Employment and Support Allowance Application

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2014 Westminster Hall

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in this short debate on the employment and support allowance application process for those with mental health problems, Mrs Main. We may be a small, select company this afternoon, but I am sure that I am not the only MP to have seen over the past couple of years a steady and increasing stream of people with quite serious mental illnesses falling through our social safety net, which is now very frayed because of welfare reforms. Despite modifications, the work capability assessment is still failing too many people.

It goes without saying that most people with a mental illness will never need to depend on the benefits system, but some of those with more severe or persistent illnesses do require support, and some of them are extremely vulnerable. In the time we have for this debate, I want to focus on the shortcomings of work capability assessments with regard to mental health conditions and make some concrete suggestions about how the process might be improved.

The issue is by no means new. Ever since the introduction of the work capability assessment, mental health care professionals and representative organisations have expressed concerns that it does not capture the impact of more serious mental illnesses on a person’s capacity to function in a working environment and consequently leads to poor decision making. A core problem is that too often assessors and decision makers have little or no relevant background information about claimants’ complex medical histories and too rarely seek input or opinions from claimants’ clinicians.

The problems were clearly acknowledged at the time of the first Harrington review, when Professor Harrington said that decision makers should be

“able to seek appropriate chosen healthcare professional advice”.

In his third review, he recommended that they

“should actively consider the need to seek further documentary evidence in every claimant’s case”.

The fourth review, led by Paul Litchfield, devoted significant attention to the assessment of mental function and made a number of recommendations, some of which the Government have accepted. However, the Royal College of Psychiatrists said this week that

“there is little evidence of any significant increase in the collection of evidence by either ATOS HCPs or DWP Decision Makers.”

The issue is not going away; indeed, it is being compounded by the new Department for Work and Pensions sanctions regime, which is having an acute effect on people with mental health conditions. According to a freedom of information request, in 2013, 58%—almost six out of 10—ESA claimants sanctioned were people with a mental health condition or learning difficulty. That is an increase from 35% of sanctioned claimants in 2009, and it suggests that people with mental health problems are being inappropriately sanctioned.

There is a growing body of evidence from a range of sources that, in spite of the changes that have been implemented along the way, the work capability assessment is still failing people with serious mental health problems. However, I want to highlight the report published recently by the Scottish Association for Mental Health, or SAMH, which details findings on how experiences of living in poverty affect peoples’ mental health, and how SAMH service users have been affected by welfare reforms.

SAMH has been a leading mental health charity in Scotland for many decades and works directly with thousands of people across the country, helping them to recover from mental illness and offering support and training. It also works to improve policy and practice in relation to mental health, reduce stigma, raise awareness and promote well-being. SAMH undertook a major survey of its service users in 2013. The truly shocking finding was that 98% of respondents said that welfare reforms were negatively affecting their mental health, including increasing stress and anxiety, while 79% were also facing financial problems. Of SAMH staff, 85% said that they were having to provide additional support to service users as a direct result of the welfare reforms, and, in six cases, SAMH staff had to carry out suicide interventions directly related to welfare reforms.

I know that the Minister will be well aware of the tragic case of a woman known as Ms DE, whose suicide in 2011 was the subject of an investigation by the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland. Ms DE took her own life after scoring zero points in a work capability assessment made in the absence of an ESA50 form and without any additional information from her clinicians. The only information her assessor had about her condition was the single word “depression”, a word that in her case masked a long and difficult psychiatric history. Both her general practitioner and consultant psychiatrist considered Ms DE unfit for work at the time of her death, even though she had worked for most of her adult life. Indeed, the significant event review after her death noted that

“Ms DE was hoping to return to employment at some point.”

However, it also noted the distress caused by her benefits assessment and the role that it may have played in her suicide, concluding that there was “no other known trigger”.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, and for her permission to make an intervention. Just this week my office has dealt with two ESA appeals and four inquiries on the subject. Each one of those six cases relates to addiction or mental health problems. I am very aware of the far-reaching impact that the process has on people, which the hon. Lady outlined. Does she agree—she probably will—that if there is no compassion and understanding in the system, as there seems not to be, many other people will come to the same point as the lady whose case she is describing?

[Dr Whiteford]

I think that is right. On reading the evidence produced by organisations that support people with mental health problems, it is very clear that the increased anxiety and stress can contribute to ill health and make people more ill than they were to start with.

The report makes upsetting reading, and we should all express condolences to the unnamed woman’s family. Her death is a sobering reminder to all of us of the very real impact that Government decisions and state bureaucracies have on people’s lives. However, I was also struck by the very robust terms in which the Mental Welfare Commission, a statutory body, questioned the effectiveness and appropriateness of the work capability assessment and how it was working. As part of its investigation, the Mental Welfare Commission conducted a survey of responsible medical officers working in health boards across Scotland, most of whom are consultant psychiatrists, and 80% of respondents had patients who had undergone work capability assessments. Of those 80%, most had been asked to provide medical evidence, either before or after the assessments. However, three quarters had never been asked for their opinion at any point in the Atos or DWP process. Only 25% had had a request—some before the assessment, some after—and 96% said that their patients had been distressed by the assessment process; 93% reported patients distressed at the outcome of an assessment; and 80% reported patients who had successfully appealed decisions.

What also gave me great cause for concern was the impact on clinical care provision: 85% of the RMOs reported an increased frequency of appointments; 65% had had at least one patient who required an increased dose of medication; 35% had at least one patient who had been admitted to hospital as a consequence of a work capability assessment; 40% had at least one patient who had self-harmed after the assessment; 13% reported that a patient had attempted suicide; and two psychiatrists reported patients actually taking their own lives. In the light of the anecdotal evidence from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I can say that various sources show that this is not just hearsay; evidence is coming from reliable and credible people who are involved in the process, and who understand that the systems are having real and difficult consequences for people.

It is critical that greater use of expertise is drawn into the assessment process for claimants with mental health conditions. I acknowledge the conclusions of the Litchfield review on this point, which were that it may not be necessary in every case, but there seems to be an enormous gulf between a universal approach and current practice. It is a chasm into which large numbers of very ill and vulnerable people seem to be falling. SAMH found that 56% of its service users did not receive any supporting information from a health care professional in their ESA application, which, in the wake of the tragedies we have heard about, should shake us out of any sense of complacency that we are doing enough.

The DWP’s most recent quarterly statistical bulletin, published in March, outlined the total caseload to date. With regard to completed claims, 52% of people who made new applications for ESA on the grounds of mental or behavioural disorders were found fit for work, so the high numbers of people awarded ESA on grounds of mental ill health represent less than half of applications made because of these conditions. Too many people are falling through cracks in the assessment process. I have alluded to the increased pressure that this creates in the NHS, but it also brings attendant costs in social care, policing and homelessness, which outstrip the cost savings that the DWP might be making.

Throughout the work of the Harrington and Litchfield reviews, there is an implicit acknowledgment that the work capability assessment is not working as it should and not working well enough for people with mental health problems. My request to the Minister today is simple: will he meet me and representatives of SAMH to discuss some of the ways in which the recommended improvements might be integrated into the work capability assessment?

I know some changes have been instigated since 2010, and I note Professor Harrington’s evidence-based review of December 2013, which considered whether a more specialised test developed with disability organisations might be more effective. Although that test was found to be less effective than the work capability assessment in determining fitness for work, it proved more effective in determining limited capability for work. Lessons could be learned from the scoring approach used in each assessment, so I want to ask the Minister whether he can provide an update on how the Government are using those insights to improve the work capability assessment.

It was announced in March that Atos Healthcare will leave its contract early, with new contractors commencing in 2015. The renegotiation of the contract presents an ideal opportunity for the DWP to reconsider how the right information and expert opinions can be brought into the assessment and decision-making processes. SAMH is of the view that claimants should be asked at the beginning of their application to nominate relevant health care professionals to provide supporting statements. That would significantly reduce the stress on individuals, improve input from professionals, and, we have to conclude, lead to better decisions the first time round, reducing the need for costly and stressful appeals. With the DWP in the process of reviewing and updating its contract, surely this is a prime opportunity—the ideal moment—to introduce a process by which the statements could be secured. What practical steps might the Minister take to move this forward?

Lastly, the SAMH report highlights the increased stress and anxiety for claimants who face lengthy waits for assessments, often have to live on a reduced income, and fear that they will not get a fair assessment. That has come out in the past few years as people see what happens to those in their support groups and social networks, who have come through the system and feel that the assessment concentrated on their physical health, not their mental health. Sometimes their physical symptoms can be connected to their mental health problems, but they are often more easy to cope with in day-to-day life than the debilitating effects of mental illness.

The reduction in support services as a result of austerity cuts has left some very unwell people unsupported. The DWP could minimise such distress by providing clear, accessible information to applicants at the outset of the process, signposting them to organisations that can provide advice on welfare rights, finances and well-being, and setting out the process by which health care professionals can be contacted regarding supporting statements.

[Jim Shannon]

Problems have come to my attention relating to correspondence with those who have mental health issues. Often, correspondence is mislaid or inappropriately addressed, which means that people with mental health issues are not aware of the process and how they should respond to it. The Minister always responds positively to the issues, but does the hon. Lady feel that one of the things that could be done better, when dealing with people with addiction and mental health issues, is ensuring a follow-up whenever responses are not made directly to the Department?

[Dr Whiteford]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. Indeed, that was one of the key recommendations of the report by the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland in the case of Ms DE. Attempts had been made to contact her, but there were no repeat attempts and no one managed to get hold of her. It is easy to envisage somebody who is suffering from severe depression not answering the phone and not opening the mail in the way that someone in a healthier situation was more able and minded to. Those points have been well made, and I am sure that the Minister is already cognisant of them, but I will be interested in his response on the process, particularly in the DWP, going forward.

Relatively small steps could have a marked impact on people’s lives, and could help ensure that the process does not actively contribute to people’s mental health problems, but helps set them on the road to recovery. Will the Minister consider what he can do in terms of signposting, explaining to people their rights in the process, and making sure that we are not making things worse for people who are already very ill? It is in everyone’s interests to achieve a work capability assessment that is fit for purpose. I hope that the Minister will take the time to read the SAMH report and hear the perspectives of those with most at stake in the process and who badly need our support, and I hope he will meet us in the not-too-distant future.

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

In the short time that I have before we go to vote—I will continue when we come back—may I congratulate the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) on securing this debate on a very important issue? In the short period that I have been the Minister in the Department, the issue has occupied a huge amount of my time, not least because, like many families in this country, my family has been touched by mental health issues, including depression, so I understand the issues very well. Even if I do not agree with all the hon. Lady’s comments, I know that they were heartfelt.

Some of the things that we are trying to do aim to get to the core of how we can deliver a service that is fit for purpose—I often use this term—in both ways. I have met so many people with mental health illness who want to work. A lot of them, particularly those with depression, tell me that their conditions, which some of them have had since long before I became a Member of Parliament, have got worse because they have not had assistance to go to work. They want to be part of the community and want to feel as if they are contributing; they do not necessarily want to be on benefits—something that a lot of them find difficult. Of course, the job of the welfare system is to enable people to be looked after when they cannot fulfil their financial needs and have to deal with certain health requirements.

The hon. Lady asked me if I would meet her. By all means; my door is always open. Anybody who knows me, knows that. That is the way I am. I have met numerous stakeholders in the area of mental health since I came to office.

Although we have moved to a degree, there is always more work to be done. As I said to the hon. Lady before the debate, I am somewhat restricted in what I can do in the Department today, because I have a judicial review running in this area and cannot implement some of Harrington’s third review, though I would like to, let alone do some of the work that we would like to do in respect of Litchfield. I had a meeting earlier today about how to do that.

I agree with the hon. Lady: small things can be done that would have a dramatic effect on the big picture. I am minded to look carefully at whether we can have advocates, whom I think the hon. Lady mentioned, for not only people with mental health issues, but those with learning difficulties—we do this now—and people with hidden disabilities. As she rightly said, there is often a multitude of disabilities, some obvious and others less obvious. Often, more difficulties arise in respect of the ones that we cannot see.

The hon. Lady mentioned that I have negotiated with my officials that Atos will leave the work capability assessment contract. She will be pleased to know that the new contractors will be in this year, not in 2015, and that they will initially run in parallel with Atos and the Atos software, not least because if we stopped today and brought a new contractor in tomorrow, some serious problems would come out of the other side of that. If she thinks there is confusion with the system now, she can trust me on that.

What Harrington and Litchfield touched on is the fact that the system is not broken, but can operate better. Some hon. Members fundamentally disagree with work capability assessment; I do not, although it is not perfect. The previous Administration brought WCA in. It is important that specialists consider whether an individual is capable of doing some type of work, and that they are not the person—not, say, the GP—who sees the individual on a daily basis and has a personal relationship with them.

The hon. Lady made the crucial point that clinical evidence from specialists must be there and available when decisions are made. That is where a lot of the work needs to be done. We already extend the period for people with mental health problems beyond the normal period, while we are waiting for the ESA50 to come back, because we understand the rationale for that. We also have to understand that the filling in of forms and the commentary that needs to be given to officials, whether from Atos or the new contractor, is vital. We need to get as much information as possible—not least, as the hon. Lady said, so that we do not get into an appeal and tribunal situation when that is unnecessary.

Evidence in respect of changes that I have made in the past couple of months clearly shows that fewer people are appealing their WCA than did a year ago. We will release more evidence on that. A lot of that is because we are, for want of a better phrase, getting it right and making it better. We need to do more work on hidden disabilities, and mental health is one of those.

I do not get quite the numbers at my surgery that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned, but people do come to see me and, I think, other hon. Members on the subject. Anyone with an ounce of compassion in them will understand the issues and concerns that these people come to them with. I stress that it is not just about ensuring that a person gets the financial benefit that they need; it is about ensuring that they get the help they need, whether from the mental health side of the health service or from clinicians, and that they get assistance to get back into the workplace.

I reiterate that I am more than happy to work with not only the hon. Lady and SAMH, but all the groups, which are working much more closely with us now. Of course, I would prefer to have the judicial review addressed and done as soon as possible, so that we can not only hear the ruling, but move on with pilots for some of the ideas in the report. I will be perfectly honest and say that I have read the report summary but not the report in its entirety—it is a detailed report—but I assure the hon. Lady that it landed on my desk almost before it was in print.

This is an important issue, and it is important that we get it right; the Government are determined to get it right. It will never be perfect, because of the issues and the complexity that we are dealing with, but as long as I am the Minister, making sure that we address the issues will be at the top of my list.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mike Penning]

I have sat down, so it is up to the Chair.

amendment of the law

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

As the last Back Bencher to be called to speak in the debate, I am reminded of that biblical verse, “The first shall be last, the last shall be first”. I am more than pleased to make a contribution.

There are many things in the Budget that we should be applauding. Some of the good things include the reduction in air passenger duty, the changes to pensions and to corporation tax, the fact that unemployment is down and the £21 million for potholes in Northern Ireland.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

Although we welcome the reduction in APD that is recommended, it is important to remember that my constituency’s international airport competes with Dublin airport, which has no APD, whereas ours is still significant. I therefore want the Government to go further than they propose in this Budget.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend and colleague for that intervention. He outlines the fact that although we have seen a lot of movement, we need to see more. It is always good to see such movement happening.

I also applaud the introduction of the married couples transferable tax allowance, which was in the Conservative manifesto and which the Democratic Unionist party has supported. I suspect that we may be the only party on the Opposition Benches that has done so, but we have, and we put that on record. The perplexing thing about it is that there is to be no child care element for those in the middle band, while a child care element is in place for the lower and higher bands. My party will continue to push for that, and I hope that we get some concessions. Having liaised with various bodies about the Budget, I would like to highlight a few issues, most of which are important health issues. On tobacco and alcohol duty, Professor Sheila Hollins, chair of the British Medical Association board of science, has said:

“The Government is giving with one hand and taking with another, with a step forward on measures to reduce smoking but backward on tackling alcohol related harm.”

I understand her viewpoint. The extension of the tobacco tax escalator is certainly welcome from a health perspective, as it will reduce the affordability of cigarettes, which is an essential component in deterring children from taking up smoking. That is the greatest concern. However, while Cancer Research UK welcomes the extension of the 2% above inflation annual tobacco tax rise for the whole of the next Parliament, it has been suggested to me that a one-off increase of 5% above inflation in this Budget would lead to a fall in the number of smokers by 334,000, or 0.7 percentage points. How can we go against those figures supplied by Cancer Research? That is a measure that should have been introduced.

Furthermore, Cancer Research suggests that considerable benefits would accrue to the public finances from a reduction in smoking—a total of £199 million in the first year and more than £1 billion over the next five years —never mind the direct health and disease reduction benefits. Perhaps a way of achieving that would have been to narrow the price gap between manufactured cigarettes and hand-rolling tobacco. I am aware that a submission to the Treasury in advance of the Budget by Action on Smoking and Health and the UK Centre for Tobacco Control Studies, endorsed by 80 health organisations including Cancer Research UK, urged the Chancellor to increase the tobacco tax escalator to 5% above inflation in order to reduce smoking, while at the same time raising much-needed revenue, and I again press the Government to consider that for the future. Perhaps the Minister can tell us when that might happen or what the Government’s intentions are.

I use this opportunity to ask the Government to continue to prioritise tackling tobacco and urge that we press ahead with standardised packaging once the independent review of the public health evidence has concluded.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

It has been advocated for some time that we should consider a minimum price for alcohol, which in the long term will have an effect on liver disease or whatever. Surely a lot of money could be saved if that was introduced.

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend must have read my notes. I slipped out for a while so I suspect that he had a look at them.

[Mr Jeremy Browne]

Will the hon. Gentleman consider the alternative perspective from a personal liberty viewpoint? People can decide for themselves how much they wish to drink. The hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) identified households’ problems with affording their budgets. Is it a good idea to penalise poorer people by making alcohol more expensive for them to buy?

[Jim Shannon]

As I said, there is a health issue to be addressed and whether we like it not, we have to do that. I am an advocate of using whatever we can within the health process to do so. The scrapping of the alcohol duty escalator and the reduction in beer duty, coupled with the Government’s U-turn on plans to introduce a minimum unit price, show that the Government have abandoned any serious efforts to tackle alcohol-related harm, which cost £20 billion in England alone last year, £2 billion of which was on health care. We cannot ignore those figures because people are involved and they are clearly affected. We will continue to call on the Government to introduce a minimum unit price because we know that minimum pricing reduces alcohol-related harm among the heaviest drinkers while leaving responsible drinkers largely unaffected.

In debates on the Care Bill, I, along with many others, raised the issue of free social care at the end of life. It would be inappropriate to go into everything that was outlined during those debates, but the key statistic is that the quality, innovation, productivity and prevention —QIPP—data suggest that net savings of £958 could be made for every person who dies in the community rather than in hospital. Health Ministers support such a move, but I would appreciate it if the Treasury, which has not yet made its stance clear in the Budget, indicated its intentions on the matter for future reference.

Finally, I wish to highlight issues in relation to the welfare spending cap. For many people, the financial impact of cancer is a major issue, as they face a loss of income as well as having to cope with additional costs. Research commissioned by Macmillan Cancer Support has found that 83% lose an average of £570 a month, which is comparable to the average monthly mortgage payment in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is, therefore, no surprise that people calling the Macmillan helpline are 25 times more likely to seek help with financial issues than with end-of-life issues. Although in many cases they are dying, they are more concerned about their finances and the position for their families. That is what Macmillan Cancer Support says, and it is important that that matter is dealt with. Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury clarify and explain how the Government intend to ensure that the cap on welfare spending does not impact negatively on people with cancer? The welfare system provides thousands of cancer patients with a financial lifeline at a time when they most need it, and spending should be determined in no other way.

There are many other issues that I should like to raise, but I shall express great disappointment at not seeing a drop in fuel tax for Northern Ireland, which has the highest fuel costs in the United Kingdom. I represent a rural area, and there are many Members in the Chamber who are not from Northern Ireland but are from rural areas, who would make the point that the impact of fuel costs is greater in rural communities than anywhere else. My colleagues who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland would all adhere to that statement. We would like a reduction in fuel tax and a pilot scheme for Northern Ireland. I understand that there is such a scheme for Mid and South Down, and it should be extended to the whole of Northern Ireland, because we deserve that opportunity. Perhaps we will see that in future.

We must have a Budget that helps to reduce our outgoings, but that should not be done at the expense of our health service and vulnerable people. Macmillan Cancer Support, Cancer Research UK and the British Medical Association have all outlined suggestions for saving money that can benefit those most in need, and again I suggest that the Chief Secretary and Chancellor give that serious consideration.

In conclusion, I give this Budget the grade that I often saw in my school reports, “C-plus, Chancellor: easily distracted; could do much better.”

Atos

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Williams]

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

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

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

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

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

[Mr Williams]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Williams]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jim Shannon]

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

[Mr Williams]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jim Shannon]

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

[Mike Penning]

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

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

Mesothelioma Bill [Lords]

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

I thank my hon. Friend.

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

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

[Jim Shannon]

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

[Sammy Wilson]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

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

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

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

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

Food Banks

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

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

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

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

[Sir Tony Baldry]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen]

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

[Jim Shannon]

rose—

[Mr MacNeil]

rose—

Ford and Visteon UK Ltd

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2013 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

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

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

[Geraint Davies]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Universal Credit

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

[Mr Duncan Smith]

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

Housing Benefit

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

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

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

[Nic Dakin]

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

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

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

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

Women’s Pensions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

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

[Mr McKenzie]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jim Shannon]

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

[Steve Webb]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Webb]

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

[Jim Shannon]

rose—

[Steve Webb]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Disabled People

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bain]

rose—

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Fiona O’Donnell]

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

[Jim Shannon]

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