Work Capability Assessments

Debate between Cathy Jamieson and Kerry McCarthy

Wednesday 1st February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Williams. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) for securing the debate and for his tenacity—I think that would be the best word—in pursuing this issue. He has submitted what is probably a record number of parliamentary questions on it, and my constituents and I are grateful for that, because we have seen that someone is taking it seriously and cares passionately about it.

I want to concentrate on a number of issues raised by constituents. They were keen that I should take this opportunity to make representations to the Minister. People often feel that they are on their own and that they are the only ones having particular difficulties. Given what we have heard already, my constituents’ experiences appear to be very similar to those of constituents elsewhere, and I hope the Minister will take account of that.

I want to echo what my hon. Friend said. Neither I nor my constituents have a problem in principle with the notion that someone who is fit and able to work should do so if work is available. Many people with disabilities wish to hold down jobs and they can do so. Other people will require support, adaptations and particular circumstances to enable them to work. The constituents who come to me most frequently about work capability assessments, however, are those with fluctuating and perhaps long-term conditions. They tell me and my caseworker that the work capability assessment report does not accurately reflect their day-to-day experiences. They often say that they feel as if the wrong report has been sent in. They wonder whether people are making generalisations on the basis of their answers to questions.

People with these conditions also make the point that if they are having a good day, they will probably get along to the work capability assessment. However, if they are having one of their bad days, they simply will not be able, in some circumstances, to attend or to cope with the assessment. In addition, people with mental health issues, in particular, tell me that they do not get a fair assessment. They feel that because their condition is apparently invisible the assessor often seems to know little about it.

Of course, there are problems. Chronic but intermittent conditions can mean that claimants sometimes find themselves moved from ESA to jobseeker’s allowance and back to ESA, with all the work capability assessments in between. That leads to real difficulties because people often find themselves with no financial support while DWP processes are under way, with one claim being closed while another is being opened.

The most frequent cause of concern for constituents is apparent inconsistency. In a recent case in my area the maximum 15 points were awarded by the health care professional; that award was overturned by the DWP decision maker. The GP, the hospital consultant and Atos agreed that the person was unfit to work, but the decision maker in the DWP disagreed. In another example from my constituency a man with a progressive and incurable kidney condition, which requires him to undergo surgical operations every six months, was awarded 15 points; but that award was overturned by the decision-maker in the DWP, even though the decision-maker stated in correspondence:

“I am satisfied that the descriptors have been fully justified with clinical findings, observations and extracts taken from the typical day history provided by Mr A. The medical report…was appropriate, complete and covered all the area of incapacity described by Mr A as well as including a comprehensive typical day history and full set of clinical findings.”

We can understand why constituents find it difficult to understand why, when all the medical professionals and, indeed, Atos, appear to agree, someone in the DWP without a medical background apparently can overturn their findings.

I should like the Minister to tell me how many people—and what percentage—he is aware of who, having been awarded that maximum 15 points, have had the award overturned by the DWP decision maker, and how many of those have had appeals upheld. That may be useful for our understanding. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West mentioned, there is concern about the cost of appeals, and I hope that the Minister will tell us the average cost of an appeal, and how much time is spent processing all the associated paperwork.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful case. I went to an appeal with someone with ME who scored zero points. She took with her the medical evidence from the experts at the hospital; when the panel looked at it, it was a case of giving it a tick and telling her that of course she was not fit to work. However, those dealing with the form-filling and Atos stage were not prepared to consider it. It seems ludicrous that my constituent must go through the expense and stress of an appeal, and that the expert evidence cannot be considered earlier.

World Vegan Day

Debate between Cathy Jamieson and Kerry McCarthy

Tuesday 1st November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy]

I will come to that in a moment. The World Cancer Research Fund carried out an authoritative study which found that people should avoid processed meat altogether, and eat red meat in moderate amounts only. That is the most authoritative study that I have come across. Cancer Research UK is co-funding a massive study called EPIC—the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition—which has found that people who ate two daily 80-gram portions of red or processed meat increased their risk of developing bowel cancer by a third, compared with those who ate just 20 grams a day. The same study found that people eating more than 100 grams of meat a day had over three times the risk of getting stomach cancer.

As I mentioned, the World Cancer Research Fund reviewed 263 research papers and concluded in May this year that there was convincing evidence that red and processed meat increased the risk of bowel cancer. When those findings emerged, the National Beef Association and the National Sheep Association, in conjunction with the National Farmers Union, issued statements accusing the fund of misleading the public. The fund retaliated by accusing the British meat industry of potentially defamatory and deliberately misleading statements, and repeated its message that it was best to avoid processed meat and to eat red meat only in moderation. It stated:

“The fact is that our report is the most comprehensive and authoritative review of the evidence that has ever been published and it found convincing evidence that red and processed meat both increase the risk of bowel cancer”.

As I have mentioned, there has been a significant rise in the number of people who are becoming vegan—[Interruption.]

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

Just before my hon. Friend moves off her point about balanced diets, will she tell us—perhaps for the benefit of those on the Conservative Benches who seem to be heckling about what is or is not a case for veganism—whether she agrees that it is entirely possible to have a healthy, balanced diet without eating any animal products whatever?

[Kerry McCarthy]

That is true. As I said, I have been a vegan for nearly 20 years. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun has been one for 15 years, and my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North has been one since time immemorial—well, since the 1970s, anyway. I think that we are all testament to the fact that people can survive perfectly well on a vegan diet—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun referred to the heckling. It is strange to have heckling in an Adjournment debate, and I think it is perhaps testament to the strength of our argument that people feel they have to mock what we are saying rather than joining in the debate.

I deal now with the environmental case for switching to a vegan diet. The 2006 report by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, “Livestock’s Long Shadow”, stated that the livestock industry was responsible for 18% of global greenhouse gas emissions. That is more than the transport sector, including aviation, which produces 13.5%, yet there is a huge public debate about aviation and virtually no debate about livestock. I secured a debate on this issue in Westminster Hall in 2009, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) subsequently made a valiant attempt to put the Sustainable Livestock Bill through the House, only for it to be blocked by the Government. I hope that the Minister will have time tonight to update the House on the progress of some of the promises that he made when he responded to a speech by my hon. Friend almost a year ago today.

Meat consumption is an incredibly inefficient way to feed the planet. It takes 8 kg of grain to produce 1 kg of beef. It takes 100 times as much water to produce 1 kg of beef as it does to grow 1 kg of vegetables. It takes almost 120 calories of fossil fuel energy to produce 1 calorie of beef, compared with 2.2 calories to produce a single calorie of plant protein. It takes almost 21 square metres of land to produce 1 kg of beef, compared with 0.3 square metres to produce 1 kg of vegetables.

We hear a lot about biofuels and deforestation, but whereas in 2009 about 100 million tonnes of crops were being diverted to create biofuels, around 760 million tonnes were being used to feed animals. As Raj Patel wrote in his excellent book “Stuffed and Starved”:

“The amount of grains fed to US livestock would be enough to feed 840 million people on a plant-based diet. The number of food-insecure people in the world in 2006 was, incidentally, 854 million”.

I am conscious that I have not mentioned fish at all during this debate. I would refer the House to the extremely powerful documentary “The End of the Line”, and also to the series “Fish Fight” by Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall, which highlights some of the issues to do with the sustainability of our fish stocks and the impact of over-fishing on our marine environment.

I conclude with some questions for the Minister. It was disappointing that at the climate change talks in Copenhagen, the environmental impact of the livestock sector was given little prominence. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that this issue has a higher priority on the agenda at Rio next year? Will it also be on the agenda at the climate change talks in Durban next month?

What discussions has the Minister had, or will he commit to having, on these issues with our EU counterparts, particularly in the context of reform of the common agricultural policy? According to Compassion in World Farming, at least 80% of the EU’s animals are factory farmed. What vision does the Minister have for the future of farming across the EU in terms of animal welfare standards, environmental impact and sustainability?

In respect of development policy and global food security, what consideration has been given to the health and environmental factors I have mentioned in terms of feeding the world’s growing population? Is this something that is ever discussed between DEFRA and the Department for International Development? What assessment have the Government made of the health benefits of a diet low in meat and dairy consumption? What guidance is given in the public sector—in schools, hospitals and prisons, for example—on the availability of vegan food with a view to meeting the needs of those who have chosen a vegan diet, and with a view to the health benefits?

What further progress can be made on food labelling so that vegans know whether the products they purchase are ethical or not? Can the Minister also confirm that when the EU directive on animal experimentation is transposed into UK law, it will not mean a lowering of standards? And finally, there is concern that the proposed network of marine protected areas to be established under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 next year will not adequately protect wildlife and that some of our most important marine wildlife sites could even be missed off altogether. Can the Minister provide reassurance on this point and perhaps tell us more about what he or his Department is doing to tackle over-fishing?

I appreciate that I have at times strayed somewhat outside the Minister’s brief, but I hope he can give clarity on at least some of the issues I have raised. I thank him for his patience in listening to me.