This Week in Westminster - January 10th -12th

The House of Commons returned this week after the Christmas recess. Much time was spend considering and responding to developments over Christmas; the possible referendum on Scottish independence, PIP breast implants and high-speed rail. The statement on high-speed rail contained the announcement that a tunnel will be built under the constituency of Secretary of State for Wales, who previously said she would resign if the plan went ahead. I was successful in the ballot for health questions, asking about funding for suicide prevention research. Concerns were raised about the commitment of the Government to actually establish the office of the Chief Coroner. Elsewhere, the Government was defeated three times in the House of Lords on the Welfare Reform Bill.

• Suicide prevention (January 10th)

Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab): What research his Department has undertaken on the prevention of suicide.

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow): The Department of Health funds the national confidential inquiry into suicide and homicide by people with mental illness. The Department is funding an investigation of self-harm, and the National Institute for Health Research is funding a range of further research relevant to suicide prevention.

Mrs Moon: The Minister will be aware that core funding for research into the causes, effects and geographical spread of suicide and its frequent precursor, self-harm, is essential. More than 200,000 people present at accident and emergency with self-harm. I am very concerned to hear that the ongoing funding for the multi-centre study of self-harm is potentially at risk. Will he agree to meet me and the research project leads to discuss this and ensure that that research continues?

Paul Burstow: The hon. Lady chairs the all-party group on suicide and self-harm prevention. She does a lot of important work in this House in that regard, and I would be only too happy to talk to her about research priorities in this area. The Government are examining the research priorities to support the new strategy, which we plan to publish in the near future.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201212/cmhansrd/cm120110/debtext/120110-0001.htm#12011048000443

• Chief Coroner (January 10th)

Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab): Given the crucial role that the chief coroner was to have had in monitoring and advising the Department of Health on the incidence of suicide across the nation, will the Minister liaise with the Lord Chancellor to ensure that a chief coroner is appointed speedily and that powers are put in place quickly to make sure that this work can be done?

Paul Burstow: I will certainly pass on the hon. Gentleman’s request.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201212/cmhansrd/cm120110/debtext/120110-0001.htm#12011048000443

• Tunnels (January 10th)

Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab): I am as keen on the Secretary of State for Wales as anybody else is, and I am delighted that the Secretary of State for Transport has done so much to keep her in her job, but can she be precise about the amount of money that is being spent on tunnelling in the constituency of the Secretary of State for Wales, because the total amount being spent in Wales on the railways this year is just £500 million?

Justine Greening: I would have thought the hon. Gentleman would be pleased, because the route that I announced today will see us spend less money in my right hon. Friend’s part of the country. The way in which he has turned what I took to be the incredibly serious issue of this line impacting local communities in an area of outstanding natural beauty into a pure political point is a disgrace. The Secretary of State for Wales, alongside other MPs, has done a damn good job in representing her constituents, and I think she has probably been a lot more effective than he has been in the past.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201212/cmhansrd/cm120110/debtext/120110-0001.htm#12011048000001

Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC): I would be intrigued to learn how it is cheaper to develop a railway by digging a tunnel. How can the UK Government justify that decision, which it is reported will cost £500 million, made to keep the Secretary of State for Wales in post, while refusing even to electrify the main line to Swansea?

Justine Greening: May I just correct the hon. Gentleman’s facts? Tunnelling under the Chilterns will save between £250 million and £300 million, rather than costing £500 million. I hope that that provides him with some reassurance that this will in fact be less expensive that it would otherwise be.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201212/cmhansrd/cm120110/debtext/120110-0002.htm

• Scotland (January 11th)

Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP): The Scottish Government were elected with an overwhelming mandate to deliver an independence referendum in the second half of this parliamentary term—[ Interruption. ] They were. It is a fact. In contrast, the Conservative party has fewer Members of Parliament in Scotland than there are giant pandas in Edinburgh zoo. Why is the Prime Minister trying to emulate Margaret Thatcher by dictating to Scotland?
The Prime Minister: Quite the opposite: we want to give Scotland the power to hold a legal referendum. Right across this House there is a uniform belief that that needs to happen. Discussions can now be entered into about the timing of the referendum and its precise nature, so that we can ensure that it is fair and decisive. The people of Scotland deserve nothing less.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201212/cmhansrd/cm120111/debtext/120111-0001.htm#12011176000009

• PIP Breast implants (January 11th)

Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab): I thank the Health Secretary for his statement, and for the steps that he is taking to help the thousands of women who have found themselves in this worrying situation. We welcome much of what he has just announced, including the further reviews that he has commissioned. I assure him that we will support him in his efforts to reach a resolution as quickly as possible for all those people who are affected, but I have to tell him that he has a lot of work to do, and a lot of ground to recover, as his response to date has not helped to build those people’s confidence.

Over the Christmas break, the mixed messages coming from the Government did not go unnoticed. They only added uncertainty in what has been an anxious time for many people. The Health Secretary has gone from downplaying the dangers on 23 December to announcing an urgent review on new year’s eve, then giving an inconclusive statement late last Friday evening. This has left the people affected struggling to make sense of what it means. For the vast majority whose implants were fitted privately, there was precious little practical advice or help from the Department of Health as they began approaching their private providers. Many women were unable to access their records or told that long delays would be involved. Others have been asked to pay large fees to access their records. Many have simply hit a brick wall when they have sought medical advice or removal, even where there is evidence of rupture.

What people needed at the earliest stages was a strong statement from the Government of what was expected of all private providers—namely, that records should be provided without delay and without charge; that consultations should be arranged when people were worried; and that removal should be arranged urgently when there was evidence of rupture. The reality is that the Government’s failure to provide that leadership from the outset has left people fending for themselves in the face of a self-serving and unaccountable industry.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201212/cmhansrd/cm120111/debtext/120111-0001.htm#12011176000003

• Defeat in the Lords – (January 11th) One speech is enough to demonstrate the need for amendments to this Bill. Government Ministers have subsequently stated that they will continue with their reforms in spite of these defeats. Members of the House of Lords voted to protect cancer patients and disabled people from restrictions on employment and support allowance (ESA).The Lords voted 260 to 216 to protect disabled people from cuts to employment support allowance (ESA). They voted 234 to 186 for a minimum two-year limit rather than the Government proposed one-year for people to claim ESA. The Lords voted 222 to 166 to exempt people receiving cancer treatment from a time limit on receiving ESA.

Baroness Meacher: At present, a claimant who has a terminal illness and who is expected to live no more than six months would be placed in a support group, which means that they would have no conditions attached to their benefit entitlement. If they have a few good days when they might be able to work, there is no commitment for them to have to do that although anyone in this position who has a job will no doubt wish to work as far as they possibly can. I am talking about those people who do not have a job and who therefore find themselves in the position of having to look for one, when they have a terminal illness that will deteriorate over time until they finally die.

This amendment applies to a group of people who are suffering from a life-threatening disease, the symptoms of which cannot be controlled by any recognised therapeutic procedure, and where there is reasonable cause for these symptoms not to be able to be controlled by any such procedure. At present, the default position is that these claimants will be allocated to the work-related activity group and will be expected to undertake interviews and activities on this rather wild and ridiculous assumption that they should be finding a brand new job, with a brand new employer, for whatever little bits of time they are able to function. At the same time, of course, they have to prepare themselves mentally for the ever worsening symptoms that will lead to their death.

My question to the Minister is whether he regards such expectations of persons on a downward path towards death as humane and reasonable. I hope very much that he will answer that question rather carefully in his response, in the sense that having accepted the government amendment and put that forward, he will find that this amendment is a very minor shift which brings people in a rather similar position into line. Again, I must emphasise that this amendment would not in any way discourage terminally ill people who can work from doing so. Rather, it is an attempt to remove callous pressures from being applied to people who already have probably far too much to cope with.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201212/ldhansrd/text/120111-0001.htm#12011182000884

I shall leave your Lordships with just one case to illustrate the point. A CAB client had had major surgery for breast cancer, twice. At the time of her assessment for benefit she was suffering severe pain and undergoing tests that revealed some abnormal bone activity. She told the HCP about her condition and the fact that she was due to have a further scan. This lady was found to have metastatic non-curative cancer of her bones, primarily in her pelvis, hips, back and spine, as well as down her legs and in the rib area. She was told that she had three or four years to live, although I have to say that sounds a little unlikely to me, and my guess is that it will be a pretty miserable three or four years.

On appeal, this claimant had her "fit for work" status-which is mind-boggling in itself-removed, but she was placed in the work-related activity group. She became very tearful and had to see a psychologist. She was unable to return to her previous job due to pain from the operations removing the lymph glands under her arms. She got extremely tired, of course-if you have metastatic cancer you are not going to be in a good way to do anything. The CAB adviser was of the view that this client would not be able to work again due to the increasing pain levels that she was going to suffer.

Anyone who has known anyone with metastatic bone cancer will know that this is not a happy thing to have; it is seriously deleterious. That is the point that I want to make: here you have people whose pain, tiredness and general debility cannot be adequately controlled, and there should be some fairly automatic procedure to deal with them. Perhaps the Minister could consider the position of a potential employer. Who would take on an employee with metastatic bone cancer? I have to say that I would not. How reliable would such an employee be, and for how long-for how many days or weeks at a time? Who knows? The prospects, though, are pretty poor.

This client will have to go through the humiliating and endlessly negative experience of writing applications and going for interviews, knowing in her own mind that employers, if they are half sensible, simply will not take her on. It is that aspect that we need to get hold of. Also, she could be accused of wasting employers' time: why should they be reading these applications and interviewing her when, poor soul, she really is not in a fit state to work?

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201212/ldhansrd/text/120111-0001.htm#12011182000884