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.

Under-occupancy Penalty (Nottingham)

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

“Nowhere to go”—that is how today’s Nottingham Post describes the crisis facing thousands of social tenants in our city. Why? Because two weeks today the Government are set to play the cruellest joke on more than 6,000 of our city’s poorest households. On the same day as they deliver a huge tax cut to the UK’s highest earners, they plan to take £4.23 million from the pockets of those people in our city who are least able to afford it. Whether we call it the bedroom tax, the under-occupancy penalty or the spare-room subsidy, it is a heartless policy that, the Cambridge Centre for Housing and Planning Research concluded, will create “severe hardship” for affected households.

Let us look at the households affected. Two thirds of them include someone who is disabled, one third are families with children, more than a fifth are working households on low wages, and many of them do not have a spare room at all. They include families whose children have their own rooms. Let us face it, some bedrooms are so small that they are barely big enough for one child, let alone two. Many families do not think it is fair to expect their teenage son or daughter to share with a toddler, even if they are the same sex, and children’s education can suffer if they do not have somewhere quiet to study.

So-called spare bedrooms are also needed where couples sleep separately, especially where a husband or wife cares for their disabled partner and desperately needs a decent night’s sleep. Some are used to store disability-related equipment. Where parents are separated, these bedrooms are needed for when their children visit at weekends. Are the Government really saying that people who live in a council or housing association home cannot have a spare room for their children or grandchildren to sleep in when they come to visit? It seems so. People who have lived in the same house for decades and spent time and money making it their home all face the same impossible situation: move out or find the extra money.

For people in Nottingham, that means on average an extra £11 a week if they have one room more than they are allowed, or £22 a week if they have two rooms. That may not sound like very much to the Minister, but for someone on jobseeker’s allowance of £71 a week, it is the difference between eating or going hungry, turning on the heating or sitting in the cold, borrowing money to pay your rent or going into arrears. This morning on Radio Nottingham, a local Tory Member of Parliament did not know what the fuss was about. She had explained to her constituent that she should simply move house. But of course, it is not that easy.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The bedroom tax and the under-occupancy terminology will affect people throughout the United Kingdom. In Northern Ireland, we will be £10 million shy in the money available, and 32,000 households will be affected. Is not one of the greatest discrepancies of the whole process that there are not the smaller occupancy houses to move to, so all these people will have to find the extra money?

Romanians and Bulgarians (Benefits)

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Absolutely. In fact, we have already had a number of meetings with the Prime Minister and coalition colleagues about tightening up between Departments and understanding where one Department’s position knocks on to another. The first thing is to get rid of the silo mentality that existed and create a pan-Government position. The next thing is not to talk tough here and soft abroad, but to work with the Foreign Office to be as tough over there as we are back here. That is the process that is now being engaged.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Minister will be aware that large numbers of migrants are bypassing France, Italy and Germany to get to the United Kingdom, almost in haste. What discussions has he had with other EU countries to find the reason for bypassing other countries? Is it that the benefits system in the United Kingdom is much more generous than those anywhere else in Europe?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

We have had meetings about this issue with about 17 countries, all at the same time. I would list them all, but they include meetings with officials from Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Ireland, Germany, France and Poland. We have had meetings with all of them. There is no common position for them all, but a sub-set of those most likely to be affected—I understand that Germany and Spain are where most of the Romanians tend to be going at the moment—are very concerned about what may happen. We are discussing with them exactly how to respond. Reality is now striking many and I think the door is open for us to make a serious move on this issue.

Housing Benefit (Under-occupancy Penalty)

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 27th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Jim Shannon]

May I return the Minister to the subject of disabled people in bungalows or houses to which they will have to consider moving in order to downsize? What criterion will the Government use to enable a person to justify keeping a spare bedroom? Will it be a doctor’s note saying that the person is disabled and needs a bedroom of his or her own?

[Steve Webb]

We have already made one specific exemption. Someone who needs a spare room for a non-resident, overnight carer can have it. That is an absolute right, and people do not have to apply for it. However, someone who is in particular need can approach the local authority, which has discretion—after all, the D in DHP stands for discretion; there is no set of national Whitehall-driven rules—and the authority can then judge whether the household is indeed in particular need of help from the budget that has been allocated to it. We have not set out a rigid blueprint; the whole point is that local authorities will have discretion to meet people and, if they think it a priority, to meet their needs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) for bringing the motion before the House. This is a serious issue that is proving to be stressful for a great many vulnerable people—the elderly, single parents and disabled couples—and that stress is affecting their health. That point has been made eloquently at Prime Minister’s questions and throughout this debate. The Minister is greatly respected and well thought of in all parts of the Chamber for the way he responds to a great many points. My questions and comments are meant constructively, and I would like him to respond to them.

In Northern Ireland, we are faced with 2,000 households in social housing—whether housing executive tenants or housing association tenants—facing a major shortfall in their rent of up to 25%. That means a tremendous number of families are unsure of how and where they will live. I am aware that in many parts of Great Britain there are many more smaller social homes with one or two bedrooms, and tenants who want to move have a realistic chance of downsizing to a property the cost of which will be covered by their benefit. That is not the case in Northern Ireland and, while we have started to build smaller apartments and homes, we have nowhere near the necessary number to begin to implement this reform and to move people who cannot afford to pay the difference.

I was a councillor for 26 years before I came to this Chamber. One measure that I pushed for as a councillor 20-odd years ago was for the executive to upgrade its one-bedroom bungalows to two bedrooms. It has taken nearly 20 years for that to happen. Today, we wish we could turn back the clock—the film “Back to the Future” comes to mind. The very thing that we pushed for 20 years ago has to be turned back—a matter of great concern. The Minister for Social Development in Northern Ireland has no option but to implement these reforms, as the Northern Ireland block grant does not allow for a delay. However, his Department is in no way, shape or form ready to follow through on the legislation that has come before this House.

In Northern Ireland, it has been estimated that there will be a housing benefit shortfall of £10 million per year, and I doubt that there are many people on housing benefit who can afford to make up that money themselves. The Minister for Social Development, Nelson McCausland, has said:

“The best way forward is the use of discretionary housing payments. We have increased the money there for those that may be affected.”

Yet again, it must be stressed that the Northern Ireland Executive cannot bear the load of these changes out of the block grant, and that will inevitably lead to severe hardship for many families in Northern Ireland, as it will—I know this from hon. Members who have spoken—on the mainland in Scotland, Wales and England. Elderly widows have been ringing me to ask whether they will be expected, at their time of life, to take in a lodger in their two-bedroom homes. Their fear is palpable, and the state should never be guilty of enforcing that on them.

For some, the new rules will reduce their existing housing benefit by £650 per year. The bottom line will be that if they cannot afford that, they will have to find a new house. The scenario I would like to put to the Minister is this: a divorced mother has two children, a son of nine and a daughter of eight. The new rules say that the children can share a bedroom and the family therefore have to downsize their home. However, that will apply for only a year because the children will no longer have to share when they are 10 and nine, and the rules state that they will then need an extra bedroom. Would it be economical to expect the household to move, or will the housing benefit section have the discretion to waive this tax in those circumstances? How far does this discretion extend? Does it allow for the disabled couple who cannot sleep together and need a carer to sleep in the house at times to help with their care needs? Are they expected to foot the bill because they are disabled and need help?

We recently spoke in this House about needing more foster carers and touched on the effects on them. I do not want to repeat what has been said, but by the same token people on housing benefit will be penalised for trying to offer a home to young people who need some love and care. I have to ask: where is the big society in that?

I could go on, but time is limited. We are not ready to implement this either morally or physically. We lambast absent fathers for not playing an active role in their children’s upbringing. We then tell them that they are not allowed to have a bedroom for their child to stay in when they are trying to build a relationship through their visitation rights. We tell people who are married and working, “We have no houses for you in the housing executive, so you will need to rent privately and we will help you with the payments.” We then say, “Well, your private rented house is one bedroom too large, so we won’t help you with this payment anymore, and we can’t rehouse you so you can find a smaller home close enough for your child to walk to school. As you have no car, there is nothing that can be done for you.” Hon. Members—on both sides of the House, to be fair—have asked, “Is this really what the House advocates?” I would say not. I and many other Members do not advocate it. Single tenants regularly come to me, and like others, I am sure, I have helped hundreds with their housing benefit. Often, we find that, because of their age, they are restricted in how much housing benefit they can get. The discretionary payment fund helps them that wee bit along life’s road, but then we find that this payment, which helps them to develop their quality of life, get a job and so on, is being taken away from them.

We need to make changes to the housing sector, but we cannot enforce changes without the infrastructure in place to implement them. I do not want to be part of a measure that puts 32,000 families in housing stress. Is this something that the Minister is prepared to implement before the foundations have been laid? I hope that he will allow the infrastructure and details to be put in place before this is pushed through.

Pensions and Social Security

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 13th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

I well remember our exchanges last year, and I seem to recall that the right hon. Gentleman rejected that way of measuring things.

Our above-inflation increase will be £2.70 a week, taking the new level of the basic state pension to £110.15 a week. That means that from April 2013 the basic pension is forecast to be around 18% of average earnings. My right hon. and hon. Friends might be pleased to know that that is a higher share of average earnings than at any time in the past 20 years. Our triple-lock commitment means that the average person reaching state pension age in 2012 with a full basic pension can expect to receive an additional £12,000 in basic state pension over the course of their retirement.

Let me turn to additional state pensions, often referred to as state earnings-related pension schemes. This year SERPS pensions will rise by 2.2%, which means that the total state pension increase for someone with a full basic pension and average additional pension will be around £3.33 a week, or £175 a year. Unlike the Labour party, which froze SERPS in 2010, the coalition Government will, for the third year in a row, uprate SERPS by the full value of CPI.

Let me turn to pension credit. As I announced in my statement on 6 December, we have taken steps to ensure that the poorest pensioners will benefit from the effects of our triple lock. Each year the standard minimum guarantee must be increased by law at least in line with earnings. That means that the minimum increase this year would be 1.6%. However, we decided to increase the value of the standard minimum guarantee credit by 1.9% so that single people will receive the full increase of £2.70 a week, which is equal to the increase in the basic state pension, while couples will receive £4.15 a week. Consistent with our approach last year, the resources needed to pay that above-earnings increase to the standard minimum guarantee have been found by increasing the savings credit threshold, which means that those with higher levels of income will see less of an increase.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Although the increase in pension credit is welcome, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that those who do not take up pension credit are enabled to do so? A vast number of people in Northern Ireland—somewhere in the region of 100,000—are not taking advantage of pension credit, and I am sure that the same applies across the whole United Kingdom.

[Steve Webb]

The hon. Gentleman is right that non-take-up of pension credit has been a persistent problem. Over the past year or so we tried a pilot scheme in which we took a sample of people we thought, based on our records, might be entitled and put the money in their bank account. We then wrote to them to say, “We’ve put some money in your bank account. Would you like to claim pension credit?” The experiment failed. Incredibly, people did not claim it, or decided that they did not want or need it, or thought that they were not eligible. Even putting money into people’s bank accounts, based on our records, did not succeed. However, I have some good news for the hon. Gentleman. As a consequence of the universal credit reforms, whereby housing benefit for working-age people will be merged with universal credit, we will be merging housing benefit for pensioners with the pension credit.

The reason that is relevant to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that we know that some people claim their housing benefit and not their pension credit, and that some claim their pension credit and not their housing benefit, but when we combine the two in a single payment each group will claim both and we anticipate several hundred million pounds of extra benefit expenditure to low-income pensioners as a result. I think that that will be the most tangible thing that any Government have done in many years.

Personal Independence Payments

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Westminster Hall

[Julie Hilling]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, because it is really important that those guidance notes are printed. However, I also question whether we actually need to put those criteria in the regulations themselves.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way and, like other Members, I congratulate her on bringing this matter to the House. The Royal National Institute for Blind People and Action for Blind People have both indicated that they will be able to help people to fill in forms. Does she feel that the Government should consider assisting those organisations to help people to fill in forms and to get the forms right, so that the assessment can be right?

--- Later in debate ---

[Esther McVey]

I will indeed congratulate the RNIB and other charities and organisations that have represented the needs of blind and partially sighted people. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point.

The approach taken in the DLA to recognise the mobility difficulties of blind and severely visually impaired people does not look at people as individuals; it looks at their conditions. What we are doing—and, I believe, what the hon. Lady seeks—is requiring that everyone needs to be looked at as an individual: how has their condition affected them? That really is what PIP is intended to do. It is personalised. It is about the individual: what help that person needs.

At the moment, for DLA, 50% of claimants do not have medical support for their condition. More than 70% have an award for life. We seek to serve the public, including the hon. Lady’s constituents, as well as we can by making an award that is personalised.

The hon. Lady’s first question was about means-testing: no, the award of DLA and PIP is non-means-tested and that is how it will remain. It is intended to help those people with the most barriers to overcome them and live independent lives. As I said, it is very much about the individual, about what is fair to that individual and about the needs arising from the condition. To that extent, it is very much personalised. It will be flexible enough to reflect individual needs—that is what PIP is specifically designed to do. It is about having clarity, so that people will be certain of what they will get, but also about flexibility.

I thank the hon. Lady for bringing her constituents’ concerns before the House, because that is what we are here to do, to put a face and a person behind the needs, so that we can explain things clearly.

[Jim Shannon]

Can the Minister answer my intervention on the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling)? What can the Government do for RNIB and Action for Blind People to help people to fill in forms? Those organisations will be inundated with people needing help, so whatever assistance the Government can give will be money and time well spent.

[Esther McVey]

The hon. Gentleman may not know that the people seeking the award can say how they would like the form delivered to them and in what context. If people so wish, they can be accompanied by someone from a charity or organisation or by a friend to help them with the assessment. The process is about finding out as much as we can about the individual to help with the assessment and the decision so that we can give the correct award. Again,

“reliably, repeatedly, safely and in a timely manner”

is key to the decisions—that phrase is in the guidance and in the contract with the providers. The hon. Member for Bolton West asked whether that could be put in regulation, and I announced before the Select Committee on Work and Pensions yesterday that we are examining whether that would be of benefit. The matter is with lawyers at the moment, because we do not want to introduce something that could go against what we are seeking to do, to ensure

“reliably, repeatedly, safely and in a timely manner”,

which is key to the assessment. We are therefore looking at whether it can be put in regulation or whether it is better staying in the guidance notes. The hon. Lady also asked about those notes, which will be published as soon as they can be, possibly by the end of the month.

This is a principled reform, which we have developed in consultation and collaboration with disabled people. We have listened to their concerns, and those of their representatives and organisations, and we have made a significant number of changes as a result of the feedback from groups that represent visually impaired people. Indeed, that was recognised by RNIB, which stated in its report to the secondary legislation scrutiny Committee that

“the final criteria include a number of significant improvements for blind and partially sighted people.”

We were told that our draft communication activity did not take appropriate account of the barriers faced by people who cannot access written information. As a result, we introduced an additional activity to assess ability to read and understand signs, symbols and words. Therefore, someone who is completely unable to read because of their disability—for example, because of blindness—will get eight points towards their daily living component score. The score from that activity alone will mean that they get the standard rate of the daily living component. That is only one of the criteria; there will be a further nine in that section.

We also acted on the feedback that the effect of visual impairment for people who use long canes was not appropriately reflected in the mobility activities and that the barriers such people face are similar to those faced by people who have a support dog.