Welfare Cap
Simon Hoare Excerpts(8 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Owen Smith
I would have been mortified had I been the Chancellor responsible for such a terrible U-turn and such an extraordinary, humiliating, screeching U-turn.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Again, in this great spirit of festive tidings, let me say that if that is really the best that the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman can do on such an important issue, he and his party really have not got a cat in hell’s chance of ever being back in government.
Owen Smith
I thought I was doing rather better than that. I thought the House might enjoy a bit of Christmas spirit.
The real crime that Macavity is hiding from today is not the breach of the welfare cap, however embarrassing that may be. The real larder that has been looted is universal credit. Opening the debate, the Minister said several times that the Government would meet the welfare cap in 2019-20 and he is right that the OBR confirms that, but he signally failed to tell the House how they would do it. I suspect that that is because of the other reason that the Secretary of State did not wish to address the House today. We know precisely how he will meet the cap: through the £10 billion cut to the work allowance that we will see by 2020; a cut of £3 billion a year, nearly making up for the £3 billion that was to be taken away in tax credits, butchering the work incentives that are supposed to make universal credit worth while.
Who are the victims of this crime? The Secretary of State is for one, because he has had his budget raided once more—the seventh time, I believe. However, the true victims are the millions of constituents in Labour and Tory seats who will still lose thousands of pounds as a result of the Chancellor’s cut to universal credit. Some 500,000 people will be on UC by next April, and according to the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies, 2.6 million households will lose £1,600 by 2020. They are the victims of this crime, the people who are paying for the Chancellor’s hubris with £3 billion of their own money in 2020 and every year thereafter. They are the people being fleeced by the postcode lottery that is being created in support for low-wage workers, whereby those lucky enough to stay on tax credits will be massively better off than their neighbours on universal credit.
A single mother working full-time on the new national minimum wage with two children will be £2,981 worse off than another mother, perhaps living next door in precisely the same circumstances but still on tax credits. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State says from a sedentary position, “What about child care?” Yes, if that mother has children who are three or four, she may be better off, but if her children are one, five, seven or 12, they will not be. That is the reality and we should not be misleading the House, from a sedentary position or otherwise.
That disparity cannot be fair and cannot be right. It may not even be legal. We are seeking advice as to the legality of that move. I suspect that is not what the Chancellor told the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen) or other Tory Back Benchers when he reassured them that he was making good the tax credit cut, even if it meant breaching the welfare cap.
Women and the Economy
Simon Hoare Excerpts(8 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kate Green
We on the Opposition side of the House of course agree about the importance of prudent management of the public finances. I would just point out that the Chancellor promised to eliminate the deficit by the end of the last Parliament. What he actually achieved was to halve it, which is exactly what the previous Labour Chancellor, Alistair Darling, had suggested. This Chancellor has presided over a rise in public debt, and he is substituting once again—one might have thought that he was learning—private debt for public debt. The Office for Budget Responsibility is now forecasting that by the end of this Parliament private household debt will be back at recession levels, which should alarm all of us.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
My memory is failing me. I wonder whether the hon. Lady could remind me which Chancellor ended boom and bust.
Kate Green
I will remind the hon. Gentleman of two things. First, the 2008 crash was a global crash that began in the United States of America; it was not caused by the spending plans and policies of the then Labour Government. Secondly, it was the action taken by the then Prime Minister and Chancellor that rescued the economy when we could have seen the entire financial system crash, which would have left families with no salaries, no incomes, no ability to pay their mortgages—
Kate Green
I have not finished giving the hon. Gentleman his history lesson, since he says his memory is faulty. It was the Labour Government who steered the economy through a desperately dangerous period. At the time the current Prime Minister and Chancellor said that the best thing was to do nothing and not to rescue the banks, which would have caused absolute financial disaster for families across this country. While I am reminding the hon. Gentleman about the track records of the previous Labour Government and the previous Conservative Opposition, of course I regret that we did not regulate the banking system more tightly, as I think everybody accepts, but let me remind Government Members once again that it was the current Prime Minister and the current Chancellor of the Exchequer who said that Labour was being too restrictive in our regulation of the financial services sector. The history lesson does not entirely favour the hon. Gentleman’s party, but I will give way to him again.
Simon Hoare
Hearing the hon. Lady talk about the Labour party and financial regulation is like hearing that Herod should have been a bit kinder to the first-born. Perhaps I will give her another go. Does she not accept that her right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) failed back at the election? Did not the Labour party borrow too much and spend too much, and as a result Britain, when faced with that international financial difficulty, was in a very precarious place?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. Before the hon. Lady answers, I remind Members of the topic of the debate, because we seem to be wandering a million miles from it. The shadow Minister might wish to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question, but she is perfectly entitled to choose not to do so.
Caroline Dinenage
The hon. Lady makes a number of sweeping assumptions. The fact is that child tax credits and child benefit all go into the pockets of women. Her assumptions are very outdated. Families work as a unit: they work together and pool their income. Frankly, it is quite a sexist allegation.
Simon Hoare
Does my hon. Friend agree that although the Labour party may spend its time reading or commissioning academic studies, the Government are getting on with delivering policies for strengthening our economy to the betterment of all?
Caroline Dinenage
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Inheriting an economy that was riddled with debt did nothing for women in this country, and not tackling the deficit would have been the real crime and created an unacceptable risk for our economy and people’s lives and futures. Not tackling the deficit would have put at risk the very jobs and services that women depend on. It would have risked their children’s education and security, and for those of us who want to ensure that everyone is able to fulfil their potential, such risks are unacceptable.
Alison McGovern
I would welcome that wholeheartedly if those apprenticeships paid women equally to men, but the fact is that they do not. We ought not to rest until they do, because women face a dual problem: the work they have traditionally done is valued less; and they are barred from better-paid sectors. We need both to get women into highly paid parts of our industry and to ask ourselves why highly skilled women end up with low pay in areas such as social care. Over the past week or so, I have had quite a bit of grief on social media. Lots of people are campaigning about this sort of thing, which is fine, but I would argue that the primary feminist cause in Britain today is the position of women working in social care. They are paid far too little for the important work they do, including younger women who want to make their career in social care.
Secondly, I want to turn to the place of mums. In interventions, I have already raised the problem that lone parents will face with universal credit. I am afraid I take issue with the Tory view of the world which says that any state support for the cost of children is somehow undignified, that it is somehow welfare and that people cannot feel proud of themselves and their ability to look after their family if they in any way receive a cash transfer from the state.
Beveridge himself recognised that the cost of having children increases the amount people have to pay out. Our social security system should smooth people’s income across the period of their lives when they have children and their costs are higher, and they will pay into the system when they are in work without children and their costs are lower. That is how our system has always worked. It is an absolute myth to think that we have ever had a perfect situation when there was no poverty, people could just earn their wages and that was enough to pay for the cost of bringing up children. Basically, the Beveridge system was introduced precisely because people get poor at two points in their lives—with the cost of their kids, and with the cost of old age. We must accept that tax credits are an important part of the system and settlement we have had in our country for a long time. As I have already said, wages have an important role to play in the financial fortunes of women, but they will never fully resolve such problems.
Alison McGovern
I have already given way once, and I do not want to try the patience of the House. This is an issue not just for mums, but for dads and even nans, who more than ever are covering for women who are in work.
Alison McGovern
I have said that I will not.
Thirdly, women who were born in the 1950s fought for everything in our country, and they built the political platform that I and many Labour Members have stood on. They fought not just for the Equal Pay Act 1970 and the reforms of the 1970s, but for all-women shortlists in the Labour party that meant that people like me had a much greater chance. Today, women in their 50s, and others, are having to fight yet again through the WASPI campaign for what they should have had. That is not fair, and for young women in my constituency, and those later in life, I do not feel that the picture described by Conservative Members is right. Those women are deeply unsatisfied with the measures that the Chancellor has handed out in recent months, and they would not expect me to stop asking him to do more.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
As a female MP I welcome this debate, but I struggle with the sentiments and the way it is being brought forward, and I agree with the Minister’s opening remarks. I am a strong supporter of women’s issues, and a member of the Women and Equalities Committee, but I am frustrated that the motives behind this debate are political rather than dealing with key and important issues faced by women. [Laughter.] Labour Members are reinforcing my point as I speak.
The Women and Equalities Committee, which is excellently chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), is currently at the start of an inquiry into the gender pay gap. It will tackle that important issue in a cross-party way, and I am sure that its findings will make a real difference. Over this Parliament the Committee will investigate a number of issues, and its members will have no hesitation in holding Ministers’ feet to the fire regarding how the Government support and promote women in this country. However, to say that the spending review has not supported women in this country is plain wrong. Women make up 50% of the population, and any benefit that affects the general population will improve the lot of women.
Simon Hoare
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point on an important issue. Did she share my confusion about the remarks of the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), who seemed to be suggesting that the best way to help women in the workplace was to subsidise their salary through tax credits and let men get on with it? What incentive would that be for an equal pay balance and for low subsidies, which is certainly what Conservative Members want?
Maria Caulfield
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I have worked in the care sector all my life, and I am frustrated with the lack of campaigning for better wages, as that would mean that women would not need to rely on tax credits.
Key decisions in the spending review will benefit men and women alike. The increase in free childcare will help mums and dads, and the introduction of a national living wage will help men and women on low incomes. The funding that we discussed in the previous debate on mental health services will also benefit men and women.
Assisted Dying (No. 2) Bill
Simon Hoare Excerpts(8 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rob Marris
If my right hon. Friend looks at the figures again, she will find that for those people she mentions burden was not the major factor, but it was a factor, and people should be allowed to make a decision.
Rob Marris
No, I must make some progress now. I can take no further interventions, I am afraid.
The coercion of the vulnerable is the most difficult issue, for me and many people in the House and outside. That is where the context in which the Bill is being put before the House should be borne in mind. This Bill provides protection for the living. What we have at the moment is protection for the dead when it is too late. It is only after people die in questionable circumstances that the police and the prosecuting authorities investigate, and then a decision is made on whether a prosecution would be in the public interest. I make no criticism whatever of the prosecuting authorities or the police, who are doing the job and fulfilling the role that we in Parliament have asked them to do, but they are doing it after the fact—and the fact is that in many cases there are only two witnesses to what happened when the person died, and one of those witnesses is dead. There are safeguards in the Bill for the living: the two doctors and the judge.
In Oregon, there is not one documented case of abuse or misuse. There are many rumours and urban myths—the Barbara Wagner case is one of them. No one there has ever been charged with a crime. The Oregon health authority collects the data quite properly each year, as would be the case for chief medical officers under this Bill, and there are no documented reported cases of abuse in Washington state, Montana or Vermont.
The fact that other jurisdictions have this sort of legislation is not per se a reason for England and Wales to have it, but it does provide a significant body of evidence for us to look at. That evidence is felt so significant that in California it is likely that later today the upper chamber will sign off an assisted dying Bill and it will be sent to Governor Jerry Brown for signature. The indications are that he is very likely to sign it.
Mrs Spelman
I should like to make a bit more progress before I give way.
Assisted dying should be the absolute exception, not the rule. In practice, the law as it stands has seldom been used to convict anyone for assisting someone else to die. Strong laws protect vulnerable people. The existing law protects the elderly, the disabled and those who might otherwise feel pressured to die. It is difficult to prove definitively that someone has not been coerced. It would be almost impossible to pass a law that could definitively prove one way or another whether an elderly person had been coerced.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris) says that there has been a lot of misunderstanding about the Bill. There is no misunderstanding at all: the Bill would authorise doctors to provide a lethal substance for people to kill themselves with. That substance is not a “medicine”, as the Bill disingenuously describes it, but a poison. No wonder doctors oppose it, and we in this House should do so too.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West says that the Bill sets out a clear procedure with multiple safeguards. What clear procedure? What safeguards? Let us look at the Bill. It states that doctors must be satisfied that a patient has a settled and voluntary intent to end his or her life. How should doctors be satisfied that the intent is settled? The Bill does not say. Would they need to see the patient once or twice, or over what period of time? The Bill is silent. What steps should doctors take to be satisfied that the intent is voluntary, and that there is no coercion behind the patient’s request? The Bill is silent. Given that Action on Elder Abuse reports that there are over half a million reported incidents of physical and emotional elder abuse in the UK each year, the Bill should be clear on that critical issue, but it is not.
Simon Hoare
It is actually worse than my hon. Friend suggests. Given the very low number of GPs who have indicated that they would seek a licence, it is more than likely that both doctors seeking to make the certification would not know the patient and therefore would not be able to tell whether they were more or less depressed or to assess their rate of degeneration. That is the fundamental weakness of the Bill.
Fiona Bruce
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Those doctors could not be sure, and they would not be able to assess the even more subtle internal pressure that an individual might feel to express a wish to end their life because they feel a burden. What special procedure is there in the Bill for the particularly vulnerable in our society, such as those with mental health or learning difficulties? There is none. No wonder Mencap and Scope oppose it.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West speaks of multiple safeguards. Where are they in the Bill? I do not see them. Does he mean the provision that the decision should be referred to a High Court judge? If this was not so serious, it would be laughable. The judge would not have to meet the patient; they would only have to confirm the doctors’ decision, and in a time frame of 14 days, making independent scrutiny all but impossible. Absent will be the detailed, rigorous examination that the family court gives to life and death issues, such as turning off a life-support system. Gone will be the investigative powers of the Director of Public Prosecutions under the current legislation rigorously to investigate cases of assisted suicide referred to him. Removed will be the strong deterrent against malicious behaviour that the current law provides.
Nadine Dorries
I am not going to take any interventions, because so many people are waiting to speak.
In the 1980s, as a nurse, I had the privilege or the honour—I do not know the right word to use—to hold the hand of a young gay man when he was given a diagnosis of AIDS. It was not HIV, but AIDS—he was in a very bad way. He was given not six months, but 12 weeks. He is still alive today, as are so many of the other young men and women who were diagnosed at that time with HIV and AIDS and given fewer than six months to live.
Medical research ran ahead and found treatments for them to hold on to their lives for longer while even better treatments were developed. That race is still in progress: treatments are still being developed. We have now reached the point where somebody diagnosed with AIDS is far more likely to die of something else, but we would never have thought that in the 1980s. Many people present are probably thinking, “But this isn’t the 1980s,” but we did not know that AIDS was going to arrive in the 1980s and we do not know what is down the road, what new viral disease will land—it will probably be a virus, given the information we have—and what the AIDS of tomorrow will be. Six-month prognoses worry me, because no doctor can predict a life expectancy of six months.
I will use a personal case. Last August one of my closest friends visited her consultant after a series of tests had been ordered by her GP. At that meeting with the consultant, she was given 14 days to live. That was an accurate prognosis—it was accurate because it was 14 days. She went home, we got into bed and I spent 14 days on her bed. Her death was painless and peaceful; it was not for everybody around her, but it was for her, and those last 14 days were wonderful, until the very end when she was fast asleep and unaware. That is the beauty of palliative care today: no one needs to die a painful death. The combination of drugs that are administered to people in their final days ensures that they do not suffer pain.
The poison administered when someone makes the choice to take their own life, however, is not pleasant. They do not swallow a concoction of drugs and fall asleep. It is not a nice end. It is certainly not peaceful. They choke. It is not a good death. To people who argue that it is a good death, I say that it is not: it is painful and barbaric to die in that way.
I listened to the head of the hospice movement on Radio 4 this morning and I know of the fears and have read all the emails from people representing the hospice movement in my constituency. The hospice movement has very rightly highlighted that the pressure on people in hospices will shift over a period of time.
I want to make a final point. There are people all over the country who do not have a family member or relative as their next of kin. They do not have loved ones. For them, the next of kin is the state. It sends a shiver of fear down my spine to think that such a Bill might be legislated for and approved when so many people who are protected by the law may not have such protection in future because their next of kin is the state. When they feel that they are a burden or they feel under pressure, who will coerce them and who will feel the budgetary constraints involved in looking after them? I will end with that concern.