Backbench Business Committee

Representations: Backbench Debates

Tuesday 6 September 2022

Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 6 September 2022.

Watch the meeting

Members present: Ian Mearns (Chair); Bob Blackman; Patricia Gibson; Jerome Mayhew; Kate Osborne.

Questions 1-13

Representations

I: Dame Caroline Dinenage.

II: Jim Shannon.

III: Selaine Saxby.

Written evidence from witnesses:

– [Add names of witnesses and hyperlink to submissions]

Dame Caroline Dinenage made representations.

Q1                Chair: Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the Backbench Business Committee. We have three applications in front of us this afternoon, the first of which is to be presented by Dame Caroline Dinenage on recovery and respite for unpaid carers and recognising Carers Week 2022. Carers Week 2022 was back in June, I think, Caroline?

Dame Caroline Dinenage: It was. We did put in an application ahead of it, but over the period of Carers Week a number of the charities that support carers came together and created this plan for what they saw as the optimum support and recognition the Government could put in place for unpaid carers. It is about looking at how we can bring that forward to debate it in Parliament.

Chair: Well, over to you in that case.

Dame Caroline Dinenage: Thank you very much. I suppose I need to declare an interest; first, I am one of the co-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group on carers and, secondly, I was Care Minister for two years from 2018 to 2020, so I guess I have a bit of unfinished business when it comes to this. The fact is that Carers UK estimates that in the UK at the moment, there are about 10.6 million people providing unpaid care for their friends, family and loved ones. The value of that care to the UK economy is absolutely staggering, because if they were not providing that help and support the cost to the public purse would be astronomical. The calculation is that at the height of the pandemic, it would have been up to £530 million a day. Of course, that is money that the NHS and local councils can ill afford.

Unpaid carers take a huge amount of pressure off other services, but it is not without its cost for the individuals doing that caring. I saw it at first hand; my mum was a carer for my grandma, my nan, when she was living with dementia. My mum did that with enormous love and energy, but you could see the impact it had on her own health and wellbeing, not to mention her job, her relationships, her friendships and all the other things.

I think it is important to have the debate because it is so multifaceted. As you will appreciate, there was a debate earlier in the year on carer’s allowance, which is one aspect of the concerns. There is a Back-Bench Bill coming on Friday about carer’s leave. What I am really talking about, though, is the health impact. We know that carers have worse physical and mental health than non-carers. We know that their caring responsibilities can have an enormous impact on their health and wellbeing. We know that they can suffer profound loneliness and social isolation as a result of the care they are giving. The pressures of juggling their unpaid caring responsibilities with their paid work, which they need for their own livelihoods, can sometimes force people out of the labour market, which is significant. That can drive enormous financial hardship.

Then there is the respite aspect of it. So few carers can access suitable breaks and respite from their caring responsibilities, and that was particularly seen over the covid pandemic when people were caring 24/7 over an extraordinary period. In many cases, they suffer significant difficulties accessing the social care and support services they need to help them and getting the carers’ assessments that they are legally entitled to.

There are a number of facets to the subject that it is important to cover. When I was Care Minister, we published a carers action plan that was co-signed by, I think, six or seven different Government Departments. It headlined a few of the changes that Departments could make better to support unpaid carers. After the first year, there was a kind of update on the progress of that action plan. It was a quite short-term action plan; it wasn’t a huge, great strategy. There has never been a Government stocktake of that action plan to see what bits of it the Government have delivered—in some cases, they have—and what is still outstanding. I think that this would be a great opportunity to really take stock of where we are and what extra help and support carers need.

Q2                Chair: Thank you very much indeed. Given the multifaceted nature of the debate that you want to have and the issues that you want to raise—you have just mentioned the cross-Government strategy—who would be the answering Department? Would it be Health?

Dame Caroline Dinenage: In this case, it would be Health. As you know, the Bill that will be coming forward this week is about carer’s leave, so that is more of a BEIS thing. It was Health that brought together the other Departments for the carers action plan and that co-ordinates that work, and I think that it needs to ultimately take the lead on it.

Q3                Chair: I suppose the other question I have is, given that we are now no longer in the realms of trying to hold this in conjunction with Carers Week, what would be the timeliness, from your perspective? When would you want the debate, if you could get it?

Dame Caroline Dinenage: There is no great urgency because we are not aiming for a specific date, but we would be really keen to have it as soon as the Committee thinks it is appropriate.

Chair: Thank you very much. Are there any other questions?

Q4                Bob Blackman: Caroline, you have applied for a debate in the Chamber. We have a very long queue of debates that want the Chamber, and some that actually have to have the Chamber because they are divisible motions. However, there are opportunities for Westminster Hall debates, not the least of which would be Tuesday 20th September, which would give you your 90 minutes guaranteed and allow you to have the debate very soon. Would that interest you?

Dame Caroline Dinenage: As tempting as that is, I think we would prefer to hold out for an opportunity to have it in the Chamber. The reason is purely because of the number of people who are involved. According to the census, which was way back in 2011—even at that point—there were 7.1 million people performing some kind of unpaid care. We know that that virtually doubled over covid, and a piece of YouGov research for Carers UK now estimates the figure to be around 10.6 million people. It impacts every single constituency up and down this country and we have so many MPs that are keen to have this debate. I think it would be well attended, so I think it does warrant consideration in the main Chamber.

Q5                Chair: It is just that we do not normally have 90-minute debates in the Chamber. Having said that, we very rarely get three-hour debates either because of other time constraints, so for applications for half of an afternoon, we would normally be looking for more names on the application.

Dame Caroline Dinenage: We can certainly provide more names. We have a large number of names of people who are members of the all-party parliamentary group, so we have literally only just produced a very short—

Chair: So, it is a live application; it is in. Therefore, if you can just add in names to the Clerks of the Committee, that would be very useful. Thank you very much.

Dame Caroline Dinenage: Yes, of course.

Q6                Jerome Mayhew: Are you looking for a change to policy here, or are you looking to celebrate an under-recognised section of the community? Is there an ask?

Dame Caroline Dinenage: Yes. Well, there will be a number of asks. I think recognition is the key thing. There were a number of policies announced in the carers action plan. We would like the opportunity to go through some of those and identify which ones have been delivered and which have not, so some policies have still not been delivered on, and there are other things that we would like to see added to that list.

I think that, overall, we will be asking for a carers strategy, which is more long-term. The carers action plan was about some really quick wins—short-term, achievable, low-cost improvements. However, out of this debate, we would be asking for a proper, full-time carers strategy, which would show carers the recognition of their contributions—the sacrifices, frankly, that they make—and some commitment to the way that they are recognised and protected in their recovery from the work they have been doing over the covid period, and look towards some of the respite that they need from their caring responsibilities.

Chair: All right. In that case, thank you very much indeed.

Jim Shannon made representations.

Q7                Chair: Next up is Mr Jim Shannon. Is this your first time at the Committee, Mr Shannon?

              Jim Shannon: Yes, I’m not quite sure how it works.

Chair: Anyway, welcome, Jim. You have an application on Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month.

Jim Shannon: Mr Chairman and fellow colleagues, I have been asked by the pancreatic cancer society and groups of other MPs to bring forward this debate. It is primarily because pancreatic cancer is the deadliest common cancer; I think we all know that. We haven’t had a debate on pancreatic cancer for some time. We have asked for this debate to be held in the November coming, if that’s possible. I’m happy for it to be in Westminster Hall or wherever because we are just trying to highlight the issue.

Out of all the requests I usually put in, this is the one where I can say with all truthfulness that 50% of those who have added their name are from the Government party and 50% are from the Opposition, so it is a very clear balance. It also adds to the sincerity of the request. It tells me that the wish for this debate to take place is a heartfelt one coming from both sides of the Chamber because of its importance. The reasons are unfortunate, as is so often the case.

In the background information that I put forward, it says that 50% of pancreatic cancer patients still die within six months of diagnosis, and only 7% survive for more than five years. With respect, in 50 years nothing has changed. It doesn’t matter who the Government are, it is not a matter of pointing the finger—it’s not about that; that’s not how I do things—it is about how we can improve it.

The request today is one that comes from our hearts, and our request is that we have this opportunity. It seems as well—and this is not a criticism of other charities and other groups, because I will fight as hard for other cancer charities—that there is a wee bit of a dearth of research into pancreatic cancer. I know some people who had pancreatic cancer diagnosed, and almost from when it started it was an unusual thing. They were in for other things, and a blood test diagnosed pancreatic cancer and saved their lives. Others have unfortunately been diagnosed after maybe a month or two and have not survived.

We are requesting this debate to get some idea from the Government. The Government announced a cancer strategy in, I think, July of this year. I know the Government are committed to it, by the way—I am not saying they are not—but this is a way of perhaps highlighting it, in such a way that we can get a real commitment from the Minister on the day, whoever the Minister will be. I think it is normally Maria Caulfield; she is still a Minister at this minute, in my understanding. I hope she will be the Minister afterwards, but we will see what happens. We need more help for innovative research, and while the Government have announced a 10-year cancer plan, I think we really have to understand why pancreatic cancer does not have the prominence that it perhaps should have, along with other less survivable cancers.

If it ties in with November 2022, the debate will fall within Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month, and I think it will complement what is happening in this House. There is an opportunity to have an event as well, which people want to have. They probably want to do EDMs and to invite Members to come along. This will be an opportunity for MPs from all parties who are requesting this debate. Every person on the list has a deep interest in cancer. Many of them are chairs of cancer committees and APPGs in this House, so my request to the Committee is to have the debate.

Q8                Chair: If you were to get a slot, Jim, would your preference be for early November or later?

Jim Shannon: Probably early November, if possible. You know I never insist on anything; I am very happy to take whatever you feel is appropriate.

Q9                Bob Blackman: Sorry, would you not want to take an earlier slot—before the conference recess—for a Westminster Hall debate? That is what you have applied for.

Jim Shannon: I have been asked to look towards November.

Bob Blackman: That is fine.

Jim Shannon: I think I did apply for that in the request, but they say that November 2022 will tie in with their raising awareness, so I am ever mindful that I am just a servant doing what they have asked me to do. I am very happy.

Chair: That is fine, Jim. Thank you. It is just that there might be an opportunity for a Westminster Hall debate before the conference recess—if the conference recess happens, of course—but I fully understand that if you have an awareness raising month, it would be appropriate to have it within that timeframe. That is lovely. Anyone else please?

Bob Blackman: Have you got intelligence that the conference recess will not take place?

Chair: I have heard some speculation that, in order to enact some emergency legislation, it might be a consideration, but that is all it is. I would have thought it is unlikely because of the cost to the political parties of cancelling conferences at such short notice.

Patricia Gibson: I would have thought that if, for example, there was a new leader of a political party somewhere, who just happened to be Prime Minister, conference would be a good showcase. We would not want to cancel that, would we?

Chair: Exactly, but you do not know how some people think sometimes. Jim, much appreciated. Thank you very much.

Jim Shannon: Ladies and gentlemen, thank you.

Selaine Saxby made representations.

Q10            Chair: Next up is Selaine Sexby. Good afternoon and welcome. Nice to see you. You have an application entitled, “Levelling Up Rural Britain”. Over to you, Selaine.

Selaine Saxby: Ever since I was elected as an MP, I have had a real concern that far too many of our policies are very city-centric. Obviously, many of them come out of Westminster and, by the time they have reached rural north Devon, they have lost a certain je ne sais quoi. Levelling up has not exactly reached the far-flung parts of much of rural Britain. At this point in time, so much of the levelling-up agenda has been focused on great big infrastructure projects. I do not deny anyone else that they need levelling up, but many of the smaller levelling-up projects across the country were unsuccessful in the first round of levelling-up funding.

Jim and I were in a debate this morning about small hospitals, looking at the rurality issues around small hospitals and providing health and social care in a rural setting. Overlay things like the energy crisis. Everyone has to drive; we have no public transport. People delivering social care have to drive much further than in a city setting. How do we actually pay for them to deliver social care with rurality this winter? There are just so many different challenges.

People love living in the countryside. They are resilient. They are not moaning about it, but I think when we look to level up the country, we will find that rural Britain has been just a little neglected. If you overlay some of the things that go on in rural Britain, you could suggest that we all stay at home because it is a nice place to be, but we do not have any broadband.

My constituency boasts some of the best broadband in the country—not. Many people in the highlands and islands, and people who have supported the application, feel very similarly that some of the gaps that are beginning to open up are getting worse, not better, as time goes on. We do not begrudge anyone else their levelling-up money, because the whole point of levelling up was that it reached everybody in every community, but small pockets keep being missed and keep being missed and keep being missed.

Look at rural productivity. We are hoping that the real focus with the new Prime Minister will be to improve productivity across the country. It is very hard to improve productivity in an environment where it is too expensive to even get to work, and when you cannot work from home, that makes it very challenging, so there are economic benefits. I hope that we have demonstrated that there is a lot of support. Unfortunately, rural Britain is not equally represented by the parties.

I have late-signatory additions in the right hon. Rishi Sunak for Richmond, who would like to sign up, and Sammy Wilson from the DUP, who contacted me this morning as well. There has been a lot of interest, even though the application was done right at the end of last term and over recess. I am very happy to answer any questions.

Chair: Thank you very much. Do colleagues have any questions?

Q11            Bob Blackman: Can I just check that the answering Department would be Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, not DEFRA? Is that right?

Selaine Saxby: Yes.

Q12            Bob Blackman: Would you accept a Westminster Hall debate to get a debate quickly, or would you like to join the ever-growing queue for a Chamber debate?

Selaine Saxby: I think it would depend how long that ever-growing queue is.

Q13            Bob Blackman: All I would say is this: looking at our papers, you certainly would not get a debate this side of party conference, and I think you would be lucky to get one in December given the rate of progress that we are making.

Selaine Saxby: Okay. I would be prepared to take that chance. I think this issue is important enough and that it has not been heard. I am involved in the coastal communities debate this week, and too often, these topics do get popped to Westminster Hall—for entirely obvious reasons, but part of the issue is that rural issues keep getting tucked under the carpet and popped in the little corner. It is time that rural Britain had its day—tractors and all—and marched in.

Bob Blackman: To advance it, then, one thing I would suggest is an appropriate motion about what you would like to see happen, because that will concentrate minds.

Chair: And a divisible motion, as opposed to a general debate, moves you up the pecking order.

Selaine Saxby: Okay, lovely.

Chair: Any other questions? No? In that case, thank you very much indeed, Selaine. That brings our public deliberations to a close.