Why Cameron has rejected Nadhim Zahawai's child benefit plan

The Tory MP's plan to limit all child-related benefits to two children would undermine the 'striver'/'scrounger' divide by hitting all families, regardless of their employment status.

Earlier this week, George Osborne vowed to cut "billions" more from welfare if the Tories win the next election. In an op-ed in today's Mail on Sunday, Conservative MP Nadhim Zahawi suggests one way he could do so. The No. 10 policy board member calls for the government to limit all "child-related welfare" to "the first two children". Here's the key passage:

This would include Child Benefit and Child Tax Credit but would exclude disability payments.

It would apply to all households, both in and out of work, and only to new births after the change became law. Capping welfare at two children may seem tough, but setting the cap at three simply wouldn’t deliver the savings we need.

At first sight, this might merely appear to be a restatement of the proposal previously floated by Iain Duncan Smith. The Work and Pensions Secretary said in September 2012: "My view is that if you did this you would start it for those who begin to have more than say two children. Essentially it's about the amount of money that you pay to support how many children, and what is clear to the general public, that they make decisions based on what they can afford for the number of children they have. That is the nature of what we all do."

But there are several key differences with the Duncan Smith plan, which was vetoed by the Lib Dems before the 2012 Autumn Statement. The first is that Zahawi's cap would apply to all child-related benefits, rather than child benefit alone. The second is that it would apply to all families, rather than just those claiming out-of-work benefits. It's the latter point that explains why No. 10 has been quick to stamp on the idea, with a source commenting: "this is not government policy and is not supported by the prime minister."

Were the Tories to limit child-related benefits for all families, regardless of their employment status, it would undermine the 'striver'/'scrounger' divide they have worked so hard to create. As Grant Shapps said of the Duncan Smith plan earlier this year: "A lot of people worry that the way welfare operated under the last government meant claimants were free from taking the difficult decisions you would take if you are in work – none more starkly obvious than when you have children.

"If you are a working family and you have another child, you know it’s going to mean quite a severe impact on your living costs. Yet in the welfare system, it’s almost turned on its head, so additional children are actually recognised, with no limit. We need to create a choice for people on welfare which mirrors that which millions of people in work who aren’t receiving state support have to make. It’s only fair to the taxpayer."

This, of course, is nonsense. There is no evidence that significant numbers of families have more children merely to claim benefits and nor is it clear why it would be a less "difficult decision" for them to do so (unlike in-work families, they cannot draw on private salaries as well as social security). But Shapps rightly believes there is a ready audience for his rhetoric.

While the Duncan Smith proposal would help to reinforce the artificial divide created between "working" and "workless" families (owing to the insecure labour market, many cycle in and out of work), the Zahawi plan would undermine it. For that reason, while the former idea will almost certainly appear in the next Tory manifesto, the latter will not.

David Cameron talks during a PM Direct event at the Tetley Tea factory in Darlington on December 13, 2013. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty Images/AFP
Show Hide image

Why is the government charging more women for selling sex but turning a blind eye to buyers?

Since 2013, the number of women charged for selling sex gone up while the number of men charged for buying it has gone down.

It’s no surprise that prostitution policy is an area rarely visited by our legislators. It’s politically charged - a place where the need to prevent exploitation seemingly clashes head on with notions of liberal freedom; where there are few simple answers, a disputed evidence base, and no votes.

There’s also little evidence to suggest that MPs are different from the rest of the population - where one-in-ten men have purchased sex. It is little wonder therefore that our report on how the law should change, published in 2014, was the first major cross-party intervention on the subject in twenty years.

Some take the view that by removing all legal constraints, it will make the inherently exploitative trade of prostitution, safer. It’s not just me that questions this approach, though I accept that - equally - there’s no consensus that my preferred measure of criminalising the purchase of sex, while decriminalising the sale, would fundamentally change the scale of the problem.

Where all sides come together, however, is in the desire to see women diverted from the law courts. It is still possible for women (and it still is women; prostitution remains highly genderised) to go to prison for offences related to prostitution. Today, in 2015.

The total number of prosecutions for all prostitution offences in England and Wales has been decreasing since 2010, but not in a uniform fashion. This does not reflect a reduction in the size of the trade, or the violent nature of it.

There were once consistently more prosecutions for kerb crawling, profiting, and control of prostitution. But since 2013, there have been more prosecutions for soliciting or loitering than for profit from prostitution and kerb crawling each year.

In simple terms, offences committed by men with choice, freedom and money in their pocket are having a blind eye turned to them, while women are being targeted - and this trend is accelerating. In the law courts, and in prosecutions, it is the most vulnerable party in the transaction, who is taking the burden of criminality.

Take on-street sex buying as an example. In 2013-14 just 237 prosecutions were brought for kerb crawling, but there were 553 - more than twice as many - for loitering and soliciting.

There is a similar pattern in the 2014/15 figures: 227 charges for kerb crawling reached court, while 456 prosecutions were initiated against those who were selling sex. Just 83 prosecutions for control of prostitution, or ‘pimping’, were brought in that same year.

These are men and women on the same street. It takes a high level of liberal delusion to be convinced that prostitution is caused by a surge of women wishing to sell sex, rather than men who wish to buy it. And yet women who sell sex are the ones being targeted in our law courts, not the men that create the demand in the first place.

This situation even goes against the Crown Prosecution Service’s (CPS) own guidance. They say:

“Prostitution is addressed as sexual exploitation within the overall CPS Violence Against Women strategy because of its gendered nature… At the same time, those who abuse and exploit those involved in prostitution should be rigorously investigated and prosecuted, and enforcement activity focused on those who create the demand for on-street sex, such as kerb crawlers.”

Why then, is this happening? For the same reason it always does - in our criminal justice system stigmatised, poor women are valued less than moneyed, professional men.

My debate in Parliament today raises these issues directly with the government ministers responsible. But to be honest, the prosecution-bias against women in the courts isn’t the problem; merely a symptom of it. This bias will only be tackled when the law reflects the inherent harm of the trade to women, rather than sending the mixed signals of today.

That’s why I welcome the work of the End Demand Alliance, composed of over 40 organisations working to end the demand that fuels sex trafficking and prostitution, advocating the adoption of the Sex Buyer Law throughout the UK.

This would criminalise paying for sex, while decriminalising its sale and providing support and exiting services for those exploited by prostitution. Regardless of these big changes in the law, I don’t see how anyone can support the current state of affairs where there are more prosecutions brought against women than men involved in prostitution.

The authorities are targeting women because they're easier to arrest and prosecute. It goes against their own guidance, common sense and natural justice.
And it needs to stop.

Gavin Shuker is MP for Luton South and chair of the All Party Group on Prostitution and the Global Sex Trade.