Personal Independence Payments

Debate between Jim Shannon and Sheila Gilmore

Tuesday 25th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[Sheila Gilmore]

People in that situation find it very hard to deal with that problem.

[Jim Shannon]

That is a very interesting point. Under the old DLA system, going back two or three years, there was an enablement provision. If a person’s condition got worse, that could be taken into consideration in their application and the appeal process, but now it cannot. Does the hon. Lady feel that the Minister should respond to that point?

[Sheila Gilmore]

That is a very interesting point, and I hope the Minister will give us some details on it.

The other group who seem to suffer less from long delays are those who are undergoing reassessment. If a person asks for a reassessment because their circumstances have deteriorated, previously they would have reported that change to receive DLA, but now they must make an application for personal independence payment. They will receive DLA even if there is a long delay, but if they are entitled to a higher rate of DLA, it will not be backdated under the new system. They do not have no money during that period to help them with the needs that their disability or illness brings, but they do not benefit from the increase. If it takes six, seven or eight months for their DLA reassessment to become PIP and they are eligible for a higher reward, it will not be backdated, even if their condition has clearly deteriorated —and they would not have made the application if it had not.

If the process were working smoothly and quickly, that might not matter. Perhaps at the outset it was thought that there would be no need for backdating because the process would be quick. People would be reassessed and would get the new benefit or not, but at least they would not be waiting for months with a much worse condition. If the claiming process is to be this long permanently—I certainly hope not; the Minister can tell us if it is—perhaps he should look again at that.

I am concerned about another aspect of the way that PIP is processed: there seems to be a substantial variation across regions. I hope that the Minister is at least looking at that issue and monitoring it. I find it hard to understand why, among new claims—but not those relating to special circumstances, i.e. terminal cases—the award rate varies so much; it is as low as 25% in Ealing Southall, but it is 63% in Kilmarnock and Loudon. Perhaps Kilmarnock and Loudon residents are substantially less well, and more disabled, than those of Ealing Southall, but the disparity seems substantial.

The published statistics, the most recent of which bring us to, I think, September, show quite wide variation both in the number and proportion of cases that have reached clearance—meaning a decision, whether positive or adverse, for the claimant—and in award rates. That variation may be explicable, and not a matter for concern, but it would be helpful to know that the Department is monitoring those things and will report on them in due course. The rates will never be identical; areas differ, and there are some where endemic ill health has been a serious problem. That is why the number of people in receipt of employment and support allowance and DLA has been higher in some areas than others; I do not have a particular problem with that.

The question is why an award rate should vary so much and be so low in some places. Presumably people apply only if they have an illness or condition. They will read the forms. Unless it is suggested that in some areas an awful lot of people with no real prospect of success apply, and that that explains the low award rate, the variation seems somewhat baffling. The number of applications varies considerably, as one would expect. One of the examples I gave was Ealing Southall, where the award rate is 25%. There were 660 normal registrations there, not made under special rules. In Kilmarnock and Loudon there were 980 registrations, and in Knowsley there were 1,780 registrations, with a 52% award rate.

Our questions are not only about the length of time being taken, although that is the major issue that most of us have had to deal with. They are also about other aspects of the way the new benefit works: how it compares with the previous situation, which people perhaps do not receive an award, and what the circumstances are. Owing to the length of time being taken, it is still quite early to know how many people are successful on appeal, and to judge the efficacy of the assessment process. From my experience with constituents, it appears that the assessment process, when they get to it, evokes fewer complaints than before, although someone recently came to tell me that their assessment took only 20 minutes, after which they received an adverse decision. That person had been profoundly deaf for some considerable time, so I was slightly baffled.

I hope that in the rush to solve the problem of longer assessment periods and to speed the process up we shall not lose some of the possible advantages of the new system—a more thorough assessment process that would obviously be better for people in the longer term.

Separated Families Initiative

Debate between Jim Shannon and Sheila Gilmore

Tuesday 21st October 2014 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman wholeheartedly. There are unfortunately occasions on which one parent is restricted from visiting, as he will know, because of circumstances in their past—so it does happen, although there are exceptions—but by and large, for 99.9% of cases, I wholeheartedly agree.

It is important to consider not just divorce, but separation and conflict within families. The evidence proves that stable homes, where the family enjoy good relations, have a far better impact on children and adolescents than homes where that is not the case. For example, children growing up with parents who have good-quality relationships and where parental conflict is low—whether the parents are a couple or are separated partners—enjoy better physical and mental health and better emotional well-being, and sometimes higher academic attainment and a lower likelihood of engaging in what I would refer to as risky behaviours. At the same time, evidence shows associations between parental relationship breakdown and child poverty, behavioural problems and emotional health problems, as well as an increased risk of the children’s own relationships breaking down. Very often, when the partnership between a man and woman breaks down, the children and the effect on them go unseen, but the children are the ones I see when people come to my office.

Arguments over money rank as the No. 1 source of conflict in relationships. When parents break up, arguments over money continue, only this time as legal arguments through the courts. Research by Relate shows that the couples who were worst affected by the recession were eight times as likely to suffer relationship breakdown. I note that the Prime Minister himself has indicated that the budget for relationship counselling is to be doubled to £19.5 million. Perhaps that is an indication of the Government’s commitment to trying to address this issue. Will the Minister say how the money will be distributed and whether there are areas in the country with greater problems than others?

Wages remain stagnant and the price of living continues to rise, particularly for the thousands of families in the UK facing mortgage repayment issues, negative equity and the need to provide for children. Financial hardship is difficult to escape, so I cannot say I find the statistic I have quoted particularly surprising. Again, it underlines the issue of how the system can work best for the children and the separated partners.

Money continues to be an issue even if separation occurs. For example, statistics show that children in single-parent families are twice as likely as children in couple families to live in relative poverty. Over four in 10 children in single-parent families—some 43%—are poor, compared with just over two in 10, or 22%, of children in couple families. Again, that is an indication of the problems we have.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I am glad the hon. Gentleman has raised the issue of the poverty of many separated families, particularly those with the main care of the children, as I mentioned. Is it not particularly important that financial arrangements are put in place and are secure? The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham talked about parental alienation, but money can be used as a bargaining tool as well. If arrangements are too informal, is there not a risk that that will happen?

[Jim Shannon]

That is very much the case. In my constituency, many partners came to an agreement before the legislative change. In many cases that has worked, but in others, money becomes another weapon in the armoury to create division or a reason to hit back at the other person and restrict access. I know of such examples, and there were some from other parts of the country in the Library information pack—I have not cornered the market in those examples. For example, the male partner in the relationship might have a job but then decide to go self-employed, and then when he makes his books up at the end of the year, they show a much lower income than he actually has. I cannot prove emphatically that he is making x amount, but we can always judge what someone is making by the car they drive, the house that they live in or their lifestyle—for example, do they eat out? Sometimes people are quite clearly living a lifestyle that does not accord with their tax returns—that could be worth looking into. The hon. Lady is absolutely right: money becomes a bargaining tool. Some people try to make it work and others do not; it is those others who we are trying to get at.

Just over a quarter of households with dependent children are single-parent families, and there are 2 million single parents in Britain today, a figure that has remained consistent since the mid-1990s. That is one reason why I feel the HSSF initiative merits some support. There is too much divorce, separation and division. It is sad that many of our children are unable to grow up with mum and dad together. For that reason, we should encourage counselling for couples to help them work through issues and, we hope, stay together.

The initial information we have indicates that there is a £20 charge for some single-parent families. Nearly two fifths of the UK’s 2 million single-parent families receive child maintenance payments from the child’s other parent. Perhaps putting a £20 charge on those families has meant that the take-up has not been as good as it could have been, which would indicate that the system needs to be reviewed. Again, will the Minister give us some information on that?

Not every child who has experienced divorce and separation will experience long-term harm. I see that with those who come to my office. The quality of parenting, a lack of financial hardship and whether parents go through multiple relationships following separation are also thought to be key to the well-being of the child. Evidence suggests that helping more parents to work together throughout a child’s life means that the number of children missing out on relationships with both parents and their extended families is likely to reduce. If, as I believe, that is the goal of the initiative, we should support it, but we need to address the issues raised by hon. Members in this debate.

There is no doubt in my mind that a constructive and non-confrontational approach is important. Often, fighting through courts can become tit for tat, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh East has suggested. That in turn will have only a negative impact on children as time goes by and the problems between the couple remain unresolved.

Of course it would be wonderful if divorce and separation did not have to occur, but at times they do. The least we can do in those situations is to ensure that children remain the focus and the priority. Break-ups will affect children; however, by following the aims of the initiative, the impact can be short term and minimal. I ask the Minister to take on board the issue of the initial cost. A system that tries to get a working agreement between both parties is commendable, but will she tell us what action can be taken if it does not work? As the hon. Member for Edinburgh East said, we do not want the two parents fighting over money in the courts. The fact that two parents are separating or getting a divorce does not mean that they are separating or getting a divorce from their children. Children are an integral part of all this, and we must do all we can to make that very clear to the children who are affected.

Work Capability Assessments

Debate between Jim Shannon and Sheila Gilmore

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sheila Gilmore]

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

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

[Sheila Gilmore]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Electoral Registration

Debate between Jim Shannon and Sheila Gilmore

Tuesday 15th January 2013 Westminster Hall

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) for securing the debate.

We assume that the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill will complete all its stages at some point and that individual voter registration will go ahead. The Bill will come into force in a period when quite a lot of important things are going on electorally. In Scotland, the process will take place at much the same time as the referendum, which raises considerable issues for electoral registration officers, who will have to manage the processes simultaneously. For the purposes of the referendum, there is a proposal—what happens will depend on the view taken by the Scottish Parliament later this year—to enfranchise 16 and 17-year-olds. If that happens—the Scottish Government have certainly indicated their intention to do it—it will raise procedural questions about how these things are done. Electoral registration officers in my city, for example, could therefore be dealing with a large number of issues at the same time as individual electoral registration.

Like many Members, I think it is important that we put in the effort. The canvass is important. It does not necessarily have to be hugely more expensive, although equally we should not take money away from electoral registration officers. We need to know where the effort needs to be put in, and if electoral registration officers do not know, they need only ask political parties, which can certainly tell them, because the differences in electoral registration in different parts of our constituencies can be extremely stark. We can almost predict where the low registration will be before we go into certain streets and start looking at the electoral register to discover just how many households are missing from it. Armed with that knowledge, we could concentrate on areas where we already know there is a shortfall. Things will only get worse—there is no doubt about that—so we need to concentrate on certain places.

We may need to think laterally about making it easier for people to register. For example, I was out knocking on doors at the weekend and the Member with me pointed out that several of the apparently unregistered houses belonged to council tenants. How did we know that? We knew what kind of new doors the council had recently put on those houses, and we took a bit of guess, albeit it was a fairly safe deduction. Those people had probably moved into those properties relatively recently. New tenants go through various processes with the council: they sign tenancy agreements and some, but not all, apply for housing benefit. That is an ideal opportunity to register people at the same time. People have to do a lot of things—they sign up for the electricity and other things—so why not make electoral registration part of the process, so that they can automatically register as they take up their new tenancy?

Often, it is those very people who come to our surgeries—they are certainly coming to my surgeries at the moment—and say things like, “I’ve just had this letter saying I’ll have to pay something towards my rent from April. I’ve never heard anything about this. I don’t know anything about this.” They see these things as politics, but politics is, of course, about things that happen to them. Once people realise that, they begin to be get a bit more interested, but no doubt some of the people who come to see us and are very angry are not registered. We therefore need to think about making electoral registration as straightforward as possible.

We could go into schools to register young people; that is not at all unreasonable, because once people are registered, the forms will continue in future years. I do not see why it is not possible—this was raised previously—to allow people to register quite late in the election run-up. When there is an election, people’s minds turn to registration. With modern technology and the ability to deal with late registration, we could perhaps let people register virtually up to the election, as happens in parts of the United States. If we do that, people who become interested and who see that the election matters will not find themselves unable to vote. I have known people turn up at a polling station only to discover to their horror that they are unable to vote. At times, they get very angry about that, because they have been fired up by what they have heard.

One thing that is slightly worrying to somebody who sat through the debates on the Bill and who is a member of the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform is that we are now hearing that the situation in Northern Ireland is not as rosy as we were led to believe. The Select Committee looked at the issue and took evidence on it. We were aware that there had been a fall-off in registration initially, but we were given repeated assurances, first, that it was a temporary phenomenon that had been overcome and, secondly, that the rest of the UK would learn from the process and not make the same mistakes. Now, however, we hear that it might not be such a temporary phenomenon. That may be because there was concern at the outset, so extra effort was made to improve the position, but that declined again when the foot was taken off the pedal, which clearly shows that we have to keep putting in the effort. That is a matter of some concern because of the assurances we were given. Those of us who raised concerns about the Northern Ireland situation were told that we really had nothing to worry about, that it had been resolved and that things were moving forward much more successfully. That is not the case.

In the lead-up to the changes, the Government need to look carefully at improving registration levels, which clearly are not good enough in some places. That would be necessary even without individual voter registration. That may require electoral registration officers to work far more closely with their fellow local government employees, laterally in relation to council housing, but there is also housing association housing. They might even work with some private landlords to see whether a link can be made, because that group of tenants is probably the most mobile and they are the ones falling through the hole.

Once we have all the household figures from the most recent census, which have not been published yet, we will clearly see what we know anecdotally from our own areas, which is how much more private renting there is now than there was even 10 years ago. That is such a mobile population that it is probably a major factor in reducing levels of electoral registration. How can we make contact with people when they move in? Can we find ways whereby electoral registration officers do not sit somewhere, isolated, but work with letting agents, perhaps, to make the forms available?

[Jim Shannon]

One of the problems with the Northern Ireland process was that the data-processing system was not working correctly, so the information was not all collated. One of the reasons for that was the funding. Wherever a data-matching process is set up, bringing all the different bodies, benefits and rent allocations together, it should show where the person is, but it does not always work that way unless there is funding to ensure that that the data-matching process takes place. That is a lesson that has been learned in Northern Ireland. The system has not worked. It must work better.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that comment and insight into problems that have arisen. There are dangers in relying on a technological answer. As we found with some of the data-matching pilots, different organisations record things very differently, although perhaps that should not happen; the technology does not always work; addresses are not always referred to in the same way. Such small differences mean that although the technology should make it possible to identify where a person is, even if they were not previously on the register, that may not happen. A small difference in the description of the address is enough for the technology to let people down.

There is nothing better than the individual approach, and we should not rely on technology to perform that task. Technology has a place, and if it makes certain things easier, all well and good. It may provide a base to start from, but it is wrong to assume that it will somehow get us out of the problem. Getting out to people where they are—for example, by having an electoral registration officer sitting in a supermarket with a stall and forms to catch people while they are there—is not a bad idea. There are all sorts of ways to engage better with people. I hope that that will be taken seriously, that electoral registration officers will be given the resources and information they need, and that good practice will be shared so that that can happen. Otherwise things will get worse. It is deeply depressing to go to what I suppose in my constituency is a typical tenement building and to find that of perhaps eight or 10 residences, barely half are registered, even under the present system. It is not good enough.

Work Capability Reassessments

Debate between Jim Shannon and Sheila Gilmore

Wednesday 5th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for being a champion of this cause. I have a staff member who looks after nothing else but ESA and DLA appeals, because of the volume of those coming in. That is one of my great concerns. For descriptors, they ask them, “Can you move the box from here to there?” or “Can you hold the pint of milk?” Those descriptors do not apply to blind people, to people with depression or to those with severe mobility and other issues. Does the hon. Lady feel that the Government could look upon this matter more favourably and ensure that people have a report from a general practitioner, the person who medically knows them best of all?

[Sheila Gilmore]

Without a doubt, that is one way that it could be done. The flaws of the system include whether people are able to present information, when it is accepted and how it is used.

It seemed that the former Minister at least was prepared to move in respect of people’s being called back too quickly. I put this issue to the new Minister at the Select Committee on Work and Pensions evidence session held on 21 November, but I did not get a particularly helpful response. The Minister said,

“There is the opportunity for the tribunal to make a recommendation”,

which suggests that the tribunal could do that, but he then said,

“When that recommendation is made, it is something that the decision maker should take into account. I think there is also an issue about at what point of time is the tribunal disputing DWP’s decision.”

Should they be looking at

“the point in time the decision was made, which could be nine months earlier…or is it based on what they saw on the day in the tribunal? So there is a lack of clarity there, but I think we should take a fairly clear view about when reassessments should take place, and it is an area that decision makers should work on.”

The Minister used a lot of words, but did not provide clarity about our making progress on this matter. He was far less clear than his predecessor talking on a television programme. That was disappointing. Perhaps the Minister will provide clarification when responding.

Can the judges suggest a different prognosis time? Are they given guidance as to when they should and should not set prognosis times? Do the Government collect statistical analysis of how often judges take up this option? If they are allowed to do so, they appear to exercise that ability rarely. At what point and how are decision makers brought back into the process once a fit-for-work decision has been overturned? If that happens, could a decision maker at that stage, as opposed to at appeal, suggest a new prognosis time, even if the judge has not taken up the option? What guidance is provided to decision makers in this regard and are there any statistics on it?

I shall pre-empt the Minister by acknowledging that in government my party introduced ESA and the work capability assessment. I do not raise these issues to make political points, but in a genuine attempt to get them dealt with. I have repeatedly stated that I came to this place determined to raise these issues, regardless of who won the election. I first came across many of the issues as I was campaigning for election. I was concerned about a politicised response at the last Work and Pensions oral questions, consisting too much of saying, “You introduced it,” which did not get to the crux of these issues.

It would help if the Minister provided clarity on the following points. Do decision makers set prognosis times for claimants found fit for work? If so, why are those not overturned when this happens to corresponding fit-for-work decisions? Can judges set new prognosis times when they overturn decisions? What role do decision makers have with respect to prognosis times following successful appeals?

Finally, I seek an update on the apparent instruction from the former Minister to civil servants that the time between reassessments should be reduced. A central recommendation of Professor Harrington’s first report was that the WCA should be more compassionate and empathetic, and this will only be achieved once Ministers intervene and stop people being called back for reassessments immediately after successful appeals.

High Speed Rail (Scotland)

Debate between Jim Shannon and Sheila Gilmore

Tuesday 6th November 2012 Westminster Hall

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. I sought the debate because of the huge importance that high-speed rail has for us in Scotland—for our economy and for Scotland’s development over a long period into the future. Obviously, like many other Scottish MPs, I have a personal interest: when Parliament is sitting, I spend nearly 10 hours a week sitting in trains. I quite enjoy it and I can get a lot done, but I think we are on the cusp of being able to achieve a modal shift in the way that people travel between Scotland and London. That is important, including for environmental reasons, because at the moment the journey time is such that on some occasions or in some circumstances, flying seems preferable. That adds to the pressure on London airports. If we could make progress on rail, it would help us to meet our environmental targets.

This debate follows a debate earlier this year led by my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Lindsay Roy). Since then, two things have happened. First, we have a new Secretary of State and a new Minister of State. Secondly, and perhaps even more important, the new Secretary of State made a very important commitment in his speech at the Conservative party conference last month. This is what he said:

“At the start of this year, the government committed to build a new line not just to Birmingham but on to Manchester and Leeds. Soon, I’ll publish detailed plans for the route north of Birmingham, but I want even more parts of our country to benefit. So we’re launching a study on the way to get fast journeys further north still, with the aim of getting the journey from Scotland to London to under three hours and making sure the north-east benefits too, because this will be a scheme for every person in Britain.”

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

To follow on from what the hon. Lady is saying, this scheme will benefit everyone in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Does she envisage this high-speed rail having contact with Larne, Cairnryan and Stranraer, thereby ensuring that the people of Northern Ireland can also benefit from the high-speed rail link, which ultimately will take them to London? Based on a very significant business plan—

Pensions Bill [Lords]

Debate between Jim Shannon and Sheila Gilmore

Tuesday 18th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sheila Gilmore]

We had amendments. We tabled amendments that were not a million miles away from those that we are proposing today, because we felt that, in the circumstances, a proposal to cap the period of time for which women would have to endure this change was the best thing to do. Our amendments were not supported by either Government party in Committee, but we had clearly made proposals that ranked as transitional, because—lo and behold—four days before this final chance to debate the subject in the House, a proposal was made. It is not some complex transitional arrangement that would take civil servants hours, weeks or months to work out but fairly straightforward and involves capping the period of time. In my view, that proposal could have been made in Committee without any difficulty and it could also have been made at any time over the months that have passed since the Committee stage ended in July.

I suspect that one of the main reasons this rabbit has apparently been pulled out of the hat at the last minute is to prevent any great campaign being restarted for further change and to prevent people asking for more. Like Oliver—most of us nowadays, unlike the cruel people in Victorian workhouses, think that Oliver was right to ask for more—the women who have contacted my colleagues and me over the past few days are still asking for more because they feel that the Government’s proposals remain unfair. They have alleviated the proposals for one group of women but not for all those who are affected and, in my view, those women are right to ask for more.

The Government have been extremely calculating. By not making their announcement until almost as late as possible while still making it in any way credible, they calculated that they would foreshorten the possibility that their Back Benchers might again be contacted by many of their constituents who would argue that the proposals are still not enough. The fact that they have given the shortest amount of time to this very successful campaign is clearly tactical.

In this debate, we always come back to the money question—it happened repeatedly in Committee and in many interventions on Opposition Members today. We are asked where we will get the money and told to come up with a specific statement about where we will find it. That happens not just as regards this proposal but day in, day out—[Interruption.] It is not unreasonable for us to say that we would not start from here. That is not unreasonable because we have a very different view about the choices and the fairness arguments that it is right to make and about how to progress our public finances over the next period.

Another argument that often comes up states that one cannot borrow one’s way out of a crisis or out of debt. It seems we cannot cut our way out of a deficit either, or out of more debt, because public borrowing, far from having come down in the past year and a half, is rising. We would not start from here because our entire economic strategy would be different. Our view—as we said a year and a half ago and as it remains—is that to attempt to reduce the deficit within this Parliament was reckless, that it would not be successful and that it would risk higher unemployment and the stagnation of the economy. That is what is happening. If the economy continues to stagnate, tax revenues will fall with fewer people in work and fewer businesses thriving. Falling tax revenues are a big reason why we have a deficit in the first place. This is not simply about Government spending, as is sometimes suggested.

Tax revenues will fall and benefits payments and other outgoings will rise, and those are very important considerations. In saying that we would not start from here, it is perfectly reasonable for us to make it clear that we would not want to be in the position that the Government seem determined to drive us into.

[Jim Shannon]

Under the Labour proposals for auto-enrolment for pensions, protection was given, but under the coalition Government’s proposals the same protection is not given as there are conditions and people fall outside them. Does the hon. Lady think that that is another example of the difference between the two sides? Labour gives the option of protection and the coalition does not.

[Sheila Gilmore]

That certainly is such an example. If we are to give people the opportunity of saving for their pensions into the future, it is important that we take seriously the proposals for auto-enrolment and NEST and build them up in a way to which everybody should give their full support. Although I am sure that the Government have not officially said that they are not giving them their full support, I was struck as I read an article in The Sunday Times a week last Sunday by a suggestion that the Government might be backing off on the speed of the introduction of auto-enrolment. That might have been a piece of kite-flying, as I gather it relates to a piece of work that is being done internally for the Government, which will not be published and which we cannot see, about how to make yet more savings and attempt to grow the economy, but nevertheless that story reached the newspapers. I am sure the Minister will tell us that we have nothing to fear when we reach the relevant part of the debate.

We are constantly asked where we would find the money and, interestingly, despite the comments that Government Members made from a sedentary position a few moments ago, when my hon. Friends the Members for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont) and for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell) made suggestions, they were pooh-poohed.