Baby Loss Awareness Week

Debate between Angela Crawley and Lisa Cameron

Thursday 23rd September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)]

I did not expect to be called to speak so early in the debate; thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I again thank my friend, the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory), for her bravery and for sharing her experience on the Floor of the House. It matters to the people at home to know that we politicians are also human beings, and that we also feel grief and loss.

Whether a pregnancy was planned or a surprise, that moment of seeing two lines on a pregnancy test stick will stay with many parents for a lifetime. Equally, for many who are trying to conceive, a faint one line or “not pregnant” will stay with them also, each and every time they receive it. Pregnancy can be a joyous, happy celebration for many. Perhaps that is why we often choose not to speak of the sadness and heartbreak when a pregnancy loss happens. Tragically, one in four pregnancies will end in miscarriage. The experience of miscarriage, along with the grief and loss associated with the miscarriage or stillbirth, will resonate for one too many parents. Every pregnancy loss is different, and there is no right or wrong way to feel about it. Sadly, many patients feel stigma. They feel a sense of shame or a failure that they could not conceive or, even when they can, that the pregnancy does not result in a happy birth.

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech that resonates with so many of us who have suffered baby loss. Will she commend, with me, the campaign run by my constituent Louise Caldwell? She is campaigning for a dedicated miscarriage unit after having to give birth to her child who was sadly lost, not in a miscarriage way, and suffering real compounded trauma from having to be in the maternity wing of the hospital while other parents were celebrating and she was bereaved and her whole family were devastated? Will she also congratulate the Scottish Government on taking forward an initiative to have dedicated miscarriage wings?

[Angela Crawley]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that very valid point. I commend Louise for her bravery and for making sure that the Scottish Government will adopt a new policy to prevent people in future from having to undergo that experience of happiness in among the sadness at that very tragic moment.

Many partners will blame themselves and often feel helpless in this situation. Thanks to the work of my hon. Friends the Members for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) and for Glasgow East (David Linden), only last year bereavement legislation was introduced that entitles parents who lose a baby after 24 weeks to two weeks’ paid bereavement leave. However, there is currently no provision in place for parents who lose a baby before 24 weeks. Too many parents—mothers, fathers, partners and any parents who are facing this tragic incident—are forced to take sick leave or unpaid leave. Understandably, many do not wish to disclose these private and intimate details to their employer, especially in the early stages of pregnancy.

Grief is not an illness. In and of itself, it is a process that parents must go through. There is simply no timeline for grief. Every parent, regardless of whether the loss happens after 24 weeks or before, should be given the time to grieve that loss without a financial penalty. That is why I have introduced a private Member’s Bill that would allow parents who experience a miscarriage before 24 weeks to seek a minimum of three days’ paid leave. Some companies have already gone further, offering leave for seven to 14 days—an example that I hope many more employers will replicate and that I absolutely welcome. This compassion and recognition of the loss and the grief that comes with a miscarriage, whether in policy or in statute, would allow parents to approach their employer and seek a legal right to paid leave.

This traumatic life event will inevitably affect both parents differently. There is a cost associated with such a loss, as many parents opt to take unpaid or sick leave, so there is already a financial penalty for people up and down the country. Often an employer has no idea what the nature of their employee’s sickness is, or the ramifications for their business. Therefore, having a policy on this issue, or the right to take paid leave in statute, should not add any further burden to them. Rather, it would allow the conversation to take place where both employee and employer can understand the situation and hopefully seek to support their employee in the best way that they can. Many parents have spoken of feeling isolated and alone, without the opportunity to share their loss with colleagues for fear of the shame and stigma that have been associated with such a loss. Introducing a minimum of three days’ paid leave would not only give parents a chance to grieve and process their loss but show everyone that miscarriage is no one’s fault and help to break that stigma.

Mental Health: Assessment

Debate between Angela Crawley and Lisa Cameron

Tuesday 22nd January 2019 Westminster Hall

[Angela Crawley]

I agree with the second part of the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, but I return to my original point, which is that we are talking about a tick-box exercise that does not recognise the fluctuating nature of mental ill health—I think that is the point he is trying to make. Why should someone have the fact that they put make-up on that day, or made the effort to turn up and be there for the assessment, marked against them? It seems completely arbitrary and unnecessary.

The constituent I mentioned earlier has a nervous compulsion and, as a result, she picks at her nails. She has chosen to wear acrylic nails so that she will not unconsciously pick at her hands due to her nervous disposition. That was taken by the healthcare professional as an indicator that she was well kept and therefore mentally stable. It did not seem to matter that it was a form of self-harming and that she had had suicidal thoughts, which she outlined to the person. Those are Victorian and antiquated measures through which to identify someone with mental ill health, and they come up time and again. My constituent Donna from Carluke recently had a personal independence assessment. She acknowledged that she had two options: she could present as someone who had a mental illness and

“Present as they expect someone who has a mental illness to i.e and I quote here from your own assessment documentation ‘rock, shake, sweat, unkempt, poor eye contact and look unwell and troubled’”,

or she could present as she was on the day,

“which was apparently none of the above.”

That does not negate the fact that she has a mental health condition; it simply does not tick the markers on that sheet. The DWP tick-box system does not seem to account for that at all, nor for people who live with long-term chronic health conditions that fluctuate between good days, bad days and unimaginable days.

Donna has faced an extremely difficult few years trying to cope with severe depression. She has outlined that on one day she can be great and on another she is simply not. I take the point that the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) made; I know it comes from a position of experience, and I greatly appreciate his expertise, but the fact is that Donna has been working in the mental health sector, so she has huge insight into her condition. She knew the only way she would get better would be by taking time and allowing herself to heal, which has taken longer than she had hoped, but now that she has returned to work, she has to fight to keep her personal independence payment, which has allowed her to stabilise her life.

I mentioned this case in a debate last week. Donna recently went back to work on very reduced hours, and through the personal independence payment, she was able to effectively self-manage her condition, meaning that she can lead a meaningful and purposeful life, return to work and provide for her family. Given the presence of her symptoms, that is only possible through the personal independence payment, which she is now being denied because the fact that she returned to work has been held against her. She exactly fits the purpose of those benefits and the criteria set out, but her claim was reassessed and, as a direct result of returning to work, she is no longer entitled to them.

It seems that all the valuable support Donna received over the last three years, combined with her self-determination, is now in jeopardy because, on the day of her PIP assessment, she was:

“well kempt, behaved normally, maintained eye contact and had good insight into my illness”.

Those are the assessor’s marks. They have decided against the criteria that she is no longer eligible for a personal independence payment, despite the fact that, as I am outlining, she relies on it and it has helped her to get back to work, which I believe is ultimately what the Government want. It is counter-intuitive. Healthcare professionals appear to be carrying out assessments without prior knowledge of how mental ill health works.

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is making some extremely valid and excellent points, and I thank her for securing the debate. Does she agree that there is a real issue for people whose mental ill health, and perhaps some of the symptoms of it, such as paranoia or severe depression, mean that it is extremely difficult for them to even go to an assessment, because they feel the system might be against them, or they are just not well enough to get there? They are then penalised, and have their benefits taken away when they are very much in need of them, and have been very ill for a long time.

[Angela Crawley]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, and with the comments from the hon. Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero) about the individual who prepared themselves for an assessment, only for the assessor not to turn up. These assessments are really distressing, and they do not take into account the condition that the person being assessed has, or the impact that the assessment might have. Another of my constituents, Denise from Hamilton, was denied assistance for bipolar disorder because, as the report repeatedly stated, she is not manic all the time or on most days. How does one assessor even know that?

The idea of requiring assistance during periods of mania completely misses the point about the problems that Denise faces. The report ignores the depressive cycles that follow, and her struggles to find a measure of stability. That is a reckless approach, as she would be sent into a manic state if she were not supported, or if she tried to live the way many of us without a disability take for granted. Some of the things that have triggered a manic state in my constituent over the years would wash over most of us without her condition, but that is why the condition is extremely harrowing and distressing for those who have it. Simple things such as preparing for Christmas or a family wedding, stressful news events such as the Grenfell Tower incident, wider health issues such as the menopause, and changes to Denise’s medication for bipolar disorder are all things that have exacerbated her condition. Additionally, she has sometimes entered into mania for no apparent reason. In other words, the condition is out of her control.

I have heard many reports of assessors using very inappropriate language during assessments for people with mental health problems. Several people, including constituents I have mentioned, have told me that when discussing suicidal thoughts, they have been asked bluntly, “Why didn’t you kill yourself?” I do not know what that adds to the assessment, or what it does to a person to be asked that, but this point has been repeated by many of my constituents. When they have discussed suicidal ideation, they have been asked by the assessor, “Well, why didn’t you kill yourself?” I cannot say why they have been asked that.