Disability Employment Gap

Debate between Peter Heaton-Jones and Anna Turley

Wednesday 8th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)]

The Secretary of State said plainly that it is important to get the tone of such discussions right. By and large, that is what we have done in this afternoon’s debate. I was much taken by the contribution of the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray), who talked about his nephew. I found it very moving, and he got the tone exactly right, because this should be about individual people. Similarly, the hon. Member for Workington (Sue Hayman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) also got the tone right. What a contrast that was with the tone used by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith), in his entirely inappropriate opening remarks.

The wording of the Opposition motion just smacks of opposition for opposition’s sake. The manner in which it was proposed by the Opposition Front Bench showed the truth, which is that it is politically opportunistic and partisan. It was entirely unhelpful for the tone of the debate and for the people whom we are seeking to assist. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys questioned the exact nature of the debate and said the shadow Minister just seemed to be starting a general discussion rather than looking specifically at the points, so in that spirit I will look specifically at the motion, clause by clause.

The motion starts by stating that the House regrets the

“lack of progress towards halving the disability employment gap”

but that does not add up. We are helping more people with a disability to get into work than ever before. Some 365,000 more disabled people are in work now than two years ago. More than 3.3 million disabled people are in employment in total, which is an increase of 150,000 in the past year alone. Some Members made comments about the exact figures of the disability employment gap, but as has been pointed out, the reason for the discrepancy is that the rate of employment is so much higher under this Government than it was under the Labour Government.

[Anna Turley]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Peter Heaton-Jones]

If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I will not, because I understand that we are only about 20 minutes away from the closing speeches and I want to give everyone the opportunity to speak.

Secondly, the motion says that the House

“regrets that the Government has not yet published its White Paper”.

That does not even take account of the Secretary of State’s clear statement that he now intends to bring forward a Green Paper. I am surprised to hear the Labour party say that we should be doing this quicker, because its usual complaint is that we do not listen enough. Now, it appears to want us to rush out proposals without talking to the people we should be listening to. A proper consultation in which we talk to people with disabilities and the third-party, voluntary and charity sector organisations that represent them will take time. It is absolutely right for us to do that.

The motion goes on to note

“with concern that commitments made in the Autumn Statement 2015 to help more disabled people through Access to Work and expanding Fit for Work have not materialised”.

I have the autumn statement here. It is clear in its commitment that there will be

“a real terms increase in spending on Access to Work…to help a further 25,000 disabled people each year remain in work”.

It talks of

“expanding the Fit for Work service”

and of

“over £115 million of funding for the Joint Work and Health Unit”.

I say gently to the Labour party that the autumn statement is still in place. We are still in the period that it covers. I do not understand why Labour is suggesting that we are in some way reneging on it, when the period is still current.

Contaminated Blood

Debate between Peter Heaton-Jones and Anna Turley

Tuesday 12th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) on securing this debate and on the valuable work that her all-party parliamentary group is doing in this area.

All Members, I am sure, receive a huge number of letters and emails from constituents, and hold face-to-face meetings with them on a huge range of issues. Just occasionally, an email arrives that has the power to stop us in our tracks, simply demanding the wider attention of the whole House. On 2 June last year, just four weeks after being elected to this place for the first time, I received just such an email. It came from my constituent Sue Threakall, from Barnstaple. Mrs Threakall is with us in the Gallery this afternoon, one of many who have travelled long distances to be here today. I pay tribute to them all.

With her permission and with the leave of the House, I would like to read a short extract from the email I received from Mrs Threakall, which sums up better than I could the real human impact of this national tragedy:

“my late husband was a haemophiliac who”,

in the 1980s,

“was given contaminated blood and…died in 1991 with AIDS, Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C. His death ripped my family apart and to this day the effects are still there.”

Her children lead

“compromised lives compared to the ones they should have led. I have severe financial difficulties to this day, despite doing everything possible to help myself recover from a wrecked career as a…teacher, followed by retirement at 50 on a tiny pension. Since then I have worked in hospitals, but following three major surgeries in seven years have now more or less retired.

I have been campaigning for thirty years for truth and justice”.

Those are two crucial elements that we must discuss today: truth and justice.

[Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s generosity in giving way, and I share his concern about the impact on spouses. My constituent Mr Thomas Farrell was given 11 units of contaminated blood in 1989, and tested positive for hepatitis C nine years later. One of his biggest fears is that his wife will not have the security of knowing that she can pay the mortgage should he pass away before her. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that bereaved partners and spouses should have security and proper financial support for the rest of their life?

[Peter Heaton-Jones]

I absolutely agree that we must look beyond those whose are immediately affected personally by the health effects of contaminated blood, and take account of the effects on their wider families and loved ones. I shall say more about that later.

Truth and justice are what this is all about, and I believe that we have reached a stage at which we really could deliver both. The Government’s consultation is under way; the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), Friend made her announcement in January; and there is now a groundswell of public opinion. Those three factors mean that we are at a crossroads, and we may never have this opportunity again. Campaigners acknowledge that since 2010, the Government have listened. We have made progress—more progress than we have made in the past.

This, however, is the position: the Government’s consultation is due to close in just three days’ time, and it is clear that there is still a great deal of unhappiness with the options on the table. The status quo—the existing scheme, with its confusing and inadequate provision—is not acceptable, but neither is the alternative, which would seem to fail to tackle the fundamental problem of fair financial provision both for those who received the contaminated blood and are living with the health consequences and, importantly, the families and loved ones who care for them or grieve for them.

We must be realistic. Like nearly every decision that we make in this place, this does in the end come down to money, and we know that money is tight. It would be unrealistic, indeed irresponsible, to stand here today and ask for a blank cheque to be written, or for funds to be taken from equally worthwhile projects elsewhere in the health budget. What I appeal for today from the Government—on behalf of my constituent, and other constituents who are with us—are two commodities that are perhaps even more precious: time and understanding. I ask for time for these people, including my constituent, to have their cases adequately heard by the Government, and not to be bounced into accepting one of two options, neither of which they believe to be fair or adequate.