Latest news with #HarrietHarman
Sky News
5 days ago
- Business
- Sky News
'A policy Labour never liked - but may not be able to scrap'
Labour may announce tweaks to the two-child benefit cap so that it exempts certain families, Harriet Harman has suggested. It follows ministers, including the prime minister, repeatedly refusing to rule out whether the government will scrap the policy altogether. The cap means families are restricted so that they only receive benefits for their first two children in most households. It is meant to encourage families not to expand beyond their means and become reliant on welfare. But critics say the cap worsens child poverty by leaving the poorest families with a lack of support. Sir Keir Starmer avoided answering Kemi Badenoch's questions about whether he is in favour of removing or altering the cap at PMQs on Wednesday. Baroness Harman has suggested the issue is "not binary" and that the government might tweak it instead of scrapping it or leaving it as it is. "The question is whether Labour can afford to get rid of it. But actually, it's not binary - 'do Labour keep it or do they scrap it?'" 2:37 Instead, the former deputy Labour leader said ministers may be looking at "ways they could cut it down". She continued: "For example, they could remove the two-child benefit policy for families with disabled children. They could remove the two-child benefit policy for families who are working, or something like that. "So, it might be that what they're trying to work out is not scrapping it altogether." The Labour peer said "narrowing it down a bit" might be the policy the government go with, as this would allow them to seem more generous and dedicated to tackling child poverty, while minimising the extra strain on the Treasury. Speaking on the podcast, Sky News' political editor Beth Rigby said she understands that Sir Keir's chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, is against changing the two-child benefit cap. This is because "it apparently does poll well, with voters, people, people around the country quite supportive of the policy", she said. What are the other parties saying on the cap? Kemi Badenoch has ruled out lifting the cap, saying it is "fair" and ensures that families receiving welfare make choices within their means. On the other side of the argument, Nigel Farage has called for the cap to be scrapped and has said Reform UK would like to see more people in the UK having larger families. The party leader said lifting the cap would be just one of several measures he would introduce to encourage Britons to have more children. But these suggestions have been roundly criticised by the leaders of both Labour and the Tories for being unfunded policy commitments. On Wednesday, Sir Keir refused to answer questions directly about the spending cap during a visit to a school in Essex. He was in the classroom to drive home the government's expansion of free school meals, which will mean 500,000 children are now eligible for them. He called this a "statement of intent" and said he is waiting on his child poverty taskforce, which will report back with recommendations for the government to follow.
Sky News
23-05-2025
- Business
- Sky News
Starmer's winter fuel cut U-turn claim 'not credible'
Sir Keir Starmer's claim he is U-turning on cutting winter fuel payments for pensioners because he now has the money is not "credible", Harriet Harman has said. 👉 Listen to Electoral Dysfunction on your podcast app 👈 The Labour peer, speaking to Sky News political editor Beth Rigby on the Electoral Dysfunction podcast, said the prime minister made the move as it was so unpopular with voters. PM signs Chagos deal - politics latest She also said Labour's poor results at the local elections and the Runcorn and Helsby by-election were the "straw that broke the camel's back". Sir Keir said on Wednesday he would ease the cut to the winter fuel payment, which has been removed from more than 10 million pensioners this winter after it became means-tested. He and his ministers had insisted they would stick to their guns on the policy, even just hours before Sir Keir revealed his change of heart at PMQs 1:01 Baroness Harman said: "It's always been contested and always been unpopular. "But the final straw that broke the camel's back was the elections. The council elections and the Runcorn by-election, where the voters were saying, 'this is not the change we voted for'. "At the end of the day, you cannot just keep flying in the face of what voters - particularly if they're people who previously voted for you - wanted." Baroness Harman is unconvinced by Sir Keir's claim he can U-turn because there is more money due to good economic management by the government. "I don't think that's credible as an argument," she said. "It really is the fact that voters just said 'this is not the change we voted for, we're not going to have this'." The challenge for the government now, she said, is deciding who will get the allowance moving forward, when they'll get it, and when it will all be announced. What are the options for winter fuel payments? The Institute for Fiscal Studies has looked into the government's options after Sir Keir Starmer said he is considering changes to the cut to winter fuel payment (WFP). The government could make a complete U-turn on removing the payment from pensioners not claiming pension credit so they all receive it again. There could be a higher eligibility threshold. Households not claiming pension credit could apply directly for the winter fuel payment, reporting their income and other circumstances. Or, all pensioner households could claim it but those above a certain income level could do a self-assessment tax return to pay some of it back as a higher income tax charge. This could be like child benefit, where the repayment is based on the higher income member of the household. Instead of reducing pension credit by £1 for every £1 of income, it could be withdrawn more slowly to entitle more households to it, and therefore WFP. At the moment, WFP is paid to households but if it was paid to individuals the government could means-test each pensioner, rather than their household. This could be based on an individual's income, which the government already records for tax purposes. Individuals who have a low income could get the payment, even if their spouse is high income. This would mean low income couples getting twice as much, whereas each eligible house currently gets the same. Instead of just those receiving pension credit getting WFP, the government could extend it to pensioners who claim means-tested welfare for housing or council tax support. A total of 430,000 renting households would be eligible at a cost of about £100m a year. Pensioners not on pension credit but receiving disability credits could get WFP, extending eligibility to 1.8m households in England and Scotland at a cost of about £500m a year. Pensioners living in a band A-C property could be automatically entitled to WFP, affected just over half (6.3m). Chancellor Rachel Reeves has committed to just one major fiscal event a year, meaning just one annual budget in the autumn. Autumn budgets normally take place in October, with the last one at the end of the month. If this year's budget is around the same date, it will leave little time for the extra winter fuel payments to be made, as they are paid between November and December. Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds told the Electoral Dysfunction podcast the economy will have to be "strong enough" for the government to U-turn on winter fuel payment cuts. He also said the public would have to wait for the budget for any announcement.
Wales Online
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Wales Online
Mum's fury as new law 'fails to protect children from paedophile parents'
Mum's fury as new law 'fails to protect children from paedophile parents' 'I had to pay thousands for my daughter to get the same level of protection that was being given, for free, to every child in the UK but her' Stock image of a child A mum who spent her life savings to protect her child from her sex offender ex-husband has criticised the UK Government over a new law. The Victims and Courts Bill would automatically strip parental rights from some criminals — but critics say it has been heavily watered down. Last year Harriet Harman — then a Labour MP, now a peer — tabled a legislative amendment which would have seen anyone who has raped a child "automatically deprived" of their parental rights. But the wording of the newly-released draft bill is different — with an automatic restriction of parental rights that would only apply to offenders who have sexually abused their own child. They also must have been sentenced to four or more years in jail. If you have parental responsibility for a child but do not live with them, it means the other parent must include you when making important decisions about their lives, like on issues of health, education and living arrangements. Baroness Harman made the proposal after reading about the case of Bethan (not her real name), who had applied for a Cardiff Family Court order to strip her ex-husband of parental responsibility after he was jailed for paedophile offences. The convictions cannot be reported for legal reasons but did not involve their daughter. Although Bethan successfully obtained the order, she had to spend £34,000 in legal fees and put her career on hold in the process. She was overjoyed last year when she thought the new legislation would prevent others experiencing the same nightmare — but she was appalled by the wording of the draft bill. Article continues below Bethan said: "The original law put forward by Harriet Harman rightly proposed that any parent convicted of raping any child should experience automatic and mandatory removal of their parental rights, ensuring that their children would be immediately safeguarded." She added: "Rather than being protected, it puts the children of paedophiles at risk of serious harm, as the revised version deprives them of any legal safeguards until after at least one of them has suffered serious, preventable harm at the hands of the unsafe parent." In Bethan's case, she had to pay for a transcript of her ex-husband's sentencing and then take it to a solicitor to understand the implications for her child. She learned the judge had made a lifelong sexual harm prevention order — but had included an exemption allowing him to apply through the family courts for access to the daughter. Explaining why the exemption prompted her to go to the family court, Bethan said: "I had to pay thousands for [my daughter] to get the same level of protection that was being given, for free, to every child in the UK but her. "Going to family court was incredibly challenging financially. I pulled my daughter out of childcare where she was settled, used every penny of my savings, gave up the lease on my home and moved in with family, and even then I could only afford half of the £34,000 legal costs. Had it not been for family members stepping in and paying the other half, my daughter could not have been protected and would probably have ended up being seriously sexually abused." Bethan fears the new bill will leave parents in similar situations having to fend for themselves. The same concern has been voiced by Right to Equality, a non-profit led by the barrister Dr Charlotte Proudman. "In 2024, the Conservative government prepared legislation [after Harriet Harman's proposal] to strip all child rapists of their parental responsibility," said Right to Equality in a statement. "In this Bill, the Labour government have decided it should only apply to children who were directly abused by their parent or carer, whose case results in a conviction and where the offender was sentenced to imprisonment for four years or more. In practice, few victims will meet these criteria. "Right to Equality believes that all children of child sex offenders should be given protections so that they and their family have the right to go on holiday, to change their name, or to move house or school, without interference from a sexual predator." Alex Davies-Jones, m inister for victims and violence against women and girls, said: 'I do recognise the concerns raised by victims and campaigners, and will continue working closely with them to ensure the law is as strong and protective as it needs to be.' She added: "These changes will, for the first time, introduce an automatic suspension of parental responsibility for offenders who sexually abuse their own child and receive a prison sentence of four years or more — removing the need for victims to go through court to secure this." You can read our full court report on Bethan's case here. Article continues below
Sky News
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Sky News
Starmer condemned for telling MP 'she talks rubbish'
Sir Keir Starmer should have reassured and explained his immigration policy to a senior Welsh MP rather than telling her "you're rubbish", Labour peer Harriet Harman said. Speaking to Beth Rigby on the Electoral Dysfunction podcast, Harriet Harman criticised the prime minister for telling Plaid Cymru Westminster leader Liz Saville Roberts during PMQs "she talks rubbish" after she called him out for using "island of strangers" in his immigration speech on Monday. Baroness Harman said: "He should have actually explained 'look, this is what we're getting at. We're it's a communitarian message, it's about neighbourliness, it's about integration'. "And he should have done that and reassured her and explained rather than just slapping her down. "I just think to call across the chamber, 'you're rubbish' - I think a prime minister has the opportunity to be a bit more magisterial in that." She said she has "been that woman standing there asking the prime minister a heartfelt and serious question, and had the prime minister say, 'you're rubbish'". 2:42 "I think people do want an explanation and he's got an explanation and he should have done that rather than hit at the messenger." After Sir Keir used the phrase "island of strangers" while announcing a crackdown on immigration, fellow Labour MPs, businesses and industry reacted angrily. The rhetoric was likened by some critics to Enoch Powell's rivers of blood speech. Ahead of PMQs on Wednesday, Cabinet Office minister Pat McFadden tried to move the debate away from Sir Keir's controversial remarks. "I think we should focus on the policy," he told Sky News. "Immigration has contributed a huge amount to the UK, it will in the future, I think the public want a sense of rules around it, that is what the prime minister was speaking about." He said the row was "overblown" and he might use the "island of strangers" phrase "depending on the context".
Telegraph
07-05-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Trump spurs global rollback on the rights of women and girls
A global rollback of women's rights was already underway before US President Donald Trump took office. But now it's in hyper speed. Trump's actions, including his broad slashing of international aid, both cause direct harm and encourage other world leaders to walk away from women's rights. For years, most mainstream politicians saw advancing the rights of 'women and girls' as a priority, even if the reality did not always match the rhetoric. Doing so often seemed uncontroversial and bipartisan, including in the UK. Foreign Secretary William Hague and Angelina Jolie in 2014 opened an initiative on sexual violence in armed conflict. The same year, the UK's coalition government held a 'Girl Summit' promising global leadership to end child marriage and female genital mutilation. In 2021, Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced that girls' education globally was a top priority. And just last month, UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy announced the appointment of Harriet Harman as UK Special Envoy for Women and Girls. Her job: to champion gender equality worldwide. The 2023 US Agency for International Development (USAID) Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment Policy was also unequivocal: 'Gender equality is a human right.' This statement reflects international law – 189 countries, the vast majority of the world, have agreed to be bound by the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. The #MeToo movement went viral in 2017. Women around the world shared experiences of gender-based violence and demanded solutions. No one was naïve about the challenge of dismantling centuries of patriarchy, but there was a feeling that women's legitimate demands could not be denied. Yet today we are struggling to slow the loss of rights protections. Trump's attack on women's rights within the US has already gravely damaged respect for reproductive rights and is having a much broader impact on the health and economic rights of women and girls inside the United States. Abortion is now illegal in 12 of the 50 US states, according to the Centre for Reproductive Rights. But his policies' harmful impact stretches far beyond the US. First, there are the aid cuts themselves. The Trump administration has drastically slashed US government funding for international aid, including to programs focused specifically on assisting women. The US had been the world's largest aid donor. Women and girls are dying as a result and many more will die unless these policies are reversed. The Trump administration has also cut crucial research on women's health. They have dismantled parts of the US government that were responsible for developing aid programming, including teams to end gender inequality. The administration has cut over US$500 million in Labor Department grants to uphold international labour standards in 40 countries, including programs to support gender equity and women's participation in the workforce, and to combat human trafficking – which disproportionately impacts women and girls. Women and girls will suffer The Trump administration's broader assault on what it refers to as DEI – efforts to redress inequities based on historical and current forms of racism and other forms of discrimination – is having a deeply chilling impact. Even the word gender seems to be an anathema to the US government, with, for example, the US mission to the UN seeking to remove this word from every UN resolution. Decades of hard work went into helping the aid sector be more cognisant of and responsive to how inequalities intersect. For example, if a population is facing a famine, donor governments and aid groups need specific strategies to get food to women and girls who, among other obstacles, face greater difficulties in accessing distribution centres. During conflicts, women and girls face gendered impacts that often include sexual violence, but also affect their livelihoods, access to education, safety, freedom of movement, and care-giving roles. Forced displacement often exposes them to further violence. These gendered impacts are further complicated when they intersect with other forms of marginalisation, including based on race, ethnicity, age, and disability. The disproportionate impacts that women and girls face exist across the entire range of human rights issues. Trump's crackdown on 'DEI language' makes it harder even to discuss these issues. During the first Trump administration, some countries, led by the Netherlands, filled gaps in international aid created by the already deeply harmful but far less drastic cuts. This time around, we see the opposite. Even among countries pledging to maintain their aid budgets there is no talk of increases, and often the news is much worse. Under US pressure to boost military spending and concerned that their security pact with the US is breaking down, European countries that have seen themselves as leaders on women's rights are sharpening their axes. The UK Labour government cut the already reduced aid budget again, a total reduction since 2021 of more than half, alongside a wave of cuts by other European countries. The Netherlands government is among those cutting. Make no mistake – women and girls suffer as a result. The World Health Organization – one of the UN bodies the US is withdrawing from – warns that the cuts have made the goals on reducing maternal mortality almost unachievable. Funding cuts are closing down some of the few facilities providing emergency medical care to survivors of rape in war zones. Programs around the world that provided life-saving assistance are closing their doors. Trump is leading the way to a cruel new world order in which women and girls are among the first victims. Governments everywhere have a duty to push back. Protect yourself and your family by learning more about Global Health Security
