BBC

Debate between Jim Shannon and Helen Jones

Monday 15th July 2019 Westminster Hall

[Helen Jones]

I absolutely agree. We can see a pattern in the agreement with the BBC. The BBC was to take on the funding of free TV licences as the Government gradually withdrew their contribution, and then it would take on all such funding from 2020-21. In 2017-18, the cost of those licences was about £655 million. Last year the Government paid £468 million from the Department for Work and Pensions, and this year they will pay £247 million. That is an unsustainable funding model, and the Government knew that, or at least they ought to have known that—if they did not, then they are even more incompetent than I thought— when they entered into the agreement with the BBC.

To fund the licences, the BBC would need to close down channels or radio stations. A number of columnists have written about the money paid to the BBC’s top earners. Some are grossly overpaid, and in my view—this is entirely subjective—some of the so-called talent are not very talented. However, restricting the top rate of pay to £100,000 would not meet the cost of the licences. Again, the Government must have known that, but they want to deflect the blame. They knew there would have been an outcry had they tried to amend or abolish the scheme, so they sent it off to the BBC. When the changes were made, they said, “Nothing to do with us, mate.” They are the “not me, guv” Government—the Arthur Daleys of public administration.

It is the Government who made the decision on TV licences, and it will be really damaging to older people in this country. If someone cannot get out and about, and no one visits them, the TV is their companion. If someone cannot afford to go out and socialise, the TV is their entertainment, their window on the world and a way of keeping their mind active. Unfortunately, that is the lot of many older people in this country. We do not respect or value our older people as we should. I declare an interest, because I am heading that way myself.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

As the hon. Lady will know, people of my generation always used to say, “Well, this is the BBC. It’s gospel. It’s the truth.” Does she share my concern that the BBC is not now as impartial as it should be and that we need to instigate reform in order to alter that perception, so that we can go back to the good old days of unbiased reporting of fact rather than personal perceptions and opinions?

[Helen Jones]

I am afraid that I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman—the BBC produces very good news coverage. People sometimes see bias when they are being told things that they do not want to hear—we must remember that.

Many older people—half of over-75s, in fact—are disabled. Age UK estimates that three in 10 are living in poverty or just above the poverty line. For those people, TV is a lifeline. Many of them live alone. I have one elderly friend who leaves the TV on almost all the time because it is another voice in the house.

Online Abuse

Debate between Jim Shannon and Helen Jones

Monday 29th April 2019 Westminster Hall

[Helen Jones]

The hon. Lady makes a very valid point. I will move on to legislation shortly.

Our inquiry has led us to conclude that social media companies do not employ enough moderators, or enough suitably trained moderators, to deal with this abuse. Given how much profit they are making, that is frankly scandalous. We also found that there is a lot of confusion about what is the responsibility of social media companies and what is the responsibility of the police. That confusion is often fed by the social media companies themselves.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Helen Jones]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but then I must make progress.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for making a very passionate and capable speech. Does she agree that perhaps we need someone to be a spokesperson for disabled people online, in a similar way to what has been done for racism and hate crime? Does she feel that perhaps the online companies should set aside a figure such as 1% of their earnings to address the issue? Maybe it is because online abuse as a result of racism and hate seems to be—I use the word very loosely—“sexy”, whereas abuse of disabled people is not. We need someone to be a spokesperson; does the hon. Lady agree that we should set somebody aside for that purpose?

[Helen Jones]

Whether there should be a particular person charged with that is one issue, but I think disabled people are well able to speak for themselves about this, and have been doing so when people choose to hear them.

Social media companies should certainly do more. For example, we found that Twitter talks about dealing with threats of violence by removing an offending tweet or suspending an account, but nowhere does it say that threats to kill are a serious criminal offence and should be reported to the police. That in itself is breeding confusion. We often found that the police were having to pick up things that should really have been dealt with by social media companies. We think it quite wrong that police resources should have to be used in that way because the social media companies are failing.

Social media companies need clear rules, policies, mechanisms and settings that are accessible to all disabled people. They also need to be much more proactive in removing hate speech from their sites and reporting potential criminal offences, including the theft of images, which was one of the worst things that we found—particularly images of children that were used to create so-called memes or jokes.

Rightly, the Government’s White Paper on online harms commits to imposing a duty of care on social media companies and making them responsible for harmful or illegal content on their sites. However, the document refers repeatedly to

“children and other vulnerable users”.

We must understand that many disabled people resent the categorisation of all disabled people as vulnerable. They are not. Like the rest of us, some are vulnerable and some are not. Mostly, they are disadvantaged by how society treats them, rather than by the intrinsic nature of their condition. I hope that the Minister’s reply will reassure us that those things will apply to all kinds of abuse.

What is very clear is that self-regulation has comprehensively failed disabled people in the same way that it has failed many other people who use the internet. Unfortunately, so has the law, as the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) pointed out. The Government tell us constantly that what is illegal offline is illegal online. That is true as far as it goes, but it does not go very far. There are potentially 30 statutes that could apply to online offences. Some offences, such as the theft of images or instigating pile-ons, can occur only online.

The fact that, as one of our witnesses put it,

“not all the pieces of the jigsaw join up”

is leading to a low rate of prosecution in this area. If the law cannot deal with the creation of fake child pornography to mock a disabled child and his family, as happened in the case of Harvey Price, it is simply inadequate. We need a new law that is fit for the digital age, which is why we have recommended that the Government bring forward legislation as a matter of urgency and consult disabled people before doing so.

The Government should make disability hate crime an offence in the same way that crime against someone due to their race or religion is an offence. At the moment, it is only an aggravating factor at sentencing, and it is necessary to prove that someone committed a crime because of hostility to someone due to their disability, which is a very high threshold. Both the Crown Prosecution Service and Detective Inspector John Donovan of the Metropolitan police’s online hate crime hub pointed us to the research by the University of Sussex, which shows that disability hate crime was under-reported and under-prosecuted due to the current state of the law.

In their White Paper, the Government include hate crime in a list of harms that they say are clearly defined. I am afraid that it is not clearly defined on disability hate crime, and it urgently needs to be. As our inquiry proceeded, it became clear to us that disabled people do not feel adequately protected by the law, and do not feel that they are heard when they report crimes. People not being heard properly was a recurring theme throughout our inquiry.

Some good work has been done at senior levels of the police and the CPS, but the law will not work properly unless that percolates down through the organisations, and unless the person on the desk in the police station or the officer who comes out to see people understands it. That is why we have recommended more training for police officers, including in dealing with people who have learning disabilities or autism, so that they are not automatically pigeonholed as being unreliable witnesses.

Cervical Cancer Smear Tests

Debate between Jim Shannon and Helen Jones

Monday 28th January 2019 Westminster Hall

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 225767 relating to lowering the age for smear tests for cervical cancer from 25 to 18.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. Before I move to the substance of the debate, I want to say a little about the woman who started the petition, Natasha Sale. She died on 28 December last year. She was 31 and left four children. I have spoken to her friends this afternoon, and I think Natasha must have been a remarkable person, because it takes a remarkable person to decide, when they have a terminal diagnosis, that they will use their time to help others rather than to bemoan their fate. That is what Natasha did. In her petition, she said that

“it’s too late for me but it’s not too late for the next generation”.

I thank her family and friends, who encouraged people to sign the petition to get the debate today. I particularly thank Natasha’s family, who have kindly said they are happy with the debate going ahead. That, too, takes courage, and I am grateful to them.

Cervical cancer is something that all women fear. Like breast cancer, it strikes at the heart of how we see ourselves and how we define ourselves as women. Because of that, screening programmes have been introduced in this country. In fact, screening is changing so that women will be tested for the human papillomavirus before they get cervical screening, because most but not all cervical cancers are caused by HPV. Screening is currently on offer only to women between the ages of 25 and 64. Those between 25 and 49 are called every three years and those from 50 upwards are called every five years, yet the reasoning behind that offer is perhaps not often understood. Before the age of 25, not only is such cancer very rare, but changes in the cervix are very common. A test can produce false positives and lead to unnecessary treatment and anxiety for women.

Nevertheless, there have been repeated calls to lower the age of screening, not only in this petition, but in others, including one we received previously. In response, the Government would rightly say that the UK National Screening Committee has looked at the evidence and decided that there is no real evidence to support reducing the age of screening. Their reasoning, which is valid, is that one in three tests below that age will produce a false positive; and that, when people are given unnecessary treatment, there is a risk to future pregnancies. I hope the Government will publish the evidence on the risks of getting cervical cancer at that age and the risks from screening so that women can make an informed decision. They should publish that in a way that can be understood by people who, like me, are not doctors or scientists. The evidence is often couched in scientific jargon, which conveys very little to most of us. That is the first important thing that we want to do.

Even with that evidence published, there will always be some cases, and cases in young women can be very tragic. They can lead to the loss of a young life, and often leave children without their mother. Because the disease can be so devastating, in 2008 the then Labour Government introduced a programme of vaccination against the most virulent forms of HPV for all girls from the age of 12. In fact, for that first cohort, we vaccinated up to the age of 18 to catch up. Those who were 18 at the time will now be undergoing their first screening. If as expected the rate of cervical cancer in that age group drops, it will have been well worth while.

When the programme was introduced, I well remember MPs getting a lot of letters from parents saying they did not want their daughters vaccinated—it still happens—because they somehow saw it as encouraging promiscuity. That is not what vaccination is about. It is about vaccinating girls before they become sexually active. I hope parents will think about the risk they are putting their daughters through if they do not have the vaccinations.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for presenting the case in the petition. While the vaccine has been shown to lower incidence of cervical cancer, does she agree that cervical screening should take place as a matter of urgency, initially for those who are sexually active? The average age when sexual activity begins is 15.6 years across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Does she agree that people cannot be allowed to wait 10 years for a first cervical smear? It must be addressed immediately.

[Helen Jones]

I will answer that point in a moment, because it is important that we look at the evidence. There will always be some cases, even among women under 25. We can never eliminate the risk completely. When that happens, it is important they get the right treatment. That is why in 2010 guidelines were published for GPs to ensure that young women who presented with abnormal symptoms were offered screening and referred on to a consultant if necessary. That does not always happen—I will come on to that in a moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Jones]

Yes, and I hope those tests will be rolled out across the rest of Britain.

On the problem of women getting access to screening services, time and again they report that they ring their GP for an appointment that is then weeks ahead. Someone I met recently told me that, in her case, it is months ahead. It can be as much as 10 weeks. All are offered appointments at times they cannot attend, perhaps because they work shifts—that applies particularly to younger women who are more likely to be in insecure employment and therefore not eager to ask for time off.

I do not know why we persist in this, but very often the comments on screening give the impression that someone is saying, “These stupid women are not going for their screening.” Actually, there is a problem of access. I remember when we had mobile breast cancer screening units that came to a place of work. I got my blood pressure tested in the middle of Warrington shopping centre because the hospital had a programme to encourage people to go for testing in case they were at risk of vascular disease. Why can we not do more to take cervical screening to places where women are? Why can they not be screened in the workplace, for example, where groups of women are much more likely to say, “Come on! We will all go together”? It is not beyond the wit of man to arrange that.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Helen Jones]

I will give way one more time and then I must make some progress.

[Jim Shannon]

Constituents have expressed concerns to me on two issues: first, that it is very painful; and secondly that it is embarrassing. When it comes to giving peace of mind to ladies going for cervical cancer screening at whatever age, it is very important that the doctors and GPs are involved at an early stage to put their minds at rest. The importance of cervical cancer screening cannot be underlined enough, but the ladies need to be assured of not having the pain and embarrassment, which is a big task for the NHS.

[Helen Jones]

The hon. Gentleman is right. Women need to be assured that they will be treated sympathetically, whatever their age. All of us who have been to screening know that sometimes it is fine, but sometimes someone is a bit ham-fisted and it is not fine. It is better than getting cancer.

Another issue needs tackling: when women under 25 present with abnormal symptoms such as abnormal vaginal bleeding, they are not always treated according to the guidelines. In fact, they are frequently not treated according to guidelines. There are plenty of examples of younger women going to their GP with symptoms and being told they are too young for cervical screening, and plenty of examples of women going time and again and, as one lady told me earlier, being fobbed off. The problem is that GPs do not see a lot of cases and cervical cancer is therefore not the first thing they think of. The Government must do more to alert GPs to the possibility of cancer to get early diagnosis and ensure that people are referred to consultants where necessary.