UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Marion Fellows

  • Marion Fellows – 2023 Speech on World Down Syndrome Day

    Marion Fellows – 2023 Speech on World Down Syndrome Day

    The speech made by Marion Fellows, the SNP MP for Motherwell and Wishaw, in the House of Commons on 23 March 2023.

    May I congratulate the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox)? Further into my speech I may disagree with him slightly—it will be a gentle disagreement—but I totally acknowledge his knowledge and his passion for people with Down’s syndrome. Unfortunately I was not able to make the reception on Wednesday, but I did manage to get my picture taken with the right hon. Member and tweet it out on World Down Syndrome Day; I think many of our constituents might have been quite surprised to see that.

    It is always a pleasure to speak in these Thursday afternoon debates, because they are generally consensual and we really learn a lot. As the SNP spokesperson on disabilities I was not entirely sure whether I would be the right person to sum up in this debate, but I think I probably am, because of the passion that the people around me are exhibiting this afternoon. I will probably throw away my prepared speech now and just crib bits and pieces.

    It is always a pleasure to follow Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens). Everyone can be assured that he will assist his constituents to push the Scottish Government with their new Bill, because he is passionate about helping his constituents. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) spoke about her personal experience and about changing attitudes to Down’s syndrome and life expectancy. As one of the older people speaking today, I can vouch for that: when I was younger it was very difficult to see anyone with Down’s syndrome as we went about our daily living, but now things are very different right across the United Kingdom.

    The hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) spoke about real people; there cannot be many of us who have not met a real person with Down’s syndrome. The hon. Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) talked about the Music Man project and about the theme for this year’s Down Syndrome Day, “With Us Not For Us”—a motto and an expectation that we should all think about when we are dealing with people with disabilities. The hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) paid tribute to those who care. I am pretty sure that he, too, cares about lots of things, but I understand his reluctance to put himself out there as a carer.

    The right hon. Member for North Somerset wanted to know more about what is going on in other areas. Before I get on to that issue, I might just get over the point on which we might differ slightly. Like other Members, I get briefings from lots of organisations for many debates in this House. Genetic Alliance has written to me with its concerns about the guidance on the right hon. Member’s Act. It is worth just mentioning those concerns, which touch on the point that when Parliament passes a Bill there are often consequences that we do not see and a debate always opens up about what has not been included or what people think might have been included.

    Given that people with Down’s syndrome form friendships with people with other genetic conditions and meet them regularly, as they are accessing similar services, Genetic Alliance has concerns that perhaps more thought should be given to guidance for those with other conditions. However, I absolutely take on board what the right hon. Member and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West have said.

    Dr Fox

    I just want to clarify that the point of the Down Syndrome Act is not to exclude other conditions or other genetic conditions. It was specifically discussed on Second Reading and in Committee that where there is overlap, of course it makes sense to have common provision. However, Down syndrome is different: there is a bigger, defined population who have not just learning difficulty issues, but a whole range of very specific medical conditions that require specific remedies. As has regularly been pointed out, the life expectancy for someone with Down syndrome was 13 years when I was born, whereas it is now in the 60s. That is why it is important that we establish a beachhead for such conditions. Actually, I do not think we are in any disagreement whatever.

    Marion Fellows

    I am very relieved to hear that from the right hon. Gentleman, but I felt obliged to speak about the issue, because there are concerns. I would like the Minister to take on board those concerns from Genetic Alliance, because no one ever wants to pass a Bill that is seen as excluding or not actually helping other people—that is the main point of the briefing that I received today. As I say, I am very relieved not to be in dispute with the right hon. Member.

    I want to talk a wee bit about the Scottish Government’s position. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West said, they are taking a wider view of Down’s syndrome in the Bill that they want to bring forward. One of the main differences in how the Scottish Government propose legislation is the way they look at the issues and consult very widely—there are many groups that they regularly consult on disabilities. They always use lived experience, which I think is the most important thing for people to take forward.

    The Scottish Government have also looked at a human rights-based approach. That ties in very well with this year’s World Down Syndrome Day theme, “With Us Not For Us”, because we need to look at human rights in their entirety, especially for people with Down’s syndrome and for people with conditions that are different but that have similar difficulties. That is why the Scottish Government have committed to incorporating in Scots law the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities—always within their legislative competence, hopefully. I think this Government should also think about including that in Bills. I think we are going to have difficulties with human rights discussions, shall I say, in this Parliament going forward; I hope we do not, but I think we all have to realise that everyone has human rights and they have to be adhered to. We should not, in any size, shape or form, be looking to remove any of them from any group of people at all.

    As has been said today, it is really important to remove as many barriers as we can for everyone, and especially for those who have Down’s syndrome. It is really important that we look at what people can do, not at what they are not able to do—or not able to do yet. It is refreshing, and important, that people with Down’s syndrome are involved in mainstream education. When I was a further education lecturer, I was involved with a college with many courses for young people who had left full-time education to continue learning. On that subject, there is a wonderful café in my constituency called Windmills. The preparations for it were first made in 2006 at a local school, Firpark high school. It has done great work over the years, and continues to do great work, in training young people with learning disabilities, including Down’s syndrome, and teaching them how to gain qualifications so that they can work in other areas, but especially in the café.

    Let me say in conclusion—because I am aware that I may be overrunning—that I find taking part in debates such as this interesting, educational and informative. I congratulate the right hon. Member for North Somerset on all that he does, and I am sure many people have benefited, and will benefit, from his Act.

  • Marion Fellows – 2023 Speech on Post Office Horizon Compensation

    Marion Fellows – 2023 Speech on Post Office Horizon Compensation

    The speech made by Marion Fellows, the SNP MP for Motherwell and Wishaw, in the House of Commons on 23 March 2023.

    I thank the Minister for his statement. Of course, I welcome what he outlined, and, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on post offices, I am very grateful to him for keeping me updated.

    We now have three streams for former postmasters and sub-postmasters who were affected by Horizon to claim compensation—that is really important. The Minister has talked about achieving parity, and I think he will agree that that must be done. I would be keen to for him come back to the House to tell us that it is happening and that the latest compensation scheme will not run out of time.

    I think it worth mentioning again the hard work done by the JFSA, by journalists such as Nick Wallis, by Members of this House and by former Members who are now in the other place. They have all been of great help to the APPG. I came into the House not knowing anything about Horizon—I wish I did not know what I know now. I congratulate the Minister and his predecessor, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), on grabbing hold of this matter and making things happen. So many people will be grateful.

    Kevin Hollinrake

    I thank the hon. Lady for her kind words and for all the work she does as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on post offices. She is right to say that there are three separate schemes, and there was probably a good reason for that at the time. It is not ideal to have three schemes, and Sir Wyn Williams referred to that in his comments, but we are all keen to see consistency across the three schemes. That is why I welcome the work of the advisory board, which will cover all three schemes to make sure there is consistency across them. I am determined to make sure that happens, and I will keep her fully informed on progress.

  • Marion Fellows – 2023 Speech on Prescription Charges for People Aged 60 or Over

    Marion Fellows – 2023 Speech on Prescription Charges for People Aged 60 or Over

    The speech made by Marion Fellows, the SNP MP for Motherwell and Wishaw, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons on 6 March 2023.

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank all the previous speakers; some of what I say will be a repetition, but in this case I do not think repetition is unwelcome.

    Under the SNP Scottish Government, prescription charges were abolished in Scotland in 2011. Scotland gets free prescriptions because the Scottish Government believe that mitigating the costs of illness is in the best interests of the population of Scotland. The SNP has led the way in delivering progressive and forward-thinking public health measures, which people across Scotland continue to benefit from. I speak from experience, as I was honoured to be part of the call for the new generation of cystic fibrosis medications to be released in Scotland, which was first place to get them. I declare an interest, because my granddaughter Saoirse will continue to benefit from those new drugs for the rest of her life, and they will extend her life expectancy quite considerably.

    All credit to the Scottish Government: inhalers, antibiotics, life-saving medicines such as insulin for diabetes and many other treatments are provided at no cost at all to the patient at any stage. Scotland receives no extra funding for this decision and does not take money from other areas of the United Kingdom to pay for it. England is out of step with the rest of the UK. For more than a decade, NHS prescriptions have been free in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Yet the Tories, who have been in power in England for 13 years, have not replicated this approach, instead penalising those wishing to collect medicines; and, as we have already heard, the cost of living crisis has increased the non-collection of prescriptions.

    When the NHS was founded in 1948, there were no prescription charges, but fees were introduced in the early ’50s to help with funding. Labour’s position in 2019 was to roll back charges for England—that appears to have been dropped under the present leadership. Unequivocally, the SNP has used the powers we have to ensure that people in Scotland benefit from the most generous social contract in the UK. The cost of NHS prescriptions can be mitigated in England if people use a prescription season ticket—a prepayment card. However, many people in England are still unaware of the system. Is the Minister prepared to advertise it more than is currently the case?

    I used the example of cystic fibrosis medication, but the hon. Member for Gower has done really good work in the area of hormone replacement therapy over the years. After the arguments she has forcefully put in this place, it is incredible that women going through the menopause still have to pay for their HRT. The most recent announcement committed the Government to reduce the cost from April this year so that women can receive a year’s supply of HRT for the cost of two single NHS prescriptions in England, but in the rest of the UK they get it free. Although cost reductions are welcome, charging menopausal women less seems inadequate—they should get it free because the amount of work they can then do will increase, and that is a benefit to the whole economy.

    People who have asthma are sometimes afraid to collect their prescriptions, as we heard from the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi). A small survey of pharmacists published by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society last month found that a rising number of patients in England are failing to collect their medicines, because they cannot afford them. Some 51% of the pharmacists surveyed reported an increase in patients not collecting their medication, and 67% saw a rise in patients asking whether there was a cheaper over-the-counter substitute for the medicine they had been prescribed. That is appalling in this day and age, and it leads to more hospital admissions and more expensive care being required in the longer term. It defies common sense to allow that to continue.

    The three devolved Governments have taken a preventive approach to mitigate poorer health outcomes by providing free access to medicines for those who need them. In England, the tax on sickness reduces access to medicines and leads to poorer health, time off work and potential hospital admissions, offsetting any costs gained from prescription charges. The UK Government should scrap prescription charges. To introduce them for people who are working until 67 is absurd. As the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) said, we are more likely to need medication as we get older.

    The Government’s public consultation document ominously states:

    “Anyone aged 60 and older can get free prescriptions for medicine. We are thinking about changing this.”

    The change would mean that prescriptions would be free only when people get to pension age. Today’s pensioners have no need to worry, but they will worry—people worry even more during a cost of living crisis.

    Is the Minister prepared to heed what is happening in the devolved nations and to equalise access to medicine across the United Kingdom?

  • Marion Fellows – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Marion Fellows – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Marion Fellows on 2016-09-15.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many applications by Syrian nationals for UK visitor visas have been (a) received and (b) granted in each annual quarter for the last three years.

    Mr Robert Goodwill

    The latest quarterly Home Office immigration statistics on entry clearance visas are published in ‘Immigration Statistics, April – June 2016’, available from the Home Office website at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/migration-statistics

  • Marion Fellows – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Marion Fellows – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Marion Fellows on 2015-11-04.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what steps he is taking to encourage prompt payment to small businesses.

    Anna Soubry

    We will establish a Small Business Commissioner to help small businesses deal with late payment disputes. We are also introducing new payment reporting requirements for large companies that will allow public scrutiny of payment performance

    I was pleased to see Tesco has cut its payment terms to 14 days for suppliers with total sales to Tesco worth less than £100,000 a year.

  • Marion Fellows – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Marion Fellows – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Marion Fellows on 2016-01-13.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will take fiscal steps to support exports by SMEs.

    Mr David Gauke

    The government has provided significant support to first time exporters, many of whom are Small and Medium Enterprises.

    A significant package was announced at Autumn Statement 2014, and funding for this initiative was continued at Spending Review 2015.

  • Marion Fellows – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Marion Fellows – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Marion Fellows on 2016-01-26.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what support his Department has made available to women born in the 1950s who are affected by recent changes in the age at which they become eligible for the state pension.

    Mr Shailesh Vara

    Working age benefits are available for those who have not yet reached State Pension age. A concession of £1.1bn was made, and 81% of those affected will see a delay of one year or less; and for the rest, the delay will be no more than 18 months. There are no plans for further transitional arrangements.

  • Marion Fellows – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Marion Fellows – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Marion Fellows on 2016-04-25.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what mechanisms his Department has put in place for redress and backdated payments to the parent with care in the event that it is found that the non-resident parent (a) provided false information about their income and (b) failed to inform the relevant body of an increase in their income under (i) the Child Support Agency scheme and (ii) the Child Maintenance Service scheme; and what the timescales are for such redress or payments.

    Priti Patel

    All three statutory maintenance schemes allow the Secretary of State to revise any maintenance liability decision found to be incorrect as a result of misrepresentation by either parent. There is no timescale within which the misrepresentation must be discovered, before a revision may be completed.

    Under the 2012 scheme, in the first instance maintenance is assessed using historic income information from HMRC. Annual reviews are carried out using HMRC income data and liabilities are adjusted accordingly. Over the lifetime of a case changes to income should therefore be reflected appropriately.

    Where an individual is assessed on current income, they are obliged to inform the Child Maintenance Service of any increase to their income of 25% or over. If they fail to do so and the Child Maintenance Service subsequently becomes aware of an increase in their income, the Secretary of State may still calculate a new assessment, taking effect at the point the income increased.

    Any arrears that result from such “retrospective” action will nonetheless be due and CMS will take enforcement action if the Paying Parent does not arrange to pay them themselves. The CMS has a comprehensive range of enforcement actions at its disposal, to help ensure that parents fulfil their obligations.

    All maintenance liability decisions carry an underlying right of appeal to an independent Tribunal.

  • Marion Fellows – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Marion Fellows – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Marion Fellows on 2016-06-13.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, for what reasons the income of the highest-earning parent is used to assess eligibility for child benefit rather than the joint incomes of both parents.

    Damian Hinds

    If the Government were to use total household income as the criteria for the High Income Child Benefit Charge on households, this would require collecting information of the incomes of everyone in each of the eight million households receiving Child Benefit. This would effectively introduce a new means test. The Government’s approach withdraws Child Benefit from those on high incomes, whilst having no impact on the majority of claimants.

  • Marion Fellows – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Marion Fellows – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Marion Fellows on 2016-06-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for what reasons applicants are charged to apply for (a) naturalisation to become a British citizen and (b) registration to become a British citizen; and how those charges are calculated.

    James Brokenshire

    Fees for applications for naturalisation and registration for British citizenship are charged to cover the cost of processing such applications and contribute to the wider costs of operating the border, immigration and citizenship system. Fee levels are set in accordance with sections 68 to 70 of the Immigration Act 2014, and take account of a range of factors including the administration costs associated with an application and the various benefits and entitlements that applicants may receive from British citizenship.