Personal Independence Payments

Debate between Jim Shannon and Mark Lazarowicz

Wednesday 21st January 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) on securing the debate, which is certainly timely. Like other Members, I was impelled to come to the debate by the experience I have had in my constituency surgery, where I have seen case after case, week after week, of people suffering from delays in PIP assessments, with all the difficulties that arise from that.

In passing, I should say that I am surprised that there are no Members from the Government parties in the debate. I am not one of those MPs who jump to conclusions as to why Members are not present in debates, or who accuse them of base motives, but it is hard to believe that no constituencies represented by Conservatives or Liberal Democrats have similar problems. I will charitably assume that Government Members have raised these issues with Ministers—I am sure they have—and that they are too embarrassed to come along today because they know they cannot defend the delays and the chaos, and because they would have to mention the types of experience that we have had in our constituencies. People have certainly had a bad experience, and the Government need to address that much more directly and seriously.

[Jim Shannon]

Perhaps they are away campaigning.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Perhaps they are. If they are, perhaps they will hear from people on the doorsteps about some of the problems the Government’s policies are causing.

Like all Members here today, I have a fat file of cases, and if I were to read out all of them I would take up all the time available to me. However, I want to highlight three cases that demonstrate some of the wider problems affecting the system. The first is that of a constituent who wrote to me just before Christmas, saying:

“I am currently a student nurse who works part time as a chef. As a result of my PIP assessment waiting time I have been forced to sell my house and am unable to claim housing benefits to help towards my rent.

I am epileptic and am unable to work more hours to make ends meet. I am already far into my overdraft and I have been told I have to wait around 26 weeks for my assessment.”

Obviously, I took up that case, and things were moved forward a little. However, that is an example of how people’s lives are being turned upside down by the delays all of us experience in the system up and down the country.

Another case, which is quite interesting for a reason that will become apparent, involves a constituent who told me that he had made a claim for PIP in February 2014, following a heart attack in November 2013. In January this year, he told me that a decision had still not been made on his application. He is on a heart transplant list. In the meantime, he has a pacemaker, which is due to be replaced in Glasgow, but he is worried that he will not be able to meet the travel costs for hospital appointments. Again, that is an indication that financial costs and difficulties lead to other stresses and difficulties for those who suffer under this process.

I refer to that case because it illustrates the delays that affect so many people. The response I received from the DWP when I took up the case with the complaints resolution service was interesting. I have to say that DWP staff are normally very helpful when I get in touch with them, and they try to move cases forward, and the same is true of the Minister and his office. However, the reply I got from DWP staff said there had been some issues at the beginning of the case because there were not always up-to-date address details for the constituent—I do not have enough details to know whether the delay could be ascribed to the DWP, my constituent or Atos. In any event, I was told that the uncertainty

“resulted in the request for an assessment”—

presumably by the DWP—

“only being made on 3 October 2014. Although it was a little early for us to try and push for an appointment I got in touch with Atos”.

I was then told that a home consultation had been booked for 4 February.

As to the comment that

“it was a little early for us to try and push”

for an assessment, here was a case where somebody applied in February and, for whatever reasons, there was some delay in the process; but someone in the DWP felt that they had to allow it to go on a bit longer, no doubt because they knew that there were so many cases that they could not just press for an assessment. When an assessment was finally allocated, it was only at the end of a 16-week period, which as we know is the Government target.

The third case that I want to refer to highlights the difficulties of a constituent who was previously on the higher rate of the care component of DLA, but did not have the mobility component. He applied for PIP on 14 March 2013, and he was finally awarded it on 25 September 2014, about 18 months later. He was awarded the higher rate of both components of PIP, including the mobility component, but of course the higher rate could not be backdated by more than 28 days. We see such situations time and again, of course, and that shows the problems with the system. The idea that if someone gets the higher rate it is not backdated, but if they get the lower one they do not get money taken off them, sounds fair—at least, it sounds a simple approach to delays. However, surely no one can think it acceptable when people experience delays of not just 16 weeks but six months or a year.

The situation might not be particularly unfair if those assessed at the higher rate had it backdated but those assessed at the lower rate did not have their previous higher-rate payments taken away from them. We are not talking about large sums of money—well, we are talking about large sums of money, but not for the people receiving the benefits. That should be an incentive to the Government to get their act together and ensure that cases are dealt with more quickly, to prevent a situation in which someone assessed at a higher rate—in my example, for 18 months of the mobility component—is deprived of what they should have had over the relevant period because of delays that are no fault of theirs.

In that context, Paul Gray’s review is welcome. I think the limited scope of the recommendations disappointed many people, but that is not Mr Gray’s fault. It is the fault of his remit and the way he felt obliged to address the issue, given the time scale he was given and other factors such as the timing of the election. However, the fact that people are disappointed means that there is a need for a much more direct Government drive to deal, above all, with delays and associated problems. Let us not forget that the Government must take the blame for delays and failures.

Hon. Members will be aware of the damning report of the Public Accounts Committee. Its Chair said:

“The implementation of Personal Independence Payment has been nothing short of a fiasco. The Department of Work and Pensions has let down some of the most vulnerable people in our society, many of whom have had to wait more than 6 months for their claims to be decided.”

That is true. The Committee’s report said:

“Critical assumptions about the process were not fully tested and proved to be incorrect, resulting in significant delays to benefit decisions and a backlog of claims.”

That is a failure. It is a failure of Government, and the Government need to accept that responsibility.

We want, however, to deal with the problems. I am sure that we all want much more comprehensive action to deal with the delays that affect so many people. The present arrangement, whereby higher awards are not backdated beyond 28 days, needs to be replaced with backdating to the time when the application was submitted. I am sure that other hon. Members have received a briefing from Leonard Cheshire Disability, as I have, urging the Government to consider providing financial help to those who are in difficulties precisely because of delays in dealing with their applications.

Many hon. Members will be aware of a current and well-known campaign in Scotland led by Gordon Aikman—I am sure that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) is aware of it. Gordon Aikman is suffering from motor neurone disease and is using the last few months of his life to campaign for better treatment for sufferers in many areas. One of the issues that he has raised is the fact that delay in assessment has a particularly serious effect on those whose condition is terminal, but whose prognosis is not that they will die within six months. Someone whose life expectancy is six months or less will be given an accelerated assessment, but I understand that the average prognosis for people with MND is 14 months, and those people are not given an accelerated assessment. However, it is clearly unacceptable that they should wait a year or so. The Minister should look at providing an accelerated assessment process for people whose prognosis includes limited life expectancy.

Leonard Cheshire Disability also proposes a general halt to further plans to extend benefits to more people until the assessment system is fit for purpose. That seems sensible to me, and it brings me to my final point, which is about the implications of recommendations to devolve PIP to the Scottish Government and Parliament. As the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan pointed out, the Smith commission’s report included those recommendations, and it is widely known that the Government will put forward details of the next stage in that process on Thursday. I accept that the Minister may not be able to respond today with reference to an announcement due on Thursday, but I hope that he will recognise that it would be crazy to continue to roll out PIP in Scotland under the present arrangements, with all their difficulties, just when we are about to provide for full devolution of PIP to Scotland with the agreement of all the parties.

[Jim Shannon]

In the context of the devolution of welfare reform, it is important to look at other parts of the United Kingdom, such as Northern Ireland. Sometimes we should be careful what we wish for.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

That is an interesting point, but all the parties want devolution, and we will have to live with the consequences. I welcome the devolution of large elements of the welfare system to Scotland. I think it will be better for Scotland, for those on benefits there, and for the UK, but I hear what the hon. Gentleman says.

My final point is that, as has been pointed out, one difficulty in making a judgment about the failures of the PIP system is the lack of data about the extent of the problems and the length of time people must wait for assessments. As the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan pointed out, we get the tip of the iceberg in our constituency offices. We take up cases and hopefully get them moved forward, but of course people tend to come to us only when they have gone through every other avenue and have not been able to resolve their problems. I suspect that there are still people who are not even coming to MPs or to benefit advice centres, and they are probably suffering worse than those who come to us, whose problems we can at least try to resolve.

We need action from the Government, and answers. I would like a commitment from the Minister on the situation in Scotland. I hope that the Department will give a statement quickly after Thursday’s expected announcement, explaining how PIP roll-out will be carried out in Scotland as the Smith commission proposals go into their next stage of delivery, which we know all the parties want.

BMI Pension Fund Compensation

Debate between Jim Shannon and Mark Lazarowicz

Wednesday 17th December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I appreciate the opportunity to make a small contribution to the debate, Mr Sanders.

I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) for bringing this matter forward. He clearly set out the scene for us all. Hon. Members are here because our constituents have expressed concern. We are aware of people from Northern Ireland who are equally disadvantaged because of what has taken place. This debate is of the utmost importance, because it deals with people’s futures and livelihoods. These are the kinds of issues that Members of Parliament ought to deliberate upon.

In 2012, the parent group of British Airways and Iberia, International Airlines Group, struck a deal with Lufthansa, the then parent group of BMI, to buy the company. The attraction of BMI lay in its control of 9% of the valuable slots at London Heathrow. That sets the scene. The matter then became difficult, and BMI employees found themselves disadvantaged. Originally, they thought the deal was a good one, but it clearly turned out not to be.

The deal saw former BMI staff lose £177 million from their pensions, because it was structured so that IAG could avoid taking on BMI’s final salary pension scheme, which was placed into the Pension Protection Fund. I am deeply disappointed that the Pension Protection Fund has not been able to act strongly on behalf of BMI staff. When the Minister replies, she may wish to address that issue.

That arrangement meant that about 3,700 BMI staff and pilots lost at least 10% of their savings, as the PPF pays only 90% of a pension, up to a maximum of £27,000 a year. The hon. Gentleman gave the example of just one person, which shows the magnitude of the figures.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Perhaps I should explain that my understanding is that the Lufthansa compensation was graduated in such a way that those with the biggest pension losses got the least compensation. At the top end, only 10% or 20% of the losses were compensated for, and the rest was lost entirely. Those with long service suffered the worst.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his explanation, which helps to clarify the matter.

As a good-will gesture, Lufthansa agreed to pay £84 million in compensation, which staff were offered as a one-off cash payment or which could be added to a defined contribution pension scheme. However, staff were then informed that any cash payments would be taxed. Clearly, there is an issue there. Lufthansa was also advised that it would not have to pay national insurance on cash payments, even though members of the BMI pension scheme were not direct employees of the German airline.

Understandably, that has caused a lot of frustration among former BMI employees. As far as they are concerned, they worked for x years and paid x into a pension scheme, which they are now entitled to, but because of dealings between the parent companies, they are now to lose out. We are here for justice and fair play for our constituents and for those who have been disadvantaged.

At the time, BALPA, the pilot’s union, said:

“Pilots in bmi are rightly outraged that their pensions are to be significantly reduced. These pilots have invested their careers in this airline, and a large proportion of their salary in its pension scheme.”

That is how its members felt, and they still feel that way, because the issue has not been sorted out.

The BMI Pensions Action Group was set up to seek justice for employees who were disadvantaged by the company buy-over. When the possibility of BMI’s sale first arose in autumn 2011, BALPA sought assurances, and reassuring noises were made by Lufthansa, which said that there was nothing to worry about, and the UK Pensions Regulator said it had powers to hold companies to account. Members of the scheme received no communications after December 2011, when Lufthansa said it was going to retain the pension obligation. Those in the scheme were led to believe that they were okay, but they clearly were not.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman’s point is clear. It is disgraceful that those whom we represent have been treated shabbily, to use his terminology. Like the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith and my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), I ask the Minister to review the situation, because we are talking about 4,000 employees. The Government did that for Equitable Life, even though they said they could not. Members asked in Westminster Hall for that to happen—every one of us here today was probably here for Equitable Life’s members, and we are here today for the 4,000 BMI workers who have been disadvantaged.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

The Minister might be nervous about how much we are asking to be given away, and it might assist her if I say that the 4,000 is the figure for all the scheme members, some of whom will have been below the Pension Protection Fund cap. All the members have an interest, and they all deserve justice of course, but those who have been particularly badly hit are relatively few in number.

[Jim Shannon]

The Minister has been listening intently to Members’ interventions, and we know that she takes all the detail on board and responds. We look forward to her response, and we hope we can get answers to the questions we are asking. If we do, that would be good news.

The Sunday Telegraph said BMI pensioners are facing a “double whammy”. They have not only lost out on payments, but now face tax and national insurance payments on what should be straightforward compensation. That is completely unacceptable, and I am glad that we have the opportunity today to say that on behalf of our constituents and those who have contacted us.

We are dealing with people’s livelihoods in what are difficult financial times. As the hon. Gentleman suggested in his intervention, the figures involved are not substantial financially, but they have an impact on a great many people. In some way, these 4,000 people are disadvantaged. They have conscientiously paid into a pension scheme, only to be told that they will not get as much as they were initially promised or what they are due. To top it off, when they were actually offered cash payments, they were told those would be subject to tax. They were almost dragged into the system, but they then found themselves in a difficult position. We must work with the unions to resolve these issues, because these people are being treated unjustly. There are also implications for other pension schemes.

In conclusion, I implore the Minister to take on board the comments made by the right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken and those who will speak later. On behalf of my constituents and other constituents in Northern Ireland, I ask the Minister to review the situation and give scheme members the moneys they should be getting. That is what justice cries for, and that is what we wish to see.

Persecution of Christians

Debate between Jim Shannon and Mark Lazarowicz

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I think the rest of the debate will reflect that tone.

One hundred thousand Christians will be massacred this year because of their beliefs. Two hundred million Christians will be persecuted due to their faith. One and a half billion Christians live in what can be termed as dangerous neighbourhoods. That shows the magnitude of the problem of persecuted Christians.

There are Christians in the world today who cannot attend church as we do on Sunday and they cannot pray to God as we do—indeed, as we did before we started our business in this House today. There is an example of the importance of the Bible and our prayer time. These Christians cannot tell their friends that the Lord Jesus gave his life for them, and they cannot read their Bible as we read our Bible. They cannot carry out their own businesses; they cannot be involved in civic life; they face discrimination in education.

Let us go right across the world from North Korea, where it is estimated that some 100,000 Christians suffer in horrific prison camps, to Eritrea where 2,000 Christians are in jail for their beliefs and 31 died in custody last year. Then there are countries in which Christians are in a minority—Sudan and Somalia, for example, where they are pursued relentlessly. Christians are also persecuted in countries where they are of equal numbers, while in countries where Christians are in larger numbers or in a majority, they are subject to radical Muslim teaching and abuse, as exemplified in Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania. In Algeria, it is impossible to register church buildings or to legalise meetings.

In Africa, due to Islamic extremism, the persecution of Christians has increased significantly in 2012 and 2013, most notably in Mali, Tanzania, Ethiopia and Niger. Sharia family courts have been introduced, which ignore Christians and their beliefs. The north of Mali is similar to Saudi Arabia in that Christians are simply no longer allowed to be there or to practise their beliefs. In the Maldives, one cannot read one’s Bible; indeed, people are not allowed to have one. If people are caught reading their Bibles on holiday in that beautiful country, they will be arrested, jailed and deported. I hope you will think about that, Madam Deputy Speaker, the next time you decide to book a holiday to the Maldives.

In Sri Lanka, Christians are subject to persecution. In Burma, Christians and ethnic minorities are bombed by Government aircraft and attacked. It would be helpful to hear in the Minister’s response some indication of how those issues were presented at the Commonwealth summit and what response the Prime Minister got. I understand that he brought the issues to the attention of the people attending.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on raising this issue, which I know is a matter of concern to many of our constituents. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will, like myself, be opposed to the persecution or harassment of any faith group of whatever denomination. The fact is that Christians face persecution and harassment in more countries than any other faith group. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Commonwealth meeting. What we need, of course, is action internationally as well. What kind of action does he envisage would strengthen the international regime, international conventions and international agencies to try to stop such persecution and harassment happening?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We will discuss those aspects as the debate develops. There is clearly a role not just for this House, but for the Commonwealth, for the United Nations and for all the countries where persecution has taken place. They all have a clear role to play to help ease the pain of persecuted Christians. We should all try to achieve that.

Rising Cost of Transport

Debate between Jim Shannon and Mark Lazarowicz

Wednesday 9th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Let us leave aside the fact that there are not many operators in the field to bid. I am not saying that an individual operator is necessarily inefficient, but that the system as a whole leads to inefficiencies as well as to profits being paid out to private companies when they could be invested in the system.

I said that not all companies are inefficient. One example that showed the difficulties and negative effects of privatisation at their highest was the disaster of Railtrack, which was linked not just to private ownership and that company’s motivation in its operations but to the fragmentation of the operators and Railtrack’s distance from the train operating companies. That example also shows how some of the damage caused by privatisation began to be turned around. It is not a perfect organisation, but the publicly owned Network Rail has managed to repair some of the damage caused by fragmentation of the system and we have seen a safer railway network and better value for the taxpayer, for passengers and for other users of the rail network in the costs of maintaining the system.

[Jim Shannon]

One of the greatest burdens for people in employment is that 30% of their wages can go on travel. People are travelling further, too, to get jobs and employment. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that consideration has been given to those people who regularly use public transport, be it bus or rail, to get to work?

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Absolutely. That is an example of how increased rail fares damage people daily and effectively worsen their standard of living.

The most recent example of the damage caused by the privatised regime on the railways has been the fiasco of the west coast main line franchise. That fiasco is likely to land the Department for Transport—and therefore the taxpayer—with a bill for hundreds of millions of pounds, which could have been spent on improvements to routes, stations and rolling stock. In contrast, we have the experience of the east coast main line, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) referred earlier. Bringing the franchise into the public sector has been good business for the taxpayer and the directly operated company has brought money back into the public sector. In the last year, it has brought a premium of almost £200 million into the Department, which has gone back into the public sector rather than being siphoned off into a privately owned company.

The problem is that there is an inherent difficulty in the tendering system that operates on the railways under the privatisation scheme introduced by a previous Conservative Government. In order to bring about long-term investment and security, a Government will want to see long-term tenders, but the longer the tender the less reliable any prediction of future traffic and income can be. That leads to a risk of the tender becoming either a loss-maker, with the operator seeking to hand it back to the Government and to make them pick up the tab, or one in which excessive profits are reaped by the private operator. The system itself is at the heart of the problems with the railways and of the fact that money that could be used to benefit our passengers has unnecessarily flowed out of the rail system.

I want to concentrate on the east coast main line, which is of particular relevance to my constituency and to communities further south along the line. I urge the Government to drop the ideology and to choose the option that works and that will keep prices down for the traveller. They should keep the east coast line, which is successfully operated by Directly Operated Railways, in the public sector. I would rather that that was done on a permanent basis, but if the Government, for ideological reasons, are not prepared to do that, they should at least give the operators a long-term contract rather than leaving a sword of Damocles hanging over the company, the staff who work for it and the passengers and communities that rely on it.

The Government could also take the opportunity to allow Directly Operated Railways’ east coast line to be a genuine public sector comparator for the rest of the network. If the Government will insist on reprivatisation for the west coast main line, they should at least ensure that a public sector bid can be put on the table as a comparator against which we can judge which provides best value for money for the taxpayer and the best services for the passenger. That is the way forward. Let us start putting passengers first and make sure that they get the benefit of investment rather than the companies, which have taken too much out of the railways for too long since privatisation was introduced by a previous Conservative Government.