Work Capability Assessments

Debate between Cathy Jamieson and Michael Connarty

Wednesday 1st February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Cathy Jamieson]

I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that I take such issues seriously. I am very concerned to hear that she is aware of people being driven to such drastic action as taking their own lives. Going by the correspondence and contact that I have with constituents, I can say only that I know just how difficult it is for people, and that many feel they cannot face the appeal process—particularly those who have suffered from a condition for years and who feel that the process is undignified and that they do not get the right help and support, and who perhaps do not know to whom to turn.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

I echo everything that my hon. Friend says about the appeals process and the total lack of credibility of Atos. Earlier, she mentioned the systemic problem of DWP officers overruling all of the evidence, even that from Atos. Will the Minister address the fact that many people who are told that they cannot work again are suddenly taken off the support system in the DWP and put on to the other system, thus causing them great problems? They are made to go through rituals of training and work interviews when everyone agrees that they cannot work again. Surely that power should be clearly defined. If someone is told that they cannot work again, DWP officials should not be allowed to overrule that decision.

[Cathy Jamieson]

I am sure that the Minister will respond to that point, which is also one that I raised earlier. As I had concerns about the work capability assessments for people with a range of conditions, I tabled some parliamentary questions in a bid to find out how many people had been assessed in my constituency. I was disappointed to be told that such information could only be provided at a disproportionate cost.

After hearing about the experiences of a number of my constituents, I tabled another parliamentary question to find out how many assessments had been carried out on constituents who had cerebral palsy, osteoporosis, MS, who were registered blind, who had hearing impairments, who were on the autistic spectrum, who were carers themselves and who had learning difficulties or mental health problems. Those are the people who had come to me saying that they had had difficulties with the work capability assessment. Again, I was told that such information was not available at constituency level. I hope that the Minister can respond to that and tell me whether that kind of assessment, analysis and reporting will be available by parliamentary constituency in the future because it is in the interests of transparency and it would enable us to make comparisons across different parts of the country.

Finally, I have a couple of points around the issue of Parkinson’s, which my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West mentioned in his opening remarks. The Parkinson’s Disease Society says that increasing numbers of people with Parkinson’s are being rejected from the support group. Between October 2008 and November 2010, it says that 45% of people with Parkinson’s who had undertaken the work capability assessment were referred to the work-related activity group instead. As an example, the organisation cited the case of one man who was placed in the work-related activity group despite the fact that his tremor was so severe that he could not hold a pen, walk more than a few steps or button up his trousers himself.

The organisation gives examples of people having long waits for appeals and receiving inconsistent or inadequate support in the work-related activity group. It talks about the ESA assessment process impacting disproportionately or inappropriately on other benefits, the worry for carers and the knock-on effect on other statutory services.

The Parkinson’s Disease Society also gives examples of people who are clearly not fit for work being told that they should get work. A 59-year-old man with Parkinson’s says:

“I feel I could work in the right job, with the right support, but none of this has been forthcoming from the job centre, who wished me well but basically said there are no jobs for able-bodied people let alone someone like me. I’m not surprised that only 6% of people in my position get back into work in 12 months. Everything I’ve done to get back into work I've had to off my own bat.”

On the one hand, we have people who say that they want to work and to cope with their condition and feel that they can do so but who are getting no help, and on the other we have those who feel that they are being hounded. That is not the sign of a caring, compassionate and decent system. I hope that the Minister will take account of what Citizens Advice and others have said and that he will not make this a party political issue. There is agreement across all parts of the House that this system is not working in the way that it should. I hope that in his response, the Minister will consider making some changes and give us some hope for the future.

Pensioners and Winter Fuel Payments

Debate between Cathy Jamieson and Michael Connarty

Tuesday 22nd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Cathy Jamieson]

I am sure that Mr and Mrs Watt are fairly typical of many of the pensioners we all see in our surgeries. It is not only my hon. Friend’s constituents who see this as a cut. The charity director of Age UK said earlier this year:

“While the uplift was billed as a temporary measure, renewed annually, for those older people struggling to pay fuel bills, this is a question of semantics and they will view the measure as a cut.”

Pensioners view the measure as a cut as less money is going into their pockets.

I know from my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, as was mentioned earlier in the debate, that the average household energy bill is around 14% higher in Northern Ireland than in England and Wales. In the 21st century, it is absolutely shocking that around 1,300 are estimated to have died from cold weather-related illnesses in Northern Ireland last year.

I must also gently point out to the Minister and other Government Members that, although advising consumers to shop around and switch suppliers might make sense to some people, many of the pensioners I have spoken to find the range of tariffs and options on standing charges completely baffling. If people do not have access to the internet and the price comparison sites that the better-off might use, where are they to start? Pensioners do not want the hassle of complicated forms and do not always trust advice given over the phone, particularly after the bad publicity about people feeling under pressure to switch suppliers.

I heard what the Minister said about there being an 0800 number to call for advice. I do not know whether he has sat with constituents and tried—[Interruption.] He mentions pension credit, but I do not know whether he has sat with constituents who use a range of advice lines and sometimes find them difficult to use. They might be pensioners who are unused to speaking in detail over the phone and find it an off-putting experience. It is important that people can have face-to-face advice and I would welcome any effort he can make in that regard.

I also want to mention briefly those who are off-grid, and there are similarities between Scotland and Northern Ireland, particularly in rural areas. It is not so simple for people in those areas to shop around, although some helpful work has been done, for example, in ensuring that there are co-operative ways for communities to come together to purchase fuel. I hope that that is something the Government will support.

With consumer prices index inflation at 5.2%, pensioners on low and fixed incomes are among the most tightly squeezed, and again Age UK states that

“older people have experienced a rate of inflation on average 5% above headline measures and this is, in part, because the proportion of their income spent on food and fuel is higher than for other age groups.”

The harsh reality is that, instead of supporting pensioners, this Government’s actions are making life even tougher— [Interruption.] Right on cue, the Minister starts again the usual orchestrated chorus from Government Members, attacking the previous Government rather than looking at what his Government are doing today.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

On the additional costs of food and fuel, is it not really beholden on the Government to realise that those are the areas where pensioners, in particular, feel the pinch? We are in a situation whereby many pensioners say that it is a matter of either heating or eating, so the Government should adjust not their philosophy but the reality of life to the fact that these inflationary measures are hitting pensioners, who do not have the money or the resources to back up the costs when they come in with the bills that they have to pay.

[Cathy Jamieson]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Many pensioners do not want to admit the financial difficulty that they are in. Often, they try to hide it from their family, friends and local community, so they go behind closed doors and curtains, do not put the heating on for fear of the huge bills that may come in, and choose at times when their money is tight to cut down on nutritious food and other essential items. That is the stark reality for many pensioners living in our communities today, and it is time that the Government realised that they have to take responsibility for their own decisions.

The Government have to take responsibility for their actions and face up to the consequences, so let us take a look at the facts. I am sure that I will get more sedentary comments from Government Members, but it is important to remind people that the UK economy has flatlined over the past year, with just 0.5% growth well before the eurozone crisis, which cannot therefore be entirely to blame for choking off recovery. In the European Union, only Greece, Portugal and Cyprus have grown more slowly than the UK, and the United States has grown more than three times as fast as us over the past 12 months.

The Government’s mistaken decision to raise VAT to 20% in January has hit pensioners hard. Estimates are that it will cost a pensioner couple on average £275 a year, and I return to my earlier point: that may seem like a small amount to some Members; it is not a small amount for someone who is facing the rise in prices, trying to make every penny go that bit further and facing such difficulties every day.

We know that the Government’s policies are hurting ordinary people, because we hear it every day from constituents, as my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr Hamilton) said, so we, like the right hon. Member for Belfast North who moved the motion, believe that the Government should look again at the impact of their polices on winter fuel payments and on VAT, which in combination have hit pensioners hard.

The Government have the opportunity to ease the squeeze on pensioners, and they should take it by temporarily reversing the VAT rise. At the very least, they could do so immediately and put that £275 back into the pockets of pensioners.

When Labour introduced winter fuel payments, it did so as part of a drive to help tackle fuel poverty among pensioners, and I accept that some Government Members genuinely want to see the problem tackled. The payments were specifically designed to give older people the reassurance that they could afford to heat their homes in winter—and do so in a way that would allow them to continue to buy their food and to pay the rest of their bills.

At the time there was, and indeed there has been since, criticism that the winter fuel allowance was not targeted in the way that some anti-poverty organisations might have wished. Some people wanted the allowance to go further, and others wanted different groups of people included, but we know from research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies that households receiving the winter fuel payment are almost 14 times more likely to spend the money on fuel than they are if their incomes are increased in other ways. That is quite important, and the IFS specifically stated:

“Households receiving the Winter Fuel Payment spend 41% of it on fuel even though there is no obligation to do so. When the same households receive additional income which is not labelled in any way, they spend just 3% of it on fuel. To put it another way, simply increase the income of a pensioner household by £100 and they will increase their spending on fuel by £3. Label that increase a ‘Winter Fuel Payment’ and £41 will go on fuel.”

Indeed, the IFS went further by stating:

“The winter fuel payment was introduced to encourage older households to spend more on heating in the winter. Remarkably it appears to have had just that effect.”

To be fair to the Government, at least for a moment, they do seem, to be fair—

Superannuation Bill

Debate between Cathy Jamieson and Michael Connarty

Tuesday 7th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Cathy Jamieson]

We heard today that the people whom the Public and Commercial Services Union represents—the majority of people who work in the civil service—did not agree that the previous Government’s approach was the right one at that stage. Whether or not the hon. Gentleman agrees with the union, it had the right to go to court and did so, and secured a ruling in its favour. We must recognise and accept that. I was surprised to hear other hon. Members suggest that the ruling by the court was something that we should simply dismiss, and I would hope that that is not in fact what they are saying.

Given the need for brevity, I will focus on one particular point and that is the device that is being used to push this Bill through. I am very concerned that the Bill has been laid as a money Bill. I am a new Member and I stand to be corrected if I am wrong or if I have misunderstood what a money Bill has traditionally been used to do, but my understanding is that the Parliament Act 1911 defines a money Bill and charges the Speaker with certifying whether a Bill is a money Bill. Previously, money Bills have been used to protect revenue and to raise tax, but never before has a money Bill been used in a situation like this. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) who suggested that the use of a money Bill in these circumstances could be seen as an abuse of parliamentary procedure, and certainly many of the people who have spoken to me about this feel that is indeed the case. It is an abuse of that procedure to try to speed a Bill through Parliament without the proper scrutiny and, as the Minister has already accepted, to use a blunt instrument to try to force something on to the negotiating table.

If we look at the detail of the Bill, although it is very short we see that the degree to which it is unworkable in the long term is implicit in its provisions. The sunset clause, which means that the Bill will expire after 12 months, can be repealed at any time and can only be extended for a further period of six months by secondary legislation, and that is a real cause for concern. On the one hand, the Minister said that we have to negotiate but we cannot negotiate in public. However, at the same time, he is very publicly using this blunt instrument to try to force the unions into a particular position without providing any of the detail that Members on both sides of the House have sought today—

[Michael Connarty]

My hon. Friend is, as usual, shy about telling people that she is a former Minister in the Scottish Parliament and probably knows more about this than most Back Benchers. She also points out that the Bill has a sunset clause, but it is more like a sunrise clause. It is a blunt instrument fashioned to be picked up again and again when the Government do not have the capacity to negotiate and to be used to attack people in the public sector whenever they wish to do so. All that will be required is a statutory instrument off the Floor of the House, without anyone seeing what they are up to.

[Cathy Jamieson]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s complimentary remarks. In fact, I am a former Justice Minister. Far be it from me as a former Minister to suggest that people should be suspicious about very short pieces of primary legislation that give greater powers to secondary legislation that can then be picked up and laid without proper parliamentary scrutiny. Having had to work on legislation in another Parliament, I recognise that the concerns expressed by hon. Members are well made in this case.

The Bill puts the Speaker in a difficult and unfair position, because he has to decide whether it should be certified as a money Bill when in fact it is about industrial relations and people should be redoubling their efforts to put the previous deal back on the table and to ensure that all the trade unions are involved in the negotiation. Parliamentary procedures should not be abused in this way.

Given that brevity is required, I shall not seek to rehearse points that other hon. Members have made. However, when we are talking about the low-paid and given all the warm words that we heard earlier about the desire to protect the lowest grades in the civil service, I do not think it is good enough that Ministers cannot identify what “low paid” means in those terms and how many people will be affected. It is incumbent on the Minister who winds up the debate to give us more information on that point.