Atos

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Williams]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention, which she had notified me she wanted to make. She talked about multiple processes, and she is right; in particular she is right about the delays and the anxiety they cause.

There are reports of some disabled people waiting more than six months for face-to-face assessment; scheduling problems; last-minute cancellations; and difficulty in getting to assessment centres. I represent a large rural constituency in the west of Wales and access to assessment centres is a critical matter. We must factor in the lack of public transport and people’s difficulties in getting to their interviews.

That should all be seen in the context of the fact that many claiming benefit are doing so for the first time, after experiencing a catastrophic, life-changing event such as an accident, the sudden onset of disability or the deterioration of an existing condition. They face an urgent need for support, given the sudden extra costs. Everyone in the Chamber acknowledges that delay is unacceptable, although of course new systems have teething problems. I should emphasise, however, that not one of us, of whatever political persuasion, has a monopoly on empathy with the problems, which are understood by the Government, the Opposition and all parties. Nevertheless, I question the capacity of existing providers to carry out the work. The Minister is in a difficult position, because the tendering process is being embarked upon, but I hope that he can allay my fears.

I sought the debate because of the increasing numbers of constituents who are coming to my surgeries, writing to me and e-mailing me, and are facing the stress and anxiety of going through work capability assessments carried out by Atos for the DWP. That is perhaps inevitable given the increased pace of assessments but, as a result of, some would argue, the inappropriate system and process, many of our constituents are told that they do not qualify and are indeed fit for work. The constituent then appeals, but can be left in a state of limbo while this process takes place—delays take months or even years. One of my constituents had an assessment two years ago, but the case is still not resolved.

In response, local agencies such as Jobcentre Plus, Citizens Advice and the DWP itself have been advising my constituents to contact me to assist with their appeal or the speed of their claim. I would never turn a constituent away on any bit of casework, however big or small, because that is our duty and our function, and I am supported by excellent staff here in London and in Aberystwyth, so we will help in any way. There is something wrong, however, if DWP staff are themselves referring people to their MP. In one case, a DWP member of staff told my constituent to contact me to complain about the service. As such, it is my duty to bring these matters to the Minister’s attention.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

This is such an important issue, not only for the hon. Gentleman, but for every one of us in the Chamber and for many outside. In addition to the examples he has rightly mentioned, I have a constituent who has ulcerated colitis and has been retired medically as a civil servant. Her doctor and her physiotherapist support her. In the appeal, however, she was declared fit for work. There is something seriously wrong with a system that ignores medical opinion and suggests that people can work, when they clearly cannot. Should the Minister take that on board?

[Mr Williams]

The hon. Gentleman highlights a mismatch between the appeals process and the initial adjudication or assessment. I will come on to that. I am sure the Minister is mindful of it, although the hon. Gentleman is right to highlight it. As I said at the start of the debate, the situation is not unique to my constituency; it is commonplace in every constituency in the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Williams]

My hon. Friend is right. I am not approaching the subject on a particularly partisan basis, because the problems are experienced in all constituencies, but he is right to talk about the circumstances in which this Government are dealing with the legacy of decisions taken under the previous Government. He is right to highlight that. I have every sympathy with many of the campaigning groups, on behalf of which I will talk in my later remarks, but we need to remember the origins of the decision, which the Labour Government made.

I want to talk specifically about delays. I met Atos representatives yesterday, so I know that they recognise the length of time taken to complete the process. One of my constituents, who I will call Mr P, had his Atos assessment two years ago and was failed. He appealed, and the appeal took eight months to be heard. The appeal judge took only three minutes to uphold the appeal. His backdated benefits were paid, but two months later he received a letter summoning him to another Atos assessment, because the process had taken so long from start to finish that the 12-month period before reassessment was almost up. At the second Atos assessment, my constituent was unable to complete some of the tests without causing himself considerable pain and anguish, so they were stopped halfway through. This went down on his medical report paperwork as a refusal.

The case, now complete, has gone to the ombudsman, and I would like to quote a section from my constituent’s letter to the ombudsman:

“I have paid my NI contributions and taxes all my life believing I would be protected by the welfare system should anything untoward happen to me. For 2 years I was afraid to open my post in case it was another letter stopping money...or another assessment. During this time I have been in pain, had needles...surgeons knives, ligaments removed, bones cut and metal plates inserted into me but I am still made to look like some kind of scrounging criminal by a system that was meant to protect me.”

I condemn certain sections of the press for the way in which they have characterised benefit claimants. A gentleman who is genuinely seeking support from the welfare state, into which he has paid all his life, is seemingly being let down.

In many cases, our constituents want to get on with the process of recovery and do not see benefit claiming as a long-term situation, but the delays make their condition worse. Another constituent who I am dealing with—she, too, will remain anonymous—said:

“I am currently receiving treatment and therapy and my therapist is not keen to discharge me yet. My health is not improving and is in fact being made worse by the anxiety caused from this void of information. I was feeling quite positive at one time that I may be put into the Work Related Activity Group…as this would be a great stepping stone to getting back into work from sickness, but I currently feel so low because instead of being helped forward towards getting back into work, I am stuck in an uninformed place that is not helping me recover at all.”

That indicates to me that the process for some conditions —by no means all of them—is making situations worse and adding anxiety to something that is already causing considerable stress to people.

In developing the debate, I am talking about some of the principles that I believe—I am sure people in all parties believe—should be governing our assessment system. My concern in addition to the delays is that the work capability assessment is not fit for purpose. Indeed, the charity Mind informs me that around 40% of people who are found fit for work appeal against the decision; of those who appeal, almost 40% win their appeal. As we know, capability to work is about not only those suffering with physical disabilities—it might be easier for ATOS assessors to see and report on a tangible factor—but those suffering with an invisible illness. This is true in particular of constituents who are suffering with mental health issues, or conditions relating to autism, which is an especially interesting example.

In my constituency, I was pleased that an excellent charity, Autism Cymru, developed a project to train people in the DWP to have greater understanding of the condition of autism. I used to be a primary school teacher and we had minimal training on this, but one thing that impressed itself on me was one particular feature of autism: asking a direct question gets a negative response. That is the nature of the condition, and it needs to be borne in mind in the assessments. The charities Rethink, Mind, the National Autistic Society and Citizens Advice have all made that point to me. I therefore ask the Minister to reiterate the Department’s concern and to ensure that, whichever providers undertake the work, the assessors are appropriately trained in complex conditions such as autism and mental health, so that the clients may be—and see themselves to be—assessed fairly and comprehensively.

Last autumn, with other Members, I undertook a mock assessment organised by the charity Rethink, to give MPs the experience of taking a work capability assessment. At that meeting was a Rethink campaigner, the retired vicar Dick Acworth, whose son has bipolar disorder and yet was deemed fit for work. People such as Dick’s son with a supportive family are lucky to be able to face the appeals process together, but there must be concern about the number of people who do not appeal, because they cannot face it, or simply do not know how to go about it, and they are very much left to struggle alone.

[Jim Shannon]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when someone has medical evidence from GPs, consultants and physiotherapists—people who know about the medical condition of their patient—it is important for Atos and for the Department itself to take greater cognisance of that medical evidence? It seems that that is not always the case.

[Mr Williams]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making, once more, that point. It is critical that all due consideration is given. I do not agree with the characterisation of constituents as simply going down to their doctor’s surgery, presenting a letter to the doctor and saying, “Sign this”, and then that letter being presented as part of a package for an assessment, or indeed a tribunal. Doctors are the experts. They know their patients and the situations in which they operate, and we need to give them all due consideration.

Concerns have also been expressed about people suffering from progressive illnesses such as cystic fibrosis, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease and rheumatoid arthritis. It has been asked whether the work capability assessment is fit for purpose for them. I am not sure whether the Minister has received it yet, but I recently signed a letter to him from colleagues from across the House—it is on its way—raising that concern. Organisations working on behalf of people with progressive conditions have found that that 45% of people with those conditions who put in a new claim for ESA between 2008 and 2011 were placed in a work-related activity group and deemed able eventually to return to work. The placement of those individuals represents the Department’s recognition that they were unable to work at the time of the assessment, yet some were given a recommendation for a return to work in few months’ time. But that directly contradicts the definition of a progressive condition, which of course can get worse over time. The letter is on its way, and I am sure that the Minister will respond to it even if he does not do so today.

I will move on to the flexibility of descriptors. I understand that Atos and Capita are under contract to the Department—I was going to raise at this point the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) about the origins of those contracts—but Atos does not set the descriptors; they are set by Government. Given the concerns that many organisations in the third sector have about the descriptors, will the Minister tell us—I suspect I know the answer—what dialogue he has had with the third sector and what opportunities the third sector has to raise such concerns?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mike Penning)]

It is the first time I have served under your chairmanship since you were knighted, Sir Roger. I congratulate you on receiving your knighthood from Her Majesty, and look forward to serving under your chairmanship in the future. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) on securing this debate on an issue on which I receive correspondence as a constituency MP; indeed, in the four months that I have had this job, I have met colleagues from across the House about this issue.

On that note, I will explain a little about the role of the Minister of State with responsibility for disabled people. It is a completely new role. For the first time in the 40 years that we have had a Minister for this area, a Minister of State is responsible for it. Although I am based in the Department for Work and Pensions, I have a considerable role across Government in bringing Departments together, to break down some of the silos and see how we can go forward for a better future and with better aspirations for people with disabilities and long-term illnesses.

My hon. Friend has concentrated specifically on Atos and the WCA. I spoke to him before the debate, and I will concentrate most of my comments, if I may, on the WCA for ESA, and on Atos, which is in the title of the debate. Many matters he has raised this morning are not points with which anyone from across the House or any Minister could disagree. There is real concern out in the community, in the lobbying groups that represent so many of the individuals who are so worried about the assessment, and across the House. I noticed that before I came to this role, and have seen it since.

I have tried to be as open and pragmatic as possible in the past four months, meeting not only colleagues from across the House but the relevant specialist stakeholder groups that have asked to see me. I have been frank—I am often too frank—in saying that if those stakeholder groups want to help and to work with us to make the situation better, I have an open-door policy. If they want to throw abuse—and frankly some of my colleagues have faced abuse that has been absolutely appalling and reprehensible—I will not meet those groups, because that will not help the people whom those groups say they are trying to help. But I have had a completely open door; for instance, this afternoon I will again meet representatives from Macmillan to discuss its particular area of expertise. Although I agree that Citizens Advice has done and continues to do fantastic work, it is not the only organisation that is doing such work in representing the people affected. I pay tribute to colleagues across the House—who, believe me, write to me on a regular basis—for doing exactly what they should be doing in representing their constituents.

I am not a party political animal in ministerial terms, and colleagues in Departments that I have worked in previously know that, but I must be honest and ask whether we inherited the work capability assessment. Was it introduced by the previous Administration? Yes, it was. Do I agree with it? Yes, I do, but I do not agree with the way in which the contract was formulated with Atos as one single provider. That was a flawed decision. Sadly, under ministerial rules, I am not allowed to see the evidence that was put before Ministers in the previous Administration. Due diligence is not possible, as it would be if a company were taken over. That is rather strange. Although I have been in three Departments, I am not allowed to see that evidence, but I cannot understand why that decision was made. There was a move from a predominantly paper-based assessment, in which people were often written off. When I had my accident in the fire service, my certificate stated “until further notice”. I was written off, but I have been lucky and have come back to reasonable health and stability from my injuries. However, many people do not recover and there are many areas that we need to work on.

If people want to work, we want to give them all the assistance we can. If people could work but perhaps do not have the confidence, ability, skills or help to get back into the work place, the scheme will help them. Do I accept that mistakes have been made? Yes, I do, and it would be foolish to deny that. That is why, when the coalition Government came to power, Professor Harrington was asked to carry out a review. We accepted all his recommendations. The new review by Litchfield has just been produced, and I can tell the Chamber that we can accept almost everything that is recommended. We have not yet made a formal decision, but it contains many sensible suggestions that need to be in place.

I have attended some tribunals, which are public and not secret courts. I have sat there quietly and listened to what goes on. Do I agree with Citizens Advice and others that many cases should never have gone to a tribunal? Yes, I do. I am taking action to ensure that all the cases that are waiting to go to a tribunal are reviewed, and if senior case workers have got them wrong, we will prevent them from going forward. However, we tend to hear one side of the argument—when mistakes are made—but millions of people have gone through assessments and are back in the workplace. Under the previous Administration’s regime, people really struggled to get back into work. We want to help people to get back into the workplace and to be as self-sufficient as possible.

There are areas that I still have grave concerns about, and we are working on those. My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion alluded to mental health issues, and I often talk about hidden disabilities. One of the great things that came out of the Paralympics was that the public’s understanding of people with disabilities across the spectrum was vastly improved, and we need to build on that legacy. However, the parameters of mental health disabilities, learning disabilities and hidden disabilities are difficult.

My constituency has problems with misuse of blue parking badges for disabled people. Only the other day, a young man and his father got out of a car and walked off down the road as though they were fit and able-bodied. I know that family, and I know how poorly the young man is, but I heard the abuse from a member of the public who thought he was abusing the parking scheme. That abuse from the member of the public was wrong, but frustration arises from abuse of the system, and we must work with the Department for Transport on that. At the same time, we must address ignorance and lack of understanding among the public

[Jim Shannon]

I understand exactly the point the Minister is making. It is good to get people back to work, and many people want to go back to work, but as hon. Members in the Chamber have said, some people cannot work. The Minister indicated that he accepts that some change is needed. In the criteria for Atos, will more emphasis be given to the medical evidence?

[Mike Penning]

My hon. Friend—he has been a good friend, especially during my time as a Northern Ireland Minister—has read my mind, as usual. That is exactly what I am coming to. We are working closely on the descriptors to ensure that what we ask is exactly relevant to the conditions reported. Atos does not make decisions on diagnoses; evidence for those diagnoses will already exist. We are trying to ensure that the right decision is made based on the evidence provided, and descriptors are important in that.

Turning to why so many decisions are overturned by judges at tribunals, I have admitted that that is sometimes because we got them wrong. However, sometimes, on the day of the tribunal, new evidence, which we have never seen, is put before the judges. Within the rules, that is technically unacceptable, but the judges are allowed to use their discretion in allowing that to happen. I saw that the other day, and if we had seen the evidence that was put before the judge at that tribunal, the case would never have gone to the tribunal.

Mesothelioma Bill [Lords]

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I would like to associate myself with the thoughts and best wishes to the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins). He is a good friend. He has been a good friend to the people of Northern Ireland, both as a Minister and outside of that role. We respect him greatly and hope he will return to health and strength in a short period of time.

I support new clause 2, which, in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman, was moved by the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) and is supported by the other hon. Members who have spoken. It is clear that investment in research into mesothelioma is desperately needed. The UK has the highest rate of the disease in the world. That is not a No. 1 spot that we should be proud of, but one we should be working to change. The British Lung Foundation, which I will refer to throughout my small contribution, estimates that 2,400 people will die of the disease this year and that in the next 30 years more than 50,000 people will die of mesothelioma unless new treatments are found.

Relatively little is spent on mesothelioma research in the UK, compared with other cancers with comparable mortality rates. In 2011, the National Cancer Research Institute reported that £400,000 was invested in mesothelioma research by its partners. That compares with approximately £5 million and £5.5 million spent on myeloma and melanoma respectively, two cancers that kill a similar number of people each year. I have been informed that the research amendments would charge a small additional annual administration or membership fee to participating insurance firms. Those small payments would make a huge difference to the future of mesothelioma research in the UK and could lead to a cure that would save tens of thousands of lives. It is estimated that 150 insurance firms are active in the employers' liability insurance market. This measure could raise a vital £1.5 million each year for mesothelioma research.

I am also informed that during debates in the House of Lords, the Government suggested that the lack of mesothelioma research is due to the poor quality of research proposals, not the funding available, and that therefore a fund for mesothelioma research would not represent value for money. That was the spirit of the Government’s reply to the debate in the House of Lords. The British Lung Foundation, however, put it to me that that argument does not take into account the opinions of many eminent medical and research experts. Advances have already been made through research by the BLF and others. More funding will attract more and better quality researchers and research proposals to an area of research that is still playing catch-up, having been neglected for so long. Members have talked about other cancer charities that are better funded. The BLF, as an individual organisation, has awarded more than £2.5 million to mesothelioma research in the past three years. The Government, with great respect, have fallen short. The BLF uses a robust international peer review process to ensure world-class quality that is respected the world over, and its research and advice is sought by other countries. The experience does not identify any shortage in quality whatever.

In conclusion, it is clear that something more must be done, so I support the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

I thank my hon. Friend.

Let me deal with the two amendments that deal with whether the compensation level is acceptable. For 28 years, I represented east Belfast—the inner part within the shadow of the shipyard—on Belfast city council, and I saw and represented, at disability living allowance tribunals and so forth, many people who had suffered as a result of exposure to asbestos in the shipyard. I have seen the suffering that they went through. I have gone into their houses and seen people who could hardly walk across a 12-foot wide living room, who could not climb the stairs and who knew that they were in for a horrible and painful death. Those are the sort of people we are talking about, and that is the outcome of the exposure to which they have been subjected. That is what we are dealing with.

I must say that I find it grossly offensive that people who qualify for 75% compensation under this scheme will have 100% of their benefits taken from them, yet that will be paid back to the insurance companies to try to “relieve the burden” on companies that already have the money to cover the costs. We should bear that in mind when we look at amendments 1 and 4, which provide for increasing the level of compensation.

[Jim Shannon]

We are very much focusing on what happened to the individuals who had the disease, but perhaps we have not focused enough on the ripple effect on the families that comes out of that. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just individuals, but families and wider family circles that are involved, and that because of that, the squeeze should be put on the insurance companies to ensure that they pay more? Should not the Minister do that as well?

[Sammy Wilson]

We should, of course, bear in mind what it is like for any wife, husband or child who sees their father, mother or son going through the sort of agonies they have to endure when they die from this disease.

Let me deal with the issue of the cut-off date. I understand that cut-off dates are difficult: how should we choose them? No matter what is chosen, some people are going to feel aggrieved or short-changed. The proposer of the amendment spoke about a range of cut-off dates, going right back to before the war when people first knew that exposure to asbestos led to a terrible disease and death. However, there must be some logic to the cut-off dates that we set, and, in seeking that logic, we should be asking how we can apply it to encompass as many people as possible.

Although I am not particularly happy with it, there is logic in the argument for a cut-off date of 2010, when expectations were first raised and the insurance industry was first notified, and when preparations for the payment of compensation could begin. The Minister said that setting a date of 2010 would add £80 million to the cost of the Bill, but I should like him to explain how he arrived at that figure. Given the 75%, the cost of payments will be £343 million over the next 10 years. It has been accepted—and I saw the Minister nod on a number of occasions when this was mentioned—that the bulk of cases will arise in future years. How can we have a figure of £343 million for the next 10 years, during which we expect the bulk of cases to arise, and a figure of £80 million for the two years preceding 2012? Those figures simply do not add up. I should be happy to hear the Minister’s explanation now, or, if he prefers, when he sums up the debate, but I suspect that the figure has been over-inflated and gold-plated in an attempt to establish arguments for not setting a date of 2010, presumably because the insurance companies will ensure that that does not happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I, too, put on record my thanks to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), for the way in which she made her argument today on an issue that is close to all our hearts. I also thank the Minister. We know him as an individual, but we also know the work that he has done. His responses to our questions today would suggest that he might have wished to have seen something better but had to settle for a wee bit less than what we had hoped for.

Many passionate speeches have been made on behalf of individuals and families. They stick in my mind most of all because they come from knowledge and living with people who have had the disease. I have been an elected representative for almost 30 years as a councillor and an Assembly Member in Northern Ireland, and now I am privileged to be the Member of Parliament for Strangford. I have met a lot of people over the years who have had mesothelioma and serious health problems. I have helped some of those people with their disability living allowance and their incapacity benefit, as it was, or employment and support allowance, as it is now. I have seen those people deteriorate healthwise. I have known them personally and it was never easy to watch that marked deterioration in their health over a period of time.

My colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), wearing his other hat as Finance Minister in Northern Ireland, introduced legislation to deal with compensation and in doing so brought about equality and fairness for sufferers. Today, we have contributed to a Bill that might not go as far as we would like, as the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) and the shadow Minister have said, but which goes a long way towards addressing the issues of those sufferers and those people. For that reason, we should take some credit for delivering that for our constituents.

I would have loved more pressure to be put on the insurance companies, as was suggested in the previous debate, and the percentage of compensation is not what I wished to see. However, this is a big step as regards people out there being able to see that this House can deliver such legislation, and in an urgent fashion. The Minister said that his imperative was urgently to produce legislation that could deliver, and that is clearly what he has tried to do. We want fairness for these sufferers to enable them to have some quality of life in their lifetime, however short it might be. I always think of the families, in particular, who watched their loved one deteriorate markedly in a very short period. This Bill takes a massive step in the right direction for all of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Food Banks

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

Due to the time limit, I have had to reduce significantly what I intended to say, but I will ensure that a full version of my speech is put on my website.

In following the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), may I commend to the House the report published by the Church Urban Fund in September, entitled “Hungry For More: How churches can address the root causes of food poverty”, which can be found at www.cuf.org.uk/research? As part of their mission to the communities they serve and as part of their mission as the national Church, thousands of parish churches around the country play an active role in their local community, including by running food banks, the majority of which have been set up in the past two years. The report suggests that if churches are to contribute to a long-term solution to food poverty, there is a need to rebalance church-based activity away from emergency crisis support and towards long-term work that tackles the underlying problem.

There is a policy conundrum that I think the whole House has to recognise. Food banks do not tackle the root causes of food poverty, and they do not aim to resolve any of the underlying problems of food poverty. I suspect that all right hon. and hon. Members would agree that we should view food aid only as a short-term emergency response to problems of food poverty.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The right hon. Gentleman is enunciating what food banks do, and they also give advice on how to recover from debt. Christians Against Poverty is an example of what food banks in Northern Ireland are doing. Does he recognise the good work that they are doing in advising people how best to manage their resources and how to get themselves out of the benefits trap?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

The research in the Church Urban Fund report shows that some food banks do that, but not enough. Many of them simply give food aid, which is important, but we need to develop longer-term solutions.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention, which speaks for itself. On the deeper causes, it is not a question of isolating one particular change. I recognise that the Trussell Trust has acknowledged from the data it has collected that the benefit changes have presented significant challenges. But what I find lacking in this debate is a serious estimation of what alternative measures could be put in place; all I have heard is, “Remove the sanctions regime. Give more money.” Where is that money going to come from? How will the incentive effect—

[Jim Shannon]

rose—

[Mr MacNeil]

rose—

Ford and Visteon UK Ltd

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I come to this debate with mixed feelings. I feel grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to Mr Speaker for allowing us to have this great debate in the mother of all Parliaments, from where it will be transmitted across the pond to the United States, where Ford’s ears will be pricking up, as will the ears of Ford’s consumers, who will be thinking twice about whether the Ford brand is whiter than white when they choose their next car.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) and others for the work they have done with me to keep this show on the road and to keep up the pressure on Ford. Ford might have thought that, after the early rumbles of protest, the noise would die down to a whisper. Instead, we are turning up the volume, and the lion’s roar from Britain will be heard in the United States today and in the future.

I am also grateful to the Visteon workers who are with us today, up in the Gallery, and to the many others who have come here on coaches at other times and who continue their fight in London, Cardiff, Essex, Liverpool and Northern Ireland. They continue to demand justice in all corners of the United Kingdom, and that demand is echoed today in all corners of this great Chamber by all the parties.

I come here with sadness as well. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis) mentioned the fact that Ford came to south Wales in 1964. At the time, my father was heading up economic development in the Welsh Office, and he was critical in bringing Ford to south Wales. He is no longer with us, but I remember his story about the chairman of Ford turning up at the Welsh Office in Cardiff in a green Rolls-Royce—believe it or not—to talk about the arrangements and inducements to get Ford to the area. That was more than 30 years ago, and perhaps Ford had a different outlook and a focus on wider communitarian values in those days.

So I come to the debate with thanks and with sadness, and also with a degree of frustration and anger that we find ourselves here. We have been engaging with Ford UK, and it has been forthcoming in engaging in dialogue, but its hard-nosed American bosses, sitting in their directors’ boardroom, seem to think that this issue will just go away and that the workers of the UK can be treated as some kind of offshore group of people that they can forget about. It has been mentioned that many of the people who have suffered are now dead, and I believe that Ford is hoping that the issue will go away. I and other Members from all parties say this: “Ford, you can run but you can’t hide from your responsibilities. We will continue to fight for our constituents, year after year, until this matter is resolved.” Madam Deputy Speaker, you mentioned that this matter was before the courts and that decisions have yet to be made, but we are talking not about the legalities of the case but about moral responsibility and the duty of care that should be shown by this multinational towards its employees, in respect of pensions in particular.

Members will know that I introduced the Multinational Motor Manufacturing Companies (Duty of Care to Former Employees) Bill, which covers this ground, but the Minister might also wish to comment on the big conversation that is taking place between the global multinationals, sovereign states, workers and consumers. There have been debates in this House about the responsibility of multinationals, be it Amazon, Google or Vodafone, to pay their fair share of tax. Vodafone had the biggest share transaction in history, or at least this century, involving £53 billion, but not a penny was paid in corporation tax. How are we going to re-orchestrate things with other countries to ensure that global corporations are not globe-trotting away from their responsibility?

That is a bigger conversation, and I know that people are engaged on the tax side of it, but its other side is the fair treatment of workers. We have heard reports, for instance on “Panorama”, of what Amazon is doing, and I am following through on that, as it is a local company in my constituency, too. As with Ford, we are talking about big companies that provide big employment and are crucial to all our towns and cities, but that does not mean they can run away from their responsibilities on fair tax, fair play and the fair treatment of consumers and workers, be they current, previous or future.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) on bringing the matter to the House for consideration. I have been told by one Belfast worker that the workers

“rights were guaranteed not for the lifetime of the Belfast plant, but for the working lifetime of the individual workers. Therefore, their redundancy rights were guaranteed for as long as the workers remained employed, and their pension rights were guaranteed until they reached retirement age”

and beyond. We can understand the anger of those workers and their disbelief and dismay at what took place. Is it not time that the big company in America stepped up to the mark and paid out?

[Geraint Davies]

The hon. Gentleman makes his point with typical focus and strength. The Belfast workers will be looking at today’s debate and asking how Ford will respond. The Ford directors cannot sit around with their hands covering their eyes, ears and mouths, pretending that this will go away. They may think it can be kicked into the long grass of the lawyers, where there is an army supported by a huge ammunition dump of money to keep it there, but their business ultimately depends on the good will of consumers.

This is not just about Ford manufacturing innovative, efficient and modern cars; it is about the brand being one that people can be proud of. It is about not hiding behind the brand name a predisposition towards running away from responsibilities to people who have spent a working lifetime, in good faith, making quality cars for people to buy, for a business that is viable. It is simply not acceptable for the people to whom those workers have expressed such loyalty to walk away and leave them near destitute. We will not accept it in our House, our community or across our shores. I believe that the ethics of American consumers and American workers, both in Ford and beyond, mean that they will share our sentiments that we are in it together, to use those immortal words, in terms of our future and how this works. People may increasingly make consumer choices for ethical reasons—various brands have ethical dimensions and do the right thing—and this could be one of those instances.

I am not going to dwell on the details of the case. I simply say that it appears, on the face of things, that various undertakings were given to Ford workers which, as has been pointed out, any lay person would interpret as cast-iron guarantees, whatever the legal beagles might construe, with massive expense, could conceivably have been meant. Almost everybody took those assurances as being cast-iron guarantees.

The Ford pension fund was initially set up £49 million light and by the end of the period of Visteon’s existence—the nine or 10 years in which it continued, when, as has been said, it lost nearly $1 billion and did not turn a profit—that pension fund had become underfunded by some £350 million. The knock-on effect for the more than 3,000 workers who have been affected is a savage cut in the future incomes they can expect into their retirement and their capability to sustain a future of dignity and enjoyment in older age that they deserve.

It has been pointed out that Ford was, in essence, manipulating the profit and loss account of Visteon. On the input side, it was able to demand a certain input of raw materials at specific prices that may have been above the market price, so the input cost was up. On the output side, 90% of Visteon’s sales were set by Ford, which consistently reduced the prices that it was given to squeeze the profit of Visteon, so it was no surprise that it was making a loss and that that loss was manifested in the pension fund.

Interestingly and coincidentally, if we look at figures for 2005-06, Visteon Europe lost £700 million and Ford Europe made £700 million in profit. The point I am trying to make is that their accountancy animal was woven together—that £700 million could have gone either way. In essence, Ford chose the loss to fall on Visteon and on the workers who had nobly and loyally served it for so many years.

I know that a number of Members want to speak so I will not go on. In the evidence we took in the all-party group, and before that, we heard stories of representatives from Ford who, after sitting on the board of Visteon pension fund trustees and then having a vested interest in the closure of the plant, transferred their own pension out of the Visteon pension fund into a specially created fund—another Visteon pension fund, the engineering scheme. Clearly, they had a different and conflicting interest. We asked Phil Woodward, who was a director of the trustees, to give evidence to the all-party group, but what do Members think happened? He did not turn up. What does that say about this whole saga? The more we scratch the surface of this story, the worse it gets.

Universal Credit

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Everybody now in receipt of free school meals will be eligible for them as we roll out universal credit, and the changes that are necessary in universal credit will be made apparent as we come to do that. I guarantee that nobody will lose out with free school meals.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

In response to the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie), the Secretary of State referred to Northern Ireland, which is very much a part of the United Kingdom. The Northern Ireland Assembly is currently discussing welfare reform legislation, and the Executive have been told there will be financial implications on the block grant for every month that changes are delayed, starting from January 2014. IT affects all of the United Kingdom. What implications does the delay in putting IT in place have for welfare reform in Northern Ireland?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The hon. Gentleman refers to the fact that we need to get welfare reform rolled out in Northern Ireland, which I fundamentally believe is the right thing to do. His point, I think, concerns what the Chief Secretary has said, because if we do not roll out welfare reform in Northern Ireland, it has a net cost to the Exchequer. That is why a balance must be found—we need to roll out welfare reform to save money, otherwise that will affect spending in Northern Ireland.

Housing Benefit

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

North Lincolnshire Homes is a social housing provider for my constituency, and I wish to share some of its observations about this tax, which is bad in principle and bad in practice. First, it told me that the worst aspect of the tax is that it is retrospective and that 95% of the problem flows from its retrospective nature. There are not enough smaller properties for affected households to downsize to in our area. North Lincolnshire Homes has about 10,000 homes, with 1,500 households affected by the tax. If it were to move them to properties that became available, it would take six years to move all the households affected.

Some people are already moving into more expensive private rented properties to escape the bedroom tax. Oddly, a two-bedroom property in north Lincolnshire can rent for £92.41 and rent on a typical three-bedroom property is £78.35, so the £92.41 will be paid by housing benefit when people have moved into the private sector, rather than the other way round. The impact of this tax on the public purse is thus absurd. People are falling into arrears. Rent arrears among the 1,500 affected households have increased by about £150,000 since April. The policy is not working financially and it is not working for the people in my constituency who are suffering as a result.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Barnardo’s today expressed grave concern about the effect that the bedroom tax is having on families and, in particular, on children. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that families and children are experiencing worse times because of the tax?

[Nic Dakin]

Many people have given examples of how families are being affected. Carers, people with disabilities and people who have access to their children overnight for short periods are all being affected. All Members on the Opposition Benches have had those people coming to our surgeries, so while listening to the contributions from many Government Members, I wondered whether they live in the same country as us. I really do not know the answer.

North Lincolnshire Homes is having to spend £200,000 a year on providing additional help to try to get people to move. That is an additional cost, and the money would be better spent on building new houses better to address the problem. North Lincolnshire Homes has seen a 150% increase in the number of properties that it is struggling to let, with many larger properties lying empty. These are the economics of the madhouse—it does not make any sense at all.

Let me highlight the case of one constituent to illustrate again, through a story, how the tax impacts on individuals. Richard lives in a three-bedroom house and has suffered a severe stroke. He is completely wheelchair-bound, has lost the use of the left side of his body and is without speech. His only means of communication are his laptop and text messages. In late 2012, £30,000 of public money was spent on converting his house to meet his needs, including a full wet room and a downstairs living area. Since the introduction of the bedroom tax in April 2013, he no longer receives full housing benefits to meet his rent and is struggling to make payments. He, like many others, has fallen into arrears. Adapting another property to meet his needs would involve a substantial cost. The situation is causing him massive stress and worry and contributing to his poor health.

I hope that the Minister is listening, as she appears to be. The sadness is that there are many Richards up and down this land who are suffering in the same way. I do not think it is proper for the situation to continue. Today has given people the opportunity to listen to the strength of the debate in this Chamber, which echoes the strength of feeling outside it, and for us to do something about the issue before it is too late.

Women’s Pensions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I was delighted to be granted this debate, which is extremely relevant and important to many thousands of households across the country, including in my constituency of Inverclyde. I also thank the Minister for his time today.

In these uncertain times, when it can be difficult to find a good employer, and a good employee pension is even more difficult to find, many could be forgiven, as in the past, for counting on their state pension—an agreement they believe will deliver on their regular contributions. “Thank goodness,” they might think, trusting that all those deductions from their pay over the years will finally secure a reasoned and equal pension in retirement. They could never have foreseen or taken into account the Government’s recent pension reforms, which many believe to be unfair. I am, of course, talking about the reforms to the state pension age, and particularly how those reforms have disproportionately affected women born in the early 1950s.

The Government’s intention was to introduce a single-tier state pension from April 2017, but as the Minister will be aware, in this year’s Budget that date was brought forward to April 2016. I accept that that is good news for thousands of women, but it still excludes the group on which I am focusing. I believe we all welcome the single-tier pension, but there is one major injustice that can be identified within that new system. Implementing the single-tier pension on 6 April 2016 means that there is a group of women born between 6 April 1951 and 5 April 1953 who will not be eligible for the single-tier pension, even though a man born on the same day will qualify, because the pension age will be unequal on implementation day in April 2016.

The Government’s changes to the state pension have consistently hit hard-working women, and now the single-tier pension will let down 700,000 women across the UK. That is simply not good enough, and it is unacceptable to that group of women. For the single-tier pension to be successful and to achieve its designated goal of equality, it should treat women and men of the same age equally. When the Government’s White Paper was originally published, my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont) was quick to spot the issue. He identified that, as a result of the 2017 implementation date, 429,000 women will not receive the flat-rate state pension, even though a man of the same age will.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this matter to the House, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern, as I suspect that he and many others do, that some ladies will have to work to the age of 72, or possibly 73, thereby holding back a job from an 18-year-old, who will be put on jobseeker’s allowance? Is there not a better way of balancing the issue?

[Mr McKenzie]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. The age to which such women are being asked to work will affect not only them but younger generations who are looking for jobs. I will expand on how working longer affects longevity, and how the argument about longevity does not apply to all of those women.

It is important to note that 80,000 women born in the early 1950s have already had their state pension arrangements changed by the Pensions Act 2011. Surely the Government cannot continue to claim that the new Pensions Bill is fair. What is the Government’s justification for making a change that is unfair and unjust for hundreds of thousands of hard-working women across the UK?

In my constituency alone more than 600 women born on or after 6 April 1951 and before 6 April 1953 will be deprived of, on average, £884 a year, which I think we can agree is not an insignificant sum to lose out on in these tough financial times. Those women are rightly angry at what they see as the dual adverse impact of an increase in their pension age and their non-eligibility for the single-tier pension. I have met many of the affected women in my constituency, and they have expressed their dismay and disgust at the policy. Possibly the phrase that best describes the fate of those women is “So near, yet so far away.” How would the Minister and his Government colleagues feel if, after planning for their retirement date and making what savings and plans they could, they were told they had to work for longer and would be excluded from the new single-tier pension scheme? I suspect they would agree that it is simply not fair.

These women, most of whom left school at 15, have been paying into the system year after year after year. They have made the necessary savings and plans for their retirement, and above all they have spent a lifetime working hard, paying taxes, keeping a home, caring for their families and, naturally, looking forward to their retirement. With all of that, they hoped and expected to receive their state pension at the age they had come to expect. Those women will now be forced to wait longer to retire, and they will miss out on the new £144 a week single-tier pension for the rest of their lives; indeed, they will now receive about £127 a week. Once again, does the Minister find that fair?

Although the coalition Government are fond of quoting a figure of some £4 billion as the overall cost of including these women, the Department for Work and Pensions published an estimate showing that the true cost is closer to £220 million. In his evidence to the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, the Minister agreed that those women will be financially worse off than a man of the same age. He also stated that 90% of those women would fare better because women live longer. It is a weak point for the Government to claim that those women may recoup the money they lose out on because women live longer. Life expectancy differs vastly across the country. Life expectancy from boundary to boundary in my constituency varies hugely—by as much as 10 years—which means the policy is extremely unfair and unequal for the women I represent.

Women born in Inverclyde in the 1950s have worked in some of the toughest industries our country has ever seen. Mills, sugar refineries and shipyards are extremely heavy industries that have had a huge impact on the health of women in my constituency, resulting in a much shorter life expectancy than in other parts of the UK. Even late in their employment life many worked in the electronics industries, which are perceived by some to be less demanding and hazardous than the industries of the past. The electronics industries, however, still exact a health toll on my constituents and reduce the longevity of the women who transferred their skills from the mills, sugar refineries and shipyards to the sunrise electronics industries of the 1980s and 1990s. Those women might have worked alongside chemicals, for example, that we have now discovered eat holes in the ozone layer and are thus banned from use even in aerosols. We are yet to acknowledge, accept or see the effects on their health.

The industries of the ’80s have yet to produce their health casualties, but the evidence thus far paints a bleak future for many hard-working women in my constituency. We need only ask the women who are fighting past employers for recognition of responsibility for cancer clusters to know that, for many, catching up on their pensions will not be an option. If that level of inequality in working conditions and life expectancy exists within a community the size of Inverclyde, it beggars belief to imagine the differences facing larger communities throughout the United Kingdom.

Let me tell Members about Mrs Angela Hurrell, who lives in my constituency. Angela was born on 26 March 1953. Her retirement plans have changed drastically, as she will not reach pensionable age until 6 March 2016—four weeks before the introduction of the single-tier pension. Angela will now work until she is 62 years and 11 months old, and she will receive the old pension figure of approximately £127 a week. She will be £884 a year worse off than a woman born just 10 days later. For her, it is truly a case of so near, yet so far away.

Let me also highlight the case of Angela’s friend, Mrs Maureen Hamill, who is also a constituent. Maureen is a hard-working self-employed local business woman. She was born on 27 March 1953, and her retirement plans, like Angela’s, have changed drastically. Maureen is on her feet all day and works long hours. She does not have the luxury of reducing her working hours, which means that if she is unable to work, her business closes. Despite all that, Maureen will also be excluded from the single-tier pension. Again, she seems to have been born too early, to be retiring too late and to be £884 a year worse off. We can see a pattern forming: so near, yet so far away. I hope the Minister will agree that that does not sound like the fairer system his Government promised.

Angela and Maureen are no different from the hundreds of thousands of other women from across the country whom I could have mentioned. As with many women close to retirement age, every pound is important to them in these difficult financial times. They are but two examples of ordinary, hard-working women in my constituency who deserve to be treated fairly. They simply ask to receive the same improved pension a man the same age will receive.

The inclusion of the women I have talked about would allow the Government to fulfil one of their goals: a universal new state pension built on fairness and equality. I accept they have improved the Pensions Bill, but if the parameters have been changed once to include thousands of women, why can they not be changed again, so that we can end the inequality for the women I have talked about? I urge the Minister and the Government to think about the examples of Angela and Maureen and about the 700,000 women across the UK who share their circumstances. I hope the Government will reconsider. Let it not be so near, yet so far away for these 700,000 women.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

Good afternoon, Mrs Main. I congratulate the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) on securing the debate. He took part in the Second Reading debate on the Pensions Bill.

I want to start by addressing some of the factual errors in what the hon. Gentleman said. I believe that he was speaking in good faith, but some of the central arguments he advanced were factually wrong, and it is important to get the facts on the record. He talked of the 700,000 women who were born between 6 April 1951 and 5 April 1953, and I am pretty sure he said that the Government had put their pension age up; in fact, he probably said it several times. However, this Government have not put their pension age up at all—that is a statement of fact. The Pensions Act 1995 began the process of equalising the pension ages of men and women at 65 over the decade from 2010 to 2020. The increase in pension age beyond 60 for these women was therefore legislated for in 1995. It was not a short-notice change, although I accept that some women did not know about it, and not everybody heard about it at the time. Although it was all over the papers at the time, these women were a long way from pension age and probably turned the page when they saw the word “pension”, so I accept that some women did not know about this. However, the idea that these women have had a short-notice change to their pension is completely factually incorrect; they have not, and their pension age was set 18 years ago. It is important to put that on the record.

The Government have indeed changed some pension ages for women who reach pension age after 6 April 2016, and every woman for whom we have increased the state pension age will get the single-tier pension. There are therefore two sets of women: those who will not get the single tier, but whose pension age has not increased beyond that which was legislated for 18 years ago, and those who have had a further increase, but who will get the single tier.

The hon. Gentleman said that we should treat men and women the same, but he will understand that men and women have different state pension ages. Under the previous plans, that would have continued until 2020, and under our plans, it will continue until 2018. If we treated men and women the same in relation to single tier, it would be hard to argue that we should not treat them the same in relation to state pension age. It would be hard to say that men get single tier but have to wait until they are 65, while these women do not get single tier but can get a pension at 63 or earlier. It would be hard to say that these women should have the good bit of the deal—the single tier—but not the bad bit that the men have.

That goes to the nub of the hon. Gentleman’s point about his constituents. I entirely accept that many of them have worked in physically demanding jobs and may therefore have reduced life expectancy. As a result, however, being treated as a woman and getting a pension at 61 is far better than being treated as a man. If, hypothetically, I accepted the hon. Gentleman’s argument, and we said to every one of these 700,000 women, including his constituents, “It’s not fair. You can have men’s rules, not women’s rules,” we would make those women wait up to an extra four years for their pensions. Given everything the hon. Gentleman has said about their likely life expectancy, that would be absolutely perverse. It is dreadful that these women have a reduced life expectancy to the extent that they do, but given that they do, it is far better for them to have the women’s rather than the men’s state pension regime. The comparison with men does not, therefore, help the hon. Gentleman’s case.

The hon. Gentleman compared someone—he gave the example of Angela—who reaches state pension age just before April 2016 with someone who reaches it just after. He came up with a figure of £884, and it took me a while to work out where he got it from. He compares £127, which is the pension of someone such as Angela, with £144, which is the single tier, and he multiplies the difference by 52—I think that is where he gets his number from. However, that is not the right comparison. The reason someone such as Angela gets £127 is that, on average, women get smaller pensions than men, and they have fewer qualifying years and less from the state earnings-related pension scheme. Even if we apply the single-tier rules to someone with Angela’s contribution history, therefore, she would not get £144 on average, because she would get about another £6 a week, not another £17. The hon. Gentleman therefore trebles the difference that the single-tier calculation would make. That is the second thing to say.

The third thing is that there is an issue about people qualifying just before and just after midnight on 5 April 2016. However, in general, the 700,000 women the hon. Gentleman discusses will, on average, draw their pension—yes, it may be £6 a week less—for anything between two and four years longer than a man born on the same day. Indeed, women who reach pension age after April 2016, who he feels are treated favourably relative to the 700,000 he talks about, will have state pension ages of 63, which will soon rise to 64, then to 65 and then to 66 not longer after that. With their slightly younger sisters, I take the point that there is the “minute to midnight, minute after midnight” issue, as there inevitably is with any change, but the next cohort of 700,000 women and the cohort after that will overwhelmingly have to wait many years longer for their pensions. It is therefore quite hard to argue that the 700,000 women the hon. Gentleman is talking about are in some sense uniquely discriminated against, when another 700,000 who are coming down the track will have to wait years longer for their pensions, and when their older sisters had a tougher regime previously. Let me explain what I mean by that.

The 700,000 women the hon. Gentleman is talking about get a full basic state pension for 30 years of contributions or credits, but a woman who reached state pension age just before 6 April 2010 needed 39 years. Constituents who are just a couple of years older than the women he is speaking for might well be aggrieved that their younger sisters, who he feels have had a rough deal, get a pension after 30 years, when they had to do 39 years. He talked about hard-working women in his constituency, but how does the woman who retired on 5 April 2010, after 39 years, feel about the woman who retires on 6 April 2010 and who gets a full pension after 30 years? She might well be very aggrieved.

I happen to think, broadly speaking, that reducing the number of years required was a move in the right direction. We have balanced things up in the single tier. The reduction from 39 years was a good thing, but that was a cliff edge too—much more of a cliff edge than what we are doing in 2016, because that reduction was pure windfall: from 6 April 2010, it was 30 years, not 39, for a full pension, and there was virtually no transition and no difference in state pension age to speak of. If we put the pre-April 2016 women through the new system, on average they get £6 a week more—we think the figure will be about that. However, on average, those 700,000 women are working fewer years than the post-2016 women, because state pension ages have been going up. That seems broadly fair, in my judgment.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised the issue of women’s longer working lives, and asked whether that was bad news for the young unemployed. That is an argument that we hear a lot. This country and other countries have tried pensioning off older workers. In the 1980s we had something called the job release scheme, for example, which tried to do that. All that it did was put lots of men in their early 60s on pension, while it did nothing for youth unemployment. On the whole, young unemployed people are not very good substitutes for the recently retired. They do not slot into the vacancies. I appreciate that it could be argued that everyone would move up, but the evidence is that the older worker, on average, is a highly productive, valuable member of the work force. Pensioning off older workers who still make a contribution means that the economy as a whole suffers. The Institute for Fiscal Studies considered schemes for getting rid of older workers and encouraging younger workers in countries across the developed world, and there is no evidence that the younger workers benefit from pensioning off the older ones. If anything, the evidence is that the economy benefits from older workers, and that young people benefit, too.

[Jim Shannon]

I appreciate the Minister’s detailed response, but the idea of someone leaving early and creating a job is that the jobseeker would move into the lower echelons of the job market, and those in the middle rank would move up; it would be a sort of circle.

[Steve Webb]

That is what I meant—I was gesturing, but that will not be in Hansard. It could be argued that the person retires and everyone else moves up a step, and the young unemployed person comes in at the bottom; but what has been lost is the productivity, skills and experience of the older worker. If that worker has not been adding anything to the firm, then fine—get rid of them—but they are. That is the point. On average—not in every case—older workers are, by definition, the most experienced; they are often very productive and less likely to take time off sick than slightly younger people. They contribute a huge amount. The evidence from around the world—not from Government research but from work by the Institute for Fiscal Studies and others—is that pensioning them off does not benefit younger workers. There is not a battle between the generations; in many ways they are complementary, because the older, experienced worker can mentor, and use their skills to bring on, younger workers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Webb]

The very complexity of the issue is the reason for the IFS examining what happens across the developed world. It looked at different sorts of labour markets and different labour supply and demand conditions. Systematically, it found no evidence for the hypothesis that getting rid of older, more experienced, productive workers benefits the young unemployed.

[Jim Shannon]

rose—

[Steve Webb]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but as this is the debate of the hon. Member for Inverclyde, I will continue to respond to his speech.

The hon. Member for Inverclyde raised the issue of what it would cost to bring the women in, and he suggested some inconsistency in the figures. To make things clear, typically a woman who reaches state pension age will draw a state pension for more than 20 years. There is a profile to the costs, but on average the extra spending would be a couple of hundred million per year; £200 million times 20 is £4 billion, so there is no inconsistency in the numbers. One is an annual figure and one is cumulative. I hope that that clarifies that point.

The hon. Gentleman asked about bringing forward the single tier. Of course, in an ideal world I would do it tomorrow. It is a good reform, and I am grateful for the Opposition’s support for the principle, but there are many things that need to be sorted out before we bring it in. The biggest of those—apart from programming our computers, which I am advised takes a while—is the impact on company pension funds. Having a single pension means there is nothing for people to contract out of. We have two pensions, at least, at the moment. There is a second state pension that big firms’ employees can contract out of. With a single pension, there is nothing to contract out of, so we abolish contracting out.

That means that the biggest pension funds in the land, which are currently contracted out, will contract back into the state pension scheme, and will face an increase in their national insurance costs—because they will lose the rebate—and then will have the option, under our Bill, of re-jigging their company pension scheme to recoup the cost. So, for example, because people will now be getting more from the state, rather than relying on the company scheme, the company might reduce the accrual rate of its scheme, or something like that. To do that, it will need actuarial valuations and will conduct long consultations with its employees.

We are advised by the Confederation of British Industry, the National Association of Pension Funds and others that even doing it in 2016 is tight. They argued at one point that 2017 was tight. Even if it were reasonable to bring the change forward for the reason that the hon. Gentleman has given, I think that 2016 is as soon as we can reasonably do it, not least because the primary legislation, subject to the will of Parliament, will not be through until Easter 2014. Secondary legislation will then be needed on the abolition of contracting out. We will have to consult on that, and it all takes time. I find it frustrating; there is always far more of a lead time on such reforms than one might imagine.

There is one other thing that I want to deal with. It is not a point that the hon. Gentleman made, but it has been made about the group of women in question. People sometimes ask why they cannot just be allowed to choose—perhaps to retire on the current pension, reach single tier, and then choose the better pension, if it would be better. One of the difficulties is that single tier does not cost any more overall. It is not a windfall. We have not found some money down the back of a sofa, which we want to pump into some pensions but not others. It is the same money, but it is being spent better. As a result, there are bits of the system that are less generous, and an example that I can give relates to widows.

Under the current system, when a woman’s husband dies the widow can claim a state pension based on his contributions and, in many cases, get a full basic state pension of £110 a week or so. Under single tier, the claim will be on the basis of someone’s own contributions, so a woman who, for example, opted into single tier because she would get £133 and not £127, but whose husband died the next day, would find she could not claim quite the same combination of widow’s benefits that she could under the old system; or she would not be able to claim the savings credit, whereas her sister, a few years earlier, could, because she was under the old system. I have no idea—I could not advise a woman on 6 April 2016—what it would be best to choose, because I do not know when her husband will die, or whether the savings credit will come into play, not just on the day when she claims but at any point through her whole retirement. We just do not know. If we gave people that choice and they made the wrong one, would we have to opt them back in again? Would we have to advise them? It would create great complexity.

In sum, we believe that the reform is a good, positive one, spending the planned budget in a better way. The women in the age group in question have had no state pension age increase from the Government. What the Government have given them is the triple lock, which means that they will get a bigger pension under our policies than if those of the previous Government had been carried forward.

Question put and agreed to.

Disabled People

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bain]

rose—

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Fiona O’Donnell]

I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain).

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

Just a few hours ago, I was delighted and hugely proud to be with my constituent, Nathan Popple, as he received the award from Whizz-Kidz as this year’s Whizz-Kidz campaigner of the year. Nathan has shown incredible courage, determination and dedication, not just in organising this campaign but in speaking up on behalf of disabled people of all ages in Leeds. I am proud, too, to work with Whizz-Kidz and its inspirational ambassadors to ensure that the voice of disabled people of all ages, but particularly young disabled people who have so much potential, is heard.

There is, of course, a partisan element to today’s debate, but we all need to remember that what we all seek to try to do—we know that all Governments succeed in part and fail in part to achieve this—is to give all disabled people the opportunity to live, to work and to do the sorts of things that we all take for granted. We want all people, including people with disabilities, to be able to take those things for granted by providing them with the support that they need.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman was right and honest in what he said in his introduction. The facts in my constituency—and, I suspect, in many others—are that people are being turned down for employment support allowance and disability living allowance in greater numbers than ever before. The hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell) mentioned “Groundhog Day”, but it is not “Groundhog Day” when it comes to the statistics, which show greater numbers of people affected. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that the system needs to be reviewed so that those who need the benefits most are not restricted from receiving them?

Benefits and Food Banks (County Durham)

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

I would like to start this debate with two quotations. The first is as follows:

“Relief varied…theoretically graduated according to the recipient’s power of earning his own living. As usual, the deserving poor were crowded out by the idle and worthless.”

The second quotation refers to

“the shift-worker, leaving home in the dark hours of early morning, who looks up at the closed blinds of the next-door neighbour sleeping off a life on benefits”.

What do they have in common? Both refer to the deserving and undeserving poor; both are divisive. They appeal to emotion and prejudice, but not reason. The worker starting the night shift will probably be having to do so because he is on a low income and needs the money, while the person asleep behind the blinds will be the millionaire, dreaming of how to spend his tax cut.

Those two quotations are from over a century apart. The first is from “A History of the County of Durham”, published in 1907, and can be found on page 245 of volume II of the series. The second quotation is from the Chancellor’s 2012 Conservative party conference speech. In some quarters, times change but everything stays the same. The quotation from 1907 ends with these words:

“some of the towns and more populous parts found it advisable to have workhouses.”

As we approach the middle years of the second decade of the 21st century, we do not have workhouses, but we do have a growing network of food banks.

I want to congratulate and thank all the volunteers who work in food banks, especially in County Durham, many of whom I have known for a long time and can proudly count among my friends. I wanted to hold this debate to raise what I believe to be a growing crisis in our communities. It is a hidden crisis, because the recipients of food parcels do not, in the main, want to talk about their needs. They are embarrassed and can be cowed by their experiences—they do not appear on “The Jeremy Kyle Show”. How can we be surprised that they feel that way, when their Government refer to them as shirkers and demonise their predicament, even though almost 20% of those who use food banks in County Durham are in work?

I have no doubt that the Minister will say in his response that the number of people using food banks in 2005-06 stood, according to the Trussell Trust, at about 2,800 and rose to 40,000 four years later. The Minister may well talk about it now, but he did not talk about it then. I do not know whether he will mention that, by 2012-13, that figure had grown to a staggering 350,000—up from 128,000 the year before. This figure does not include independent food banks, of which there are a growing number. A report produced for Church Action on Poverty and Oxfam by Niall Cooper and Sarah Dumpleton is entitled “Walking the breadline”, and it puts the number at nearly 500,000.

The Minister may also say that the previous Labour Government refused to allow Jobcentre Plus to refer people to the local food bank, and that this Government have reversed that decision. I will say two things on that. First, when Labour was in power there were only about 50 food banks—50 too many, in my book—but today there are more than 300, so there will be a better chance of finding a food bank today than back then, which is a sad reflection on 21st-century Britain. Secondly, I will take no lessons from the Conservative party about Labour’s record on poverty: we introduced the minimum wage and the Conservatives opposed it; and we introduced tax credits and Sure Start. Those are all things to be proud of, and they were all opposed by the Conservatives.

This Government are referring people in need to food banks because there are more people in need and there are more food banks to refer them to. In 2011, the Trussell Trust had one food bank in the north-east, located in Durham—in the Labour years there were no food banks in the north-east of England—and in that year, food was distributed to 741 people. Today, there are 10 major centres in the north-east. In the previous financial year, Trussell food banks distributed crisis help to 10,500 people. In the first three months of this financial year, they have provided help to 7,100.

Durham Christian Partnership runs the food banks in Durham. The main distribution centre is in Durham city. There are many more in the county now acting as satellite food banks to the main food bank in the city. There are three in my constituency: at St Alban church in Trimdon Grange, at Trimdon village hall and at St Clare’s church in Newton Aycliffe. Three more are to open in Deaf Hill, Fishburn, and Sedgefield in the coming months.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

What the hon. Gentleman says about Durham is replicated across the whole of the United Kingdom; it is the same in my constituency. People who are perhaps seen to be well-off or middle class are also using the food banks, because they do not have enough wages. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that the initiative by the churches and the faith communities has been the real goer for making the food banks work? It is they who have driven it, along with the local government, and perhaps local government could do more alongside the faith communities to make it happen for more people.

[Phil Wilson]

That is a valid point, and we should pay tribute to the churches up and down the country that are now providing food to half a million of our fellow citizens in Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England.

I would also like to mention the growth of independent food banks. One is run by the Excel church in Newton Aycliffe—known as Excel Local—and it has fed over 1,000 people in the area over the past year or so. In September 2011, the Durham Christian Partnership distributed 42 kg of food, helping 18 people. The latest figures for May this year show that the network of 12 food banks in County Durham has fed 934 people, providing 300-plus meals a day. This figure is increasing month on month. In total, the partnership has distributed in the region of 70,000 kg of food.

Lord Freud, the Work and Pensions Minister has made headlines today when he said that the demand for food banks

“has nothing to do with benefits squeeze”.

I rebut those comments by quoting from an e-mail I received from Peter MacLellan who runs the Durham Christian Partnership food bank network. He says that

“from the distribution points and also from calls received in the office that the changes to crisis loans and the other welfare changes have a major impact. Looking at the reasons why people are referred to the food bank up to the end of March 2013 out of 6620 people 18% came because of benefit changes and 34% due benefit delays. For April and May together, of 1,800 fed 22% came because of benefit changes and 40% due to benefit delays. So combining benefit issues the percentage has grown from 52% to 62% which I would regard as a significant rise.”

He goes on:

“I am especially concerned that there seems to be an issue with delays in claim processing and I’m not sure whether this is a local issue or national one or how the benefit claim processing centres are performing against their targets.”

Can the Minister say why there seems to be an issue with delays to benefits?

Work Capability Assessments

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sheila Gilmore]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving such a graphic example of the human issues that lie behind what might seem to be quite a dry subject in many respects.

I was pleased when the year 1 Harrington review recommended that Atos should undertake a pilot to test the hypothesis that audio recording would make a difference.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

This is a vital issue in my constituency. Every week my office deals with issues arising from the Atos work capability assessment. People who go in for the work capability tribunal test receive no points at all or very few points. The question they ask is: “How can they disregard my health?” Would not the introduction of audio recordings enable my constituents and the hon. Lady’s to have confidence in the system?

[Sheila Gilmore]

That is exactly the point I am trying to convey. We want to improve the scheme and give people that confidence.

I was quite interested today to come across an online headline in the Daily Mail that said: “Record your builder to make sure he sticks to his word”. That was the recommendation from the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson). She was suggesting that that would help to resolve disagreements in those situations.

The pilot went ahead in Atos’s Newcastle assessment centre between March and May 2011, and an evaluation report was submitted to the DWP on 4 June 2011. In a Westminster Hall debate on 1 February 2012, the previous Minister, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), set out the Government’s position. He said that owing to a lack of demand, audio recording would not be rolled out for all assessments. Specifically he said:

“We decided not to implement universal recording because, based on the trial experience, people did not want it.”—[Official Report, 1 February 2012; Vol. 539, c. 292WH.]

I am afraid that that assertion is not justified. The Atos pilot concluded that

“68% of customers agreed to the recording when contacted by telephone prior to the appointment.”

Owing to some claimants not turning up for their assessment, or eventually deciding that they did not want a recording, the figure for those whose assessments were recorded dropped to 46%. That figure is still substantial, however, and the demand for audio recordings is reflected in one of Atos’s key conclusions, which stated:

“Our recommendation would be that recording should be become routine as it is in a call centre or, for example, NHS Direct.”

Parliamentary questions and freedom of information requests have yielded another metric to defend the Government’s position—namely, that only 1% of the claimants in the pilot requested a copy of their recording. However, that cannot be regarded as an accurate reflection of demand, for two reasons. First, assessors in the pilot used hand-held devices and the recordings had to be transferred to computers and burnt to CDs after the assessments. That meant that claimants could not pick up their recording on the day but had to go to the added effort of making a request in writing. In effect, that required claimants to opt into the pilot and then opt in again to get their recording. We also do not know what the claimants thought the pilot was about. Often, when we phone helplines, we are told on a recorded message that the call will be recorded for staff training purposes. It is possible that the claimants in the pilot were not clear about its purpose.

Secondly, claimants were told that recordings would be of use to them only in the event of an appeal. Given that the report was completed just days after the pilot concluded, most of those involved would not yet have received a decision on their claim, let alone come to a view on whether they would appeal. Demand for copies might well have been higher had this metric been measured after a longer period. I therefore ask the Minister to accept that the number of claimants in the pilot who requested a copy of their recording is not an accurate reflection of demand, and that the number of people acquiescing to their assessment being recorded is a more appropriate metric to use.

Turning to what has happened in the two years since the pilot, I want to refer back to the statement given by the previous Minister in Westminster Hall on 1 February 2012. In addition to claiming that there had not been much demand for audio recordings, he said that

“we will offer everyone who wants it the opportunity to have their session recorded.”—[Official Report, 1 February 2012; Vol. 539, c. 291WH.]

In practice, however, it is hard for anyone to have an assessment recorded. The option to request recordings is not mentioned in the official DWP communications to claimants. I was reassured to see that the DWP website was updated last week, on 6 June, and that it now states that the Department and Atos are going to amend written communications. It states:

“We are working to introduce more widespread information for all claimants as soon as possible.”

However, it is now two years since the pilot, and the Department is still “working” to have this included in its communications. It does not seem to be too complicated a sentence to include in letters to claimants.

My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) said in a debate on 4 September that even when requests are made, they are not always met because of a lack of equipment. A freedom of information response from 22 May this year indicated that Atos now has some 50 audio recording machines, but this is inadequate given that over 11,000 assessments are undertaken across the country every week. Another freedom of information request from 23 May suggests that this national roll-out may even be a temporary measure that will end later this year.

Will the Minister confirm when DWP communications will be able to inform claimants that they can have their assessment recorded? To how many audio recording devices does Atos now have access? Will he confirm whether the recordings currently taking place are part of a wider roll-out that is intended to be permanent or merely a further pilot?

The report from Professor Harrington in 2010 prompted the Newcastle pilot, and it is worth looking at what he has had to say on this issue since then. In his December 2012 report, which was his third and final one, he said:

“The pilot of audio recording of assessments has also been subject to much debate…The Review has seen little evidence from the DWP evaluation of the audio recording pilot of 2011 that the universal audio recording of assessments would improve their quality…further monitoring and evaluation work needs to be completed before a decision can be made.”

The Minister might like to interpret Harrington’s reference to “little evidence” as suggesting that audio recordings make no difference, but I would argue that what he was getting at was the inadequacy of the pilot commissioned and accepted by the DWP, which was why he called for more examination of the issue.

What the assessors did in this pilot was to take a small number of reports, review them in light of the recordings and conclude that they tallied with each other—that what the written report said and what the recording said were the same. Subsequently, to justify their policy, the main arguments from the Government have both highlighted and ignored the various metrics of demand mentioned in the report. Neither of those approaches answers the key question: do audio recordings improve the quality of assessments?

Instead, I would contend that the key performance indicator for the work capability assessment should be the proportion of decisions that are subsequently overturned on appeal. A more robust pilot would have involved taking larger samples of both recorded and unrecorded assessments and examining the proportion of successful appeals for both. If they were the same, it would have been fair to conclude the recordings make no difference; but if there were a smaller proportion of successful appeals from those that were recorded, it would be equally fair to conclude that they were worth while.

We need to be clear, too, whether the current roll-out is actually just another pilot still to be evaluated. If it is to be evaluated, it would be useful to know what is going to be evaluated. This has a relevance beyond the employment and support allowance because the DWP now says that it will make a decision about audio recording of personal independence payment assessments after the evaluation of the ESA experience. That is despite the fact that one of the companies tendering for that PIP assessment, Capita, originally offered to audio record all its assessments. Asking the right questions about what the evaluation is for is crucial.