General Matters

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

May I, too, welcome the Deputy Leader of the House to his post and to the debate? I once replied to 400 speeches—40, not 400—in a pre-recess Adjournment debate, so I understand the task that faces him.

Last week, I said at Culture, Media and Sport questions:

“The all-party group on women’s sport and fitness wants to see our fantastic women athletes in the media, inspiring girls and women of all ages to take part in sport. However, outside the Olympics, women’s sport gets 5% of the media coverage and less than 1% of the commercial sponsorship.”—[Official Report, 13 September 2012; Vol. 550, c. 413.]

I asked the Minister whether he agreed that the situation must change. I was surprised at how effective my question was, because on Saturday the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport wrote to all national broadcasters telling them to reassess their coverage of women’s sport. I agree with that action, because the lack of media coverage for women’s sport is a vital issue.

Across our leading newspapers there are no female sports editors. Only 2% of the articles and 1% of the images in the sports pages of the national newspapers are devoted to female athletes and women’s sport. Earlier this year, the Women’s Sport and Fitness Foundation reviewed the sports pages across all national daily newspapers to assess the level of coverage given to women’s sport. I am indebted to the Women’s Sport and Fitness Foundation for the authoritative reports and statistics that it produces on women’s sport. Over the three days of the review, those newspapers published more than 1,500 articles on sport, yet only 2% were on women’s sport. TV sports schedules were also reviewed. On one Friday, of the 72 hours of sport broadcast on three Sky channels, only three were devoted to women’s sport. I am sad to say that the online coverage of women’s sport reviewed was little better—although I should mention the Sportsister website, which is dedicated to women’s sport. However, apart from that exception, on the 10 sports news internet sites that were reviewed on one day in April, only 1% of the links were to articles on female sports, and there was not a single image of a female athlete on the front page of the top 10 websites.

That is the normal situation outside the Olympics, but if that level of coverage had applied during the Olympics, we would have missed a great deal. Team GB women athletes won 22 of our 65 medals, 10 of them gold. If our women athletes had received only 1% or 2% of the news coverage during that time, we would possibly have seen some of Jessica Ennis’s gold in the heptathlon, but what would we have missed? We would have missed Nicola Adams winning the historic first gold in the boxing; Victoria Pendleton’s individual gold; the team gold for Dani King, Laura Trott and Joanna Rowsell, and Laura Trott’s gold in the omnium; the rowing golds—won when we had got hardly any gold medals—of Heather Stanning and Helen Glover, Katherine Grainger and Anna Watkins, and Katherine Copeland and Sophie Hosking; Charlotte Dujardin’s magnificent gold in the dressage and her gold in the mixed team dressage; and Jade Jones’s gold in the taekwondo.

If women’s sport in the Olympics had received only 5% of media coverage or three of the 72 hours of broadcast coverage, we would definitely not have seen Gemma Gibbons’s silver in the judo or her emotional response, which for many ranks as one of the high points of the Olympics; Christine Ohuruogu’s magnificent defence of her earlier performance, with a silver in the 400 metres; Rebecca Adlington’s bronzes in the 400 and 800 metres swimming; the women’s team bronze in hockey; Samantha Murray’s silver in the modern pentathlon; the bronze for Beth Tweddle—a wonderful gymnast at the end of her career—on the uneven bars; or even Lizzie Armitstead’s race for silver in the pouring rain, our very first medal for Team GB.

It would have been ridiculous if we had not seen those moments in the women’s events, yet that is what happens all the time outside the Olympics, with very few exceptions. There is netball coverage on Sky and some coverage of women’s football on the BBC, albeit not enough—although I should mention that BBC2 is showing the England women’s game against Croatia tomorrow, an important qualifier for Euro 2013. There was even some live coverage of the England women’s cricket team in the T20 recently, but there should be so much more coverage of women’s sport.

Let us take women’s rugby as an example. The Rugby Football Union feels that there are great opportunities for growth in women’s rugby. The numbers of those playing are up 91% since 2004, with more than 13,000 women and girls currently registered as playing rugby each week across 533 clubs. England hosted the 2010 women’s rugby world cup, which was deemed to be the most successful world cup to date. The legacy of that event was a much greater increase in the number of women taking up rugby than in ordinary years. However, although the RFU feels that there are great opportunities for growth in the women’s game, I feel that they will be hard to achieve at the current levels of media coverage, which I outlined earlier.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that this is not only about encouraging women’s sport through the media of television, radio and so on? Is it not also about ensuring that there should be free entry to games wherever possible? For example, the Northern Ireland women’s football team are playing tomorrow night, and entry is free in order to encourage everyone to go. That is another way of encouraging media coverage and ensuring that games are promoted.

[Barbara Keeley]

That is right, but that has not happened in women’s football. I have to say, however, that I would be much more comfortable if people were prepared to pay to watch women’s rugby and football, because I think that those games are as good as the men’s.

That leads me to the subject of the success of the England women’s rugby team. They are an extremely successful team internationally. In the 2011-12 season, our team beat the current champions, New Zealand, in a three-match test series, as well as winning their seventh six nations tournament in a row, which was also their sixth grand slam. The England women’s sevens team won the European championships, the European grand prix series and two out of three International Rugby Board challenge series events. Despite all that success, however, only two of the games were broadcast live throughout the whole season. England will host the rugby world cup in 2015, and we must ensure that plans are in place to reach the widest possible audience, in order to inspire women and girls to watch and play rugby.

What needs to be done? As the Secretary of State said in her letter to broadcasters, the Olympics and Paralympics have shone a spotlight on women’s sport, and we need to ensure that that continues after the games. She also highlighted the fact that the substantial television audiences for the summer Olympics illustrated the public appetite for mainstream coverage of women’s sport. Indeed, 16.3 million people watched Jessica Ennis win her heptathlon gold, and 11.3 million watched Rebecca Adlington win her bronze medal in the 800 metres freestyle swimming event. As we got further into the tournament, we also saw capacity audiences watching the England women’s football team, and it was a pity that the team did not make more progress.

I support the Secretary of State’s initiative and her proposal to meet those broadcasters, but there is a need to go much further. The Women’s Sport and Fitness Foundation has identified three priority areas. First and foremost, there should be more media coverage of women’s sport. We need that increased media profile because it will be crucial to drive public interest and to fill the grounds for games. It will also be vital to drive the commercial sponsorship of women’s sport. Let us remember that women in sport are unfairly treated in that regard. They have only 1% of the total commercial sponsorship of sport. When we think of our great women cyclists, we must remember that there is no Team Sky for women. Lizzie Armitstead cycles in a team based in the Netherlands, which I understand is losing its sponsor at the end of 2012 She has had fabulous medals success, but will have no sponsorship by the end of the year.

As a second priority, our female athletes need to be showcased as role models. Having positive, active role models is crucial if girls and young women are to be inspired to lead physically active, healthy lifestyles. Surveys conducted since the Olympics have shown that 81% of adults agree that the female athletes at London 2012 were better role models than other female celebrities. It is not about dieting to be slim; it could be about exercising to be slim.

Thirdly, we must concentrate on increased leadership. Only 22% of leadership positions in sport are held by women. That figure needs to increase to ensure that sport is governed and run in ways that appeal to the widest possible market. I would like the Secretary of State to tell me whether she regards those three areas as priorities, and what action her Department plans to take on them in the coming months.

Finally, the all-party parliamentary group on women’s sport and fitness has asked the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee to consider undertaking an inquiry into the media profile of women’s sport. Through the medium of this debate, I would like to urge the Chair and members of the Select Committee to consider that proposal, because this is absolutely the key time to make a difference to women’s sport.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

As I was coming to today’s debate, I thought of all the issues that are pertinent to my constituency and, I suspect, to all hon. Members’ constituencies, such as tax credits and housing benefit, both of which I hear about regularly in my constituency office. There are so many concerns that my constituents have spoken to me about and asked me to speak about. I have chosen to speak about the appeals against decisions on employment and support allowance and disability living allowance, which increasingly make up the greater part of my work load. It used to be housing and planning, but benefit issues now make up an equal amount of my work load.

Where do we begin on this issue? The best thing to do is probably to illustrate it with an example. One situation that still concerns me is that those who are recovering from cancer are being turned down for ESA and other support. I met a gentleman—this is truthful—who had 30 bouts of radiotherapy and 15 chemotherapy sessions to help him put his cancer into remission, and it has worked so far—thank the Lord. However, since the treatment, he has been unable to put the weight back on and has no appetite, leaving him a tiny 7 stone in weight. Anyone who knew him before the treatment and saw him today would know exactly what I am talking about. In our part of the country, we would say that he is skin and bones, as he clearly is, after all he has been through. He is lethargic, tired, severely underweight, but that is not taken into account in the standard ESA tests. Therefore, despite the fact that he is recovering from cancer and is in no fit state to work, his application was turned down. It would be dangerous for him to go into a working environment, yet that is what he has been asked to do.

Whenever these cases are taken to an appeals tribunal and the people there look at the circumstances, I sometimes wonder whether they do not see what I see. I cannot understand why they do not see a person’s inability to pass a test?

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that one of the big problems is the time involved in getting to an appeal. I had a case some weeks ago in which an individual went without money for his family for about nine weeks. Surely, that cannot be right?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and wholeheartedly agree with what he says. I could give a number of examples of constituents who have to travel a great distance to get to an appeal. The stress and trauma that they go through to get to the appeal before it is even heard is incredible.

We are all very aware of the financial situation that we find ourselves in—everyone has referred to it—the savings that need to be made and the fact that no one should receive a benefit unless they are entitled to it. I do not think that anyone here disagrees with that, but common sense would say that a person who has fought cancer and is in the early stages of recovery is entitled to a little help because they physically cannot work. It is little wonder that Macmillan Cancer Support has said that 40% of cancer survivors in Northern Ireland say that not all their health and social care needs are met and that cancer sufferers have ill health for years after. Although the circumstances in Northern Ireland are not unique, I suggest that perhaps in other parts of the United Kingdom they are probably equal to that. That needs to be taken into account when the standard ESA tests are carried out. Cancer has no one standard to fall into. To disallow people the help that they need when they are entitled to it is not acceptable and, I believe, must be addressed.

Macmillan Cancer Support recently sent me a brief—I am sure that many Members also received it—that makes for uncomfortable reading for those in government who have made the decisions on the changes and how they affect those people. Macmillan strongly believes that the Lords amendments on employment and support allowance are votes for compassion, common sense and compromise—the three Cs—and are very important. Few of us are untouched by cancer—indeed, I suspect that every family has been touched by cancer at some time—and many face financial uncertainty as well. It is clear that they should receive ESA and not be forced into work when they are still recovering.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

One of the issues that have recently come to my attention is that 80% of my constituents who have gone to appeal have been successful, which is a startling result. I would have expected the figure to be up to around 50%, or about a third. That shows that the initial assessments, as we discussed in Committee when this was coming through Parliament, have got it wrong. The current system for giving out these assessments is wrong.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, which will apply elsewhere, although perhaps not as much as in my area, where a number of ESA and DLA appeals are regularly fought and won after the wrong decision was made the first time around. That shows that changes are needed.

I am also concerned that blind and partially sighted people are being excluded from ESA payments, despite the Government’s acceptance of the recommendations of an independent review last year to improve the work capability assessment process. Many constituents have sent me copies of the Royal National Institute of Blind People briefing paper. They are concerned, and it would be remiss of me not to raise the issues in the House or to appeal to the Government to consider them.

ESA gives vital support to blind, partially sighted and other disabled people who are unable to work, and provides them with immediate employment support to move towards work, where they are able to do so. Since April 2011, it has no longer been possible for blind or partially sighted people to qualify for ESA and the vital support that it gives, because changes to the assessment criteria fail to recognise the barriers that they face in relation to work. That has dramatic consequences for the individuals concerned, by unfairly forcing blind and partially sighted people on to jobseeker’s allowance, with an associated loss in income and vital support to prepare for work. They lose benefits when they come off such programmes. The severe disability premium would give them a better quality of life, by giving them more money to bring in people to care for them.

In November 2011, the independent review, led by Professor Harrington, of the work capability assessment recommended that consideration be given to the need to review the sensory loss descriptors, which are the criteria used to assess entitlement for ESA. The Government accepted that recommendation, but as yet no concrete action has been taken to change the assessment, so blind and partially sighted people continue to lose out. It is frustrating that, despite the recommendations and despite the fact that the Government asked for them, we have not moved on and achieved the vital changes that are needed.

The current impracticalities can be addressed only through revised descriptors in the communication and navigation activities of the WCA. To be specific, new descriptors should reflect the real challenges of obtaining a job, including ones concerned with awareness and with locating and finding.

I will focus on some of the key activities and illustrate the problems faced by those who apply for ESA and those who are blind and partially sighted. Activity 4 is an area of concern. It focuses on picking up and moving or transferring of an object by the use of the upper body and arms and manual dexterity. For someone who is blind or partially sighted, descriptors in this activity fail to account for whether the person can see, locate and know where safely to put the object. The criteria assessment and the questions asked of blind and partially sighted people do not even realise how that affects them—they should, but they do not.

Activity 7 centres on understanding communication, and there are practical problems relating to a claimant’s ability to read Braille. The addition of the ability to read Braille to understand a basic message was not in the previous guidance. If the objective is to consider adaptation—and it should be—a notice detailing the location of a fire exit in Braille is simply not realistic, unless the workplace is specifically and totally geared towards Braille readers.

Further impracticality arises from the expectation put on the interaction between a stranger and a blind person. It is inconceivable that a stranger would walk up to a blind person and hand them a sheet of Braille, especially in the context of a fire. That should not be used as a proxy to satisfy the descriptor and assessment on understanding communication by non-verbal means. It is another simple illustration of how the ESA process does not work for those who are blind and partially sighted.

Activity 8 is on navigating and its “getting about” descriptor scores only nine points for someone who needs to be accompanied around familiar and unfamiliar places. If the intention is to measure impairment functionality, the need to be accompanied is not a sign of adaptation, so the person should be able to score 15 points. Again, that descriptor should be changed, so that those who have limited capability because they are blind or partially sighted qualify for the 15 points and, therefore, for ESA.

The last activity is the awareness of everyday hazards. The descriptors in that activity are too narrow and apply only to people with cognitive impairments. They do not adequately consider the impact of sight loss.

Extremely ill people, people with health problems and people with sight problems who really need help and are looking to the system to provide it cannot get it. The descriptors prevent them from qualifying, when the opposite should be the case. My office is inundated with appeals against DLA decisions because of the guidelines that are in place. Over and again, the same problems are occurring, which is frustrating.

I watch people struggle into my advice centre who can hardly walk, who are suffering from cancer or who do not have the quality of life that the rest of us take for granted. I help them to fill out their forms correctly, which can take an hour and a half or two hours, in the hope that they will get the funds that they need to get the help that they cannot do without. They cannot afford to pay for carers because they do not have the funds that they need. The forms are complex and difficult.

I will give another example of how the system lets people down. I once fought a DLA appeal for a man who had only one leg. His other leg had been amputated. He suffered from diabetes to such an extent that he had to wake up during the night to inject himself. He also suffered from Crohn’s disease and—this is a very personal issue—he often soiled himself during the night before he could get to his crutches and make his way to the toilet. Despite all that, he was turned down for DLA.

I ask myself over and again, “Who are the people who are making these decisions? Do they really grasp what is going on? Do they know what problems the person who has applied for DLA or ESA has?” I would like to take them into that man’s house for one night and leave them to care for him. The next day, they would understand his problems. That would be a good example for most of these people.

I urge the Government to do the right thing by the most vulnerable in our society. I know that this is an Adjournment debate and that the Deputy Leader of the House will reply, but perhaps this will filter through to the people who make the decisions. Of course, we have to consider the money ledger and should not ignore the financial circumstances that the country is in, but we have to consider people’s lives and their mental health.

I see the frustration and anxiety of those who have depression, anxiety and other mental health issues. One woman who comes into my office screams in frustration and says that she will end her life because she is so stressed out by the forms after forms that come to her house. She says that she has no reason to live and that the pressure of filling in the forms becomes overwhelming. She then does not eat, which is another problem. That leaves the girls in my office distressed at the system. It does not take into account the state of this lady’s mental health, when it should do so, and does not understand what the issues are. That disconcerts me.

That woman could not find employment in any workplace. I am not an expert, but when I see people, I can near enough judge whether they are able to work. This lady would not be able to work. She has been trailed through appeal after appeal and wins each time. One wonders whether anybody looks at the background. The girls in my office are concerned that one day they will ring up to check on her and she will not answer.

The Government are right to stop those who are not entitled to benefits from claiming them. However, some people are entitled to help, and they seem to be the ones who are suffering the most. The ball is clearly in the Government’s court. What will history record about what has been done with the vulnerable and the needy? I hope that it will be positive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Bruce]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention because obtaining such clarity is exactly the purpose of my contribution to the debate.

My concerns—and other concerns—were shared by several colleagues during the debate on 30 April. Responding to the debate, the then Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk), stated:

“The concern has been expressed that this Bill is somehow a Trojan horse, preparing the way for a permanent relaxation of the rules for large stores. Let me assure hon. Members again that that is not the case.”

Referring to my particular concerns about the impact on families and family time, he stated:

“I think she is absolutely right, so let me say to her that the Bill affects just eight Sundays and the deliberate inclusion of a sunset clause means that the Bill will be removed from the statute book after 9 September. Indeed, as the Secretary of State has made clear, if a future Government were to consider a permanent relaxation, they would have to undertake a full consultation and present new legislation to this House. As the Secretary of State also pointed out, we have no such plans.”—[Official Report, 30 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 1352-53.]

I was pleased to hear the Minister’s words and I took them as a personal assurance, although I still abstained rather than vote for the proposals. I understood, however, that many of my colleagues also took those words as a firm assurance on behalf of the Government that the temporary alterations to Sunday trading hours would not be further extended or used as a precedent, and hon. Members voted accordingly on that basis.

Some weeks later, towards the end of the wonderful Olympic and Paralympic period of which our nation is so rightly proud, suggestions circulated in the press— I know not from what source they originated—that a permanent deregulation of Sunday trading hours should perhaps be considered, following the limited extension period.

Such suggestions were completely at odds with the statements expressed by more than one Minister during the passage of the Bill. Another Minister in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), stated at the time:

“I want to make it clear that this is a temporary measure and not a test case for a permanent relaxation of the rules in the future”,

and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills stated that the Bill was

“not a signal of the Government’s intent on the broader issue of Sunday trading;”. —[Official Report, 30 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 1293.]

In the light of recent press speculation about a possible further extension to Sunday trading hours, I seek today, either from the Deputy Leader of the House, or after the debate from the new the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), clear confirmation that the assurance given on behalf of the Government still stands, and that despite references to an extension of Sunday trading hours, the Government have no such plans. The Government’s assurance was carefully noted not only by me and many colleagues in the House, but—crucially—by many millions of people across the country.

I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House and the responsible Minister will take this point in the spirit of the utmost courtesy with which I express it, but there is an issue of integrity here. In issuing the confirmation that I seek, Ministers would put an end to continuing speculation that is a cause of concern to many. Of course, the extension of Sunday trading hours was in neither coalition party’s manifesto nor in the coalition agreement.

I turn to some comments that have been made since the summer extension of hours. The British Retail Consortium has recently announced that it does not want to lobby for permanent deregulation of Sunday trading hours. According to Retail Week magazine, momentum for a permanent change among retailers has begun to wane, which may be a result of the BRC’s announcement that retail sales fell by 0.4% in August, compared with August 2011 on a like-for-like basis, with no sign of the Olympic boost that was promoted as a reason for the temporary extension. According to the Association of Convenience Stores, independent retailers reported a loss of sales of up to 20% and a 30% drop in footfall over the Olympic period. That reported negative impact is of considerable concern to many small retailers, which often live on narrow margins, and to their employees.

[Jim Shannon]

Does that not knock the giant supermarkets’ feet away from under them? They said that if they opened longer on Sunday, there would be extra trade and extra jobs, but those figures prove that it did not happen.

[Fiona Bruce]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, and I understand from answers to written questions that I have tabled on the issue that the Government are proposing to produce their own analysis of sales over the Olympic period. May I venture to suggest that any analysis would be of questionable conclusive value due to a number of variables that influenced retail sales during the Olympics, not least the fact that they were a wholly unique event? There was also the differing proximity of retail outlets to Olympic venues, the weather and the coincidental holiday period.

I remind the House that the Government have already given extensive consideration to a review of Sunday trading hours in their retail growth review and their red tape challenge. In both instances the policy was rigorously explored, and I understand that a clear view was formed that there was no need to amend the current trading hours, which represented

“a valued compromise for all parties.”

I should add that many people would welcome more protection for Sundays as a day of rest and a day for families, friends and those of shared faith. I commend the work of the Keep Sunday Special campaign, which continues to make a strong case for keeping Sunday a different and special day in our national life.

If shops were open longer, that would not mean that consumers had the funds or the inclination to buy more goods. Our quieter high streets during the Olympic period showed that, including some of the Cheshire high streets about which I have inquired.

Far from being pro-growth, any proposal further to extend our already long retail trading hours may actually have the opposite impact, as work or productivity expands to fill the time allotted, as the old saying goes. I am reminded of accounts that I have heard from during the war, when factories seeking to increase their production moved to a seven-day working week and found that production actually decreased. A subsequent return to six-day production led to an increase. The day of rest proved its value.

I wish to give two quotations from senior business leaders. They were not necessarily made subsequent to the Olympic period, but they are worth putting on the record. Justin King, Sainsbury’s chief executive, has said:

“We’re content that Sunday is special and we don’t see customer demand for a change in the current law.”

The former Marks and Spencer chairman Sir Stuart Rose has said:

“The fact of the matter is you simply spread the same amount of business over a longer period, but with more operating costs. It’s a zero-sum game.”

Time with family—time to care—is important. So many people at the end of their lives say, “I wish I’d spent more time with my family; I wish I’d spent more time caring.” We have all heard the expression that not many people, if anyone, would say, “I wish I’d spent more time at the office”, and I doubt that anyone will say, “I wish I’d spent more time shopping.”

I have been encouraged to hear it reported recently that the Prime Minister, on being asked whether he would support changes to the law in this regard, responded:

“We said at the time it was a specific thing for the Olympics and that was the proposal that we made.”

I request from the Deputy Leader of the House, on behalf of BIS Ministers, clear and unequivocal confirmation of the assurance given in this House when the Sunday Trading (London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games) Bill was debated and passed that the extension of trading hours for the period of the games was limited to that period and would not be extended. In doing so, he will put an end to the ongoing speculation and concern in this connection. I look forward to his response.