Women (Government Policies)

Debate between Barbara Keeley and Claire Perry

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Claire Perry]

I wish to make a little more progress, and then I will be happy to give way.

We are hearing a lot of hypocrisy about spending cuts and about pension ages. Let us not forget that the Labour party commissioned the Turner review, which recommended a rise in the state pension age for men and women, and pointed out that the disproportionate longevity figures for men and women meant that the age for women had to rise more quickly. We must ask whether there is an alternative proposal. Does something need to happen about state pensions? We would love to hear Labour’s plans, but we never do.

The Labour party also missed more than 50% of its own equality targets. We know that the Labour party loves targets, but we do not hear very much about the fact that it missed 50% of its targets in this important area. We have also not heard much from Labour Members about Sure Start. I love Sure Start, and I am incredibly proud of the three Sure Start centres in my constituency. They are doing incredibly good work, particularly in places such as Tidworth, an area to which dozens of soldiers and soldiers’ wives come. The centre provides a real lifeline there. We have just opened the Sure Start centre in Pewsey, and thanks to the financial management skills of Wiltshire council it will remain open and funded.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

Can the hon. Lady, or any of her colleagues who wish to contribute, tell us why previous Conservative Governments never introduced anything like Sure Start? Sure Start is an amazing achievement of the Labour Government, and she should bear that in mind.

[Claire Perry]

One might just take the hon. Lady’s intervention back a little. Sure Start was invented in the United States in the early 1990s, where it was targeted, as she knows, at the children who needed it most, and it was a great success. If I had been in Parliament when Sure Start was introduced I would have supported it in its early incarnation. It is a very sound idea, but of course it had to grow from something that was very useful when targeted to something that became a universal political point.

Let us hear what happened. In 2010 the National Audit Office found that

“there was no reduction in inequality between child development achieved in the 30% most disadvantaged communities and in the rest of England, against a target to reduce the gap by four percentage points”.

We must remind ourselves that Sure Start was introduced to intervene in the lives of the most vulnerable and needy children and families, and that that target was completely missed. Did any discussion take place about how to target Sure Start better? Was there any acknowledgement that one of the huge issues related to the lack of trust going out and reaching in to the most disadvantaged communities? We know that more than half of the Sure Start centres were failing to reach out to vulnerable families. What should people do in those circumstances? Should they think about how to change that, or should they keep spending and criticise a Government who want to target the money better? The 4,700 extra health visitors jobs—almost 5,000 of them, which will largely be filled by women—represent the way to get from the Sure Start centre out into the community and really help the most disadvantaged children, who absolutely need that intervention. That is what we are planning to do, but we hear no support for it. Again, that is because of the rank hypocrisy that we are hearing from Labour Members today.



The other thing we are hearing today is that the Government have no policies in the area of equality. This is a House of very intelligent people—I keep saying that so it has to be true. There are Members in all parts of the House who work on a cross-party basis on unbelievably important issues, be it child protection or trying to stop the pernicious influence of pornography on the lives of our families. We should be working together on how to make Sure Start centres more effective —on what we can actually do to make a difference—instead of getting involved in this bandwagonism. I find it incredibly demeaning for the House to be participating in that.

We are dealing here with unbelievable hypocrisy, given that it is coming from a party that maxed out on the nation’s credit card. Its approach means that we are spending 39 times the annual operating budget of Sure Start on servicing Labour’s debts. That is the legacy that we are having to deal with. Do we hear any innovative or sensible suggestions about how to deal with it? No, we do not.

We have a benefits system has been created to trap many women in the sorts of poverty from which we would all want them to get out. We know that the benefits system is costing everyone £3,000 a year, but do we get any positive recognition and support for our welfare reform policies and the universal credit that we are proposing? I do not think so. Let us put aside this bandwagonism and hypocrisy, and let us talk about what this coalition Government are actually doing.

First—this is obviously the elephant in the room—the Government are taking action to pay off the previous Government’s crippling debts, which did not pop up overnight as a result of the credit crunch. The Labour Government spent more than they took in taxes every year from 2002, wishfully thinking that post-endogenous growth theory—I went to Nailsea comprehensive school and do not have a clue what that means—would somehow bring us out of the mess. Well, guess what: it does not. A Government have to live within their means if they are not to burden our children with debts, as the profligacy of the Labour Government did. This Government will live within their means. We are making the spending reductions that the Labour party left us with in a way that focuses the scarce resources on those who need them most.

We are facing a public sector pay freeze, and that is tough. Some 35% of the employment based in my constituency is in the public sector, so Members should not think that I do not get a lot of letters about that. However, I also hear from the women, many of whom work part time, who are grateful to be excluded from the pay freeze because they are low earners. They recognise that in these scarce times things have to change, but they think that it is important that the pay freeze excluded the lowest paid, and so do I. The Government have also taken 880,000 people out of taxation completely and definitively with a one-off move—it was not the fiasco of the 10p tax rate—and that benefits lower-income women and families in this country hugely.

We have heard a lot from Labour Members about child tax credits—I am confused, because I thought that the Government were raising child tax credits in absolute terms and ahead of indexation for the most disadvantaged families, who need them the most. I believe that that benefits 4 million of this country’s poorest families. We are examining Sure Start centres, ring-fencing the funding and investing in 5,000 additional health visitors, who can stop Sure Start centres being a nice thing thrown on the wall and make them work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barbara Keeley]

No, I do not accept that. The turmoil that has been caused by the unnecessary top-down reorganisation, as well as the £3 billion cost of that reorganisation, is not helping.

Finally, and close to home in my constituency, Royal Bolton hospital is losing 60 posts, including 32 nurses, with 92 jobs going next year and 95 the year after. At Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh hospital, 533 jobs are going—a 13% reduction. These are the jobs and careers of my constituents, and women’s jobs are disproportionately affected because all those organisations employ significantly more women than men.

In recent months, there has been quite a focus on women’s jobs that are being lost, but the cuts also mean the loss of services that women use more than men. Women, as we know, are more likely to use libraries and health services and they need support from social care for family members and themselves as carers. Women will carry a disproportionate burden of the spending cuts that are affecting social care services as 58% of carers are women, and of those carers who combine caring with part-time work, 89% are women.

Next week is carers’ week, which has great support across the House, and the theme will be the true face of carers. Carers are being asked to talk about the reality of their lives as carers—how hard they can find it to be a carer and what could really make a difference to their lives. A report by the Care and Support Alliance in March showed that levels of unmet need were increasing even before the cuts to local council budgets. That is a great cause for concern. In the alliance’s survey of 1,000 people, nearly seven out of 10 respondents felt that they needed more support, more than two in 10 said that services had been cut back even though needs might have been increasing, and more than two in 10 said that the person cared for needed support but was not receiving any services.

That is not surprising, given that councils have been cutting their eligibility criteria for social care for some time, increasing charges for services and removing caps on charges. I am proud of the fact that, despite the swingeing 27% cuts to council budgets at Labour-run Salford city council, it has managed to retain eligibility criteria for social care at a level to help people with moderate needs as well as those with substantial or critical needs. Salford is now one of only 15% of councils that provide that level of care. That is in great contrast to councils such as coalition-run Birmingham city council, which recently tried to set its eligibility criteria to a new level of “personal critical”. More than 10,000 people would have seen their care packages downgraded and more than 4,000 people would have had no care services or support whatever.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) reported the distress of constituents who came to him for assistance: people who were extremely vulnerable themselves or caring for someone who was elderly, ill or disabled. Women carers were disproportionately included. The Care and Support Alliance survey revealed that changes to services that happened even before the cuts had led to

“a negative impact to the person with care and support needs.”

The report quotes one female carer talking about the impact on her life. She said:

“I am unable to go out with my husband because one of us needs to remain at home with my mother. Unable to go out with my sister (also disabled) because if I go out she needs to stay home to support my husband in caring for our mother. Unable to visit friends, have a weekend away or take a holiday. Feel abandoned by the state—Carer’s Allowance withdrawn when I reached 60 last year, Carer’s grant reduced by Local Authority from £400 pa to £100 pa this year, top-up fees now payable for the 3 hour respite per week, no extra help available.”

Of course, such extra stresses also put further pressure on the health of many women who care. Another female carer is quoted in the Care and Support Alliance report as saying:

“I care for two and I am disabled myself. Although they have increased the care for my father, he still needs extra care from me. I get no help with my husband, who is also becoming more demanding and no help for myself. So my life gets harder and harder and my health is deteriorating as a consequence.”

Women who are carers are also worried about the Government’s plans to cut £1 billion from disability living allowance over five years by reducing the number of people who are eligible. Tightening the eligibility criteria for DLA will mean that many carers will not be eligible for carer’s allowance, which will be available only for those who look after someone who is in receipt of the middle or higher level of DLA. As three quarters of the recipients of carer’s allowance are women, that is yet another area in which women will bear the brunt of the cuts.

Carers UK has estimated that seven out of 10 women will be carers in their lifetime. We know that social care services for older people are underfunded and that the number of over-80s is increasing, so the pressure on family carers, who are mainly women, is bound to increase. Once again, women will be disproportionately affected.

Women are more reliant on the services that the public sector provides and therefore stand to lose more from cuts to services and from the loss of jobs that I have talked about. That affects my constituents and women who are carers. I have campaigned since I have been in the House to improve services and support for carers, six out 10 of whom are women. More could always be done, but Labour gave primary care trusts extra budgets to fund respite care, introduced the carers grant and provided £770 million in new funding for disabled children.

[Claire Perry]

Let me pay tribute to the hon. Lady’s work in this area, which many of us recognise. Surely she will welcome the £800 million commitment that the Government announced last year to provide really important respite care for parents with disabled children.

[Barbara Keeley]

Of course, every move to provide extra respite care to help carers is beneficial, and all those moves were started by the previous Government in support of the Every Disabled Child Matters campaign. As I said earlier, there has been very little mention of the fact that the swingeing cuts to council budgets cancel out everything else being done. Perhaps that is not the case in places such as Wiltshire, but it certainly is the case in the north of England.

Finally, let me mention some things that were going to happen but will not now happen.

[Claire Perry]

Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?

[Barbara Keeley]

I am just about to finish.

The Government have abolished the measures in the Personal Care at Home Act 2010, which would have helped 400,000 of the people in the greatest need, and they have cut the budgets to local councils, as I have mentioned, which will potentially have a great impact. Those changes come at a time when we know that more services are needed given the horrendous cases we have heard about in recent months. It is time to develop unanimity across the House. I know that many hon. Members on the Government side are concerned about social care, but the impact of the changes that I have mentioned will cause a loss of quality of life for carers, as I have outlined.

Diabetes (Young People)

Debate between Barbara Keeley and Claire Perry

Wednesday 15th September 2010 Westminster Hall

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Riordan, for the first time, or certainly the first time in my experience. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) on securing the debate.

We have heard a number of telling statistics about diabetes. As has been said, of the young people and children who have diabetes in the UK, about 98.6%—a very large proportion—have type 1 diabetes. It is estimated—and it is a pity that we have to talk of estimates, and do not really know the true figures—that type 1 diabetes affects more than 25,000 children and young people. As we have heard—there are some very useful definitions—it is a chronic condition, which can be life-threatening, and which occurs when the body’s immune system attacks insulin production cells in the pancreas. It is usually diagnosed in childhood, but as with most other conditions children are often kept waiting for a diagnosis. People must live with and manage the condition for the rest of their lives. Even when it is managed through regular injections, type 1 diabetes can bring long-term complications, such as heart disease, stroke or blindness, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley mentioned.

[Claire Perry]

On that point, a shocking statistic that I was told this morning is that the management of the disease is so sub-optimal that it is estimated that more than 80% of relevant children have blood sugar levels that are too high, despite the best efforts of their parents, the community, hospitals and support groups. That has enormous long-term health and economic consequences. Surely better management of the disease at an early stage would save the children, the family and the taxpayer enormously in the long run.

[Barbara Keeley]

Indeed, and we heard earlier that the incidence of type 1 diabetes is increasing by about 4% each year. The biggest increase is in children under five. A fivefold increase in the past 20 years, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) said earlier, is a matter of great concern. It is important that more attention be paid to helping GPs, pharmacists, other health practitioners and teachers to identify type 1 diabetes in children and young people. As with many long-term conditions, early identification is the key, because the later the diagnosis of diabetes, the greater the impact.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley asked the Minister in an Adjournment debate on diabetes last week to introduce protocols for GPs on dealing with certain symptoms. That would ensure that GPs were better equipped to diagnose diabetes. The Minister said then that he would consider the point and would have more to say on it during today’s debate. I hope that we shall hear his answer.

As we have heard, the Government’s NHS White Paper proposes to give GPs the power to commission services, instead of primary care trusts, which will be abolished. I have raised on a number of occasions recently the fact that there is great concern that many GPs do not have the depth of knowledge required to commission specialist services for conditions such as diabetes. GPs may not have the skills, experience or desire to assess whole-population health care needs, to manage the market, to negotiate contracts and to monitor performance. That is becoming a key point of concern, because GPs did not necessarily come into medicine to do those things. Indeed, I understand that the Royal College of General Practitioners is urging the Secretary of State for Health to put back his plans for GP commissioning. The college’s report on the Government’s consultation has unearthed “major concerns”. That is in line with the responses from medical charities such as Rethink and campaigns such as the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign, which also have concerns that GPs lack the skills and experience for commissioning across such a range of conditions.

There are also concerns that in taking on such a wide role, GPs’ primary role of making diagnoses and providing patients with all the information and support that they need could be affected. Some of the statistics are already becoming a cause for concern. Surveys by Diabetes UK have found that 20% of young people feel that they rarely, if at all, discuss their goals for their diabetes care during check-ups. Further, only 26% have attended a course to help them learn about managing their diabetes. The essence of managing a long-term condition is recognising that people must become expert patients. If they are young, their family members must become expert carers. Will the Minister outline what steps the Government will take to make sure that GPs are better equipped to diagnose conditions such as type 1 diabetes and to continue, and improve, their support for people with the condition?

There is a clear need for people with diabetes to be given better information about how to manage their condition. The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders), who chairs the all-party group on diabetes, has tabled early-day motion 72, which notes that 65% of the 2 million people in the UK with diabetes are not taking their medication as prescribed, because two out of three do not understand what those medications are for or how to take them. We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) what it is like to land at home with a host of medications, without having a real idea of what to do with them.