Chris Grayling said the new welfare plans are "grounded in common sense". Photo: BBC
Show Hide image

Government cries "common sense" as it refuses to debate Budget plan that could require women to prove rape

Leader of the House Chris Grayling has dismissed MPs' calls to set aside time to debate what has been described as an "incredibly distasteful" policy.

Following George Osborne's Budget announcements about limiting benefits and tax credits to two children, the SNP MP Alison Thewliss noticed a proposal that made her "utterly furious". It is the idea that women who have had a third child from having been raped will have to inform the government (DWP or HMRC) so as to avoid losing their benefits and tax credits for that child.

According to Thewliss, this is tantamount to rape victims having to "justify" having a third child and prove to the government that they have been raped.

Here is the offending passage from the Summer Budget document:

Click to enlarge.

The problem here is that, although the government is claiming "protections" for women who have had a third child through rape, the onus is on the woman to claim this circumstance in order to avoid being hit by the benefits and tax credits cuts.

This would put women in the distressing position of having to tell the authorities about having been raped, and would also introduce another level of potentially damaging intrusion from government departments into the lives of welfare claimants.

As quoted in the Guardian, the Women Against Rape campaigner Lisa Longstaff highlights this:

Asking women to disclose very difficult information and expecting them to be able to prove it – in what is frankly a very hostile environment when the DWP is trying to take your money away – will have appalling consequences.

Thewliss' colleague, Kirsten Oswald MP, brought this up during Commons Business Questions (watch from 39.20), the day following the Budget. She challenged the government to set time aside for a debate on the “incredibly distasteful” proposal. Chris Grayling, Leader of the House of Commons, dismissed her call for a debate, saying the policy would be carried out sensitively.

Here is the full exchange:

Kirsten Oswald: Can I ask the Leader of the House for a debate in government time on the incredibly distasteful statement in yesterday's Budget, which will mean that a woman who has a third child as a result of rape will need to prove this to DWP in order to be eligible for tax credits?

Chris Grayling: This is an issue she has the opportunity to raise in the Budget debate. The Chancellor was very clear yesterday that this provision will be designed in a way to handle difficult cases in the most sensitive possible way. But she must also understand the necessity of putting in place a system of welfare that is grounded in common sense, that is designed to help people back into the workplace, and she will know that there have been many, many examples of people with very large families who are absolutely overt in their statements that they have had large families in order to take advantage of the welfare system. That shouldn't happen; we want those people to have fulfilling lives in work as well as in their families. 

Afterwards, Oswald was "appalled" by Grayling's response to her proposal to debate what she describes as a "disgraceful plan".

Anoosh Chakelian is deputy web editor at the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

The Women's March against Trump matters – but only if we keep fighting

We won’t win the battle for progressive ideas if we don’t battle in the first place.

Arron Banks, UKIP-funder, Brexit cheerleader and Gibraltar-based insurance salesman, took time out from Trump's inauguration to tweet me about my role in tomorrow's Women’s March Conservative values are in the ascendancy worldwide. Thankfully your values are finished. . . good”.

Just what about the idea of women and men marching for human rights causes such ill will? The sense it is somehow cheeky to say we will champion equality whoever is in office in America or around the world. After all, if progressives like me have lost the battle of ideas, what difference does it make whether we are marching, holding meetings or just moaning on the internet?

The only anti-democratic perspective is to argue that when someone has lost the argument they have to stop making one. When political parties lose elections they reflect, they listen, they learn but if they stand for something, they don’t disband. The same is true, now, for the broader context. We should not dismiss the necessity to learn, to listen, to reflect on the rise of Trump – or indeed reflect on the rise of the right in the UK  but reject the idea that we have to take a vow of silence if we want to win power again.

To march is not to ignore the challenges progressives face. It is to start to ask what are we prepared to do about it.

Historically, conservatives have had no such qualms about regrouping and remaining steadfast in the confidence they have something worth saying. In contrast, the left has always been good at absolving itself of the need to renew.

We spend our time seeking the perfect candidates, the perfect policy, the perfect campaign, as a precondition for action. It justifies doing nothing except sitting on the sidelines bemoaning the state of society.

We also seem to think that changing the world should be easier than reality suggests. The backlash we are now seeing against progressive policies was inevitable once we appeared to take these gains for granted and became arrogant and exclusive about the inevitability of our worldview. Our values demand the rebalancing of power, whether economic, social or cultural, and that means challenging those who currently have it. We may believe that a more equal world is one in which more will thrive, but that doesn’t mean those with entrenched privilege will give up their favoured status without a fight or that the public should express perpetual gratitude for our efforts via the ballot box either.  

Amongst the conferences, tweets and general rumblings there seem three schools of thought about what to do next. The first is Marxist  as in Groucho revisionism: to rise again we must water down our principles to accommodate where we believe the centre ground of politics to now be. Tone down our ideals in the hope that by such acquiescence we can eventually win back public support for our brand – if not our purpose. The very essence of a hollow victory.

The second is to stick to our guns and stick our heads in the sand, believing that eventually, when World War Three breaks out, the public will come grovelling back to us. To luxuriate in an unwillingness to see we are losing not just elected offices but the fight for our shared future.

But what if there really was a third way? It's not going to be easy, and it requires more than a hashtag or funny t-shirt. It’s about picking ourselves up, dusting ourselves down and starting to renew our call to arms in a way that makes sense for the modern world.

For the avoidance of doubt, if we march tomorrow and then go home satisfied we have made our point then we may as well not have marched at all. But if we march and continue to organise out of the networks we make, well, then that’s worth a Saturday in the cold. After all, we won’t win the battle of ideas, if we don’t battle.

We do have to change the way we work. We do have to have the courage not to live in our echo chambers alone. To go with respect and humility to debate and discuss the future of our communities and of our country.

And we have to come together to show there is a willingness not to ask a few brave souls to do that on their own. Not just at election times, but every day and in every corner of Britain, no matter how difficult it may feel.

Saturday is one part of that process of finding others willing not just to walk a mile with a placard, but to put in the hard yards to win the argument again for progressive values and vision. Maybe no one will show up. Maybe not many will keep going. But whilst there are folk with faith in each other, and in that alternative future, they’ll find a friend in me ready to work with them and will them on  and then Mr Banks really should be worried.