Diabetes-related Complications

Debate between Paula Sherriff and Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick

Tuesday 7th June 2016 Westminster Hall

[Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered diabetes-related complications.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I am particularly pleased to have secured a debate on this topic because of its profound importance to all those with diabetes, and because support for those with long-term conditions is vital to the future of the NHS.

There are 4 million people living with diabetes in the UK today, and it is estimated that more than half a million people are undiagnosed, living with the condition without being aware they have it. Since 1996, the number of people diagnosed with diabetes in the UK has more than doubled, from 1.4 million to almost 3.5 million. About 700 people a day are diagnosed with diabetes, which is the equivalent of one person every two minutes. The NHS spends about £10 billion on diabetes every single year, which equals around 10% of its budget. Critically, it is estimated that 80% of that cost is spent on complications that are largely avoidable through better care.

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. She referred to the fact that 80% of NHS spending on diabetes is on avoidable complications. Does she agree that a greater focus on early intervention is needed, to ensure that the budget, resources and staffing are better targeted?

[Paula Sherriff]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, and I absolutely agree. As with so many other conditions, early intervention is crucial.

The total direct and indirect costs associated with diabetes in the UK are estimated at £23.7 billion. That is predicted to rise to £39.8 billion by 2035. Earlier this year, the Public Accounts Committee said that the cost of diabetes to the NHS would continue to rise.

Gender Pricing

Debate between Paula Sherriff and Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick

Tuesday 2nd February 2016 Westminster Hall

[Paula Sherriff]

I absolutely agree. There is a sense that exploitation is going on. It is fantastic that we are able to use this debate to bring these issues to the fore.

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on her very fine presentation, her compelling argument and the research she has done. Does she agree that for many women, particularly those on low incomes and those who depend on benefits, it is difficult to purchase the more expensive gender-based products?

[Paula Sherriff]

Once again, I completely agree.

If there is no discernible difference or advantage to purchasing a product designed for women, but the consumer is led to believe that there is, we must ask questions about advertising standards and whether consumers are able to make properly informed choices. What is it about a multipack “for her” ballpoint pen that makes it more custom-fit or specially designed for a woman? If female consumers are told that they should purchase a specific product because it is the only version suitable for women, when in fact there is no discernible difference in the product, it can be argued that they are being misled.

This debate raises concerns about the kind of choices and information available to female consumers when they make purchases and whether discriminatory practices are taking place, but we should also consider the worrying pattern of gender economic inequality under the Government. The UK gender pay gap currently stands at 19.2%—well above the EU average. Low pay and poor employment practices persist in sectors in which women are the majority of employees, including the care, retail and hospitality sectors. Analysis by the TUC found that more than half of the job growth for women since 2010 has been in low-paying sectors, and that 29% of women earn less than the living wage, compared with 18% of male workers. Women are paid less and are expected to spend more on products and services. They are charged more simply for being women.

Will the Minister agree to Labour’s calls for a cumulative gender impact analysis of the Government’s policies since 2010? If the Government will not do anything to tackle intrinsic gender economic inequality, they must at least not make matters worse. The recently published research raises numerous issues about consumer rights, fair advertising and gender economic inequality. Women are paid less but are expected to spend more on products that are often not discernibly different to the equivalent products for men.

In the absence of a Government gender equality strategy, I ask the Minister to respond to the following questions. Will the Government ensure that independent analysis and further study is conducted to identify the extent of unfair gender pricing and marketing practices in the UK? Will they seek to quantify the full cumulative impact of gender differentials in pricing for women? Will they meet the UK’s major retailers to identify what steps they are taking to rectify the situation?

Once again, I welcome the news that Boots has taken steps this afternoon to change some of its pricing, but I have just received an email from Tesco suggesting that its pink razors are significantly more expensive than the blue or black versions because they are produced in smaller quantities. I struggle to see how that justifies the extra cost. We need to meet retailers and have that discussion.

How will the Government discern whether gender pricing differentials amount to discriminatory practice? Will they produce a cumulative impact analysis of their policies on women since 2010 to understand the true extent of gender economic inequality in the UK?