due course and in adequate time in order to adapt these amendments in practice.”

We are nine days away from exit day. Is that really adequate time? The Government expect claimants to accept that the DWP needs five weeks to process and pay a universal credit claim—something the Opposition dispute—but here we are, expecting the Department to prepare for relationships with 27 other EU member states in a little over a week. It is no wonder that an impact assessment has not been prepared—there would barely have been time to read it, let alone respond to its findings. This is, of course, a matter of concern.

With that in mind, will the Minister confirm why he believes that these changes will not give rise to any new costs or financial or economic impact beyond the status quo? It might be expected in the case of no deal that, should the potential consequences of a refusal to co-operate come to pass, there may well be some cost to the Government in supporting, administering and responding to such a situation. Will the Minister confirm whether the Department believes that there is likely to be any impact or any consequences in respect of legal challenges, or any wider costs of individuals returning to the UK from other member states as a result of a loss of entitlements there?

Given that it is necessary to deal with the situation as we find it, rather than as we might expect it to be had the Government had an effective and competent approach to Brexit, we do not intend to oppose the draft regulations, but we cannot give them enthusiastic support either. I hope that the Minister can answer the concerns and queries that I have outlined.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Amesbury Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

I point out to the hon. Lady that we have made available more childcare that is both better and lower-cost. A person can now have 85% of their childcare costs paid under universal credit. We have also made sure, as I said in a recent announcement, that work coaches have the wherewithal, through the flexible support grant, to give that money to people who need it early on in the process.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

Ministers may like to claim that nobody will be worse off on universal credit, but people transferring through natural migration get no protection against loss of income, even though they may just have moved home. Will the Secretary of State tell the House what the Government will do to ensure that nobody is left worse off?

[Amber Rudd]

I ask the hon. Gentleman to engage with the change that is universal credit. People were left to languish on previous legacy benefits, and were not helped into work at all. We now have a system where the money is focused on trying to help people into work. That is why we have seen the changes with the work allowance, and why we have seen additional support from the Chancellor. It is a different system from that point of view.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alok Sharma]

Well, 75% of the jobs that have been created since 2010 are permanent, full time and in high-level occupations that attract high wages. Of course, my hon. Friend is right that we need to do even more to upskill people and help them enter better-paid work. That is why, across the Government, we are investing in higher level apprenticeships, technical skills and a national retraining scheme.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

Last month’s unemployment figures showed rises in six areas, including the north-east. There are more than 800,000 people on zero-hours contracts and wages are £9 a week lower than in 2008. Will the Minister describe how he intends to address job insecurity, low pay and the clear failure of the Government to tackle regional inequalities?

[Alok Sharma]

The hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, be aware that since 2010 employment has gone up in every region and country of the United Kingdom. As I have pointed out, 75% of the new jobs are in high-level occupations. He talked about zero-hours contracts. He will know that there has been a drop in the number of zero-hours contracts over the past year. Ultimately, he talked about failure. The only failure we recognise is that absolutely every Labour Government have left unemployment higher than when they entered office.

Draft Chemicals (Health and Safety) and Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) (Amendment Etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Mike Amesbury Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2019 General Committees

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister, and you, Mr Hanson; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I sincerely hope there are no further pings. Hon. Members will be pleased to hear that I do not intend to offer a line-by-line commentary on the SI. It is vital that the regulation of UK chemicals and genetically modified organisms continues to operate effectively at the point at which the UK leaves the EU. Her Majesty’s Official Opposition will not oppose the instrument, as the intent is to ensure the operability of the relevant legislation.

The chemical and pharmaceutical industry adds £18 billion of value to the UK economy every year from a total annual turnover of £50 billion. It employs 500,000 people directly and through supply chains, and has annual exports of £50 billion, with 63% of companies in the sector exporting what they make to the world. That is the highest proportion of any goods manufacturing sector in the UK economy.

Sixty per cent. of the exports go to the European Union, and 75% of the imports and raw materials come from the European Union; that is a vital point. The chemicals industry has been and remains a major presence in my constituency of Weaver Vale and the surrounding area, so the regulations are of particular interest to my constituents and many major employers including Ineos-Inovyn and Tata Chemicals.

The regulation and labelling of chemicals is an issue not only for those who manufacture, produce and sell them, but for all of us who use them on a day-to-day basis, whether directly in the form of household goods or medical products, or indirectly in relation to the food we eat and the environment we enjoy. As the Minister said, that means it is vitally important that we get the regulations right.

Although we welcome the general commitment to ensure that chemicals and GMO legislation continues to operate effectively after Brexit and the apparent intent to avoid any deregulatory impact, we have a number of questions about how that will work in practice. We also believe that the instruments cannot properly be considered in isolation, without recognising a wider problem of the uncertainty and instability of Brexit for the chemicals industry.

There is a lack of clarity regarding the Government’s policy on genetically modified foods and what that policy will be in the future. The SI would give the Secretary of State for Environment the power to regulate genetically modified organisms within a research laboratory or biotechnological production facility that are not released into the environment. The Secretary of State has already said that the Government might take a positive attitude to gene editing to develop higher-yielding crops or more valuable livestock. The Opposition want to see guarantees that post-Brexit there will not be a more relaxed policy on GM than the one that the EU currently operates.

Crucially, the instrument is being laid at a time when the Health and Safety Executive—the body being tasked with picking up much of the work and responsibilities required to regulate the safety of chemicals and the workers’ rights mentioned by the Minister—is dealing with budget cuts of 40% from 2010 to 2017, and when the Government have yet to respond to the most recent tailored review.

In short, we recognise the need for this statutory instrument, but we have concerns about the mechanisms to be used for delivery. We believe that the context in which they are being taken—one of cuts and potential chaos—has made the situation much more difficult and even more risky than it might otherwise have been. As such, we have a number of questions about today’s proposals that need to be clarified. I intend to go through them in turn in the hope that the Minister may be able to answer some of them.

Paragraph 3.5 of the explanatory memorandum states:

“After Exit, the same UK regulatory scientists will recommend updates to ensure the continued protection of people, the environment, and the interests of UK business for the UK only, not as part of the EU system. Where ministers agree with the recommendation, they will issue a decision to this effect and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) will then ensure that the updates are given effect from an agreed date, and alert duty-holders to changes.”

What processes are in place for any scrutiny and to challenge the Secretary of State about decisions on recommendations, particularly if there is a scenario where the Minister does not agree with the scientific recommendation?

At present, there is scrutiny of regulation by the European Parliament and by member states through the Council of Ministers, as well as supporting committees at EU level. The existing system allows for industry, trade unions, non-governmental organisations and technical experts to contribute to shaping regulation, and it is vital that there is no reduction in scrutiny, challenge or consultation. These regulations do not provide for any equivalent means by which stakeholders and experts in the field can help to ensure that regulation is robust and fit for purpose. Can the Minister confirm that the Health and Safety Executive will be given all the necessary funding and support to carry out its new responsibilities?

Paragraph 3.7 refers to the

“well-established policy of HSE to set fees to recover the full costs of its regulatory activities”.

What guarantees are in place to ensure that the HSE fee cost is considered proportionate and fair by all concerned, and that it accurately reflects the full cost of intervening? The tailored review of the HSE made clear the importance of the tripartite partnership for the HSE; indeed, assessing fair and reasonable costs can only be done on that basis. In the absence of a formal response to the report, it would be welcome to hear the Minister recognise the importance of the tripartite partnership for the Health and Safety Executive in ensuring good governance and effective health and safety.

Paragraphs 7.26 and 7.32 of the explanatory note refer to devolution. Given that we have no functional Assembly in Northern Ireland, how does the Minister intend to future-proof these arrangements with that and other devolved authorities? Paragraph 7.4 refers to the European Chemicals Agency’s IT system being replaced with a UK system. Has sufficient progress been made in developing that system, and have additional staff been put in place to carry out this function?

The current regulations set out arrangements whereby evaluations of active substances are distributed between all 28 member states, and deadlines set for their completion —currently 31 December 2024 for completion of the review programme as a whole. In paragraph 7.8, it is proposed that that be replaced by a UK stand-alone review of 488 active substances, and the regulations give the Secretary of State powers to make regulations, extend deadlines and specify other matters.

We are told that details of how such a programme would operate are currently under development; a progress report from the Minister would be greatly appreciated. There are other major questions and consequences. We welcome the Minister’s commitment that any reviews would be done to the same standards in protecting human and animal health and the environment, but might it mean some level of regulatory divergence, even for a short period of time, when some substances have been reviewed and passed fit or rejected in the EU, but not in the UK?

Since 2006, REACH—the European regulation on the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals—has built up a comprehensive database on the safety of chemicals. The Government are now walking away from that vital source of data. Their current position appears to be that companies will provide all the data, but a survey by the Chemical Industries Association found that 75% of the companies taking part did not own the data that they would be required to register under a separate UK system. What assessment have the Government made of the ability of companies to provide the necessary data in the future?

We appreciate that fee recovery is suggested to cover costs in some cases, and that fees were payable to the European Chemicals Agency for some services, but in others—such as managing requests by suppliers for the use of alternative chemical names—fee charging was not planned. What guarantees are in place that the Health and Safety Executive has the capacity to undertake all the new functions and responsibilities assigned to it, given the scale of cuts that it has faced?

Is this new landscape not further evidence that the Government must urgently and constructively respond to the recommendations of the tailored review? The Opposition believe that the UK should continue to participate in REACH so that there is no reduction in scientific and technical collaboration with the European Union. More than 50 chemicals companies have already applied to use EU regulators for safety authorisations, to enable them to continue to do business legally in the event of a no-deal Brexit, as REACH authorisations held by UK companies would no longer be valid. That involves transferring registrations with REACH to EU-based companies, or asking customers to act as agents on their behalf.

Paragraph 10 of the explanatory memorandum sets out engagement with the chemicals industry in a no-deal scenario. A couple of roundtables, a few stakeholder meetings and a question and answer session are nowhere near sufficient to prepare for the massive major challenge that leaving the EU without a deal would present to a sector worth nearly £13 billion to the UK economy. That sector directly employs 100,000 people, many of them in my constituency, and it deserves better.

The Government appear unable even to respond adequately to the findings of those meetings. Paragraph 10.6 states:

“Consultations with stakeholders emphasised that they would welcome an approach that allows technical and scientific updates to the regulations be made in a flexible and timely way that will offer businesses sufficient time to make adjustments”.

Minister, we are two weeks away from exit day. Earlier this week, I received a letter from Inovyn that states that

“any disruption will adversely affect the competitiveness of our business and the potential for future trade and investment.”

It further states that UK businesses have invested in REACH to the tune of £0.5 billion and highlights concerns that that investment would be wasted in the case of a no-deal outcome. It also notes that contingency planning throughout the UK for a REACH alternative is already costing significant time and money. Those concerns are reflected by Tata and other chemicals organisations throughout the country.

The Government have not delivered updates in a flexible and timely way, or responded effectively to the industry’s concerns. The proposals are necessary given the situation that we are in, but the situation is not acceptable to the chemicals industry, those who work in it, or those who are tasked with enforcing it under a cloud of uncertainty, cuts and concerns. The Government must urgently deliver the clarity that the industry needs, and the funding and support that the Health and Safety Executive requires and deserves. The Opposition will continue to demand that they do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Newton]

I very much appreciate the spirit of the debate and the support from the Opposition parties for these really important regulations, which will provide the clarity and certainty that we know the industry needs. I will respond to as many of the questions that have been raised as possible.

First, for the benefit of Committee members who are not quite so familiar with the chemical industry as others, many of the questions directed to me were about the REACH regime, which is not the subject of these particular regulations. Today, in the House of Lords, they are considering the REACH regulations, which is the major set of regulations that control the chemical industry more broadly. This SI deals with a related sub-set that sits alongside that regime.

The REACH regulations are the policy responsibility of DEFRA. I work closely with the Department on that, because the HSE will be the operational side of delivering that regulatory environment. I assure all colleagues that the HSE has taken its responsibilities to consult with the industry seriously and thoroughly. Those consultations started in February last year and the HSE has met with about 1,000 chemical businesses and held many stakeholder events.

I know from the feedback that I have seen that the HSE’s consultations and engagements with the industry, as it developed these regulations, have been welcomed. The thinking behind both these and the REACH regulations has been about minimising any disruption. They will grandfather a lot of the registrations over to make this as seamless as possible.

I was asked about our preparedness as regards computer systems. Of course, the words “Government” and “computer systems” sat next to each other fill most people with horror, but the computer system has been built and has undergone user testing. As far as I can see, we are well on track to be able to deliver the operational aspects of what we need to do.

[Mike Amesbury]

But the explanatory memorandum refers to using the current system, not the new system.

[Sarah Newton]

I was offering some reassurance about the REACH regulations. Although they are not what we are here to talk about today, I was addressing those concerns.

Department for Education

Mike Amesbury Excerpts

Tuesday 26th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray). I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Ruth George) on securing such an important debate, and of course thanks go to the 14 Members from across the House who have contributed to it. They made very powerful speeches indeed. This is my first experience of closing an estimate’s day debate for the Opposition, but, sadly, it is certainly not my first experience of a debate in this Chamber that highlights the chaos, unfairness and even sheer inhumanity of our current social security system under this Government. Debates such as today’s have been a depressingly familiar occurrence during my short time in this Chamber. They have been depressingly familiar for those of us who are debating and highlighting these issues, but of course the position is far worse and far more serious for those experiencing them, as was illustrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams). This system is dehumanising and frightening, and it is, on too many occasions, a tragedy.

As we have heard today, report after report from the Work and Pensions Committee, the National Audit Office and the Trussell Trust has offered major warnings about the Government’s direction of travel. Their findings have been echoed throughout this Chamber once again today. It is troubling enough to hear yet more accounts from right hon. and hon. Members of the human cost of this Government’s approach, in contributions such as that from my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak, who spoke about the rising child poverty evidenced by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, and that from my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), who spoke about the human tragedy that is homelessness and youth unemployment, but what is worse is that despite some of the spin, the warm words and the change in mood music, there is still no systematic evidence that this Government are acting in a coherent manner to address the problems that Members have highlighted today.

Universal credit has caused severe hardship for hundreds of thousands of people, yet the DWP is still failing to address the key issue of the five-week wait for an initial payment, as stated by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms). In the past year, 57% of new universal credit claimants have received an advance payment. It is a debt. That is a clear indication of the dire need people are experiencing. Make no mistake: just because 57% received a loan—an advance payment—that does not mean that the other 43% had no problems with the service at all. For many of them, the reality was not a good experience. Their experience was delay, debt, hunger and food banks.

Recently, the Secretary of State finally admitted what no one before her would admit but almost everybody in this Chamber already knew: the growth in food banks is linked to universal credit. It is belatedly welcome that the Government are finally, partially, waking up to the truth, but accepting it is not enough: action is needed. All too often, the only action from this Government is to press ahead.

Despite all we have heard, the Government are intent on seeking parliamentary approval for a pilot of managed migration to universal credit for some people, to start in July this year. The Secretary of State claims to have listened to charities and Opposition Members when we evidenced the chaos and hardship that unmanaged migration would bring to 2.78 million people. Let me be clear: that chaos and hardship for 2.78 million people will now be chaos and hardship for 10,000 people. We are calling for a halt to the process altogether.

To add insult to injury, the Government claim that nobody will be worse off as a result of the changes, but, as evidenced by many of the contributions today, that really is not the case. Their belated, forced and haphazard approach to protecting severe disability premium claimants, some of whom were set to lose £178 per month, suggests a Government without a full understanding of how their own policy will affect people. There remain circumstances in which people will lose transitional protection—for example, when they become a couple or if they separate. How can a party that once claimed to be the champion of the family implement a policy that makes people think twice about formally entering a relationship because of the financial cost or, even worse, condemns people to staying in one that is not working and that is not safe, because they cannot afford to leave?

Were someone without prior knowledge or experience of what we are debating to have sat in the Chamber today, they would have heard these stories and asked a simple question—why? Although it is true that backgrounds to stories can be different and the reasons multiple, there is a simple answer to that simple question: austerity. The Library estimates that cuts to spending on social security and working-age tax credits will mean that some £37 billion will have been cut from social security by 2021-22, compared with 2010. Meanwhile, the richest corporations, including those in the financial sector that should shoulder some of the responsibility for austerity, have had tax cuts of more than £110 billion. That is not fair, right or just.

Child poverty is up, with a massive 4.2 million children in need; in-work poverty is up, and now affects 8 million people who are in work; and wages have not recovered to 2008 levels. This Government have spent nine years using social security as a vehicle for cuts; meanwhile some of their friends in the financial sector and in the banks have received bonuses and unjustifiable tax cuts. Ministers may claim a jobs boom, but the reality for thousands and thousands of our constituents is zero-hours contracts or fearing for their jobs, as more and more of our manufacturing and retail base faces mounting insecurity and instability.

Despite all that, the Department for Work and Pensions supplementary estimates show that the Department did not bid for additional 2018-19 funding from the Treasury. Austerity is not over, and there appears to be little or no attempt from the Department for Work and Pensions to make it so. The Resolution Foundation has estimated that the fourth year of the benefit freeze alone saves the Exchequer £1.5 billion in 2019-20, making a total of £4.4 billion over the four years. That has meant that the poorest and most vulnerable people are falling further and further behind. The record shows us that when it comes to social security, this is a Government who do not change course.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Amesbury Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

I urge the right hon. Gentleman not to be so despondent about the growth figures today. We are seeing growth. Overall employment continues to rise. If he would like to speak to one of us regarding any scheme he has to boost employment in his constituency, I would be pleased to see him.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) asked about employment trends, but one trend that he did not mention is that zero-hours contracts have quadrupled since 2010. This week is HeartUnions Week, so will the Secretary of State join me, the TUC and the Labour party in pledging to ban these disgraceful contracts?

[Amber Rudd]

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman may have his facts wrong. Zero-hours contracts are down; 780,000 people are currently on zero-hours contracts, down from 883,000 in the same period in 2017. Overall, we estimate that 2.4% of the employment market are on zero-hours contracts.

Social Security

Mike Amesbury Excerpts

Wednesday 6th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

The Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008 made provisions for lump sum compensation payments to be made for those suffering from diffuse mesothelioma. It also made provisions for their dependants. The mesothelioma lump sum payments regulations laid before the House have uprated the lump sum payments for sufferers and their dependants by 2.4%. We welcome the fact that the Government have reviewed the rates in line with inflation, and we recognise that, as the Minister said, they are under no obligation to do so under the 2008 Act.

Mesothelioma is a type of cancer that covers the lining of the body’s organs. It is also almost exclusively caused by asbestos, when fibres have entered the lungs of sufferers and caused damage over time. The greater the exposure to asbestos, the more likely it is that someone will be at risk of mesothelioma. It can also affect those who have been indirectly exposed to asbestos. The victims of indirect asbestos exposure have been seeking justice through access to the diffuse mesothelioma payment scheme for some time, and the Government must seriously consider that matter.

It can take up to 40 years after the original exposure for mesothelioma symptoms to develop, and it is likely that the increase in the numbers of mesothelioma sufferers’ deaths in recent years is due to exposure that took place before the introduction of asbestos regulations in the 1970s. Mesothelioma has devastating effects on sufferers, as the Minister rightly said. For most victims, a diagnosis brings with it the inevitability of death, and one such death was that of my good friend, Brian Jamieson, who passed away in December. He was an active trade unionist who worked on Trafford Park, where he unfortunately acquired the disease. Tragically, only five in 100 people survive the cancer for more than five years after diagnosis.

The damage caused by asbestos is widely seen as one of the biggest public health crises in this country, ruining the lives not just of sufferers themselves, but of their families, friends and communities. The Department for Work and Pensions suggested that 53,000 people will die from mesothelioma between 2030 and 2037, and it is estimated that 2,500 people die every year as a result of the disease. The 2008 scheme provides a one-off payment to sufferers who have no occupational link to the disease or who are self-employed, including, for example, sufferers who live in close proximity to a workplace containing asbestos.

While Labour welcomes the regulations and the uprating of the lump sum payments, several serious issues remain. Alongside many campaigners, we are concerned about the disparity between lump sum payments made to dependants and those made to sufferers. It is unclear why dependants, who are themselves usually impacted by the effects of mesothelioma, receive so much less than sufferers. The difference in the amounts is stark. A mesothelioma sufferer aged 70 will receive £17,961 under the draft regulations. However, if the sufferer dies at aged 67 or over, their dependants receive just £8,000 as a lump sum payment. In 2010, the then Minister, Lord McKenzie of Luton, rightfully pledged to equalise payments, noting the unfair nature of the regulations. The Government have faced repeated calls to honour that commitment, but they have failed to do so. This is also an equality issue. The difference in payments is likely to affect mainly women whose husbands were directly exposed to asbestos at work. How can the Government continue to justify the difference between lump sum payments? Will the Minister tell us the most recent estimated cost of providing equal payments for sufferers and their dependants?

Communities are still being affected by asbestos exposure to this day, and exposure results in an estimated 5,000 deaths every year. The all-party group on occupational safety and health estimated that, shockingly, 75% of the 29,000 schools in Britain contain asbestos, so it is vital that we continue to raise awareness. What additional funding will be made available this year to ensure that we continue to make people aware of the dangers of exposure to asbestos? What campaigns are being run by the Health and Safety Executive about asbestos exposure?

As the Minister noted, the HSE plays a vital role in ending harmful exposure to asbestos, but this Government are responsible for a 40% cut to its budget. By this year, it is estimated that the HSE will receive £100 million less in Government funding than it did in 2009, and that comes despite estimates that 12,000 people are dying each year as a result of occupational cancers or lung diseases. Will the Minister conduct an impact assessment of the cuts to HSE funding on occupational health? Will she end the devastating cuts to the HSE? When will the HSE get the “austerity is over” cheque that the Prime Minister promised?

Labour also welcomes the regulations to increase lump sum payments to pneumoconiosis sufferers in line with inflation. We have further noted that the Government are under no statutory obligation to do so. The pneumoconiosis regulations refer to the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979, which provided lump sum payments to people disabled by dust-related diseases, including as a result of asbestos exposure and coal mining. Statistics show that there are an average of 140 deaths a year as a result of the disease. While we welcome the uprating under the regulations, the Government have failed to ensure that there is parity between the amounts offered to sufferers and to their dependants. Will the Minister finally act to ensure that there is parity between the two groups?

Sufferers of pneumoconiosis and their families have to go through onerous and often expensive hurdles in order to receive payments from the Department for Work and Pensions. A number of problems prevent people from receiving the support they deserve, including a lack of specialist knowledge about work-related diseases and issues with the DWP assessments. Will the Minister meet my colleagues and the National Union of Mine- workers to discuss changes to ensure that sufferers and their families are not prevented from receiving vital support for this incurable disease? Information about the disease is not widespread, and the disease is hard to diagnose because it does not show up on two-dimensional X-rays. Will the Minister tell us how much funding is going into promoting awareness of the disease?

The lump sum payment is a form of industrial injuries disablement benefit. Under universal credit, IIDB counts as unearned income, reducing the UC award. Under tax credits, the lump sum payment is disregarded completely. Sufferers and dependants on tax credits therefore stand to lose out if they naturally migrate on to universal credit. Will the Minister act immediately to ensure that no sufferer will lose out in this way? No impact assessment has been made of the effectiveness of either scheme, nor have the Government consulted trade unions about how best to compensate those who have lost out. Will the Minister act immediately to do so and provide an equality impact assessment on this most vital area of support?

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making some important points—I am sorry that more Members are not in the Chamber to hear them. There is real anger in former coal mining constituencies such as mine about the failure to pay out. People fought hard to get compensation in the first place—it took years and years of effort. Were it not for the previous Labour Government, we would have a lesser scheme than the present one. I support what my hon. Friend says, and we must give proper answers to the sufferers of pneumoconiosis and their families.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Amesbury]

My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I have family members who were miners until they were put out of work, so I completely agree.

Labour welcomes the support available to sufferers and the uprating of the provisions, but it is clear that issues remain. I urge the Minister not only to ensure that equal treatment of sufferers and dependants is achieved, but to consider the implications of Government cuts and the introduction of universal credit for sufferers throughout the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Amesbury]

This really is about doing the right thing and working together. Obviously we have heard very powerful historical stories from Members right across the Chamber, but automatic uprating is the right thing to do.

[Sarah Newton]

Of course we want to do the right thing, which is why we are here today, uprating the scheme. However, we should pause to reflect on the fact that this debate has enabled us to look at this dynamic situation; the hon. Member for Bolsover was absolutely right to describe it as such. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) said that he has doubts about some of the forecasts around the schemes. We have also heard from other Members who want us to look at research and at what more we can do. If we did not have the opportunity of this debate, how would hon. Members have been able to raise those matters? I will seriously look at the question of an automatic uprating, but today has also proved the importance of giving hope to so many constituents through such a debate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Amesbury Excerpts

Monday 7th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Alok Sharma]

The Secretary of State has already outlined the visits that she has made, and I know that she is going to make many more. What my hon. Friend describes is something that I also consistently find when I visit job centres—namely, the huge enthusiasm and the real desire to help individuals. For the first time, jobcentre workers and work coaches are able to do precisely that, through the one-to-one support that was not possible under the legacy system.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

If true, the reported U-turn on managed migration in response to considerable pressure from the voluntary sector and those on the Labour Benches, is welcome, but any attempt to avoid scrutiny is not. Can the Minister assure the House that those regulations will still be debated in full in this Chamber, and if so, when?

[Alok Sharma]

The Secretary of State has set out the position very clearly. Of course we will be bringing forward any potential new regulations. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues talk a lot about supporting vulnerable people, but they voted against the £1.5 billion of support last year and against the £4.5 billion of support introduced in the Budget. He should be supporting those policies, not talking them down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amber Rudd]

I was in Birmingham last Friday, when I went to the Yardley jobcentre and saw for myself the remarkable work being done and some projects that are reaching people who had never been reached before. Under the legacy benefits, the second named person in a household who was not earning was basically ignored for years and was not invited to participate. We now have a system whereby the people who were ignored for years under the right hon. Gentleman’s Government’s system are being obliged to engage. I am facing the facts, so perhaps he should face them as well. He can have his own views, but he cannot have his own facts.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

An interim report commissioned by Centrepoint shows that the Government’s youth obligation programme is failing young people on numerous counts. Almost half of participants dropped out without finding a job or training, young people on the programme were more likely to be sanctioned, many did not understand what the programme was for, and there is no central recording of job destinations beyond the programme. At what stage is the Secretary of State going to get a grip on that situation?

[Amber Rudd]

I am not as despondent about the programme as the hon. Gentleman is. I visited Centrepoint between Christmas and new year to find out for myself about the good work it is doing and about the relationship that it has with the universal credit service provider. It has a particular named person who helps with young people to ensure that they get additional personal help when they apply. Ensuring that personal help is available is exactly what universal credit is about, and Centrepoint confirmed to me that that is exactly what young people are getting.

Draft Social Security (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018 Draft Social Security (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Mike Amesbury Excerpts

Thursday 20th December 2018 General Committees

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

It is of course a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I am happy to confirm that we shall not be opposing the regulations—and I wish everyone a merry Christmas and happy new year. However, we seek assurances on the detail.

I thank my colleagues in the other place for their scrutiny of the regulations. As they and the Minister have noted, they enable the Government to make minor and technical changes to domestic legislation to reflect the fact that the UK will no longer be an EU member state after exit day. I do not want to speculate at this stage about the likelihood of such an outcome, or the manner of arriving at it, but it is reasonable that the Government prepare as is necessary and appropriate. As shadow Employment Minister, however, I cannot help but reflect that, while we need to undertake the specific task before us today, the social security system needs far more than minor or technical changes. It is a shame that we are spending the last sitting day before Christmas discussing the odd word here and there, rather than delivering a wholesale stop, reform and fix of universal credit and the flawed managed migration approach and timetable.

As my colleague Lord McKenzie has noted,

“these instruments fall into two groups. They amend various provisions in UK domestic legislation that contain references to the UK as a member state of the EU, or of the EEA. Further, they amend Section 179 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 and its Northern Ireland equivalent to enable social security-related reciprocal agreements to be entered into with international organisations.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 December 2018; Vol. 794, c. 954.]

In that regard, Lord McKenzie noted that the explanatory memorandum “instances the EU”, but asked whether the Minister could state what other international organisations might be “in contemplation”. Baroness Buscombe responded that she would write with more detail. Has that response been sent, or can the Minister provide a brief update? In a similar vein, Baroness Buscombe also promised to write in relation to any existing reciprocal arrangements with the EU, and we would welcome an update from the Minister about that.

There are also concerns about how the regulations apply to Northern Ireland, as other hon. Members have noted. The explanatory memorandum claims that the legislation will be progressed

“in close consultation with the Northern Ireland departments.”

We must remember that the voters of Northern Ireland are represented by politicians of different parties and traditions. In the absence of a functioning Executive, we are keen to hear further about what processes have been undertaken to ensure full, broad consultation.

The explanatory memorandum also confirms that the Minister states that, given that the Equality Act 2010 does not extend to Northern Ireland, he has given

“due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, harassment and victimisation”.

Again, while we do not seek to contest that, we would welcome some detail on why he is comfortable in stating that it does so, to assure us that the decision has been arrived at in a reasonable manner.

As has been mentioned, the regulations make minor, technical amendments and we do not intend to oppose them. However, they are further evidence, if more were needed, of the technical complexity of Brexit. I am sure that there will be many more such Committees in the near future and we would welcome clarification from the Minister as to what plans and engagement are in place, through the Department for Work and Pensions, to ensure that services continue appropriately and that people are made aware of any changes to their entitlements in the case of no deal.

I finish as I began, by reflecting that the social security system that we are discussing deserves parliamentary attention and change beyond what is on the agenda today. We will support these regulations in so far as they are necessary to ensure an appropriate exit from the EU when that time comes, but we do so believing that we should be having a different debate on a more wide-ranging and substantive piece of legislation—to stop, fund and fix universal credit and our broken social security system. We hope that the new year brings that opportunity.

Universal Credit and Child Tax Credit: Two-child Limit

Mike Amesbury Excerpts

Tuesday 27th November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter, and I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) for securing such an important debate. She shares my view, and that of many colleagues, that the two-child limit is unfair and adversely affects tens of thousands of families. That policy stands out, tragically, as a clear example—perhaps the clearest example—of a Tory welfare system that is failing and unsupportive of those most in need. That view is shared not just by those of us in this debate; it is shared by charities and many advocacy groups, and much of civil society.

Earlier this year, 60 Christian, Muslim and Jewish religious leaders strongly condemned the policy, arguing that it sent a message that some children matter less than others. Disappointingly, however, some do not share that view. The former Work and Pensions Secretary, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), described it as a “brilliant idea”, and believed that it would force claimants to make the same life choices as families who are not on benefits, and incentivise them to seek work or increase their hours. We have heard from this debate that it is certainly not a brilliant idea. The claims about life choices and incentives show nothing but disdain for the people and families who our welfare state should be supporting and show no understanding of the precarious reality of the world of work for many at the sharp end.

While the two-child limit was possibly the most pernicious element of the approach, we should not forget that it was part of a package of welfare reforms to tax credits and universal credit announced in the 2015 Budget. The Child Poverty Action Group has estimated, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis) pointed out, that the two-child limit alone will lead to 200,000 more children growing up in poverty by 2020. It is also a policy that causes one sibling to lose out at the expense of another, with one child being of more value than another. Surely that is not fair or right.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a simple unfairness at the heart of the policy? We should no more support it than support one child in a family getting access to education and another not, or one getting access to health services and another not.

[Mike Amesbury]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend and neighbour. Children are children.

From April 2017, low-income families lost entitlement to additional support through child tax credits or the child element of universal credit for a third or subsequent child born after that date. If the family was already claiming support for three or more children before that date, in principle they continue to receive support. However, to demonstrate the absurdity of the policy, if a third or subsequent child born after April 2017 is disabled, the family will receive child tax credits or the child element of universal credit for that child, but one of the other two children will lose out. As was rightly pointed out by hon. Friends across the Chamber, that is an attack on some of the most vulnerable in society: children. The policy also discredits the claim of this Conservative Government that they are the party of the family and of religious freedom. It is yet another example of why the roll-out of universal credit needs to be stopped.

The Government must end the delays in payment, and it must also end one of the most shocking consequences of the legislation: the rape clause. Another former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Ms McVey), made the extraordinary claim that the policy potentially offered rape victims double support: social security and “an opportunity to talk” about the assault. That was insensitive to say the least. As hon. Friends have pointed out, it was absolutely appalling.

[Hannah Bardell]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very powerful point. Does he agree that it is a very special kind of grim hypocrisy for a Government who have scrapped the child poverty targets and are heading towards a Brexit disaster that will see tens if not hundreds of thousands of jobs lost to then target the most vulnerable in society? They will no doubt be losing jobs as a result of Brexit, but the Government have brought in a policy that marginalises and breaches the human rights of so many vulnerable members of our society.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Amesbury]

I agree entirely with the hon. Lady. What the former Secretary of State said demonstrates how out of touch Ministers are. Perhaps more of them should have attended the debate today, because they would have heard many contributions that have laid bare the misery the policy is causing. We heard contributions from 10 Members: my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney), for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq), for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) and for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), my hon. Friends the Members for High Peak (Ruth George) and for Bury South, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Danielle Rowley), and the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone). They are all very powerful voices for vulnerable children in this place.

This weekend, the leader of Scottish Labour called on the Scottish Government to mitigate the impact of the two-child limit. I urge the Scottish Government to use their powers to do so in advance of the budget on 12 December. They are already planning to use the new social security powers to introduce an income supplement. I urge them to help the 4,000.

[Alan Brown]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept the early points made about the limits to what the Scottish Government can do? He should bear in mind that they are not only trying to mitigate Tory cuts; these things are happening against a £2 billion cut to the Scottish budget in real terms. They are trying to mitigate Tory cuts with both hands tied behind their back.

[Mike Amesbury]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East said, there is a £10 billion supplement from the Barnett formula. We have heard the stories, and I have questions for the Minister.

[Angela Crawley]

rose—

[Mr Sweeney]

rose—

[Mike Amesbury]

I am sorry, I cannot give way any more; I must move on.

Some 59% of the 73,500 families who lost financial support are in work. What does it say about the Government’s claim that they are encouraging people into work if their policy chastises those very people? According to the Government’s own figures, each family claiming benefit lost up to £2,800 in 2017-18 as a result of the two-child limit. How is such a callous approach helping to support families and helping to tackle poverty? Some 2,820 households were exempted during the first year, the majority because they had breached the two-child limit after having twins or triplets. It would seem that Government policy is divorced from reality. In fact, it is divorced from biology. It is yet another example of a policy conceived out of ideological spite and prejudice, rather than an understanding of real life, of what motivates people’s choices and outcomes and even of basic biology.

From February 2019, all households with three or more children who make a new claim will be required to claim universal credit and will also be subject to the two-child limit, irrespective of when their children were born. That cannot be right. It is not fair that the policy is applied retrospectively. Finally, yesterday, the Bishop of Durham and a cross-party group called for a ministerial direction to delay the February 2019 deadline. Will the Secretary of State and the Minister apply such a direction?

We have seen the effect that the policy is having on many households across the UK. We have seen how it is just one example of how Government social security chaos punishes rather than provides and focuses on savings, not support. The Government need to accept that their approach to social security has failed. They need to stop it, they need to fix it, and they need to fund it. Our communities, our families and, as we have heard today, our children deserve nothing less.

State Pension: Women born in the 1950s

Mike Amesbury Excerpts

Thursday 22nd November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan. I sincerely thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) for securing this vital debate and for her consistent record in championing the cause. I am pleased to be able to respond on behalf of the Opposition, not just because it is an opportunity to thank Members for a good, well considered and passionate debate, but because I have raised this issue from the start of my time here, which has not been long—I arrived in 2017.

I do not wish to reiterate what has already been said, but it is clear that the decision to accelerate the rise in women’s state pension age in 2011 has had a devastating impact on many women who were born in the 1950s. Many are now facing hardship and poverty as a result, as was recently highlighted in the UN report cited by the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran and my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris).

Some 3.8 million women affected did not have “fair notification” of the changes. Those are the words not only of those 3.8 million women nationally or the 4,000 women affected in my constituency, but of the former Pensions Minister, Steve Webb. Those women certainly deserve recognition for this injustice, and fair transitional protections.

In one of my earliest interventions in the House I mentioned Catherine Vernon, one of more than 4,000 constituents in Weaver Vale affected by this issue. It is an issue that was created by, and as things stand can only be solved by, the current Conservative Government. They could be influenced by the Democratic Unionist party, of course. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is no longer in his place, has been consistent in supporting women and campaigning on this issue. I would hope that he and his colleagues on the DUP Benches will put the same energy that is going into Brexit at the moment into supporting this campaign.

This injustice has been highlighted many times before, and in my short time here the issue has been mentioned more than 100 times in Parliament. We have had debates, lobbies, protests, a petition signed by well over 100,000 people and early-day motion 63, with 196 signatures from across the parties. I recently had the honour of joining many campaigners outside Parliament, and I met up with an old family friend from Castleford, West Yorkshire, named Sheila, who was there with some very vocal campaigners. “I’m sorry, Mike,” she said. “I’m just going to have to go away now—unfortunately I can’t spend any longer with you. I’ve just got to go and block the road with many other people.” I must confess that I did not join her because as an MP I felt that was not my place.

Many MPs have taken the cause forward with passion and conviction, none more so than my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), who is co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on state pension inequality for women. Perhaps most memorably, during the Budget statement a few weeks ago we saw a number of women affected making their case in what can only be described as a very direct and loud manner. I was certainly proud to applaud them.

I and many other hon. Members have been inspired by the commitment and tenacity of the campaigners, and I would like to pay tribute to every single one of them in the Chamber now, those who could not get in and everyone watching. However, as today’s debate has made clear, we are no closer to securing justice for these women. This Government are no closer to accepting their culpability and doing something about it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East has said before:

“These women feel cheated and disrespected, and they are angry. Every meeting”—

including this one—

“is packed. Not one of these women has any intention of giving up until they get the result that they have earned and that they deserve”.—[Official Report, 14 December 2017; Vol. 633, c. 648.]

If the Government think that these campaigners will simply disappear or give up, they could not be more wrong.

As hon. Members have said, the problems are real and UK-wide, and they need action now. We have had contributions today from the hon. Members for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), for Strangford, for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) and for Isle of Wight (Mr Seely), from my hon. Friends the Members for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin), for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), for Easington, for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) and for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), and from the Scottish National party spokesperson. Apart from one, they have all been pretty consistent in their opposition to the Government’s proposals.

I will cite examples: the hon. Member for Isle of Wight quite eloquently called on the Chancellor, in the forthcoming spending review, to help what I think in his case were 10,000 constituents affected to move toward justice. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston highlighted a challenging case of a constituent struggling to pay her bills while holding down a part-time job, and my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West highlighted a case of a constituent struggling to look after her husband, who is in his 70s now, and juggling a part-time job when she should be enjoying retirement. Those are the injustices that people face on a daily basis.

As I mentioned, if we are to respond properly to these stories and gain justice for those affected, the Government must listen and they must act. My question to the Minister is, will they do so? Will they commit to extending pension credits to hundreds of thousands of women born in the ’50s? Will they respond to the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Easington asked about extending the winter fuel allowance to the people affected? Beyond that, will they commit to developing a proper and full package of transitional proposals to support these women and address the injustice they have experienced?

It is positive that Andy Burnham, a former Member of this House and now a metro Mayor, has offered a solution on transport, with free bus passes for those affected in Greater Manchester, but let us be clear about this: it should not be up to our local politicians to take action when it is the Government’s responsibility to do so. As important as it is for local politicians to come up with such schemes, it in no way compensates for, or reflects the true scale of, the injustice that millions of women have suffered.

The Minister must take responsibility and take action, because the problems go beyond individual hardship; this injustice is furthering wider problems in our society too. It has been pointed out by parliamentary colleagues elsewhere that the gender pay gap for the over-60s has increased by nearly 3% in a year, partly as a result of so many women having to take low-paid jobs just to make ends meet. It is a self-defeating policy, and it needs to be addressed now.

Sadly, the Government’s commitment to dealing with people who have been affected, even under the existing regulations, appears to be lacking. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) has previously noted that there are just three case examiners working on almost 3,000 WASPI cases. The average wait for a complaint is 36 weeks, with many taking more than 43 weeks. Will the Minister show some commitment to dealing with such complaints by ensuring that there are enough staff to handle them, so that women are not yet again left in limbo and feeling ignored by this Government?

Yesterday we recognised 100 years since the Parliament (Qualification of Women) Act 1918, which allowed women to stand and vote in Parliament, a key milestone in a long campaign for women’s equality and suffrage. At the heart of that campaign for equality was a rallying cry to action, “Deeds not Words”. One hundred years on, our 1950s women need deeds, not words, and it is up to the Minister and the Government to deliver them.