Oral Answers to Questions

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

My right hon. Friend was not only a very good Whip, but is a very good constituency MP. He has made his case very well. “Shaping a healthier future” is no longer supported by the Department of Health and Social Care, NHS Improvement or NHS England. The NHS will look at parts of the proposals that are in line with the long-term plan, such as the aspects that are focused on expanding the treatment of people in the community. As for the changes in A&E in west London that are part of “Shaping a healthier future”—for instance, those at Charing Cross Hospital, which he mentioned—these will not happen.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

T6.   My constituent, who has terminal secondary breast cancer, has had her personal independence payment assessment refused and is having to appeal the decision, in spite of doctors’ letters detailing her debilitating condition and the treatment regimen she has to go through. What discussions has the Health Secretary had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on how to ensure that medical evidence of that sort is accepted, so that people with terminal and progressive conditions do not have to go through this awful process?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jackie Doyle-Price)]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point. I had regular discussions with the sadly departed Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, who provided really great challenge within the Department for Work and Pensions about how it handles such assessments. We must do all we can do to humanise them, especially when people are going through periods of ill health.

Health Inequalities

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) on securing the debate. She was absolutely right to say that, as important as our NHS is in treating and caring for us when we get ill, reducing health inequalities —in my Oldham East and Saddleworth constituency, there is an 11-year life expectancy gap between rich and poor—goes beyond the NHS and the Government’s 10-year plan.

The term “health inequalities” refers to the increasing mortality and morbidity that occur with declining socioeconomic position. This is the systematic, socially reproduced, differential distribution of power in relation to income, wealth, knowledge, social status and connections. There is overwhelming evidence that those factors are the key determinants of health inequalities, influenced by written and unwritten rules and laws across our society. Those things, rather than biological and behavioural differences, drive these inequalities. No law of nature decrees that the children born to poor families should die at three times the rate of children born to rich families, but that is the reality in 21st-century Britain.

Given that those health inequalities are socially produced, they are not fixed or inevitable. If the Government were committed to tackling these burning injustices—let us face it, what could be more unjust than knowing you are going to die earlier because you are poor?—a starting point would be to tackle their regressive, unfair economic and social policies.

Countries that have a narrow gap between rich and poor have not only higher life expectancy rates, but better educational attainment, social mobility, trust between communities and so on. Fairer, more equal societies benefit everyone. Unfortunately, the concentration of power in tiny elites is happening more than ever in the UK.

Just four weeks ago the Office for National Statistics published data with more evidence that these inequalities are on the increase, with income inequalities increasing in 2018. The average income of the poorest fifth of the population after inflation contracted by 1.6% in the last financial year, while the average income of the richest fifth rose by 4.7%. This followed “fat cat Friday” in January when it was revealed that top executives were earning 133 times more than their average worker—up from 47 times more in 1998.

At the same time we are seeing increases in both infant and child mortality, which—as shown in the latest study, just 10 days ago—correlate with increasing child poverty. These increases, the first in 100 years, mean that four babies in 1,000 will not see their first birthday in the UK, compared with 2.8 in 1,000 in the EU.

Two weeks ago life expectancy estimates were revised downwards by six months by the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries in its latest mortality projections model. The institute now expects men aged 65 to die at 86.9 years, down from its previous estimate of 87.4 years, while women who reach 65 are likely to die at 89.2 years, down from 89.7 years. Public Health England’s investigation into flatlining life expectancy revealed—as many of us, including Sir Michael Marmot, have said for a number of years—that austerity has wrought misery and poverty, and ultimately an early death for too many of our citizens.

As analysis from the Institute for Fiscal Studies and others has shown, since 2015 the lowest income decile has lost proportionately more income than any other group as a consequence of personal taxation and social security measures. Last autumn’s Budget had only marginal impacts on the household income of the poorest, while reducing the number of higher rate taxpayers by 300,000. Last week’s spring statement followed that trend. There was nothing for the 8 million working poor, the 4 million children living in relative poverty or the two thirds in working families, and nothing for the 4 million disabled people living in poverty.

These health inequalities are socially produced, so they are not fixed or inevitable. They can be changed, and that should give us hope.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jackie Doyle-Price)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and to respond to the debate. I feel that it is a major challenge and an absolute responsibility for Ministers in the Department to do everything we can to tackle inequalities. Frankly, that is why all of us got involved in politics and stood for public office, because we want to do the best for everyone in our society.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) for her very persuasive argument in opening the debate. She has been an absolutely fantastic champion for her constituents, at a time when difficult decisions are being made about how to reconfigure health services in her area. She has not been backward in coming forward to make her case, because this is the second time that I have responded to her on it. I know that she will continue to make her case.

I will just say something about some of the concerns that my hon. Friend has raised. When the NHS makes decisions on how best to deliver health services for a local community, clearly those decisions are made locally and should be locally responsive. However, it is equally the case that the public become very nervous about the potential downside of any decision. It is therefore absolutely crucial that engagement is constructive, with dialogue and transparency, so that the public can have confidence that the right decisions are being made.

My hon. Friend articulated her case with clear reference to inequalities in the area that is served by that configuration. It is important that we have a way of addressing those points, because there is a perception that the pointy-elbowed middle classes are better at fighting for themselves than everyone else is. We all have a duty to ensure that everyone can have confidence in the decisions that are made. I encourage my hon. Friend to continue to give challenge, because it is only when we provide her with answers that she can give her constituents reassurance. I know that she will continue to give that challenge.

On that basis, I would give a gentle prod to some organisations within the NHS. We often find that some areas are better at consultation than others, but we are elected representatives who are here to give challenge on behalf of our constituents, and I would like to send a message that the NHS needs to be more transparent in its decision making throughout.

I thank all Members for their contributions to this debate, and I will try to address most of the points that have been raised. Turning to the legal duties on the Secretary of State, we have regard to the need to reduce health inequalities. That requires concerted effort across all our health services. That is a priority for us, and it is a particular priority for me. Clearly, other factors contribute to poor health outcomes and inequalities, which go beyond the gift of the NHS and the Department of Health and Social Care, meaning that we need to take a cross-Government approach to the problem. Housing is clearly an issue; we know that poor-quality housing can be a driver of ill health and health inequality. We have heard about employment and income, and clearly education is a factor as well. We need to equip everyone with the tools to live a healthy lifestyle and look after themselves well. Equally, this issue is about access to services, and we know that there is much we can do within the NHS and the wider healthcare system.

[Debbie Abrahams]

Is the Minister aware that there was an interdepartmental public health group specifically to look at the wider determinants of health and how each Department could do its bit? Would she consider re-establishing that group to address the important issues that have been raised?

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

We have a number of inter-ministerial groups looking at particular areas of inequality, such as rough sleeping and the first 1,001 days. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) spoke about the importance of early intervention; if we could get that right, that would be a real way of addressing inequality. My short answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) is that we pick up public health in a number of ways, but my priorities are the first 1,001 days and particular pinch points where there are real inequalities. We will continue to look at those areas, not least because supporting those individuals is not just better for them, but makes financial sense. If we can tackle some of these issues earlier, not only do individuals live longer and healthier lives, but there is a reduced cost for the health system.

DRAFT GENERAL FOOD HYGIENE (AMENDMENT) (EU EXIT) REGULATIONS 2019 DRAFT CONTAMINANTS IN FOOD (AMENDMENT) (EU EXIT) REGULATIONS 2019 DRAFT SPECIFIC FOOD HYGIENE (AMENDMENT ETC.) (EU EXIT) REGULATIONS 2019 DRAFT GENERAL FOOD LAW (AMENDMENT ETC.) (EU EXIT) REGULATIONS 2019

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2019 General Committees

[Steve Brine]

I shall work in reverse and begin with the comments of the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse, who is a good man. He may not have been a public health Minister, but if he had been, he would have been a very good one. We have engaged with certain issues many times in Westminster Hall and I know exactly where he would place his focus if he were in my job. Hey, he might be one day—who knows?

To begin with the point about transposition, the simple answers is yes. As I said, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 allows us only to do the housekeeping. That is effectively what these constant fun Tuesday mornings about. They are about the housekeeping and transposing regulations into domestic law. I cannot imagine why anyone would oppose them, because it would be to oppose the status quo, which, I think everyone agrees, keeps the public safe.

There were lots of questions from my dear friend and shadow, the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West. She started where she always does, and I shall start where I always do, with the withdrawal agreement. Let us remember, we are not discussing a deal, or a future trade deal, but a withdrawal agreement—a divorce, if you like. Yes, there is no withdrawal agreement yet, and there are 24 days, but the hon. Lady knows what I am going to say. She has a golden chance next week, on or before next Wednesday, to change that.

As to scrutiny, we have spent quite a lot of time in Committee sittings scrutinising SIs together, and in some ways it has been an interesting spring cleaning process, has it not? We have delved into some regulations that I suspect have not been discussed in this place for a long time. The hon. Lady rightly says that we cannot get this wrong, because we have to bear in mind consumer confidence always. That is why we are so keen to get things right.

The hon. Lady raised the issue of relaxation, but that would not happen under the present process, because, as I said to the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse, this is a process of transposition. Any relaxation—or indeed increase—of rules in the area in question would be subject to discussion, consultation and approval by this place. That is when we finally find out what “take back control” means.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

This follows on a little from what the Minister has been saying, but I understand that rates of food poisoning in the US are 10 times those of the UK, and the death rates from food poisoning are also much higher. Whatever happens next week, will the Minister assure us that any trade deals negotiated with the US and elsewhere will involve the same standards of food safety that we require now?

[Steve Brine]

What I can do is repeat the words of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who have said that there will be no diminution of food safety standards in pursuit of trade deals with the US or anywhere else; and even if such changes were proposed, Parliament would have the final say. Hon. Members can read the paper that was set out last week, on how the Government would conduct future trade negotiations and engage with Parliament. I think we know where Parliament would stand on the matter of diminution of food standards.

[Debbie Abrahams]

rose—

[Steve Brine]

I am happy to give way to the hon. Lady a second time, but then I must make progress.

[Debbie Abrahams]

The Minister is always very kind. Can I assume, then, that he and his Secretary of State have sent a letter to the US ambassador, giving short shrift about our agricultural farming methods?

[Steve Brine]

I do not think that we have sent a letter. I am not sure that it would be my place to do so anyway, but the British Government have been crystal clear that we do not expect any degradation of food standards in pursuit of a future trade deal. That has been said by the Prime Minister, down to those at my lowly rank.

To go back to what the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West said about maintaining high standards of food safety, leaving the EU does not change our top priority, which is to ensure that UK food remains safe, and that the label says what it is. The Food Standards Agency is working very hard to ensure that high standards of food safety are maintained. We are committed to having a robust regulatory regime in place from day one that will mean that businesses can continue as normal. That is why we are transposing the legislation word for word.

The hon. Lady talked about RASFF, the rapid alert system for food and feed, to which the UK is a major contributor. RASFF facilitates vital food and feed safety data sharing. It is clearly of mutual benefit to the UK and our EU partners to share food and feed safety information quickly, so securing continued access to, and participation in, the system after leaving the EU is one of our top food safety priorities. We continue to press for full access to that vital data-sharing system in our negotiations with the EU. Even as a third country, the UK will continue to receive information from the EU as required by EU law—it is worth putting that on the record—where a food or feed subject to notification under the rapid alert system has been dispatched from the EU to the UK. However, not having full RASFF access would mean less data than is currently available, which may affect UK timely communications on food safety issues.

With regard to actions that we will take to mitigate the loss of full access, the FSA has been building on proven mechanisms, such as the monitoring of key data sources and a new strategic surveillance programme, to enhance its capability and capacity to respond effectively to any food-borne contamination or outbreak incident that occurs in the UK, for the protection of our consumers. In terms of other international engagement, the FSA is implementing an enhanced programme of bilateral engagement and surveillance that focuses on the exchange of information on risks to the food chain. It is engaging with competent food safety authorities across Europe and worldwide, building on its strong reputation and established contacts to develop a mutually supportive approach to information sharing on food safety incidents.

There is no getting away from the fact that we have decided to leave, and are leaving, the EU. We therefore will leave some of its processes, one of which is the RASFF. However, as I have said, we will do our utmost to secure continued access to it—we were, of course, a huge contributor to establishing it in the first place. If we cannot, some of the mitigations that I have outlined will be important.

The hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West asked about the FSA. Her Majesty’s Treasury has made significant extra funding available to the FSA to increase staff, for instance, some of whom are in the room. The FSA’s resource has expanded to ensure that it can undertake the assessment and the risk exercise, to ensure food safety. In answer to a direct question, I am satisfied that it has the new resources that it needs.

The hon. Lady asked about the additional burden on industry for enforcement. We do not expect any additional enforcement burdens. The law and the regulations remain exactly the same, which is why I addressed the transposition point first in my response. She also mentioned the need for clarity on the transition period for businesses to implement any changes. As I have said, the transition period will involve the continuation of the existing standards, so businesses will not need to adapt to any extensive changes.

I was asked whether we will fund local authorities for additional burdens. We are providing support to enforcement officers in local authorities to allow them to continue to enforce the legislation. However, no policy changes are being made in practice. For labelling changes domestically, the transition period will be considered. We may talk about such statutory instruments in future happy moments, but today’s legislation is not about the labelling of products. Of course, we will have a whole new freedom once we leave the European Union in terms of labelling. I have talked about that in other policy areas—around obesity, for instance, with traffic light labelling.

The hon. Lady talked about 60 minutes of familiarisation not being realistic. Were there substantial changes, I suppose that that would not be realistic, no matter how fast one reads. However, businesses will need little familiarisation time, for the reasons that I have said.

Finally, the spokesperson for the Scottish National party, the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw, talked about the importance of Scottish food exports. They are indeed very important to the country, including within the UK single market. That is why there is some level of consistency, and why we expect to have convergence across the four nations of the UK. That is very important for the internal market, and for Scottish food exports to the EU. I know what I would do if I represented a seat in Scotland and the Scottish food industry: I would ensure that we have a smooth and safe transition out of the EU at the end of March. There will be a golden opportunity for the hon. Lady to do that next week.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft General Food Hygiene (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

Draft Contaminants in Food (amendment) (EU Exit) regulations 2019

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Contaminants in Food (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.—(Steve Brine.)

Draft specific Food Hygiene (amendment Etc.) (EU Exit) regulations 2019

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Specific Food Hygiene (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.—(Steve Brine.)

Draft General Food Law (amendment Etc.) (EU Exit) regulations 2019

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft General Food Law (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.—(Steve Brine.)

Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [Lords]

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 12th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dhesi]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but in terms of human rights, this issue is being raised not just by me, but by more than 100 pre-eminent organisations in the field. The only way to solve that is through funding—that is the only way in which we can lay this matter to rest. The hon. Lady highlighted the 2017 Law Commission review of the deprivation of liberty safeguards, which stated that the current regime is

“in crisis and needs to be overhauled.”

I agree. There is a crisis and the current system cannot cope, but surely the answer is not to replace bad laws with yet more bad laws, and that is what we are in danger of doing.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I will be brief. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has tabled an excellent amendment, which I support. We know that the system is broken. What we are doing is replacing it with an even worse system. Just to acknowledge how broken the system is, the Alzheimer’s Society’s national dementia helpline receives over 100 calls a month about the Mental Capacity Act, which is clearly confusing and complicated for people with dementia, as well as for their families and carers. However, as we have heard, so many different disability organisations and a whole range of charities, as well as the Law Commission, are saying that this Bill is not fit for purpose.

I particularly support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda. The Greater Manchester Neuro Alliance, which I have supported for several years now, has several concerns, particularly about a person who presents inconsistently and has a cognitive impairment, mental health problems or is simply vulnerable and does not accept or appreciate their illnesses and the limitations. One member of the alliance from Oldham told me:

“My son has been deemed as having capacity because he can answer questions yes or no but he can’t be left alone or allowed to go out unsupported, he doesn’t take his medication and doesn’t have the ability to plan or manage anything including lifesaving treatment every three weeks”.

Such examples are not addressed in the Bill.

I will move swiftly on, Madam Deputy Speaker. I share the concern that my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) has expressed so clearly about care home managers and the conflict of interest in the Bill. It is a minefield and needs to be addressed. She made that point clearly.

Amendment 48, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), would rightly prevent cared-for people from being charged for the assessments required by the system, potentially providing a financial incentive to do the mental capacity assessments. Without the amendment, we cannot be sure that people will not be charged more for their care solely because they require liberty protection safeguards to be granted. If the Minister does not accept the amendment, I would like to know why. On advocacy, we need to ensure that the “best interests” test is changed to place more weight on a person’s wishes.

There are several other issues with the Bill. It has not had a sufficient airing. It has not been consulted on greatly, but I will hand over to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

I had hoped to address several of the amendments signed by my hon. Friends and me, because this is a bad Bill with huge opposition across our society. It fails to protect people adequately, meaning they could be locked up without a proper process of assessment and without advocacy support—and that includes 16 and 17-year-old children. The protections for them are also inadequate, as they are for their parents. Time is against me, however, so I will turn straight to amendment 48, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams).

There is a genuine concern among organisations in the sector that vulnerable people, particularly those receiving private care, may be charged for an assessment or for assessments to be carried out. I know the Minister got a bit fed up with me banging on about funding and about the fact that local authorities such as mine in Stockton-on-Tees have lost millions of pounds in funding and that budget reductions are continuing across health. I have also addressed the tight margins on which care homes operate and the need to ensure the sector remains viable.

We know that the sector is strained financially and might feel it has no choice but to implement fees and charges for the assessment of clients’ mental capacity. The intention of the amendment is to ensure that this does not happen. Several written submissions to the Public Bill Committee raised concerns about the absence of any provision for a fee for medical professionals to provide medical evidence.

This is the right point to refer to the revised impact assessment published by the Government. I and other Opposition Members have been contacted by academics accusing the assessment of perpetuating a myth by saying that GPs will provide diagnostic evidence and conduct capacity assessments for the LPS and that this will have no resource implications. What total nonsense. How has this conclusion been reached? I have not heard from a single body or GP arguing it will have no resource implications—quite the opposite.

The experience of judicial DoLS applications to the Court of Protection seems to be that GPs are very reluctant to provide such evidence, either because they do not feel skilled enough to do so or because they require payment. This means that someone will have to pay a fee for the medical assessment, and there is nothing in the Bill or the NHS charging regulations to prevent it from being passed on to the person themselves.

Evidence shows that that is already happening. Southfield House, a care home in Stockport, was found to be charging residents £250 if they required a deprivation of liberty authorisation. A complaint was lodged with the Care Quality Commission by Edge Training, but it was told in response that that was allowed. What was that £250 for? “An application to the local authority requesting an assessment” appears to cover it—and after that, there was the £125 annual fee. Individuals who are going through what can only be an extremely emotionally difficult process are being charged hundreds of pounds for the luxury.

It is frustrating that the care home is well within its rights to make those charges. A spokesman put it best:

“The social care sector…is currently under huge financial pressure. All tasks from care to admin to facility carry a cost”.

Because the sector is underfunded, the Government consider it appropriate to take financial advantage of the most vulnerable people in society.

I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote, but I think that the Minister must take on board the whole issue of charges. At present, the law gives care home managers and others carte blanche to charge exactly what they want. There are no limitations whatsoever. I ask the Minister, perhaps at the regulations stage, to come back with specific ideas to restrict care home managers and others from exploiting those vulnerable people.

NHS Long-term Plan

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Monday 7th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When people are in hospital, there will now be much more aggressive provision of counselling and support to stop them smoking. It is also about targeting support, rather than treating everyone the same and giving them the same messages. It is absolutely right to include micro-targeting and to use social media to communicate with people. There are luddites who say that we should not use these modern approaches, but we on the Government Benches believe in the future.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I am pleased that the Secretary of State is keen to improve public health and reduce health inequalities, and I assume that he will therefore support my new clause 5 to the Finance (No. 3) Bill, which is specifically about ensuring that the Government’s economic policies reduce health inequalities. On social care, is he aware that in 2017 alone 50,000 people with dementia had an emergency hospital admission because there was not adequate social care? What will he do to ensure that his plan, which we are still waiting for, will avoid such emergency admissions in 2019? Please do not say that more has been given in the Budget, because that is a sticking plaster compared with all the cuts that the Government have made in social care.

[Matt Hancock]

Page 32 of the document sets out details on the integration with social care that the hon. Lady rightly calls for. Clearly, ensuring better integration in cases of dementia is absolutely vital. Some parts of the country are doing that brilliantly with integrated commissioning, but we need to ensure that is spread across the whole country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Tuesday 27th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Dinenage]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on all the excellent work that he is doing to draw attention to this condition, and I should be happy to meet him.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

6. What assessment he has made of recent trends in the level of health inequalities across England.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jackie Doyle-Price)]

We know from recent trends reported to the public health outcomes framework that health inequalities persist in this country. We already have world-leading programmes to address the root causes of poor health, including programmes to deal with childhood obesity, control tobacco and prevent diabetes and heart disease. The Prime Minister has set an ambition to ensure that people can enjoy at least five extra healthy independent years of life by 2035, while narrowing the gap between the experiences of the richest and the poorest, and next year the Secretary of State will set out further plans to achieve that in his prevention Green Paper.

[Debbie Abrahams]

We have known for decades that poverty and economic inequality drive health inequalities. The richer people are, the longer they live, and the longer they live in good health. In addition to the economic analyses of the Prime Minister’s Brexit deal, what assessment has the Minister made of the deal’s impacts on health inequalities, and on life expectancy and healthy life expectancy, which we know are already falling in some parts of the country, and among some groups of people?

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

The reasons for health inequalities are complex, but obviously we encourage people to make the lifestyle changes that enable everyone to live longer. I simply do not accept that the direct causality that the hon. Lady has outlined is as clear as that. We will focus on programmes that help people to lead healthier lives with better diets; that tackle tobacco control; and that prevent diabetes.

Prevention of Ill Health: Government Vision

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Monday 5th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I am working with the Department for Transport. Transport Ministers feel very strongly about this question. The document details some of the things that we are going to do, but I am sure that there are a lot more.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

May I suggest that the Secretary of State has a look at the report, “Fair Society, Health Lives”, by Professor Sir Michael Marmot, particularly at his recommendation about a minimum income for healthy living? With this in mind, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of the impact of universal credit and cuts to that scheme on poverty and healthy life expectancy?

[Matt Hancock]

I have of course looked at that report. It is important, and it is important that we get the answers to it right.

Budget Resolutions

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Tuesday 30th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

It is true that the Labour party in office has always left unemployment higher than it found it; it is true that, while Labour left the deficit higher, we are bringing it down; and it is true that inequality, too, is coming down. Page 8 of the distributional analysis shows that, contrary to what we heard in that paean of gloom from the shadow Chancellor, the biggest rises in full-time employee gross weekly real earnings over the last three years have been among the 10% least well paid in our country. That is what this Conservative Government are doing—delivering for everybody in our country.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

On inequalities, does the Secretary of State recognise that life expectancy is stalling under his Government? In some regions it is getting worse. For women, it is getting worse. Perhaps he can answer the question he could not answer last week—why, for the first time in 100 years, do four babies in 1,000 not reach their first birthday?

[Matt Hancock]

As the hon. Lady knows, life expectancy is increasing, and we are forecast to see an increasing number of people live to a good old age. Indeed, the number of people aged 75 and over is set to double in the next 30 years. That is a brilliant achievement, which is in part down to the hard work of our NHS. Cancer survival rates are at a record high, strokes are down by a third and deaths from heart failure are down by a quarter. Of course, those successes have brought new challenges. The biggest health challenge we face is that people are living longer, often with multiple chronic conditions. The money is only one part of the plan to safeguard the NHS and ensure it is fit for the 21st century. The Budget delivers the funding, and later this year we will deliver the plan for how we will set the NHS fair for the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I should like to highlight some of the facts and figures that the Chancellor missed yesterday before I move on to discuss some of the taxation and public spending measures. First, a record 8 million working people are now living in poverty. There are also 4 million children living in poverty, two thirds of whom are in working families. That number is going in the wrong direction. There are also 4 million sick and disabled people living in poverty—twice the number of non-disabled people. Our life expectancy is flatlining, and for women it is actually going backwards, but what do this Government do? They increase the state pension age. We also know that infant mortality has increased for the first time in 100 years, and that four in 1,000 babies will not reach their first birthday, compared with 2.8 per 1,000 in Europe.

Many epidemiologists have linked this reversal of the generations of health improvement with the austerity that this Government have wrought on the country as a whole and on people on the lowest incomes in particular. Resolution Foundation analysis published today and yesterday’s Budget book show that people on the lowest incomes will be hit disproportionately hard. The Government have not reduced inequalities. Have Ministers assessed the Budget’s impact on life expectancy? Will it continue to flatline, will it get worse or will it increase? I doubt they are able to say it is on the road to recovery.

On tax, I am pleased that small businesses, particularly those on the high street, will have their business rates reduced—that has been a particular issue for a number of my constituents—but what will that mean for councils’ revenue, and how will they be recompensed? My council has lost nearly half its budget from central Government. The digital services tax sounds great, but the OBR says it will affect around 30 tech giants, which will pay about £15 million each. How will that address the fundamental issue that, for example, in 2016, Google paid £36.4 million in corporation tax on declared UK sales of £1 billion, whereas according to its US accounts those sales were £6 billion?

On public spending, the Chancellor confirmed that the NHS would be given much-needed cash. That is welcome, but a range of think-tanks, from the King’s Fund to the Nuffield Trust, say it actually needs £30 billion by 2020. Again, the additional £2 billion for mental health crisis is welcome, but what about emphasising prevention? What about assessing the Government’s own policies on sanctions, work capability assessments and the personal independence payment process, which make the mental health of many claimants worse?

The £1 billion for social care is important, but it does not address the £2.5 billion funding gap since 2010 and does not help the 1.2 million people who need care but cannot get it. I worry that after the publication of the social care Green Paper, which is being consulted on, a new funding regime involving a social care insurance scheme will be announced. That would have disastrous implications for the NHS, as we see closer integration between the NHS and social care.

I could go on about the derisory figures for education and the fact that my local police force and our emergency services will receive nothing substantial, but I want to talk about homelessness, which is rising but was not mentioned in the Budget. We see rough sleepers on our streets in towns and cities up and down the country, but we hear nothing about the families who live in temporary accommodation or people who sofa-surf, as they are not deemed as having priority need for housing. That is the Government’s biggest shame. It epitomises their neglect of too many citizens and reflects not just their failure to ensure that enough houses are built for us all, with social and affordable homes as part of the mix, but their ill-thought-out social security policies, such as universal credit.

Universal credit has been a disaster from start to finish, and it has now been revealed to be driving homelessness. One shelter says UC is the reason why a third of its residents are in it. UC tenants of the housing association First Choice Homes in Oldham are in more than £2.5 million of rent arrears. Research suggests that nearly one in five people in Oldham struggles to pay a social rent. UC is part of that problem. Policy in Practice estimates that the changes to UC announced in the Budget will not have a significant effect. It says 345,000 more households will still be worse off and 29,000 will be no better off. Disabled people will still be worse off. People in employment will see some improvements, but self-employed people will see none at all.

[Karin Smyth]

My hon. Friend is a well-known expert in this area, which she has spoken up about many times. Does she agree that the Government’s inability to look at people in the round—particularly at their mental ill health, their disability, their poverty and their lack of access to work—drives some of the problems she highlights, including those with universal credit?

[Debbie Abrahams]

My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. The human misery caused by such an inhumane policy cannot be underestimated.

L contacted my office recently after her UC was suddenly stopped because her son, B, has severe learning difficulties and L, who is the main carer, did not realise that he would have to make a separate claim once he had reached his 19th birthday. When the money stopped, L had nothing—she did not know why it had stopped and nobody contacted her. It was an absolute disaster for her, and she said:

“At times I just want to end it all…it’s just so hard and I get no support or respite.”

L is a candidate for the new mental health crisis fund that the Government have set out—a product of their universal credit policy. On top of this, the investment in UC does not offset other cuts to social security, with welfare spending set to fall in the next couple of years.

Most worrying are the cuts affecting disabled people, which have not been addressed in the Budget. In fact, according to the OBR, disabled people will be worse off. As the United Nations said last year, this Government are presiding over a “human catastrophe”. The Equality and Human Rights Commission estimates that families with a disabled adult and a disabled child will have lost 13% of their income—£5,500 a year—by 2022. This is on top of colossal cuts across other Departments. What about their help from the Chancellor? What about their bright future?

We have done a lot—the former Labour Government did a huge amount to improve life expectancy, and to lift disabled people and children out of poverty—but we need to do more. The inequalities in our society are getting worse, not better. These inequalities are socially reproduced, so they can be changed, and that should give us all hope. But political will is needed to tackle them, and I am afraid that this Government just do not have it in them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

As in the health service under successive Governments of both colours, demand exceeds supply and we cannot carry on indefinitely, but let us hear a few more questions.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

Last week, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health revealed that there has been an increase in infant mortality for the first time in 100 years. Four in every 1,000 babies will not reach their first birthday, compared with 2.8 in every 1,000 babies in Europe. This was warned against as an effect of austerity. What assessment has the Health Secretary done on the effects of next week’s Budget on child health and the longevity of our children?

[Matt Hancock]

I saw that report and we are analysing it. Last week was Baby Loss Awareness Week, and I am glad that there is more awareness of the issue now than there was previously. It is a very important issue that we are looking at right across the board.

Social Care Funding

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Wednesday 17th October 2018 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House notes that eight years of Government cuts to council budges have resulted in a social care funding crisis; further notes that 1.4 million older people have unmet social care needs; notes that Government grant funding for local services is set to be cut by a further £1.3 billion in 2019-20, further exacerbating the crisis; recognises with concern the increasing funding gap for social care; further recognises that proposals from the Government to invest £240 million will not close that gap; and calls on the Government to close the funding gap for social care this year and for the rest of the Parliament.

In October 2016, the Prime Minister told this House that her Government would provide a long-term sustainable system for social care that gives people reassurance. Then the Conservative manifesto said:

“Where others have failed to lead, we will act.”

But the Government have failed utterly to act and people in need of care have paid the price of that inaction. It is approaching a year since the Government promised they would deliver a Green Paper, yet it is still nowhere to be seen months after the planned publication date originally scheduled for summer. Since then, we have seen a further £1 billion cut from social care because of the cuts the Government have made to the budgets of the councils that deliver it, with disastrous consequences for the social care system.

The Prime Minister has not heeded her own warnings about failing to act. During last year’s election campaign, she said that

“the social care system will collapse unless we do something about it. We could try and pretend the problem isn’t there and hope it will go away, but it won’t. It will grow each year.”

That is exactly what has happened. The problem has not gone away and it has grown in the past year.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that in addition to the immediate injection of £2.5 billion funding for social care, with 20% of the poorest local authority areas losing nearly £280 million in the past year compared with 20% of the most affluent local authorities gaining £55 million, we also need to address the issue in relation to the deprivation grant funding allocation?

[Barbara Keeley]

We do need to address that. Things have come to a pretty serious pass.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Hancock]

As I said, progress has been made. There has been a reduction of 17% in the number of in-patients—down from 2,875 in March 2015 to 2,375 on the latest figures—but I would fully acknowledge that there is more to do and I am determined to see that happen.

Our population is ageing. More people are living longer and, as a society, we must address the challenge that that creates for social care. To put that into context, over the next 25 years, the number of people aged 75 and over is set to double and the number of people aged 85 will rise by more still. Of course, this is good news. It is down in part to the hard work of our NHS. Cancer survival rates are at a record high and strokes are down by a third, but with such successes come new challenges. For instance, we are seeing a rise in dementia and in age-related conditions, with 70% of people in residential care homes now suffering with dementia.

[Debbie Abrahams]

Will the Secretary of State agree to support a dedicated dementia fund, as proposed by the Alzheimer’s Society, to recognise the inequity given the additional care costs that such people would be paying?

[Matt Hancock]

I have seen that proposal from the Alzheimer’s Society and we are looking at it now. At the same time, we are working on both the Green Paper for the future of social care, which will come before the end of the year, and the long-term plan for the future of the NHS. The interaction between the two is important.