Universal Credit: Managed Migration

Debate between Debbie Abrahams and Amber Rudd

Monday 22nd July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

I know that my hon. Friend has raised this on several occasions, and he will be aware that the Department has already made changes that will affect the run-on of housing benefit and additional legacy benefits by the end of next year. I will always look at finding ways to get those essential funds to the people who really need them as early as possible.

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

I have just attended the oral session for an inquiry looking at the health impacts of the Welfare Reform Act 2012, in which it was revealed that 240 children a year die as a direct consequence of being pushed into poverty and, ultimately, because of the cuts in social security support. Will the Secretary of State look into the harms to and deaths of not just children but disabled people as a consequence of the policies she is introducing?

[Amber Rudd]

I will always look at evidence, and if the hon. Lady wants to show me any of the evidence she has been on the receiving end of, I would be happy to look at it. I point out to her, as I have done previously, that overall we will be spending more money under the universal credit system by 2023-24 than would have been spent under the previous system, so I am not entirely in agreement with the conclusions she draws, but we will always take an open mind to the facts that she presents.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Debbie Abrahams and Amber Rudd

Monday 13th May 2019 Commons Chamber

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

The Secretary of State just said that universal credit is better than the legacy system, yet evidence published this weekend shows that twice as many children will be pushed into poverty by universal credit, the two-child limit and the benefit cap. On top of that, universal credit is actually increasing infant mortality—the first time we have seen an increase in 100—

[Amber Rudd]

indicated dissent.

[Debbie Abrahams]

I am sorry, but there is irrefutable evidence on this. Instead of the cursory responses that we have had from the Government, will the Secretary of State commit to review the up-to-date evidence and get back to this House with some detailed explanations of how she is going to stop these things?

[Amber Rudd]

I totally reject the hon. Lady’s approach to this. Universal credit is a welfare benefit system that, overall, is more generous and much more straightforward than the previous system. I wonder whether she has talked to any Members of Parliament who had the experience of having to navigate the six legacy benefits, of three different places to go to, and of annual tax credits. The complications were totally out of proportion compared with the challenges that people sometimes encounter now. Above all, there was the difficulty people had with the 16-hour threshold, where they could not take up new work if they were on a certain amount of benefits. We have reformed the system so that it works for people—it works for families, and it works for people trying to better themselves and get better access to work.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Debbie Abrahams and Amber Rudd

Monday 11th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

I am happy to say that it has already started.

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

Since 2013, nearly 8,000 disabled people have died within six months of being found ineligible for personal independence payments—yet more evidence that the assessment process is not fit for purpose. If the Secretary of State is not prepared to scrap this inhumane process, will she at least support the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), which would remove the arbitrary and cruel six-month time limit for people with a terminal illness?

[Amber Rudd]

The hon. Lady will be aware that under disability living allowance there were also assessments and difficulties with getting people paid on time, so let us not pretend that this is a wholly new change in terms of the consequences. I have started to look at the proposal from the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), to make sure that people with a terminal illness are treated correctly and get the support that they need as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Debbie Abrahams and Amber Rudd

Monday 7th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

We are 100% ready for any eventuality.

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

When will the Government publish the report that was leaked to The Times just before Christmas, which revealed the different scenarios for Brexit and their impact on unemployment, homelessness, poverty and much more? Will it be before next week’s meaningful vote?

[Amber Rudd]

The Department regularly conducts internal inquiries to reassure ourselves that we are prepared for all eventualities, and I can reassure the hon. Lady that we are prepared.

Windrush

Debate between Debbie Abrahams and Amber Rudd

Monday 23rd April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

I see that the hon. Gentleman is making a general point about the Home Office. I am always interested in hearing the points that colleagues choose to make, but today I want to focus on the outcomes that I am putting in place for this particular cohort, who need to have their rights put in place.

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

What discussion has the Home Secretary had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions about the denial of social security support for some of these people? I appreciate that the Home Secretary has said that she is setting up a compensation fund, but could we have more clarity that they will also be compensated for denial of pensions, social security support for disabled people and so on? And will she finally publish the internal 2014 impact assessment that predicted these effects?

[Amber Rudd]

I have already put in place instructions to be sent to jobcentres to ensure that they also have an awareness of this cohort, so that when they might have been considering stopping people’s benefits because they do not have the papers, that is changed. I will engage with the Department for Work and Pensions on the wider issue. On the retrospective element, that is the sort of thing that I would want the independent person in charge of the compensation to look carefully at.

Windrush Children (Immigration Status)

Debate between Debbie Abrahams and Amber Rudd

Monday 16th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

Yes; my hon. Friend makes a good point. I will ensure that everybody in the House has the details of the taskforce contact point and that we are able to communicate to everybody who has assisted this country—the people from the Windrush generation—our thanks and support.

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

What assurances will the Home Secretary give to people who settled here from parts of the Commonwealth other than the West Indies, including the many in my constituency who came from Bangladesh and Pakistan? Will she commit to the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) about a statutory instrument to restore the protections for people from Commonwealth countries?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Debbie Abrahams and Amber Rudd

Thursday 12th May 2016 Commons Chamber

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

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Amber Rudd)]

Our Energy Bill receives Royal Assent today. It is a vital part of our plan to ensure that our families and businesses have access to secure, clean and affordable energy. We are delivering on our manifesto commitment to end subsidies for onshore wind. We are also using the opportunity to support the Oil and Gas Authority with powers to drive greater collaboration and productivity in the industry. I thank the Bill Committee and my hon. Friend the Minister for making this possible and going through the Bill in such painstaking detail to deliver it.

[Debbie Abrahams]

Evidence from the Universities of Leicester and York has shown that sick and disabled people are particularly at risk of fuel poverty, especially after the recent social security cuts by this Government and the previous coalition. Will the Secretary of State approach the Chancellor again to look at better targeting of warm home discount funding, especially after her rebuff from him just before the Budget?

[Amber Rudd]

The hon. Lady will be aware that this Government, and this Department specifically, are refocusing our support, as far as possible, on to those who are most vulnerable. We have just closed the consultation on the warm home discount and we are looking at the results. She can rest assured that we will, as far as possible, target it at those who are most in need, which is the right thing to do.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Debbie Abrahams and Amber Rudd

Thursday 7th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

I do not share my hon. Friend’s view. I think it is essential that energy supplies are a mix, and that means a combination of fossil fuels, for now, and renewable energy. Investing in renewable energy is an essential part of energy security, as well as of decarbonising and meeting those targets.

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

3. What assessment she has made of the implications for her policies of the outcomes of the COP 21 climate conference in Paris.

--- Later in debate ---

[Debbie Abrahams]

The floods over the past few weeks are a reminder of the effects of climate change and, as we have known for a while, these extreme weather events are here to stay. Given the Government’s proclaimed UK ambition at the Paris climate change talks, why at the same time were they undermining policies on, for example, subsidies for renewables and low-carbon technologies?

[Amber Rudd]

I do not accept that we are undermining those policies. What we are trying to do is get the right balance to support policies—to support renewable energy—while also looking after bill payers and ensuring that not too much is added to their bills. I also remind the hon. Lady that the UK is responsible for 1% of the world’s emissions, and the success at Paris was that we were dealing with nearly 100% of the world’s emissions. That is where we will get the real difference and change on carbon emissions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Debbie Abrahams and Amber Rudd

Thursday 25th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Amber Rudd)]

I am determined to help keep homes warmer for less, save carbon and meet our important fuel poverty targets. We need a long-term, coherent and affordable policy framework that ensures that Government support is targeted at those who need it most. My Department is already working closely with consumer groups and industry alike to test and develop ideas based on evidence of what works, and I look forward to setting out our approach in the autumn.

[Debbie Abrahams]

More than 2 million households are in fuel poverty, including 4,259 in my constituency of Oldham East and Saddleworth. Energy efficiency is key to tackling fuel poverty, but with an 80% reduction in such measures in this Parliament, is the Secretary of State serious about doing that or is she just going to redefine what it is?

[Amber Rudd]

The hon. Lady will be aware that the previous Government redefined fuel poverty to the satisfaction of most groups, who agreed that we had proposed a better definition. She should be under no illusion: addressing fuel poverty will remain a priority of this Government. She is probably aware that the energy company obligation, or ECO, measures installed by the energy companies have been the most efficient way of delivering energy efficiency. In her constituency, 6,323 measures were installed to nearly 5,000 individual households and £700,000 was invested through the green deal communities fund. I hope that she saw some significant improvements under the previous Government and we will continue on that route.

Onshore Wind Subsidies

Debate between Debbie Abrahams and Amber Rudd

Monday 22nd June 2015 Commons Chamber

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

I, too, had several constituents come to see me for the climate change lobby last week and the Secretary of State’s statement will leave them at a loss. Will she respond to the CBI’s comment that

“cutting the Renewables Obligation scheme early sends a worrying signal about the stability of the UK’s energy”

market?

[Amber Rudd]

I would say to the CBI, which I will be meeting and with which I am sure I will discuss this issue among other things, that this is a stable environment for renewable investment, as we have set out the ranges and targets we would like to achieve and we are meeting them. This Government are the first to have set out a levy control framework so that investors can see exactly how much money we are committing. It is partly because we as a Government are determined to look after money so carefully that we are making this change to ensure that we stay well within the levy control framework.

EU Working Time Directive (NHS)

Debate between Debbie Abrahams and Amber Rudd

Thursday 26th April 2012 Westminster Hall

[Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) who, as always, speaks with such authority on the relationship between this country and Europe. I was particularly interested to hear the relevant experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston). Most hon. Members have said that we do not want to go back to 100 hour weeks; her rather shocking and frightening examples remind us all why that is so. What we want is flexibility—F for flexibility, as the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) so helpfully put it—so that we can try to get a better outcome for everybody.

So much has already been said and covered, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie), who did so well to secure the debate. As she made her remarks, I was concerned that she was going to cover absolutely everything. She pretty much did, so I will just concentrate on one area—surgery—where the effect of the working time directive has been particularly damaging.

Although, as some hon. Members have pointed out, the British Medical Association has said that all training can fit into 48 hours, surgeons I have spoken to are concerned. The body that represents trainee surgeons, the Association of Surgeons in Training, has stressed that surgery is very different from all other aspects of the medical profession. It has clearly taken on the BMA in trying to make that point. As the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) said, surgery is a craft specialty like chefs, for example—a lot can be learnt from books, but in the end there is nothing like hands on practical experience. Operative and procedural skills define the surgical craft and they are finite in number, with the majority to be gained during working hours. By limiting those hours, we are working against their training and therefore their competency as future consultant surgeons. As the ASIT survey confirmed, the majority of surgical trainees would welcome the opportunity to work in excess of the hours permitted—we are not doing them any favours by restricting their hours.

The Royal College of Surgeons estimates that 400,000 hours of surgical time are lost every month. ASIT believes that the restrictions imposed by the directive will be detrimental to the quality of training for junior surgeons and, therefore, to the quality of surgical service and provision in the future. Ultimately, as said by many of my colleagues today, the restrictions will be harmful to patient care. We also risk deterring junior doctors from specialising in surgery, as they are only too aware of the consequences of the restrictions. The royal college and ASIT both call for flexibility to enable UK surgeons to work up to a maximum of 65 hours per week, including time spent on call.

In addition to the effect of the working time directive on doctors’ training, the legislation is impacting on the continuity and quality of patient care in our hospitals. According to a survey by the Royal College of Surgeons, 80% of consultant surgeons and 66% of surgical trainees said that patient care had deteriorated as a result of the directive. Those consequences are worrying, and we need to focus on them.

[Debbie Abrahams]

In an earlier intervention, I referred to the systematic review. I appreciate that surveys give a certain amount of one-off evidence, but systematic reviews are the strongest form of evidence, and there were no conclusive results regarding an impact on patient outcomes. Whatever action we take, it surely should be based on the strongest evidence and not on evidence of lesser quality.

[Amber Rudd]

I am talking about evidence, and every Member present has been talking about their own evidence—

[Debbie Abrahams]

But not the strongest form of evidence.

[Amber Rudd]

Anecdotal evidence is absolutely relevant. We get such evidence from talking in our hospitals to consultants, patients and surgeons. That is much more relevant sometimes than the box-ticking consequences from a more desk-driven survey.

Our 24-hour health service has had to make dramatic changes to how hospitals are staffed. The effects of the reduction in hours have been further compounded by the Jaeger and SiMAP rulings of the European Court of Justice, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West. Those decree that all time spent in the workplace should be regarded as work, whether at rest or not, which is a dramatic change from previous arrangements. As a result, hospitals have had to scrap all on-call arrangements in favour of full shift rotas, which is creating a multitude of problems. Consultants at the Conquest hospital in Hastings told me that, in order to staff a full shift rota in one department, they now need eight people instead of the six they used to have on the old on-call system. Sometimes there is not even enough work. Indeed, the exposure of each doctor to training opportunities in the day is diluted, and the extra doctors are employed purely to service a working time-compliant rota.

The rota and the system are driving health arrangements, which is surely wrong. It is an inefficient and costly way to manage doctors, and it is damaging to the quality of their training. It is particularly harmful for district general hospitals such as my own, the Conquest, which find that they are no longer able to support certain specialties, such as the neurology department in my example, which has now largely moved to the nearby Eastbourne general hospital. Unfortunately, as we have heard from other Members, the same impact on certain specialties is being experienced in their district hospitals. The doctors at the Conquest do a fantastic job, and I am extremely grateful for the hard work and commitment that they put in; but, from my conversations with the consultants, I know that those doctors are being stretched too thin.