Tag: Debbie Abrahams

  • Debbie Abrahams – 2023 Parliamentary Question on Excess Deaths in 2022

    Debbie Abrahams – 2023 Parliamentary Question on Excess Deaths in 2022

    The parliamentary question asked by Debbie Abrahams, the Labour MP for Oldham East and Saddleworth, in the House of Commons on 24 January 2023.

    Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)

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

    Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)

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

    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)

    Excess deaths data are published on the gov.uk website, which was most recently updated on 12 January. They show that causes of death from conditions such as ischemic heart disease contributed to excess deaths in England in the past year.

    Debbie Abrahams

    The UK’s all-cause mortality for working-age people was 8.3% above the average for the previous five years and the fifth highest in Europe. On top of that, excess deaths are disproportionately experienced by the most deprived and by people of African, Caribbean and Asian descent. Given that these figures are driven by structural inequalities, and that those inequalities are getting worse—the richest 1% have bagged nearly twice as much wealth as the remaining 99% in the past two years—does the Minister think that it is appropriate to recommend that people pay for their GPs?

    Maria Caulfield

    The Government are not recommending that people pay for their GPs. In fact, we are investing more in primary care than ever before, unlike the shadow Secretary of State who wants to dismantle the GP system and privatise the healthcare system as well. I think the hon. Lady needs to have a conversation with those on her own Front Bench. Not only did the shadow Secretary of State insult primary care teams for running up their vaccination programme, calling it “money for old rope”, but we are the ones who are investing in primary care services and making them more accessible to people.

    Alex Cunningham

    According to Cancer Research and Action on Smoking and Health, smoking costs the NHS in Stockton £9 million a year and social care £5 million a year, and it costs some £47 million in lost productivity, unemployment and premature deaths. Assuming that one day soon we will get the Government to back a control plan, will Ministers ensure that it includes the desperately needed funding for local smoking cessation services?

    Maria Caulfield

    Local decisions on public health are taken by local commissioning groups and local authorities, and it is for each local area to decide how it spends the money on public health.

    Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)

    The chief medical officer recently warned that non-covid excess deaths are being driven in part by patients not getting statins or blood pressure medicines during the pandemic. However, when looking at the data on statins on OpenPrescribing.net, which is based on monthly NHS prescribing, there appears not to be a drop, so where is the evidence? If there is none, what is causing these excess deaths? Will the Minister commit to an urgent and thorough investigation on the matter?

    Maria Caulfield

    We are seeing an increase in excess deaths in this country, but we are also seeing that in Wales, in Scotland, in Northern Ireland and across Europe. There is a range of factors. As we saw, there was an increase in December in the number of people being admitted with flu, covid and other healthcare conditions. That was seen not just in this country, but across Europe.

    Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)

    The Office for National Statistics has not issued mortality data by vaccination status since 31 May last year. Will the Minister confirm that her Department has collected that data for the rest of 2022 and inform the House when it will be published?

    Maria Caulfield

    I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with that information. However, I must be clear that we planned for an increase in admissions this winter. That is why we got on and delivered on our plans for 7,000 extra beds, and why we brought forward our flu and covid vaccination programme and lowered the age of eligibility. There are a number of factors, and they are the same factors that have driven excess deaths across the United Kingdom and across Europe.

    Mr Speaker

    I call the shadow Minister.

    Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)

    There were 50,000 more deaths than we would otherwise have expected in 2022. Excluding the pandemic, that is the worst figure since 1951. The Health Secretary—part man, part ostrich—says he does not accept those figures, but as many as 500 people are dying every week waiting for essential care, and we are still getting the same old Tory denial and buck-passing. In her answer, will the Minister finally take some responsibility, accept the ONS excess deaths figure, and recognise the damage that she and her Government are doing to our NHS?

    Maria Caulfield

    I prefer to deal with facts rather than—[Interruption.] The BMJ has ranked the UK mid-table in Europe for mortality figures, which makes it comparable with Italy. In fact, Germany has higher excess deaths, at 15.6%, as do Finland, at 20.5%, and Poland, at 13.3%. However, if the hon. Gentleman wants to hear about what is happening in Labour-run Wales, the statistics available on the gov.wales website show that Wales, in December, had the highest number of red calls ever and that only 39.5% received a response within eight minutes—the lowest figure on record. Those are clinical reasons for excess deaths, not political ones. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman needs to recognise that fact.

  • Debbie Abrahams – 2023 Speech on a Code of Conduct for Elected Representatives

    Debbie Abrahams – 2023 Speech on a Code of Conduct for Elected Representatives

    The speech made by Debbie Abrahams, the Labour MP for Oldham East and Saddleworth, in the House of Commons on 10 January 2023.

    I beg to move,

    That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for a statutory code of conduct for Ministers of the Crown; for a statutory code of conduct for Members of the House of Commons and members of the House of Lords; for a statutory code of conduct for councillors in England; and for connected purposes.

    Many, if not most of us, on all sides of this House became Members of Parliament because we wanted to help improve the lives of our constituents and all citizens across our great country and its nation states. As MPs, we have duties set out in our now updated codes of conduct, which also apply to Ministers and the Prime Minister. In addition to upholding the law and the general law about discrimination, these duties include:

    “to act in the interests of the nation as a whole”,

    with a “special duty” to our constituents; recognising the trust that has been placed on us as elected representatives; and to

    “always behave with probity and integrity,”

    including in our use of public resources. Within these duties we have the “General Principles of Conduct”, often referred to as the Nolan principles, which apply to all aspects of our parliamentary and public life: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. But, as we know, too often over the last few years we have seen a small minority of Members pay scant regard to these duties and principles, even wilfully ignoring them.

    The scandals of the last few years are not the issue of just one Administration. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, who is responsible for regulating the Members’ code, was initially set up in 1995 to investigate the cash-for-questions affair, and there have been other scandals since then. These have usually resulted in changes to the Members and ministerial codes, as well as the business appointment rules which regulate the so-called “revolving door” employment between the public and private sector of former Ministers and senior officials.

    The impact of these abuses cannot be underestimated. It may be a tiny minority who bend or break the rules, but we all become tarred by the same brush, corrupted by association. According to polling by Compassion in Politics, four in five people have no respect for politicians and 40% of parents would be concerned if their child expressed a desire to become a politician. Office for National Statistics data shows that only one in three people trust the Government and two in three think politicians are only out for themselves. Let us pause for a moment to consider what that tells us about the health of our democracy and the prospects for democratic engagement in Britain today and in the future.

    Many hon. Members will have experienced at first hand the extreme effects of the steady disintegration in our social fabric. Too many voters have become apathetic; some have become actively hostile. Hate, intolerance and violence are all products of the escalating distrust and increasing disdain with which the public view the political class. Part of how we restore confidence in politics and politicians is by actively demonstrating that all elected representatives will abide by the rules and principles set out in our codes of conduct.

    I want to acknowledge the role and work of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and their office in regulating the Members’ code. I also recognise the work of right hon., hon. and noble colleagues on the Committee on Standards, the Committee on Privileges, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee and the Committee on Standards in Public Life. I also pay tribute to their lay members. Those Committees’ recent reports and recommendations for changes to strengthen the various codes of conduct will, I believe, help in that regard. However, there is a need for much more significant reform in the accountability systems that regulate Parliament’s conduct. The current systems are spider’s webs, built up over the past 400 years or so, which interact and overlap. Inevitably, there are still issues.

    My Bill cannot deal with everything that is needed for a whole-system reform, but it could tackle the most serious and urgent issues, the first and most egregious of which is the Prime Minister’s remaining the arbiter of the ministerial code. The terms of reference for the new so-called independent adviser to the Prime Minister on Ministers’ interests, appointed on 22 December last year, have not changed since the previous adviser under the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson). They still fail to give independence and autonomy to initiate new investigations into breaches of the ministerial code or to publish the findings of any investigations. That has to change.

    My Bill proposes that, as in Northern Ireland, the ministerial code, including the seven Nolan principles, are put in statute, and that an independent commissioner on ministerial standards is established as a statutory office. His or her role would be: to advise the Prime Minister on all aspects of the ministerial code; to undertake investigations, both independently and referred, into potential breaches of the code; to appoint a panel of parliamentarians and lay members to take part in such investigations; to publish the findings of such investigations; and to make recommendations regarding sanctions for any breaches. He or she would also have the power to make a statement on ethical matters of general public interest affecting Ministers.

    The second issue is how Members of Parliament are held to account outside of election time. The October 2022 code of conduct procedure set out what the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards can and cannot do to hold MPs to account on potential breaches of the code. It defines other regulatory systems that hold Members to account—for example, expenses are for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, and conduct in the Chamber is obviously the domain of Mr Speaker—but paragraph 17 expressly prohibits the Commissioner from investigating allegations solely about breaches of the seven principles of public life. Although it has been argued that that is because principles are not judiciable, for me, there is a gap. My Bill proposes that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards should also become a statutory office and that, under their purview, in addition to investigating Members for potential breaches of code of conduct rules, Members could be investigated for serious and serial breaches of the seven principles of public life.

    Thirdly, I turn to the important role that our local councillors play in our communities and in our democracy as a whole. Again, the vast majority of councillors work tirelessly at trying to make a difference in their communities, but unfortunately a minority use their positions for their own purposes and threaten our democracy as a result. Although there is a requirement for councillors to have a councillor code of conduct under the Localism Act 2011, such codes vary greatly between different local authorities. My Bill proposes a standardised statutory councillor code of conduct, which includes the Nolan principles and is accompanied by a statutory accountability system.

    Finally, we need to review how our parliamentary system, and the elective representatives within it, are regulated in a way that reflects the modern, inclusive, empowering democracy that we want to become in the 21st century and beyond. Polling by Compassion in Politics found that 76% of people believe that they should have the right to influence our codes of conduct. As such, my Bill proposes that an independent ethics commission of constitutional legal experts is established by Parliament to advise on system reforms. The ethics commission would also work with a citizen’s assembly to come up with final recommendations to Parliament.

    As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for compassionate politics, I have argued for the need to reform the culture of our politics. The Prime Minister and other Ministers and Members have talked about the need for compassion in politics. Good policies can come only from good politics. That must start with the conduct of those in high office. As such, I hope that the Government will support my Bill.

    Finally, I extend my thanks to Matt Hawkins from Compassion in Politics, George Hulme in my office and Jolyon Maugham of the Good Law Project. I commend the Bill to the House.

    Question put and agreed to.

    Ordered,

    That Debbie Abrahams, Kim Leadbeater, Caroline Lucas, Layla Moran and Dr Dan Poulter present the Bill.

  • Debbie Abrahams – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Debbie Abrahams – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Debbie Abrahams on 2015-11-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, whether there are differences in the (a) definition and (b) recording of secondary breast cancer in ICD-10 compared with the Cancer Registry.

    Jane Ellison

    The National Cancer Registration Services (NCRS) code their data using International Classification of Diseases (ICD) 03 in which the data is mapped back to ICD-10 for analysis purposes. ICD-10 does not distinguish between a primary breast tumour or secondary breast tumour. They are coded the same. It is the additional data that the Registry collects across the patient pathway, such as those recurrence data items in the Cancer Outcomes and Services Dataset that allows NCRS to detect whether a tumour is a primary or a secondary.

  • Debbie Abrahams – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Debbie Abrahams – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Debbie Abrahams on 2016-01-04.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, if he will extend the deadline for submissions on his Department’s Consultation on aids and appliances and the daily living component of personal independence payment.

    Justin Tomlinson

    The Department’s consultation on aids and appliances and the daily living component of PIP began on 10 December 2015 and is scheduled to run until 29 January 2015, a period of 7 weeks and one day.

    The time period for the consultation was decided in line with the Government’s consultation principles guidance. This advises that consultations should typically run for between 2 and 12 weeks, but that “the timing and length of a consultation should be decided on a case-by-case basis”.

    As we are consulting on the specific and discrete issue of how aids and appliances are accounted for when determining eligibility to the daily living component, we feel 6 weeks is an appropriate length. The last PIP consultation, on the Moving Around activity, also lasted for 6 weeks. As the consultation is running over the Christmas period this was extended by 8 days.

    The Department therefore believes that the existing consultation deadline allows reasonable time in which to respond.

  • Debbie Abrahams – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Debbie Abrahams – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Debbie Abrahams on 2016-02-25.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many six-month notice letters of CSA case closure have been issued in each month since July 2014 for cases in (a) segment 1, (b) segment 2, (c) segment 3 and (d) segment 4.

    Priti Patel

    We do not currently collate this data on a monthly basis.

  • Debbie Abrahams – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Debbie Abrahams – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Debbie Abrahams on 2016-04-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many stroke survivors are in (a) receipt of employment and support allowance and (b) the work-related activity group.

    Priti Patel

    The information requested is not readily available and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  • Debbie Abrahams – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Debbie Abrahams – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Debbie Abrahams on 2016-03-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many care leavers aged 18 to 25 have had sanctions overturned or reduced on reconsideration or appeal in (a) 2013-14 and (b) 2014-15.

    Priti Patel

    The information requested in respect of care leavers is not readily available and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  • Debbie Abrahams – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Debbie Abrahams – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Debbie Abrahams on 2016-06-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what assessment he has made of the potential effect on GP services of increasing medical indemnity costs for GPs.

    Alistair Burt

    The Department and NHS England committed in the recently published General Practice Forward View to review the current arrangements for indemnity cover for general practitioners. To take this review forward, a General Practice Indemnity Steering Group has been established by the Department with NHS England to look at the rising cost of indemnity, and to bring forward proposals for discussion by the end of July 2016.

  • Debbie Abrahams – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Debbie Abrahams – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Debbie Abrahams on 2016-07-20.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what his estimate is of the number of people in receipt of universal credit in regular employment and paid monthly whose pay date will fluctuate with their universal credit assessment period resulting in two sets of earnings in one assessment period and no earnings in the following assessment period since the roll-out of the digital service.

    Damian Hinds

    The specific information requested could only be obtained at a disproportionate cost.

    Unlike tax credits which meant that claimants received demands for repayments and could never be sure they were receiving the correct entitlement, Universal Credit assesses monthly earnings and income in that month. That lessens the burden on claimants who have fluctuating incomes or irregular payments so they can budget with greater confidence and without the anxiety they will be hit with a demand for repayment.

    We are currently implementing a test and learn approach to understand the interaction of Universal Credit and employer pay cycles and its effect on awards. This work will include discussions with employers.

  • Debbie Abrahams – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Debbie Abrahams – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Debbie Abrahams on 2015-11-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what assessment he has made of the progress of the Breakthrough Generations study towards secondary breast cancer diagnosis.

    Jane Ellison

    We have made no assessment of the progress of the Breakthrough Generations study towards secondary breast cancer diagnosis.