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.

Employment and Support Allowance: Underpayments

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 25th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Newton]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I would of course be delighted to meet her and discuss Gillian. Clearly something is not right. It does not sound like it is related to what we are talking about today, but clearly something has gone wrong and I would be delighted to meet the hon. Lady as a matter of urgency.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for her response so far. Underpayments to my constituents have ranged from £3,000 to one massive sum of £22,000. The issue affects some of my constituents when it comes to housing benefit. Can the Minister assure me that none of my constituents will be disadvantaged by something that is not their fault?

[Sarah Newton]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that question. This was an official error, so the income disregards do apply and his constituents should not be disadvantaged in the way he describes.

Pensions Dashboard

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 6th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) on securing it. I am happy to make a comment within the timescale that you have set out, Mrs Ryan,

Pensions are a thorny issue; many people made their financial plans based on the promise of a pension that has not materialised. There are also those who invested, only to lose their money and get only 30p in the pound of their investment, but that is a debate for another day; in fact, we had a debate on that last Thursday in the main Chamber; it was on Equitable Life, and those who had paid into a pension but did not get their money. It is easy to understand the concerns that some of us have about people’s need for a pension; the hon. Gentleman referred to the need for a pensions dashboard.

I can well recall—although it was not yesterday—my mum taking me down to the Northern Bank, as it was, to open my first account when I was 16. I also remember that when I turned 18, she took me to fill in the policy with the insurance man and said, “Make sure you’re putting money aside every month for that purpose.” That was thriftiness, but it was also really good direction from my mum, as always, because it was important that we knew why we did those things. I am a wee bit older now, and I am glad that I signed up for those things many years ago, because I will benefit from them in the years ahead.

Today’s debate is an attempt to ensure that people are not left in the lurch in the way that women born in the 1950s and the Equitable Life savers have been. It is an issue that it is certainly worth people considering if they are working hard and seeking to invest, so that someday they do not have to work, but can enjoy life without having to miss out on the things that they have while working a nine-to-five job. It is my sincere hope and desire that the work that the Treasury Committee and others are doing to prevent another Equitable Life scandal will be successful, but irrespective of that, a dashboard with real-time information has to be useful for those who are planning their future, as the hon. Gentleman said.

I must say that the key decisions that came from the Government consultation give rise to some concern. One concern relates to data security. The fact that all financials are held and accessible by the industry independently raises concern. I hope the Minister can reassure me on that. My concern is heightened by the breach in Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority data security, which led to the addresses of my staff members being released. That shook our office and caused great concern, given that we hail from a political party in Northern Ireland, and given its history. Such data security breaches underline my concerns. The Government must ensure that there are guidelines in place to reassure people, including my constituents and me.

I also have grave concerns regarding proposals that would result in pension fund members being targeted by those who want their business. Although I agree that multiple dashboards would improve consumer choice, it is essential that alongside those—I think the hon. Gentleman referred to this—there be a non-commercial dashboard, hosted by the single financial guidance body, and offering an impartial service to those who prefer that, or who may not want to be targeted by the market. We must cover all choices and tastes.

Another essential issue for me is that the cost of this dashboard should not hit the pension or the consumers; there should rather be an obligation on the industry to bear the cost. Although the autumn Budget has made available funding for 2019-20 to facilitate the industry’s making dashboards a reality, it is clear that that is to get the dashboard on its feet, as opposed to making it a Government service. That is another consideration.

I am conscious of time, so I will conclude with this point. In principle, I support the idea of people having greater knowledge of their financial status. There are so many people who come into my office with their pension annual statement, not understanding what it means—not only older people, but young career people who have been made to sign up to a pension, but have no idea what the money that they pay, or their employer pays, is used for. It is surprising how many people do not know.

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

That is why we need proper enterprise education in schools. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is when it should start, and that it should not end until people enter the workplace?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman; just as the hon. Member for Hendon thought that someone had read his script, my next words are on the very subject to which the hon. Gentleman refers. The subject is not covered in school, but it clearly should be, because these young people literally have no idea what their pension means. He is absolutely right, and his intervention underlines the responsibilities that we have a duty to perform. I sincerely believe that a pension dashboard can help this generation, but the safety and security of financial information is paramount.

I look forward to the Minister’s response; I feel that some of the assurances I have sought in this small contribution are assurances that he can provide, and if he does, he will set a lot of minds at rest.

State Pension Age: Women

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 31st January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

That is exactly the situation we are in, and it is really sad—it upsets me, and it is frustrating. My constituents ask me what is being done, where we are and what we are doing, and this debate is an opportunity for the Government to respond to those questions.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing the issue to the House for consideration. She has been proficient and active on this case. With 5,800 women in my constituency being out of pocket, many of whom are in manual labour jobs, my concern is that we are seeing a generation of women discriminated against and we seem to be achieving nothing for them. These women were told to expect something and they prepared their future financing around that. I am left wondering just what they did to warrant this treatment. Does she agree that this is nothing short of a disgrace?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. That is exactly where we are, and it is just wrong. The Women and Equalities Committee commissioned—

[Jim Shannon]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

It would be a pleasure.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady is most gracious and kind in giving way. This is a very important point. Many people in my constituency are employed in manual labour, which means that, as they get older, they have disabilities, arthritis and other such issues. Does she agree that it is not realistic to expect those people to retrain? What they really need is their pension—and probably in many cases some sort of disability living allowance or an attendance allowance because of their disabilities.

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very valid point. When the Women and Equalities Committee took evidence from people about the difficulties they face in finding work, we found that employers need to make sensible adjustments in order to keep older workers. Can the Government guarantee that that is being done? It is recognised that ageism remains—

Widowed Parent’s Allowance

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd January 2019 Westminster Hall

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Indeed. It interests me that the Supreme Court judgment makes reference to article 2 of the UN convention on the rights of the child, which decrees non-discrimination in relation to children, and to article 3, which endorses Governments’ working for the best interests of the child first and foremost. Those principles apply not just to the matter we are debating but to other issues.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for bringing forward this important matter. She outlined clearly a case in Northern Ireland. Does she agree that going from having a wage coming into the house to receiving £117 a week is a massive step, and that that help needs to continue for more than a year for homes with children? That needs to be reviewed. A year is not long enough for someone to sort out how to cope financially in the long term without their spouse and how to raise their children alone. This matter is highly important, and I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing it forward.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It is evident that this matter raises a whole number of questions over and above the one I am specifically addressing.

I reiterate—I hope I say this regularly during the debate—that I say “children” quite intentionally. The great majority of EU member states make children themselves directly eligible for bereavement benefits up to a certain age. Essentially, bereavement benefits function as a sort of topped-up child benefit for children who have lost a parent and therefore require additional support. It is not, however, within the remit of the Supreme Court to correct primary legislation; that duty lies with us in Parliament.

Let me make it clear that despite the title of the debate, I believe the principle established by the Supreme Court ruling extends beyond the widowed parent’s allowance. We have heard that families in which a spouse has passed away since April 2017 are entitled to bereavement support payment, which replaced widowed parent’s allowance. It is therefore implicit in the Court’s ruling that bereavement support payment, too, ought to be extended to children regardless of their parents’ marital status. After all—I wish to impress this upon everyone present, including the Minister—the key takeaway of that ruling is that refusing to extend payments to the children of unmarried couples is of material detriment to those children and is discriminatory against those children.

In the eyes of the Supreme Court, a policy may offer special treatment to married couples when children are not involved, but it may not do so in relation to a benefit targeted at the needs and wellbeing of children. That is directly relevant to both widowed parent’s allowance and bereavement support payment, as in both instances the wellbeing of the children is the primary purpose of the benefit. That is expressed very convincingly in the Supreme Court judgment. It is not acceptable for the state to discriminate against children who happen to hail from unmarried households—to confer stigmatising status on families as either legitimate or illegitimate in the eyes of their own Government. If the support is there, it must be there for all children.

The Minister may well argue that there are bureaucratic barriers to extending widowed parent’s allowance to the children of unmarried couples. He may suggest that the requirement of a legal union protects widowed parent’s allowance from abuse. In reply, I would highlight the armed forces pension scheme, which successfully utilises a definition of “eligible partner” that is not narrowly restricted to the confines of marriage and civil partnership. Of course, the Department for Work and Pensions routinely assesses whether individuals are cohabiting, in pursuit of rolling back their means-tested social security benefits. In many such cases, there is considerably less evidence of cohabitation on display than the existence of living, breathing children. In fact, widowed parent’s allowance itself can be withdrawn if a parent later cohabits with a new partner. It is striking that Governments past and present have been willing to recognise the validity of cohabiting couples in life but not in death.

The Minister may highlight that discrimination against the children of unwed couples was debated during the passage of the Pensions Act 2014. I would reply that the legality of the Government’s standpoint is now informed by the Supreme Court’s ruling from last summer. Where Parliament previously debated in a fog of unknown quantities, we now know that the legal union requirement violates the human rights of children born to parents who are neither married nor in a civil partnership. Defenders of restricting payments to married households typically concern themselves with spousal rights, but the crux of this issue can no longer be allowed to rest solely on the rights of a bereaved spouse. Today’s debate is about whether the Government can continue to materially disadvantage children born to unmarried parents.

Household compositions have changed visibly since the widowed mother’s allowance of 1946, and the Supreme Court ruling is a reminder that our social security system must evolve to keep up. According to the Office for National Statistics, cohabiting couple families have been the fastest-growing family demographic across the UK for two decades, and in the past few years, families headed by cohabitating couples have been more prevalent than lone-parent families in the UK. By 2017, 17% of all households with dependent children were headed by a cohabitating couple.

We also know that there is a socioeconomic and geographical element to family composition, and 49% of cohabitating households in Wales are home to dependent children—the highest proportion throughout the UK. Poorer families are more likely to be headed by unmarried parents, and both mothers and fathers in married couples are more than twice as likely to have a degree as their counterparts in cohabiting couples. Children in lower socioeconomic households are therefore disproportionately exposed to bereavement support discrimination of this type, compared with their wealthier counterparts. That is deeply ironic given the Government’s approach to non-means-tested benefits: to those who can afford to marry, they give more, but to those who have less, they seek to justify denying them at the most traumatic time.

When will the Government formally respond to the issues raised in the Supreme Court ruling and in this debate? The Minister said on 5 September last year that there would be a response anon, but a number of months have since passed. If he will not provide a set timetable today for a response, will he explain why? Could the Government use legislative vehicles to make such a change? I think particularly of the Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration Etc.) Bill promoted by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). A private Member’s Bill might well be a vehicle through which to make such a change.

Extending widowed parent’s allowance as well as bereavement support payments was recommended back in March 2016 in a report by the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, “Support for the bereaved”. It outlined, as I have done today and as the Supreme Court did last year, that excluding the children of unmarried couples from bereavement support in the 21st century is both unjust and unjustifiable.