New Dementia Treatments

Debate between Helen Whately and Debbie Abrahams

Thursday 11th January 2024 Westminster Hall

[Debbie Abrahams]

I am reassured to some extent by what the Minister says, and I am grateful for her tone and her positive approach. Given the inequality—let us call it what it is—in current diagnosis, and these are non-specific dementia diagnosis rates, have she and her Department conducted any analysis of the gaps in more specific PET and CSF testing? Can she publish that data or write to us with it? That would reassure us, because rather than just hoping something will happen, we could identify it: “Yes, in Greater Manchester we are at 90% of the level we need for all these tests,” and similarly in Kent and so on. If she could do that, it would be very helpful.

[Helen Whately]

I fully appreciate the hon. Member’s question, and I can assure her that I do look at the variation in diagnosis rates between different areas, as she rightly pointed out in her speech. I would be happy to write to her with further detail on the specific question of more sophisticated diagnosis techniques and our readiness for new treatments and for carrying out earlier and more sophisticated diagnoses.

I assure hon. Members of the Government’s ambition for the UK to be a world leader in dementia research, diagnosis and treatment; I would also like us to lead the world in the prevention of dementia. That is why the Government are investing in research. We are getting ready to make new treatments available and building on what we are already doing in prevention with our major conditions strategy. Given the scale and impact of dementia on our society, successful prevention and treatment are not just a nice-to-have, but an imperative for individuals, for their families, friends and loved ones, and for our society.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Helen Whately and Debbie Abrahams

Tuesday 24th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Helen Whately]

I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent and important question about her local share of the £750 million of extra funding for discharge this winter. I can tell her that, in Worcestershire, money is already going into extra placements in homecare, community care and care homes, and into providing practical support to help people when they get home from hospital, in partnership with the voluntary sector. I assure her that we will publish the spending plans for her area and the rest of the country shortly.

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

8. What assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of the number of excess deaths in 2022.

NHS Staff Pay

Debate between Helen Whately and Debbie Abrahams

Monday 8th March 2021 Commons Chamber

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

By the end of the year, £37 billion of taxpayers’ money will have been spent on the Serco Test and Trace programme, which is not even fit for purpose. That is on top of the Government spending £10 billion more on PPE contracts than they should have spent. Given that waste, how do the Government justify the view that most of the 300,000 NHS nurses are worth only a £250 a year pay rise?

[Helen Whately]

The pay conversation that we are having at the moment is indeed about nurses—who are a fabulous part of our NHS workforce, and I cannot thank them enough—but it is also about the wider NHS workforce, which includes paramedics and health support workers, and this pay settlement will also include some doctors. More than 1 million staff are being considered in this process, and that is why the cost is closer to £1 billion than the figure the hon. Lady mentioned; it is around £750 million. The Government were absolutely right to invest in PPE to protect staff in health and social care during the pandemic at a time when there was a global shortage of PPE, and we are absolutely right to have invested in a world-beating test and trace service, which is doing a phenomenal job and is essential to our country’s recovery from this pandemic.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Debate between Helen Whately and Debbie Abrahams

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 8th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker). In fact, I agree with some of the sentiments that he has expressed. The level of poverty is still unacceptable, and that makes me unhappy. I am also unhappy about the level of inequality across the country and in my own constituency, but I want to support a Government who are doing something about it, not just through words but through actually taking steps to make these things better.

I have enormous respect for the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), who introduced her new clause 1 earlier. It proposes a review of the impact of clause 5 on child poverty and equality—that is, the impact of raising the level of the personal allowance after which people start paying tax. She also spoke to new clause 5, which proposes a review of the public health and poverty impact of the whole Act. It is enormously tempting to say yes, we should do this. All of us in this Chamber care enormously about poverty and inequality levels. I have a background in healthcare, and I feel very strongly about reducing health inequalities. I am also conscious of the different life expectancies within my own constituency, which are substantial, but we must be careful not to be lured into a sense that reviewing a specific part of an Act will give us an accurate picture of all that is being done and of its impact on, for example, reducing health inequalities.

[Debbie Abrahams]

I want to reciprocate by expressing my respect for the hon. Lady and for the work that she does in this place on mental health. I have huge experience in this area. I spent more than 20 years working on health inequalities and specifically on the assessment of policies to ensure that we get them right. That is part of the reason that I came into Parliament, and I know that this can be done. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) said, if we are all so committed to reducing poverty and inequality, let us assess our policies before they are implemented, to ensure that they do just that.

Universal Credit Roll-out

Debate between Helen Whately and Debbie Abrahams

Wednesday 18th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Debbie Abrahams]

I wonder how that intervention will be seen by those people affected by these issues. Some 900,000 working-age adults will be pushed into poverty, while 900,000 children and 800,000 adults will be living in severe poverty.

Earlier, I mentioned the design issues that are affecting disabled people. This week, I heard from someone who has lost nearly £80 a week—a week—because of their transfer to universal credit after they moved house, ending their ESA claim. When UC was first launched, the Government said they wanted to

“simplify the current complex rules which have been prone to error and complex and confusing for disabled people”

and to replace

“seven different premiums with a simpler, two-tier system that focuses support on the most severely disabled people who are least able to work”.

However, subsequent social security changes, particularly the abolition of the UC limited-capability-for-work element from April 2017, have meant that, instead of a net gain, it is likely that there will be a net reduction of support for people with health conditions and disabilities.

Under this Government, we are seeing unprecedented cuts in support to disabled people, with the consequence that more and more disabled people are living in poverty. The number currently stands at more than 4.2 million; this cannot go on. This is exactly what the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities said is causing a “human catastrophe”.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Debbie Abrahams]

I am sorry, but I will not. As I have said, I am conscious that 90 people wish to speak.

The self-employed are another group who are adversely affected by the Government’s changes to universal credit. We have seen a dramatic increase in self-employed people in recent years: they now make up 15% of the workforce—5 million in total—and account for 80% of the increase in employment since 2008. But 45% of them pay themselves less than the living wage.

As I have said many times, it is absolutely right that we try to design a social security system that can properly support self-employed people and that recognises the fluctuating nature of the labour market for those workers. Sadly, universal credit no longer does so, after the introduction of the minimum income floor, which is an assumed income for self-employed people, found by multiplying the minimum wage on the assumption that self-employed people are working 35 hours a week. One self-employed recipient who contacted me said:

“This system does not allow for the fluctuations in income that are experienced by the self-employed. Surely an assessment made on a year’s profits would be much fairer.”

They went on to say that universal credit will close down enterprise as a route to employment.

Importantly, the Department for Work and Pensions does not average incomes over a year, which leads to issues around holidays, such as Christmas, when the self-employed may take time off. They will be punished for doing so under the Government’s universal credit system. The Federation of Small Businesses has also expressed concerns, saying that it expects major problems for low-income self-employed people to set in at Christmas.

We need to build a social security system fit for the 21st century and to make sure that all workers, employed or self-employed, are afforded dignity and security as work demands fluctuate. We cannot allow the devastating impacts of universal credit roll-out to happen. I reiterate my genuine offer to work with the Government to address the very real concerns about universal credit, particularly its design flaws, the administrative issues and the cuts.

I welcome the Government’s announcement this morning that the so-called helpline will now be a Freephone line. Given Serco’s appalling performance over the past few years and the profit that it has made from the Government contract, it should be paying for the Freephone lines. It is unacceptable that people on the lowest incomes have been paying money that they do not have on phone calls to find out about their claims.

Action must be taken to improve call handler capacity and competence, so that people making inquiries on their claim are not kept on hold or passed from pillar to post. Another key ask is for alternative payment arrangements to be offered to all claimants at the time of their claims. That includes ending the one-week wait and enabling people to have fortnightly, instead of monthly, payments where appropriate with the option of the housing element to go directly to the landlord. Alternative arrangements have already been made available in Northern Ireland and will be introduced in Scotland, so there is no reason why they also should not be available to people in England and Wales.

We need to look at the advanced payments and make them more manageable. A repayment over six months is still creating huge issues for people on the lowest income.

Benefit Claimants Sanctions (Required Assessment) Bill

Debate between Helen Whately and Debbie Abrahams

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 2nd December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Debbie Abrahams]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Reflecting his father’s experience, many jobcentre advisers have been saying similar things and that they are absolutely horrified by what they are experiencing.

[Helen Whately]

The hon. Lady made an important point about tone. Members from all parts of the House should conduct this debate with a compassionate tone, but she seems to be putting words into the mouths of Government Members—words that have simply not been said. Is there a Government source that she can refer us to that uses the language that she was using a moment ago?

[Debbie Abrahams]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. We all need to be responsible for the language and the tone that we use. Unfortunately, we have seen some of that in today’s debate. I refer Members to the earlier National Audit Office report that was published this week. A headline in a paper suggested that the one in four claimants who had been sanctioned were somehow fraudulent. That was the disgraceful tone of the headline in a major newspaper, which distorted the evidence.

[Helen Whately]

rose—

[Debbie Abrahams]

I am sorry, but I am going to carry on.

We must ensure that all of us, as leaders, use the appropriate language. I can point to speeches that have been made in the past in which that has not been the case.

The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South has outlined the provisions of her Bill, which requires an assessment of social security claimants’ circumstances before a sanction is applied. Measures in the Bill include a code of conduct for those responsible for imposing sanctions and the important principle of just cause, which is applied in defined circumstances. It will be applied, for example, where undertaking a job is in clear conflict with the claimant’s caring responsibility, and where there is just cause for not undertaking particular employment or job-search activity. In such cases, it is proposed that sanctions should not be applied.

The hon. Lady also mentioned the need for assessment for hardship payments after a sanction has been applied. Again, that is absolutely right. It was in fact one recommendation from the Work and Pensions Committee inquiry on this issue last year.

I have been heartened by the slightly different tone taken by the new Secretary of State, particularly in what has been said about work capability assessment and sanctions for homeless people and other vulnerable groups. I see this Bill as an important step forward, as it builds on what we have said should be happening. It would also make the process much fairer. I support this Bill in abolishing the punitive sanctions regime that the Tories and the Liberal Democrats introduced in the Welfare Reform Act 2012.

Let me provide a bit of background to what has been going on over the past four years. We have heard about the exponential rise in sanctions that have been applied to people on JSA, incapacity benefit and employment and support allowance, but we did not really touch on the new application to people on universal credit who are in work. I am referring to the taxpayers whom the hon. Member for Bournemouth West was talking about—the taxpayers who are already contributing to the Exchequer and who are, through the universal credit regulations, likely to be subjected to a sanction. That would be the case if, for example, they are not working full time, or if they have not got a permanent contract and want a few days off. They can be sanctioned and that is happening now.

I have been campaigning on this issue for more than four years. A constituent came to me after he had been sanctioned. He was in the middle of a work capability assessment when he suffered a heart attack. He was told by the nurse undertaking the assessment that he needed to go to hospital. He did that, and two weeks later he had a letter in the post saying that he had been sanctioned.

I mentioned another case to the Minister when we were in an interview recently. John Ruane from my constituency has a brain tumour, which means that he has three to four epileptic fits a week. His clinical team contacted me because he was refusing to have a life-saving operation on the grounds that he feared he would be sanctioned. He had already had his ESA stopped after a work capability assessment—that is another story, which I cannot go into today, but which certainly needs to be looked at again. He was frightened of being sanctioned. Fortunately, I have been able to intervene and his ESA has been re-established, but that fear of being sanctioned is what people are experiencing.

Yet another constituent of mine, who was a Jobcentre Plus adviser for more than 25 years, came to me four years ago, saying how troubled he was about the targets that he was being set—or aspirations as a Member said earlier—to sanction claimants. Targets were being set for sanctions even when people had done nothing wrong. He explained how the system works—that appointments would be made when people were meant to come in for a work-related interview, and the people would then not be told. That was investigated by the Department for Work and Pensions and, shamefully, it did nothing.