Oral Answers to Questions

Natalie McGarry Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[David Mowat]

The hon. Gentleman is right that budgets are part of the issue, which is why last week’s announcement about increased funding is important. However, funding alone does not explain the delayed transfers in Wolverhampton, which are five times worse than those of Telford, which is just down the road; twice as bad as Sandwell, which is very close; and, indeed, 30 times worse than the best performing councils, such as Newcastle, Knowsley and St Helens. With regard to his specific point about the vertically integrated pilot, this is a very exciting project and I commend the people of Wolverhampton for doing it. It is based on a model from Spain that has produced big results. We are watching it carefully and will support it as required.

[Natalie McGarry (Glasgow East) (Ind)]

15. What assessment he has made of the potential effectiveness of introducing (a) a ban on price-cutting promotions on unhealthy food in supermarkets and (b) restrictions on advertising of unhealthy food during family television programmes in reducing childhood obesity.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Nicola Blackwood)]

In developing the childhood obesity plan, we considered the latest research and evidence on promotions and advertising, including Public Health England’s evidence package “Sugar reduction: the evidence for action”. We have made no secret of the fact that we considered a range of policies before finally settling on those set out in the childhood obesity plan. The plan includes the soft drinks industry levy and taking 20% of sugar out of certain products. We concluded that our plan is the right approach to secure the future health of our children.

[Natalie McGarry]

I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s words of sympathy for the people of Berlin, and I also add my thoughts for the people of Aleppo, Yemen, Gaza, Mosul and all the forgotten conflicts of the world.

Public health experts have dismissed the Government’s obesity strategy as a weak approach and a wasted opportunity. The Government say that they are committed to evidence-based policy making, but they have failed to acknowledge that relying on voluntary food action without tackling cost and availability is inherently flawed. Will the Minister commit the Government to getting a grip and bringing forward a ban or restrictions on advertising and price-cutting promotions on junk food?

[Nicola Blackwood]

I am happy to reassure the hon. Lady that current restrictions on advertising in the UK are already among the toughest in the world. For example, there is a total ban on the advertising of less healthy food during children’s television programmes. Those have been shown to be very effective. However, we also welcome action that has been taken by forward-thinking retailers on promotions elsewhere. In particular, Sainsbury’s has committed to removing multi-buy promotions across its full range of branded and own-brand soft drinks, confectionery, biscuits and crisps, removing more than 50% of its multi-buy promotions from its grocery business while lowering regular prices for products. It should be congratulated on leading the way.

Reducing Health Inequality

Natalie McGarry Excerpts

Thursday 24th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Natalie McGarry (Glasgow East) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), who makes some interesting points. I also thought the intervention from my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), about the landscape in Glasgow was particularly pertinent.

Let me begin by commending the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), whose campaigning efforts in health matters, coupled with her ability to challenge her own Government, are second to none. I thank her for securing this debate and the Backbench Business Committee for allowing the time for it to take place in the House today. It is clear from this debate that we are united as a House in wanting to eradicate health inequality, but the issue is how we work together to achieve that.

In her opening speech the hon. Lady referred to the Prime Minister using her first speech to proclaim that her Government would fight the “burning injustice” that plagues our society. I believe it is fair to say that most burning injustices lead back to health inequalities. Inequalities in health are underpinned by greater societal inequalities—the conditions in which we are conceived and born, grow up, live, work and grow old have an immense impact on our lives. Essentially, where there are social and economic inequalities there are health inequalities, and although they are most definitely unjust, they are certainly not unavoidable. Many people—our constituents—will die prematurely and needlessly each and every year as a result of these gross inequalities. This, wherever it occurs, is a human and moral tragedy that shames us all.

During the debate today, right hon. and hon. Members from across these islands will rightly speak about their constituent nations, regions, local constituencies and their particular competences, and England will be a key focus. I would like to complement this debate by talking specifically about Scotland, Glasgow and my constituency, Glasgow East. Despite vast progress in life expectancy in Scotland over the past 150 years, our life expectancy remains lower, and our average mortality remains higher, than our neighbours across the UK and throughout Europe.

The poor health status of Scotland and our largest city, Glasgow, is well documented and is largely explained by the experiences of deindustrialisation, deprivation and poverty. However, there are now greater levels of mortality that cannot be explained by deprivation, known as “excess mortality”. For example, premature mortality rates are 20% higher in Scotland than in England and Wales, even after deprivation is accounted for, and the premature mortality rate in Glasgow is 30% higher than in equally deprived areas, such as Liverpool and Manchester. The former has been dubbed the “Scottish effect”, the latter the “Glasgow effect”. Both account for approximately 5,000 extra, unexplained deaths per year in Scotland—that is, 5,000 people dying prematurely, dying needlessly, over and above normal inequalities in health.

Traditionally, the cause of this has not been entirely understood. Research suggests that it is a combination of a change in political power, increasing income inequalities, disempowerment and deindustrialisation, the last of which has impacted on people in many ways, such as through unhealthy behaviours, psychosocial stress and, of course, poverty. In May this year, the Glasgow Centre for Population Health, NHS Scotland, the University of the West of Scotland and University College London produced a report entitled “History, politics and vulnerability: explaining excess mortality in Scotland and Glasgow” which confirmed this.

The report, which was signed by over 30 academics and health professionals, found that Glasgow’s population was more vulnerable to factors that impacted on health across the UK, such as poverty, deprivation, deindustrialisation and economic decisions taken by the UK Government that have led to the population having poorer health outcomes. Such vulnerabilities arose from notoriously high levels of deprivation over a sustained period; urban planning decisions in the post-war period, such as the creation of monolithic, poor quality, peripheral housing estates; the regional economic policies of the UK Government and its Scottish Office; and local government responses to UK Government policies in the 1980s.

Again, where there are socioeconomic inequalities, there are health inequalities. These inequalities are not a mistake and they are not an accident, they are not inevitable and they are not irreversible. Income inequalities were relatively narrow in the UK until the late 1970s, and health inequalities declined dramatically. However, income and wealth inequalities soared again during the 1980s and 1990s, and so have health inequalities. Again, this did not happen by accident, nor did it happen in countries across the world. It happened in countries which, like the UK, made conscious decisions to roll back the state to the minimum level possible; to slash public expenditure like it was going out of fashion; to reconstruct the tax and welfare system to be less redistributive; and to champion the wants of business and the financial sector at the expense of the needs of workers and their trade unions. This was an ideologically driven Conservative Government hell-bent on pursuing a neoliberal agenda at any cost, come what may.

To break somewhat from the conciliatory tone, there were worrying signs that that approach was being mirrored by the previous Government. However, we have a new Prime Minister, and she has offered encouraging words about her Government’s ambition to fight burning injustice, but what she does matters more than what she says. Hopefully, today’s debate is a starting point.

The interventions the Government could make, which are more likely to reduce inequalities in health, are those that utilise taxation, legislation, regulation and changes in the broader distribution of income and power in society. As Michael Marmot, chair of the Marmot review, said in 2010:

“Simply restoring economic growth, trying to return to the status quo, while cutting public spending, should not be an option. Economic growth without reducing relative inequality will not reduce health inequalities.”

The Government must acknowledge that health inequalities cannot be solved with health solutions alone; they are rooted in poverty and income inequality, as well as across all areas of Government policy. Solutions from the Department of Health or the NHS will not suffice, as ably outlined by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson). Therefore, the Government should commit to a joined-up, evidence-based approach of cross-departmental working, with a Minister from the Cabinet Office given specific responsibility for embedding health as a priority in all Government policy.

Inequalities in health are a matter of life and death, health and sickness, wellbeing and misery. They represent misery on the greatest scale imaginable. If the Government are looking to fight injustice, this is it. The only question is: are they up to the job, and are they willing to do it?

World Autism Awareness Week

Natalie McGarry Excerpts

Thursday 28th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Natalie McGarry (Glasgow East) (Ind)]

Let me add my voice to those who have already congratulated the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) on initiating the debate, and on the work she has done over the years to raise awareness of autism. Let me also say that it is a pleasure to follow the powerful and informative speeches that have been made by Members on both sides of the House, and, in particular, by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan).

Autism is a spectrum disorder, which means that there is a wide degree of variation in the way in which it affects people. Every child or adult on the autistic spectrum has unique abilities and symptoms, and experiences various challenges. Some of the many challenges that they may face include difficulty in understanding other people’s feelings and reactions and interpreting non-verbal clues, difficulty in recognising people’s faces, and difficulty in understanding facial expressions. Children and adults with autism spectrum disorders may find it difficult to regulate their emotions or express them appropriately. For instance, they may start to shout, cry or laugh hysterically for no apparent reason. When stressed, they may exhibit disruptive or even aggressive behaviour, breaking things, hitting others or harming themselves.

The condition itself can be isolating enough without society’s reinforcing it through “othering” and stigmatism. Society itself can disable more fully than any condition. The behaviour of people on the autistic spectrum makes it very difficult for them and their families to take part in social events, or to perform everyday tasks such as shopping or using public transport. The pressure of dealing with such situations—which were described so vividly by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara)—can be overwhelming for autistic-spectrum people and their families, and, as we have already heard, families often choose to exclude themselves from everyday life in their communities rather than put up with stares and whispered comments.

Autism is so poorly understood—even, in some cases, by health professionals—that children on the spectrum are often seen as being “naughty” or poorly parented. It is widely acknowledged that early diagnosis and therapy are critical to improving autistic-spectrum people’s chances of overcoming developmental delays, but the road to diagnosis is, all too often, very difficult and time consuming. Parents must fight for diagnosis in order to gain access to appropriate services. That places an added burden on stressed, sleep-deprived, struggling families who are already coping with extraordinary pressures and challenges to family life. On average, adults must wait two years for diagnosis and children more than three and a half years after being referred by their GPs. Although guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence say that the wait for a diagnosis should be about three months, some children and their families are having to wait for more than 10 times the recommended period. We are failing those children and families.

A rarely mentioned consequence of families’ struggles with challenging and unusual behaviour is the impact that that can have on siblings and family life. The mother of a young autistic-spectrum child in my constituency explained to me recently that if her son was struggling to deal with a birthday party, a noisy branch of McDonald’s or a busy shopping mall, the whole family had to leave.

We must aim to improve the structure, process and outcomes of care for these children and their families. Autism teams conducting assessments of children, young people or adults should be specialist, integrated teams with access to speech and language therapists, occupational therapists, and clinical and educational psychologists. Systematic assessments for conditions that co-exist alongside autism should be part of the diagnostic pathway as required by the Autism Act 2009. This is particularly important because people with autism might have co-existing physical health conditions and/or mental health problems which, if they go unrecognised or untreated, could further impair their psychosocial functioning and place additional pressure on families or carers.

Because of their social communication difficulties, some people with autism may find it particularly difficult to communicate their needs and to access mainstream health and social care services. People with autism should have a personalised plan that is developed and implemented in a partnership between them—and their family and carers, if appropriate—and the autism team. People on the autistic spectrum are unique, sensitive and often highly intelligent individuals who desperately want to be part of their local and wider community. With more support and understanding, that is achievable. We can and must do better to secure better outcomes for adults and children with autism.

Care Homes (Regulation)

Natalie McGarry Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2015 Westminster Hall

[Natalie McGarry (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon (Peter Heaton-Jones) on securing this important debate. Ensuring that our older people, and those of a younger demographic who have complex needs, have access to high-quality care is a vital role and duty of any Government, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate. Across the political divide, and in all parts of the UK, our older people deserve comfort, dignity and decent care. Many important points have been raised, and I think we all agree that strong regulation must be in place to ensure that care facilities that provide vital support meet the highest possible standards. With an increasingly ageing population, that is a necessary consideration that transcends party politics. It is not for me—a Scottish National party MP for a Scottish constituency and a spokesperson for the party—to dictate English policy on a matter that is devolved to Scotland, but I hope that by sharing the approach we have taken in Scotland, I can help to inform the debate and show some examples of best practice.

Members have contributed thoughts and experiences from their constituencies. The hon. Member for North Devon made the important point that we are talking about people, not merely systems and processes. He was a powerful advocate for our agreeing to ensure quality care for everyone. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) constructively articulated the need for cross-party consensus and argued for compassion and care. The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) made a pertinent point about nutrition and standards, and spoke of the requirement to engage families in the care process. He brought his own experience to the debate. The hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) successfully broadened the debate beyond the regulatory framework and the CQC, and raised a key concern about pay in the sector.

The debate has underlined the need to get things right for people in care everywhere. That was the key point of emphasis in our approach in Scotland, where Scottish Ministers have developed national care standards to ensure that everyone in Scotland receives the same high quality of care, no matter where they live. By articulating clear standards underpinned by the principles of dignity, privacy, choice, safety, realising potential, and equality and diversity, we are able to explain what someone can expect from any care service they use. The standards are written from the point of view of the person using the service, and help people to raise concerns or complaints.

Although the national care standards have served Scotland well, and ensured that we have a clear and robust regulation regime, the Scottish Government have committed to undertaking a review and are consulting the public on updating those standards. The SNP believes that the rights of our older people to decent care and dignity in care homes are human rights, and that is at the heart of the Scottish Government’s consultation. The Care Inspectorate and Healthcare Improvement Scotland are asking everyone with an interest and involvement in health or social care—personal or professional—to take part in the consultation, which will help the standards evolve to meet the needs, rights and choices of people across Scotland. I especially urge anybody with experience of care homes to give their input to the process in Scotland, as the consultation closes on 10 December.

Standards of safety were addressed in Scotland’s care homes following the tragic fire at Rosepark care home in Uddingston in 2011. In March 2014, the Scottish Government put revised guidelines in place to ensure the utmost standards of safety and care, and they continue to progress their improvement agenda. Improving safety, care and regulatory standards in care homes is a key priority for Members of all parties. The Rosepark case and the Scottish Government’s response underscore the importance of learning lessons from failings.

We need an open and inclusive debate on standards in care homes that involves all parties and, most importantly, members of the public who use the services—a debate that carefully considers how we can improve the care experience for all. In the past 45 minutes, we have made at least some contribution to the wider debate. I thank the hon. Member for North Devon for securing the debate, and I look forward to what I am sure will be a proactive and constructive response from the Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions

Natalie McGarry Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

Yes, age and rurality come up quite regularly in discussions about funding for the contract. It can plainly be seen that there might be an increase in costs for rural areas, but it has been difficult for those involved in contract negotiations to pin it down to specific evidence. I assure my hon. Friend, however, that both age and rurality issues will remain very important for those deciding on the future contract and he can be sure that they will be taken into account.

[Natalie McGarry (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

T9. Given the proven link between poverty in childhood and ill health in adulthood, what advice has the Secretary of State given the Chancellor about not driving more children into poverty and ill health through cuts to tax credits?

[Jane Ellison]

We take the issue of childhood health extremely seriously. We want every child to have the best start in life. That is why, for example, we are bringing record numbers of health visitors into the health service and why health is now part of the troubled families programme. In my area of responsibility, public health, it is why we have taken measures on matters such as smoking that particularly affect children in deprived communities.

Health and Social Care

Natalie McGarry Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Natalie McGarry (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in this important debate and make my first speech to the House. I also thank my hon. Friends on the Scottish National party Benches for turning out in such great numbers to support me. I have listened attentively and with great enjoyment to the speeches of new Members, and I particularly enjoyed those of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) and the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner).

I begin by paying tribute to, and sending my condolences to the family, friends and colleagues of, Charles Kennedy, who well earned his status as a towering giant in Scottish and UK politics and was one of the best orators that Scotland has produced. He was well known for his kindness, humanity and humour, and I particularly remember him for taking a courageous stance in leading his party against the Iraq war.

I am privileged to be here serving the people of Glasgow East. I was swept here on a tide of optimism in Scotland. Most importantly, a constituency that has long felt neglected has put its trust in me, and I will stand up for it in this House. I know that for many of those whose understanding of Glasgow extends no further than lazy caricatures, there are stereotypes to be challenged, and I will indeed challenge them.

I am an adopted Glaswegian. It is my home by choice, and I am proud of the city I call home and now represent. I agree that Glasgow should be feared, not because of any misconceptions, but because it is a city that throughout its history has held a mirror to all those who would dare to exploit it and its people. Glasgow’s people represent a powerful but peaceful threat to all of those who have complacently wielded power from this building for centuries. It has constantly served as a social conscience to our society. Above all, its people stand in solidarity with those across the country and it extends a hand of friendship to all those across the world who would make the world better for all.

This House ignores the needs and aspirations of Glasgow at its peril. Its resilience is remarkable. I represent a constituency that contains some of worst and some of the best of Scotland and the United Kingdom. We should all here collectively be ashamed of the poverty, inequality and low life expectancy that some of my constituents suffer and have suffered for generations. All of us on the SNP Benches were elected on a platform to tackle austerity, to tackle inequality and to raise the standard of living. In Glasgow, every seat is now represented by the SNP, and we will build on our proud heritage in pursuing social justice and fairness and in standing up for the most vulnerable in our society.

In my role as spokesperson on disabilities, I will put the rights of those with physical disabilities as well as those with hidden disabilities such as mental ill health at the very front of everything I do in this House. We will strive to dismantle the sanctions regime for social security claimants, and we will strive to return dignity to those with disabilities who deserve the state to be their ally, not their enemy. How we treat others is a mark of our humanity and our values. I will not stop until we see the end of the abomination of dawn raids like those that happened in my constituency last week, and I will not stop until we shut down the imprisoning of asylum seekers at Dungavel. We will work with Members of all parties who share these beliefs and who want to go beyond platitudes and actually extend life, tangibly improve health and increase the quality of life for people in Glasgow East and across the country.

Glasgow East is a diverse constituency. We have huge things to be proud of. The participation and political astuteness around the community is incredible. While some elsewhere may talk of apathy, community groups across the constituency are taking action every day and making sure politicians like me know the work that needs to be done. From Hangman’s Brae to Carmyle and Auchenshuggle in the south and Shettleston, Tollcross, Mount Vernon, Baillieston and Garrowhill at its heart to the communities of Easterhouse, Cranhill and Craigend in the north, and the farms—yes, farms and lochs—of the constituency, Glasgow East challenges perceptions at every stage. We have world-class sporting facilities following the Commonwealth Games last year, and Celtic football club is currently the best football team in Scotland. I am a Hamilton Accies fan; I wanted to put that on the record, but I support my local team. [Laughter.]

Before I move on, I would like to say a word about my predecessor, Margaret Curran. Margaret has had a long and distinguished career in the Scottish Labour party— as an election agent to one MP, then as an MSP and then an MP herself. She worked tirelessly to the best of her abilities in every role she took, and I hope she continues to contribute to Scottish politics.

The city of “Red Clydeside” has changed greatly since the days of Maxton and Wheatley, Shinwell and Maclean. Gone are the industries where Glasgow led the world, such as the Forge at Parkhead that now lends its name to a shopping centre, but the spirit that was forged there amidst the smelters glows brightly in the talents of the men and women who live there. Mary Barbour, who together with thousands of women went on rent strike and forced the British Government of the day to act, stands as an inspiration to many. The fact that Glasgow now has a majority of female MPs representing it is testament, via the independence referendum, to that lineage of agitation and campaigning from then to now.

I stand here on the shoulders of many women who have preceded me, like my mum Alice and my aunt, Tricia Marwick and like my constituent, Nicola Sturgeon, First Minister. I am held up, too, by the thousands of women who rose up in the referendum. Women for Independence enabled me to find my voice. Now that I have found it, I will never tire. I am but one woman, but make no mistake, there are many, many like me. It is in that spirit that I intend to represent the people of Glasgow East—by holding people to account and advocating for those whom the system has left behind. Our large presence will work here at Westminster to turn neglect into nurturing, poverty into prosperity and premature death into longevity.

I would like to end by thanking all the staff in this Parliament for being so extraordinarily helpful to us in our first weeks here. They are truly a credit to the Parliament. There is much that we in this Chamber will disagree about, but we can work constructively, with respect and with vigorous debate. I welcome the challenge.