Latest news with #HouseofCommonsLibrary
The Independent
09-04-2025
- Health
- The Independent
Mapped: Worst areas for GP appointment waits revealed
Patients are facing a 'postcode lottery' for GP appointments with one in 10 people waiting more than a month to be seen in some areas, new research shows. The number of month-long waits hit a record high last year and in almost 95 per cent of areas there was an increase in people waiting 28 days or more. The figures, compiled by the House of Commons Library, demonstrate the uphill battle facing Labour as it ramps up recruitment of family doctors in a bid to cut waiting times and ease pressure on the NHS. Health Secretary Wes Streeting announced on Tuesday that an extra 1,503 GPs have been recruited since October, with the health secretary prioritising services closer to patients' homes. But the number of general practitioners per patient has fallen drastically in the past decade, leaving the system under significant strain. Below, The Independent has mapped the regions where most patients are facing waits of a month or more for appointments: The House of Commons Library research showed that 100 out of 106 sub-Integrated Care Boards (ICBs) saw the number of 28-day or longer waits for GP appointments jump in 2024 compared with a year earlier. The starkest rise was in Sunderland, where there was a 51 per cent increase in month-long waits, followed by North East Lincolnshire with a 46 per cent jump and North Cumbria which saw a 38 per cent spike. The research, commissioned by the Liberal Democrats, found Kent and Medway was the area with the most month-long waits in the country, with 781,000, rising by more than a fifth from 2023's level. Derby and Derbyshire had the second highest number of month-long waits, with 722,000, up 14 per cent from a year earlier. Meanwhile, more than one in 10 patients was forced to wait more than a month to see a GP in areas including Gloucestershire, Chorley and South Ribble, Derby and Derbyshire and Dorset last year. Regionally, the south west had the highest portion of patients waiting 28 days or more for an appointment, with 7.7 per cent. Second worst was the north east and Yorkshire, followed by the east of England and the south east. The Liberal Democrats said the figures revealed a 'reveal a stark postcode lottery that is leaving people in vast swathes of the country without the care they deserve'. They called for patients to have a legal right to see their GP within seven days or 24 hours if in urgent need. The party said this could be done by recruiting 8,000 additional GPs. The party's health and social care spokesman Helen Morgan said: 'Many already in pain are being forced into anxiety-inducing waits that only add to their suffering and leave them at risk of not getting the treatment they need in time.' Ms Morgan attacked the Conservatives over 'broken promises' on the health service, accusing the Tories of 'running our local health services into the ground'. But she said: 'It is now the Labour government not showing nearly enough ambition to break this cycle of misery. 'If we are going to give communities the local health care that they need, we have to go further and faster. 'That means giving patients a legal right to see their GP within a week by ensuring there are 8,000 more GPs. Only then will we be able to rebuild our NHS and get patients the care they deserve.' A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said: 'This data does not show waiting times for GP appointments – it shows the length of time between appointments being booked and taking place. 'This government inherited GP services buckling after years of neglect but we have already taken urgent action to to fix the front door of the NHS. 'By cutting red tape and boosting funding, we have already put an extra 1,503 GPs into general practice to deliver more appointments. The extra investment and reforms we have made will allow patients to book appointments more easily, help bring back the family doctor and end the 8am scramble.'
The Guardian
26-03-2025
- Health
- The Guardian
‘People have been pushed to the brink': welfare cuts spark fear in Blackpool
'It's not very helpful really,' says Owen Sandford, 27, of the government's spring statement. 'I understand they've got a tough job, but we've got a tougher job trying to survive.' Sandford is in receipt of universal credit and has been applying for work – but he is struggling. 'A lot of us have got kids,' he says outside the jobcentre just behind Blackpool's famous tower. 'There's so many families that live in poverty, that can't pay the bills and are getting into debt.' And the government's financial plans, he adds, don't help people like him. 'Energy keeps going up, council tax keeps going up, food shop is rising every week. The only thing not going up is my money.' Rachel Reeves's statement included sweeping welfare cuts, with the health element of universal credit to be frozen or reduced alongside a review of personal independence payments (Pips). Lindsay Barlow, the chief executive of Blackpool charity Disability First, says many disabled people in the city are 'terrified' by the changes. 'We've received lots of emails and terrified phone calls,' she says. 'We had a couple who had learning disabilities pop in last week, and they just didn't have a clue how this change was going to affect them.' 'We get people who are in mental health crisis on the phone,' she adds. 'We have had to have suicide awareness training to help people who have been pushed to the brink, because it's people with mental health conditions that are really feeling the impact of these changes, because they're frightened.' Blackpool has one of the highest proportions of people claiming disability benefit – 17% of the population, according to House of Commons Library data. Health outcomes are also poor. People in Blackpool are more likely to have a diagnosis of depression and the town has the highest proportion in the country of people with mental health conditions such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. In Blackpool mortality rates are higher, while life expectancy is lower. Men and women have the lowest life expectancy from birth of any local authority in England, with the gap between the town and the rest of the country continuing to grow. At Layton Methodist church, volunteers see about 600 people each week coming through their doors looking for everything from a free breakfast to budget cookery lessons. On a Thursday, for £8 people can do a food shop that would cost about £40 in a normal supermarket – but some struggle to manage even that. 'People buy it the first couple of weeks after they get the benefit,' says Jakki Garner. 'But by week three or week four, they can't, their benefits have gone.' Diane Halstead, the church minister's wife, adds: 'It brings them down. Because at the end of the day, they feel they're failing as parents … they'll feed the children, then they'll end up not eating themselves.' They have noticed demand increasing and expect things to get worse as the government's safety net disappears further. 'The way things are progressing will be to church groups, to community centres, to more volunteer-led things,' Garner says. And the welfare changes are 'going to affect us drastically,' she adds, 'because obviously, they're going to end up relying more on coming to food banks'. Their food truck is supplied by The Big Food Project, which last year gave out more than 850,000 meals. This year, they expect this figure will surpass 1m, says its chief executive, Victoria Blakeman. 'I think the issue that we've got is that people are already making decisions around food and heating at that lower end of where the benefits are going to [be] cut,' she says. 'In this particular area, there are a lot of people that have been dependent on the government for their support, and as we see those cuts, we've got rising costs across food anyway, it's going to make it so much more difficult for people to be able to eat properly.' In this Lancashire town, poverty is an issue seen across demographics – young people here share the same worries as pensioners about putting food on the table. At a drop-in centre run by Streetlife, one 23-year-old man explains his universal credit payments 'just about cover food but don't get me a roof over my head'. He sleeps 'here and there and everywhere, in the street'. He is the father of a seven-week-old baby, and with any spare money, he says: 'I do try and get my child stuff and the child's mum stuff, like it's coming up to Mother's Day in four days, things like that.' Another 23-year-old man says: 'The government is taking money away from people who have the least money in society. I live on the street.' With any less support, he claims: 'I'd probably end up dead.' In the town centre, Ken Rollinson, 50, runs Affordable Mobility, which supplies aids such as electric scooters. Some of his customers come into the shop in tears and he ends up letting them pay in instalments when they can't afford to buy upfront. Life here can be 'very difficult', Rollinson says. 'I mean, I've had people in here crying their eyes out or saying they can't afford this, they can't afford that.' A single father to a young son, he has a bad back and mental health issues himself, he says, but has already been denied benefits. 'He's only four. I even said to them: 'how do you expect me to feed my son and pay a mortgage?'' 'I have to work seven days a week, just trying to make a living,' he adds. 'It's very, very hard.' In the UK and Ireland, Samaritans can be contacted on freephone 116 123, or email jo@ or jo@ In the US, you can call or text the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline on 988, chat on or text HOME to 741741 to connect with a crisis counselor. In Australia, the crisis support service Lifeline is 13 11 14. Other international helplines can be found at
Forbes
24-03-2025
- Entertainment
- Forbes
3 Reasons Why Every Parent Needs To Watch Netflix's ‘Adolescence' — By A Psychologist
Netflix's "Adolescence" has become an overnight sensation. Here are three invaluable lessons that ... [+] parents can learn from the harrowing story of Jamie Miller. Ask any parent in the world what their worst nightmare is, and they'd all give you a similar answer: losing a child. But there's another fate—much rarer, and arguably just as horrific—that you likely wouldn't even consider: your child taking another's life. This is the terrifying premise of Netflix's current most popular limited series, Adolescence. The series follows 13 year-old Jamie Miller and his family after he's accused of brutally murdering a fellow female classmate—a crime which he eventually pleads guilty to. The series has been revered in countless ways: for its brilliant scripting, actors and cinematography, but mostly for its gut-wrenching and eye-opening storyline. Although the series isn't based on a singular 'true story,' the creators of Adolescence note that it draws influence from several real-life reports from the UK. According to the House of Commons Library, in March of 2023 alone, there were 18,500 convictions and cautions made for possession of a knife; 17.3% of these offenders were between 10- and 17-years old. Touching on themes such as incel culture, gender-based violence and the dangerous radicalization of young men, Adolescence sheds light on various terrifying realities — ones that are becoming increasingly threatening in today's age. If you are a parent, these are just three of many reasons why you need to watch Adolescence, based on the sobering truths it confronts us with. Society has made powerful strides in recent years towards progression. Social issues that were once rife amongst the youth—such as bullying, sexism, racism and homophobia—have started to become less prominent than they were just a few decades ago, thanks to education, prevention programs and increasing overall levels of tolerance. That said, there have been unfortunate regressions over the recent years. In 2015, survey results on bullying were incredibly hopeful; statistics indicated that it had reached an all-time low since 2005. Unfortunately, just five years later, the COVID-19 pandemic stopped the world in its tracks. According to 2022 research from Scientific Reports, the pandemic marked a disappointing turning-point that resulted in a significant increase in cyber-bullying. Children today are more dependent on technology than ever before; they use their phones not just as tools but as lifelines to their social worlds. While parents once feared technology because their kids seemed savvier with it, many have since become more permissive upon recognizing how ingrained it is in their children's lives, as well as their own. However, this shift in attitude has opened up new avenues for bullying—ones that are increasingly hard to monitor and regulate. Balancing the respect for a child's privacy with the growing complexity of online interactions is challenging, and many parents are left feeling helpless when it comes to protecting their kids from harm or even realizing that their child might be the perpetrator. Adolescence exemplifies this issue. Even the detectives investigating the crime—who had full, unrestricted access to Jamie's social media—couldn't tell the difference between friendliness and bullying in his Instagram comments. The insidiously subtle form that bullying has taken on, paired with the incredibly cryptic, backhanded use of language and Emojis, has made it almost invisible to the untrained eye. Not only has bullying resurged amongst the youth, but so has sexism. A February 2025 study conducted in the UK, from PLOS One, highlights the increasing worry amongst school teachers about the impact of online misogyny on young boys. Out of 200 teachers in total, 76% of highschool teachers and 60% of elementary school teachers expressed this deep concern. Andrew Tate—a social media influencer who is shockingly popular amongst young boys, whose content is blatantly bigoted and sexist—was mentioned frequently by the teachers within the study. One teacher within the study noted that a male student of theirs had publicly verbalized that it's 'ok to hurt women because Andrew Tate does it,' while another noted they'd heard a male student tell a fellow female student that she 'belonged in the kitchen.' Appallingly, one teacher even noted that their male pupils 'touch girls non-consensually' and 'do not understand why this is inappropriate.' Of course, these comments and behaviors affect more than just the school staff who witness it. As one teacher in the study explains, 'The majority of the girls in my class have been worried about coming to school due to what the boys may say or do to them.' Adolescence also captures this grim, growing norm with unsettling accuracy. Teenage boys in the series—some only 12- and 13-years old—are well-versed in misogynistic rhetoric, including concepts like the '80-20 rule,' 'red pill' content and incel culture. These aren't fictionalized aspects of the show; they are very real, very dangerous principles that are spread widely on the internet. For instance, claims are made that only 20% of men are deemed attractive enough to date the most desirable women, while the remaining 80% are left bitter and rejected. These kinds of warped perspectives incite resentment toward women, and are known to lead to violent fantasies or actions—according to 2020 research from Studies in Conflict & Terrorism. In the second and third episodes of the series, it becomes apparent that Jamie was influenced by these ideologies, to the point that his feelings about rejection by a female classmate were likely the trigger for his heinous crime against her. Disturbingly, Jamie had vocal supporters from the 'manosphere'—one of which even provided him with the murder weapon. When we hear of children who commit heinous acts and crimes, fingers are usually pointed at parents. 'Who raised them?' or 'What was going on at home?' are often the first thoughts to come to mind. While reports from the Office of Justice Programs do suggest that children of criminals and abusers are more likely to exhibit deviant behavior, there are always exceptions. Some of the world's most infamous criminals—like Richard Cottingham, Dennis Rader and Randy Kraft—had reportedly happy and healthy childhoods. Jamie, in Adolescence, had a normal childhood too. His parents, Eddie and Manda, were never abusive, nor did they have marital problems that may have affected their children; they were highschool sweethearts who were still madly in love decades later. Naturally, they were devastated by Jamie's crime, asking themselves, 'How did we make him?' Throughout his childhood, both Eddie and Manda ensured that Jamie wasn't doing the same things that they'd gotten up to as teenagers — like underaged drinking, smoking, drug use or sex. When he was out with his friends, they knew where he was and what he was doing at all times; when he wasn't with his friends, he was home. But when he was home, he was always locked in his room—quietly browsing the internet until the early hours of the morning. Eddie makes a devastating observation in the final episode of the series. He explains that since Jamie was almost always at home—under his roof, and not out and about being mischievous—he thought that he'd been protecting him. He assumed that close proximity would make it impossible for Jamie to turn out as anything other than a happy, healthy young boy. Eddie even noted that he'd made a concerted effort to be a better father than his was, and Manda poignantly stood by the fact that both Jamie and his sister were 'made' in the same way: 'through love.' Regretfully, Jamie's normal upbringing couldn't prevent his eventual horrific crime. Parents today must understand that hatred, bigotry and violence aren't just things that children can learn directly from their upbringing. The internet is saturated with dangerous, hateful rhetoric, and research suggests that it's only becoming more prevalent. It only takes one video, one comment, one Google search or one conversation to plant the seed. If these messages are reinforced by peers or online communities, an otherwise well-adjusted and intelligent child can become radicalized shockingly fast. It's easy to forget that keeping a child physically safe is only one half of parenting; their minds also need to be guarded from dangerous ideologies. That's why parents today need to be more vigilant than ever about the content their children consume and, more importantly, the ideas that take root. Curious what beliefs about gender roles you may be passing on to your children? Take this science-backed test to find out: Gender Role Beliefs Scale
The Independent
07-03-2025
- Business
- The Independent
‘Tax on savers' plan from Reeves could hit a million Scots
More than a million Scots could be hit by proposed changes to the tax-free allowance for cash Individual Savings Accounts (ISAs), the SNP has said. Branding the plans a 'tax on savers', the party says there must be no cuts to the allowance in the Chancellor's spring statement later this month. Research from the House of Commons Library shows 25% of adults in Scotland have cash ISAs – some 1.12 million people. Chancellor Rachel Reeves is reported to be considering lowering the limit on how much people can put into cash ISAs per year, down to £4,000 from the current £20,000 ceiling. There have also been rumours it could be cut altogether. Cash ISAs are individual savings accounts through which people can earn interest on savings without being taxed. Ms Reeves has spoken of wishing to foster 'a culture in the UK of retail investing like what you have in the United States' in order to achieve better returns for savers. Research commissioned by the SNP found savers could lose up to £5,132 to tax over a five-year period if the allowance is reduced to £4,000 a year – assuming there is a 5% interest rate and annual deposits of £16,000. SNP economy spokesman Dave Doogan MP said: 'The Labour Party must ditch its damaging plans to impose a punishing new tax on savers, which would clobber more than a million Scots and could cost many households hundreds or thousands of pounds. 'This is yet another broken promise from the Labour Government, who said they wouldn't increase taxes on families but are now dipping their fingers into people's hard-earned savings.' Mr Doogan said the UK currently ranks low among European countries in how much household disposable income is saved. The UK's figure is 2% while France, Germany and the Netherlands are all above 10%. He continued: 'Voters were promised things would get better but under the Labour Government the cost of energy, food and living is soaring, the UK economy is stagnating, unemployment is rising, and now the Chancellor wants to slash people's savings too. It stinks. 'The tax-free allowance for cash ISAs should not be cut and people should not be forced into riskier or most costly savings products.' Savers in Scotland are thought to have £52.7 billion in ISAs – an average of £39,917 per account – though this includes other types of ISAs such as stocks and week, consumer champion Martin Lewis told a Westminster committee that people have already told him they are 'worried' about their cash ISAs, adding: 'I don't think we should reduce the cash ISA limit.' At the end of February, the chief executive of Leeds Building Society said staff have been 'inundated' with questions from worried customers over the future of cash ISAs. Richard Fearon said many feel it would be unfair to remove the tax-free allowance. He told the PA news agency: 'Reducing or scrapping cash ISAs will not necessarily create any extra investment in the UK – it's unlikely to. 'But what it will do is lead to higher tax bills for savers and higher repayments for mortgage holders, so we think it is a bad idea.' Ms Reeves said: 'It is really important that we support people to save, to achieve their aspirations. 'At the moment, there is a £20,000 limit on what you can put into either cash or equities, but we want to get that balance right. 'I do want to create more of a culture in the UK of retail investing, like what you have in the United States, to earn better returns to savers and to support the ambition to grow the economy, creating good jobs right across the UK.'
The Independent
27-02-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Stop and search: will the new Metropolitan Police charter overcome distrust?
Britain's largest police force has published a 'charter' for stop and search, two years after it was severely criticised in an independent review for 'over-policing and under-protecting' Black Londoners. It is the response by the Metropolitan Police to Baroness Casey's demand for a 'fundamental reset' of the tactic, which is widely considered to be used in a discriminatory way against members of ethnic minorities. The Met says the charter has been put together following 18 months of engagement with more than 8,500 Londoners of all ages, ethnicities and backgrounds. It includes commitments that officers should use respectful communication and tone when carrying out stop and search, that they will be given improved training and supervision, and that complaints will be handled more effectively. Sir Mark Rowley, the Met commissioner, said the charter was not about reducing the use of stop and search, but about 'doing it better by improving the quality of encounters, informed by the views of the public it is intended to protect'. Hasn't stop and search always been controversial? Even before the founding of the Metropolitan Police by Sir Robert Peel in 1829, constables had the power under the Vagrancy Act 1824 to search anyone suspected of being 'disorderly' or 'a rogue and vagabond'. This and similar powers were known as 'sus laws' (short for 'suspicion') and contributed to friction between the police and many young Black Britons. After the Brixton riots in 1981, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 introduced a power to stop and search people if the police had 'reasonable grounds' for doing so. The Macpherson report of 1999, which found that the Met was 'institutionally racist', accepted that stop and search was necessary but called for all stops to be recorded and monitored. Wasn't it one of Theresa May's 'burning injustices'? When she became prime minister, she said: 'If you're Black, you're treated more harshly by the criminal justice system than if you're white.' Previously, as home secretary, she had responded to the increasing use of stop and search by trying to reduce it. May brought in a Best Use of Stop and Search (Buss) scheme, and reiterated earlier guidance that said that personal factors, including ethnicity, were not reasonable grounds for a search. The House of Commons Library commented: 'A substantial reduction in the use of stop and search powers did follow these reforms, and they appeared to contribute to improved practice among police officers. However, the disparity in stop and search rates by ethnicity did not improve, as searches of white people fell faster than searches of Black, Asian and minority ethnic people.' Does stop and search work? 'Evidence regarding the impact of stop and search on crime is mixed,' conclude the House of Commons Library researchers. 'There is little evidence to suggest that stop and search provides an effective deterrent to offending. Stop and search is more effective at detection, but still most searches result in officers finding nothing.' They continue: 'However, those in policing argue that when stop and search is targeted and conducted in line with the law and guidance, they can confiscate dangerous and prohibited items and do so without undermining public trust in the police. Those opposed to stop and search argue that a history of poor use and longstanding ethnic disparities demonstrate that it is a fundamentally flawed police power.' It is striking that none of the inquiries into police conduct that have dealt with the subject have proposed abolishing stop and search – but the issuing of yet another set of guidelines, this time called a 'charter', does raise the question of whether the power can ever be used in a way that commands confidence among all sections of society.
