Hoover Pension Fund Deficit

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 11th June 2019 Westminster Hall

[Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Hoover pension fund deficit.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. We are here to discuss the Hoover pension fund deficit, which was once a surplus of more than £100 million. Hundreds of former longstanding Hoover employees from my constituency and the surrounding area have faced appalling cuts to their well earned retirement money, and they deserve justice.

Like other prosperous UK pension schemes in the 1980s, the 1987 Hoover pension scheme, with 7,500 members, had a large surplus, which totalled £123 million in 1986. Changes to the pension scheme, withdrawals from the fund by Hoover to cover its financial difficulties, payments to the Government required by a short-sighted surplus tax implemented by the then Tory Government, and financial difficulties posed by the global financial downturn have resulted in the surplus shifting to become an overwhelming deficit. At the last valuation, in March 2016, it stood at approximately £500 million on a buy-out basis, and approximately £300 million with the Pension Protection Fund.

Hoover had long been in talks with the Pensions Regulator and the PPF to offload the deficit pension scheme, which it could no longer support without risking the company’s insolvency and the loss of the remaining employees’ jobs. The pension scheme is now transferred over to the PPF, after a regulated apportionment arrangement was agreed with Hoover, along with a 33% share in the business for the scheme, and a £60 million lump sum payment.

When the pension scheme entered the PPF, all Hoover employees in it who were still working and/or under the scheme’s retirement age, stopped gaining benefits. The annual value of those employees’ pensions, when they retire, was capped at the level for the scheme’s retirement age, which is 65. Retired employees now receive 90% of either the actual annual value of their pension, or 90% of the pension level for their age, whichever is lower. Those who have already retired from Hoover and are older than the retirement age have not had a cap on their pensions, but only the part of their pension funds earned after 1997 will be index-linked with inflation, which means that people who worked all or most of their careers with Hoover before that date are losing income because of inflation.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

As always, the hon. Gentleman is bringing an important issue to Westminster Hall. Does he agree that the fact that those still under retirement age could receive an immediate 10% cut in their pension pot, and that 7,500 members will be affected—5,319 pensioners and 2,184 who have deferred pensions—shows a need for the Government, and the Minister in particular, to step in and help not only those members but their families, who rely on the pension they paid into all their working lives?

[Gerald Jones]

I agree 100%. The hon. Gentleman outlines the fact that people yet to reach pension age will experience a 10% reduction, which will cause huge difficulty.

Unfortunately, the case of Hoover pensions is not an isolated one, and we have become used to hearing in recent months and years of cruel injustices suffered by former employees of British Coal, British Steel and BHS. The evidence also suggests that we are likely to see many more such cases in the future. Before I go into more detail, and pose questions for the Minister, I shall provide some background on the history of Hoover in Merthyr Tydfil and explain the financial background that has led to the unacceptable injustices that its former employees now face.

Hoover has been an important employer in Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney for 71 years, since the Pentrebach factory was established in 1948 to make the well-known Hoover washing machine. Only about 300 people were employed at the factory when it opened, but over the following 20 years, because of product demand, the figure rose by the thousands. By the time of Hoover’s 25th anniversary in Merthyr in 1973, more than 5,000 people were employed at the site, all contributing to the company’s pension scheme. Counting the company’s Glasgow plant, Hoover’s British workforce once peaked at 16,500 people. At its peak, the Hoover factory was the largest employer in Merthyr Tydfil County Borough, providing much-needed employment opportunities for generations of local people formerly employed in the iron and coal industries for which Merthyr Tydfil is famous.

That proved to be the high point for the factory: in the 1990s, amid financial difficulties, Hoover was sold to the Italian manufacturer Candy, which over the next few years would decline to invest further in the company or its operations. Job cuts continued over the next 10 years and in 2009, 61 years after the factory opened, production stopped altogether. Since 2009, only 100 staff have remained employed at the Pentrebach factory, in the company’s warehousing, distribution and sales operations. However, in May 2019 Hoover took the decision to move 45 jobs from Pentrebach to its headquarters in Warrington, in a move to centralise its operations, leaving only 60 posts, primarily in distribution, at the Merthyr Tydfil site.

I want to give some background on how the company’s pension scheme arrived at the state it is in today. According to the Pensions Commission set up by the Labour Government in 2004, from 1974 until 2000 the average annual real return on UK equities was as high as 13%, with investments in pension schemes during that time allowing them to flourish and pension contribution rates to increase. However, by the early 1980s the Thatcher Government had become concerned that UK companies were using large contributions to their pension schemes to lower their liability for corporation tax during years of high profits. During that time of prosperous UK pension schemes, what the Conservative Government saw as surplus funds to be taxed in a period of high equity returns were, rather, risk barriers against years of low financial profit and the rising longevity of workforces, as well as a reserve for future workers’ pensions.

The Finance Act 1986, passed by the Tory Government, required companies’ pension funds to declare any surplus of 5% or more, and either remove it within five years or lose part of their tax-exempt status. Many companies made much lower pension contributions in the years after the 1986 Act came into law, but market returns during that time remained so positive that many companies still had large surpluses left in their pension funds. Various UK companies took pension contribution holidays or looked to make improvements to their pension schemes to eliminate the surplus. It was no different in the case of Hoover, which in 1986 looked to wind up the existing pension scheme and replace it with a new scheme with improved benefits for members.

At that time Hoover had 5,500 employees in the UK, half of whom were based in Merthyr Tydfil, and the company’s UK pension scheme had a surplus of approximately £123 million, as I have mentioned. It proposed to take £87 million from the surplus, of which £42 million would go towards improved pensions and £27 million to the company’s general fund, with £18 million to be taken by the Conservative Government under the Finance Act 1986. In 1993, Hoover moved £16.8 million from the surplus to its general fund. It denied that it was being used to cover the £20 million in losses that it suffered from its infamous “free flight” sales promotion—when it promised two free airline tickets to customers who purchased more than £100 worth of products—but said it was for the general financial stability of the company. Hoover accordingly paid £11.2 million in tax to the Government, again under the terms of the Finance Act 1986.

During the 1980s and 1990s, therefore, Hoover paid the Conservative Government a total of £29.2 million. As I have explained, the terms of the Finance Act 1986 were established based on the average annual return on UK equities being 13%, as it was between 1974 and 2000. The Pensions Commission reported a considerably lower long-term average of just over 5%. The Government were incredibly over-optimistic if they assumed that 13% returns could continue into the long term. That is another classic example of the short-sightedness of a Government who placed the employer first, ignoring the employee, thinking only of short-term gain and completely neglecting the long-term potential impact of a policy on hard-working people.

I want to highlight the case of one of my constituents who has had to bear the brunt of this mess: Mr Phillip Little. Mr Little worked at Hoover in Merthyr Tydfil for 35 years, working at several departments and in various jobs across the company over a long and dedicated career. When he took his pension at age 55, he faced an immediate loss of 47%, resulting from payment holidays and Government and company withdrawals from the scheme in previous years, following the Italian company Candy’s takeover of Hoover in the 1990s and its refusal to invest or contribute further to the company’s pension scheme. Now, with the Hoover pension scheme being transferred to the Pension Protection Fund, Mr Little has had to suffer a further 10% reduction in the value of his pension due to the rules and caps, meaning he has taken a hit of 57% in total, losing over half the total value of his pension.

I think we would all agree that nobody should have to make do with less than half the pension they rightfully earned from their decades of hard work. Having been looking forward to retirement after 35 years with the company, Mr Little is devastated, and feels as though, in his words, he has been “mugged” three times over by company withdrawals from the pension scheme, payments to the Government and latterly the scheme’s transfer to the PPF.

Mr Little is one of many hundreds of former long-standing Hoover employees in the Welsh valleys who have been told that the retirement money that they worked for decades to build up has had to take yet another cut and that there is nothing they can do about it. They have had to sit and watch as the company and Government take money from what was once a surplus fund and is now in hundreds of millions of pounds of debt, and their well-earned retirement has been taken away from them.

I ask the Minister how his Government can justify this legacy of the short-sighted and irresponsible actions of the 1980s Thatcher Government, which imposed the 1986 Act on hundreds of UK companies’ pension funds such as Hoover’s, thinking only of short-term gain. Will the Government now do what is right by the many hundreds of people, such as Phillip Little, who have seen their pensions hit over and over, and repay them with the money they took from the fund under that Finance Act, so that these hard-working people can have the retirement that they deserve and that they worked for decades to build?

In Labour’s 2017 manifesto, we committed to carrying out an immediate review of current pension surplus tax and sharing arrangements, since many of the people at companies across the UK affected by this, such as Hoover, British Coal and British Steel, do not have another private fund to fall back on. The Government must now follow suit. Will the Minister commit to at least reviewing these arrangements, and to giving justice to the many former Hoover employees in my constituency who have been robbed of the pensions they worked to build and on which, having left the workplace, they now depend?

Universal Credit and Debt

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 5th June 2019 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for High Peak (Ruth George) for bringing this debate. As I often do, I will give a quick example. A troubled young man from my constituency, from a good family, is unable to deal with his social situation and finds himself sleeping rough. As he is a new claimant, he has to move on to universal credit. He goes to the housing executive, which tells him that he is not a priority, and to self-refer to a hostel. He depends on his family.

I want to put on record that the staff at the Ards benefits office—Frances, the manager, Lee and Donna—are tremendous and exceptional. If every person had such people to respond to them, it would be very helpful. They do their best to help, but they can only do what the system allows them to do.

Due to problems in the past, my constituent is already paying £10 a week out of his jobseeker’s allowance, and £40 a month comes off his housing benefit, which leaves him with £30 to live on. Internet is essential for those making online claims. What if somebody cannot use the library or another place with wi-fi? He waits five weeks for a claim that is not even back paid. What if he did not have a loving family, doing what no one would expect them to do for a 40-year-old man? Is this system working? I say to the Minister: it is not—far from it.

I meet people with severe and immediate financial hardship every day. Nearly a quarter—24%—of all universal credit claimants have a deduction of above 20% of their standard allowance. Research by StepChange found that even a deduction of 5% would push nearly half of StepChange clients on benefits into a negative budget. When a 40% deduction is applied—these are serious figures—70% will be pushed into a negative budget.

I ask the Minister: can we give staff such as Frances, Lee and Donna in the social security office in Newtownards the opportunity to read a situation, and allow them the discretion to allow past bad debt to be repaid at a nominal rate? We should understand that the private sector does not understand the bedroom tax, and rent does not come down to what the Government say it should be. It just does not work.

Arthritis and Employment

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2019 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I thank the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) for setting the scene so well and for his obvious expertise.

From January to March 2019, 7.6 million people between the ages of 16 and 64—18% of the working-age population—reported that they had a disability. Some 3.9 million of those people were in employment, which represents an increase of 150,000 on the previous year. The Government have set a target for 4.5 million people with disabilities to be in employment by 2027. Where does that leave those people with disabilities who live with pain every single day, such as the 17.8 million people in the UK with arthritis and related conditions?

Arthritis can have a huge impact on mental health. It is all very well to look at the physical aspects, but we also have to look at the anxiety and depression that they can lead to, as well as the limits on the ability to stay connected and keep active. There are real physical, emotional and mental pressures. I know many people who work in local shops who are literally crippled with arthritis. Notably, they include women from the generation whom we have let down by changing their retirement plans with a sharp rise in pension age—the WASPI women.

We are pushing people to work with crippling pain every day, yet we have nothing in place to make life easier for them except stronger and stronger drugs. I am ever mindful that many of the people I know who work with arthritis have said that they cannot take the drugs because they make them fuzzy and unable to concentrate, among other side effects. Of course, being in pain also makes concentration incredibly difficult.

Many arthritic conditions fluctuate in severity, as the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) pointed out. People may feel good one day, but bad the next day—or even later the same day. People are left unsure how well they will be able to cope every day. In 2015-16, half a million people had a musculoskeletal disorder that was caused or made worse by work. Sometimes being in work does not make their condition any easier.

The estimated cost of rheumatoid arthritis to the UK economy is between £3.8 billion and £4.8 billion. Some 33% of people with rheumatoid arthritis stop work within two years from onset of symptoms, and almost 45% stop within five years. It is very clear that working sometimes significantly worsens the pain and the symptoms.

It is also clear that arthritis is a large-scale issue that needs a large-scale solution. I agree with the arthritis charities that more needs to be done. If we expect people to make their way to work regardless of the pain, we need to make it easier for them, but that can be done only with a co-ordinated approach and response.

The British Society for Rheumatology has been very clear about the steps that need to be taken. The joint work and health unit, collaborating with professional bodies, provides a guide for health professionals that outlines their responsibilities to their patient’s employer, what the employer is required to provide for their employee, and other outcomes to allow those who wish to continue working to do so. The Minister always responds well to questions that we put to him; if at all possible, I would like him to set out how the joint work and health unit will look after employees and address the responsibilities of employers.

A diagnosis must not be the death of working life for those who want to work through it and find a different way of working. This House and the Minister must play their part by helping businesses to understand that small changes can allow staff to continue working in a way that will not adversely affect the business. There are ways and means in each case, and we must connect them to help people.

I support the ideas that the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock and other hon. Members have put forward. I look forward to the Minister’s response, because I believe that he will give us the answers that we want—no pressure at all.

Food Poverty: Scotland

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 7th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Hugh Gaffney]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that, and I would agree with that point, because the wages have not matched the rises in food prices.

International research has also found that the more severe a person’s experience of food insecurity, the more likely they are to seek help from healthcare services. Further international studies have shown that going hungry just a handful of times can lead an individual to develop poorer mental and physical health. Both this domestic and international research emphasises that food poverty is a public health issue. I welcome the Scottish Government’s recognition of food poverty being a public health issue. The inclusion of questions on food insecurity in the 2018 Scottish health survey was a positive step. The survey revealed those who are most likely to find themselves living in food poverty across Scotland; 18% of those in deprived areas live in food poverty, which compares with a figure of just 3% in the least deprived areas.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. In my constituency and across Northern Ireland we have some of the highest levels of poverty among children and families. Does he agree that it is essential that we seek to protect the most vulnerable in our society, who are having to choose either to eat or heat? The Government must do more on pension credit. Does he agree that they should put more emphasis on the accessing of pension credit by vulnerable people to enable them to deal with the poverty they clearly have? May I also say that it is nice to see the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince), and that we look forward to a good response from him?

[Hugh Gaffney]

I was actually coming on to that point about heat or eat. It is a very well used phrase, but perhaps it should be used more often. Some 13% of 16 to 44-year-olds live in food poverty compared with just 1% of those over 65. A total of 21% of single parents also live in food poverty—what a shameful situation. The UK is the world’s fifth largest economy, yet the Scottish Health Survey revealed that one in 10 Scots lives in food poverty.

The Independent Food Aid Network had identified 2,000 food banks currently operating in the UK, 212 of which are in Scotland. I pay tribute to the volunteers at all food banks, particularly to those at the Coatbridge community food bank and the Viewpark food bank in my constituency. They work tirelessly to support families who find themselves in food poverty as a result of the austerity policies pursued by this Government. I have previously supported the Coatbridge community food bank to secure an additional warehouse, and I will support those volunteers looking to establish a food bank in Moodiesburn as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hugh Gaffney]

Yes, I do agree. I also believe that the Scottish Government could act as well. It is time for both the UK and the Scottish Governments to act. The devolution of welfare powers to the Scottish Parliament allows the Scottish Government to make different choices. They could listen to Scottish Labour’s calls to scrap the two-child cap and top-up child benefit by £5 per week. They could choose to not delay the implementation of the income supplement until 2022. Scots living in food poverty now cannot continue to suffer because of the Scottish Government’s inaction.

The UK Government have made a welcome commitment that they will seek to include an official measure of food insecurity in the annual Department for Work and Pensions survey of household incomes and living standards, but I have concerns as to whether the data collected will then be assessed by the Government to help them develop policies to combat food poverty. Data about the level of food bank use in Scotland already exists, thanks to the work of organisations such as the Independent Food Aid Network. I asked the Government whether they used that data to make an assessment of the level of food bank use in Scotland and how to address it, but I was told that the Government had made no such assessment. If the Government will not use the data that is already available, how can we be sure that they will use data collected in the future to help them develop policies to tackle food poverty?

[Jim Shannon]

There has been an 18% increase in the use of food banks in my constituency because of delays and reductions in benefit payments, and an increase in debt. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those who are involved in the food banks are often forgotten in these debates? In my constituency, all the churches come together and make contributions collectively. Is it not time that we recognised the contributions of all the good people who make such efforts?

[Hugh Gaffney]

Yes. I repeat: where would we be without the volunteers and the people who help to support the food banks?

--- Later in debate ---

[Will Quince]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The answer is no, because zero-hours contracts work for a large number of people. I have spoken to people in my constituency who find huge benefit in zero-hours contracts. They give them the flexibility that they need in the work place.

Our tax changes will make basic rate taxpayers more than £1,200 better off from April, compared with 2010. Taken together, the most recent changes mean that a single person on the national living wage will, from April, take home over £13,700 a year—£4,500 more than in 2009-10. The Government remain committed to providing a strong safety net for those who need it. This is why we continue to spend more than £95 billion a year on welfare benefits for people of working age. I would say gently to the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members that the Scottish Government can tackle poverty in all its forms through its devolved skills, education, health and employment programmes such as those introduced to support disadvantaged pupils within the education system. The UK Government have also taken similar steps to support the most vulnerable by providing free school meals and our healthy start vouchers. We are also investing up to £26 million in school breakfast clubs and £9 million to provide meals and activities for thousands of disadvantaged children during the summer holidays.

We have also heard from the hon. Gentleman about the impact of food insecurity on health. The UK Government are taking action. For example, chapter 2 of the childhood obesity strategy announces a bold ambition to halve childhood obesity and significantly reduce the gap in obesity between children from the most and least deprived areas by 2030. I will ensure that my counterpart in the Department of Health and Social Care is aware of some of the wider issues that have been raised in this debate. The Government also want to build a better understanding of food insecurity.

[Jim Shannon]

I recently met a representative of a lobby group that, along with Sainsbury’s, is carrying out a project in a number of communities that involves schools, better eating and more careful eating. It is intended to address obesity and to involve young people of five to 15 in activities during the summer months. A great many people out there are doing great things, and sometimes we need to recognise them.

[Will Quince]

The hon. Gentleman is right: we should learn from things that are being done really well across the country and seek to share that best practice. I join him in thanking the organisations that make such a big difference.

Universal Credit Helpline

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 7th May 2019 Westminster Hall

[Danielle Rowley]

The hon. Lady is right: there are many issues with this system, and digital exclusion is a huge one.

Since obtaining the deflection script documents, I have had discussions with a former case manager on the helpline, Mr Tarpley. I talked with him about how the leaked script comes across, and he explained to me that really it only hinted at how much it was expected of call handlers to deflect people online. He explained to me that if someone called and asked to make a change over the phone, they would be told no by default. No matter what reason the caller gave, whether disability, bereavement or lack of digital skills, they would always be asked the same questions: “Do you have a mobile device?”, “Do you have any friends or family who can help?” and “Can you get to the library?” Call handlers would be told to explain that there are computers at the jobcentre that can be used for free, but I have heard from constituents that often, when the jobcentre is very busy, that is not the case; they are not able to access that help.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Minister knows about these issues, because I have written to him about them. Does the hon. Lady agree that, given the murky way in which universal credit is worked out, with staff members often not even having access to the payment plan, people being expected to hold on for hours on the phone for the information and then being told that there is no information is not acceptable? Does she agree that perhaps the Minister should be looking at ensuring that staff members are trained to the standard necessary to enable people to get the answers that they need, at the time that they need them?

[Danielle Rowley]

That is a very important point. I will come on to staff and training.

The burden on the staff is a significant point as well. Bayard Tarpley told me:

“We were trained to never help callers on the phone unless it was going to lead to a manager call or complaint. If you did make the change, there was a risk of failing a ‘CEF’ check, in which a manager would listen to the call and rate it based on several elements of the call, with ‘following the deflection script’ being part of that criteria”.

Staff are being marked against deflecting people online. Some of that may now have changed, likely because of media coverage and pressure, but given the Government’s absolute lack of transparency on this issue, it is unclear what has changed, how much has changed and when changes have happened or are likely to happen, so I hope that the Minister will be clear today about those changes.

It is astounding that the Government thought that this was an appropriate strategy in the first place, and it raises very serious questions about how little consideration is given to the people’s experiences. I imagine that, in his response, the Minister might point to some of the different training that call handlers receive to assess and deal with vulnerable callers, but I have been told first hand that although call handlers are trained to do certain things, that does not necessarily happen in practice. How much of the training is actually being implemented by managers, or are managers being told to do things differently? Are they being monitored?

When hearing about these strategies, it is no surprise that in many cases people have not received the support that they need from the helpline. That jeopardises and delays people’s payments and financial stability, at times with significant implications for their mental and physical health. That is something that I see and that other hon. Members here today will often see with constituents in their offices.

Earlier this year, I spoke to Sky News about the deflection scripts that were shown to me by whistleblowers, and it covered the issue. Sky News also highlighted the case of Brian. He was put on universal credit at the beginning of 2018. In July, he died by suicide. He was 59. His daughter Leann spoke to Sky News and said:

“He couldn’t understand the system from the very start. He was told to go online and access his journal but he didn’t have a clue about the internet. He was constantly ringing up and asking for advice but was told to go online. It really got him down.”

When she saw the deflection script, she could not believe that that was happening, but it rang true given the experience that her father had had.

A constituent of mine used the helpline after questions in his journal went unanswered; the online system had seemed to fail him. He was asking, for example, why the money that he was entitled to was not coming through. On the multiple times that he called, he was told that his inquiry would be passed on and he would be phoned back. That did not happen. When contacting the UC helpline, the shortest hold time that he experienced was 20 minutes and the longest 42 minutes. That has been backed up by Citizens Advice, which has found that at points the helpline has had an average waiting time of 39 minutes. My office has had to intervene for that constituent on three occasions, as well as for many others. My constituent believes that the problems would not have been resolved through his own efforts without such intervention. It cannot be right that people are only treated with the respect that they deserve and given what they are entitled to when an MP’s office or another agency intervenes. What happens to people who cannot get to an MP’s office or access that extra help? Bear in mind that these are some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

The ability to challenge decisions made on UC claims is particularly important. Recent research by the Child Poverty Action Group showed that one in five cases in a UC monitoring project involved administrative errors by the Department for Work and Pensions, resulting, for example, in a claimant being paid the wrong amount. The significant stress people face in not being able to manage the UC process has huge implications for family life.

Exactly three months ago today, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions essentially admitted to Sky News that deflection had been a strategy used by the universal credit helpline. She said:

“We’re going to make sure it’s absolutely clear in the future, there shouldn’t be a deflection script strategy and I have taken control to make sure that’s the case.”

Although I welcome that change, I have not heard anything since about changes that will be made. It seems that the issue has been swept under the carpet, so it is important that we get the answers today.

I have pursued the issue of deflection for months, primarily because of the significant implications for people’s lives of not being able to get help over the phone. Macmillan Cancer Support welfare rights advisers have reported that people with cancer are often being redirected online. They have also said that there is inadequate training for helpline staff to cope with the specific concerns of cancer patients. One cancer patient claimant said:

“When I phone the numbers that they give me, they say they can’t deal with it. I’ve phoned them three times. This is causing me more stress than the cancer.”

We cannot have a situation where trying to get the help that the Government should be providing is causing people more stress.

The Government have been evasive with me throughout the discussion on the use of deflection. They have fobbed off my freedom of information request and denied that deflection exists, even in the face of clear evidence. They have ensured that they have not admitted in the House that deflection is taking place. I am still waiting for a reply to my letter on this subject to the Secretary of State dated 5 February. We have had to rely on leaks and whistleblowers to find out that these tactics have been used and their effect on people’s lives. That lack of transparency seems to run throughout the system. The Child Poverty Action Group’s report concluded:

“The combination of poor decision making and a system that is not transparent about how decisions have been made is causing significant hardship in people’s lives.”

I want to make it clear before I finish that none of the criticisms of universal credit, the way it is handled or the helpline are aimed at staff. Frontline DWP staff have some of the toughest jobs. They are under intense pressure. I believe they have a genuine desire to help people. However, they are working in a broken system, which must be criticised, condemned and changed. Families are turning to food banks. Working people are struggling to pay the bills. People with severe disabilities are being left without vital support.

The general secretary of the Public and Commercial Services Union, which represents call centre workers, said:

“Our members would prefer to be given the resources and time to give a first class service to help claimants. However they are instructed to use this deflection script as a means to get people off the phones.

It is another example of a government who has failed to invest in staff and support claimants.”

Ten Years of the Work Capability Assessment

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 24th April 2019 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you for calling me, Sir Henry. I congratulate the hon. Member for North West Durham (Laura Pidcock) on presenting the case so well, with the passion and belief that we all know she has for the subject.

To say that the difficulty with ESA and the transition to universal credit is evident in my constituency is a gross understatement. I have talked to the Minister about this on a number of occasions. His door has always been open and he has told me to bring any issues I have to him. I have done that, and found him responsive and helpful. I hope that at the end of the debate, when we have all made our contributions, the Minister will be able to address some of the issues that I and others have, and put our minds at ease.

The difficulties that people face are astronomical. My comments will not be a surprise to anyone here; I am known as a man with a very soft heart. When I look at a person who is clearly ill and vulnerable, who has tears in their eyes because they simply do not understand what is happening and feel that they are alone and helpless, it is hard not to be upset and angry for them at a system that puts so much stress and pressure on the most vulnerable in our society. I am all for getting people up and out to work, giving training and helping to build and boost confidence to start a job. I do not want to see one able person out of work in Strangford, but in seeking to weed out the few who could work but will not, we are mentally exhausting and physically injuring those who are not capable of working.

I want to give an example that exemplifies all my comments. My staff recently dealt with the case of a young man who was living in his car. It became clear to me that this young man was broken; there is no other way to describe it. I called my parliamentary aide into the meeting. She is a sympathetic person and she had her arm around him, telling him that he was important, that he mattered and that we would help him get a fresh start. This was definitely a man on the edge, whose only companion was his dog. I do not know how he got to that position or what mistakes he had made, but I do not need to know that; I just needed him to know that we would help him.

We spoke to the phenomenally helpful Elizabeth, who is the manageress at our local jobcentre, who worked her way through the issues with his benefits and helped him. He could not face people, so he was outside the system. We had to take him and do everything for him. We spoke to the housing executive who managed to sort out hostel accommodation for him in the short term and now he has his own flat; that all happened at the meeting we had.

We spoke to the local food bank, based at Thriving Life Church in Newtownards, who provided him with food and sanitary products. We spoke to all these people. He was so low and so down that he could not have spoken to them because he had not got the ability to socially interact with people. We spoke because he could not speak for himself. The staff in my office were able to help him and get him out of the dark hole that he was in.

When I think of this young man—a man who could not even look us in the eye that day, who I knew was on the precipice, at the point of no return, and was expected to work in that state, with no mercy shown—I am reminded of the role that we have in this House. As MPs, we are blessed and privileged to represent those people and to try to help them in the times when they need help.

There are too many people living in their cars who cannot get a break and do not know where to turn. Too many people have been pushed to the edge of darkness and feel alone, and that tells me that we need more Elizabeths and Lees in our jobcentres. We need more Owens and Irenes in our housing executives. We need more Natalies and Susannes in our food banks. Those people could not wave a magic wand to make it all okay, but they played their part to see this young man, over a few weeks, into a position where he could look me in the eye and thank me. What a turnaround that was!

Unfortunately, that was only one example. In that three-week period, there were a number of people who were under the radar, who had slipped out of touch with the benefits office and were not in touch with the Executive or with others. We need to task all civil service staff with the fact that compassion is as much a qualification as an English GCSE.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman mentions compassion, but is it not also correct that there must be professionalism? Linda Hending in my constituency set up a support group for people with myalgic encephalomyelitis. She found that, while 10 of those 11 people had either been found fit for work or had insufficient points for the Personal independent payment, all those decisions had been overturned on appeal. While it is inevitable that there will need to be some assessment, is it not critically important that those decisions are got right the first time, so that people do not have to go through the strain of an appeal, even if it is successful in the long term?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I have a number of girls in my office, and one in particular who does nothing but benefits. She works full time on ESAs, PIPs and DLAs as the turnover goes for income support and all those other things. She works full time on benefits, and the other staff fit in work with that as well. We win a number of appeals because of the advice that is given. To be fair to the Minister, I have suggested to him that we need staff who are professional and able to advise in the way they should.

Yes, there are those who take advantage—I know that that happens sometimes—but I want to talk about those who need the help. Ten years into this, I still do not think we have the balance right, and that is part of many people’s mental health struggles. In the short time that I have, I want to mention that we need compassion for those with cancer who are claiming universal credit. Alongside the physical and emotional impacts, cancer brings with it a real risk of financial hardship. Macmillan Cancer Support has found that four out of five people with cancer are, on average, £570 a month worse off because of their diagnosis. Last year, Macmillan’s support line advisers received 26,500 calls from people seeking advice on applying for universal credit.

The first problem is access: people who are hospitalised often do not have access to the internet, and navigating a long and complex online application form is a horrendous thing to go through at a time when their body will not let them attend to it. Those who are undergoing treatment or have a terminal diagnosis have also had to attend the jobcentre, which can be distressing, and in some cases go against medical advice.

The initial five-week waiting time for universal credit is causing problems for people with cancer, many of whom have had to give up their work completely due to their condition and treatment. That even applies to people with a terminal illness, meaning that people who may have less than six months to live now spend more than one month of those six waiting for their benefits. Under the old system, people with a terminal illness could expect to get paid as soon as their claim was processed. The Minister knows, because I have spoken to him about it, but I believe we need to address these delays. Some 67% of people are not receiving their full payment on time.

This year, the Government will pilot the managed migration of people to universal credit. It is welcome that this process will be piloted before Parliament is asked to make a final decision; I welcome that and it is good that we have that process, but it will not solve the problems for people already receiving universal credit. We need to do this better, for everyone’s sake. I look to the Minister at this point: we need a sea-change of attitude, with compassion at its heart, working its way from this place to every level of public service. Young men such as Michael and others will simply not survive without it.

Devolution of Welfare

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 9th April 2019 Westminster Hall

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered devolution of welfare.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allocating this debate and to my colleagues who are here to participate. We are of course meant to be in our constituencies this week, but events have overtaken us, so I am pleased that we are able to use our time in Westminster to discuss an issue that affects many of the people whom we represent. Indeed, the devolution of welfare is set to impact more than 1 million people in Scotland. That is why it is so important that the process is got right.

I want to make it crystal clear that I enthusiastically support the devolution of the welfare powers to the Scottish Parliament. The Scotland Act 2016 fulfilled a promise made by the United Kingdom Government—the so-called vow—that voting to remain part of the United Kingdom, as Scots did so overwhelmingly in 2014, would not mean an end to devolution. The Conservative Government established the cross-party Smith commission to look at what should be devolved. The Conservative Government then passed the 2016 Act, which devolved a significant tranche of welfare powers, and my Scottish Conservative colleagues in Holyrood voted for the Bill that has paved the way for Scottish Ministers to take over the powers.

No one can question this Government’s or the Conservative party’s commitment to this process. Devolution of welfare allows the Scottish Parliament to try different approaches, to learn from and build on experiences in other parts of the United Kingdom and to deliver welfare more locally in a way that is more tailored to Scottish needs. That is a good thing.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman refers to how things work in other parts of the United Kingdom. The Northern Ireland Assembly is not functioning at the moment as it should be, but when it was, we had a very good relationship with the Conservative party and Government that enabled us to bring in some changes in relation to the Department for Work and Pensions that helped us in Northern Ireland. That involved taking some money out of our block grant. It meant that we were able to help the more vulnerable people. We have very large numbers of disabled people who are in receipt of benefit, whether it be disability living allowance or personal independence payments, across Northern Ireland. A relationship between the Government—our Government, the Conservative Government—and the devolved Administrations is the way forward, and the way to make things happen.

[John Lamont]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point about the importance of different Governments within the United Kingdom working together. Ultimately, and in this policy area in particular, we are helping some of the most vulnerable people in society, and it is imperative that we get it right. That is why this debate is so important.

I think it a good thing that more control over welfare is coming to Scotland, but it is clearly a challenge, and it is obvious that the Scottish National party Government in Scotland have significantly underestimated the challenge. Under the 2016 Act, 11 DWP benefits are being devolved to Scotland. The power to legislate for that has already been transferred. On 1 April next year, the Scottish Government are due to gain “executive competence”, which is essentially administrative control over the benefits. Those are significant new powers. Launching Social Security Scotland, the First Minister described it as an “historic moment”.

Although some of the benefits to be devolved are less substantial—they are of course hugely important to those who receive them—significant benefits will be taken on by the Scottish Government. They include PIP, carer’s allowance and DLA and, as a package, they account for about £3 billion, or just over 15% of total social security spending in Scotland.

The Department for Work and Pensions has been working with the Scottish Government to allow the change to take place. The Scottish Government have previously promised that they will be fully delivering these benefits by the end of the Scottish Parliament’s current term, which ends in 2021. In fact, the Scottish Government previously indicated that they hoped to complete the process by 2020, so the timetable had already slipped slightly. Given that the Scotland Act was introduced in this place in May 2015, the Scottish Government could have got ahead of the game and begun preparing for this process much earlier than they did.

Supporting Disabled People to Work

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 28th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Justin Tomlinson]

As I said in my earlier answers, I am happy to attend and support debates and meetings. I am also proud to have served as the Minister for disabled people a few years back, and my passion has not diminished one bit. We all collectively owe it to those people who need that extra bit of support to do everything we can, and I am proud to do that.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First, I thank the Minister for his honest endeavours on behalf of disabled people. They are much appreciated. Can he outline whether there are any grants for small and medium-sized enterprises to make accessibility issues easier? If not, would he consider such a scheme?

[Justin Tomlinson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He has been a passionate advocate over the years in a number of the debates that I have responded to in this area. He is a real credit to his constituency. The Access to Work programme and the personalised support package can help to unlock opportunities within small employers. That is a really important area of work, and I am glad that he has taken the time to highlight it.

Personal Independence Payments: Merseyside

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the administration of personal independence payments on Merseyside.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I welcome the Minister, who has been, though is not at present, the Minister for Disabled People. As a former Minister for Disabled People myself—I served for an entire Parliament, in fact—I am grateful for this opportunity to highlight a worrying deterioration that I have noticed in the administration of disability benefits in my constituency.

Personal independence payment is meant to help people with the extra costs of disability, and is payable regardless of income. None the less, many sick and disabled people who apply for it and receive it are often unable to work, tend to be poor and find it difficult to make ends meet. Many have chronic fluctuating conditions, and are very ill or very disabled. PIP is therefore usually, in my experience, an essential component of enabling people in such situations to live a decent and dignified life. It is a crucial benefit, which is all the more reason to get it swiftly and correctly to those who are entitled to it.

According to the House of Commons Library, since 2010 some £4.8 billion has been cut from disability benefit. Indeed, the introduction of PIP and the replacement of disability living allowance, its predecessor benefit, was intended from the start to cut entitlement to make it less generous, and to create monetary savings in the escalating cost of DLA. The expected savings of £3 billion a year have not materialised, but the Tory Minister in the Lib Dem-Tory coalition who introduced the benefit in 2013 said that PIP would be

“easier to understand and administer, financially sustainable and more objective.”—[Official Report, 13 December 2012; Vol. 555, c. 463.]

“Financially sustainable” means, in this context, cheaper in terms of the overall spend. That means cutting entitlement and awards when we get down to the circumstances of individuals.

Since PIP’s inception, administrative problems have been to the fore. In its first seven months, only 16% of the targets for resolving claims were met. The National Audit Office was critical, suggesting that the Department for Work and Pensions should

“set out a clear plan for informing claimants about the likely delays they will experience”.

I wish it had, because my constituents are increasingly experiencing delays, and I do not see any plan to stop them. Ever since PIP was introduced, constituents have complained to me about the way in which they have been treated when being assessed, the delays in the process of administering it, and subsequent reconsiderations and appeals. Whatever the outcome of the original assessment, it is hard to find people who are satisfied with the administration of the benefit.

Recently I have noticed that things are worsening. For the previous two years, until last December, I had a stable, steady number of cases coming through, spread over the months. I have been able to help with some cases and not others, but the flow has been pretty steady. However, during the first three months of this year my office has faced a threefold increase in complaints about PIP, and some of the circumstances my constituents relate to me are simply horrendous.

There are a set of different problems. For example, I hear about inappropriate questions at assessment, so that when people are disqualified from the benefit they consider the process completely unfair. Asking somebody who is debilitated by mental illness whether they can pick something up off the floor just does not seem relevant to that individual. In my experience, home assessments are rarely allowed, and when people cannot attend, usually for genuine reasons, they are simply disallowed the benefit.

I have one constituent who has been trying since December 2017 to be assessed. He has been refused, despite many debilitating conditions, including severe schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. There are physical and mental reasons why he cannot attend an assessment centre, but PIP administrators simply will not attend him at home. He has been unable to get to the 11 face-to-face interview assessments he has been set. Consequently, his last DLA payment, which was received in the middle of last year, has long since expired.

My constituent has lost employment and support allowance as a consequence. He has now lost almost £5,000 of income, and is financially reliant on his extremely elderly and disabled mother for the basics—all because he cannot get to an assessment. Why on earth can they not assess him at home? It is ridiculous that he has been asked to attend 11 times when he clearly has problems doing so. Why can we not have some common sense?

In addition, there are poor assessments and a poor attitude from assessors. My constituents report that they are often simply not believed. Some feel sneered at, and some are right to feel that way, from the accounts that I have heard. Inaccuracies in medical assessments mean that sometimes the reports that are produced end up bearing no resemblance whatever to what has been said at the face-to-face interview, and my constituents tell me that they feel as if a completely different case and person has been reported on.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

May I reflect on the hon. Lady’s opinions regarding PIP? I am very involved in this matter in my constituency back home, with the changes that there have been. Does the hon. Lady feel, as I always have, that it is important that the assessor or officer who comes out to visit the person in their home, or takes them to an office for interview, has knowledge of the medical circumstances of that person? Also, when it comes to mental and emotional issues, does she agree that it is important to have someone there to support the person being assessed—perhaps as a witness as much as anything?

[Maria Eagle]

I agree with both those points. A lack of understanding and basic common decency sometimes seems to creep into these assessments.

I also have vulnerable constituents who are being prevented from getting help in explaining their situation to assessors. For example, I have a constituent who has a brain stem tumour, among other physical conditions. Perhaps not surprisingly, her mother was with her at the assessment. However, she was told that her mother could not answer any questions for her, despite the fact that my constituent has significant difficulty in processing information because of her condition. That goes completely against the PIP assessment guidance, which says that

“companions may play an active role in helping claimants answer questions”.

I have constituents who were prevented from having that kind of help and, perhaps not surprisingly, thereafter had their PIP stopped because it was felt that they had not answered the questions appropriately.

There are extremely long delays in assessments, reconsiderations and particularly tribunal dates for appeals. It is hard to justify the fact that the average waiting time for PIP is now 15 weeks. That is almost four months. It is completely unacceptable to make disabled people, who rely on that money to make their lives a little easier, wait so long for a first payment.

Reconsiderations are a necessary step to be gone through, but they almost never overturn the original decision. In my recent experience, I have not come across a single case in which that has happened, even when it is blindingly obvious that that is the point at which what has gone wrong can be put right with the least possible damage. Surely the purpose of the reconsideration stage is to apply a little common sense, but these days it just seems to be a way of wasting another two or three months, during which the individual does not get their benefit.

The wait for a tribunal is the killer. On Merseyside, the average wait is more than nine months, but I know of people who have waited for 12. It is an absolute scandal. How can the Government or the Minister possibly justify treating vulnerable, sick and disabled people in such a callous and horrendous manner?

I have also come across many reports of compassion fatigue among bureaucratic and indifferent contractors who are paid to assess vulnerable and desperate people. Compassion fatigue is not a new phenomenon, but it seems to be rife these days. It was reported in the newspapers recently that a DWP official had submitted papers to an appeal tribunal in which they referred to the appellant, a disabled person, as a “lying bitch”. How revealing of their attitude is that? Yet there is not much evidence of fraud in claims for these benefits: according to DWP figures, it represents only 1.5% of the total expenditure. That figure is put into context by the heftier 4.2% of total expenditure on making up underpayments to people who have not claimed their full entitlement—one can hardly argue that there is a huge problem of fraud that we need to crack down on.

Let me give a few examples of cases in my constituency that illustrate my concerns. Some people’s benefits have been stopped, quite unfairly, when they have fallen foul of overly bureaucratic practices that take no notice of plain common sense and that apparently cannot be put right without the lengthiest process imaginable, causing extreme hardship and pain. I have a constituent with kidney disease who attends hospital weekly for dialysis. She was diagnosed with a very painful and severe complication of her condition and was treated for it as an in-patient. When she got home after being discharged last July, she was exhausted, disoriented and in severe pain. She was expecting a district nurse to attend her at home to change a dressing, but her carer was confronted at the door by someone who claimed to be a health professional, but who—sure enough—seems in hindsight to have been sent by the DWP.

The “medical professional”, who was turned away by the carer because my constituent was in no fit state to be seen, appears to have had a compassion bypass. Instead of being given another appointment at a more convenient and sensible time, my constituent had her benefit stopped last August because she was said to have refused to be interviewed. Not only was she in no fit state to be interviewed, but she had received no letter. Even if such a letter had been sent, she had been in hospital for weeks and was very poorly, so she certainly would not have seen it. Why on earth was another appointment not made as a matter of plain common sense? Her request for a reconsideration last October was refused. What is the point of having reconsiderations if we cannot reconsider a case like that?

My constituent applied for a tribunal hearing in December—given her very poor health, it took her that long to navigate the process of filling in all the required forms. For three months, she tried to make the best of things, but she came to see me last week asking how long she would have to wait for an appeal. As I have said, and as the Minister may know, the average wait on Merseyside is 38 to 42 weeks, so I had to tell my constituent that she might have to wait another six months before the matter could be resolved. I have no doubt that the decision would be overturned at a hearing, as happens in 75% of the cases that get that far.

When I asked my constituent how she was doing, she told me that she had no money for food. Her weight had reduced to just 6½ stone. On the day she came to see me, she had eaten two slices of toast—one for breakfast and one for lunch—and was planning a main meal of a bowl of soup. I would normally offer food bank vouchers to a woman in that condition, but my constituent has a special diet because of her dialysis, so she could not have eaten what a food bank would have given her. She was able to take advantage of Can Cook, a charity in my constituency that stepped in at my request to provide some fresh food commensurate with her dietary requirements—but most people do not have Can Cook in their constituency.

I happened to bump into the Secretary of State, so I asked her who I should write to about this scandalous case, given that the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) has resigned as Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work and has not been replaced. The Secretary of State got her officials to sort it out within two days, which is excellent, and I thank her for it. My constituent has been reassessed on higher rates of care and mobility than those from which she was disqualified, and she will receive full back payments this week. Thank goodness she came to see me, but she did not see me for 10 weeks—and what about those constituents who have not come to see me and who are suffering in silence and despair at home? What about those who are too vulnerable to get out to see me, particularly those who are debilitated by mental ill health and are struggling on with no money and no food?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I am quite moved by what the hon. Lady says. Many of us know of people in similar circumstances. At my constituency office, three people in 10 days came to see us who had fallen off the radar—no one knew about them. Their issues were clearly mental and emotional. Does the hon. Lady feel that someone in the benefits system should be following up on people who have been refused benefits? That would be a method of finding out what is happening to those people.

[Maria Eagle]

The hon. Gentleman is correct. One would have thought that the reconsideration would introduce an element of plain good sense, but it does not seem to be working in that way at present. There is a general issue with how the debility caused by mental ill health is not well recognised or sympathetically dealt with in the system. People who are debilitated with mental ill health often find it even harder than people who have physical disabilities to face up to filling in the forms and getting themselves organised to get some help, so they are even more vulnerable.

PIP has less generous criteria for its mobility component than DLA, because it is designed to save money: people are required to be less able to walk than under the older benefit system. Because PIP is the gateway to one of the world’s most innovative and practical disability entitlements —the world-leading Motability scheme, one of the best things that makes disabled people’s lives easier—problems in its administration hit recipients particularly hard. For many of my disabled constituents, access to a Motability car is a lifeline—it makes their lives liveable—yet in the last two years, the DWP’s own figures show that 44% of people who were getting the higher rate mobility component under DLA lost their entitlement under PIP. Of those who are being reassessed from the DLA higher rate mobility component to PIP, only 53% got the equivalent of the enhanced rate. The other half either got the lower rate, and therefore lost their car, or got no mobility component at all.

People naturally appeal when they lose so much, and they are entitled to do so. PIP appeals accounted for 52% of all social security and child support tribunal receipts, and 73% of PIP appeals succeeded. Too many people who should appeal do not; they put up with the loss of income and the hardship because they cannot cope with the process. For people who first joined the Motability scheme before 2012, the car has to go back once the benefit has been gone for 26 weeks. However, the average wait for a tribunal on Merseyside is nine months, which means that people’s cars have to go back even if they win the tribunal, as 75% of them do. What is the point of taking away a disabled person’s car only to give it back again? Is it any wonder that people feel messed around? They have been messed around. I have a number of cases where people have quite wrongly lost their Motability car. When they finally get to appeal, they get it back. Why mess them around in the first place?

One constituent has lost her car and is awaiting a tribunal hearing—she will have waited almost a year by the time she gets one. I tried to have her case expedited with the Courts and Tribunals Service, as I have with a number of others, as this young woman has to make three or four journeys to hospital, in different directions, to different hospitals every week. She and her parents, who are fairly low-paid workers, used the car to get her to those hospital appointments. Her journeys cost £17 per journey in a taxi, multiplied three or four times a week. When her mother came to see me, they were starting to decide which hospital appointments to go to and which not to go to. I asked the Courts and Tribunals Service to expedite the hearing, and it was put in front of the judge—that is the first time I have got that far—but he said no, so she will have to wait until this summer.

The Mayor of Liverpool has a mayoral hardship fund, with millions of pounds that were raised through the invest-to-save arrangements, which was supposed to be about improving the Merseyside economy. He now spends all of that fund supporting poor people, and the young woman now has her taxi journeys paid for. That is the only reason she is still able to attend her hospital appointments.

The Minister must recognise that there is a severe problem here, at the very least in the length of time it is taking to get appeal hearings, and in the way in which people are being messed around in the interim. The people who benefit from PIP are some of the poorest, most vulnerable and most disabled people in our society. They should not be being put through the mill to get their basic entitlement to an extra benefit. I hope the Minister will be able to show us that the situation is going to improve in future.

Disability Assessment Services

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan) on bringing forward this debate. It is an important issue; I told her I would make it my business to be here at the right time.

I have made my reputation as a councillor, a Member of the Legislative Assembly and an MP based on my constituency work, which I am very proud of. I used to fill out the disability living allowance application forms myself, and attend appeals for constituents. I do not have the time do that now because I am over here most of the time, but also because the number of applications and the help needed have increased so much. I have a full-time staff member who is allocated to PIPs and benefits, although I still carry out that work whenever I can when I am at home.

Benefits is the biggest issue in my office, but the question is not why so many people are claiming—I have always had large numbers in my area who are disabled and who claim. People are so desperate for help and they deserve help and attention. The Minister is always very responsive to anything I ask her—I thank her for that. I have seen people with serious illnesses being turned down for PIP.

I have a constituent with a long list of ailments who is at pains always to be dressed well, be washed and look the part. That is only possible because his ex-wife comes every day to make sure he gets out of bed and is washed and dressed. He was turned down. Like the example the hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) gave, he went to an appeal and was not even called in, because the panel looked at the notes and said, “You know something? This man should get it,” and he got it in 15 minutes. Why did that happen? When someone goes out to assess someone and looks at their circumstances, they will say, “He looks terribly well,” or, “She’s dressed well and her hair is combed. She’s okay, she has no illness.” But they need help.

I have said this to the Minister in correspondence and I will underline it: one must question how much a physiotherapist knows about the intricacies of ulcerative colitis and the side effects of the medicine. How much does a paramedic know about the restriction on the movement of someone with multiple sclerosis? Someone with expertise needs to assess the circumstances, and GP notes should follow that up. Four out of 10 PIP candidates do not appeal as they cannot handle the stress. Do we really believe that half of the people who are claiming do not deserve it? I do not. As far as I am concerned, those people are telling the truth and they should not be looked upon as liars.

There must be a written review. We must start again for the sake of those people who are living beneath the poverty line, because they do not possess the mental fortitude to fight for what they are entitled to. Today, other hon. Members and I fight on their behalf and ask for fairness, a level playing field and an assumption that not all people are telling lies.