Winter Fuel Payment

Debate between Rachael Maskell and Anna Dixon

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Westminster Hall

[Rachael Maskell]

The hon. Member makes a powerful point, and I will talk about the mitigation that absolutely must be there.

I talked to a director of public health this morning who said we should implement a warm homes on prescription scheme. Evidence from the Energy Systems Catapult and the NHS pilot in Gloucestershire found that such a scheme was value for money and helped people stay well. Government could really help.

Sadly, demand on GPs will rise, queues at A&Es will grow, more beds will be occupied in the NHS and social care will be placed under more demand. Tragically, according to University College London and the Institute of Health Equity, there were 4,950 excess winter deaths due to cold homes under the previous Government. I feel sick to the stomach each time I repeat that reality, because I cannot process how Governments past did not protect those vulnerable people—Labour must be different. We need mitigation, because we must protect those under our care. Otherwise, what is the point of power?

One constituent has had leukaemia. They need to put the heating on to keep warm, but they cannot afford to because it costs £300 a month. A recently widowed constituent, at the depth of their personal sadness, is now scared they will not survive the winter; they cannot afford their heating. Another constituent goes to bed at 5 o’clock to keep warm. One constituent told me he wears jumpers, a coat and a warm hat, but the air is still cold and damp. Then there is Rose, who is registered as severely vision-impaired and living alone, who said:

“I am a council tenant with no extra assets”.

She told me she was scared and “abandoned”—the winter fuel payment was her lifeline. I have many, many more accounts like that.

It is colder in the north, so costs are higher. The UK Health Security Agency recommends indoor temperatures should be at least 18°C. Some people need higher temperatures to keep warm. It is not just the physical impact that matters; people are anxious, tearful and scared each year.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. Like many in the House, I have been touched by some of the tragic correspondence I have received about those who are being impacted. I am concerned about women such as Barbara, a carer in my constituency who looks after her husband, who has dementia. I echo my hon. Friend’s comments about the need to protect people who have a disability, ill health or chronic conditions, because we know that fuel poverty and cold homes exacerbate those conditions. Does she agree that we must urge the NHS, in its winter planning guidance, to do more to work with others to tackle fuel poverty, and to target vulnerable people so they do not go cold this winter?

[Rachael Maskell]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s expertise, and she is right: the NHS is where this issue will present itself. It is already under huge pressure, so we have to find a way out of this issue.

We have all had the emails, the handwritten letters and the people queuing up, pleading—I certainly have. These pensioners have worked hard all of their lives. Some have put a little bit aside; others have not. Winter is always a challenge. This Government must have the capacity to find another way. People put their hope in Labour because, like me, we believe that it exists to fight for working people, to protect the poor and to seek justice, equality and fairness. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Emma Reynolds), does too.

With the economic imperative shredded and the medical case so powerful, the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has provided a path out. It is unconvinced that the measures should be pushed through so urgently and wants scrutiny. It highlighted that the DWP needs to assess the risks of those eligible and ineligible for pension credit. While the triple lock fails to provide protection, the triple hit of the energy price cap rising by 10% on 1 October, the Tory freeze to the personal allowance and the removal of the winter fuel payment, without the cost of living payments, leaves people exposed. The Committee says that the measures could be delayed by changing the trigger dates. Delay is still possible.

The Committee also highlights that the Social Security Advisory Committee, which has a legal role in reviewing legislation before debate, will not meet until after the measures have passed. That means that MPs and Lords will not have the opportunity to debate its findings. We need these reports to debate the proposals. Furthermore, no impact assessment has been published.

As has already been said, according to academia fuel poverty is deeply rooted in inequality, disproportionately impacting on women and black and minority ethnic and disabled people, as well as the socio-economically disadvantaged. I have been contacted by many charities highlighting cancer, neurological conditions and others—and, of course, dementia too. Labour must always ensure that those with protected characteristics experience no detriment.

Our constituents are worried sick. They are frail and frightened. I see desperation in their eyes, and I hear it in their voices. As they grip my arm in the street and look at me, they know what I know—and if we are honest, what we all know. They are worried that they will be that statistic. Our duty is to take away that fear.

Mitigation is still possible: from delay to a social tariff or social prescribing, where consultants and GPs can authorise payments. I want to know what work the Government are doing in these areas. What measures are they looking at? What mitigation is possible, and by when? The household support fund will simply not be enough. The pension increase is insufficient. We need more, and we need it urgently.

I want this Government to do much better than the last, and I believe that, over time, we will, but winter is upon us now and we must reassure the fuel-poor pensioners that they will have the support they need. My constituents plead that I do something—my goodness, I am trying, but the Minister must too. Please, let us mitigate. Let us give people confidence and the comfort and care they need—the help and protection to keep them safe, warm and well this winter. If that cannot be done, then delay these measures. I rest my case.

SEND Provision

Debate between Rachael Maskell and Anna Dixon

Thursday 5th September 2024 Westminster Hall

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Betts. What a mess—young people broken by a broken system. The Children and Families Act promised so much, but without people, money and the rest of the system to back it up, it could never deliver. When the wait for the diagnosis is over, the battle for the EHCP is won and masses of resources have been spent, the demand is still not being met. Staff do their very best, but still people are falling out of the system.

I have spent the past year digging deep, looking at the local, the national and the international to bring best practice to this space. I have looked at the environment, the community and the child. On the environment, I say to the Minister, “Go back to the Department and rip up the behaviourist approach to education. It creates a world where neurodiverse children—those with anxiety or mental illness—and even the timid cannot survive.”

Instead, we should adopt a therapeutic, nurturing approach so that all children can thrive. In York, where schools have done so, all gain from recognising the need for every child to be safe, valued and included. It is a happy place where a child will strive for excellence and the whole child will be able to navigate their way through this world, rather than an obstacle course of micro-traumas, stress and anxiety. Let us not build bigger and bigger schools, but create more therapeutic and intimate spaces that belong to the children and where they can thrive. We should bring children out of home schooling, out of their bedrooms, off the streets and back into the classroom. School must be safe for all those children.

We also need to recognise, as the Government do, the failed nature of the curriculum. Let us build space for our brains and our bodies. Are we really shocked that young people are failing when only half of them is engaged? We have cut out arts, music, sports, nature, dance, play, exploration, wonder and fun. Yet all children, especially those with SEND, benefit from that balance.

When I visited Sweden, I went into schools to hear about what they were doing. They brought people into the heart of the school, not prescribing from an EHCP but taking a whole-child and a whole-school approach, using the skills of psychologists, teachers, occupational therapists, physios and speech therapists for all children. Let us recognise that school community and ensure that we value its members. Our teaching assistants do so much of the work, yet their pay is so poor—that must be addressed.

[Anna Dixon]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Rachael Maskell]

I am going to continue.

As for parents, I have seen them pushed away and gaslit, when they should instead be integrated into the heart of the school, as they are in Sweden, leading on what their child needs. When it comes to the children themselves, let us review the purpose of education: preparing children for the world today, not breaking and testing them. Children with SEND struggle in that environment just to satisfy the need for data for Governments and to meet different goals. We need every child to flourish, and that is why we need to think again.