World Menopause Day
Caroline Johnson Excerpts(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for Neath and Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) for securing this important debate on an issue about which we know she is extremely passionate and has campaigned for a long time.
In recent years, our country has made good progress in female empowerment. Today, women occupy 43% of company board roles and 35% of leadership positions at FTSE 350 firms. More women than ever before are partners in law firms, consultants in hospitals, entrepreneurs and executives managing successful businesses in every part of the country. None the less, there is a serious fault line running through that progress. Most women reach the professional apex of their careers in their late 40s to early 50s, after accruing many years of experience. For thousands of women across the country every single year, that moment of career maturity tragically coincides with the onset of the menopause.
An abrupt change to the menstrual cycle can happen; sometimes there are sudden floods of menstrual blood, hot flushes at inopportune moments throughout the working day, problems with concentration, low self-esteem, migraines, aches and itches—all things that make it more difficult to fulfil the employer’s expectations, let alone, as we have heard, fully rest in the precious hours of the night. Symptoms can be truly debilitating, running from months to years and fluctuating unpredictably over time. They leave some women with an impossible choice: their health or their career. I have heard from professionals in my constituency who love their job but felt there was no option other than to step back. I have seen it while working as a consultant in the NHS, too; some colleagues, amid the worst of their symptoms, go from thriving to just about surviving.
When that becomes commonplace, our economy pays a price. Every year, the UK loses 14 million working days to menopause-related absence. Graver still, we are losing many thousands of women from the workforce every year because of overwhelming symptoms and lack of support. The NHS Confederation tallies up the damage to a staggering £1.5 billion.
I am proud that the previous Government recognised the scale of the challenge and took concrete action. In 2022, aware that not enough focus was being given to women-specific issues like the menopause, they published a women’s health strategy for England. That set out 10-year ambitions, including for people to be informed of the menopause at an early age and provided with access to the full range of treatment options, improved understanding among healthcare professionals, and increased research of alternatives to HRT.
I am proud that the previous Government made good on those ambitions. They also launched the national menopause pathway programme, providing optimal care pathways to ensure more women get the right care the first time around. Recognising that almost nine in 10 adults were never educated about menopause in school, the previous Government changed the curriculum to add menopause to relationships and sex education for secondary school students. They also reduced the cost of HRT in England by making prescriptions available on an annual basis; 500,000 women saw their costs decrease by up to £200 as a result.
That is what real progress looks like, but the current Government have undermined those achievements. Many women I speak to are incandescent at the Government’s callous decision to disregard the women’s health strategy and replace it, seemingly, with nothing. It does not stop there: this Government have also compromised women’s healthcare provision by scaling back targets in NHS guidance and binning the commitment to roll out health hubs across all ICBs.
Can the Minister explain what impact these changes are going to have on support for menopausal women? What do the Government plan to replace the women’s health strategy with? I commend the Government for appointing a menopause employment ambassador—having a champion focused solely on the menopause in conversation directly with employers gives the issue exactly the attention it deserves—but women are best served by good execution and delivery, not just good intentions. That is where my concerns with the Government’s strategy lie.
The Employment Rights Bill will impose a new duty on firms with more than 250 people to publish menopause action plans. We know the menopause affects women in different ways, so I question the value of uniform plans, which will give some human resources managers cover stories for doing little of actual substance. How will the increased administrative burden translate into better support for menopausal women in the workplace, rather than simply becoming a cost for business? What metrics will the Government use to ensure that women are materially helped by menopause action plans? We know that many businesses with more than 250 employees are just as stretched as those with 25 employees—and no less so due to tax increases by this Government. What are the Government doing to prevent a two-tier system emerging, whereby the quality of workplace support hinges on not need but the size of an employer?
There is much the Government can do to help menopausal women that does not necessitate wielding the regulatory sledgehammer—for instance, improving public awareness, as the hon. Member for Neath and Swansea East talked about. Most adults were not taught about the menopause in school. Thousands of women are enduring excruciating symptoms without always recognising what is happening to their bodies, or realising that there is NHS support readily available for their symptoms in the form of HRT. This is a problem that can be solved.
The Menopause Charity ran a highly successful national campaign last year under the banner “educate yourself”. This year, as we have already heard, we have witnessed Asda and Tesco, among several other retailers, partnering with GenM to develop menopause aisles in their stores, replete with information to improve awareness and help women easily identify products that are capable of alleviating symptoms. Can the Minister explain what the Government are doing to encourage and amplify such voluntary initiatives by national charities and businesses?
The Government can also learn lessons from abroad. Ireland launched a nationwide campaign in 2022, deploying advertising across public displays, newspapers, magazines, radio and social media—a highly effective way to raise the awareness that British menopause advocates have long called for. Can the Minister say whether the Government have considered rolling out a national menopause awareness scheme?
I recognise that the Minister and the Government want to help menopausal women, but goodwill must translate into effective delivery. The previous Government made good progress on managing the menopause, which is why women want that progress to be built on, rather than dismantled. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I appreciate that some of these points are not in her brief, but within the scope of the Department of Health and Social Care. If she is not able to answer my questions herself, I would be grateful if she would commit to sending a letter in reply.
Welfare Reform
Caroline Johnson Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liz Kendall
Labour’s historic mission is to help more people who can work into good jobs in every part of the land. That is not only because we believe that is key to improving living standards, but because of the self-respect, dignity and purpose that good work brings. The right to try is an important step—we know that around 50% of sick and disabled people say that the reason they are not trying work is because they fear they will be reassessed for their benefits. We have got to put that right. We have also got to put in place the employment support. We have to create good jobs in every part of the country, and get those waiting lists down so that people can get back to health and back to work. We are taking action on all those fronts, and I look forward to working with my hon. Friend in his constituency so that more of his constituents can benefit.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It seems entirely reasonable that a Government should want to control the amount that they spend on welfare, and entirely reasonable to want to focus that on the most in need. However, I do not understand why they brought out such rushed changes, which have done nothing but cause anxiety and distress, and left them in a worst position in which they have now U-turned and are neither making savings nor reforming welfare. Will the Secretary of State please explain the rationale for the four-point limit that she brought in?
Liz Kendall
For new claimants, it is because we believe that we need to begin to focus this vital disability benefit on those with higher needs. I am deeply concerned that a doubling in the number of people on PIP over this decade, from 2 million to 4.3 million, with claims and awards rising at twice the rate of the increase in the number of disabled people in society, risks the sustainability of the system in future. We have to ensure that it is there for those who really need it, providing that vital safety net going forward. The hon. Lady talks about having a reasonable approach, and I really do believe that this is reasonable. I believe that protecting existing claimants and beginning to make changes for future claimants, backed by the changes to the right to try, stopping reassessments and investing in real employment support, is the fair and right balance for the people who need support and for taxpayers.
Winter Fuel Payment
Caroline Johnson Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Torsten Bell
That is an absolutely crucial point and has been central to the work that we have done to decide on the policy. We want a system of automatic payment, so that pensioners do not need to do anything to claim the payments, and one that is automatic for those who have incomes above £35,000, so that they do not have to take action if they need to have the funding recouped, unless they choose to opt out. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we need a simple system that supports pensioners.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
The Minister talks about the NHS, and I wonder whether he recognises the number of elderly people who had to use the NHS as a result of having been cold because of his policies. I want to ask him a very specific question. He said:
“All pensioners with incomes up to and including £35,000 will benefit from support”.
He also said:
“Individual pensioners with taxable income above £35,000 will have any winter fuel payment automatically recovered”
through the tax system. Where a household has two individuals over the eligible age, what happens when one earns more than £35,000 and the other earns less? Will they get some, all or half of the winter fuel payment?
Torsten Bell
I think I have answered that question, but I am happy to lay it out again, if that is helpful. There is a long-standing principle of individual taxation, which I think is supported by all parties in this House. Where a couple are not receiving a means-tested benefit, they will each receive half of their household’s winter fuel payment. Whether they continue to keep that or it is recouped through the tax system will be based on their individual taxable income. For example, if one has an income above £35,000, their payment will be recouped by HMRC automatically, but if the other has an income level below £35,000, they will retain the winter fuel payment. I hope that clarifies things.
Welfare Reform
Caroline Johnson Excerpts(6 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liz Kendall
I have been a lifelong champion of family carers, who give their all to looking after the people they love. My hon. Friend will know that we have already boosted the carer’s allowance earning threshold by £45 a week to £196, benefiting more than 60,000 carers by ’29-30—the biggest ever cash increase in the earnings threshold for carers. We need to do much more to support family carers, including enabling them to balance their work and caring responsibilities. I look forward to talking to my hon. Friend about that.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
The Secretary of State says that she will legislate for a change in PIP, so that in future, people must score a minimum of four points in at least one activity to qualify. That means that an individual who needs supervision or assistance with therapy for three and a half hours a week, prompting and assistance with washing, assistance to get into the bath or shower, supervision to manage their toilet needs, and assistance to dress and undress their lower body would no longer qualify for PIP. How many such individuals are there?
Liz Kendall
It does not mean that. Every single case is assessed on individual need. It is really important that the hon. Lady and her constituents understand that we will protect those with severe disabilities who can never work. Anyone who goes through a reassessment will have it done based on their personal needs.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Just to let Members know that about 100 Members have asked questions on the statement.
Dr Caroline Johnson
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. When I asked a question during the statement, the Secretary of State said, “It does not mean that.” I had raised the list on the Government’s website of the descriptors used to qualify somebody for a certain number of points in relation to the daily living component of PIP. Each of the descriptors I mentioned has two or three points associated with it:
“Needs supervision…or assistance to be able to manage therapy that takes…3.5 hours a week. 2 points… Needs assistance to be able to wash either their hair or body below the waist. 2 points… Needs assistance to be able to get in or out of a bath…3 points … Needs supervision…to be able to manage toilet needs. 2 points… Needs assistance to be able to dress or undress their lower body”—
needing the physical help of another person—also
“2 points.”
At the moment, someone with all of those needs would qualify for this component of PIP, but under her new rules they will not. How can I give the Secretary of State the opportunity to correct the record?
Madam Deputy Speaker
That is not a point of order, but the hon. Lady has got her point on the record.
Social Security
Caroline Johnson Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Today, hon. and right hon. Members will make a choice: whether to take vital winter fuel payments from millions of vulnerable pensioners, including 20,000 pensioners in my constituency. It is important, when Members vote today, that they understand the consequences of their choice. It is important that they understand that when they take winter fuel payments away from vulnerable people, some elderly people will die. Vulnerable elderly people on relatively low incomes will be unable to heat their homes adequately, and as a direct result, because they are cold, they will die. Why? They will die because cold is bad for people. A number of reports that Members may read demonstrate that.
When cold, people’s platelets get higher, they vasoconstrict and their blood pressure goes up, putting them at risk of stroke or heart attack. Their lungs become inflamed, which puts them at risk of pneumonia or chest infection. It makes people with chronic pulmonary obstructive disease more likely to suffer exacerbations and ill health. Studies have shown that physical performance and muscle strength—taking caps off things or walking about—are worse in people who are cold, particularly elderly people. That reduces their ability to complete the activities of daily living independently, and it makes them more likely to fall. Studies have also shown that elderly people who are cold in their home are more likely to need to get up at night to go to the toilet or to wake through the night. That again puts them at more risk of falls and therefore hospitalisation. Sleep disruption puts them at risk from a whole range of different illnesses.
We also know that as the home temperature falls further, the risks increase. It is a proportional dose-response relationship. The House does not need to take my word for it; there is a lot of medical evidence to this end.
The chief medical officer said in his annual report last year:
“Cold homes and fuel poverty are directly linked to excess winter deaths.”
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful, emotive speech and quite rightly talking about some of the impacts on pensioners. Does she agree that those are exactly the impacts that should be captured in an impact assessment and brought before the House so that we can make an informed decision and that my 25,000 constituents in Arundel and South Downs, who may face a loss if the motion is not agreed to, are increasingly talking about the right hon. Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves) as “Reckless Rachel” in proceeding with this measure?
Dr Johnson
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He is absolutely right. Why is there no impact assessment? I have my suspicions, and my terrified constituents know why there is no impact assessment—it is because they know what the impact will be. I am sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, that your terrified constituents know what the impact of the policy will be. Right hon. and hon. Members all know, too. As right hon. and hon. Members vote, they should be in no doubt that the Government’s first job is to keep people safe, and they are going to fail miserably.
Liz Kendall
I know the right hon. Gentleman will care about the increase in uptake in pension credit that we need, and that he will also care about those just above the threshold, which I will turn to later on. That is a really important issue and I will address it head on, but first I want to spell out the principle underlying the approach we have taken, which is the most help going to those who need it most and significant support for all pensioners through the pension triple lock, backed by extra help available for those on low incomes.
Pension credit goes to 1.4 million of the poorest pensioners and is worth on average £3,900 a year.
Liz Kendall
I will not.
But the truth we had to confront coming into office was that up to 880,000 of the very poorest pensioners are not even claiming the pension credit that they are entitled to. That is a national scandal, and we are determined to make that change. The previous Government did nothing to tackle this issue properly. Indeed, in 2012 they promised to merge housing benefit and pension credit, which we know would significantly increase uptake, yet when I arrived in the Department I learned it would not happen until 2028—a decision that was taken on their watch. That is completely unacceptable and, unlike the Conservatives, we will change it.
Oral Answers to Questions
Caroline Johnson Excerpts(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mel Stride
Given that I never made that statement, I do not agree with it, no.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker—sorry, Mr Speaker. [Laughter.] I will not be called next time, will I?
The Government have done a great deal to help people with their cost of living challenges, but elderly residents in my constituency are troubled by reports in the newspapers suggesting that we may not meet our manifesto commitment to retain the pensions triple lock. Pensioners face a triple whammy of dwindling savings value due to low interest rates, rising costs due to inflation and, owing to their age, an inability to go out and earn any more. Will my right hon. Friend please confirm that we will increase pensions in line with inflation?
Mel Stride
I admire my hon. Friend’s persistence on this matter, but I am afraid I must give her the same response that I have given on numerous occasions this afternoon, namely, that we will have to wait until at least 17 November for an answer. I understand the particular pressure that pensioners are under because they are often unable to change their economic circumstances, as others within the labour force can; but we will have to wait.
Universal Credit and Jobseeker’s Allowance (Work Search and Work Availability Requirements @0017 Limitations (Amendment) Regulations 2022
Caroline Johnson Excerpts(3 years, 5 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
The Minister is making some very good points. We have talked about the number of vacancies available, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell talked about the pressure on businesses to find extra people. It makes sense that the Government wish to maximise the number of people in work and do not wish to support people on benefits when they are capable of work—that does not make sense for society. I understand the Opposition’s point, made by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, about highly skilled people and square pegs in round holes. Will the Minister confirm that if somebody takes a job temporarily on a lower salary, that does not mean they are not available to look for other work or that people cannot find a better job over time? In fact, having had a job in the meantime might make it easier to find work, because it is easier to find work from work than otherwise. The resilience and work ethic demonstrated by doing such a thing might help their job prospects in the future rather than hinder them.
Mims Davies
Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Many people have stepped into work in sectors that they would never have considered, because of the pandemic. They have done it because it is the right thing to help their community and their family or because of the impact on their sector. Through our plan for jobs, including the restart programme that supports people after nine months’ unemployment—previously it was after a year—we are helping people with their wellbeing, confidence and skills. The longer someone is out of work, the harder it is to progress. Once someone is in a job, it is much easier to get a better job and reach the next stage of their career.
In essence, I think that people are saying that the regulations are trying to get people to go into the wrong roles. It is all down to good-quality work coaching with our local jobcentres and teams opening up people’s mindsets and abilities, in the way that the pandemic has for some people, so that they try new sectors. That does not mean that they will leave the sector that they have not been able to get back into forever, but they can transition and use their skills in a way that perhaps had not occurred to them, and we are making sure that people understand that.
Universal Credit and Working Tax Credits
Caroline Johnson Excerpts(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Coffey
I thank my right hon. Friend. Anybody who has served in this office, including the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), will recognise, for the people we meet daily, as other hon. Members do in their constituencies, what a difference an intervention from a work coach or a decision maker can make to really boost people when they are at their lowest ebb. I do not know whether any hon. Members watched the series “The Yorkshire Jobcentre” on Channel 4. Our social justice team there go above and beyond in trying to help people who have been rejected by the rest of society to get their lives back on track. That is the sort of work we can do. I understand why my right hon. Friend is keen for the welfare budget to still be substantial in supporting such people.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is being very generous with her time. She has been talking about work coaches and how these fantastic people can support people into work and the different people they help. Will she tell the House more about how work coaches and universal credit are helping disabled people back into work?
Dr Coffey
I will. I am pleased to say that I think there are more people with disabilities in work at the end of the pandemic than there were at the beginning. There is a number of things and I encourage my hon. Friend to read the Green Paper on what we have set out as possible ways forward. We want to make elements such as the Access to Work programme work better in terms of potentially being transferrable. In particular, we have some specialist schemes that we target on people with disabilities, and particular efforts are being made to help people with disabilities to access kickstart. We will continue to try to support people with disabilities to make the most of their potential, as we set out in our broader approach in the national disability strategy.
Universal Credit
Caroline Johnson Excerpts(7 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Margaret Greenwood
My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head; he is absolutely right to raise that issue.
The Government plan to place the entire burden on the claimants themselves to successfully make a claim, rather than the DWP automatically transferring them across. Under the Government’s regulations—as currently drafted—a letter will drop through the letterbox on to the mat, telling people that their existing claim will end and that they will have a month to make a new claim for universal credit. Labour believes that it is without precedent for a UK Government to place all the responsibility of making a claim on the millions of individuals who the Government know to be in need, putting people at risk of falling out of the system altogether. The Government are doing this despite all the evidence of the serious difficulties that people are facing when making a claim.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady agree that one of the strengths of the system is that people apply for only one benefit under universal credit, so it is much less complex? Indeed, many people will get a benefit to which they did not previously know they were entitled.
Margaret Greenwood
When the hon. Lady looks at the drop-out rate and the number of people who actually fail to complete a claim, I think that she will probably revise the comment that she just made.
Over half the households that will be required to move across will be working families—people in work whose income is too low support them—while over a third will have been claiming ESA, which means they have been assessed by the Government as too ill or disabled to work. Just receiving the letter will be very unsettling for someone with a mental health condition or a learning difficulty.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Since time is short, I will stick to discussing one of the important principles of universal credit, which is that hard work should always be rewarded. Anyone who has the drive and the motivation to improve their lot for themselves and their family should always have the opportunity to do so. No matter where someone grew up, where they come from or what their parents do, they should always be able to aspire to a better future.
Opposition Members have levelled much criticism at the reforms, but the Government are right to roll the system out carefully and to make improvements as necessary. To keep the status quo would be far more harmful than the Opposition would care to admit, because the legacy system was bad for taxpayers and harmful for those on benefits. For that reason, I welcome universal credit, which will ensure that work always pays. No more will someone need to question whether increasing their hours will make them worse or better off. No longer will someone striving to put more money in their pocket face an effective tax rate of 90% on earnings. No more will generations of people face becoming stuck in a benefits trap, wanting to do more work but facing a financial hit if they do so. Although there may be some issues to iron out, I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State is working closely on them. I also welcome the fact that 1,000 more people are getting into work every single day under this Government.