Employment Rights: Terminal Illness

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate. I commend the hon. Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron) for giving us the opportunity to participate, and congratulate him on his introduction, which showed an understanding of what the issue means to his constituents. I hope I will convey that too.

This is an opportunity to highlight the much-needed help and support that the Government must facilitate. I am pleased to see the Minister and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), in their places, and look forward to their contributions. I believe that the Minister understands the necessity for this debate, and I understand that the Government are going to make changes; the Minister will respond to that later.

This is one of those bread and butter issues, which I love because they make a difference to people’s lives. There are important constitutional and foreign policy issues but these matters are the ones we deal with every week in our offices. These are not just bread and butter issues; they are literally life-and-death issues, and the hon. Gentleman has set that scene so well.

I want to advocate for the tremendous work of the wonderful charity, Marie Curie. We all deal with many charities in our constituencies, as others will mention. I have lots in my constituency, but I am a supporter of Marie Curie in word and deed. I am not better than anybody else—I never claim to be and I never will be—but I support that charity’s work financially and in other ways. I have been to the Marie Curie centre in Knock, Belfast, where the staff provide real help to each person and their family. That must be an incredibly hard job and every Marie Curie nurse deserves credit.

I am thankful for the support that Marie Curie gives to patients and families in the throes of cancer journeys. Those are journeys that I and constituents have dealt with over the years. I am also grateful for the information that Marie Curie consolidates and provides us with to enable our fuller understanding. Information from those in the thick of funding and practical issues is invaluable. We need to dig deep individually and collectively within our constituencies. When loved ones pass away, they often leave something in their will to Marie Curie or other charities, which helps them do more for other people on life’s last journey.

I want to focus heavily on the recently published report, “Dying in Poverty 2024”. If hon. Members have not had the opportunity to read it, I suggest it may be worth a look. It looks at the financial insecurity faced by many people at the end of life. Research found that some 111,000 people each year die in poverty. Wow; I can hardly take in that figure, especially in this modern society—this wealthy Britain—that we live in. That figure needs to settle into all our minds. The report also found that working-age people are at much greater risk of dying in poverty: 28% of those who died in 2023 died in poverty, compared with 16% of pension-age people. Anyone who is not shocked by those figures must be unfeeling—they must not understand—but I believe that everyone in this room is as shocked as I am.

For that reason, a lot of workers with a terminal diagnosis decide that they must continue working for as long as they can. The hon. Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire referred to one lady who wanted to keep working right up until the end, because work was where her social group was, even though she would have found doing so incredibly difficult. Unfortunately, the experience of many workers is that their employer either is unsympathetic—I am sure that some are sympathetic—or puts up barriers to their continuing in work. A 2022 survey of human resources decision makers found that only 44% of organisations and workplaces have policies in place for staff with a terminal illness. If businesses do not have those policies in place, they should. They have to prepare for that eventuality and be able to help workers through the process.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

A number of employers might either not have a policy or simply be unaware, for some reason, of the need to be more empathetic with people who find themselves in such a horrendously difficult position. The advantage of a debate such as this one, secured by the hon. Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron) and supported by all hon. Members, is that it can raise awareness and hopefully bring action from Government Departments and employers, which need to take action and show support.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; I do not want to give him a big head, but his interventions often capture the focus of a debate in one sentence. If the companies have forgotten or are unaware, it is time that they were aware. The question is how we can make that happen.

As I say, only 44% of organisations and workplaces have policies in place for staff with a terminal illness, so if a worker with a terminal illness loses their job, they lose their income. The impact could not be any more real: they may lose any death in service payments that they have earned through their lifetime of work, because those are payable only to those who die while still in employment. The hon. Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire referred to the lady who stayed at work for her social circle of friends. Perhaps it helped her—I am sorry to say this—to ensure that when she passed away she had the payments that she should have had.

I agree with the Marie Curie charity that there is therefore a need for strengthened employment rights for people with a terminal illness, alongside an improved safety net to provide safety or support through our welfare system. When the Minister responds, I am sure that he or his civil servants and staff will have some figures from Marie Curie; if there has not been engagement with the organisation, I suggest that there should be.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron) for raising this important issue. Does my hon. Friend agree that there also needs to be workplace protection for the parents of children who have been given a terminal diagnosis? When a child is given a terminal diagnosis in such tragic circumstances, parents are worried because they have to leave their work to care for their children. Does he agree that there needs to be better protection for them?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend. Others might not have thought about that issue, because there are always the two adults—the mum and dad who are in a relationship—and it is their child, but if their child has a terminal illness, how does that impact them in work? They need to be there to take their child to the hospital, and to be there for their child in the last days of their life. I know that the Minister understands those issues; perhaps he can give us an encouraging answer to these questions.

Life is tough for families in full-time employment, never mind those with reduced income and greater costs. Changes must be made to universal credit— I know that that is not the Minister’s responsibility—to allow those in full-time employment to access help and support for their care and time off work. All my staff members understand the benefits system very well, but I am fortunate to have one particular staff member who spends every day of her five and a half days a week—the half day is probably voluntary, because she is a lady with compassion and understanding—working on benefits. As elected representatives, we try to offer all we can to our constituents. All Members do. That lady fills out universal credit applications, personal independence payment applications, employment and support allowance applications or, probably in most cases, attendance allowance applications, although sometimes it is for families with small children.

These are really difficult times. I do the forms myself; I am not better than anybody else. There is a box on the second or third page that asks whether the applicant has a terminal illness. When you tick that box, it moves you into a different system. I have to be fair to the Department: when that box is ticked, the Department moves immediately. I know that from cases that we have done through my office, and other Members will confirm it when they get their chance to speak. An urgency is put into the process and it quickly moves on.

The hon. Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire highlighted in communication to Members that the purpose of this debate is clear:

“The last thing someone with a terminal diagnosis and their family should be worrying about at the end of their life is how they will be able to pay the bills.”

Wow. The Government should remove that equation for people. Many people’s key social networks exist at work, and I believe that those who are terminally ill should have the choice of when they finish work. That is what the debate is all about.

I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman’s view. More than that, I will work with him and with the Government to achieve that—to simply do more for those with terminal cancer. Just because charities do such an incredible job of raising funds and caring, that does not absolve our Government and our Minister of their responsibility; I say that with fairness and with respect. It is our duty to ensure that we fulfil these obligations. We must do better.