Healthy Start Scheme

Debate between Kate Green and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 7th September 2022 Westminster Hall

[Kate Green]

It is a pleasure to respond to my hon. Friend’s question. He has done excellent work as part of his “Right to Food” campaign, and he raises a number of issues, including take-up, the generosity of the scheme and the importance of adequate nutrition, that I will come back to in my speech.

My hon. Friend will know that child food poverty continues to stunt children’s development as they grow up, and that overstretched family budgets, which mean that mothers go without in order to feed their children, are harmful to maternal health, increase maternal stress and are especially dangerous if women are breastfeeding—or, indeed, may prevent them from doing so. The Minister will share our concern that a new YouGov survey commissioned by Kellogg’s, which will be released next week—I appreciate that she has not had a chance to see it yet—has found that 66% of low-income families say that accessing Government benefits is complicated, and 53% are not confident that they are aware of all the benefits available to them. At the same time, 80% of parents on low incomes say that the rising cost of goods has impacted their ability to pay for essential items, and more than one in seven says that their children are worried about the situation.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

This is an incredibly important subject. I commend the hon. Lady on the way that she has introduced it. We are moving into what are perceived to be difficult times. Some of the figures for Northern Ireland show that poverty will probably double, which shows the importance of the scheme. Does she agree that the Government and the Minister must look once more at eligibility for the scheme, as working people who are already on the breadline will increasingly find themselves unable to support their family? If the scheme is not able to provide for a family as it did in years gone by, there will be a need to change the money available and the system.

[Kate Green]

The hon. Member draws attention to a very important point about the pressures faced by families—and not just those in which people are out of work, but those where they are working on low incomes. Healthy Start and other forms of social support can play an important part in enabling families to raise their children.

The removal some months ago of the £20 uplift in universal credit and the cost of living crisis will exacerbate the situation for families, as soaring energy, food and fuel bills lead to a further increase in maternal and child poverty. Last month, the Institute for Fiscal Studies reported that the cost of living is expected to be 11.3% higher in financial year 2022-23 than last year; inflation is expected to peak in the last quarter of this year at 13.1%. The impact will fall disproportionately on low-income families. The TUC has suggested that pay rises could fall behind inflation by almost 8% later this year, marking the biggest fall in real wages for 100 years.

The situation is especially acute for families with new babies and very young children. Maternity Action points out that the value of the basic rate of maternity, paternity and parental pay, relative to women’s median earnings, has declined from 42% in 2012 to 37% in April 2022. New mothers are expected to survive for up to 33 weeks on not much more than a third of women’s average earnings. That, of course, is at a time when they face the additional costs associated with parenthood.

Against that backdrop, Healthy Start will be more important than ever, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) have pointed out, many mothers on low incomes will not even be eligible for support. To qualify, they have to be on an income of less than £408 per month, so a new mum receiving universal credit plus statutory maternity pay would not qualify for support.

Alongside concerns about the scale of support needed are concerns about the take-up of Healthy Start, as we have heard. In a written answer to the Bishop of Gloucester on 1 August, Lord Kamall stated that up-to-date figures are not held centrally. He promised that work to compile the data was taking place across Government, and that the data would be published as soon as possible, but I find it astonishing that the Government do not have those figures now.

As we have heard, there is widespread concern about low take-up. In Greater Manchester, the combined authority estimates that around 40%, or approximately £5 million-worth, of vouchers go unclaimed. That is borne out by Maternity Action’s survey; fewer than 1% of respondents on low incomes reported receiving Healthy Start, the Sure Start maternity grant, or the Scottish Best Start grant and food vouchers, yet more than half of those very same mothers reported difficulties in buying essentials at least some of the time, and 2% reported using food banks. It is pretty clear that the benefits are not proving effective at reaching all those most in need.

Concerns about take-up are compounded by the suspicion that digitalisation has not improved things; indeed, it may have made them worse. I am not at all against digitalisation—indeed, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommended it back in 2014. There are a number of potential benefits to introducing a payment card system: cards can be used anywhere in the UK; unspent sums can be rolled over from week to week; administration should be simpler and potentially cheaper for retailers; and data collected from card use could be used to improve the supply chain and for system monitoring.

However, it appears that when prepaid cards were finally introduced last year—applications are made by telephone or online—the process had been piloted only on those who already had smartphones and monthly price plans. That may explain some of the problems being experienced, which may be inhibiting take-up. First, the issue of the cost of calls—55p a minute for those on a pay-as-you-go mobile—is compounded by long waiting times to get through on the helpline. Applicants have reported having to wait up to an hour to speak to an adviser, leading to call costs of as much as £33.

One reason for the delay in getting through seems to be that the same line is used for both inquiries and application. A complicated query can lead to long waits for callers down the queue. Meanwhile, those applying online may face data costs. Claimants also report that no reason is given if their application is rejected. They need to reapply if they think the decision is incorrect but, unhelpfully, they will not know what they got wrong. Support takes effect from the date that an application is approved, but there is no backdating for those who had to reapply.

The expectation that a card system would mean improved coverage has not always materialised. The prepaid cards can be used at any outlet that accepts Mastercard. Unfortunately, that means that some outlets that previously accepted the paper vouchers are no longer able to accept the prepaid cards. They include independent local stores, which often supply culturally appropriate foods to minority and marginalised communities, market stalls, and those making direct sales from the farm gate, which is a particular issue in relation to rural poverty. Even some well-known high street names that previously accepted the paper vouchers had the wrong Mastercard merchant code and could not accept the cards, as food retailing is not their main business. I am not sure whether that issue has been resolved; perhaps the Minister could confirm that.

Finally and distressingly, while we may have expected that the use of a prepayment card would reduce stigma, Feeding Britain points to worrying research from Northumbria University; it shows that shoppers need to split their trolley of purchases at the check-out; cards are frequently declined at the check-out, causing anxiety, embarrassment and humiliation; and shop staff are unfamiliar with the new prepaid cards, unable to help or offer conflicting advice. We hope that those are teething problems and will reduce as stores become familiar with the cards, but it is troubling that the new scheme should have compounded poverty with stigma in this way.

Having said all that, I repeat my support for the Healthy Start scheme, but it could be so much more effective at reducing poverty and improving maternal and child nutrition if changes were made. I will conclude with some questions and suggestions for the Minister. First, sort out the helpline. I cannot understand the logic of a service that is intended to support low-income households imposing call charges that exacerbate family poverty. Healthy Start is not alone in that. It is high time that the Government carried out a comprehensive review of the cost of calls to helplines across Government that are specifically designed to enable people on low incomes to reach the services and benefits intended to help them, including Healthy Start. While I am on the subject, a review is needed of the data charges when accessing services online.

Next, deal with the delays—if necessary, by increasing helpline staff numbers to reduce waiting times. Will the Minister review the routing of calls depending on their nature, so that complex queries do not create bottlenecks that lead to long waits for other callers?

As I have said, eligibility for Healthy Start starts from the 10th week of pregnancy. In practice, however, the support takes effect from the date of a successful application, so an expectant or new mother who has only belatedly discovered that she is entitled to support will lose out. Does the Minister agree that support should take place from the 10th week of pregnancy in all cases, and be backdated if necessary? That would help those whose initial applications are rejected and who successfully reapply. Will the Minister look at what can be done to ensure that applicants are clear about the reason for refusal if their application is rejected?

As I have said, Healthy Start is available until a child is four, which leaves a gap of several months before children start school and may become eligible for free school meals. Will the Minister consider extending coverage until a child starts school? Will she look at the value of Healthy Start, at extending it further up the income scale—many claimants in receipt of universal credit are ineligible—and at automatic uprating, so that the value of the benefit keeps pace with inflation? The Co-operative Group topped up the value of the vouchers as families struggled during the pandemic. With the cost of living now rising so sharply, there is a need for the Government to act urgently.

Crucially, will the Minister urgently launch a vigorous and comprehensive national take-up campaign, working with local and regional government; retailers and industry bodies such as the Co-op and the Association of Convenience Stores, which work hard to promote the scheme among their members; charities, foodbanks and pantries such as the Bread and Butter Thing and Community Fridge; the advice sector; schools and family hubs; registrars in NHS settings; and organisations that provide support to new mums and pregnant women? There is good practice on which to build—for example, Kellogg’s is partnering with the Greater Manchester Poverty Action Group to run a pilot in four schools and colleges that gives parents access to a financial inclusion officer, who will be available in informal settings such as school breakfast clubs in order to offer parents advice on how to access benefits, including Healthy Start.

Finally, a more accessible application process would also help take-up, so will the Minister work with the Department for Work and Pensions to introduce a tick box as part of the universal credit application process, and with local authorities to introduce a similar tick box on applications for council tax support? Better still would be to introduce a system of automatic enrolment, as Feeding Britain has proposed—perhaps with the option to opt out—to replace the system that we have now, which requires parents to opt in. Is that something the Minister would consider?

I know the Minister takes the health and welfare of pregnant women and children very seriously. Healthy Start has an important role to play, and I hope she will find the suggestions that I have made this morning helpful. I look forward to her reply, and to hearing how she intends to take action to ensure the scheme does all that it has the potential to do to help children to thrive.

Protection for New Home Buyers

Debate between Kate Green and Jim Shannon

Thursday 16th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who does excellent work through the all-party parliamentary group on leasehold and commonhold reform. I will be saying a little more about the deficiencies of the warranty arrangements, including those provided by Premier, in a few moments.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The National House Building Council in Northern Ireland gives some guarantees to people who buy houses, although it may not always be able to have the enforcement powers that it would like to. Does the hon. Lady agree that there is also a responsibility on banks to intervene and help when it comes to mortgage repayments on a house that is not finished correctly?

[Kate Green]

I will say a little about mortgage lenders later in my speech.

The examples I have given the House are not isolated. Indeed, Mr Alexander is notorious for a number of poor-quality developments across Greater Manchester and beyond. But it appears that developers can continue to develop new properties that fail to meet buildings standards, sometimes to a dangerous degree, while avoiding taking any action to address defects in their previous developments. Local authorities lack resources for inspection and enforcement. They cannot take developers’ previous failures into account to refuse them planning permission for future applications. Unscrupulous developers are free to continue to build with impunity, while buyers are left without redress.

How can it be right that such poor-quality buildings can be constructed, sold and occupied? How on earth are they receiving building regulations certificates? Section 57(1) of the Building Act 1984 means that it is an offence “recklessly” to issue such certificates, but it seems that they are being issued for clearly substandard buildings. I wonder whether the Minister can tell the House how many successful convictions have been brought under this legislation, because I have not been able to identify a single example.

Faced with defects and developers’ refusals to rectify them, buyers may seek to rely on their buildings warranty cover, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) mentioned. But as my constituents have found, all too often that does not offer the protection they expect. Warranty providers are able to carry out a dual role as both approved inspector and warranty provider. That surely creates a conflict of interest. Insurers have an incentive to suppress knowledge of defects, particularly when they may give rise to very large claims. Exclusions to the cover often leave significant risk with the homeowner, so the inspector may not even bother to inspect every property in a development—arguably, there is insufficient incentive to do so.

Perhaps, therefore, we should not be surprised to hear from my hon. Friend about his constituents’ experiences with Premier Guarantee or that the main warranty provider in the UK, NHBC, told the all-party group in 2015 that of all the homeowners it covers, fewer than 5% contact NHBC with issues that result in a valid claim under the warranty. That does not of course tell us how many buyers try to claim under their warranty but are unsuccessful. It conceals the fact that warranty providers are extremely reluctant to rectify defects, as the onus will fall on them to recover the cost of doing so from the developer. Although defects the builder has failed or refused to deal with can be referred to NHBC’s resolution service, by which it decides which claims to accept or reject, New Build Guru suggests that house builders and NHBC routinely liaise directly with each other without notice or reference to the policyholder, and privately decide between them which claims will be accepted, thus avoiding both cost for the developer and the need for NHBC to incur expense to recover its costs from the builder.

For all practical purposes, a homeowner cannot challenge the warranty provider if it refuses to accept their claim. The reason for this, as one of my constituents has recently discovered, is that the resolution service is not a regulated insurance activity. If NHBC rejects a claim and the homebuyer wishes to challenge the refusal, the Financial Ombudsman Service has no jurisdiction to deal with such complaints. Homeowners may be able to complain to the Construction Industry Council, which regulates approved inspectors, but failing that their only option—mostly costly and impractical—is to go to law.

International Freedom of Religion or Belief Day

Debate between Kate Green and Jim Shannon

Thursday 25th October 2018 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for reminding us of that case. He is absolutely right. The stories in the press in the past few days have been horrendous. We have seen the establishment of what cannot be called anything other than stalags—concentration camps—where people are subjected in every way, emotionally and physically, to efforts to change their views. Those Uyghur Muslims are among the people we speak up for today. I chair the all-party group on international freedom of religion or belief, which speaks out for people of Christian faith, of other faiths and of no faith. I also chair the APPG on Pakistani minorities. I am particularly interested in the issue the hon. Gentleman mentions, and I thank him for doing so.

Closer to home—we should not take away from what is happening here—there has been a 40% increase in hate crime on the basis of religious belief in England and Wales, and it is reported that churches in occupied territories in Ukraine have been denied registration and declared illegal. I am sure hon. Members will discuss those issues in much more detail—I intend to give just a general introduction—but I raise them to highlight the grave importance of International Freedom of Religion or Belief Day. Now more than ever, we must come together to stand up for those who suffer intolerance and persecution.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. I fully agree with him about the importance of speaking out for people of all faiths, in all countries, who suffer persecution for their faith. Does he agree, though, that we should celebrate the strength of multi-faith communities that live together harmoniously and the contribution that different communities working collectively can make to improving all our lives?

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. It is good to remind ourselves that, around the world, many groups of different faiths celebrate together. On our visit to Pakistan, to which the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston will refer, we had an opportunity to encourage faiths to come together. It is important that we recognise, as I am sure everyone who will contribute to the debate does, that there is a need to understand that although we may have different religious faiths, there is nothing wrong with us coming together and appreciating each other’s faiths, thereby strengthening each other. It is important to do that.

British Citizenship Fees: Children

Debate between Kate Green and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 4th September 2018 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. I thank the Minister for attending this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) on securing it and on describing the current situation very well.

The consensus of opinion seems to be that we should look to the Minister for change. So far, everybody whom I have heard today—I presume that those who follow me will take a similar view—has said nothing other than that we have a system that appears to take advantage of many people financially. We believe that system must change.

I am very much of the opinion that it is the job of Government to provide a service for the good of the nation out of the reasonable taxes that are paid. I do not believe we are perfect in the way we collect taxes; I believe that members of the higher echelons, who can afford to pay a little more, manage to slip the noose. We rightly help those in lower-paid employment, and in the middle a growing number of people are now working in poverty; across the UK, there are 3 million people in working poverty who are just one pay cheque away from homelessness.

That is a part of the responsibility of tax; there is certainly an issue with how we are taxing the middle class beyond a level that they can bear. However, that is not the subject of today’s debate, although I will take this opportunity to highlight the fact that we need to learn lessons from placing excessive burdens on people, in any way that we can, including tightening up tax loopholes to prevent them from being used by big corporations.

Today’s debate focusses on the money raised by the fees charged to register children as British citizens, which is an issue I feel strongly about; indeed, it is the reason I am here in Westminster Hall today to support my friend and colleague, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, and others in what they are putting forward.

I do not expect any Government Department that is providing a service to non-British people to run at a loss. I also support those who call for non-British people to pay their NHS bills and I believe in a percentage of our GDP going to international development and aid; I support those policies entirely. However, there is a question as to how far our charity extends and I fully support a Department that makes charges to cover its costs.

However, that is not what is happening here, which is clearly quite different and clearly wrong. I hope that I have read something wrongly and that I will be corrected by the Minister—it costs approximately £372 in administration to process a registration, yet from 6 April we have been asking the very same people to pay £1,012. It is a long time since I did O-levels, or GCSEs, but my mathematics is just as good now as it was back at that time; some people say that my mathematics is not very good at all, but that is by the way.

Nevertheless, I can still trust my maths ability enough to know that these increased fees simply do not add up; we do not have to be an expert in maths at any level to understand that. Why are we charging 2.72 times the amount of money that it costs to run the system? Why does it seem appropriate to make almost 200% profit on this type of transaction? If that happened anywhere else, we would refer that place to the necessary ombudsman for racketeering. Indeed, in Northern Ireland somebody doing this could expect a visit from the Police Service of Northern Ireland, who would seek an explanation regarding exactly what the person was up to.

There should be a compassionate element, as these children are in a vulnerable position and should be helped to make the final steps to become British citizens. However, profit of this magnitude does not speak to me of compassion, so the Minister will understand our frustration when we speak about these matters and understand what we are gently trying to put to her, as she is the Minister responsible for this issue.

The Library briefing that some of us received before the debate says:

“Analysis published on the Free Movement website puts the profit made by the Home Office in the past five years at £94.24 million.”

My goodness. It went on to say:

“The Home Office accepted the methodology of that analysis but disputes that the money made represents a profit as it helps to fund the visa and borders systems.”

The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East referred to that in his speech. Although I clearly understand the rationale for that, the fact of the matter is that there is a fine line between good stewardship and exploitation. We have to look at what is happening here. Is it good stewardship or is it exploitation? I respectfully suggest to the Minister that it looks more like exploitation than good stewardship. The Department must seriously consider its position at this time. I understand that the immigration system loses money with each application that is returned to it and with each in-depth investigation that it makes. However, should two other applications be processed at the expense of a child’s application? I think not.

I am asking the Home Office to consider that point, and this debate gives me the opportunity to do just that. Personally, I believe that rather than giving children indefinite leave to remain, we should see these children—who do not even know their parents’ homeland—as British citizens and invest in them as British citizens, allowing them the absolute privilege of ticking the box marked “British citizen” and to consider themselves British—the greatest nationality label in the world.

Here in Westminster Hall today, we are all—all the parties that are represented—collectively saying that, too, and it is great that that is the case. I am overwhelmed by my hon. Friends and colleagues sitting on either side of me or in front of me who subscribe to the very same principle.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in relation to the support I receive in my office for work on immigration.

The hon. Gentleman refers to the indefinite leave to remain route, and he will be aware that until 2008 we had a special process, known as the children’s concession, for children who had lived in this country for seven years. Does he agree that if that were reinstated it might fast-track at least some of the children affected?

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady brings, as always, wise words and suggestions to the debate. The Minister will have heard her call, which I, and indeed others, endorse, and perhaps that is a methodology whereby her Department might be able to take the matter forward.

We talk often of community integration and of ensuring that we do not create countries and allegiances within our country. I believe that a way of controlling this from the cradle is ensuring that these children can be proud of their original culture and their heritage while also being proud to be British citizens. That is the true definition of integration, in my mind and in the minds of many, and it is what should be encouraged, rather than keeping children who know no other life than the British one at arm’s length and as somewhat second-class citizens.

I welcome the Minister to her place. I have always found her very responsive and helpful in any matters I have brought to her attention, and I appreciate that. I hope that she accepts the consensus in the debate—what we collectively would like to see happen in the days ahead in relation to this request. I understand that bills must be paid and I expect non-nationals to pay their way, but we should not ask them to pay someone else’s way as well. That is why I ask for a reconsideration and a more equitable dividing of the fee.

ME: Treatment and Research

Debate between Kate Green and Jim Shannon

Thursday 21st June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

We are always very pleased to support the hon. Lady’s proposals to the Backbench Business Committee.

This is an emotive issue. Many constituents have contacted me in anger, frustration and hurt as they simply feel that their illness is not understood and that successive Governments and some in the Department of Health and Social Care have shown no desire to gain an understanding—I say that respectfully, and I understand that some might say that healthcare is devolved. That is not the case for everyone, but it is certainly how many of my constituents have said that they feel.

We are fortunate to have a Minister who has a deep interest in this subject matter. He is in deep conversation with his Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), at the moment, but I am sure he will turn round shortly and be aware of my contribution. I am sure that he will respond constructively.

I want to thank MEAction, Action for ME, the ME Association, the ME Trust, Blue Ribbon for the Awareness of ME, the Centre for Welfare Reform, Forward-ME, ME Research UK, the Welsh Association of ME and CFS Support and Hope 4 ME Fibro NI in particular. All those organisations—there are lots of them—have furnished us with lots of information, and I thank them. I particularly thank one constituent, Sally Burch, who ensured that I had all the details and information to help me. She comes to see me regularly and fills me in on all the details.

ME is a chronic fluctuating neurological condition that causes symptoms that physically affect many bodily systems, commonly the nervous and immune systems, and affects an estimated 250,000 adults and children in the UK, as other hon. Members have said—it is not just an illness in adults. Approximately 7,000 people in Northern Ireland and about 17 million people worldwide have ME.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue of children with ME. It has an impact on their education because of the lack of access to consistently available home education where that is necessary. Does he agree that the Minister may want to take that up with his colleagues in the Department for Education?

Srebrenica Genocide Commemoration

Debate between Kate Green and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 5th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the support for the Srebrenica genocide commemoration.

I am very grateful for the opportunity to hold this short debate today, one week before the official anniversary commemoration of the terrible massacre that took place in July 1995 in Srebrenica. I begin by drawing the House’s attention to my interest in this matter. In October last year I visited Bosnia as the guest of the UK charity Remembering Srebrenica, and I am now a member of the charity’s north-west regional board. I know that other colleagues have also visited Bosnia with Remembering Srebrenica, and every single one of us who has done so has been profoundly affected by what we saw and heard there.

The House is familiar with the history of this terrible atrocity. In July 1995 Bosnian Serb forces overran and captured Srebrenica, a town that in 1993 had been declared a UN safe area. In the days after the fall of Srebrenica more than 8,000 Bosnian Muslim boys and men were separated from their families, systematically massacred and buried in mass graves—some after desperately trekking for days to seek safety. Many of those graves were then dug open again and the remains removed and scattered across new graves in a bid to hide the evidence of what had happened, leaving families with the agony of not knowing where their loved ones have been buried. Thousands of women, children and elderly people were forcibly deported, while throughout Bosnia between 20,000 and 50,000 women and girls suffered rape and sexual violence. The appalling events that took place at Srebrenica have rightly been characterised by international courts as genocide.

Serbian aggression and a determined process of ethnic cleansing in Bosnia lie at the root of this atrocity, but the international community also has charges to answer. UN troops responsible for protecting the safe area status of Srebrenica turned away thousands of Bosnian Muslims who had travelled there to seek their protection, in some cases delivering them directly into the hands of the Serb army. Then they ran away themselves. It is not surprising that the sense of having been let down by the international community is palpable in Bosnia, and not just in Srebrenica. Again and again, during my visit last year, Bosnians told me of their anger and bafflement at the US decision, in the autumn of 1995, to end NATO bombings of Serb positions in Sarajevo following the desperate siege that the city had endured since 1992, just as the Serbs were within days of being defeated.

The anger and hurt continues today because 22 years on families are still living with not only the horror of what they saw and experienced but the agony of losing their loved ones—still, in many cases, waiting desperately in the hope that their remains will be found and identified. I pay tribute to the work of the International Commission on Missing Persons, which continues its painstaking efforts to identify the victims.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

May I first congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate? In Northern Ireland we have a particular understanding of those who are missing and have never been found; therefore, this resonates clearly with us as elected representatives from Northern Ireland. Does she agree that the poignancy of last year’s memorial, where the bones of a further 127 victims were identified and then buried 21 years on, must live in our memories? Does she agree that this House and the Government must look to ensure that this never happens again, whether in Northern Ireland, Srebrenica or anywhere else in the world?

[Kate Green]

Yes, the hon. Gentleman and his fellow Northern Ireland compatriots have a particular understanding of the horror that occurs when violence and murder take place. He is right that we repeatedly fail to learn the lessons, and yet even in our own lifetimes we have examples close to home, in the Balkans and in Rwanda—around the world—that remind us of the lessons that we should take on board.

Persecution of Religious Minorities: Middle East

Debate between Kate Green and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 19th July 2016 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. friend for those salient words. It is important to make sure that any trade or assistance given through DFID or by other means is subject to accountability. It is good to have that on the record.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate, which I know many of my constituents are following closely. Does he agree that the UK can use its authority to ensure that there is respect for human rights and for political and civil rights in Syria, Iraq and the wider middle east? We must ensure that enforcement of the international covenant on civil and political rights is seen as a fundamental that we expect to be upheld in countries to which we are offering aid and support.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for those wise words. That is exactly what this debate is about: the opportunity to consider human rights in the countries to which she referred and throughout the middle east. We will mention some others in the course of the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We all would concur with what he said, and we thank him for his intervention and for reminding us.

It is good sometimes to look where the story is beyond the headline stories and the media. The real story of Turkey is suppression, the denial of human rights and deliberate discrimination against other ethnic and religious groups. We have to look beyond the 6,000 people who have been arrested and the coup that failed because people did not want it and turn our attention to what will happen off the back of it.

The Department for International Development already works with faith communities to eradicate poverty, but I urge it to ensure that, where aid is provided or contracts are awarded overseas, those things are channelled to civil society organisations and Government programmes that can demonstrate a sophisticated understanding of freedom of religion or belief and how their work will have a positive rather than a negative impact. That will not only help DFID’s November 2015 strategic objective to strengthen global peace, security and governance but will help achieve sustainable development goal 16, which is to secure peace, security and global justice.

The all-party group for international freedom of religion or belief this year brought out another document entitled “Fleeing Persecution: Asylum Claims in the UK on Religious Freedom Grounds”, which I intend to speak about, because the motion we are debating is about the

“persecution of religious minorities in the Middle East and its effect on the UK”.

We need to look at how can we help influence what is happening in the middle east and best ensure that those coming here also have the opportunity to have their freedom.

[Kate Green]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Home Office’s approach to applications for asylum from some of these persecuted minorities is crass and clumsy? There is a need for much greater training of Home Office staff so that simplistic approaches to assessing whether people have suffered religious persecution are abandoned and so that we have a much subtler understanding of the trauma and why people might find it difficult when they apply to express what happened to them.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady is very much tuned into the report, because it says that. Before the debate started, I spoke to the Minister and made him aware of the 10 points that we asked to be considered. I do not want to trivialise the work that the Home Office does on asylum seekers, but some of the questions are almost a Bible trivia quiz. People are asked, “Can you tell us the books of the New Testament?” or, “Can you tell us the names of the 12 apostles?” Let us be honest: some of us in this room might be challenged to do that.

Child Poverty

Debate between Kate Green and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 15th September 2015 Westminster Hall

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure, Mr Howarth, to respond to this debate and to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) on introducing it this afternoon.

As the debate has proceeded, we have understood the complexity and multi-layering that is intrinsic in child poverty, but we should also recognise that we know what works to tackle it. Looking at the track record and progress that was made under Labour Governments between 1997 and 2010, I am proud that we saw huge progress with more than 1 million children in the UK lifted out of poverty.

We know what led to that massive reduction in child poverty. As the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire acknowledged, it was in no small measure due to the effectiveness of tax credits, and to the rise in employment, particularly the employment of lone parents, which increased from 44% in the mid-1990s to approaching 60% when we entered this decade.

None the less and despite that progress, today, as we have heard, 3.7 million children in this country live in relative poverty. Perhaps even more depressing, since 2011-12, progress to reduce that number further has stalled. There was no progress whatever under the coalition Government after 2011-12, and the prediction is that under this Parliament, we will start to see a substantial rise in child poverty. None of us can be satisfied or complacent about that.

We have, rightly, heard a lot about the importance of measuring child poverty and having meaningful targets for tracking and tackling progress. At one time, there was cross-party consensus on the importance of measuring relative income poverty and targets for its reduction, but that consensus has broken down between the parties. It seems to have broken down in the Prime Minister’s mind—we have heard him say that he is in favour of targets and measuring and addressing relative poverty, and that he is not and believes that that is irrelevant. We have heard that the Government intend in the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, which is now being debated in Committee, to remove the targets altogether and no longer to set that hard ambition for us to improve our performance. I cannot help feeling—the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) hinted at this—that that is motivated by fear that the targets will not be met, fear that the position will worsen and fear that the Government will be held to account, as they should be.

We know the importance of having targets and an agreed definition of poverty. Targets drive action. They drive progress and they allow for comparisons that show the direction of travel and the trends, and enable us to compare ourselves with our international peers. No one would pretend that child poverty in this country is like child poverty in some of the poorest economies of the world, but the measures in the Child Poverty Act 2010 have presented a very useful picture that has enabled us to compare performance here with the best performing countries in Europe. Indeed, that was the ambition. It was not to eliminate child poverty to zero, because we all recognise the existence of frictional poverty, but to be at the level of the best in Europe. Until the arrival of the coalition Government, we were on track to achieve that.

It may be that recognition of the importance of targets is why in 2013, when the Government consulted on changing or abolishing the targets, 97% of those who responded said there was no need for any change, so it is highly regrettable that there are proposals from Ministers today to do something that has been roundly rubbished by all the respondents to that consultation. I am shocked by the lack of notice that the Government have taken.

We also heard today, rightly, about the importance and centrality of income in defining, measuring and tackling child poverty. Indeed, Kitty Stewart of the London School of Economics has shown that income is the single most significant factor and indicator of poor outcomes for children across a whole range of measures, including educational attainment and poor health. We also know that poverty has a cost to society as a whole. Estimates by the Child Poverty Action Group suggest that the cost to society of failing to tackle child poverty is £29 billion a year.

In recognition of the intrinsic link between low income and poor outcomes for children, the Child Poverty Act 2010, which received cross-party consensus, covered not just income poverty and did not require measures only on income poverty, but also required strategies on, for example, education, health, parental employment, debt and parenting. All those are associated with high levels of child poverty, but they are not the same as child poverty and it is important not to confuse the two.

None the less, one of my regrets about the abolition of much of the 2010 Act is that we will lose the requirement to produce those strategies. This morning, we heard in the Standing Committee considering the Welfare Reform and Work Bill—the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire may have repeated this this afternoon—that the intention in Scotland is to continue to produce that strategy and I understand from this morning’s evidence session with witnesses that that is also the case in Wales. However, there is no expectation that that will happen in England. Ministers will not expect local authorities to produce comprehensive strategies to address child poverty. If I am wrong about that, I shall be very pleased to hear it and I hope that the Minister will be able to contradict my assertion this afternoon.

We know that the Government know that income is important. Their own evidence review in 2014 showed that it was the most important factor, and not just, as we have heard today, that low income arises because families are out of work, but when there is insufficient income from earnings. It was right for hon. Members to point out this afternoon the absolute inadequacy and insufficiency of measuring only worklessness when two thirds of children in poverty are growing up in working households. We know the reasons for that. They are not laziness on the part of those parents, but poorly paid jobs, lack of access to flexible jobs that can be combined with family responsibilities, high child care costs, high housing costs and ill health. The need to care for a family member suffering ill health or their own ill health curtails employment chances.

[Jim Shannon]

I mentioned during my contribution the effect on those on low incomes of buying cheaply because it is better financially for their pocket, but that affects their diet and health. Does the hon. Lady believe that we should also address that issue?

[Kate Green]

The hon. Gentleman made a useful contribution on the poverty premium: that the poor pay more for the basics. He now adds another important dimension: that lack of income means that the poorest in our society are unable to afford to have the quality of life that protects health, wellbeing and social participation.

The critique of measures on which the Government are relying to underpin their rejection of the Child Poverty Act 2010 is simply wrong. Let us remember that it is not that the income measure in the Act does not capture the full picture of poverty. There is not one income poverty measure, but four to give us a rounded view. It is important to continue to measure relative income poverty, which we expect to rise. None the less, Ministers should be grateful for the four measures in the 2010 Act because it is possible that at the same time as seeing a rise in relative income poverty, we may see a fall in absolute poverty in the next few years. If median wages rise, but benefits are frozen or rise only with prices, we will see a rise in relative poverty. Conversely, absolute poverty could fall if benefits rise in line with the consumer prices index. It is important for Ministers to recognise that we have a good mix of measures in the 2010 Act, which would enable them to point to the complexity of the picture, rather than rejecting the Act on the misleading grounds that it measures relative poverty alone.

We have no analysis yet of the impact on child poverty of the measures in either the Welfare Reform and Work Bill or the others announced in the summer Budget, some of which we are debating this afternoon. However, we know that the impact of those measures will not be felt in the same way across all family types and structures. Lone parents, couples with several children and those with high housing costs will be hit particularly hard.

As we have heard this afternoon, it is important also to understand that the effect of the so-called national living wage will not wholly compensate for the cuts that are being made. Indeed, the cuts are particularly perverse when we consider that many of them are to in-work benefits, increasing, not reducing work disincentives. I am quite at a loss to understand why Ministers think that is a sensible way to proceed.

There is also a massive amount of ignorance about the purpose of different policy instruments to tackle poverty. Everybody welcomes higher minimum pay. Of course it is right that people should be paid properly for the work that they do, and of course it is right that the taxpayer should not subsidise low-pay economies, although we should recognise that achieving a minimum income standard for some families from earnings alone would simply drive businesses out of business. We have heard the projections that even a national living wage may lead to the loss of some tens of thousands of jobs. That is why, in addition to measures to tackle low pay, it is important to invest in tax credits, because many low-paid people who will benefit from the increase in the national living wage may not live in poor households. Conversely, many of those who are going to receive the national living wage will not be lifted out of poverty by that alone, because of their family and household structure and size. Therefore, it is important that we proceed on both fronts, and we cannot expect, at the lower end of the labour market, for wages alone to lift all families out of poverty.

Income poverty is crucial, and the Government’s analysis of the limitations of the Child Poverty Act and the limited approach that they will take to address rising family poverty, frankly, are simply wrong. It is regrettable that, with so much evidence before us and such a long history of having seen what works and what does not, Ministers are so uninterested in looking at the facts and the evidence, and instead insist on pursuing an ideology that will cause hardship for many, and, for the most vulnerable, destitution, the likes of which we have not seen for two decades.

British Airways (Pensions Uprating)

Debate between Kate Green and Jim Shannon

Monday 14th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her intervention and I hope to do justice to the concerns of her constituents, my constituents and indeed, as is very evident from the turnout for this debate, those of right hon. and hon. Members from right across the House. I had intended to mention a number of the hon. Members who have approached me about this evening’s debate, but I can see that so many are interested and so I will curtail that part of my speech.

As I have indicated, on 31 March 2014 there were 95,486 pensioners in two separate BA pension schemes—28,144 in APS and 67,342 in NAPS. The matter before us tonight therefore affects a substantial number of people, some on very modest pensions—the average pension in APS is about £14,000 per annum and in NAPS it is about £12,000 per annum—and has what Captain Post has described as a “complex history”, going back to 1948, when APS was established. That scheme contained several unique features, including a unilateral trustee power of amendment and a no-worsening clause. Six trustees were appointed by the employer and six were elected by the members. Amendments required two thirds of trustees to ratify them; employer approval was not required.

In 1973, in return for substantial increases in contributions, members were invited to transfer to APS part 6 to enjoy unlimited inflation protection. In 1984, APS closed to new entrants, pending privatisation of BA, and NAPS was established.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The interest here in the House gives an indication of the interest among our constituents, too. Does the hon. Lady agree that given BA’s financial position with its pension scheme, with liabilities of £29.2 billion and assets of £29.3 billion, a move to de-risking would have made more sense and may have provided a greater surplus for the company and for the pension?

[Kate Green]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I shall be developing that point further in my speech.

As I say, in 1984, pending privatisation, APS was closed and NAPS was established. BA went to considerable trouble at that time to inform existing APS pensioners of their options. I have here a copy of a staff newsletter from January 1984, which my constituent Mr Jones, an APS pensioner, has given to me. The newsletter, which includes a personal statement from Colin Marshall, then chief executive of BA, describes the details of the new scheme compared with the existing APS. It explains that APS pensioners can either choose to join NAPS, and receive a cash payment or extra pensionable years if they choose to do so, or to remain in the existing scheme. It states that the two schemes will be independent of one another, will not subsidise one another and will each be governed by their own scheme rules. It then describes the differences between the two schemes in relation to contribution rates, pension age, pensionable pay and, crucially for this debate, index linking.

Adult Autism Strategy

Debate between Kate Green and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 5th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend and colleague for clearly setting out the issue for the bodies responsible for helping parents. The parents I mentioned came to me about parenting skills, and they got the help, by the way, which was good. They told me what a blessing these classes were. That is why I am happy to stand with my colleagues today and highlight the needs of sufferers of autism and their families.

I am familiar with the care of one autistic young man. Many hon. and right hon. Members here have personal knowledge of such situations, and I hope that some of them will have a chance to contribute to this debate. That young man’s parents do everything for him: they dress him, cook for and feed him, clean, bathe and toilet him, amuse him, and hug, kiss and love him. He depends on his parents entirely for his every need. When he is at his day classes, they do the washing, ironing, cleaning, and shopping and try to find time to work to pay the bills at the same time.

The pressure on the parents and on the family unit is greater because of the problems and behavioural issues related to the autism of their child. They love their son—that is never in dispute—but love is not enough to get the family through the sheer exhaustion and the emotional and mental strain. Sometimes help is needed on matters outside of parental skills—through social services, for example, giving a bit of respite. Difficulties in the benefits system are practical issues for parents and those with adult autism; they relate to how parents can help their child through the school years and into the early years of adult life. It is up to the community and us as elected representatives to step up to the plate and help that boy and his parents. We can do that by supporting them and offering them the best that our society can do to ensure that they do not reach the point of no return.

We can all relate to the story of Susan Boyle, who has Asperger’s syndrome, which is also autism. She found out that she had it later in life. After she was diagnosed, she said that she almost felt relieved to know, after all those years, what was wrong and why she was different. That is a practical example of how someone the nation knows has been affected. She said what she said because she felt it was important that other people knew that autism cannot and will not hold people back, but they need help to get along. That is the thrust of this debate.

[Kate Green]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need to raise awareness across society of the circumstances of adults with autism? For example, a young man in my constituency, looked after by his parents in the way that the hon. Gentleman describes, got severely into debt because he did not understand what financial services companies were saying when they were pushing credit cards and loans on him. Does he agree that educating the business community, neighbours and community groups, and everyone in society, about how adults with autism respond and cope would protect people and prevent those things from happening?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for her valuable contribution. Yes, I agree; I think all hon. and right hon. Members would. Churches have intervened to help in a number of complex cases in my constituency. What is not complex for us is complex for people with autism. There is a clear role to be played in that regard. Only 15% of adults with autism are in full-time employment; again, that results from some of the issues that they suffer from, including epilepsy, sleep disturbance and mental health problems. Many out there are trying to help and assist.

I ought to give a Northern Ireland perspective, because we have done good, helpful work there, health being a devolved matter. The Minister is aware of that good work because he has visited a number of times. Perhaps he might comment on that in his response.

The Northern Ireland Assembly put in place the Autism Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, which is the most comprehensive autism and single disability legislation in the whole of Europe. The need to do something was recognised at an early stage, as was the fact that the power was there to do it within the devolved Administration, and that was done. It is the first legislation in Northern Ireland requiring by law all Departments to plan and work together on the delivery of the strategy. The cross-governmental attitude that the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham requested is there. My hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) and the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), who both intervened on me, have confirmed that that should happen. Departments worked together on the delivery of a strategy. No cross-Department barriers are allowed at all. When we say “comprehensive”, we mean it. I am delighted that the debate is calling for such a strategy.

Autism Northern Ireland was at the centre of the campaign for the Autism Act (Northern Ireland) with its grass-roots campaign. There was no money or external lobby company—just hard work, and determination to make it happen and to gain support from all parties, which was forthcoming. It had autism ambassadors—health and education party spokespersons—to build up expertise on issues of concern. It also formed a partnership with Autism Cymru, which was already working with the Welsh Government on implementing a Wales autism strategy. That was the foundation of the Celtic Nations Autism Partnership—Celtic as in “keltic”, and certainly not “seltic”. No offence to any Celtic supporters who might be here, of course. That is a partnership with the autism societies of Scotland and the Republic of Ireland, which has led to initiatives in the USA. The CNAP and Members of the Legislative Assembly visited the US Congress and the European Parliament.

When we say that the approach is comprehensive, we are talking about looking across Europe and the world; examples were considered and discussions took place. That led to the Autism Act (Northern Ireland). A partnership was initiated with Autism-Europe and MEPs to develop a comprehensive and well-thought-out European autism strategy.

In 2012, I highlighted the difference between the Autism Act (Northern Ireland) and the English Autism Act 2009: the Northern Ireland Act is equality-driven and lifelong-focused. Perhaps the Minister will indicate whether the Government are trying to achieve in England the equality and lifelong focus that we have in Northern Ireland through the Autism Act (Northern Ireland) 2011. That Act amends our disability discrimination legislation, too, to include those with social communication disabilities such as autism. That supersedes the Great Britain Equality Acts, which only give recognition and guidance in primary legislation. That is significantly different from how we did it back home, where we have attempted to address adult autism.

I again thank the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham for securing the debate. She, like me and everyone else in the Chamber, sees the gaps in the strategy and the need to enhance provision by including an adult strategy. I have raised today the cases of a young girl and a young adult male. The strain on families grows greater with time as the child becomes an adult and more difficult to handle. The legislation should be amended to provide more state help.

Organ Transplants

Debate between Kate Green and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 17th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Last week was national transplant week, and the NHS highlighted an important campaign to increase organ donation. Donor rates have, pleasingly, increased by 50% since 2008, but although almost every one of us would accept a donated organ if we needed a transplant, only 57% of relatives agree to organs being retrieved. However, that proportion rockets to 95% if the deceased has discussed his or her wishes in advance with family members. Some 19.7 million of us are on the organ donor register, but three people still die each day while waiting for a transplant, so I wholeheartedly support the efforts of NHS Blood and Transplant to increase the number of organs donated. I add my voice to those who advocate an opt-out scheme.

Having met and talked to transplant survivors, I can testify to the immense gratitude that they feel to donors who have literally given them a new lease of life, but donation is only half the story. Although the selection and allocation of organs for transplant is much less widely discussed, it is also a complex and controversial issue.

A few weeks ago, I met my constituent, 18-year-old Natalie McCusker, who had been on the waiting list for a lung transplant for 19 months. She described to me what it is like to live in a state of limbo waiting for a suitable transplant. She has been too unwell to go to school, although her school arranged for her to participate in classes via Skype. She wanted to study sciences, but could not because oxygen cylinders and science experiments do not mix. As a young girl, she had enjoyed and been very good at sport, but that has become impossible since she became too ill. The effects on her family have also been profound; for example, her mum has taken a five-year career break.

Natalie was first told that she would need a transplant when she was 15. She initially hoped it would be carried out at Great Ormond Street children’s hospital, but people transfer to the adult register at the age of 16, so she was advised to delay transplant surgery until she moved to the adult list.

When Natalie first moved on to the adult system, she was able to access treatments that are deemed unsuitable for children. At first her condition improved, but seven weeks after taking her GCSEs, she became much more unwell. She was eventually listed for a transplant in November 2011. I completely accept that there are different clinical demands when treating children and adults, and that there is a need for separate systems. However, from the patient’s point of view, it seems that the transition may lengthen waiting times, and it also means that a new relationship of trust and confidence must be built up between the patient and new teams of clinicians.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for bringing the matter to the House. I have a particular interest in organ transplants and donation because I have carried a card since I have been able to do so. In Northern Ireland, we carried out about eight transplant operations in 2008, but now in 2013 we carry out more than 50 a year—almost one a week. That has happened not only because those who carry the card pass on their organs when they die, but because we have the largest number of live donors in the whole of the United Kingdom—far above the average for England and Wales. If more effort was made on live donors, it could help to address the problem faced by the hon. Lady’s constituent. The evidence from Northern Ireland indicates that the longer one is on a donor list, the less one’s health deteriorates, so perhaps the Minister will address that point when she responds to the debate.

[Kate Green]

I note with interest what the hon. Gentleman says and I am sure that the Minister will want to respond to that point. Obviously, we would want to explore all methods of increasing the number of donor organs available. We should bear it in mind that one person may donate up to nine organs following their death.

I was talking about the crucial importance of a sense of trust and confidence between patients and clinicians. For a course of treatment as massive and life-changing as transplant surgery, that is certainly no trivial matter. I cannot suggest any easy answer to that, but my first point to the Minister is to ask her to consider ways in which the disruption of the transition process between childhood treatment and the adult list could be minimised, with a particular interest in ensuring that waiting times are not extended unnecessarily.

There are other concerns relating to the allocation of organs for those on the waiting list. The current process for allocating hearts and lungs for transplant is based on dividing the country into a number of zones. That means that if someone lives in one zone and a suitable organ becomes available in another, they might not receive it simply because they are on the wrong waiting list. In following a rigid zonal approach, important considerations of equity across the country could be neglected. A patient can be registered on only one list, and the result can be a postcode lottery for treatment.

Patients in my region, the north-west—it is your region, too, Mr Deputy Speaker—wait the longest in the country for lung transplants: over 400 days in Manchester, compared with under 200 in Cambridge. According to a written answer I received from the Minister on 15 May, between April 2008 and March 2011 62.2% of patients in the north-west waited more than six months for a lung transplant, compared with an England average of 47.3%, and 23.2% of patients in the north-west waited more than 18 months for such a transplant, compared with an England average of 15.8%. The north-west also has among the highest death rates for those on the waiting list for a lung transplant—between 20% and 30%.

I believe that we need to look again at the operation of the zonal system so as to get the balance right between the underlying issues of urgency, geographical proximity between donors and recipients, and waiting times. The most urgent cases should clearly take priority. One approach could be to treat urgent cases on a national basis and, if no urgent case exists, to allocate on a zonal basis. If that approach were adopted, zones would need to be more dynamic. In other words, if the waiting list grew the zone would also expand to give access to more organs.

More radically, we could move to a fully national allocation system, whereby patients could be matched with suitable organs across the country. I recognise that geographical considerations are of course important, not least if the ischemia time, the time between organ retrieval and transplant, is integral to the success of the operation. For heart transplants, in particular, it very often is, and the system for heart transplants in fact appears to work effectively. That seems to be much less true for lung transplants. Equity is also a consideration. It is of course important to have regard to the interests of those who have been on the waiting list the longest, and that really should not be dependent on where someone lives and which list they are on.

I understand that the NHS is now considering whether to move to a national registration system, which would be fairer to patients in regions such as ours. In the US and much of Europe this approach has already been adopted or is being considered. The evidence suggests that it could achieve greater equity without any increase in mortality rates, or indeed cost.

So what is the block? Inertia and convenience undoubtedly play a part. I acknowledge that there is already better sharing of organs between zones when a suitable match cannot be achieved within a zone, but it seems that some transplant centres might be more interested in building up the scale of their own activities rather than progressing the idea of a national scheme that could deliver greater equity for all patients. Progress towards delivering a national list scheme in this country is proving painfully slow.

What steps are being taken to make progress towards a more equitable national scheme of allocation, and what is the Minister’s attitude to the development of such a scheme? What work, if any, is being done to develop a national approach, and over what time scale might progress be expected? How best can we make use of technology and the sharing of data to facilitate the allocation of organs between zones? What learning and best practice can be adopted from other countries? What incentives would encourage a more equitable system of allocation between transplant centres and protect or improve outcomes for patients?

I am very pleased to report that Natalie had a successful lung transplant two weeks ago. She is growing stronger every day and it is hoped that she will be well enough to return home next week. She and her family are of course absolutely delighted and hugely appreciative of the treatment she received from the transplant team at Wythenshawe hospital. However, for 19 months, while waiting for her transplant, her life was put on hold. Perhaps that wait could have been shorter if she had not been restricted to a single zonal waiting list. Yesterday she wrote to me to say how pleased she is that this debate is taking place in Parliament, which she says she hopes will help “to achieve something that will in future benefit the thousands of people that will need life saving transplants.”

I hope that the Minister will be prepared to commit tonight to working towards a national system of organ allocation that offers equity of access to organs for transplantation and rapid progress towards achieving this. I am very grateful for the opportunity to raise this matter and look forward to her response.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Debate between Kate Green and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green]

I am disappointed in that question. Secular and humanist are not the same. I am not a humanist. I would want a purely secular ceremony were I to be marrying, but others want a ceremony that reflects their beliefs. Humanism is recognised as a strand of belief. A ceremony to accommodate that deep-held feeling has to be organised and provided if we are to meet the legitimate desires of our humanist friends and neighbours.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Lady will be well aware of my opinions and views on this matter. In Committee evidence, there was among the Churches and other religious organisations an overwhelming majority opposed to humanist weddings. Is she saying we should ignore that vast strand of public opinion—the many millions of people who oppose this—in favour of a small minority?

[Kate Green]

With the greatest respect, I do not think the hon. Gentleman has any evidence whatever that millions of people are opposed to this proposal.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kate Green]

No, not until I have dealt with the question fully. I do not believe the hon. Gentleman has evidence of millions of Church members opposing this proposal. I fully accept that there is quite likely to be a lack of enthusiasm among those at the top of the Church hierarchy, but I would not necessarily take even that for granted in all cases. Many people, including people of faith, attend humanist weddings, and value and celebrate their participation in them, either as family or friends.

Induced Abortion

Debate between Kate Green and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) on securing the debate. I am pleased to speak in this debate, and my position will become very clear. I believe in human rights. I believe in the most basic of human rights, the right to life, so I am against abortion. I believe that the strong have a duty to protect the weak and the vulnerable. It is that protection that I seek to uphold, and that is why I am here to speak on this matter.

I begin by stating clearly that I am against abortion, except in the extreme case in which it is done to save the life of the mother. Statistics show that Northern Ireland, which has a restrictive abortion law, has the lowest maternal death rate in the whole of the United Kingdom. That is backed up by the fact that the Republic of Ireland has almost the lowest maternal death rate in Europe, and has no legislation that allows abortion. The UK mainland, with its more liberal abortion law, has a higher rate of maternal deaths. That speaks volumes, and it is clear that restricted abortion to save the mother’s life, which we have in Northern Ireland, works well to save both mother and child.

If there was the option of bringing in Northern Ireland’s abortion laws, I would be pleading with everyone in this House to do just that. I have been contacted by the Christian Medical Fellowship, which states things clearly. Today’s debate is calling for a small reduction in the upper time limit for legal abortions. That will affect approximately 2,000 abortions that are carried out for social reasons—I use the phrase “social reasons”, because that is why they are happening—out of a total of nearly 200,000 abortions per year. It will not prevent the abortion of babies with foetal abnormality up to term.

This issue is emotive. A large number of people have contacted me and asked me to watch the scans of a 20-week-old baby to remind me of the humanity behind our decisions. When I look at a baby at 20 weeks’ gestation sucking its thumb, having the hiccups, crying and blinking, it is beyond me how anyone in good conscience, in this House or outside, could say that it is fine to rip away life at this stage. It is not fine. It is never going to be fine. A 2008 study by University college London found that survival rates were more than 70% for babies born between 22 and 25 weeks when high-quality care was available.

[Kate Green]

It is really important that we are accurate about these figures. At 24 and 25 weeks, survival rates improve a lot, but at 20 to 24 weeks, survival rates are very low: zero at 20 weeks; 1% at 22 weeks; and 11% at 23 weeks. It is wrong to imply that at under 24 weeks, we have survival rates of 75%.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but life is life as far as I am concerned; that is where I am coming from.

The survival of more than 70% of babies born between 22 and 25 weeks when high-quality care is available blows away the argument that a baby can be aborted until it is viable at 24 weeks. Recently, in America, a baby of 21 weeks responded to stimulus, crying and smiling, so there is evidence that shows clearly that it can happen. All the things that we associate with life are in evidence before the time of so-called viability.

I will give the example of a young girl from my constituency. A friend of mine had a grandchild who, they were warned, would not survive as she was so premature. The family prayed hard, and asked for all possible treatment to sustain the baby’s life. Today, Zoe-Lee is 13 years of age and is the light of her parents’ life. It is scary to think that if an abortion had been allowed at that time, that young girl would not be here today.

The question that has been posed to me by members of the medical fraternity is: how much longer can we justify doctors desperately—the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire referred to this as well—trying to save premature babies born at 23 weeks, while down the corridor in the same hospital, another doctor is aborting a 23-week baby, which is perfectly healthy, for social reasons?

A 24-week upper limit in the UK is outdated and out of line with other EU countries. In 2008, our 24-week upper limit was double the 12-week limit for most EU countries. Some 16 out of 27 other European countries had a gestational limit of 12 weeks or less, so if we want to be in line with other countries that have high standards, then let us do that.

Ask any woman who has miscarried a baby in early term—at, say, at 12 weeks—and she will tell you that she saw its perfectly formed fingers and toes, its spine and head, and that wee face. For me, it is almost unimaginable to take it from the womb at this stage, never mind any later, and to ask any general practitioner to do this is grossly unfair. I am no man’s judge, and I feel for those women who have felt that they had no other option than to take this step.

Rickets

Debate between Kate Green and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 4th September 2012 Westminster Hall

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I am very pleased to have been given the opportunity of and time for this debate and to introduce it with you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I start by acknowledging two Manchester GPs, Dr Hans-Christian Raabe and Dr Avril Danczak, who came to see me some months ago to draw my attention to the shocking rise in the incidence of rickets in this country over the past 15 years. A written answer that I received on 9 November 2011 contained figures showing that the number of reported cases of rickets had risen from 183 in 1995-96 to 762 in 2010-11. Earlier this year, it was reported that the chief medical officers of the UK had contacted health professionals to highlight the need for vitamin D supplements for at-risk groups. Therefore, the issue is clearly one of concern. I welcome the steps that the Government have taken so far to deal with it, but more needs to be done.

Rickets is a disease that affects the growing of bone in children and is associated with moderate vitamin D insufficiency. It is mainly characterised by deformed bones, bone pain, convulsions and delayed development, particularly in relation to height rather than weight. Current Government guidance is that most people can get all the vitamin D that they need by eating a healthy balanced diet and getting some sun. However, it is not at all clear that that advice is adequate. The national diet and nutrition survey found that 90% of people in the UK do not get enough vitamin D from their diets, and there is widespread confusion in the public mind about what constitutes an appropriate amount of exposure to sunshine.

Certain groups have particularly high levels of vitamin D deficiency. They include pregnant and breastfeeding women and their babies, young children, elderly people, those who are not exposed to much sun—perhaps because they cannot get out of the house or because they cover up their skin for cultural reasons—and people with darker skin pigmentations, such as those of African, African-Caribbean or Asian origin. Levels of air pollution may also have an impact on sunshine exposure levels, and there is certainly a gradient of rising incidence of vitamin D deficiency as we move north across the UK, so it is clearly a concern in the north-west region, where my constituency is located. When one member of a family has a vitamin D deficiency, it is also likely to be replicated among siblings and children.

It is therefore clear that steps need to be taken to deal with vitamin D deficiency in quite large sections of the population. I am pleased that the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition is examining the issue, but it is not due to report until 2014, and it is likely that any recommendations made by the committee could take time to implement in any event. However, there are things that can and should be done now, not least in terms of informing and educating the public and health professionals.

A recent study by the clinical effectiveness unit at Stockport NHS Foundation Trust highlighted a quite surprising lack of awareness among health professionals about vitamin D. That study, across eight acute and six primary care trusts in the north-west, found quite poor knowledge among midwives and health visitors surveyed. Only 24% of health visitors and just 11% of midwives reported having had training in vitamin D supplementation. As a result, they felt less confident in discussing vitamin D with pregnant women and mothers, vitamin D was poorly promoted at the booking of appointments and 90% of the women were not provided with information about vitamin D. However, the study found that where trusts had good policies or expert personnel in place, staff reported greater confidence in discussing vitamin D and more women received verbal and written advice.

Last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) hosted an event in Parliament, in conjunction with the Proprietary Association of Great Britain—the UK trade association for manufacturers of over-the-counter medicines and food supplements—at which it was suggested that doctors, nurses and pharmacists receive very little nutritional training at undergraduate level and that there is no obligation for health professionals to undertake such training once in practice. Therefore, I would like first to ask the Minister to comment on the steps that the Government are taking or planning to improve training, awareness and knowledge among health care professionals. I would also like to ask what steps are being taken to raise awareness among the wider pool of professionals working with families and children, and what discussions the Minister and colleagues in the Department may have had with Ministers in the Department for Education to ensure that staff in schools, Sure Start workers, child care professionals and so on are aware of the importance of vitamin D.

There are also concerns about financial incentives. I have looked at the quality and outcomes framework for GPs, and there is a lack of a clear financial incentive for GPs to address their patients’ nutritional needs. Will the Minister say what steps are being taken to develop the quality and outcomes framework to focus more GP attention on nutrition and vitamin D intake, and how she expects that that framework will be kept under review?

I come now to the question of vitamin supplements, which the Department of Health recommends for at-risk groups—the groups I mentioned in my opening remarks—and which are available free of charge to certain low-income families via the Healthy Start programme. However, that targeted approach has resulted in only very limited uptake, which unpublished PCT data suggest could be as low as 2% to 4%. Clearly, many at-risk families are missing out on the recommended vitamin D supplements; and although some families may obtain supplements, from over-the-counter sources, that can be expensive and the dosage may be inappropriate. I would be interested in the Government’s attitude to allowing food supplement manufacturers greater freedom to develop and market a wider range of vitamin D products, targeted at different population groups. I would also welcome the Minister’s view on how the European Food Safety Authority might make it easier for manufacturers to make legitimate claims about the role of vitamin D in good bone health.

I particularly hope that the Minister will consider a report published online, on 21 August, by the British Medical Journal that considers an initiative by the Heart of Birmingham PCT to provide universal vitamin D supplementation to all children from the age of two weeks to five years and to all pregnant and breastfeeding women. That provision of supplements was supported by a programme of continuing professional education of health staff, including GPs, health visitors, midwives, pharmacists, paediatricians and obstetricians and by a public communications campaign. In that initiative, uptake of vitamin D supplements rose year on year to reach 17% among children and pregnant women. That was still low, but considerably higher than the 2% to 4% achieved under Healthy Start. Public awareness of vitamin D also rose from just over 60% to nearly 90%, and a 59% fall was recorded in the number of cases of vitamin D deficiency.

Clearly, there are some important lessons to be learned from the Birmingham initiative. Although some problems were experienced with distribution through the NHS supply chain, limited opening hours at pharmacies and so on, and with the availability of trained staff, the initiative was very successful overall in reaching a considerable number of families who might be at particular risk of vitamin D deficiency by virtue of ethnicity, skin pigmentation or lifestyle, but would not be eligible for free supplements.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this matter to Westminster Hall today. I am of an age group, and others in the House may be of a similar age, that can remember that when we went out to play at school lunchtime, the milk was on the table when we came in. Is there a role for the Department of Health in the education of children to ensure that children’s health is better monitored and supervised?

[Kate Green]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Health professionals, and other professionals from across different disciplines, have pointed to the absence of a holistic approach that draws different practitioners and professionals together to ensure that the message is promoted and the education of children and families is pursued coherently.

The absence of trained staff was certainly seen as a factor that limited the effectiveness of the Birmingham initiative, but overall it was very successful in improving vitamin D uptake in families who would have been at risk. I am keen to invite the Minister to look carefully at the Birmingham experience. Is she willing to analyse the costs and benefits of a universal approach based on the study’s findings?

On food fortification, relatively few foods are naturally rich in vitamin D, and consumption of many of those that are, such as full-fat dairy products, eggs and oily fish, has fallen in recent years. Yet in the UK, we fortify relatively few foods, such as margarine, some processed cheeses and breakfast cereals. We do not fortify milk, which has been fortified in Canada and the US for many years. Finland, Jordan and the Irish Republic have all taken recent steps to introduce food fortification. Will the Minister indicate the Government’s attitude to statutory food fortification? There seems to be scope for a more robust approach. Can she confirm whether the work of the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition will look at the experience of other countries? Will the committee’s report reflect an analysis of the effectiveness of food fortification measures in those countries?

Finally, there appears to be scope to make greater use of the public health outcomes framework, to focus attention on vitamin D. I looked at the framework, and, with the exception of some quite vague indicators on diet and hip fractures, there appears to be nothing specific to highlight the need for action to tackle vitamin D deficiency and its consequences, including the risk of rickets. I welcome the Government’s focus on public health, but we must ensure that the framework and the new health structures being put in place more widely achieve the best possible outcomes.

This is a crucial and, I have to say, challenging time of transition. We are settling into the new public health infrastructure against a backdrop of far-reaching changes in the NHS more widely. Although I appreciate that the public health outcomes framework will be kept under regular review, I would like very specific and early attention to be given to the issue in the framework and by the new health and wellbeing boards. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way again. She is being very gracious. Is she aware of the statistics and figures that show a greater problem in the United Kingdom—England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—with not only rickets, but osteoporosis, from the lack of vitamin D? Is there a need not only for a pilot programme, such as the one she mentioned in Birmingham, but for a programme for the whole UK, working with all the regions?

[Kate Green]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right. The impact of vitamin D deficiency is felt in not only rickets and diseases in children, but osteoporosis and other diseases. Vitamin D deficiency inhibits the absorption of calcium, for example, which is important for bone health and growth.

Professionals have identified the lack of joined-up advice—for example, telling a woman recovering from a cancer operation and having chemotherapy that there could be an impact on her bone health and the steps that she could take to address it. It is right that professionals have expressed an interest in the development of a strategic approach, both geographically and across health conditions. Perhaps the Minister will comment on how the Government might react to that.

Rickets is a largely preventable disease that many of us thought had been left firmly in the past. Its resurgence is not in question, yet the distress and pain it causes are preventable, and we know what steps we need to take. What is more, the solutions are mainly systemic—within the control of public policy and health care practice. Although I acknowledge that some gaps in the evidence remain, the importance of vitamin D for at-risk groups—children, pregnant women and mothers—has been understood for many decades, as has the need for effective supplementation where intake is inadequate. There is therefore no need to delay working on and developing appropriate systems and a programme of public and professional education to maximise vitamin D intake. I hope that today’s debate raises public and professional awareness of the issue.

Disability Hate Crime

Debate between Kate Green and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 23rd November 2011 Westminster Hall

[Kate Green]

That is an important point and I am sure that it is one that the police will also take note of. Too often there is an attitude that nothing can be done because the victim is disabled and there is scepticism about what disabled victims say. One shocking case, quoted in Katharine Quarmby’s book “Scapegoat”, was that of a blind woman who had been sexually assaulted, but the response of the police was that it was not possible to proceed with the case because, of course, she had not seen her attacker.

In its report, “Hidden in plain sight”, the EHRC has proposed a number of important measures to help to improve the situation. First, there must be leadership and ownership of the issue across all public bodies. This is not an issue simply for one arm of government. It cuts across central Government Departments, local government, the criminal justice system, the education system, health, housing, care, transport, employment and so on. Therefore, a signal from the Minister today of the seriousness with which the Government regard the issue will be important. However, warm words will not be enough. Disabled people want to know how Ministers will ensure that the issue remains a priority for ministerial attention across Government; what structures exist within Whitehall to focus attention and drive action; what accountability mechanisms will be put in place; how public institutions that fail to take action will be compelled to do so; and how Ministers will work with local government to ensure ownership of the issue at local level.

Secondly, such an approach must be informed and supported by the systematic gathering and monitoring of data that spell out the scale and severity of the problem, and by analysis of that data to support and direct policy makers’ attention to where action is needed. We know that there is significant under-reporting of harassment and abuse of disabled people, and there is a need to improve the recording and reporting of disability hate crime.

Radar has responded to that problem through its “Stop Disability Hate Crime” project, which is working with disabled people’s organisations and the authorities to develop a national independent disability hate crime reporting centre, which will provide minimum standards for other such centres, and raise awareness of disability hate crime and incidents and how to report them. The project also maps the disability hate crime third-party reporting sites that already exist or are being established. Also, a survey has been undertaken to find out why disabled people do not want to report disability hate crime and what would make them more confident to do so.

The Radar project is an important initiative and I hope that the Government will look carefully at the lessons that emerge from it, and at ways of strengthening the capacity of third-party hate crime reporting centres as a valuable way of increasing the incidence of reporting. Of course, it will be important that such centres follow minimum standards, but I know that all right hon. and hon. Members will welcome Radar’s work in that area and look forward to its report, which is due to be published early next year.

Thirdly, practice at the front line is, of course, vital to ensure that action is taken swiftly to respond to and prevent harassment or criminal attacks on disabled people. That requires the engagement, attention and effort of a range of public institutions. Crucially, those public institutions must work in partnership with each other and with disabled people to develop and to implement the right strategies to tackle disability hate crime. That partnership working can enable early identification of the patterns of behaviour that we have been discussing today, which is essential if problems are not to escalate. Today those patterns are too often missed, or cases are dealt with in isolation. As a result, the response of the authorities can be fragmented, inadequate or too slow.

In its 2009 report on the security of disabled people, the EHRC pointed out that a range of public authorities were not playing any preventive role: housing associations, social care providers, health care providers, the voluntary and community sector and local authorities. Too often, there is an inadequate response to incidents even when they are reported. That must change. Although there has been some progress in the response of the criminal justice agencies, action across the piece is needed and it is in that context that the Government’s action plan will be so important.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate and bringing this matter to the Chamber today. Society is always measured by how it treats those who are less well-off, and that is true of individuals as well as of society as a whole. She has discussed a campaign that she hopes the Government will support. Does she feel that that campaign should not only be an England and Wales campaign but a campaign that goes to Scotland and Northern Ireland, too? If so, perhaps the catalyst to make that happen will come from this Chamber today. I ask the Minister to consider that point too in her response to the debate.

[Kate Green]

That is also an important point, and if there is good practice from which we can learn we will want to learn it in every part of the United Kingdom.

The Government’s action plan will need to include action on developing a better understanding of the motivations of perpetrators of disability hate crime, and of the interventions that are effective in changing such behaviour. It must be a priority to develop appropriate interventions that can be made in schools, which have already been mentioned, in the criminal justice system, through family and community programmes, and in other settings. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us what analysis and action the Government are considering with regard to those interventions.

The action plan must also address the need for proper training of front-line professionals who may be required to recognise and respond to issues of disability-related harassment. Such training must include training in communication skills and understanding and recognising signals of abuse. I hope that the Minister will be specific today about the steps that the Government are taking to make progress on those matters and I look forward to hearing her response.

Before I conclude, I want to highlight one especially vulnerable group of victims—those people with learning disabilities who have experienced sexual violence or abuse. All too often in those cases, the perpetrator is a partner, a family member or a carer, so the attack is compounded by an abuse of intimacy and a breach of the victim’s trust.

A shockingly high proportion of women with learning disabilities have experienced sexual abuse. The problems that other victims of disability hate crime experience are magnified for these women by their not being believed, by professionals not knowing how to address the issue, and by abuse continuing and escalating over a long period, which happens all too often.

During the summer, I attended a conference with a group of learning disabled women to discuss the measures that are needed to address that form of abuse. The conference was jointly organised by the rape crisis centre in my own borough of Trafford, Salford university and Change, an organisation that is run by and for learning disabled people.

The learning disabled women present at the conference, who themselves were victims of sexual abuse, were absolutely clear about the action that is needed. I should say that they were also prepared to acknowledge that there have been improvements in parts of the criminal justice system, including better awareness among the police, greater understanding of their circumstances and their needs by the Crown Prosecution Service, and greater responsiveness from the courts. However, they also highlighted the need for specialist advice and support to be much more widely available. They spoke about a lack of access to health services and other support services, which happened for a number of reasons: sometimes because of discrimination, sometimes because of a lack of communication skills, and sometimes because they and other learning disabled women were not empowered to express their needs. They repeated that there was a need for training for front-line professionals, which they strongly suggested should be delivered by learning disabled women themselves. They identified an additional barrier that they faced, which was dealing with workers who did not have the confidence to deal with them as learning disabled women.

Women often want to use mainstream services where they can, but feel that the staff are often not equipped to support them. In her role as Minister with responsibility for disabled people, I hope that the hon. Lady takes these points up urgently with colleagues in the relevant Departments, and urges them to engage directly with learning disabled women in formulating Government policy.

I want to put on record my gratitude to the disabled people and their families who have taken the time to describe to me the deeply distressing, shocking and vicious attacks they have experienced, and how the system has sometimes let them down. I also want to thank the families of Keith Philpott and Gary Skelly, members of the Disability Hate Crime Network, Simon Green and Stephen Brookes, and the women I met at Change. Their stories of abuse, violence and in some cases death, have brought home to me that there remains a dark and primitive side to our attitudes to disabled people, which still too often manifests itself in harassment and criminal behaviour that simply cannot be tolerated in any civilised society. I am pleased that we are debating the issue this morning. It must not remain hidden in plain sight.

Disabled Young People (Support)

Debate between Kate Green and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 7th September 2011 Westminster Hall

[Kate Green]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I say, many children’s conditions vary, progress and retreat much more suddenly and rapidly than those of adults. Crucially, children’s educational and social development is also taking place as they grow into young adulthood. If there are concerns about the financial support for children with medical conditions, that will also have wider developmental implications for them.

There is continuing uncertainty about children and young people in residential settings. I am particularly interested in young adults, some of whom are quite likely to want to look at residential colleges for their further education. The Minister wants to remove any duplication in funding in relation to the mobility component that people receive as part of DLA. I would be grateful if she could tell us how she expects to assess whether there is actually any duplication, because I have so far been unable to uncover much evidence of it. What assessment has she made of the implications for young people over the age of 16 in residential colleges, and particularly for their ability to participate as fully as possible in not only educational life but wider social life?

I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Eastbourne on housing benefit. I also want to highlight the concern that constituents have raised with me about the substantial costs of adapting housing and about the implications for them if the housing benefit changes and the housing benefit cap force them to move. It seems quite ridiculous that, as a result of other policies, we should disrupt families who might have had to make substantial investments to adapt their home accommodation. I hope that the Minister will indicate that there will be flexibility in the system to ensure that families of young disabled people, in particular, are not subject to great instability and do not have to move as a result of housing benefit changes. That is particularly important for the young people we are talking about, because such instability disrupts not only their social and educational networks but their medical and care networks in many cases.

[Jim Shannon]

On that point, which the hon. Lady has clearly illustrated, does she feel that the Government need a concerted policy to address housing benefit for young disabled people, considering that 10% of them will be homeless in a short period?

[Kate Green]

Clearly, that is an incredibly serious concern, which the Minister will want to take seriously. Like the hon. Gentleman, I very much look forward to hearing her reply to his suggestion.

I want to say something about employment and education. I echo other hon. Members’ comments about the need to encourage employers to be more willing to take on disabled people and to recognise the extensive capacity that many of them can bring to the workplace. However, I want to raise a few points with the Minister about the education and training environment in which young people prepare for employment.

Following the loss of the education maintenance allowance, what assessment is being made of the extent to which young disabled people in financial need can access other sources of financial support, including those provided by colleges and schools to enable people to continue and complete their education? With the loss of Connexions next year, how will the new predominantly web-based information and advice service for careers be tailored and adapted to meet the needs of young disabled people? How will the structure of integrated budgets, which are meant for young people’s living needs, be protected, so that people are not forced to dip into them to pay for their education, including transport to educational settings, books and equipment? Like other hon. Members, I am interested to hear what further steps the Minister thinks she can take in government to encourage employers to become more willing to employ young disabled people.

I am pleased to have had the opportunity to contribute to the debate. There are many more issues that I would like to raise and which I am sure colleagues would like to raise. I am pleased that the Minister is here to listen to the debate, and I look forward to her response.

Finance Bill

Debate between Kate Green and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green]

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the reason why children from married relationships so often do better is that their parents come from higher socio-economic backgrounds, not the fact of marriage itself?

[Jim Shannon]

The evidence from the constituency that I represent would indicate that that is not necessarily the case. Those who are perhaps worse off financially are in stable relationships as well. The reason I am speaking on this issue tonight is that I am reflecting not only my personal views, but—I believe—those of a large majority of the people whom I represent. I am here as the MP for Strangford to put that on the record and ensure that that opinion is well heard this evening. Many people might not like what I have to say, but hon. Members will have to accept that it is my opinion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Member for his contribution and for providing a bit of focus to this debate.

Given that the agreement pertains to a full Parliament, one ordinarily would not be concerned at the failure to action a commitment in just over a year. What we need is for legislative change to be approved by the coalition Government, to move forward and perhaps see this legislation coming through in two years. The latest publication of the international tax comparison, CARE’s “The Taxation of Families 2009-10” puts things in a very different light. It demonstrates that we are now headed to a place where the tax burden on a married family with children with one earner on an average wage is growing so much that it will soon be more than 50% greater than the OECD average. That breaks new ground, taking us into territory that not even new Labour dreamt of occupying.

Some will no doubt respond by saying that this is a result of the tax burden having to increase on everyone in the context of the debt crisis. I understand that, but it is not exactly the case. Let me quote a director of an influential think-tank, who said:

“Given that it will take some time between changing the law and implementing the actual recognition of marriage in the tax system, it is important that the Government makes this a priority, takes swift action. The change, or at least a recognition of it, should be made”.

I very much hope that that report can be taken seriously, that the Government can look further at the issue and perhaps bring it forward in future legislation.

[Kate Green]

I just want to ask the hon. Gentleman which report he is referring to and which think-tank?

[Jim Shannon]

The think-tank is ResPublica.

As the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) said earlier, the tax burden on single people with no dependants on the same wage has been falling and far from being 50% above the OECD average, it is now actually below it. That is reflected in the fact that the tax burden on a one-earner married couple on an average wage with two children is projected to rise from 73% to 80% of that of a single person on the same wage by 2012-13, while the equivalent average burden among OECD nations is 52%.

In this context, it is strange that the Government have started investing what will probably end up being almost £12 billion on increasing individual allowances to £10,000. There is a cost factor there and an agreement within the coalition on how that is going to happen. That will cost us all. It is a measure that will have a disproportionately positive effect on single people, yet the Government will not have brought forward a much cheaper transferable allowance policy.

I do not believe that the current situation is sustainable. It is now urgent that the Government introduce legislation to give effect to the transferable allowance. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide robust assurances on this point and a commitment to ensure that as the tax burden increases in the context of the current financial difficulties, it is allocated in a way that is fair, sensitive to family responsibilities and recognises the real strengths that marriage brings to society. I also trust that the Minister will address the important points raised by other hon. Members, including the need urgently to address the IT implications of recognising marriage in the tax system. There are changes to be made, there are costs and a system will need to be set up.

I urge Members to support new clause 5. I believe it is worthy of support. I understand that there are differences of opinion. This is probably the first time that I have disagreed with many colleagues on the Opposition Benches, but I believe in my heart that this is an issue of some importance.