Mary Kelly Foy MP: speeches

Speeches

• 1 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I speak on behalf of the hundreds of desperate people in Durham and beyond, as well as the dozens of organisations, who have contacted me with concerns about the Bill. I am sure that many Members across the House, not least those of us in areas that have been decimated over the last three decades, will agree that there is a need to reform the social security system and to support people to stay in and get back into work. We have been told that the purpose of the review of PIP is to ensure that the benefit is fair and fit for the future, and that it will be co-produced with disabled people and the organisations that represent them. But what is fair about us being asked to vote on changes when the terms of reference of the review were only announced yesterday? I popped out earlier for a banana, and when I came back in, things had changed again, so I am even more unclear of what I am voting on. As we have heard, the proposals are so unfair. They will create a two-tier system of social security. Someone who fell ill earlier this year will have the support they have always had, but woe betide those who fall ill later this year or next year. How can we be asked to vote for a system that, rather than penalising everyone for being ill, has been tweaked to only penalise people based on when they got ill—or, in fact, they get more ill, as anyone reporting a change in circumstances will be caught up in these changes? Every organisation I have spoken to, including at my recent expert roundtable event in Durham, agrees that the changes to PIP will have a bigger impact on the north-east than almost any other region in the country. This is not a level playing field. The scale of ill health is 50% higher in the north than in the south. The north-east has a higher rate of people living with a disability than any other region. The “Ageing in the North” report recently published by the Northern Health Science Alliance and Health Equity North suggests that in the south, people leaving the job market later on in life overwhelmingly retire; in the north, they leave due to ill health. The impact that these changes will have on individuals, communities and the economy in the north-east will be huge, regardless of any recent concessions. Again, we are being asked to vote on proposals before any meaningful consultation with disability charities and organisations has taken place, and without a regional impact assessment being carried out. Let us remember that PIP is an in-work benefit. For many, it provides them with the support they need to stay in work. If people are caught up in these changes or claim after they are introduced, it will be much harder for them to stay in work. If we vote for this Bill, we will be knowingly leaving vulnerable people without the support they need to live dignified, independent lives, free from poverty, when we should be supporting and championing the rights of disabled people, their carers and their families. As the parent of a daughter, Maria, who lived her life with a severe disability, I empathise with all those who are unlikely to undertake meaningful or secure employment because of their disability and to experience the dignity that so many people in work enjoy. Even if someone cannot contribute economically to society, they still deserve dignity. They still deserve to be treated with respect and to feel of value in society, no matter how they are able to contribute. I joined the Labour party 30 years ago to be on the side of the poor and the weak. This Bill penalises those with the weakest shoulders. That is not what I was elected for, and it is not what this Labour Government were elected for. I plead with colleagues again: pause this process, start again and do it the right way—do it the Labour way.

• 15 May 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Will my right hon. Friend join me in commending the work and dedication of Mel Metcalfe and the entire Durham Pride team—supported by the Queen of Durham, Tess Tickle and her Dragettes—in aiming to make this year’s event the biggest and greatest celebration of the LGBT+ community in the county yet? Can we have a debate in Government time to ensure that the hard-won rights secured by the LGBT+ community, activists and campaigners are not eroded by those who would prefer to see celebrations like Pride consigned to the history books?

• 12 May 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Recent analysis by Health Equity North shows that more than £13 million will be stripped out of the local economy in the City of Durham every year due to PIP changes. That comes on top of the already worsened health conditions for people in the north-east due to Tory austerity. Would it not be more constructive for the Government to start by listening to the calls of disability groups and disabled people, and supporting them into work, rather than cutting the benefits first and pushing those people further into poverty?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Welfare Reform · Hansard source

  More

  When cuts to incapacity support were introduced by the last Government through the work-related activity component, we saw severe rises in poverty, no significant increase in employment, and cases of mental ill health skyrocketing. In the north-east, we already have some of the highest rates of poverty and ill health in the country, so what assurances can the Secretary of State give me that these changes will not push people in areas like mine further into poverty and ill health?

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As a young worker in the late 1980s, I experienced the precarious nature of the world of work, along with many of my peers. Lack of knowledge about our rights and the fear of being sacked if we complained about our terms and conditions politicised me and made me a lifelong trade unionist and a member of Unite and Unison. I wish to speak to new clause 92, on rolled-up holiday pay for irregular hours workers and part-year workers, and new clause 93, entitled “Working Time Regulations 1998: records”, which are tabled in my name. Like most colleagues in this House, and along with the trade union movement and the millions of workers who will benefit from its provisions, I warmly welcome the Bill and thank everyone who has campaigned for it long and hard. The majority of people spend a huge portion of their lives in work. Work should be an opportunity to be fulfilled, to live fully, to support ourselves and our family, to develop as individuals, and to contribute to society. In reality, however, for too long and for too many the world of work has been, and is, a world of uncertainty and ruthless exploitation, often stripping people of their dignity and their worth. For millions there is a struggle to obtain secure work, and that strengthens the hand of employers to drive a hard bargain to benefit their balance sheet and their profits. For those who can secure work, working life can remain unclear and insecure. It can include irregular and uncertain employment, uncertainty about hours, payment, and vital matters such as holiday pay and entitlement. While others in the House boast of their endless push for so-called flexible labour markets, the reality is very different for those on the other side of the employment contract—for the workers. The previous Government spoke about cutting so-called red tape, when they really meant reducing people’s working rights and strengthening the powers of boardroom billionaires. My proposed new clauses are in relation to certain sectors, although they would benefit all workers. It is widely known and acknowledged that some employers use so-called rolled-up holiday pay as a device to tackle their obligations to provide paid time off for holidays. Holidays and breaks from work are essential for workers, and a recognised factor in delivering an effective organisation in the public and private sectors. So-called rolled-up holiday pay is a mechanism by which an employer adds holiday pay to basic pay throughout the working year, but does not provide it separately at the time of taking the holiday. It is acknowledged, including by ACAS, that that creates a risk that a worker may feel under pressure not to take any holiday, or to take less holiday than they are entitled to. That is particularly a risk for those who work in sectors of the economy where the work is irregular, and along with that, their work also tends to be lower paid. The pressure on such workers is immense. New clause 92 seeks to address that risk—a risk accepted and addressed by rulings from the European Court of Justice. New clause 93 would ensure that working time is accurately recorded by employers. Colleagues across the House may recall that the recordkeeping requirements under the Working Time Regulations 1988 were watered down by amendments tabled by the previous Government in November 2023, following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. They believed that it was too cumbersome to require employers to maintain accurate records on behalf of employees, referring to it as “time consuming” and “disproportionate reporting.” What a load of rubbish. With advances in modern technology, there is no excuse for an employer to fail to accurately and precisely keep records of the working time contributed by a worker. The onus of managing records should be shifted from employees to allow them to focus on their own roles without added administrative requirements. This Government’s Employment Rights Bill will deliver a new deal for working people, and I wholeheartedly support it, but I urge the Minister to take account of the issues I have raised and to accept new clauses 92 and 93, which would strengthen the Bill’s provisions and increase protection for the sections of workers who need it the most.

• 30 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 4 Ban on supply of cigarette filters “(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations under section 140 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 having the effect of prohibiting the supply of relevant cigarette filters or cigarettes containing relevant cigarette filters, whether by way of sale or not, in the course of a business. (2) The notice required under section 140(6)(b) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the regulations mentioned in subsection (1) must be published no later than the end of the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed. (3) In this section, ‘relevant cigarette filter’ means a filter which contains plastic and which is intended for use in a cigarette, whether as part of a ready made cigarette or to be used with hand rolling tobacco or other substances to be smoked in a cigarette.”— (Dr Caroline Johnson.) This new clause requires the Secretary of State to make regulations which would prohibit the supply of cigarette filters which contain plastic or cigarettes containing cigarette filters which contain plastic. The regulations would be made under section 140 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Brought up, and read the First time .

• 30 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The difference is that the tax would not come from the consumers. This would be a tax on the big four tobacco companies, rather than raising taxes from consumers. We know that consumers of these products are already likely to come from deprived backgrounds. In addition to raising revenue, the measure would allow us to impose much tighter controls on the prices of tobacco products. That would disincentivise the tobacco industry from creating so much profit from their products. Although the Chancellor can use taxes for whatever purpose, this measure would be a tax on those companies whose product, as we know, kills one in two of the people who use it. Just raising taxes in the way that the hon. Lady describes would be an extra burden on the consumers who we are trying to help quit tobacco.

• 30 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. I will not be pushing this new clause to a vote; nevertheless, I think it is a policy that the Minister should take into consideration. New clause 2 would require the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to consult on a “polluter pays” levy. The Minister will know that I and members of the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health have campaigned for this for some time. It was also recommended in the Khan review in 2022 and, more recently, by the Institute for Public Policy Research’s commission on health and prosperity. Action on Smoking and Health estimates that smoking costs England more than £43 billion a year. That is more than £27 billion in productivity costs, nearly £14 billion in social care costs and more than £1.8 billion in NHS costs—and much more. A “polluter pays” levy on tobacco manufacturers could raise around £700 million a year, with that money coming from tobacco companies’ profits, not raised from consumers. A levy of this kind would provide sustainable funding for tobacco control and could be given to organisations such as Fresh, the tobacco control programme in the north-east, which does such vital work in ensuring that no one gets left behind as we move to a smoke-free future. In fact, all the Government’s programmes on tobacco, including mass media campaigns, incentives for pregnant women and support for smokers with mental health problems, could be funded many times over, with cash to spare that could go to other public health initiatives. This would be subject to consultation, but the model proposed by Action on Smoking and Health would cap the wholesale price of tobacco, similarly to how we cap the prices of essential utilities and hence limit profits. The big four tobacco companies account for 95% of UK sales and make excessive profits selling a highly addictive product that kills two in three long-term users when used as intended by the manufacturer. Tobacco manufacturers make an estimated £900 million in profit per year in the UK, with an average net operating profit margin of about 50%. For context, the average profit margin for UK manufacturing is 10%. There is widespread public support for this measure: 79% of adults in Great Britain would support a levy on the tobacco industry, with only 5% opposed. I hope the Government will seriously consider this, because it would complement the intentions of the Bill.

• 9 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman talks about civil liberties, agency and this great country. One purpose of the Bill is to tackle inequalities in our country—stark inequalities between the rich and the poor. We know that tobacco is mainly prevalent in deprived areas, and that it kills one out of two of its users. What agency does a young person have, in terms of their health and life expectancy, once the tobacco industry has them hooked? That is not agency. Tobacco is a product that kills people, and the tobacco industry will continue to find loopholes to replace the people who have died because of its product. If the hon. Gentleman believes in this great country, he should believe that tackling inequalities and making a smoke-free future for our young people are paramount.

• 7 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Can I ask a question to all of you? We know that the Bill will go a long way towards reducing health inequalities. In more deprived areas, which have the highest prevalence of smoking, will the Bill also have an impact on the economics of local communities? Professor Tracy Daszkiewicz: That is exactly the focus: reducing health inequalities and ensuring we get good health equity across all of our populations. When we look at preventable premature mortality, we know that smoking is a huge driver around that. We need to think about this across the life course. If we can stop the harms that second hand smoke causes to children, we can then think about deprivation across the life course and people who are dying early from preventable harms, with smoking being one of the risk factors. We need to focus really narrowly on that, because it is not just about life expectancy, but about the number of years we live in good health. In my patch across Gwent in Wales there is huge variance, with up to 14 years’ difference in healthy life years between the richest and the poorest parts of the population. It is about not only the health outcomes around that, but the economic part of it, in terms of work productivity and work days lost. When we think about the cost of the NHS, which we often do, that is the cost of healthcare, but if we look at the economic picture of employability, productivity and those kinds of things, it increases that sum tenfold. We need to think about this so that when we look at the inequalities associated with smoking, we do so through a social, cultural, economic and environmental lens, to ensure that we get the full cost impact. It is something that we need to be mindful of. Alison Challenger: I wanted to make a point about household income. We know that cigarette smoking is incredibly expensive. If one or both parents smoke in a household with a low income, that will have a considerable impact on the family’s spending capability for other things. It is not a matter of choice, either; smoking is an addiction. Seven out of 10 smokers really do not want to smoke, but it is incredibly difficult because of the level of addiction. If one or both parents smoke in a family household, that has huge repercussions for the funding of all the other household commitments.

• 26 Nov 2024 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I declare an interest as the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health. Just over a year ago, I welcomed the previous Government’s Tobacco and Vapes Bill. As the House may know, I have called for a smokefree generation for many years. I was not best pleased when the Conservatives voted down my amendments to the Health and Social Care Bill in 2021. Those amendments called for a ban on flavours and packaging targeted at children, which the shadow Secretary of State has just brought to the House’s attention. If they had not been voted down, we would already have regulations to protect children from smoking and vaping. I join the Secretary of State in congratulating the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) on bringing the Smoking and Vapes Bill forward, but it was regrettable that the previous Government did not fast-track it in the wash-up before the general election. Nevertheless, I am grateful to the Labour Government for bringing this Bill forward. It is stronger than the previous legislation, and it responds to many of the issues that I and others raised in Committee with the previous Bill. The comprehensive regulation of all vaping and nicotine products is important for addressing the concerns that vaping has become too widespread among young people. I strongly support regulations to reduce the appeal of such products, but we must ensure that the regulations are enforceable, robust and fit for purpose. My first of many questions to the Minister is this: will he confirm that a detailed policy paper will be forthcoming, setting out the policy objectives on vaping and how the new regulations will deliver against the objectives? The Labour manifesto made a bold commitment on halving the gap in healthy life expectancy between the richest and poorest regions in England. Tobacco control is the best way to close the gap. We cannot say it enough: the range of diseases that smoking causes is extraordinary, from stillbirths and asthma in children to heart disease, stroke, dementia in old age, poor mental health and many cancers. It will never cease to amaze me that there are people in this place who are happy to be lobbied by the tobacco companies—including, I am guessing, the shadow Secretary of State—some of whom we have heard from already, knowing full well the damage caused to individuals, families and communities, as well as to our health services. That includes communities such as mine in the north-east of England, where smoking is still the key driver of health inequalities and has been the cause of 26% of all deaths in the last 50 years and the cause of 125,000 deaths since 2020. In my constituency of City of Durham, smoking costs us over £95 million a year, and more than £3 million is spent on healthcare. In County Durham, smoking costs us over £500 million a year, and over £21 million is spent on healthcare. In the north-east, the cost is over £2 billion, with healthcare costs at over £93 million. Nationally, smoking is still the greatest cause of preventable death, still the leading cause of premature death and disability, and still responsible for half the difference in healthy life expectancy between the rich and poor. That is why I have asked time and again in this Chamber for action. It is a tragedy when we consider the further health implications. According to Cancer Research UK, the most deprived communities will not be smokefree until 2050. I urge the Government to restate their intention to publish a road map to a smokefree country and outline how support will be targeted at those who most need to quit. Smoking is also directly and indirectly linked to poor mental health. Nearly 40% of those who have a severe mental health problem smoke, and smoking accounts for two thirds of the reduction in life expectancy among that group. I want to touch on the “polluter pays” levy. The Darzi review found that our health service is in real trouble. The Secretary of State is right that to rebalance supply and demand in our healthcare system, we need a major shift from sickness to prevention. The Khan review and the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health have advocated for a “polluter pays” levy, which could raise £700 million a year to create a smokefree fund. That would ensure that the tobacco companies—not the public—pay for the harm that they inflict. Will the Minister consider that approach to fund the work needed to reduce smoking across society and to protect the NHS? I should add that public health initiatives to tackle smoking are remarkably good value for money and that failing to fund efforts to tackle smoking is a false economy. Initiatives such as Fresh—the north-east’s tobacco control programme—have led the way in tackling smoking in our region. Fresh and others could provide best practice for the Department. The Minister will know that the UK Government are party to the World Health Organisation framework convention on tobacco control. Article 5.3 seeks to protect policymaking from industry influence, but we have already seen that influence even at this stage of the Bill. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will live up to their obligations under the FCTC and commit to protecting the Bill from industry influence throughout its parliamentary process and the following regulations? I am proud to vote for a Bill that will improve people’s lives and extinguish the injustice that smoking causes to individuals and society. Smoking is never about choice, and it is pathetic that some Members have argued that this is an issue of freedom; it is absolutely nothing of the sort. Tobacco companies target children and young people. Smoking is an addiction, and the only free choice is that first cigarette. When someone is in hospital, struggling to breathe because of smoking-induced lung cancer, where is their freedom? Today, we have the opportunity to give people the freedom to live healthy lives, free from disease and the inequalities that smoking causes.

• 5 Nov 2024 · Women and Equality: North of England · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree more. That is why I am pleased that the Labour Government will be bringing in thousands of new nursery places and breakfast clubs, which will hopefully alleviate some of the problems of childcare. I know that childcare is an issue not just in the north of England but also in the north of Ireland. I shall begin with employment. Employment rates for women in the north are lower than the national average of 72.2%. In my region, the north-east, the rate is just under 70%; in Yorkshire and the Humber, it is just over 70%; and in the Minister’s region, the north-west, it is just over 71%. Disability and long-term sickness is a major issue in the north. All northern regions have levels of disability and long-term sickness higher than the national average, and considerably higher than the south-east. The report states that the resulting estimated economic cost is around £0.4 billion per annum. Compounding that is the fact that the median weekly wage for women in the north is below the national average for both full-time and part-time employment. For instance, the average weekly wage for a full-time working woman in the north-east is £569. That is much lower than the national average of £625 and considerably lower than the average weekly wage for women in London, £757. Overall, women in the north could be losing out on around £132 million a week. In terms of education, the number of women without qualifications is higher in the north than it is in the south and the south-east. That leads to the next point about women and poverty—an issue that is worth its own debate. A higher percentage of families in the north are on universal credit than in regions in the south. In fact, the average number of families on universal credit across the north is 3% higher than in the south. The figure is even higher if London is excluded. All 12 local authorities in the north-east have rates of absolute child poverty above the English average. By contrast, all 30 local authorities in the south-west have rates of absolute child poverty below the English average. The north is also the region of unpaid care, with 12% of women in the north-east providing it—just under 2% higher than the national average. Health Equity North estimates that women in the north are providing around £10 billion a year in unpaid care. Harrowingly, it also estimates that, in the last decade, the life expectancy of girls born in the north of England has begun to stall and in some cases decrease. In addition, girls born in the north will not live as long in good health compared with the national average. For older women, menopause is often cited as a potential driver of change in women’s health, which makes it all the more concerning that there are regional differences in levels of hormone replacement therapy, with lower levels of HRT being prescribed in the north of England. The picture is even more bleak when we consider pregnancy and reproductive health. We have seen the biggest increase in abortion rates between 2012 and 2021, and there has been a demonstrable relationship between austerity, the implementation of the Tory two-child limit and the increased rate of abortions. I should also add that the two-child limit itself affects over a million children in the country, and it impacts over 60,000 babies, children and young people in the north-east alone. Right now, over 25% of pregnant women in the north of England are living in the most deprived 10% of areas, with 40% of pregnant women living in the top 20% most destitute areas. Tragically, stillbirths are the highest in the most deprived communities, and highest among black African and Caribbean women living in the areas of greatest deprivation. Also, women living in poverty are at increased risk of death and depression. Subsequently, babies are at a higher risk of stillbirth, neonatal death, pre-term delivery and low birth weight. The report also refers to smoking and pregnancy; I am glad to see that the Tobacco and Vapes Bill will receive its First Reading today. It would be good to hear from the Minister whether the Government will continue to fund the financial incentives scheme for pregnant smokers. Women in the north of England have the highest rates of domestic violence abuse in the country, which is something that many children are exposed to. That also deserves its own debate. When we consider mental health, the report highlights that, in a cohort of over a million women aged between 16 and 65, from 2005 to 2018, the prevalence of mental illness was higher in three northern regions compared with the south of England. With severe mental illnesses, such as bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, the north-west and the north have higher prevalence rates. Lastly, the report covers the reality of marginalised women in the north, which includes a range of areas, from criminal justice to education and health, as well as issues related to homelessness and substance abuse. I do not have time to go into each point, but I encourage the Minister to read that section if he has not already, and I will either write to him about those issues or table parliamentary questions. The report’s recommendations are spread across multiple departmental areas, so the Minister may want to follow up in writing if he prefers. One key recommendation of the “Woman of the North” report is that central Government should deliver a national health inequalities strategy—one that convenes Government Departments from across Whitehall to put health at the heart of all policies to address the wider determinants of health. Many of the policies announced in the Budget, as well as the Employment Rights Bill, will be welcome, such as uprating universal credit in line with inflation and tackling zero-hours contracts. Of course, we wait in anticipation for the child poverty taskforce strategy next year, and I sincerely hope that we will see an end to the Tory two-child limit. In addition, the report recommends that the Treasury should consider targeted support for pregnant women, as well as improving childcare. When it comes to local and regional government, which I know the Minister has experience in, the report suggests targeted support delivered to 11 to 18-year-olds through careers hubs in the areas of greatest deprivation and a higher level of the adult education budget for the north. Greater support is also required for women navigating the social security system and for social security uptake, and for women to transition back to their families and integrate into their communities after involvement in the criminal justice system. Finally, with health and social care, NHS England could provide additional support and investment for women’s health hubs, and health services should be supported to collect routine data on ethnicity and other key demographic data. That would help deliver better information for service development and improve our understanding of different health needs. It would also explore the ways in which the services’ work can be adapted to address health inequalities across different population groups, with examples including providing cultural sensitivity training, adopting a trauma-informed approach to care and promoting person-centred approaches. I have been an MP since 2019 and have spoken about health inequalities ever since I was elected. Today’s debate is not pleasant, but I am genuinely hopeful that we can turn a page under a Labour Government. We have already seen positive measures, such as those in the Employment Rights Bill and the Budget. I look forward to the Minister’s reply and hope to work with him alongside Health Equity North to deliver happiness and dignity for women in the north, which is long overdue.

• 21 Oct 2024 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I declare my interest as a member of Unison and Unite. In May last year, I condemned the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 for the consequences that it would have for trade unions. I welcome the fact that this Bill will repeal that Act, and I pay tribute to trade unions and their members for their tireless campaigning. I am keen to hear from the Minister whether the protections for pregnant workers, specifically the right to maternity pay, will be a day one right, and whether there is scope to circumscribe redundancy during pregnancy and maternity leave. If so, will he consider adding those changes to the Bill at a later stage? There is no doubt that the Bill is hugely positive. However, like my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman), I want to say something about prison officers, who cannot strike because of section 127 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, that Tory-era legislation. There are three prisons in my constituency and I know about the hardships that prison officers face, which are pushing many of them to the brink. I hope that the Minister will be able to meet representatives from the POA and work to repeal section 127 so that its members can have real equality with their fellow trade unionists in other unions. What we have here is a series of policies that will drastically improve the lives of workers across the country. The Bill is an important first step towards ensuring that all workers can realise their own dignity and worth through their work. The fact that we have it before us today is a testament to the strength of organised labour and the resolve of trade unionists throughout the country.

• 17 Oct 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I have received a great deal of correspondence regarding the assisted dying Bill. I welcome the fact that Back Benchers will have a free vote. However, an issue as complex as this requires detailed scrutiny. As it stands, I am worried that colleagues will not have enough time to properly debate the Bill. Will the Leader of the House relay the concerns shared by many across the House that the assisted dying Bill should receive Government time over several days, so that we can do it justice?

• 16 Oct 2024 · Carer’s Allowance · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Liberal Democrats for using this Opposition day for this important issue. I also thank Durham County Carers Support for the work it does across the county. This topic is very personal to me, because I was a parent carer for my daughter Maria for 27 years—the whole of her life, in fact. Maria lived with severe cerebral palsy and needed round-the-clock care. I also have two younger children, so I totally understand the issues of exhaustion, stress and fear, as well as the tremendous joy of looking after a loved one. The north-east is a region of unpaid care, with 10.1% of the adult population in the 2021 census providing unpaid care for more than 50 hours a week. As we have heard, it is women who are doing the hard graft. The “Women of the North” report, which I encourage the Minister to read if she has not already done so, states that many women who support family or friends do not even identify as carers. They just get on with it, regardless of the effect it has on their health and wellbeing. Women in their 50s are providing more unpaid care than the national average. In fact, they are contributing £10 billion-worth of unpaid care to the British economy each year. Again, this is higher than the national average, making the carer’s allowance scandal all the more infuriating. Reflecting on my own experiences, when Maria was 10 and her siblings were eight and nine, we decided that I would go to university. I must have been mad, I know. That was for my own personal development, and in the hope that I would get a decent job in the future. Unfortunately, that meant I was not getting carer’s allowance any more. The course was classed as full-time, but there were actually only nine hours of contact time, so I had plenty of time to look after Maria as well. Not only was I not earning, but I lost that tiny allowance. I was trying to better myself for the future, and it was a struggle. We went into debt, it was something we really could have done without. I therefore welcome the comments by the Minister, and I welcome the fact that the Government will work collaboratively with those on the frontline, because that would have meant an awful lot to me. I have one final comment: I want the Government to crack on with this policy as soon as possible, because unpaid carers cannot wait a minute longer, especially those in the north.