Tag: Alison McGovern

  • Alison McGovern – 2026 Speech on Dementia

    Alison McGovern – 2026 Speech on Dementia

    The speech made by Alison McGovern, the Minister for Social Care, in London on 17 September 2026.

    It’s lovely to be with you all and I just want to say thank you, Michelle, and to the whole team for welcoming me here this morning. It’s been a very exciting time to take on my new brief as Minister of State for Social Care and Mental Health, and it’s wonderful to see you all today.

    Now, I just want to start my contribution with a little story, because in the House of Commons nearly 13 years ago a backbench opposition Member of Parliament intervened on the Shadow Health Secretary during the debate on what became the 2014 Care Act, proudly telling him that a hundred of her constituents had turned out to a public meeting on social care.

    Now, the Shadow Health Secretary at the time replied by acknowledging her recent campaign against zero-hours contracts for care workers, and he said that with such poor conditions for care workers, he was particularly bothered about young people being able to join the profession.

    You’ve probably guessed that the Shadow Health Secretary is now the Prime Minister, and that backbencher was me. And I start with this blast from the past to explain why we meet here at a very important time.

    In the 13 years since that exchange, many issues have crowded the political agenda, from Brexit to Covid, the cost of living, and the cost to society of hate rising around the world.

    It’s about time for a more hopeful story to capture our attention. And I believe the subject of this conference is exactly that — from the despair that too many feel when the diagnosis is Alzheimer’s, to the hope that one day this disease will be something to be managed and no longer a determinant of your future.

    Now, it’s true we should also be hopeful, that we should also be hopeful, not just because we have a new Prime Minister who knows this subject intimately, and I hope you will all have seen from the football last night that, in fact, in the G7 we have two prime ministers who know and care about this subject intimately. And I also want to add that I know that the thoughts of everyone at this conference will be with Andy and his mum and his brothers and their whole family, grieving the loss of their dad. I know that your thoughts are with them.

    And it’s also true, not just because we’ve now speeded up the Casey Commission and social care is rising up the agenda, but also we should have hope because the science of our brains is giving us that hope for the next generation that we will be able to prevent, contain and treat dementia like never before.

    But before I turn to the science, I want to dwell on social care. Now, again, forgive me for telling a short story. Over 16 years ago, I asked my friends and family in the Wirral to send me to Parliament. It is an absolute honour to stand to be elected in your hometown. I thought I knew all the issues requiring attention in my part of the north of England.

    We needed industrial jobs, apprenticeships for young people, and we needed to keep families’ heads financially above water. But in that election, when I knocked on door after door, after door, I was shocked how many people told me their issue was care — whether a family member with dementia, a partner working in a care home, or a constituent desperately worried about their carers struggling to get around a complicated day of 15-minute appointments. There was a hidden crisis I had failed to see.

    And I wish that I could tell you that that changed long ago, and that all MPs in my 16 years in Parliament since have been focused on social care. We haven’t. So I want to ask: what is it about social care that means it gets pushed to one side, never quite the challenge — until recently — that politicians walk towards?

    We are told people just don’t like to think about getting old. Yet there are plenty of people who will opine on pensions, the triple lock, inheritance tax, and a plethora of other issues that affect us as we age.

    I think there are two factors that hide social care: the role of working-class women in care, and the experience of trauma.

    First, women. Of the 1.5 million strong care workforce, just under four in five are women; more than one in five are on a zero-hours contract; more than two in five aren’t working full time; and a third of them are caring unpaid for an adult, likely a family member, outside work. And around 80% of care workers working for independent providers receive within 10% of the minimum wage — the legal minimum that anyone can earn. So the odds are set against this workforce getting a hearing.

    Moreover, it’s a noted failure, pointed out through the years, that economics, particularly the economic models we use to oversee policy, have historically accounted badly for care. In the history of economics, caring responsibilities were not costed but assumed to be given freely by women.

    And as more women worked beyond marriage, their caring responsibilities were thought of as a constraint to the potential labour supply, but not as the crucial infrastructure in our economy without which productivity and growth would be held back.

    We’re still going through this transition. In 2023, the Office for Budget Responsibility recognised that improving childcare would help more people move into paid work, but social care still lives with the consequences of that age-old misunderstanding of care work, which assumed no cost for the labour, ignoring its crucial and foundational role for the rest of the economy.

    Investment in social care is not just a matter of fairness. It’s a matter of seeing the work done by 50 per cent of the population. So, as the population ages, more and more people will face hard choices: keep working, dividing yourself badly between a career and a family, go part-time, or give up your job to care for the person you love. And unless we have social care that helps families keep life in a better balance, that is no choice at all.

    And too many women, and many other, now experience the constraints of providing both childcare and care for an older loved one — it can feel like drowning.

    We know people are leaving work to care for a family member. Recent polling commissioned by Carers UK estimates that about 1,500 people in Britain quit their jobs each day to become unpaid carers, often people with many years’ experience in the labour market whose knowledge we can ill afford to lose.

    And I want to pause on these people for a moment, because I think their experience explains why social care has been a cause without enough campaigners in recent years.

    It’s not that people don’t want to talk about it — it’s that they can’t. Too many of my constituents have lived the trauma of seeing a strong, determined loved one become a shadow of themself.

    To be a child and lose a parent, as I found out only recently, is a horribly predictable shock at any age. But to be a child and experience your parent not knowing you is torture, to try to comfort a parent crying for their own parents, to help a parent lost in this world to try to find any memory that can calm them, is traumatic.

    And I think that’s why people don’t want to talk about social care, particularly care for people with dementia. It’s too often a trauma, and as a result it’s been neglected for far too long. But that is all the more reason it must be a priority right now.

    We need to get our economy firing on all cylinders everywhere, and I think care is a crucial part of the answer for that. And we need the hope in our hearts that the traumas we have lived through can heal. And I believe the plan for social care can do both. Politics doesn’t need to fail. Changing social care will show that we are prepared to walk towards the hardest of problems and hide from them no longer.

    Our Fair Pay Agreement lays the foundations for a National Care Service. These agreements are the first of their kind for the adult social care workforce, with long overdue boost to their pay, terms and professional development. A national agreement, negotiated between unions and employers, and backed by half a billion pounds for the first agreement alone.

    It’s a major step forward to improve pay and conditions, and give staff the status and respect that they deserve, not just once, year-on-year. And it has addressed the power imbalance that has meant women and others working in care have been looked down on for way too long.

    This is just the beginning, though. Skills England estimate that there will need to be an extra 200,000 adult social care workers by 2035. And it will not have escaped anyone’s notice that we have nearly one million young people out of work. But you may not be aware that just 7% of the care workforce are under 25, lower than you would expect compared to their representation in the overall workforce.

    And I think that’s a huge missed opportunity, because as Minister of State for Social Care and Mental Health, I know only too well what some of the next generation are experiencing. Their opportunities for work experience have been constrained, particularly by Covid and other things, and too many have been left to struggle with very poor mental health.

    Those people deserve a job, a start, and to have a first boss who can help them learn alongside the dignity of their first pay packet. Now, when I point this out, some people tell me that care is not for everyone. They tell me people don’t want to wipe old people’s bums. And I would just ask those people to come with me to a care home or on a domiciliary care shift, because quite apart from the fact that dementia also affects people at younger ages, I would just like to show them the emotional intelligence it takes to help an older person, proud, but frail, to have a shower; allowing someone to be vulnerable with you, giving them the confidence to let you help them. That takes intelligence and kindness — and it’s a skill that most politicians could do with learning.

    Working out in the moment what a person can still do for themselves, and helping only to give them the surety to keep going, requires an attention to detail that could help the next generation go on to great careers.

    And I have hope that not only will our plan to change social care serve our citizens better, but also that it will play a central role in paying our debt to the Covid generation, for all those who’ve missed out on the chance they should have had, and who had the temperament to work in care but not the experience on their CV. I want to help them get a job and give them hope for the future. It will also set a clear direction for the health and social care sector to take over the next 10 years.

    And so, now, I want to turn to my second source of hope: science. Now, I know you’ve already heard from Professor Catherine Mummery, who has done so much to build the evidence base on dementia treatments as Director of the UK Dementia Trials Network.

    And after two short years, the network can already point to a proud record of supporting 10 trials and for some of these studies, the UK Dementia Trials Network was the first site in the world to recruit participants, which is another reason to be hopeful about this country’s potential.

    In July, Professor Mummery also gave a fascinating presentation of the CELIA Phase 2 trial results, which showed that the drug, diranersen — I hope I’ve pronounced that right — removed harmful proteins from the brain and slowed cognitive decline. And this is coming at the tail end of a decade that has seen so many breakthroughs.

    I think, if only I could go back in time now and tell Andy Burnham and I, in that House of Commons debate what we know now about Alzheimer’s and dementia, I think he and I would have been so happy.

    The Lancet Commission on Dementia, which gave us a systematic understanding of the ways in which we could modify dementia risk, including addressing hearing loss, which until now we just took to be a natural part of ageing. Blood-based biomarker tests, which may now indicate Alzheimer’s disease pathology, which we’re trialling through READ-OUT and ADAPT trials funded in partnership with the Alzheimer’s Society. We now have 158 drugs being tested in clinical trials, compared to only 24 a decade ago.

    Through the Medical Research Council, the government has funded several studies which will allow us to better understand the neurodegenerative diseases that give rise to dementia.

    Take the Sleep Boost project, which is using sleep recordings, brain activity monitoring, and blood and spinal fluid tests to assess the importance of how slow wave sleep impacts dementia risk. Now, we know sleep plays a vital role in removing harmful proteins from the brain, potentially slowing the development of Alzheimer’s disease, and this study will be recruiting widely, including South Asian communities, who it’s possible may be more affected by poor sleep.

    The SPIN-D multidisciplinary dementia network are funding some really exciting projects, like an evaluation of a physical activity programme inspired by martial arts to see whether it can reduce the risk of dementia.

    But we also know that the average time taken for evidence and innovation to be incorporated into practice is too long at 17 years, which is why the government has committed £5 million to the Dementia Patient Flow Challenge to work out what we need to do to speed up diagnosis and get innovation into practice.

    And I’ll just pause at this point to say that the report that the Alzheimer’s Society published today on going on the journey that we have been on with cancer with Alzheimer’s and dementia. I think that is spot on. The science says we can hope. The question is: can we get it into practice quickly? And that is the job now.

    Now, speaking of getting things done, Baroness Casey will address you this afternoon, and I was very proud to welcome her to the Wirral earlier this month. She recommended we move faster on dementia trials, and we will — turbocharging participation in trials to 2,000 people this year, furthering our investment in the AD-SMART Platform Trial, and standing up the next phase of the Dementia Trials Accelerator. We want these trials to be available to people across the country, because wherever you live, you should have the same chances as everyone else to participate in life-changing research.

    Because this science is not just in pursuit of knowing more, important though that is, but of our lives being more. This science is directed at undoing the trauma of watching a loved one disappear, in all but body before us. Twinned with political efforts on all sides to find a way to provide better, easier, more predictable care. This science can give us hope.

    And we have another reason for hope just now, and that’s the policy decisions we’re taking with the most pro-social-care Prime Minister in history.

    Dementia has been neglected for far too long, and nowhere is this division between health and social care felt more sharply than by people living with dementia and their families, too often left to navigate a shattered system at the most difficult time in their lives.

    That’s why this year we will publish the first ever Modern Service Framework for Frailty and Dementia, our guidebook for better support. It will bring health and care workers together, adhering to a clear set of national standards, sharpening the priorities, raising expectations of the help that people living with dementia and their families should receive, because we must put a floor under the kind of care that people can expect, and we must improve it too, giving the workforce the direction and support it needs to reach the best standards.

    And nobody knows that better than this audience, because I know so many of you have helped shape the framework over the past year. So thank you for putting your expertise, creativity and commitment at the service of our carers and people who depend on care.

    Now, we will need that support again as we act on Louise’s recommendation to appoint a Dementia Tsar, backed with real expertise I’m going to waste no time in doing.

    Nobody wants a future where we can live longer but do less. We want a future where our loved ones stay with us for more years, with more joy and more life to live.

    Where dementia has been a burden for too many to carry the efforts of those in science and social care together can lift that weight off their shoulders.

    Families can be free to enjoy their time and make more memories. That, I think, is the vision for all of us here today, and I’m very excited and pleased to be joining the fight.

  • Alison McGovern – 2024 Speech on Britain’s Labour Market

    Alison McGovern – 2024 Speech on Britain’s Labour Market

    The speech made by Alison McGovern, the Minister for Employment, on 18 September 2024.

    INTRODUCTION

    I want to thank everybody at the Institute and all the Commissioners for this important report today. It’s quite long and represents a very serious endeavour and brings evidence from every part of our country.

    And I think it’s such an important contribution to a moment in which I hope, and I will say this morning, we’ll see a page turned from the policy of the past to a new future for the Department that I proudly serve in Government.

    In July, the Secretary of State gave a speech in Barnsley setting out our plans to refocus the Department for Work and Pensions from being the department for welfare to a department of work.

    We’re going to change the Department for Work and Pensions fundamentally. Because if you go around Jobcentres they still have paper listings on the wall as if it’s 1985. Meanwhile, the rest of the economy is galloping to our AI future. Which is why Liz and I want to be clear we are making an employment service fit for the future, not stuck in the past.

    However, updating the Department for Work and Pensions is not just about technology. Today, I want to set out the failure at the heart of past thinking, and where our new policies will be led not just by new opportunities, but by fundamentally different principles.

    UNEMPLOYMENT IS A PROBLEM OF THE ECONOMY, NOT OF THE INDIVIDUAL

    The report published today describes the UK’s employment service as “the least well-used in Europe” – and I would add least well-loved – “often acting as an extension of the benefit system”. The report highlights the need for far-reaching reforms, including a “clearer separation between employment support and social security delivery”.

    And I agree, that point is at the heart of my speech today.

    I want to spell out fundamental flaws in thinking that have held us back.

    For too long, the question of how to increase employment in the UK has been reduced simply to a question of the individuals out of work. The only question has been whether the social security system undermines a person’s will to work.

    Because for too long, that narrow focus has dominated all thinking. We’ve lost sight of the labour market as a whole.

    For far too long in politics, we’ve asked whether this change or that change to social security will result in more people working, instead of looking at the options that people have in the labour market and asking ourselves whether those options and choices are good enough.

    This was always doomed to fail.  To know that, all you need to do is understand our past.

    William Beveridge called it out in 1909. He said: “The first question must be “not what is to be done with the unemployed individual, but why is he thus unemployed”.

    The truth is, for any individual, you can look at the ups and downs of life and describe why they aren’t working: they got sick, they had kids, there was a bus that could get them there but it was cancelled.  But when there are over 7.2 million people like that who are out of work, that is no longer an individual problem – it’s a failure of our whole economy. As Beveridge described it, it’s a problem of industry and a failure of organisation.

    Look at the evidence:

    • We’ve got millions stuck on waiting lists and 2.8 million out of work sick. Is that social security? Or the people in charge of the health service who were supposed to keep our country well?
    • We’ve got almost 1 in 8 of all young people on the scrapheap – is that the fault of social security– or was it the failure to help the lockdown generation?
    • We’ve got too many insecure jobs, with unpredictable working patterns. And that has nothing to do with social security.
    • And the welfare state is not to blame for the lack of buses after 6pm in northern towns. It is ridiculous.

    What people call ‘welfare’ has been the current obsession.

    HOW TO FIX OUR SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM AND DELIVER A THRIVING LABOUR MARKET

    But this was not a trap that the author of our social security system fell into.

    In his 1942 report, Beveridge wrote that his plan assumed “the establishment of comprehensive health and rehabilitation services, and maintenance of employment, that is to say avoidance of mass unemployment as necessary conditions of success in social insurance.”

    Beveridge did not think social security was a cure-all. He knew its success was conditional – that his system would not work without these two other post-war reforms: the goal of full employment, and the goal of a national health service at the disposal of all workers.

    Social security is there to smooth people’s incomes over time and to take account of life events we all have a strong chance of experiencing – old age, the birth of a baby, sickness or redundancy. Run well, it should be a counterweight to poverty and a stabilising force at a time of distress. But only if we acknowledge that tinkering with its edges will never solve the problems of the broader economy.

    Instead, we need to give people the good choices and chances that they need.

    Because markets can be a force for opportunity and prosperity. But we should also mould them, and shape them, and spread power widely within them. A market for labour that has businesses crying out for staff, and a queue at the foodbank door is failing this country.

    You’ll know that the Commissioners join Beveridge in prescribing the UK Government an objective to move towards full employment. And it’s why Liz and I also join the Commissioners – having announced our bold, long-term ambition to get to an 80% employment rate – the kind of clear objective that our hosts here at the Institute for Employment Studies say will help change the fortunes of our country.

    LEARNING FROM HISTORY: ECONOMIC CRISES AND ACTIVE LABOUR MARKET POLICIES

    The central point I want to make today is that’s right and we’ve forgotten our own history on this point. Particularly, the major turning point after the Second World War whereby the issue that caused the collapse of Ramsey McDonald’s second Labour Government – unemployment – was resolved. Post-war, it was accepted that the economy, and the labour market in particular, ought to keep people (men at least) in work and off the streets.

    The generation that experienced dreadful conflict and mass destitution decided they would put an end to it. They created a department for employment to train and rehabilitate people, industry full of apprenticeships, and of course the Employment Exchanges – what we now call Jobcentres – to connect the unemployed with jobs. The Commission’s report, in my opinion, reestablishes this lesson for the 2020s.

    Beveridge was not perfect, but he was definitely a man who made a difference.

    But it is the story of two women on either side of the Atlantic that I think can help us see even more forcefully why we need a rebirth of active labour market policy today.

    On one side of the Atlantic, Frances Perkins – first woman in the US cabinet, creator of the New Deal and author of the plan for prosperity in response to the destitution of the Great Depression.

    On the other side of the Atlantic, four years earlier, Margaret Bondfield. We all know who that is, right? The first woman in the UK Cabinet, dealing with ever rising unemployment and an unsustainable unemployment insurance bill.

    With active labour market policy for Bondfield not yet invented, the Labour Government collapsed and her political career was all but forgotten.

    Now if you read Bondfield’s memos from the time, and you can see her frustration, repeatedly making the case for increasing the national insurance fund to prevent hardship but with no answer to the cause of the problem. And the populists of the 1930s were at the gate, making the most of the economic distress.

    Caught in the middle, she was desperate for the answer that came just a few years later in the United States with Frances Perkins’ creation of the New Deal.

    Why do I tell her story?

    Because unlike Margaret Bondfield we can’t say we don’t know what the answer is because since then we’ve learnt from nearly 80 years of public policy in response to economic failure.

    We’ve learnt from that failure of the 1930s.

    We’ve learnt from the near full employment that came from the post war consensus.

    We’ve learnt from when the consensus broke down in the 1970s and other crises took over. Inflation became the big challenge that economic policy turned to face down – and the cost of that was a return to high unemployment.

    We’ve learnt from industrial collapse, which saw a move away from the mass employment provided by heavy industries like manufacturing and coal mining towards services and finance.

    We learnt what this would mean for towns and cities across Britain. When women joining the workforce concealed an even worse outcome for men.

    And we’ve learnt that this saw regional disparities deepen – in whole parts of the country, economies simply failed – and many are still yet to properly recover.

    Despite attempts to manage this, the number of people out of work due to sickness grew rapidly, with incapacity caseloads broadly doubling to 2.7m by the time we entered the 2000s.

    So we had to learn through the actions of the last Labour government in 1997, that in response to this horrendous situation, there had to be an explicit rebirth of active labour market policy, with the United Kingdom’s very own New Deal.

    A radical series of reforms designed to provide people with active tailored support to help get them back into work as unemployment fell and the economy grew.

    With a big focus on young people.

    The global financial crash in 2008 saw unemployment rise again and the Department for Work and Pensions then, in response, scaled up its active labour market policy operations.

    And as a result, the global crash did not have a long-term impact on the trend rate of employment. That is not to say everything was perfect, but it’s worth learning from.

    And I’ve certainly learnt from what happened in 2010.

    [Please note political content redacted here]

    Active labour market policy was shrunk back to a preoccupation with social security rules.

    And the results of the past 14 years show what’s been happening with our labour market.

    A quarter of working age people are not in work, with 2.8 million people out of the workforce due to long-term health problems.

    Over 4 million people in work and with work-limiting health conditions which may put them at risk of not fulfilling their potential or falling completely out of the labour market.

    And I want to say to you all this morning – now is the time to turn the page on that failure.

    Because just as in 1930, Margaret Bondfield said of the Unemployment Insurance Scheme that it “is being asked to meet situations for which it was never designed.

    The same is true of our social security system today.  We cannot load every economic problem we face onto minor tweaks in the social security rules.

    Which is why, as part of our Get Britain Working White Paper, we are bringing forward fundamental reforms to employment support.

    That includes changing the outcomes against which we measure its success – for example, not focusing alone on getting people into work but on achieving higher engagement with everyone, much higher employment in the short-term, and higher earnings too.

    We will overhaul Jobcentres in this country and we will get people into work long-term.

    We will have a new youth guarantee so not a single person will be left on the scrapheap when they’re young.

    And because Liz and I know the country doing well is no compensation if your town or city is being abandoned, we will make sure – as the Prime Minister says – that those with skin in the game – our mayors and regional leaders –have the levers they need to make change.

    As the Commissioners have laid out in their report, our highly centralised system needs to move towards a model more in line with those used in other high-performing countries – with more control at the local level.

    This big reform will be matched by the action we’re taking across the UK Government to support jobs and growth.

    We’ll soon be introducing legislation into Parliament so people’s work is better paid and more secure.

    Skills England will change the place of learning in this country to give everyone a chance of success.

    And we will create new Local Growth Plans powering towns and cities up and down the country.

    I know change won’t happen overnight, but I am determined to fix the foundations in the Department for Work and Pensions so that more families can benefit from the security, dignity and prosperity of good work.

    CONCLUSION

    The point I’m making here, I know is not a new or innovative one. As I’ve said, it’s the founding principle of our social security system –

    You cannot have well-functioning social security without full employment.

    Beveridge knew that.

    But let me conclude with a few small points that we could help Beveridge understand.

    Because whilst his principle remains the same, the circumstances we make these reforms in are very different.

    So it is for us to apply that principle to the society we have now – more than 80 years later.

    Where the health system – still as vital as ever – must address a very different set of challenges. Not infectious disease, but chronic poor mental health.

    Where women’s role in the workforce makes the need for a proper childcare system as pressing as Beveridge believed the need for a reformed health system was in the 1940s.

    Now Beveridge also didn’t give any evidence that he foresaw the rise of the motor vehicle, which – combined with inadequate investment in public transport – forces those who can’t afford a car to face limits on their ambitions – especially if they live in an area with fewer opportunities and chronically bad transport.

    Changing that will be part of better organisation for our economy and I hope that Beveridge might have thought was a good idea.

    Our desire for an 80% employment rate comes from a serious understanding of our country’s history, and also from facing the reality of the economy today. We have a serious understanding of the challenges and opportunities before us, and who they apply to.

    That is why what is not needed now is a sticking plaster, or a tweak or an amendment, but a change in principle, in policy and in practice. Leading to a better organised economy – and a market that works – spreading opportunity and prosperity to every corner of our country.

    Back in the 1930s, the New Deal provided Americans with a springboard and a safety net. And a recognition that you don’t get one without the other.

    What unites these moments in history that I’ve talked about is an ambitious idea about what can happen if you put a platform under people and see what they could do and what they could achieve.

    The report that the Commissioners have written – published today – I think is very ambitious. But I hope I have made the case, in my remarks, that it ought to be ambitious.

    Because for too long, our economic policy has shrunk the people of this country. Our new economic approach will see people for all they could be and all the opportunities they deserve.

  • Alison McGovern – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Alison McGovern – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alison McGovern on 2015-11-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many disability discrimination tribunals have been brought against his Department as an employer in each of the last five years.

    Justin Tomlinson

    In the years since 2011 staffing levels in DWP have reduced from 109,445 to 84,610.

    The number of disability discrimination tribunals DWP lost in the years 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 is 5, 6, 13, 2, and 2 respectively.

    The number of disability discrimination tribunals dismissed in the years 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 is 14, 23, 17, 25, and 19 respectively.

    The number of disability discrimination tribunals withdrawn in the years 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 is 36, 57, 50, 14, and 10 respectively.

    The number of disability discrimination tribunals settled in the years 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 is 28, 24, 16, 14, and 6 respectively.

    The number of disability discrimination tribunals DWP won in the years 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 is 21, 30, 23, 6 and 2 respectively.

  • Alison McGovern – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Alison McGovern – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alison McGovern on 2016-02-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if his Department will take steps to reduce sales of highly caffeinated drinks to children.

    Jane Ellison

    The Food Standards Agency (FSA) has advised us that the safety of caffeine has been reviewed by the European Food Safety Authority, which specified a level of caffeine for children and adolescents which does not raise safety concerns. For a 10-year-old child this is equivalent to the amount of caffeine in one 250 ml can of high caffeine drink.

    The FSA does not collect data on the sale of high caffeine drinks and has no plans to restrict the sale of these drinks to children. However, the FSA advises that children and other people who are sensitive to caffeine should consume caffeine only in moderation. High caffeine drinks must be labelled with an advisory statement that they are not recommended for children.

  • Alison McGovern – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Alison McGovern – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alison McGovern on 2015-12-01.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what recent discussions her Department has conducted with its French counterpart on co-ordinating humanitarian relief efforts in Calais.

    James Brokenshire

    The Home Office is in regular discussions with French counterparts at ministerial and official level on all aspects of the migrant situation in Calais. The French Government is responsible for the care of migrants in Calais, including support over the winter. However, both governments are committed to finding a sustainable solution to the situation in Calais. One aspect of the UK-France Joint Declaration of 20 August, committed the UK to providing a £3.6 million (or €5 million) per year for two years to help support a range of work to manage the migrant population in Calais, in particular to provide support and facilities elsewhere in France. Additionally, the UK has provided £530,000 (€750,000) to fund a project to identify those in the camps at risk of trafficking and exploitation, to transfer them to places of safety; and to provide them with appropriate support within the French system.

    The UK and French Governments are unified in their response to the migratory phenomenon and both governments recognise the importance of close partnership and collaboration to reach a long-term solution. This is a global challenge, and we will also work together to ensure that other EU states, as well as source and transit countries outside Europe, are doing everything they ought to be to stop people making these dangerous journeys in the first place.

  • Alison McGovern – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Alison McGovern – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alison McGovern on 2016-02-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, when he expects that a paperless NHS will be achieved.

    George Freeman

    The National Information Board framework Personalised Health and Care 2020 published in November 2014 outlined by 2020 all care records will be digital real-time and interoperable. Progress is being made and the recent announcement of significant investment in digital technology will help support the National Health Service to achieve this commitment.

  • Alison McGovern – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Alison McGovern – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alison McGovern on 2015-12-01.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assistance and advice her Department is providing to UK volunteers offering assistance to refugees in Calais.

    James Brokenshire

    The Home Office is in regular discussions with French counterparts at ministerial and official level on all aspects of the migrant situation in Calais. The French Government is responsible for the care of migrants in Calais, including support over the winter. However, both governments are committed to finding a sustainable solution to the situation in Calais. One aspect of the UK-France Joint Declaration of 20 August, committed the UK to providing a £3.6 million (or €5 million) per year for two years to help support a range of work to manage the migrant population in Calais, in particular to provide support and facilities elsewhere in France. Additionally, the UK has provided £530,000 (€750,000) to fund a project to identify those in the camps at risk of trafficking and exploitation, to transfer them to places of safety; and to provide them with appropriate support within the French system.

    The UK and French Governments are unified in their response to the migratory phenomenon and both governments recognise the importance of close partnership and collaboration to reach a long-term solution. This is a global challenge, and we will also work together to ensure that other EU states, as well as source and transit countries outside Europe, are doing everything they ought to be to stop people making these dangerous journeys in the first place.

  • Alison McGovern – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Alison McGovern – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alison McGovern on 2016-03-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what assessment his Department has made of the effect of recent changes to benefits on levels of child poverty.

    Priti Patel

    The intended impact of the tax and benefit reforms introduced in the Summer Budget and Autumn Statement is to incentivise work, ensure work always pays, and to allow people to keep more of what they earn.

    The Government is committed to working to eliminate child poverty and improving life chances for children.

    Our new Life Chances measures will drive continued action on work and education, which will make the biggest difference to disadvantaged children, now and in the future.

  • Alison McGovern – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Alison McGovern – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alison McGovern on 2015-12-01.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what recent discussions she has had with her French counterpart on securing a long-term solution to the situation in Calais.

    James Brokenshire

    The Home Office is in regular discussions with French counterparts at ministerial and official level on all aspects of the migrant situation in Calais. The French Government is responsible for the care of migrants in Calais, including support over the winter. However, both governments are committed to finding a sustainable solution to the situation in Calais. One aspect of the UK-France Joint Declaration of 20 August, committed the UK to providing a £3.6 million (or €5 million) per year for two years to help support a range of work to manage the migrant population in Calais, in particular to provide support and facilities elsewhere in France. Additionally, the UK has provided £530,000 (€750,000) to fund a project to identify those in the camps at risk of trafficking and exploitation, to transfer them to places of safety; and to provide them with appropriate support within the French system.

    The UK and French Governments are unified in their response to the migratory phenomenon and both governments recognise the importance of close partnership and collaboration to reach a long-term solution. This is a global challenge, and we will also work together to ensure that other EU states, as well as source and transit countries outside Europe, are doing everything they ought to be to stop people making these dangerous journeys in the first place.

  • Alison McGovern – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Alison McGovern – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alison McGovern on 2016-03-14.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what estimate he has made of the proportion of local authorities that will exercise their right to levy the two per cent social care tax precept; and what assessment he has made of whether the revenue so raised will be sufficient to cover the funding gap for adult social care.

    Alistair Burt

    It is the decision of local councils whether to raise the adult social care precept in order to pay for adult social care in their local area. The precept gives local areas who are best placed to respond to local needs and pressures the flexibility to be able to do so. There will be a statistical release showing the number of councils taking up the precept on 30 March 2016.

    Additionally, from April 2017 the Spending Review makes available social care funds for local government, rising to £1.5 billion by 2019-20, to be included in the Better Care Fund (BCF). We have deliberately distributed the improved BCF in such a way that those councils with low council tax bases will benefit most.

    Taken together, the new precept and additional BCF contribution mean local government has access to the funding it needs to increase social care spending in real terms by the end of the Parliament.