General Matters

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and wholeheartedly agree with what he says. I could give a number of examples of constituents who have to travel a great distance to get to an appeal. The stress and trauma that they go through to get to the appeal before it is even heard is incredible.

We are all very aware of the financial situation that we find ourselves in—everyone has referred to it—the savings that need to be made and the fact that no one should receive a benefit unless they are entitled to it. I do not think that anyone here disagrees with that, but common sense would say that a person who has fought cancer and is in the early stages of recovery is entitled to a little help because they physically cannot work. It is little wonder that Macmillan Cancer Support has said that 40% of cancer survivors in Northern Ireland say that not all their health and social care needs are met and that cancer sufferers have ill health for years after. Although the circumstances in Northern Ireland are not unique, I suggest that perhaps in other parts of the United Kingdom they are probably equal to that. That needs to be taken into account when the standard ESA tests are carried out. Cancer has no one standard to fall into. To disallow people the help that they need when they are entitled to it is not acceptable and, I believe, must be addressed.

Macmillan Cancer Support recently sent me a brief—I am sure that many Members also received it—that makes for uncomfortable reading for those in government who have made the decisions on the changes and how they affect those people. Macmillan strongly believes that the Lords amendments on employment and support allowance are votes for compassion, common sense and compromise—the three Cs—and are very important. Few of us are untouched by cancer—indeed, I suspect that every family has been touched by cancer at some time—and many face financial uncertainty as well. It is clear that they should receive ESA and not be forced into work when they are still recovering.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

One of the issues that have recently come to my attention is that 80% of my constituents who have gone to appeal have been successful, which is a startling result. I would have expected the figure to be up to around 50%, or about a third. That shows that the initial assessments, as we discussed in Committee when this was coming through Parliament, have got it wrong. The current system for giving out these assessments is wrong.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, which will apply elsewhere, although perhaps not as much as in my area, where a number of ESA and DLA appeals are regularly fought and won after the wrong decision was made the first time around. That shows that changes are needed.

I am also concerned that blind and partially sighted people are being excluded from ESA payments, despite the Government’s acceptance of the recommendations of an independent review last year to improve the work capability assessment process. Many constituents have sent me copies of the Royal National Institute of Blind People briefing paper. They are concerned, and it would be remiss of me not to raise the issues in the House or to appeal to the Government to consider them.

ESA gives vital support to blind, partially sighted and other disabled people who are unable to work, and provides them with immediate employment support to move towards work, where they are able to do so. Since April 2011, it has no longer been possible for blind or partially sighted people to qualify for ESA and the vital support that it gives, because changes to the assessment criteria fail to recognise the barriers that they face in relation to work. That has dramatic consequences for the individuals concerned, by unfairly forcing blind and partially sighted people on to jobseeker’s allowance, with an associated loss in income and vital support to prepare for work. They lose benefits when they come off such programmes. The severe disability premium would give them a better quality of life, by giving them more money to bring in people to care for them.

In November 2011, the independent review, led by Professor Harrington, of the work capability assessment recommended that consideration be given to the need to review the sensory loss descriptors, which are the criteria used to assess entitlement for ESA. The Government accepted that recommendation, but as yet no concrete action has been taken to change the assessment, so blind and partially sighted people continue to lose out. It is frustrating that, despite the recommendations and despite the fact that the Government asked for them, we have not moved on and achieved the vital changes that are needed.

The current impracticalities can be addressed only through revised descriptors in the communication and navigation activities of the WCA. To be specific, new descriptors should reflect the real challenges of obtaining a job, including ones concerned with awareness and with locating and finding.

I will focus on some of the key activities and illustrate the problems faced by those who apply for ESA and those who are blind and partially sighted. Activity 4 is an area of concern. It focuses on picking up and moving or transferring of an object by the use of the upper body and arms and manual dexterity. For someone who is blind or partially sighted, descriptors in this activity fail to account for whether the person can see, locate and know where safely to put the object. The criteria assessment and the questions asked of blind and partially sighted people do not even realise how that affects them—they should, but they do not.

Activity 7 centres on understanding communication, and there are practical problems relating to a claimant’s ability to read Braille. The addition of the ability to read Braille to understand a basic message was not in the previous guidance. If the objective is to consider adaptation—and it should be—a notice detailing the location of a fire exit in Braille is simply not realistic, unless the workplace is specifically and totally geared towards Braille readers.

Further impracticality arises from the expectation put on the interaction between a stranger and a blind person. It is inconceivable that a stranger would walk up to a blind person and hand them a sheet of Braille, especially in the context of a fire. That should not be used as a proxy to satisfy the descriptor and assessment on understanding communication by non-verbal means. It is another simple illustration of how the ESA process does not work for those who are blind and partially sighted.

Activity 8 is on navigating and its “getting about” descriptor scores only nine points for someone who needs to be accompanied around familiar and unfamiliar places. If the intention is to measure impairment functionality, the need to be accompanied is not a sign of adaptation, so the person should be able to score 15 points. Again, that descriptor should be changed, so that those who have limited capability because they are blind or partially sighted qualify for the 15 points and, therefore, for ESA.

The last activity is the awareness of everyday hazards. The descriptors in that activity are too narrow and apply only to people with cognitive impairments. They do not adequately consider the impact of sight loss.

Extremely ill people, people with health problems and people with sight problems who really need help and are looking to the system to provide it cannot get it. The descriptors prevent them from qualifying, when the opposite should be the case. My office is inundated with appeals against DLA decisions because of the guidelines that are in place. Over and again, the same problems are occurring, which is frustrating.

I watch people struggle into my advice centre who can hardly walk, who are suffering from cancer or who do not have the quality of life that the rest of us take for granted. I help them to fill out their forms correctly, which can take an hour and a half or two hours, in the hope that they will get the funds that they need to get the help that they cannot do without. They cannot afford to pay for carers because they do not have the funds that they need. The forms are complex and difficult.

I will give another example of how the system lets people down. I once fought a DLA appeal for a man who had only one leg. His other leg had been amputated. He suffered from diabetes to such an extent that he had to wake up during the night to inject himself. He also suffered from Crohn’s disease and—this is a very personal issue—he often soiled himself during the night before he could get to his crutches and make his way to the toilet. Despite all that, he was turned down for DLA.

I ask myself over and again, “Who are the people who are making these decisions? Do they really grasp what is going on? Do they know what problems the person who has applied for DLA or ESA has?” I would like to take them into that man’s house for one night and leave them to care for him. The next day, they would understand his problems. That would be a good example for most of these people.

I urge the Government to do the right thing by the most vulnerable in our society. I know that this is an Adjournment debate and that the Deputy Leader of the House will reply, but perhaps this will filter through to the people who make the decisions. Of course, we have to consider the money ledger and should not ignore the financial circumstances that the country is in, but we have to consider people’s lives and their mental health.

I see the frustration and anxiety of those who have depression, anxiety and other mental health issues. One woman who comes into my office screams in frustration and says that she will end her life because she is so stressed out by the forms after forms that come to her house. She says that she has no reason to live and that the pressure of filling in the forms becomes overwhelming. She then does not eat, which is another problem. That leaves the girls in my office distressed at the system. It does not take into account the state of this lady’s mental health, when it should do so, and does not understand what the issues are. That disconcerts me.

That woman could not find employment in any workplace. I am not an expert, but when I see people, I can near enough judge whether they are able to work. This lady would not be able to work. She has been trailed through appeal after appeal and wins each time. One wonders whether anybody looks at the background. The girls in my office are concerned that one day they will ring up to check on her and she will not answer.

The Government are right to stop those who are not entitled to benefits from claiming them. However, some people are entitled to help, and they seem to be the ones who are suffering the most. The ball is clearly in the Government’s court. What will history record about what has been done with the vulnerable and the needy? I hope that it will be positive.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I am grateful for this opportunity to speak about Sunday trading. The point that I want to make is simple.

As Members may recall, on 30 April this year, the Sunday Trading (London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games) Act 2012 was passed. Its effect was to extend Sunday trading hours temporarily during the limited period of 22 July to 9 September.

During the debate on the Bill, I expressed my concerns about those proposals, and in particular about whether they would be used as a precedent for a further—or permanent—extension of Sunday trading hours. I will not repeat those concerns in detail as they are on the record, but they included: the potentially negative impact on family and community life; the need for us all—as individuals and as a nation—to have a recognised rest period each week for our health and well-being; and the potential consequential pressure to work on Sundays, especially for some of the lowest-paid workers in our society, and the subsequent strain on their families. I also referred to concerns raised by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, and to the fact that for many people of faith, Sunday still has a special significance.

[Ian Paisley]

The hon. Lady is raising an issue that is crucial to our nation’s trade. Was she as concerned as I was on hearing the word “temporary”, which sometimes does not mean what it says on the tin? Temporary provisions in Northern Ireland lasted 30 years, but I hope that through the hon. Lady’s speech, we can obtain absolute clarity that temporary means temporary, and that the extension to the trading laws will cease on the date that was given to Parliament when this matter was first raised.

[Fiona Bruce]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention because obtaining such clarity is exactly the purpose of my contribution to the debate.

My concerns—and other concerns—were shared by several colleagues during the debate on 30 April. Responding to the debate, the then Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk), stated:

“The concern has been expressed that this Bill is somehow a Trojan horse, preparing the way for a permanent relaxation of the rules for large stores. Let me assure hon. Members again that that is not the case.”

Referring to my particular concerns about the impact on families and family time, he stated:

“I think she is absolutely right, so let me say to her that the Bill affects just eight Sundays and the deliberate inclusion of a sunset clause means that the Bill will be removed from the statute book after 9 September. Indeed, as the Secretary of State has made clear, if a future Government were to consider a permanent relaxation, they would have to undertake a full consultation and present new legislation to this House. As the Secretary of State also pointed out, we have no such plans.”—[Official Report, 30 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 1352-53.]

I was pleased to hear the Minister’s words and I took them as a personal assurance, although I still abstained rather than vote for the proposals. I understood, however, that many of my colleagues also took those words as a firm assurance on behalf of the Government that the temporary alterations to Sunday trading hours would not be further extended or used as a precedent, and hon. Members voted accordingly on that basis.

Some weeks later, towards the end of the wonderful Olympic and Paralympic period of which our nation is so rightly proud, suggestions circulated in the press— I know not from what source they originated—that a permanent deregulation of Sunday trading hours should perhaps be considered, following the limited extension period.

Such suggestions were completely at odds with the statements expressed by more than one Minister during the passage of the Bill. Another Minister in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), stated at the time:

“I want to make it clear that this is a temporary measure and not a test case for a permanent relaxation of the rules in the future”,

and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills stated that the Bill was

“not a signal of the Government’s intent on the broader issue of Sunday trading;”. —[Official Report, 30 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 1293.]

In the light of recent press speculation about a possible further extension to Sunday trading hours, I seek today, either from the Deputy Leader of the House, or after the debate from the new the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), clear confirmation that the assurance given on behalf of the Government still stands, and that despite references to an extension of Sunday trading hours, the Government have no such plans. The Government’s assurance was carefully noted not only by me and many colleagues in the House, but—crucially—by many millions of people across the country.

I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House and the responsible Minister will take this point in the spirit of the utmost courtesy with which I express it, but there is an issue of integrity here. In issuing the confirmation that I seek, Ministers would put an end to continuing speculation that is a cause of concern to many. Of course, the extension of Sunday trading hours was in neither coalition party’s manifesto nor in the coalition agreement.

I turn to some comments that have been made since the summer extension of hours. The British Retail Consortium has recently announced that it does not want to lobby for permanent deregulation of Sunday trading hours. According to Retail Week magazine, momentum for a permanent change among retailers has begun to wane, which may be a result of the BRC’s announcement that retail sales fell by 0.4% in August, compared with August 2011 on a like-for-like basis, with no sign of the Olympic boost that was promoted as a reason for the temporary extension. According to the Association of Convenience Stores, independent retailers reported a loss of sales of up to 20% and a 30% drop in footfall over the Olympic period. That reported negative impact is of considerable concern to many small retailers, which often live on narrow margins, and to their employees.