Vinovium House

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 8th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Helen Goodman]

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

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not—a small lifeline to me that may have cushioned the closure up to my pension age, but the next day the package offer was revoked with a statement that failure to accept a compulsory transfer could result in disciplinary action.”

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

[Helen Goodman]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marriage Week

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

[Mr Burrowes]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

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

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

[Jim Shannon]

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

[Caroline Nokes]

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

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

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

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

DWP Estate

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 18th January 2017 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)]

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

Welfare Cap

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 12th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Debbie Abrahams]

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

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

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

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

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

[Debbie Abrahams]

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

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

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jim Shannon]

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

[Justin Tomlinson]

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

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

State Pension Age: Women

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Craig Mackinlay]

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

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

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

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

[Craig Mackinlay]

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

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

ESA and Personal Independence Payments

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2016 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

[Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)]

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

[Jim Shannon]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)]

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

[Jim Shannon]

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

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

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

Supported Housing

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2016 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I certainly will, Mr Howarth. I am quite happy to stop at 10.30 am, as you indicated. I am quite happy to be the last to speak in this debate as well.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) on setting out his case so well and allowing us all to participate. It is good to speak in this debate. Like other hon. Members, I have spoken before about this issue, which affects some of the most vulnerable people in our society, and we are back here to do so again. We are back here for a purpose: there are quite clearly outstanding issues for us to address, and the matter is worthy of consideration and continued debate until we get it right. We are back here to get it right. I am pleased to see the Minister in her place; I hope that her cold or flu symptoms do not prove too much for her. I am sure that she will be able to respond to the issues that we bring to her attention.

I appreciate the extension until 2019-20 of the introduction of the local housing allowance cap, as that gives short-term relief to supported housing organisations and allows them to organise and work out whether they can continue to provide their valuable service not only to their residents but to the rest of the community. What those organisations do is important. It is estimated that at the end of 2015, there were some 651,000 supported accommodation units in Great Britain. That gives us an idea of the magnitude of the issue. The estimated annualised cost of the supported housing sector covered by housing benefit in Great Britain at the end of 2015 was £4.2 billion. Back home, I get requests about housing benefit almost every day, if not several times a day, and I am sure other Members do too.

It is claimed that supported housing provides a saving of around £940 per resident compared with the cost of housing them in other Government-provided facilities. On my maths—I hope my figures are correct—that is a saving of almost £612 million per year.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The bedroom tax was mentioned earlier. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Northern Ireland Executive made a wise decision not to move forward with the bedroom tax?

[Jim Shannon]

Yes, absolutely; my hon. Friend is right. That was a very wise decision. It was supported by all and was done for the very best reason: to help vulnerable people in society. I will focus on those people in the short time that I have.

We must surely consider that saving when looking at housing benefit and supported housing schemes over the long term. In March 2016, the Government confirmed that people living in supported and sheltered housing would be exempt from the LHA cap for a year to allow the Government to carry out a proper strategic review of how supported housing is funded. That is good news. Let us give credit where credit is due: that is a step in the right direction. I have been furnished with the results of the consultation carried out by members of the National Housing Federation, which represents housing associations. More than 200 organisations contributed their views to that consultation.

[Ms Ritchie]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the best way to deal with the need for supported housing is to provide additional resources for more housing, particularly more specialised housing, for those who are in most need?

[Jim Shannon]

I could not agree more. That is clearly what we are all trying to achieve, and I hope the Minister will confirm that that is the Government’s target too.

The National Housing Federation says that the following three principles should underpin reforms to the funding of supported housing:

“No-one with support needs will become homeless or end up in unsuitable accommodation…The actual housing and support cost of delivering a quality service will be fully met, and will be flexible enough to meet changing levels of demand”—

things change, and we must be ready for that—and the

“taxpayer and those living in supported and sheltered housing will have evidence of the quality and value for money of the services being funded.”

That seems a solid foundation on which to build a supported housing policy, and I hope that the Minister will respond positively to that.

We must look at all those principles in the light of what the Government seek to do. The local housing allowance cap will apply to all tenants in supported and sheltered housing from April 2019. Housing costs will continue to be paid through the benefits system up to LHA level. There will be no shared accommodation rate; the one-bedroom LHA rate will apply to under-35s in supported housing. There will be local authority top-ups, and ring-fenced funds will be transferred from the Department for Work and Pensions and allocated by the Department for Communities and Local Government. The 1% rent cut will apply to supported and sheltered accommodation from April 2017.

There are still problems and many issues to be addressed. The hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) referred to people with mental health issues, and I want to focus on them, because those issues come up every day in my constituency. I do not believe that the Government’s aims allow them to follow through on the principles that are in place. Only last evening, before I got my flight to Heathrow to come to the House, I had a young man with mental health issues in my office who was finding it difficult to get housing benefit to allow him to live close to his family. I had only to talk to him to know that he was suffering from severe depression, anxiety and angst and really needed help and support to allow him to live his life somewhat independently. I speak out for him, to ensure that the Government’s proposals do not stop housing associations creating supported housing schemes, which are needed not simply for the elderly but for people of all ages and from all walks of life.

We have had 30 years of conflict in Northern Ireland. We often say that, but that does not lessen the statement. We have acute and complex issues in Northern Ireland; many people from all sides of the community and of all ages suffer from anxiety and depression and need help. It is important that supported housing schemes can be created and sustained. The Government must recognise that need and allow for it in their proposals.

Although the ring fence and the commitment not to use a shared accommodation rate for LHA for people under 35 are most welcome, we must ask how local authorities will prioritise the spending of their devolved funding. For example, will they prioritise people with social care needs over single homeless people? How will the Government ensure that local authorities get the right amount of money and that funding grows in line with need? How will we ensure that services that require relatively little additional funding, such as sheltered housing, are not caught up in complicated administration? The hon. Member for Waveney spoke about how complex that is both for us and for our constituents. How will we ensure that existing tenants are protected in the transition from one system to another? I know the Minister, and I know that her response will be positive. We want to hear positivity from her when she addresses those questions. I am aware that this issue is out to consultation, but it has surely been considered since the initial review in 2011.

I conclude with this comment. Reform is needed. The present system can be taken advantage of. We speak for the most vulnerable people—those with mental health issues, emotional issues and complex personal issues, who are in situations where they are taken advantage of, not supported—and we must ensure that they are not left alone. I implore the Government and the Minister to consider fully the responses of the bodies that deal every day with those vulnerable people, and ensure that we leave no one alone and vulnerable without the support that they need to live.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

The hon. Gentleman must not fret; I will come to that later. Many comments were made by hon. Members and I will try to respond to most of them, but I am conscious that time may not allow for all. I will allow the hon. Gentleman time to come in at the end as well.

As hon. Members have heard, the Department for Communities and Local Government and my Department last week jointly launched a consultation on the detail and implementation of the new sustainable funding model. I welcome this debate as an important opportunity to draw Members’ attention to that. I will turn to the specific points raised by hon. Members in order. I hope to get to every point, but if time does not permit, I will write to hon. Members to clarify a few points.

My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) and the hon. Members for South Down (Ms Ritchie) and for Bermondsey and Old Southwark mentioned local funding and why it is important that local authorities and devolved Administrations are going to be involved. I absolutely believe that local authorities are best placed to make decisions about how to support vulnerable people in their own areas. We heard about location from my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and the hon. Member for South Down, and they are right that it is important. However, it is also about understanding local need and being able to reflect that in the most appropriate type of provision.

The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark mentioned disabled people, and he was right to do so. As he will know, disability spending will be higher every year to 2020 than it was in 2010. He also spoke of the types of people living in supported accommodation and, like me, he celebrates the numbers of young disabled people who are both living longer and wishing, quite understandably, to live more independently. He is right to point out that that is also a challenge, but it is one that we are determined to rise to.

Likewise, we have a growing elderly population. At the start of the debate, the hon. Gentleman outlined some percentages of individuals living in supported accommodation and what their particular needs might be. I emphasise that people do not necessarily have single needs. We have an ageing population, and as people grow older, their needs tend to become more acute and they tend to have more of them. It is important that we have a system that enables those with really quite intense needs to live independently for as long as they can and, indeed, for as long as they wish to.

Under the Care Act 2014, local authorities have a general duty to promote an individual’s wellbeing when carrying out their care and support functions. Through the consultation, we will be seeking views on whether further protections may be required to ensure that all relevant client groups can gain appropriate access to funding, including those without existing statutory duties.

I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that Departments across Government have worked closely together on the proposals and will continue to do so. They include the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Department of Health, the Ministry of Justice, the Department for Education and the Home Office. We are also working with colleagues in the devolved Administrations.

We have to make it clear that this is not about targeting individuals but about ensuring that we have a system in which the quality of services is central and there is a clear focus on outcomes for individuals. Under the current system, effective oversight of quality and value for money is not strong enough. Through the consultation, we will consider new approaches to transparency and oversight. Our aim should be consistent standards for everyone living in supported housing, alongside a clear demonstration to the taxpayer of value for money.

We want to ensure simplicity and a streamlined process, in line with the principles of universal credit, which a number of hon. Members have mentioned. We have a solid foundation of universal credit delivery in every Jobcentre Plus, and people who are moved from housing benefit to universal credit by the Department after April 2019, and whose overall benefit entitlement will be lower, will be protected in cash terms under transitional arrangements.

As I have said, we recognise the diversity of the supported housing sector, in terms of both the groups of people who live in such provision and the range of support needs that they may have. Officials and Ministers from across the DWP and DCLG have held extensive meetings with representatives from across the sector to understand the nuances of what a new model needs to deliver. They have asked specifically about additions in the consultation document, including what potential role additional statutory provisions or duties for local authorities in England could play, particularly in terms of protecting provision for specific vulnerable groups. The task and finish groups we are setting up to consider a number of detailed aspects of the model are being carefully put together to ensure that the breadth of the sector is represented. I think three hon. Members asked whether the Government would commit to piloting the new funding model. There will be shadow-year arrangements in place on the detail and allocation of funding, to allow for the full transition to the new model from April 2018.

During the last two financial years, the majority of local authorities spent less than 100% of their allocation of discretionary housing payment from central Government. The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark has urged me not to dwell on DHP—this will be one of my few references to it—but we provided local authorities with £560 million in DHP funding in the last Parliament, and we have committed to a further £870 million over the next five years. The amount of top-up funding will be set on the basis of current projections for future need. Budgets for years beyond those already set will be determined in the usual way: at future spending reviews. I emphasise again that we want to work with the sector, through the consultation, to consider the wider strategic goals, such as responding to expected future growth in demand.

We see an opportunity here to do things differently, and to create a new strategic approach to commissioning supported housing. My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) made a number of important points about doing better. He also raised the issue of the YMCA. I have been pleased to visit a number of projects since coming into this role in July, and I have long been a supporter of the work of the YMCA and have welcomed the input it has made to this process so far. I also visited a foyer in St Ives, and I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend on the importance, particularly for young people in the supported housing sector, of having move-on accommodation and increasing their level of education and training so that they have a better opportunity of employment.

The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) spoke of Open Door in his constituency and its supported flat service. He made the valid point that there are very different accommodation landscapes across Scotland. We recognise that challenge, which is one of the reasons why we are devolving this responsibility to local authorities and to the Scottish Parliament.

The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) asked what contact I had had with Scottish members of the sector. In one of my roundtable meetings, I was pleased to have representatives from Scottish housing associations who came down to London to put their point of view across. I pay particular tribute to Scottish Women’s Aid, along with Women’s Aid nationally, which has been really constructive and engaged throughout this process, both with myself and with my noble Friend Lord Freud, who is the Minister for Welfare Reform. My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives mentioned a specific case in his constituency about students. I will be happy to meet him later to discuss that.

As we know, the Scottish and Welsh Governments have devolved responsibility for housing policy and already determine their own priorities. We anticipate that the Treasury will advise those Governments of their allocations at around the same time as the local authorities in England, which we expect will be in autumn 2017.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Caroline Nokes]

I am sorry, but I really have no time left and I would like to leave a couple of minutes for the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark to wind up—it will probably be 90 seconds now.

There is a specific point in the consultation about working with the sector to design an alternative model for refuges, which was raised by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said we should get that right. He is absolutely correct to say so. That is why we are not rushing this, and it is why I am pleased to be here today. My first debate as a Minister was on supported housing and that is the issue again today. Getting this right and ensuring that the consultation is as full and thorough as possible is an important part of my role, so that when we move forward with the new funding model, it works for those groups who hon. Members have rightly identified.

Employment and Support Allowance and Universal Credit

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 17th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate. I thank the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) for setting the scene so well. Right hon. and hon. Members across the Chamber have made marvellous contributions. I have the pleasure of speaking on behalf of the DUP and am happy to have the same attitude as others on the right way forward.

ESA is a complex, complicated benefit with many different aspects. Like many other MPs, I have a full-time member of staff dedicated to working with people to help to calculate their benefits and fill out the confusing, complicated forms. She works some 37.5 hours a week—sometime more in her own time—and always has a waiting list of people to see her. That is how it is in my office, and I suspect it is the same in others. On my constituency days, I also take on the benefits problems, while the admin staff in my office handle the day-to-day queries. A lot of our time is spent trying to help people, which is why today’s debate is so important to my constituents and to me. I watch the struggles that people go through and wonder how these vulnerable and ill people can go through more.

[Christina Rees]

Further to the point about employing full-time caseworkers to deal with the issues that the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned, the caseworker I employ is passionate about helping my constituents in Neath, but the toll on him is great, and he is under strain. We are passionate about what we do, but the workers in our offices are passionate about what they do, too, and we must give credit to them.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady is right. Our staff are compassionate on behalf of our constituents—in many cases, they themselves are our constituents—and they understand the issues very well. When it comes to explaining ourselves, let us make sure that that point is highlighted.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

This does not only affect our staff. Cuts to legal aid and to organisations such as citizens advice bureaux very often mean that we are picking up issues that really only a lawyer should be dealing with.

[Jim Shannon]

Again, that problem will be replicated across all our constituencies. In my constituency, the citizens advice bureaux have reduced their hours, which means that they have reduced their capability to take on tribunals and appeals. We have probably filled that gap. That responsibility has fallen on the shoulders of people not only in my office, but in the offices of other Members in this House. I thank the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady for their contributions, because they have outlined the issues very clearly.

In the summer Budget of 2015, it was announced that the work-related activity component paid to those in the WRAG would be abolished for new claims from April 2017. The equivalent element in universal credit will also be abolished. This means a reduction of £29.05 a week, and aligns the rate of payment with that for those claiming jobseeker’s allowance. It is said that existing claimants will not be affected and that there will be protections for those who move into the WRAG or the universal credit equivalent from the support group. The changes were introduced to

“remove the financial incentives that could otherwise discourage claimants from taking steps back to work.”

As of February 2016, there were some 2.4 million ESA claimants in Great Britain. Of these, 1.5 million were in the support group; some 19% were in the work-related activity group; some 13% were in the assessment phase, awaiting their work capability assessment—how frustrating it must be to wait for that to happen, given the time that it takes—and 3% were in the unknown phase, yet to be allocated to a group. Again, that illustrates the lack of process and the difficulties with time. Many people are in this group. Although the changes apply to new applicants, there will certainly be people that are affected. I understand that the DWP impact assessment says:

“The notional loss to each family is expected to be around £28 a week, which represents around a 10 per cent notional change in net income, presented in 2019/20 prices. Someone moving into work could, by working around 4-5 hours a week at National Living Wage, recoup the notional loss of the Work-Related Activity component or the Limited Capability for Work element.”

Let us focus on what that means. The Government expect those disabled people to find four to five hours’ work elsewhere to fill the gap. For a start, the hours might not be there. What if their disability means that they are not able to do it? With respect, it is just incredible that the Government believe that that could happen.

Let us be serious here: the whole point of ESA is that it is for people who are unwell. There seems to be a presumption by the DWP that working the five hours a week to fill the gap is not an issue, when in fact the 200,000 or so people who are in the WRAG for mental and behavioural issues may not find it such an easy option. Earlier, a Member referred to those with mental health issues. In Northern Ireland, we have many, many people who have depression and other mental health issues, and who suffer greatly every day. Our 30-year conflict has contributed to those problems.

It is fair to say that whenever a Government do something good, we want to congratulate them. The DWP has stopped the renewals of ESA for those who are long-term sick. I am very pleased about that. Many people with brain injuries or who have children with educational and emotional difficulties have come to my office. The court has appointed people to deal with their money, and yet, until now, those people have had to renew their ESA claim every two years. I wrote to my own Department in Northern Ireland about that matter, and I was very pleased to get a response from the Government through the Department and to hear that they are now doing away with that requirement. It is only right that those for whom the court has made appointees should not have to renew their ESA every two years. It is just silly to ask for that.

As an employer, would I hire someone who may be prevented from being reliable because of their documented illness—someone I could not allow to work with customers owing to such issues? Although I would have sympathy, could I run my office like that? The answer is that I could not, and I doubt that the Government could either, so who will employ these people who are being told, “Just work another five hours to make it up.”

Let me be clear: we are not talking about jobseekers, but about people who have a recorded and supported illness. The rationale, while perhaps understandable in other areas, is ridiculous for those who are in this group. There is a reason they are not simply on JSA, and the Government must recognise that.

The hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) referred to the closure of offices, and we are concerned about that as well. We are fighting that together. The campaign is supported by all the parties at every level—council level, MLA level and MP level. Retaining those offices is important. We also should remember the support from the Disability Benefits Consortium. Mencap in Northern Ireland has asked me to express its concerns as well. I am given to understand that there will be

“new funding for additional support to help claimants return to work”.

That has been clarified as £60 million in 2017-18, rising to £100 million in 2020-21. In addition, the Government have announced an extra £15 million per year in 2017-18 and 2018-19 for the Jobcentre Plus Flexible Support Fund to be set aside specifically for those with limited capability for work. Some £43 million has also been allocated to trial ways of providing specialist support for people with common mental health conditions between 2017-18 and 2019-20. I wish to make this plea to the Minister. When we have those staff in place, please, please can we make sure that they have the training, the ability and the quality to respond, because very often, with great respect, they do not have those skills. As the elected representative of my staff, it is frustrating to have people on the phone telling someone that they do not understand what they are about.

My concern is that the seriousness of the illness is not taken into account. It almost feels as though Government are saying, “Yes, yes, I know you’re feeling a trifle under the weather, but come on, old chap, stiffen that upper lip and move on.” That is not possible for those suffering from musculoskeletal problems—there are almost 100,000 in this group. There is no stiff upper lip for them. There are those who cannot know when they will be well enough to work, but they are told to make up the five hours whenever they can. I am sure that my staff would love me to say, “Do your 37.5 hours whenever you feel like it. You can work from 2 am to 7 am if you like.” However, that would not help me to deal with my constituents, my customers or those who need help. There are few places of employment like that, so why can the Government not outline where those five hours at a time can be found? We could go so far as to say that people would have to work only one hour if they could find an employer willing to pay £29 an hour. “Don’t be absurd,” the Government would say, but that would be as easy to find as an employer who would allow someone to work five hours a week whenever they choose, according to their illness.

Instead of cutting benefits, we should focus on improving support for disabled people who need help and on getting them back into work. I know that the Government have made some concessions, and the unemployment figures this week showed that more people who are disabled are in work. That is good news and a move in the right direction. Let us continue in that way.

The Government need to understand the difference between being ill and being unable to find work. In the past month I have had in my office a former ward sister, a former construction worker, a business owner and a social worker, all of whom are now on ESA. I know those people well. They do not want to be on ESA. They are not choosing not to work out of laziness. They were earning £500 a week and are now getting £75, so the Government’s inference in this regard is insulting. More importantly, it is based on a false premise that cannot be allowed to stand. I therefore feel that I have to stand with the proposer of the motion and those who have supported it and say that we are against these Government proposals. I know that the Minister is an understanding lady and I look to her to respond compassionately to the issues that we have raised. I hope her response to today’s debate will be positive and constructive. Let us help our people as we should.

State Pension Age: Women

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2016 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I thank the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) for securing it and for giving us all a chance to speak. It was a pleasure to join him and others in going to the Backbench Business Committee—this debate is the result of a combined request from many of us here in the Chamber. It is good to see a goodly number of Opposition Members, although there are perhaps not so many Government Members.

I welcome this debate, which was secured with a great work ethic. If people do not work, they do not eat. If people pay their dues, they reap what they sow. That is the premise on which an entire generation was raised, but I have been told that the dues have been uplifted and that, for some, the harvest is not due for another three and a half years, so they have to keep slogging on.

That might seem okay. What is three and a half years in the grand scheme of things? It is not that long. I want the House to consider a lady who left school at 14, as was then permissible, to work in a local sewing factory. She worked there for the next 35 years, until the factory was closed and relocated abroad. With no education and no skills, she took on a job cleaning the floors of schools and buildings, which she has done on her hands and knees for the past 11 years. For that lady to wait another three and a half years is not a small thing—it is more years of an aching back, fingers that remain bent and knees that are worn away.

[Liz McInnes]

I have a constituent who describes herself as “June ’54 and furious.” One source of her fury, apart from having to wait for her pension, is that she is having to wait for her entitlement to winter fuel allowance and a bus pass. We need to remember that it is not just about pensions; it is about things that will help these women in their declining years as their health declines. Small things are adding to my constituent’s fury.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady is very clear. Many of my constituents are equally furious. They might not have been born in June ’54, but they are equally furious. The lady she mentions and the lady I spoke about, who worked for 35 years in a sewing factory and 11 years in a school, are representative of ladies across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Northern Ireland pensioners’ parliament, which has done tremendous work? One person in my constituency, Mr Nixon Armstrong, has been a great ambassador in getting rights for these women.

[Jim Shannon]

All Members from Northern Ireland have had a chance to meet the pensioners’ parliament, which has lobbied us on this issue. We are here today to speak on their behalf.

We all know the background to this debate. The Government changed the timetable because of the increase in life expectancy, but as we have illustrated, the numbers do not equal the human cost or the health implications. Even for women who have a job in an office and are expected to continue working for another six years, the repetitive strain of typing, and so on, has not been taken into consideration and has been ignored.

Women born in the 1950s are justified in their argument that they have been hit particularly hard by the significant changes to their state pension age, which was imposed without appropriate notification. They have not been looking to the future and thinking, “I’ll take a high-tech job at night-time and do a course to get a qualification. I can’t do this hard-labour job for the next 30 years.” The fact is that these women have been subject to the whim of Government, with no notice for them to change their future potential.

I understand how the world works. If the Government continue to borrow, the debt continues to rise. We all know the story. Changes must be made, but how we make those changes is a problem. I fully support the Women Against State Pension Inequality campaign in calling for a fair transitional state pension arrangement that translates into a bridging pension between the age of 60 and the increased state pension age.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that most people accept that there has to be some change because of the increase in life expectancy? The problem is the utter confusion, the lack of clarity and the complete absence of proper, coherent information. Does he agree that one small thing the Government could do today is to be completely upfront, honest and transparent and say exactly where we are? My constituents and his constituents are in the dark on this issue.

[Jim Shannon]

Some 4.5 million people in Great Britain will have their SPA increased by less than a year, and 500,000 born between October 1953 and 5 April 1955 will have their SPA increased by more than a year. In Northern Ireland, 76,000 people face a further one-and-a-half-year wait on top of previous rises, which is simply not acceptable. Something must be done to bridge the gap, especially for those who physically cannot keep working. Is there an argument for opening the door to the personal independence payment just a little further to enable these women to have an income without working? That is unlikely, as the Government have made it clear that they are determined, by hook or by crook, to lessen the number of claimants, despite what people’s doctors say—that is a debate for another day.

Jobseeker’s allowance is restricted, and the employment and support allowance criteria ask, for example, whether a person can lift a cardboard box or move a £1 coin. If only that was all it took for a woman to work again, but it takes more than that. I am sorry to say that the Government have not understood the real issue.

We do not have a benefits system that allows us to bridge the gap, so who will help these women? They do not seek to have something for which they have not worked. They are not asking for a handout, like so many people do; they are asking for a return on their hard work over 45 years or more. Why have we let these people down? What will be done today to help those whose hard work means their bodies can no longer continue at this pace?

Individual cases do not necessarily make good law, but I have not recounted an individual case. There are many such women in my constituency and across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is time that the Government acknowledged the effect that the acceleration has had and is having. They should seek to do the right thing for this generation, who have worked hard in all areas to build this country and who deserve the same respect and attention that they have given to this country all their lives.

Social Fund Funeral Payments

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 14th September 2016 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, Sir David. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) on setting the scene so movingly and thoughtfully. His speech was easy for us all to follow and appreciate and, more importantly, for the Minister to respond to. The funeral payment scheme that is currently in place is complex and certainly does not adequately cover the associated costs of a funeral. I am also pleased to see the Minister in her place and congratulate her on her elevation to the position she now holds. I understand that in the past the Minister has had a similar debate in Westminster Hall on this subject. I think I came along to support her and added a contribution at some point—which was uncharacteristic—and I very much look forward to her response.

I have had a number of cases in my office regarding funeral payments. One of the main problems is that people have to commit to the funeral without knowing whether their claim will be upheld. I have had people in my office who have had to take out payday loans—I would not recommend it—believing that the funeral will be paid for, only to be refused or given an amount of money well under what was needed to carry out the actual funeral. They are then left with truly massive bills and debts, because they believed they were eligible and wanted to respect the memory of their loved ones. The scheme was set up to prevent families from having to allow their loved ones to go through a pauper’s funeral service, which is not a nice thing for a loved one.

I also commend what the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) referred to. In many cases when people come to my office I say, “Were they members of the services or any of the army regimental associations? Because there is help available through the Royal British Legion and the army associations as well.” In some cases they can step in, but not always.

I was a councillor for 26 years and can well remember the odd time when a note was brought to the council saying that someone was to be given a pauper’s funeral in that section of the graveyard. It is unbelievably sad to sit in a chamber when a name comes up and to think, “There must be some family or someone who knows them.” All of a sudden, they are in the paupers’ section. It is a very cheap funeral, but it is unbelievably sad that there is no one to claim the body and, worst still, that no one can afford to claim it.

My office regularly fills in forms, as lots of people come along for help and assistance. They are asked who their next of kin is, and there may be three or four children. Who is on benefits? If three are and one is not, that means they will not get any help. The person who passed away may have four children or two children, whatever the case may be, and then somebody will come along and say they are estranged from their mum and have not spoken to her for many years, but they have to prove that. It is a very complex system. This is not something that any compassionate person would like to see.

In my opinion, unless there is reform of the scheme, as my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East has referred to, we will see many more people put into the unmarked sections of council graveyards, as it used to be in days gone by. There will be even more people getting themselves into massive debt using extortionate lenders, and then the desperation takes over. I am not being dramatic in saying this. The cost to councils and health trusts of paupers’ funerals in Northern Ireland has risen by almost 50% between 2010 and 2015. More than £180,000 has been spent in Northern Ireland since 2008 on funerals for people who die alone or without relatives able or willing to pay. Health trusts and councils have carried out about 90 funerals since 2008, and in 2013-14—the most recent period with the most complete statistics—around £32,600 was spent. The figure is about 46% more than the £22,200 recorded in 2008-09. However, spending fell a wee bit, to £25,500, in 2014-15.

Across the UK, the cost to councils of paupers’ funerals has risen, as the Minister will know, by almost 30% to £1.7 million in the past four years, whereas the number of funerals has also risen by 11%. It shows the dire situation that people are in that they would allow a loved one’s body to remain unclaimed for two weeks in a morgue and then allow them to be cremated or buried in the paupers’ section. My hon. Friend referred to the £700 of state help available, but a no-frills funeral today costs £3,700.

I will conclude with these comments. A quick browse online on the likes of Macmillan Cancer Support, CLIC Sargent or other websites makes it very clear that people cannot rely on a grant to help them with the cost of a funeral. CLIC Sargent’s website says:

“We can’t give full details and exclusions here, so please don’t take it for granted that you will get everything listed above”,

and refers to “necessary” or “reasonable” costs. It also states:

“Many people find that the Funeral Payment doesn’t cover all the costs”—

that is very clear—and that it

“can also be reduced by the value of some of your child’s estate…It is important to remember that if you do receive a funeral payment, it may not cover all the funeral costs.”

That is aimed at grieving parents. Surely there is a better way that we can handle this. Therefore, I support a simplified approach, as my hon. Friend and colleague said. I also believe that the amount available must be uplifted to recognise the changing times we live in.