Danny Kruger MP: speeches

Speeches

• 29 Nov 2024 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for that intervention. The assessments have to determine whether the patient is terminally ill, whether they have mental capacity to make the decision, and then whether they have been coerced or pressured into the decision. In many ways the whole issue turns on the question of whether someone is terminally ill. I am afraid that it is a term of great elasticity, almost to the point of meaninglessness. It is well known, as the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) said earlier, that it is impossible for doctors to predict with any accuracy that somebody will die within six months. It is a purely subjective judgment, made in this case by a doctor whose job will be approving assisted deaths. They simply have to determine not whether it is reasonably certain that death will occur, but that it can be reasonably expected—in other words, that it is possible.

• 29 Nov 2024 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will make a little progress. The second question that medical practitioners have to answer is about mental capacity, and here again is a great vagueness. How do they judge if someone is in their right mind when they are asking for help to kill themselves? The Bill says that the definition of capacity is based on the Mental Capacity Act 2005, but that Act is deliberately expansive. It explicitly assumes capacity in the patient, so having acute depression is no bar to being judged to have capacity under the Act. Being suicidal is no bar under the Act, so the capacity test is no bar at all. Finally, there is the question of coercion. Is the patient asking for an assisted death because of pressure from someone else? There are two glaring problems here. The first is that the process does not even attempt to answer the question properly. There is no investigation, no requirement for medics to interview friends and family, and no need for a psychiatrist or family doctor to be consulted. The medics just need to satisfy themselves—who knows how?—that, to the best of their knowledge, the person has not been pressured. The second problem with the coercion test is that it focuses on only one type of coercion—the less likely type. The bigger danger is not other people pressuring someone to do this; it is that they pressure themselves—hon. Members have made this point. The Bill has nothing to say on that. Internal pressure is absolutely fine. If you feel worthless or a burden to others, if the NHS will not offer you the treatment you need, if the local authority will not make the adjustments you need to your home, if you have to wait too long for a hospital appointment, or if you want to die because you think the system has failed you, that is absolutely fine.

• 29 Nov 2024 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman; he is absolutely right. I am afraid that the definition of terminal illness is in a sense the essential flaw in the Bill, but I will come on to that. Going back to the conversation that the patient has with the medical practitioner, the crucial point is that the conversation does not need to be started by the patient, according to the Bill. It could be started by the medic—any medic—perhaps in hospital, who could make the suggestion of an assisted death to a patient who has never raised the issue themselves, whose family have never suggested it and whose own doctor does not think it is the right thing to do. And so the idea is planted. Then, for whatever reason—and, by the way, there is no need ever to give a reason—the patient says that they want to proceed with an assisted death. They sign a declaration, or rather somebody else can sign it for them. It could be any professional, someone they do not know—maybe a new medical practitioner. A total stranger can do all the paperwork on their behalf. That is what the clause about the proxy entails. Then these two medical practitioners make their assessment.

• 29 Nov 2024 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure that the hon. Member for Spen Valley is delighted to have the support of the hon. Gentleman. I refer him to the point that I was making: this is an inappropriate process.

• 29 Nov 2024 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will give way to the other hon. Gentleman.

• 29 Nov 2024 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I do not have time to check the Bill now, but from my memory it refers to someone who has known the patient for two years or someone of good standing in the community, which could be some sort of professional who is not known to them at all. Someone can quickly check the Bill, but my understanding is that it could be a total stranger to them.

• 29 Nov 2024 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am sorry if offence is given, but the fact is that the value of having a Bill in black and white is seeing what the law really is. What the Bill would do is amend the Suicide Act 1961. It would allow people to assist with a suicide for the first time. I respect the hon. Lady’s concern, but I am afraid we do need to use the proper language here. The Bill’s scope is very broad. Members who think that assisted suicide for people with anorexia or other conditions that would not be regarded as terminal could not happen here should consider the young people in the UK today who are given a diagnosis of terminal anorexia and put on a palliative care pathway—essentially, assigned to death. Of course these are extreme cases—

• 29 Nov 2024 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Lady, especially for promoting me to the status of doctor; I am actually a charity worker and political hack by background. It is good of her to credit me with those skills—perhaps I should set myself up as a medical practitioner. She is right that medics and indeed judges have to make difficult judgments all the time. I think it would be very dangerous and inappropriate to give them the power to do so in this case. The whole question of the six-month cut-off is very important. I acknowledge all the points that have been made, but there is another problem with the definition of terminal illness. Almost anybody with a serious illness or disability could fit the definition. I recognise that these are not the cases that the hon. Member for Spen Valley has in mind—of course they are not—but that is the problem with the Bill. All that someone needs to do to qualify for an assisted death—for the definition of terminal illness—is refuse treatment, such as insulin if the person is diabetic. In the case of eating disorders, a topic on which I have worked with the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), a person just needs to refuse food. The evidence from jurisdictions around the world, and our own jurisprudence, shows that that would be enough to qualify someone for an assisted death.

• 29 Nov 2024 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I think you indicated that I could speak for a little longer than eight minutes, Mr Speaker.

• 29 Nov 2024 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady makes a very important point. I will not get into the question of public opinion and the polling, because it is so contested, but there is clear evidence that the doctors who work with the dying—the palliative care professionals—are opposed to a change in the law by a great majority. They see the damage that it would do to the palliative care profession and services, and they see the danger for vulnerable patients.

• 29 Nov 2024 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I think I have made the point that this Bill is too comprehensive and there is too much in it to address through the process of a private Member’s Bill. If the hon. Gentleman has serious concerns about aspects of the Bill that he would not be prepared to see come into law, he should not be supporting it today. Let me explain the concerns about the Bill that I think are too comprehensive to be dealt with in Committee. I recognise how hard the hon. Member for Spen Valley has worked to try to ensure that it is safe, but I do not believe it is, for the following reasons. Let us start at the beginning. The process starts with a conversation between a patient and a medical practitioner—not necessarily a doctor; just a medic of some sort, unspecified at this stage. If the patient tells their ordinary family doctor that they want an assisted death, the doctor is obliged to either explain how it works or pass them on to someone who will do it—which is probably what will happen, by the way. The likelihood is that we would see a new branch of medicine spring up, like the medics I met in Canada.

• 29 Nov 2024 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am not going to give way again. There are a great many of these cases, I am afraid, and I mention them to show how wide open the Bill is. [Interruption.]

• 29 Nov 2024 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes the right point, and I am afraid to say that is absolutely the case. The six-month cut-off is completely arbitrary and impossible to determine. It is a line in the sand, and of course it could be challenged, as so much of the Bill could be challenged, on human rights grounds. Every one of the safeguards that has been introduced by the hon. Member for Spen Valley would in fact be a barrier and a discrimination against the new human right that has been awarded to one group but should of course be awarded to all—if the point is conceded in this way.

• 29 Nov 2024 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you very much. I do not want to have too much grumbling at the eight-minute moment. I will take my 15 minutes, with time for interventions. I start by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) for her very powerful speech and the way in which she has led this campaign—with great respect, sensitivity and, to use a contested word, dignity. She and I knew each other before we were MPs, when we both worked in the charity sector. I like and admire her greatly, and I know that we have more in common than might appear today. All of us in this House have this in common: we all share a deep concern about the experience of people dying or fearing death, pain and suffering. I bear heavily on my conscience the people whose lives will be prolonged beyond their wishes if I get my way and this Bill is defeated today. I will not disregard those people or minimise their anxiety. We will hear those voices in today’s debate—we have heard many of them already—speaking through hon. Members in what I know will be very moving speeches. If I voted for this Bill, I would have on my conscience many more people whose voices we cannot hear—the people who would be vulnerable as a consequence of the huge changes that this Bill would introduce in our society and in the NHS. My view is that if we get our broken palliative care system right and our wonderful hospices properly funded, we can do so much more for all the people who we will hear about today, using modern pain relief and therapies to help everybody die with a minimum of suffering when the time comes. We will not be able to do that if we introduce this new option; instead, we will expose many more people to harm. I will go through the Bill in a moment, but first I will say a word about process, in response to the points made by the hon. Member for Spen Valley. This Bill is simply too big for the time that it has been given, and I implore hon. Members not to hide behind the fiction that it can be amended substantially in Committee and in its later stages. The remaining stages of a private Member’s Bill are for minor tweaks, not the kind of wholesale restructuring that we would need if we were ever to make this Bill safe. Members who vote for the Bill today must be prepared to see it become law largely unamended. I suggest that if they have any doubts, the only responsible choice is to vote no, and let the advocates of assisted dying bring back a better Bill at another time.

• 29 Nov 2024 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will get to the end of my speech. That is the medical stage, and I will jump straight to the judicial stage. The medical practitioners sign it off, and then the judge has to confirm all the same tests. Of course, many eminent judges have made the point that it will overwhelm the family courts if the test were applied properly, but it will not be applied properly, because the Bill assumes that judges will fulfil a new inquisitorial role and actually look into cases as investigators, which is entirely unknown in English common law. But the Bill will not require any actual investigation. There is no requirement for a judge even to meet the applicant. They simply have to have a phone call, or maybe it will be an email, from one of the medics. That is it. That is the inquiry. On that basis, the judge must decide whether it is more likely than not that there has been external pressure. After the judge approves it—they are required to approve it, unless they can find evidence of external coercion—we go to “the final act”, as the Bill says, where a junior colleague, as a medical practitioner, oversees your death by pills or lethal injection. And here is the last thing that the Bill does or does not do. There is no requirement at any stage of the process—at either the medical or the judicial stage—for anyone to tell the patient’s next of kin, their wider family or even their GP that the NHS and the judicial system are working in secret to bring about the death of their loved one, maybe their father or their daughter. I say again that these are not the cases that the Bill was designed for, but they are directly in scope, and it is going to take more than a tweak in Committee to get them out. Is this what is meant by having choice at the end of life? Let us talk about choice. I am often accused of wanting to impose my view on others—that point was made earlier. People say, “If you don’t approve of assisted death, don’t have one, but don’t deprive me of the choice.” In fact, the evidence is that, with this new option and the comparative loss of investment and innovation in palliative care, real choice will narrow. There is a broader point to make about choice, which is that no man or woman is an island. Just as every person’s death, even a good death, diminishes us all, so we will all be involved and affected if we make this change. The Bill will not just create a new option for a few and leave everyone else unaffected; it will impose this new reality on every person towards the end of their life, on everyone who could be thought to be near death, and on their families—the option of assisted suicide, the obligation to have a conversation around the bedside or whispered in the corridor, “Is it time?” It will change life and death for everyone. I am very aware of the terrible plight of the people who are begging us for this new law. I think we can do better for them than they fear, but we also need to think in real human terms about what the effect will be on the choices of other people, and I do not mean the people who are used to getting their way. I am talking about the people who lack agency, the people who know what it is to be excluded from power and to have decisions made for them by bigwigs in distant offices who speak a language they do not understand—the sort of people who the hon. Member for Spen Valley and I both know from our previous charity work, and who we all know from our constituency work. They are not the people who write to us campaigning for a change in the law, but the people who come to our surgeries with their lives in tatters, or who the police or social workers tell us about—the people with complex needs. What are the safeguards for them? Let me tell the House: we are the safeguard—this place; this Parliament; you and me. We are the people who protect the most vulnerable in society from harm, yet we stand on the brink of abandoning that role. The Rubicon was a very small stream, but on the other side lies a very different world—a worse world, with a very different idea of human value. The idea that our individual worth lies in our utility, valuable only for so long as we are useful—not a burden, not a cost, not making a mess. Let us not be the Parliament that authorises that idea. I mentioned at the start of my speech the voices of those we cannot hear: the frail and elderly and the disabled. As we are surrounded by such a cloud of witnesses, let us do better than this Bill. Let today be not a vote for despair, but the start of a proper debate about dying well, in which we have a better idea than a state suicide service. Let us have a debate in which we remember that we have intrinsic value; that real choice and autonomy means having access to the best care possible and the fullest control over what happens to us while we live; and that true dignity consists in being cared for to the end.

• 29 Nov 2024 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am perplexed by that argument. The suggestion that there may be coercion—of course there will be—and abuse, and all sorts of injustices that take place in the current system, does not strike me as an argument for regulating and licensing assisted suicide. If we have concerns about practice in the NHS, let us deal with that. Let us not license suicide—and, by the way, evidence from around the world shows that that increases suicide in the general population. Suicide is contagious. For instance, Oregon is often pointed to as an example. The incidence of suicide, outside assisted suicide laws, has risen by a third there since it was legalised. There would be enormous contagious effects were we to regulate and license it in this way.

• 29 Nov 2024 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will in a moment. These medics I met in Canada are specialists in assisted death and personally kill hundreds of patients a year in their special clinics. [ Interruption. ] If hon. Members have difficulty with the language, then I wonder what they are doing here. This is what we are talking about. I met doctors for whom this is their profession and their job, and they are proud to do it.

• 29 Nov 2024 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I will now run through the process before taking any more interventions. As I have explained, pretty much anybody with a serious illness or disability could work out how to qualify for an assisted death under the Bill. Members may think that far-fetched, but it is what happens everywhere that assisted suicide is legal, including in Oregon.

• 25 Nov 2024 · Car Theft: Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  That was a welcome answer from the Minister. Farmers in Wiltshire complain not just about car theft, which is endemic, but wider agricultural theft, too, and the terrible scourge of hare coursing. It is all bound up in serious organised crime. Does the Minister recognise the seriousness of organised rural crime of this nature, and what steps is she taking to address it?

• 21 Nov 2024 · Transport Infrastructure · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister with responsibility for roads for meeting my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) and me last week to discuss the future of the A303 and the north-south routes through Wiltshire; village roads are clogged with heavy goods vehicle traffic. Seeing as the Government have scrapped the Stonehenge tunnel, saving billions of pounds, I implore the Minister, as she considers the road investment strategy for next year, to think about mitigation of the unsustainable traffic problems that we have in Wiltshire. We have been waiting years for improvements. Please could that be considered as part of the next RIS?

• 20 Nov 2024 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Are you talking to me, Mr Speaker?

• 20 Nov 2024 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  I have not opened my mouth yet.

• 20 Nov 2024 · Blind and Partially Sighted People: Employment Support · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) for his powerful testimony about the enormous opportunities and barriers in this space, and particularly to the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) for the work she has done on this topic during her time in Parliament. She serves her constituents and this community very well. I was struck by the interesting speech by the hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) about the opportunities of AI, which opened my eyes to the huge barriers that blind and partially sighted people have suffered and how technology is helping to overcome those barriers. I pay tribute to his wife: learning to ski with partial sight is a tremendous achievement, so all credit to her. I echo the points made by other hon. Members about the imperative to overcome and reduce the barriers that blind and partially sighted people face in gaining work and progression in the workplace. Doing so is an absolutely necessary matter of justice to those people themselves; it is entirely wrong that people are discriminated against, directly or indirectly, because of their disability. We therefore have a moral imperative to act. As the hon. Member for Battersea stressed, we also need to reduce barriers to employment for blind and partially sighted people for the sake of the economy; when we exclude blind and partially sighted people from employment and progression in work, the country is denied an enormous wealth of talent. Finally, addressing remaining barriers to employment and work progression for blind and partially sighted people is necessary for the sake of the taxpayer and the public finances. Our country’s disability benefits bill is simply unsustainable. It has risen sharply in recent years and is projected to rise to unsustainable levels over the course of this Parliament. On the current trajectory, spending on health and disability benefits will rise 56%—an additional £27 billion—over the course of this Parliament if change does not happen. Overall, spending on incapacity and disability benefits will rise from 2.4% of GDP to 3% over the course of this Parliament. If we could ensure that people who are currently excluded from the workforce can gain employment and reduce dependence on benefits, we could spend much of that money better in other spaces. I therefore support what the Government aim to do in this space and their plan to get activity back to pre-pandemic levels—a noble aspiration, which my party will support. There are two ways to approach this question, as has been touched on in the debate so far. The first is the role of the Government themselves in getting the law, benefits system and incentives right in the fiscal, legal and welfare spaces. I am proud to say that my party led the way in ensuring that we as a country tackle discrimination against people with disabilities. The Disability Discrimination Act 1995, introduced by William Hague, required employers to make reasonable adjustments to facilitate the employment of disabled people, and it remains the great landmark and a vital step in this space. We also introduced Access to Work grants, which have been discussed today. I am pleased to say that last year saw the highest number of Access to Work grant applications awarded for over 15 years—68,000, of which 3,000, I understand, were for blind and partially sighted people. That is encouraging. Nevertheless, we clearly need to go further with Access to Work, as we have heard today. Some innovations were introduced towards the end of the last Parliament, including health adjustment passports, which aim to reduce the time that it takes people to apply for and receive an Access to Work award, by allowing people to take the statement of their disabilities and necessary adjustments from one employer to another. As I understand it, that helpful and practical innovation is now in force. The last Government was also introducing an enhanced Access to Work package, which gave employees more support than they got under the existing scheme, as well as ensuring that employers received support if they were helping to facilitate access to work. Clearly, the process remains onerous and complex—that is a condition that applies across the benefit system with its complex, difficult application process. It only recently went online and it has just become possible for all people to apply for Access to Work digitally. Improvements clearly need to be made. I am concerned about the extent of the backlog in the application process, which began in the previous Parliament and continues. In September 2023, 22,000 applications remained outstanding; in May 2024, there were 37,000; and in October 2024, 56,000. There are significant problems in processing these applications. I am interested to hear the Minister’s views on why that is and what can be done to reduce the backlog. We need to ensure that the conditionality and incentives in the benefit system and employment support are robust and sensitive. I look forward to the forthcoming White Paper to see how that will be achieved. The hon. Member for Battersea recommends a review of the Equality Act and I welcome contributions there. It will be interesting to see what is suggested to improve that legislation. I am concerned, however, about proposals that rely on tightening laws—strengthening the stick side of the arrangement, as it were. As the hon. Lady said, there have been a lot of laws and programmes introduced to support blind and partially sighted people—people with disabilities—into employment, yet there are still significant problems helping them to access and progress in work. Rules will only take us so far. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme talked about the role of technology, it struck me that technology will also only take us so far. There is a danger in looking to technical solutions, whether in the law or technology, that let us off the hook for what really needs to be done. I gently point out the phenomenon of crowding out: the danger that statutory action can diminish the voluntary action that needs to be taken, in this case by employers, to do the right thing. That is the second approach that is crucial to this space; I am pleased that that was the focus of the hon. Member for Battersea’s report and today’s debate. We need to look at the attitude and culture of employers, more than the obligations and systemic responses that Government can make. Of course, Government can significantly influence the attitude of employers but, to quote the Royal National Institute of Blind People: “There are no hard and fast rules” when supporting disabled people at work. We should avoid making assumptions about what blind and partially sighted people can do. That is why we need a flexible approach, in which employers use their imagination and intelligence, in consultation with employees, to develop access for blind and partially sighted people in the workplace. The way to do that is to stress the opportunity, the benefits that employers will reap and, frankly, how easy it is. I was struck by the hon. Lady’s story of what good looks like in the workplace. It sounds like human beings being human towards each other, being genuinely inclusive, ensuring that people help their colleagues literally to navigate the workplace. One can imagine the enormous benefit to that workplace and all employees when there is a culture of inclusivity and generosity, as the hon. Lady described. The key is awareness. Many of the changes needed to make workplaces accessible are not difficult; they just need to be done deliberately as part of the policy of the Government. I welcome the practical recommendations in the hon. Lady’s report, and I look forward to seeing what the White Paper will do to implement them. I respect the Minister and his colleagues, who are genuinely dedicated to improving employment and employability. I am pleased to see what has been trailed for the White Paper, with a focus on skills, devolution, empowering local communities and opportunities for young people. I very much hope that the White Paper will work with employers in the spirit of the report we are debating, rather than against them, but I am concerned by the policies that the Government have announced so far with respect to employers. The national insurance rise will result in thousands of pounds of taxation on every job, and new burdens on employers are being created through the Employment Rights Bill. Those are not good portents of an employer-friendly approach. Nevertheless, on this issue we agree about the direction of travel that needs to be taken, and I very much hope that my party works with the Government to progress the very helpful recommendations that the hon. Member for Battersea has made.

• 19 Nov 2024 · Food Banks · Hansard source

  More

  We did not pledge to do it and we did not do it. I think it is important to have universal entitlement to essential benefits, but if there does need to be some means testing, surely it should penalise, or withdraw the payment from, only the wealthiest pensioners, not 90% as is happening under this policy. The other thing that the Government have done is impose a significant tax on employment through the national insurance rise, which they promised not to do in their manifesto. The cost of that will fall disproportionately on low-paid workers, who will see the impact of that tax in their wage packet. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which is no friend to my party, has pointed out that poverty is due to rise because of the Budget that the Chancellor has introduced. Every household type, except pensioners, will be poorer. Single-parent families will be £1,000 poorer. An average couple with children will be £1,760 poorer. Inequality will be higher. That is all the testament of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. The Office for Budget Responsibility points out that real wages will fall and indeed, the Budget has caused the OBR to lower its real wage growth forecast by 0.5%. As the OBR says, the Budget shifts “real resources out of private households’ incomes in order to devote more resources to public service provision.” That might indeed be the policy that the Government want to pursue, but the effect will to be to reduce household income, as the OBR acknowledges.

• 19 Nov 2024 · Food Banks · Hansard source

  More

  As I said, I do not think that withdrawing the winter fuel payment from 10 million pensioners reflects a transfer of the burden on to those who can bear it most—nor does imposing a taxation on low-paid jobs. What shall we do about all this? I am sorry to say that I have not heard enough in the debate about what could and should be done, although I acknowledge that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East made some suggestions—many of which I agree with, particularly around the importance of having an adequate safety net. I, too, look forward to the universal credit review that the Government are bringing forward, and I strongly agree with the focus on nutrition and empowering communities. I do not agree with the need for the essentials guarantee, although I respect that campaign. I do not think that transferring responsibility for setting benefit levels to an independent body—essentially, to an unaccountable quango—is the right way to go. The Government should be responsible for that policy, and accountable to Parliament, rather than an independent body. If we look at the drivers of food bank use as reported in “Hunger in the UK”, we need to improve the benefits system and make it quicker and easier to use. I look forward to seeing how the Government are going to improve pension credit applications to improve winter fuel payment access. We need to drive up wages again; I deprecate the introduction of taxation on wages. We need to grow our jobs market and ensure that it is easier and better for employers to take workers on and promote them—which, I am afraid to say, the Employment Rights Bill that we are anticipating will not do, given that it imposes punitive obligations on employers from day one. I am conscious that my time is almost up, so let me finish with this point. I praise the flexibility of food banks, and the human relationship that they imply: the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East talked about the powerful sense of community. A quiet revolution happened during the covid pandemic that momentarily offered a better social and economic model in which remarkable innovations, particularly around food and provision to the poorest among our neighbours, were enabled to flourish. I agree that we want food banks to be redundant, but while we have hardship they can be an important part of the mix. I pay tribute to other innovations such as social supermarkets as well. Lastly, I do not agree with the hon. Member that we need a more central strategy and direction for the household support fund. Its great value is in the innovation that it enables, and the way that it empowers local communities, which he said that he believes in, to ensure that local authorities can take responsibility for supporting their communities. That is an important innovation that was brought in by the last Government, which I supported, and I hope that it will continue.