Employment and Support Allowance

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 18th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Neil Gray]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Several statements have been made, and I shall come on to speak about them, but we have not had any detail about how they are going to be realised. I hope that this debate can impress it on the Government that they should finally provide that detail, albeit sadly after the changes have been introduced.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

This is an important issue that has kept a good number of Members in the Chamber for the debate. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that some of those who are assessed and put into the work-related activity group should not be there in the first place? A number of my constituents fit into that category; is the same true for him?

[Neil Gray]

Absolutely. There are great problems in the assessment process. It is part of a wider problem with the system as it stands. To take away £30 a week from people who have been assessed as unfit for work and who are in the work-related activity group is certainly not the right way to go about things. We impress it on the Minister that these cuts should be paused.

Child Maintenance Service

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 18th April 2017 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) for setting the scene for us in detail. As elected representatives, we are all well aware of the issues because we see them in our offices every day. I will comment on some recent cases that I have seen.

The system is supposed to help people, but we often see cases in which it does not. It is meant to ensure that parents who do not have full custody of their children are still responsible for part of their care. Such a system is needed because, unfortunately, there are those in our society who believe that leaving their children’s mother entitles them to leave their children behind too. That does not need to happen—indeed, it should never happen—and the system is in place to address that. We are highlighting the system’s shortcomings today, but to be fair, the CSA has been able to sort out some of my constituents’ problems, whether those problems have been on the father’s or the mother’s side. There are occasions when things go right, but unfortunately there are more occasions when they do not. The system is in place to ensure that responsibility is spread, but as the hon. Lady pointed out, every time it is not used successfully, the loser is the child. It is also clear that the system is in no way addressing all the issues. I believe that a better and more effective way can be found.

The hon. Lady referred to a report by the charity Gingerbread. I also read that report—I am sure the Minister did too, because she is very thorough. The report, which was launched in June last year, found that

“hundreds of millions of pounds of child maintenance arrears owed to children are failing to be collected by the government”.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

My hon. Friend mentions children, who are the most vulnerable ones in these cases. Surely it is time we revamped the whole system—it would not be the first time that a Government scrapped a system and put in place a new one that worked. We have to think of the vulnerable.

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is the children who are vulnerable. In many cases it is the mother, too, and on the odd occasion it is the father—it depends on the issues—but the focus of our attention should be on the children, as it is in this debate.

Gingerbread referred to

“new debts piling up in the new system worth an average of £668 per family.”

That is a huge amount of money to a single-parent family; it could be the uniform or the lunch money. There must be a way of getting that money paid or the matter addressed. Gingerbread also notes that

“almost £4bn of unpaid maintenance arrears has accumulated over the 23-year lifespan of the Child Support Agency…which is in the process of being shut down and replaced by its successor, the Child Maintenance Service”.

We hope that the CMS will learn from the mistakes of the CSA and deliver a better system. I look to the Minister to explain how such a better system will be unveiled and how it will ensure that parents and children get their money when they should. However, the Government estimate that only 12% of that amount is ever likely to be recovered. Although I may look to the Minister for a positive response and for guidance, I am well aware that the Government have already stated that they will not get all the money anyway—they have almost drawn a line in the sand and said, “We can’t do it.” I have to say that that is very disappointing.

The hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie), who is no longer in her place, referred in an intervention to the staff. Although the administration of the system is devolved, the rules, regulations and laws on the CSA and the CMS are decreed by Westminster. Staff are moved about all the time. In all my years of dealing with child maintenance issues, I cannot remember ever speaking to the same person twice about the same issue. More often than not, people phone up and say, “They said they would phone me back, but they didn’t.” How many times have I heard that? It is unbelievable how often staff move about and that happens.

The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) referred to cases in which a father moves job and becomes self-employed. Off the top of my head, I can think of a couple of cases in which a father in a very comfortable position, earning big money, has said to his wife and two children, “I am not going to be self-employed any more—I am going to go and live with my dad,” and has run away from his responsibility for maintenance. I believe that is wrong. There are others who go on the dole or who take up a job as a taxi driver—I have nothing against taxi drivers, but their earnings are all cash in hand and they can declare their own figure after their expenses. We need to look at this.

There are also delays in the system. I am now in direct contact with the manager of the system in Northern Ireland. To be fair, contacting him seems to initiate a response, but what about all the other people who are not MPs? What about the mother who is at her wits’ end because she does not have the money to look after her children? I expect—as you and other hon. Members would, Mr Bone—the same response to mothers like her as there is to us.

Gingerbread has found that

“evidence suggests that decreasing effort is being put by the government into collecting more than £700m of arrears on existing cases…Meanwhile, within the new CMS, a new system of incentives and penalties was intended to prevent arrears arising in the first place. Yet, after almost two-and-a-half-years of full operation, £52.5m has accumulated in CMS maintenance arrears, with almost half of all non-resident parents in the system having some child maintenance debt. And these figures will increase as cases are gradually transferred across from the old system.”

I have also seen cases of parents—I have to say that in all cases they were fathers—who have moved out of the country and got a job abroad. I wonder how we can chase up non-residents of the United Kingdom.

I echo the cry of Gingerbread’s former chief executive Fiona Weir, who said in June:

“Britain’s child maintenance system is contributing to a culture where too many parents think it’s optional, rather than obligatory, to pay their child’s maintenance…The accumulated level of CSA arrears is staggering and completely unacceptable. With analysis showing that one-in-five families are lifted out of poverty by child maintenance payments, this is vital money that parents, and their children, can’t do without.”

She clearly outlined the issue and where we are on it. She went on to say:

“And with the Institute for Fiscal Studies calculating that poverty rates for single parent families will double by 2020”—

therefore, the situation will get worse—

“more than ever that child maintenance owed for children needs to be collected by the Government.”

We look to the Minister and the Government to see how best they can do that.

There are also parents who are separated or divorced who come to a financial arrangement, which is an agreement by the two people. It is quite a good system, because by and large they come to a financial arrangement that is equal to what the CSA or the CMS would have arranged. However, I am frustrated, because sometimes the CSA—or, now, the CMS—will pursue those making financial arrangements to see if they can get more out of them. They almost look at them as easy targets and I find that most frustrating.

This issue is continually raised in my office. Just last week, I had a father in my office who has children from a previous relationship. His ex is in a better job than he is and is much better off financially. He has not run away from his obligations to support his children, but there must be a financial equation that is fair and realistic, and that enables everyone to do what they have to do. Fewer than half the eligible families receive child maintenance, an estimated 70% of closed CSA cases involve outstanding arrears, and £52.5 million is already owed under the CMS system.

Communication is also vital. Whenever a lady phones up looking for her CSA payments, I expect the Department to phone her back, so we must initiate a better system, because communication is so important. In the life that we live as MPs in this House, communication—how we relate to and respond to our constituents—is so much of our bread and butter.

I am conscious of the time, so I will finish with this. There are failures that are clear, and these must be addressed, so we must look at the rules, regulations and guidelines that come out of Westminster and consider how we can change them so that the system can work better, whether in Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales or England. I look to the Minister for assurance that these past debts will be actively sought and that changes will be made to prevent that situation from continuing. With that in mind, we must do better than collecting just 12%.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Before I call the last Back Bencher, which will be David Burrowes, let me say that I will now start the wind-ups at 12.33 pm, because this is a Backbench Business Committee debate and we want to make sure that Back Benchers have a chance to speak in it.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Welfare Delivery (Caroline Nokes)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I congratulate the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) on securing this important debate. She is certainly committed to this issue. I thank her for the work that she has done in raising the profile of the Child Maintenance Service and for her contribution this morning. I also thank Members of all parties. It struck me this morning that this issue transcends party lines. We have heard from the three main parties in Westminster—

[Jim Shannon]

And the DUP.

[Caroline Nokes]

And from my friends in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) raised the question of whether I felt the heat of this issue. I can assure him on this beautiful spring day that I certainly do feel the heat. Members have made me feel it this morning, but, much more importantly, I feel the heat of this issue every single time I open an email from a parent with care who is not receiving the correct amount of maintenance. I also feel it when I receive emails from non-resident parents who raise concerns about the amount they have to contribute and whether arrears that have built up are indeed the correct figure. So yes, I feel the heat. I also concur with what I think every single Member has said this morning: our first thought should be for the children. It is not a question of non-resident parents and parents with care. Their battles, to be frank, are not of interest to me compared with what we feel for the children who need support and maintenance from both parents.

I commented at a Select Committee last year when I was a new Minister—it seems a long time ago—that I wanted to hear about cases, because that helps me to point out to CMS officials where there have been failings and where we could do better. That matters to me, because it matters that maintenance flows to children in as many cases as possible. I said it at that Select Committee and I will repeat it today: I welcome receiving emails from parents with care and from non-resident parents because I need to know—although given this morning’s news, I do not know for how much longer I need to know.

I want to be clear that the responsibility for ensuring that child maintenance is paid on time and in full lies with paying parents. Parents who think they have got away with not paying their maintenance as their children grow up are not cheating the system; they are cheating their own children. The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw spoke of having to think about what she left out when she composed her contribution this morning. I wake up thinking of the children who are not receiving the correct amount of maintenance. The words of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate about a truck being more important than paying maintenance to children will ring in my ears.

The DWP is currently delivering a comprehensive package of reforms to the system, which are intended to encourage and support parents to take responsibility for paying for their children’s upbringing. Where parents do not meet their responsibilities, the statutory scheme is there to enforce payments.

Hon. Members have rightly mentioned this morning that under the old system the Child Support Agency did not provide the right support to parents and was expensive to run. We know—Members have acknowledged this—that the bulk of arrears referred to accrued under the former CSA. The new system run by the Child Maintenance Service is designed to specifically address some of the shortcomings of the CSA. We have learnt from mistakes of the past. Where the previous system often drove a wedge between parents, the new system is designed to encourage collaboration at every stage. Evidence shows that parental collaboration has a direct positive impact on children’s outcomes such as health, emotional wellbeing and academic attainment. We know that a constructive inter-parental relationship, whether parents are together or separated, will improve outcomes for children.

The new child maintenance options service acts as a gateway to the scheme, ensuring that parents are given the information and support they need to make an arrangement that is right for them, whether that is a family-based arrangement or a statutory one. Our agents receive specialist training to help them to deal sensitively with clients, and tailored support is delivered via phone, live webchat and email. Child maintenance options has helped a quarter of the clients who contacted them to set up family-based arrangements, which we know are better for children in the long term. The number of parents who have made an effective arrangement following contact with the service increased in the first two quarters of 2016, from 82% to 87%.

We know that maintenance arrangements, while important, are one of the many issues that parents face when they separate, so our agents can also signpost parents to a wide range of organisations that can provide specialist support and advice on the issues they may need help with in their relationships.

The charges, which we have heard about this morning, were introduced in 2014 to provide a further incentive for parents to collaborate, and we know that collaboration works in the best interests of the children. Although the service is primarily funded by the taxpayer, the charges contribute a small amount, helping to offset some of the costs associated with providing the service—it is a small amount, in the region of 10%. All the measures are designed to encourage the parents who can to make their own family-based arrangements. It is perhaps inevitable that the families who end up in the statutory scheme will be the ones for whom that is most difficult.

It is important to reflect on that point. Parents who can collaborate do. Those who are committed to working together seldom come within the orbit of the CMS. It therefore follows that the parents with whom we do have contact are the ones who are most likely to have conflict and difficulties. It is true that, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, family-based arrangements are the ideal solution and provide the best outcomes. We do not want parents to have to come within a statutory scheme. However, we acknowledge that that is not always possible.

We continue to use all the tools at our disposal to maintain compliance and recover arrears, but it is inevitable that some arrears will accrue as some parents go to great lengths to avoid their responsibilities. At the end of last year, I visited our CMS centre in Hastings and spoke to both the enforcement team and the financial investigation unit. I was very impressed by their professionalism and dedication, but I was also struck by how difficult their job is. Perhaps it is inevitable in a buoyant employment market that non-resident parents find it easier to change job than when the economy is not so good.

We have heard from various hon. Members that one of the significant problems lies with the self-employed and company directors. It is there that we have the biggest challenges. Both the financial investigation unit and the enforcement teams are determined to do what they can, using the powers already available to them. We can at present make deductions from single-held bank accounts, but not from joint accounts. We are looking at how we can best use our powers to include joint bank accounts. I am very conscious that some non-resident parents hide assets and income within the bank accounts of other family members. We desperately need to address such abuses, which will form part of our arrears strategy, which we will publish later in the spring[Official Report, 20 April 2017, Vol. 624, c. 1-2MC.], notwithstanding my earlier comment about this morning’s announcement.

I promised the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw that I would leave her some time to conclude. I am conscious that I have been short of time, but I have a mass of information that I would like the opportunity to share. My parting shot is this: if we are to have an arrears strategy and an enforcement strategy that really works, we need to be creative and determined to do it. My door is always open to Members who wish to come forward with new and innovative ideas as to how we can best make parents accept responsibility for their children.

Long-term Health Problems and Work Outcomes

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 18th April 2017 Westminster Hall

[Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the role of employers in improving work outcomes for people with long-term health problems.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship on this very interesting day, Mr Hollobone. The Prime Minister has promised that her Government

“will do everything we can to help anybody, whatever your background, to go as far as your talents will take you.”

Today, I intend to focus on what that means for employers of people with long-term health problems and disabilities. In all the very welcome debate about how the Government can best achieve their aim of halving the disability employment gap, the critical role of employers in supporting people to stay in work and, more positively, to reach their potential has been relatively neglected. “Improving Lives”, the Green Paper on work, health and disability, is an excellent foundation to start filling that gap. The Department for Health and the Department for Work and Pensions are to be commended for working in partnership and shining a light on the role employers can play in preventing people from falling out of work through ill health.

Some 83% of disabled people acquire their disability during their working lives. We all know friends, colleagues, family members and constituents who had a job and then suffered a serious health problem. We have seen how, once the shock of diagnosis starts to dull, people quickly ask themselves whether they will be able to keep working and how they will support themselves and their loved ones. When ill health stops someone from working long term, getting back to work can be a key milestone in their recovery and a big step towards them feeling themselves again.

Effective support from employers can make an enormous difference to people’s physical, mental and emotional health and to their chances of returning to work. But sadly, the reverse is also true. Many employers do not create a culture where employees can even disclose health problems. Groundbreaking campaigns such as “Time to Talk” and those run by Heads Together have done much to make it easier for people to speak about their mental health, for example, but too many people are still too scared to speak to their employer and too few employers are ready to respond in the right way.

Research by the Mental Health Foundation last year found that 45% of working people with a diagnosed mental health problem had not disclosed it to their employer in the past five years. Of those who had told their employer, only half reported mainly positive consequences. As one of the people who took part in the research said,

“no one is able to say, ‘I have a mental health problem and I can’t come to work today’”.

As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on breast cancer, I have heard at first hand how hard many people find it to tell their employer that they have cancer. I suspect that may be even more of an issue for those types of cancer that are more common among men. Research by the charity Maggie’s found that one in five men with cancer find it so difficult to tell their employer that they put it off until they have to leave work to seek treatment. One in 10 do not tell their employer at all. If employees do not feel they can disclose a health problem, employers cannot hope to put in place the right support.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this important matter forward for debate. Does he agree that one way of doing it would be for the Government to create an index of employers based on how they support staff with disabilities and health conditions? Companies could be encouraged to consider how best to promote disability inclusion. Further, the Government could look at how employers’ legal and tax obligations could be changed to incentivise them to engage more proactively with the health of workers.

[Craig Tracey]

The hon. Gentleman is right, and I will touch on tax incentives later. There are lots of opportunities there. The Green Paper is a good and innovative start in looking at how we can move things forward.

The earlier those open supportive conversations between employers and employees happen, the more effective the support will be. Well-managed employees can focus on their recovery and are more likely to successfully come back to work when they are ready.

Mining: Health and Safety

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 28th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

Seventy years ago, the Burngrange mining disaster happened in my constituency. It was, and still stands as, the worst accident in Scottish shale mining history. Fifty three men went down on shift on 10 January 1947, but only 38 came out alive. One miner’s body was brought up with the survivors, but 14 men were trapped behind the debris and the fire. The heat and power of the fire were all consuming. Hopes of any survivors faded fast as the hours passed. A total of 15 men from my constituency died in this tragic accident.

Earlier this year, the towns of West Calder and Seafield paid homage to their lost miners in moving tributes. The names were read aloud and stories told of the events by local schoolchildren who had spent time in class learning about what those men and their families had endured. Standing in West Calder square on that chilly January day hearing the children of Parkhead primary recounting the stories of the men of Burngrange was a powerful and beautiful tribute. I also pay tribute to Alan Tuffs and his team from the local area who had worked so hard to put together tributes and to bring the community together in commemoration.

I am proud to have the opportunity today to read again the names of the men who lost their lives working for their families and communities in an industry that is now marked by the bings of West Lothian that surround my constituency: John McGarty, 30, Limefield Avenue, West Calder, single; John Lightbody, 39, Gloag Place, West Calder, married, two of a family; Anthony Gaughan, 44, Parkhead Crescent, West Calder, married, two of a family; David Muir, 32, Parkhead Crescent, West Calder, single; George Easton, 48, Northfield Cottages, West Calder, married, three of a family; Henry Cowie, 28, Parkhead Crescent, West Calder, single; William Ritchie, 38, Old Rows, Seafield, married, three of a family; William Greenock, 50, Cousland Terrace, Seafield, married, three of a family; John Fairlie, 21, Old Rows, Seafield, single; Thomas Heggie, 27, Cousland Crescent, Seafield, married, two of a family; William Finlay, 56, Polbeth, married, three of a family; James McAulay, 56, Polbeth, West Calder, married with a large family; Samuel Pake , 24, New Breich, married, one of a family; William Carroll, 31, Seafield, married, two of a family; and David Carroll, 37, Old Rows, Seafield, married, five of a family.

I cannot imagine how the local mining community felt when the pit sirens wailed to warn of disaster, with the families running to the pit to wait for news—a wait that lasted for days before the families could claim the bodies of their fathers, husbands, brothers and sons. Today I pay tribute to them and their sacrifice. My own grandfather went down the pit as a coalminer just a few miles along the road as a fitter in Easton colliery, Bathgate. He, his father and two brothers all had serious accidents during their time as miners. He told me as I was growing up that accidents were just part of the job. I grew up with stories of him hauling himself through tiny crevices. At 5 feet 5 inches, he was a wee mannie, and was sent down all the nooks and crannies that the bigger men could not fit into.

My grandfather often told me of one accident, when the tow rope broke and a tub loaded full of coal was sent careering down the shaft, knocking him unconscious and leaving a serious gash in the back of his head. The truth was that he should never have been where he was, but it was a path well trodden by the miners around him. He survived fine, but never went that same route again. The scar on his head was an indelible mark that he showed me many times when I was a child. He said that it was a reminder to him that he was one of the lucky ones.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. There is a need for safety. Does she agree that it is essential that the Government work with the representatives of the Mining Industry Safety Leadership Group to provide a forum to develop, lead and implement a strategy for health and safety in the mining industry? Does she also agree that working with these groups is the best way to promote health and safety in mines throughout the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Hannah Bardell]

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Working with members who work in that community is vital.

West Lothian Council’s local history library collected information about the disaster that became part of a community exhibition developed in conjunction with the Calder history group and Almond Valley Heritage Trust. Many communities across the UK do work like this, and it is vital that the young people in communities around us remember their industrial heritage.

Vinovium House

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 8th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Helen Goodman]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a lot of anxiety, and I will read out an email from someone who works there to explain to the Minister why:

“On the day the closure was announced to us, we were told there would be an option between a job if we were prepared to travel, or an exit package if not—a small lifeline to me that may have cushioned the closure up to my pension age, but the next day the package offer was revoked with a statement that failure to accept a compulsory transfer could result in disciplinary action.”

Will the Minister please tell us exactly what is going on? What offers are being made to people?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this issue to the House for consideration. Surely, if someone has a contract of employment with a Department and that contract is changed, the rights of the individual must be retained. Therefore, should not the option of a package to leave still be on the table? Should not the Government endorse and deliver that earlier commitment?

[Helen Goodman]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. I agree, which is why I want to know what is going on in the Department for Work and Pensions.

The underlying issues are travel times and costs, the lack of affordable childcare and the fact that most people who work at Vinovium House combine their job with some caring responsibilities. Many work part-time close to home, as they have caring responsibilities for children or elderly parents. The Tory party claims to be the party of the family. This change will adversely affect at least 85 families and will have a devastating impact.

Let me give one example. I talked to a woman who was very young—well, I think she was very young because she was in her 30s—and a widow with two children. Unfortunately, her partner died a year ago. At the moment, she drops her children off at school, gets to work by 9 o’clock and works until 6 o’clock, but she is given time to pick her children up at 3.30 pm. If she has to go to work in another town or another place, there is no possibility that this arrangement can continue. Her children are beyond three and four years old, when free childcare is available, but are too young to leave at home after school.

One thing Ministers need to bear in mind is the pay. The highest full-time pay is £18,000, and many of these people are on £12,000. They simply cannot afford to take home less, because they have to fork out on travel costs or childcare. There is also little other office work in the area, which is why the DWP is a valuable employer.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) suggested, a third of these people come from other villages round about. There is currently a bus connection into Bishop, but if the Bishop office closes, there is no guarantee people will be able to get transport onwards to other locations. The Department’s Darlington and Peterlee offices are already scheduled for closure. I strongly suggest that the Minister’s officials stop looking on Google Maps and that she send them up to the north to start looking at the geographical problems. Let them try to get a bus at 8 o’clock in the morning to Washington, near Sunderland, or to Newcastle, and get back in time to collect children from school at 3 o’clock. It is frankly impossible; it is a five-hour trip, including eight different buses. Of course, there is the massive devastation of public transport. What is being proposed is intolerable for these families.

There are many unanswered questions. The DWP guideline for staff travel times is one hour. How many sites are available for the staff to transfer to that are within an hour’s travel by public transport? What happens to people who received travel costs for three years if they go to work at another site? What happens after that? I suppose they will have to pay for themselves. Is there capacity in other offices nearby to take on these workers? Will they need to be retrained? What will that cost?

I am extremely grateful to the Public and Commercial Services Union for arranging for me to visit the office in February. I met a large number of staff, and they said things like this: “My husband is due to leave the armed forces later this year, so that could be two of us without a job,” “I moved here specifically to be close to my elderly parents,” “There is no childcare for children over 10-years-old,” “I have a child with disabilities, which results in lots of appointments. I couldn’t manage to meet them if I had to travel further afield,” “I’m dependent on my mum for childcare. If I had to leave earlier to travel further, she might not be able to manage, because she is dependent on getting to my children on the bus,” “I’m on maternity leave. I’ve worked here for nine years, and my future is up in the air. Will I have a job to come back to?” “I live in the Dales, where there is limited and often no public transport. How could I travel further afield? If I finished work in Newcastle at half-past seven, it would be physically impossible for me to get home at night,” and “I have a child starting university in September. How can I afford to support my child if I lose my job?”

The Minister must understand that these are significant problems for people. These people are not simply cogs in a machine or units of production; these are real people with real families. Many of the staff said that, in effect, they had to put their lives on hold, because they do not know what the upshot is going to be. They have had to cancel their holidays and things like that.

I want to propose a better way forward to the Minister. Historically, the jobcentre was in Vinovium House, and it would be much better in the long term if, instead of the medical assessment team moving to the jobcentre in the marketplace, the jobcentre people moved to Vinovium House and held on to the lease with the CSA people. There is already information and communications technology, telephones and security. That move would be much more cost-effective than what is being proposed at the moment.

There is, of course, another aspect: the impact on the rest of the town. I have had a letter from the Auckland Castle Trust. I do not know whether the Minister is aware that a philanthropist called Jonathan Ruffer has put at least £50 million into restoring and regenerating Auckland castle, with a view to building up the tourist industry. The Auckland Castle Trust says that it has moved into the upper five floors of Vinovium House, and it requires that office space until 2020. It has been told that if the DWP moves, it will also have to move, and that will cost it a great deal of money. If it has to spend money moving, it will have less money for the regeneration project that it is undertaking.

The DWP decision is doubly bad; it threatens unemployment for the 80 people employed by the DWP, and at exactly the moment when the trust is bending every sinew to regenerate the town, the DWP is pulling the rug from under it. The staff are 100% committed to the local area. They have done a lot of work for local charities, and they have counted up how much they spend every week, which is about £2,000. We know from that that local shops will be extremely badly affected and there will be job losses there, too.

I think the Government should take a more holistic approach. The problem is that Whitehall lives in departmental silos, but people do not. I understand the pressure to save money, but I do not understand why Bishop Auckland is always at the sharp end. We have lost our magistrates court. We have lost our driving test centre. We have lost an HMRC officer. For once, if there is going to be centralisation, could it be into Bishop Auckland instead? I simply do not believe that the Minister can find a place where rents are cheaper than they are in Bishop; that is not credible. People in Bishop Auckland feel very strongly about this, and thousands are currently collecting signatures for a petition. As a hard-working, long-serving staff member said to me,

“It’s become about the building not the service and the staff”.

I am sure the Minister will agree that that is not the right approach.

Marriage Week

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this important issue to the House. Is he aware of the ComRes poll showing that 21% of people support further increases in the personal allowance, but that 60% support increasing the marriage allowance? Does he feel that the Government should consider making the married couple’s allowance that is provided to couples in their 80s and 90s much more generous?

[Mr Burrowes]

The hon. Gentleman and I share views on many issues, not least on how welcome it is that the marriage allowance is once again a transferable allowance. However, that is just a small dent in properly recognising marriage and giving it its true worth and value. That could perhaps be done not least by following the call from many of us, and from the Centre for Social Justice and others, to focus particularly on couples with young children. I would certainly support that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank the hon. Lady for that comment, and I have written the name of her constituency on my speech so I remember to mention specifically the point she has made about Newcastle upon Tyne.

The importance of marriage is reflected in the Government’s introduction of the marriage tax allowance. Furthermore, our commitment to supporting different types of family means that we have extended that tax allowance to include civil partnerships and, of course, same-sex marriages, which were introduced in 2014 and have been taking place since.

[Jim Shannon]

I understand that the take-up of the marriage tax allowance has not been as great as the Government had hoped. May I gently suggest to the Minister that the take-up would increase dramatically if she and her Department were able to make it a more serious allowance? Perhaps that is something the Government can consider.

[Caroline Nokes]

I am sure that is also a matter for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and recently it has been a subject that my own constituents have raised with me, following some publicity about take-up of the marriage tax allowance.

This debate is an opportunity for us to celebrate the diversity and vibrancy of marriage as the basis for family life across the United Kingdom, and we recognise that supportive families can come in many different shapes and sizes.

When it comes to the critical issue of improving children’s outcomes, the evidence shows that it is not the structure of a family that is important but the quality of the relationship between the parents. Recent research by the Early Intervention Foundation has shown that children exposed to frequent, intense and poorly resolved inter-parental conflict have poorer outcomes in later life. We also know that an improvement in parenting skills does not mitigate the worst effects if relationship issues are not addressed.

It is an unfortunate fact of life that marriages can and do break down, but the Government have been clear that, even when a family has separated, both parents still have a positive role to play in the lives of their children. Evidence shows that parental collaboration has a direct and positive impact on child outcomes. As we have heard, children tend to have better health, emotional wellbeing and higher academic attainment if they grow up with parents who have a good relationship and who are able to manage conflict well. That is why we are committed to supporting healthy relationships between parents—whether married or cohabiting, together or separated—in the best interests of children.

DWP Estate

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 18th January 2017 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you today, Madam Chair.

First of all, I congratulate the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) on presenting her case so very well. When I saw the title of this debate, I felt that I had to come along and make a comment, primarily because the future changes to the Department for Work and Pensions estate will affect my constituency. The changes are a devolved matter and I will explain some of the issues for us in relation to it. Perhaps the Minister will find herself with a direct role in this if things do not go according to plan in the elections.

I remember my time as a councillor and as a Member of the Legislative Assembly in Northern Ireland, when the idea of a private finance initiative was first brought to my attention, with regard to building a new hospital at the Ulster hospital site. It must be the Ulster Scots in me, but I just could not bring myself to see how that could be value for money and I opposed it on that ground, and on the ground that it was putting local people out of work. I have a great problem with PFI. The fact is that we are scrambling to find people now that the contract has finished, and we cannot do anything because we do not own anything. Of course, as you will point out, Madam Chair, PFI is not directly the issue that we are considering today, but it is one that we cannot ignore and I wanted to make a point about it on the record.

I know that, on paper, the people to office ratio may allow for an office to close, but we do not live on paper; we live in the real world, where transport systems, and rural and urban issues, come into play. Let me give a Northern Ireland perspective. I say again that the Minister’s responsibility is clearly to the mainland of the United Kingdom, but if the elections in Northern Ireland in two to six weeks do not deliver the democratic process that we wish to have, direct rule will become a reality. If that is the case, responsibility for this issue will fall upon the Minister’s shoulders.

Ballynahinch social security office is out to consultation, with a view to the closure of the premises. The office is long overdue an upgrade, to both its interior and exterior, but it seems that the Department responsible simply cannot afford it, or at least that is what it is telling us. It is impractical to expect or insist that all claimants who use the Ballynahinch office should instead use the Lisburn office or the Downpatrick office, which on paper are less than 20 miles away. That does not seem far, but in reality it is a journey that many find difficult to make. In addition, both those offices are already oversubscribed and fully utilised.

The public transport links to Downpatrick or Lisburn already have problems, and for many people on benefits making such a journey would be another cost and another outgoing that they do not need. Some of those who attend Ballynahinch have severe mobility and access issues, and it would be harmful to their needs if the Ballynahinch office closed.

Let us look at some of the finer detail of the Ballynahinch SSO. Last year, it had 6,172 referrals for jobseeker’s allowance not including phone call inquiries, which could easily double that number. There were also 7,406 jobcentre referrals, and it is imperative that that figure is highlighted in the consultation process. Very often people say that a jobcentre only provides benefits, but it does more than that: it is training people for jobs, as a number of hon. Members have already said.

All those who have an interest in this service must take the time to do their part, in order to see the retention of this office in Ballynahinch. In the four months prior to the start of the consultation, JSA inquiries were as follows: in May 2016, there were nearly 500; in June 2016, 596; in July 2016, 448; and in August 2016, 550. All those cases were dealt with by the Ballynahinch jobseeker’s allowance staff alone.

The jobcentres in my area also have close contact with three local high schools. The point about schools is an important one; it has already been made by others and I make it in relation to my area. Those schools will be affected by any potential closures of jobcentres.

The new personal independence payment system is coming in. Staff need to be trained to use that system, and the increase in workload is quite phenomenal. I cannot speak for others, but I can speak for my own office and its staff—the number of PIP referrals that the office is getting is incredible. The staff’s workload has probably doubled as a result, and I cannot say any more than that. People applying for PIP need to speak to staff who understand their problems, and who have both compassion and a good knowledge of the system. We also have to address the issue of those people who may not have educational achievements or the ability who come to the office. There is also the issue of the reduction in footfall for local businesses; there is a knock-on effect for them as well.

The hon. Member for Glasgow East (Natalie McGarry) referred to the equality impact assessment and I will, too. Thought must be given to the equality impact assessment, as the rural town of Ballynahinch cannot afford to have the local jobcentre moved. That cannot be considered as “rural proofing”.

On paper, this decision about my jobcentre may be a no-brainer, but in reality we will leave hundreds of people without the support they need to find a job or to access other help, or to get advice about benefits. I am sure that this case is replicated in many ways in other hon. Members’ constituencies, which shows that, while we must cut outgoings, in doing so we cannot and must not cut people off from the help and support they need.

Again, I thank the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West for raising this issue, and I ask the Minister for a reasoned opinion on what is being proposed for the DWP estate, and to ensure that, when it comes to making these decisions, we are there for the people who need us most.

[Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)]

I call Chris Stephens to speak. Mr Stephens, you can have an extra minute or so.

Welfare Cap

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 12th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Debbie Abrahams]

That is fine, Madam Deputy Speaker —I have no problem with answering the hon. Gentleman. He said, “More jobs”, but 80% of the increase in employment is in self-employment, and half—[Interruption.] These are the facts. Half of those in self-employment are earning less than the living wage.

As we saw in the autumn statement, growth is down, borrowing is up—again—inflation is on the rise, deficit targets are hopelessly missed, and productivity is flatlining. The Office for National Statistics has described this as “unprecedented”, with the worst levels of productivity since the second world war. Of course, productivity is the driver of wage growth, so we are seeing stagnant wage growth as well as precarious levels of employment.

The Government have failed on every single one of their fiscal targets, so much so that at the autumn statement they had to define a new set. They promised us an economy based on high wages and lower social security spending where work always pays, but in over six years they have done nothing to deliver the high-skill, high-wage, productive economy that this country desperately needs to compete in the global market. As a result of their failures, the Government have once again breached their own welfare cap—not just last year, not just this year, but every year for a full five-year term. For the remaining years of this Parliament, the Government will miss their cap by £5 billion, £6 billion, £7 billion and £8 billion respectively—a record of the complete and utter failure of their economic strategy.

Instead of reforming the social security system to reflect the reality of today’s flexible labour market, the Government have sought to cover up their economic incompetence and take it out on the working poor, the sick and the disabled, raining down austerity on the most vulnerable in our society. We have had six wasted years while the poorest have picked up the bill, with a full four years of failure yet to come. This is a far cry from the former Chancellor’s proclamation in 2014 that

“The welfare cap marks an important moment in the development of the British welfare state”

and

“ensures that never again can the costs spiral out of control”.—[Official Report, 26 March 2014; Vol. 578, c. 374-381.]

All the evidence is to the contrary. This debate is further testament to the Government’s complete failure to manage the economy or—and this is the most important point—to tackle any of the drivers of social security spending. It is incredible to watch the Government as they bound aimlessly from one broken promise to the next. Whatever their favourite slogan—“We’re all in it together”, “Fighting against burning injustices”, or “A Britain for everyone”—it is clear that gimmicks and grandstanding are all the Government are capable of.

In the motion, the Government claim that they could not meet their own rules due to spending on social security support for disabled people and higher than expected inflation. As ever, they are pointing the finger of blame at the most vulnerable rather than apologising for their own economic mismanagement. Let us examine the facts in a bit more detail. At the autumn statement, the Office for Budget Responsibility predicted that the Government will spend £120.5 billion in 2019-20 and £123.2 billion in 2020-21 on social security considered within the cap. Of this, the OBR estimates that changes in forecasts for CPI—consumer prices index—inflation will increase spending to 2021 by £0.8 billion in total. At less than a percentage point of total spending inside the cap, this can hardly be said to be the major driver of the Government’s failure to keep their promises. The Government have lost control of the economy, if they ever had control of it in the first place, and failed to tackle the key drivers of social security spending other than pensions—low-paid work and high housing costs.

Furthermore, the Government’s claim that increased disability spending will cause a breach of the cap at the end of the Parliament is just another attempt to point the finger at sick and disabled people. I admit—I am pleased about this—that there has been no language from Ministers around the “shirkers and scroungers” narrative that we have seen in recent years. That is a very welcome move. However, I am not clear whether this extends to press releases from Conservative Campaign Headquarters or to some of the coverage in less responsible sections of the media. We must be careful of our language in this respect. Even if derogatory terms such as “shirker” and “scrounger” are not used, what is implied by “incentivising” people who have been found not fit for work? Is the implication that they are at home avoiding work—that it is their choice to stay at home instead of being in productive work? That is offensive to very many people.

Instead of blaming everyone else for their mess, the Government should start taking responsibility. It is not just Labour Members who are making these points. The United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has described the approach of the past six years as a “grave and systematic violation” of disabled people’s rights. We have heard similar comments from our own Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Government’s Social Security Advisory Committee, and, indeed, Government Back Benchers. All have raised concerns about the lack of evidence in many of the Government’s social security policies, particularly regarding their punitive effects. I am pleased that the Minister said that the Government had taken the view that because of the implications that changes to tax credits would have for the working poor, they had decided not to proceed with them, but what about work allowances around universal credit? We are talking about the same people. The taper rate will make a difference of a couple of hundred pounds a year instead of the net effect of over £2,000 a year.

I want to explore some of the real reasons the Government have totally failed to meet their promises. They have failed because they have not tackled the drivers of social security spending. Rather than creating a strong economy with high wages, progression in the labour market, affordable housing and accessible childcare, they have starved the economy of much-needed investment, leaving us all worse off after six wasted years of austerity. This is not just our analysis; in every regard, the evidence speaks for itself. On housing, under this Government we are projected to spend more than £20 billion a year, every year, on housing benefit, which, after pensions, is the second largest spending area of social security spending. This amounts to more than £100 billion spent over the course of this Parliament, with nearly half going straight into the pockets of private landlords.

All the while, the Government’s own figures show that the number of affordable homes being built has slumped to a 24-year low. Indeed, research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation suggests that we need to be building 80,000 affordable homes a year to meet demand and keep the current spend on housing benefit stable. This year, we have managed to build just 30,000. Instead of focusing on reducing the housing benefit bill by building affordable homes, the Government have chosen to force the sale of the remainder of our socially rented stock, worsening the housing crisis and driving up housing benefit spend. This is one of the key reasons they have breached their own cap.

On top of this, there is the squeeze on in-work support for people in low-paid jobs. We will spend over £50 billion on tax credits in the two years covered in this motion. Why? Because the Government have failed to ensure that wages keep up with the cost of living, leaving many working people relying on top-ups to get by. Real wages are now set to remain lower in 2021 than they were in 2008, yet the Tories still turn their backs on working people by trying to cut the amount of tax credit support available under their failed austerity plans.

Likewise, under universal credit the Government have weakened incentives to work by cutting billions—about £10 billion over the life of this Parliament—from the programme’s work allowance under their austerity plans. Their meagre reduction in the taper rate does not touch the average cut of £2,000 a year, as I have just mentioned, which will affect 2.5 million working people. If the Chancellor was serious about reducing the social security spend, he would follow Labour’s lead and implement a real living wage calculated on the basis of what people need. That would ensure that people get a fair and proper wage for a working day, while reducing the expenditure of the state.

Our Chancellor is apparently not capable of making such an obvious decision, despite the fact that the Living Wage Commission has shown that the Government’s national living wage falls well short of providing a decent standard of living. The Chancellor used his autumn statement to chop 1w0p an hour off the previously promised wage increase, at a cost of about £200 a year to the average worker. That is all in the context of flatlining pay, which leads to the average wage being £1,000 lower in 2020 than was predicted at the last Budget. How can we ever expect to reduce social security expenditure when the Government will not act on wages?

High wages alone will not clear up the mess, however. We also need to act on progression in the labour market if we are to tackle the drivers affecting social security spending. The JRF has shown that four out of five low-paid workers are still low paid 10 years later. There is no automatic progression to higher pay. That is further proof of the deep structural problems we face in our labour market.

Finally, we should turn our attention to the disability employment gap, which the Government claimed they would halve by 2020. I am grateful for the intervention from the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) on that point. The gap narrowed from the end of last year, but it is now back up to the level it was just before the general election last year. Perhaps the Government’s plan to force people into work before they are ready by cutting the employment and support allowance can be added to the mounting examples of the Government’s flawed strategy.

Why have the Government not acted to improve the retention of disabled people in their current jobs? The Resolution Foundation has shown that doing so could reduce the number of people transitioning from employment to health-related inactivity, which was 350,000 in 2015. Keeping disabled people in their jobs would surely be a better strategy to bring down social security spending than slashing support for those who are further away from the labour market. But no; sadly, the Government have not been able to see that far, and their record on supporting retention is very poor.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

This is an important issue. The Office for Budget Responsibility has said that the Government will breach their target in each year of its forecast. Does the hon. Lady acknowledge that that means that the welfare cap is not working, because the Government cannot look after those who are genuinely ill and in need of benefits? An example of that is Concentrix, where lots of people were put on benefits and then taken off benefits. The number of such people, when it comes to the cap, is very difficult to forecast, and the Government need to forecast that better.

[Debbie Abrahams]

That is an interesting question, and I would have to look at the figures. I have tried to show that the high cost of housing is a real issue, as is low-paid work. There are a number of factors, but those are the key drivers. The Government really should have been more careful in their impact assessment when they set out their policy in the first place.

To conclude, this breach of the Government’s self-imposed welfare cap every year for five years is further proof of their utter failure on the economy. They have refused to act on the fundamental areas that are driving the cost of social security spending, and they have made bankrupt attempts to meet their targets on the back of the most vulnerable. Only Labour has an economic strategy that will bring the costs of social security down without fraying the safety net that we all rely on. Now is the time to invest in the housing we need, offer a decent wage for a working day and support people to find a job, keep a job and progress in their chosen work. We will transform our social security system to ensure that, like the NHS, it is there for all of us in our time of need, as part of our plan to create a stronger, fairer economic settlement for all in our country.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to contribute to this important debate. I pay tribute to the Minister, who showed that she had a genuinely deep understanding of the issues. She already has a record of being very willing to engage, particularly with charitable groups, which have a wealth of experience. We, as a Government, would do well to listen to them and allow them to help to shape future policies.

The debate is important because it focuses our minds. We have set a clear marker, and we have to justify any deviation from our original plans. It was interesting to listen to the last speech. The shadow Minister said that the Government have spent something like £130 billion more, but she then criticised us for not spending sufficient money in basically every area. The two things did not quite marry up. It is right to focus our minds, because under the previous Labour Government welfare was simply left to drift. The number of workless households doubled and an extra 470,000 people were abandoned to unemployment. Those are not just statistics; they represent real people who were in desperate need of the right support.

Through our strong economic growth—I am not sure what the shadow Minister was referring to, because it is still the strongest of any major developed economy—we have seen record employment. That is not just a south-east phenomenon; it has happened in every region of the country. I know that hon. Members are all desperate to know the situation in my constituency: 8,100 more people are in work since the general election, and that is even larger than the number of people who go to the county ground to watch the mighty Swindon Town. Unemployment is at an 11-year low.

We have introduced the national living wage, directly benefiting 2.75 million of our lowest earners. The income tax threshold rises year on year, taking 3.2 million people out of paying any income tax at all. While wages have grown, on average, about 2% this year, the wages of the lowest earners have risen by an average of 6%. That is in addition to the welcome extension of free childcare, which has created more opportunities for people to work.

The recent Green Paper announcement gives us a real opportunity to build on the progress that is being made, particularly if we look at the 590,000 more disabled people in work in the last three years. Now, 48% of disabled people are expected to be in work—up from 44% when we first came into office. We still have much further to go, but charitable groups and people who work in this area are encouraged by the fact that we are going in the right direction. The key thing is to deliver tailored individual support, because for those who are still looking for work, there are challenges. It is not as simple as learning how to create a CV and taking part in interview training. We are right to look at delivering more tailored support, to make further progress in delivering more people into work and thus reducing welfare spending.

We are right to identify that we have to do joined-up work with health. Many people who are now looking for work will also have to navigate health challenges, and they need support from the beginning. We are, rightly, introducing the small employer offer to engage proactively with employers on providing opportunities. People who play by the rules and work with the support on offer need the opportunity to go into work at the end of the process.

The announcement on disability apprentices and the increase in funding for Access to Work and universal credit, which has universal support across all parts of the House, reinforce the point that work should always pay and recognise a welfare system that is fair to those who receive it and to those who pay for it. Crucially, we are removing the 16-hour cliff-edge rule and providing, on average, 13% more time for the claimant to look. Most importantly, for me, for the first time ever a claimant has a named contact who can help them to navigate the process of not just looking for work, but dealing with all the different forms of benefit and the extra support they will need.

Crucially, when a claimant goes into work, the named contact will continue to provide support. Until now, we, as a society, would help people to get into work and wish them all the best, and that would be our last contact with them unless they came back to look for work again. Now we realise that those people, many of whom are taking their first step into work, may need support. They may lack confidence. If they attend work regularly and engage in the right way, their named coach can help them to try to increase their hours, increase their responsibility and earn more money in work.

[Jim Shannon]

One of the things I would like to see in my constituency and across the whole of the United Kingdom is incentives for small and medium-sized businesses, which, because they are small, find it difficult to support disabled people in gaining employment. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that small and medium-sized businesses have so far not been encouraged to do just that?

[Justin Tomlinson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that very important point. Large employers, with their well-resourced HR and highly educated personnel teams, are very good at making such changes—they are often small changes—to take full advantage of the disabled people who are looking to work and have the great skills and abilities needed to fill the existing skills gaps. Small and medium-sized businesses often do not have the necessary confidence and skills, and may not even be aware of the talent that is available.

The small employer pilot is so important because it is about going around industrial parks, business parks and shops to ask, “Where are your skills gaps? We will match them to the people who are looking for work.” We have had some really encouraging results from the pilots. I had a Disability Confident event in my constituency, and the Shaw Trust managed to place a further 22 people. We got small and medium-sized employers who had never thought about doing this to come forward and say, “These are our skills gaps. Please help find people for us.”

State Pension Age: Women

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Craig Mackinlay]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Given the state of the nation’s finances in 2010 and that 70-year-old inequality, something had to be done.

WASPI women find themselves in a difficult situation, having started out in a more traditional era of British life. Back then, women were more likely to be at home. If in work, they were unlikely to have been on a well-paid career path. Often part-time work would feature and low-paid work was the norm. The problems do not end there, though; this generation has parents themselves benefiting from increases in longevity, hence an extended caring function often falls upon them, while many WASPI women often support grandchildren as well.

The majority view among women at my forum was that there should have been no change at all to the 1995 Act and that the retirement age of 60 should have prevailed. Now, that clearly is not sustainable. None of the Opposition parties proposed it in their manifestos last year, and indeed this option—option 1 in the Landman Economics report—has been discounted even by the SNP. At £30 billion, it is simply too expensive and unfair. The SNP report advanced other options: option 2 was to wind back the 2011 pension change, which accelerated the age increase; and option 3 was a slowing down of the 2011 Act—a sort of Pension Act 2011-minus.

An option 4, suggested by Labour Members, is that pension credit be used to bridge the gap, but the great problem with that is that it might actually discourage work, or even encourage people to stop work altogether. Option 5 is for an actuarially reduced pension at an earlier age. I floated that with many WASPI women, and some supported it, given an appropriate discount rate. It could work—it works in the USA and Canada—but then another group of WASPI campaigners do not want to hear of it, and my worry is that, in 10 years, we might have a group of WASPI women who, having accepted less for longer, are now in poverty. I have discussed all these issues with my WASPI women, and there is very little agreement.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

On the question of what is acceptable, does the hon. Gentleman understand that many WASPI women, having been born in the ’50s and done physical work, are physically unable to continue working and cannot be expected to do so? Moreover, those born in the ’60’s and ’70’s have a chance to retrain, whereas the WASPI women do not and are physically unable to work on their knees for physically demanding jobs. Surely that has to be a consideration.

[Craig Mackinlay]

I fully understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, and I will cover some of those issues as I progress.

On the contract that many Members say was there, there was no contract for the Government to implement the triple lock, which has done more to alleviate poverty in older age than any other measure before it. There was no contract about the implementation of the new state pension, which will provide £155.65 per week on 35 qualifying years of national insurance. These were choices made by Conservative Governments and were done for the right reasons. We will have increased the take-home pension by £1,100 a year since 2010. Many people welcome these things, which were done for the right reasons, as I said. WASPI women have the right to work for longer because they are not forced into retirement any more. If they are unable to work, there is a benefit system, which I support and hope would carry them through.

ESA and Personal Independence Payments

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2016 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I did indeed, Ms Dorries. Absolutely. I am more than happy to be called—I am just surprised to be called right away.

[Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)]

You are first on the list today; I know it is unusual.

[Jim Shannon]

The first shall be last and the last shall be first. Whenever it happens, it is always good to be called. Thank you very much, Ms Dorries—I actually thought that the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) might have been asked, so I was looking at him, but no doubt he will participate at some stage.

I thank the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) for setting the scene well. We are back to discuss this matter again in Westminster Hall, and it would be remiss of me not to give a Northern Ireland perspective on where we are. I am grateful that the Minister is in her place and all of us in the House appreciate it when she responds. I will give my opinion today—and others will give examples—of where the system is falling down. I have to highlight those key issues because my staff and I deal with them every day of the week. We see people across the table from us with angst and anxiety and all the associated issues of stress, and we say, “How can we help them and do things better?” I will speak about some of those things today.

I have recently spoken about the changes to the employment and support allowance work-related activity group and what that means for people. The biggest issue is that the Government need to understand the difference between “ill” and “unable to work”. That, in a nutshell, is what the debate is about—the interpretation by the Department for Work and Pensions of what it means to be ill and what it means to those people who sit across the table from me every day and tell me they cannot work. The hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East referred to people being pasty, sweaty and anxious, and my staff and I see those things every day of the week.

In the last month, we have seen in my office a former ward sister, a former construction business owner and a social worker, all of whom are now on ESA. Let me be clear: I do not believe for a second that those people are choosing not to work out of laziness. Who would want to go from earning £500 a week down to £75? People do not, but that is what happens.

The inference from the Government in this whole policy is insulting—I say that with respect—and more importantly, is based on a false premise that cannot be allowed to stand. I have to challenge that in the House, respectfully and kindly, and say it to the Minister and Government directly. As hon. Members know, I do not criticise—I do not feel that that is necessarily what I do—but I need to highlight the issues and ask nicely for genuine compassion and understanding.

The rationale seems to apply to PIP applicants as well. PIP is supposed to be for the help that people need to work. Apparently, the PIP assessment is intended to provide

“a more holistic assessment of the impact of a health condition…on an individual’s ability to participate”

in everyday life. It covers sensory impairments, development needs, cognitive impairments and mental conditions, as well as physical disabilities. Those five categories cover everything—medically, physically, healthwise——that there can be. The assessment looks at the extent to which the individual is capable of undertaking various activities. For some activities, someone can score points to help to meet the threshold for PIP if they can undertake that activity only by using an “aid or appliance”. That could include such things as artificial limbs, colostomy bags, walking sticks and non-specialist aids such as electric tin openers and long-handled sponges.

I want to highlight two cases, one of which involves a young lady who has ulcerative colitis. My age is such that I can probably remember the day she was born. I have got to know her very well over the years due to her diagnosis with this unseen disease, and how it has affected her and other people in my constituency. She worked in the civil service but was granted medical retirement before 30 because her employer could no longer facilitate her working. A Government employer could not accommodate her ability to work one day and not the next, as her illness dictated.

I understand the reasons why the Government and the civil service had to take a decision and say, “Look, we are going to have to terminate your employment.” However, that is where the problem started, and I cannot understand how they expect someone else to employ her when they let her go. It should be understood why this lady is no longer able to work and why her employer, the civil service—she was Government-employed—had to let her go. Why is this young lady in this conflicted position? She is asked, in respect of PIPs, “What job can you do? Where can we find you some work?” Let us be honest: that wee lassie would love to work if only she had the opportunity, but she cannot because of her disability. She is on ESA and is dealing with the stress of the proposed changes. We should never underestimate the impact of the stress of this position. I stress that as strongly as I can, because I see that all the time. She rang to make an appointment for her PIP form to be filled out. How will she be assessed? That is the question I am asking. She is currently on the higher-rate DLA—deservedly so, by the way. Will that be taken away from her? Ministers would say no, but the experience we have had so far in my office is raising fear in our mind and the minds of constituents. I see that all the time.

The young lady’s condition has not improved one iota since her last DLA application. If anything, I would suggest that it has worsened, and there is real concern that the PIP changes will not help. The stress makes her even more ill. It is a vicious cycle that is repeated over and over again. The PIP is for people who need help for hygienic purposes and for safety issues, but the problem is that that is not being translated into the new proposals. I genuinely hold the Minister in the highest esteem. From her response, we need to understand how the system works and how it can help the people on whose behalf we are here to make a plea, so that we can take away the stress and hassle.

On 11 March, it was announced that the number of points awarded in the PIP assessment would be halved for aids and appliances for “dressing and undressing” and “managing toilet needs”. Why would the Government reduce the points for things that are needed? I cannot understand that. As a result, 290,000 claimants will no longer receive the daily living component, and a further 80,000 will receive the standard, rather than the enhanced, daily living component. Budget 2016 estimated additional savings of £1.3 billion a year by 2019-20. That is great but where does it leave my constituent, who needs help during the night?

[Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)]

Order. Mr Shannon, lots of people wish to speak. Would you try to keep your speech to about nine minutes so everybody has an equal amount of time? Thank you.

[Jim Shannon]

I did not realise that. I will try to go at my Northern Ireland speed, which is very fast. The young lady I was talking about needs her sheets changed at night, and often replaced entirely, as well as someone to come in and take care of her during her bad periods. Her DLA paid for a carer to help her. Will PIP do the same? The answer should certainly be yes, but the points system is not set up for illnesses such as ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease. The Crohn’s and Colitis UK website contains a link to a PDF offering help and advice on the PIP for sufferers. The PDF is 70 pages long—that is how complex the system is and how much help people need to fill out the application. If that does not put off someone who is seriously ill, I do not know what would.

Is this what was intended by the Government’s welfare reform? Did they intend to make it so complex and intricate that many people will give up and live in sub-standard conditions, rather than get the help they need to live with their illness? We should be concerned about people retreating inwards, their lack of confidence and the problems they face.

Ms Dorries, you have given me a time limit. I just have two more paragraphs to get through very quickly. I wholeheartedly believe that the new system is failing people. I had a doctor on the phone to say that his patient’s decision was made without the assessor taking the time to request any information about the patient from the surgery. The doctor said, “Jim, if he doesn’t get this help he will have to go to a nursing home at 46 years of age.” The care packages that health trusts put in place are not sufficient to handle people who are not able to pay privately for the additional support they require. On their behalf, I again ask the Minister, most sincerely, kindly and humbly: please look at this benefit, remember why it was set up and understand that, for many, it is the difference between having support to live and simply being able to exist. Do not continue to push these ill people, many of whom suffer from mental health problems due to the stress and strain of long-term illness. In this House, MPs are called to protect and help the vulnerable, but that is not what this new ESA and PIP system does.