Oral Answers to Questions
Simon Opher Excerpts(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liz Kendall
I absolutely will consider that. In fact, I ask my hon. Friend and his constituents to feed into the work that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability is doing. We have to ensure that it is as easy and effective as possible to access that vital benefit. It is crucial for people with autism, and we want to make it work properly.
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
The Minister for Employment (Alison McGovern)
Given our objective to reduce the number of children in poverty overall, I expect the impact of the child poverty strategy on children in Stroud to be positive, as all children benefit when the whole community can rely on children enjoying a good childhood. We will publish the child poverty strategy as soon as possible, but, as we have said, we are not waiting to act. The Secretary of State has listed a number of initiatives that we have already been getting on with.
Dr Opher
In Stroud, after 14 years of austerity, over 4,000 children are living in poverty. A recent Joseph Rowntree Foundation report stated that after removing the two-child limit, the next most effective way of reducing child poverty is to get rid of the benefit cap. Would the Minister be willing at least to review the benefit cap?
Alison McGovern
As the Secretary of State has already said, all policies that can lift children out of poverty are under consideration by the taskforce. We obviously will not commit to any policy without knowing how we will pay for it; neither, as I have said, will we wait to act if there are steps we can take immediately. I thank my hon. Friend for his question, which I will take as input to the child poverty taskforce. I also take this opportunity to thank all colleagues who have participated in the five parliamentary sessions that the taskforce has hosted since November 2024.
Oral Answers to Questions
Simon Opher Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
As the hon. Lady may know, the Department recently consulted on a range of proposals for future improvements to the child maintenance service, such as how we can protect people from financial abuse and better support victims of domestic abuse. I am obviously not familiar with the specifics of the case she references, but I would be more than happy to follow up if she writes to me about it.
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight both the progress that has been made and the hard work of the voluntary sector, including citizens advice bureaux across the country. We must continue recent progress, and we shall certainly do so. I would like to highlight that our support for pensioners goes far wider, including the 4.1% increase to the state pension and to the level of pension credit, as my hon. Friend mentioned, in just a few weeks’ time.
Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation
Simon Opher Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. My thanks go to the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for an excellent opening speech.
Since the announcement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions made in December, Members of the House have become familiar with the findings of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. I was appalled at the announcement when it was made, and I am no less so now. Like many Labour parliamentary colleagues, I have attended rallies and met many WASPI women. In opposition, these victims of injustice had our unwavering support. Now we are in power, they are still no closer to getting what they truly deserve.
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I think it sets a dangerous precedent to go against recommendations commissioned from an independent ombudsman. However, those from all parts of Parliament are equally to blame in this, and it is slightly unfair to blame it all on the one Minister sitting on his own over there.
Brian Leishman
For the record, I certainly was not singling out any particular Minister. It is an issue—to be honest, an injustice—on which consecutive Governments have a stained record. Now that we are in power, it is on our desk, so we could actually make it right. The responsibility is with us in Government.
In January, I sponsored a ten-minute rule Bill and voted for WASPI women to receive the justice that they deserve, and my commitment to them is ongoing. Today, I urge the Government to recognise that the people who voted for us do not want the language of “tough choices”, because “tough choices” always seems to mean working class people becoming poorer. It is clear that status-quo politics is not the answer. Millions of people are disenfranchised, demoralised and desperate, and it is no wonder that people are sick of hearing about fiscal constraints after 14 years of austerity, a pandemic and a cost of living crisis that has increased inequality all over the UK.
Last July, the electorate voted for change from all of that, and there is no change in carrying on with failed Tory policies that serve to impoverish people. On this side of the Chamber, we all believe that the election of a Labour Government is about relieving the suffering of injustices, delivering social justice and fairness, making things better and building an alternative economy and society that works for the benefit of the many. The WASPI women are not asking for something that they are not due; all they are asking for is fairness and justice. Now that we are in Government, we would do well to live and deliver on our party’s true values.
Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation
Simon Opher Excerpts(5 months, 4 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir John Hayes
Well, it is not for me to second-guess the sentiments of the Prime Minister, but my right hon. Friend is certainly right to say that a number of promises and comments were made. I will talk about them in a little more detail, provoked by his very helpful intervention.
I see in the Chamber today the former shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). He will know that the Labour manifesto in 2019 was fulsome in its support for the WASPI women, promising a generous financial settlement. It is perfectly reasonable to say that parties move on; the new Leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister, may have taken a rather different view. He may have taken the opposite view.
Sir John Hayes
I will just make this point, and then I will happily give way.
But that was certainly not the impression given by the current Prime Minister’s remarks. He said:
“Justice to end historic injustice”—
that was specifically about WASPI women. The now Deputy Prime Minister said that the Government “stole” the pensions of WASPI women and that Labour would compensate them. Therefore, one can understand why the women, some of whom are represented here today—they are being incredibly diligent and quiet, Dr Murrison, you will be pleased to know—feel that this was indeed a “betrayal”, to use the word that I used at the beginning of my remarks. An expectation was established, and then it was blighted by the decision made since the general election.
Dr Opher
I thank the right hon. Member for giving way. Could I make an appeal to all of us? I do not think that either side of this debate has covered itself in glory. I agree that this is a very dangerous precedent about the ombudsman, but let us not make this party political, please. Let us make this about the WASPI women. Is there not a way, at least, of compensating the very worst off among the WASPI women? I would appeal for that.
Sir John Hayes
That is a measured intervention, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for it. It is true that a package could be put together and discussed with the campaign group and the women concerned; one would expect Government to do that. As a Minister, I would have had submissions. I have no doubt that this Minister has had them, and the Secretary of State must have had submissions that gave her options, before she said what she said when she let the WASPI women down. Those options would no doubt have included a series of ways through this. I know the Minister will be eager to explore those options with us when he sums up the debate. I have no doubt about that because he is a diligent and decent man; he will not want to betray those women again in what he says today because he is not that kind of character.