Personal Independence Payments

Debate between Kate Green and Sheila Gilmore

Tuesday 25th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[Sheila Gilmore]

In the original consultation paper in 2010, one of the justifications for throwing all these things up in the air and putting many disabled and ill people through a great deal of anxiety was that too many people were getting the benefit and that PIP would be different. Some 50% of DLA claims were unsuccessful, but in some cases the award rates for PIP appear to be well in excess of 50%. That may be very good for the applicants, but it suggests that the whole thing was premised on a lack of proper research. The change has made many people extremely stressed and anxious over the past few years.

[Kate Green]

My hon. Friend puts her finger on the issue. We may be seeing some sort of cohort effect, because the cases that went through early may have been more likely to have attracted awards, or higher awards. It may be that initial departmental assumptions were simply wrong or over-optimistic about the savings that could be achieved. It may be that the situation will become even worse, because delays in processing claims and making decisions must be suppressing expenditure on the benefit. If, as the Minister intends, those delays are reduced and, hopefully, eventually eliminated, we will see the costs of the benefit increase. Whether the Government’s ambitions to reduce costs will be achieved is very uncertain. As my hon. Friend rightly says, the real problem for disabled people in that context is the huge uncertainty and anxiety. Disabled people are very uncertain about whether they will be awarded the benefit, which creates great anxiety and alarm.

I have mentioned that there appear to be additional costs for the Department due to the payment of compensation for delays. My constituent, Mr W, received £100 compensation for delays that he had suffered, yet when I asked the Minister how much such compensation payments are costing the Government overall, he told me in a written answer on 23 October that the Department does not record such information. What we do know is that spending on DLA and PIP is set to be £1.4 billion more than projected in this financial year. What is his assessment of the continuing trend in the figures? What impact will that have on the Government’s overall welfare cap? Obviously, any significant increase in expenditure will put that cap at risk.

Given the way in which we have seen costs rise, it is surprising that, in a written answer on 14 July, the Minister’s predecessor told me that the Government remain on course

“to make savings against earlier forecasts of £2.8 billion by 2017-18.”—[Official Report, 14 July 2014; Vol. 584, c. 587W.]

Given all the circumstances that we have heard about in this debate, will the Minister again confirm that expectation and tell us what the Government will do if they do not get spending back on track?

Overall, it is clear that the system is working far from smoothly. The picture for the future remains uncertain, and things remain well off course. In June, the DWP confirmed that it expected 752,000 PIP decisions in this financial year; the latest statistics show that about 37,500 decisions a month were made in the most recent months available, and about 30,000 to 40,000 claims a month were made. At that rate, it seems that the DWP will be unable to clear the backlog of 323,000 cases still awaiting a decision, yet bizarrely, the DWP apparently continues to add more areas where existing DLA claimants are being transferred to PIP, including, in the past couple of weeks, my area of Greater Manchester.

In the circumstances, adding yet more pressure to the system seems inexplicable. Claimants will be deeply worried that the Government are pressing ahead while the programme is manifestly still subject to extreme delay. It does not make sense, it is not fair and it is causing deep uncertainty and hardship to thousands of claimants. I am glad that this debate gives us time for the Minister to respond fully to the concerns that colleagues have raised, and I look forward to hearing what he has to say.

Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Welfare Reform (Disabled People)

Debate between Kate Green and Sheila Gilmore

Tuesday 28th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green]

We were so taken aback and stunned by these remarks, and we considered them so offensive and serious, that we considered it right to bring them before the Prime Minister in the highest forum in this land, this Chamber, in the very first Prime Minister’s Question Time that we had the opportunity to do so.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

I want to go back to the question about increased spending. It is unacceptable to boast of increased spending when that is due to inefficiency and the failure to deliver. In 2010, the Office for Budget Responsibility expected spending on incapacity benefit to fall. That projection has now been changed to an increase of £3 billion, which, put against the sort of savings being made on disabled people through the bedroom tax, is absolutely outrageous. Surely nobody can boast about spending more if it is down to their own inefficiency.

[Kate Green]

My hon. Friend is right.

As we start the debate this afternoon, let me say that we can send a message of dignity and respect to disabled people in two ways. We can do so by voting for the motion to make it clear that anyone who makes comments that suggest discriminating against disabled people or that demean them should not be in government, least of all in a role in which they make decisions day in, day out that affect disabled people’s lives. We can also show our feelings by the way in which we conduct this debate. The real reason this debate matters so much is that it is an opportunity for us to show disabled people that we understand why Lord Freud’s remarks caused such anger and pain and that we understand what is happening in their lives. Lord Freud’s comments have touched a chord because disabled people are already suffering so much from the policies for which he and his ministerial colleagues are responsible.

High Speed 2

Debate between Kate Green and Sheila Gilmore

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Westminster Hall

[Sheila Gilmore]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman and will be coming on to that issue. The underlying purpose, I would argue, is to be able to distribute our investment in our economy more generally, and connectivity is important to that. We have seen, for example, what has happened in Salford with the development of Media City and the BBC’s sometimes apparently painful move up there, which some people obviously felt meant going to the end of the world. That development led not merely to one large company moving part of its operations out of the south-east, but to supporting media industries locating in Salford deliberately because of the bigger pool there.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I apologise, Sir Edward, that I will have to leave before the debate ends, but I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this important subject to the House for debate this morning. Although the debate is predominantly about the economic benefits of HS2, does she accept that there are also environmental benefits? If as a result it means that, for further-flung destinations in Scotland and the north of England people are less likely to use air travel, and for areas nearer to London people are less likely to use the roads, there will be green benefits for our economy too.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I accept my hon. Friend’s point about green benefits in the long term, certainly in terms of air travel, although that will not necessarily be the case in the short term, as people will constantly argue.

Under-Occupancy Penalty

Debate between Kate Green and Sheila Gilmore

Tuesday 5th November 2013 Westminster Hall

[Sheila Gilmore]

That is helpful. It reminds us of the many ways in which we are going backwards.

In an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields, I mentioned a DWP Minister’s suggestion that if councils were struggling with three-bedroom houses that they could not let, they should have anticipated the problem and taken steps to divide those houses. I was fantasising slightly about how that would work. Let us take a typical three up, two down property in England; in Scotland, we are more likely to be talking about a tenement flat. What exactly would be involved in dividing it? First, either the tenants would somehow have to use the same door and stairs, or the council would have to create a separate entrance, which would cost money. One of the upstairs rooms would have to be converted into some form of kitchen, which would cost money. That leaves the downstairs, which would have a kitchen, but not a bathroom. Where would the bathroom go, or at least a toilet? A bathroom extension? Remember there are only two rooms and a kitchen downstairs, so building a bathroom would not be easy, unless it were built outside, and an extension costs money. Then I thought, “I know what the Minister must have had in mind: a portaloo in the back garden.” That would take us right back to the days when people had outside toilets, but it might help get the house divided up. It would involve not only huge additional cost but a style of living that I hope most of us would think inappropriate. That shows how little thought was given in practical reality.

It is the same with the idea that everybody could take in lodgers. That does not take into consideration the nature of many of the properties in which people live, and the difficulties involved.

[Kate Green]

Does my hon. Friend not also accept that that would be a particularly unwelcome suggestion to women fleeing domestic abuse and violence, for example? The idea that they might have to take in a stranger as a lodger after experiences that may have absolutely traumatised them is particularly inimical. That is exactly the situation faced by one of my constituents.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Many people would find the concept of taking in a lodger extremely difficult, particularly given the nature of many properties. I visited a constituent whose kitchen was off the living room, and whose bedrooms were not particularly big. When someone has a lodger, they are sharing a house. They are not taking in a lodger who has a self-contained annexe of the house; they are taking someone into the bosom of their household. The 60-year-old woman in question felt that that was not somewhere she needed to be in her life.

Universal Credit

Debate between Kate Green and Sheila Gilmore

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sheila Gilmore]

I certainly do, although I rather regret that that money was so long in the coming given that it was available to be paid out some couple of years ago—but better late than never.

Finally, I want to discuss a particular group—single parents. Some of the problems I am going to consider do not necessarily result from universal credit as such, but they will not be cured by universal credit and may even be made worse. For many single parents, getting back into work is not easy. There is a great deal of evidence that many of them, when they do find work, find that it is low-paid and low-skilled work. There is a high level of churn because of the type of work or because of the practical difficulties that can arise. They may find that arranging child care is unexpectedly expensive or difficult—for instance, when they run into the summer holiday problem. All these things can lead to a single parent who wants to work finding a job and doing it for a period, but then having to leave and go back to the beginning again. Skilling up is particularly important.

Over the past few years, including under the previous Government, there have been several changes to the rules for single parents, particularly about their registering for work once their children reached certain ages. Considerable flexibilities were built into the system whereby, for example, a single parent would not be required to apply for a job, go for a job interview or take a job where it would not fit with their child care responsibilities. There are several such flexibilities, none of which, bar one, are in the new regulations that have been produced for universal credit. They are in guidance, but the problem is that guidance is not legally binding and these matters are at the discretion of an individual adviser.

There are currently 12 flexibilities, only one of which has been migrated into the new regulations in its entirety; the other 11 are not there or have been very much qualified. For example, under the regulations a single parent is still able to restrict the hours they work, but only if they can demonstrate that there are jobs with those hours available locally. If there are not, they cannot have that flexibility, so presumably they will have to look for a job that does not accord with their child care responsibilities or look for one outwith their area, which creates a whole new set of difficulties. Anyone who has had to pick up their child from nursery at a fixed time and has experienced the reception they get when they arrive back late because the bus has been delayed will know that working a long distance away is not easy.

It is not at all clear why these changes are being made. They might make it more difficult for single parents to get back into work. If the flexibilities are not there, the other problem that arises is sanctions. If people do not have those flexibilities, they may be required to take on a job—or to refuse a job—that does not meet their needs. If they refuse to take the job, they can be sanctioned. The level of sanctions was increased substantially in the Welfare Reform Act 2012 and the number of people who are being sanctioned is increasing. We are all seeing those people already. I would like the Minister to explain why the decision has been taken not to put the flexibilities for single parents into the regulations.

Gingerbread, which represents single parents, feels that getting skilled has been made more difficult of late. Again, there does not seem to be anything in universal credit that will help that situation. Previously, a single parent with a very young child who was on income support got a fee remission if they did a college course. That fee remission has been removed, so although a single parent with a child under five can still do a college course if they can fit it in around everything else that they are doing, they have to pay for it. When they hit the requirement to sign on for JSA, they will get fee remission for a course, but if a job offer comes up that they have to accept, they will either have to drop the course, which they might be part-way through, or continue the course and be sanctioned. That is not the way to upskill people. Gingerbread has proposed that a single parent who is undertaking a further education course, up to and including level 3,

“should be treated as fulfilling work search and work availability requirements”

until their youngest child reaches the age of seven or the course ends. That is a practical proposal.

There is serious concern that the structure of universal credit, far from enabling single parents to work, will not be of great assistance and might even be harmful. The Gingerbread report, “Struggling to make ends meet”, with which I am sure the Minister is familiar, points out that a single parent who is earning the minimum wage cannot expect their disposable income to increase by much once they start working 10 hours or more. We are talking about very short hours. For anyone who does not understand, we are not talking about 10 hours a day, but 10 hours a week. Somebody who works only three, four, five, six or seven hours a week will be better off under universal credit, but because of the structure of it, once they are working 10 hours a week or more, they will not be much better off. For all that has been said about universal credit making people much better off and encouraging them to go into work, the structure is not quite as good as has been made out.

[Kate Green]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to that problem. Does she agree that it is therefore especially unfortunate that in-work conditionality will propel that lone parent to increase her hours or, in other words, propel her into diminishing returns for her work?

[Sheila Gilmore]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. The concept of in-work conditionality, which is new to the UK, needs to be fleshed out considerably as universal credit rolls out. It is not at all clear how it will work. It appears to mean that if somebody is working a low number of hours, they will be expected to look for more hours or for a different job in which they can work more hours. It will be open to the DWP to tell people that they have not made enough effort to do that and to sanction them for it. That is supposed to make people better off; it is supposed to be good for them to go through such a process, but if it does not make them better off, it feels more like punishment than assistance.

The report also looked at single parents who are not on the minimum wage but earn a median salary, and it was calculated that they would be worse off working full time than part time. They would not simply be no better off, they would actually be worse off as their hours increased. Again, that undermines the Government’s pledge to make work pay. Part of the reason for that concerns things such as child care costs. The cap on reimbursable child care costs has not been increased, and those costs are rising rapidly in many places. That has a marked effect on whether working longer hours and increasing earnings makes work pay.

Single parents are just one group that will be involved in this massive upheaval that will either create something completely different, or might lead to something that does not look very different at the end of the day—I am not sure which. There will still be many different categories of people, and the problems that we know about such as eligibility, and issues such as employment and support allowance and the work capability assessment that we have frequently discussed in this House, will not go away with the introduction of universal credit but will be tucked inside it.

I urge the Government to look at some of those issues and not simply to sit behind a general statement that universal credit will make work pay and that people will be better off. They think that if they keep asserting that and say it often enough it will happen, but it will happen only if we get the books right on the bookshelf.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Kate Green and Sheila Gilmore

Tuesday 24th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

6. What estimate he has made of the likely effect on the level of child poverty of the fiscal measures in his autumn statement.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

8. What estimate he has made of the likely effect on the level of child poverty of the fiscal measures in his autumn statement.

Solar Power (Feed-in Tariff)

Debate between Kate Green and Sheila Gilmore

Wednesday 23rd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

rose—

[Sheila Gilmore]

rose—

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Kate Green and Sheila Gilmore

Monday 31st October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green]

Indeed, the Minister was more concerned to avoid the number of false allegations that he seems to regard as the major difficulty with domestic abuse cases. Opposition Members are far more concerned about the protection of vulnerable victims and believe that that should be the first and overarching priority. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

Finally, I want to say a little more than I was able to raise in interventions about the use of mediation. Of course we all want to see mediation used wherever it is appropriate and possible for separating couples to reach agreement through that route. We also know, however, that one thing that is particularly damaging to children is conflict. If there is a high degree of conflict, it is unlikely, even if domestic violence or abuse is absent, that mediation is going to be effective or can possibly work.

We are therefore again a bit puzzled about the Minister’s intentions on the use of mediation. I think he said earlier that the requirement was not to undertake mediation but to go through a process whereby it would be determined whether mediation was suitable for a separating couple. Then he said that there would be no compulsion on people to accept mediation. Well, that is certainly true, but if there is no other form of help or assistance available, it is very much a Hobson’s choice.

Can the Minister see any scope for extending access to legal aid to those small number of cases where there is a high degree of conflict and perhaps no abuse or violence as such, but where the conflict would certainly be damaging to the well-being of children? What assessment has he made of that? What does he consider might be the extent of such cases? Has he any idea or any calculation? What consideration has he given to the impact on children and will he look at ways to offer particular protection to children from the very harmful effects of conflict, which we all know to be the case?

[Sheila Gilmore]

I have an interest to declare, as I have worked as a family lawyer and predominantly in legal aid over many years. I have been involved in many cases, some of which involved domestic violence and some not. The Minister seems obsessed with the notion that people might make false claims to get legal aid.

Localism Bill

Debate between Kate Green and Sheila Gilmore

Monday 17th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Of course, I welcome the intention of the Bill—we are all in favour of more local autonomy—but I have struggled to make sense of it. The Bill is a hotch-potch of ideas and prejudices that in many cases pander to passing fashions.

I have one underlying and unifying concern. There seem to be insufficient guarantees within the Bill for the poorest and the weakest and those without a voice. They are not sufficiently protected, and I very much fear that unpopular causes and disadvantaged communities will be left behind.

I want to highlight two issues that cause me particular concern. The first relates to social housing, which the Government seem to see as a residual housing solution only, and not the bedrock of strong families and communities that it could be. Removing regional spatial strategies, limiting the length of social tenancies perhaps to two years only and requiring homeless people to take up accommodation in the private rented sector—accommodation that might be unstable or unsuitable for their family’s needs, and accommodation from which they might be forced to move repeatedly—will be bad for communities, children and families, and many people will simply fail to put down roots. It makes more likely poorer outcomes for those families and communities, and I am at a loss to understand why a Government who have said they care about neighbourliness and community strength would want to go down this route.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Does it not strike my hon. Friend as odd that a Government who have said that above all else they want to encourage people back into employment are providing that someone who gets one of these desirable housing association properties and finds employment might lose their house? Will that not be a disincentive to finding employment?

[Kate Green]

My hon. Friend makes my next point: there is a complete lack of logic in people who better their circumstances by moving into employment running the risk of being moved out of their home. I cannot understand why Ministers feel that that supports their objectives and ambitions for increasing employment, and I hope that in responding to the debate the Minister will pick up on that point. I am also at a loss to understand what possible incentive there will be for people who think they might be in social tenancies for only a very short period either to maintain the quality of that housing—to care for it, keep it clean, well decorated and well maintained—or to participate in community activities, as the Government desire.

I also have questions about the proposals for the planning system. I want to question Ministers about the strength of their commitment and seriousness. I must warn them that local people are interpreting for themselves the references to considerable levels of influence and autonomy in making local decisions, and I want to know whether Ministers can guarantee—and intend—that level of influence and autonomy. I have an example of a live issue in my constituency: an active local campaign group, the Breathe Clean Air Group, has been campaigning against the location of a wood incinerator, against which hundreds of residents marched to object only last weekend. Local campaigners are already pointing to the Localism Bill as a means to give them the ability to stand up to what they see as a large commercial interest. Will Ministers give us clarity and assurances about what exactly they mean when they say that local people will have a voice?

I consider the Bill to be poorly thought through and irresponsible, often reflecting only knee-jerk populism and being in danger of raising false hopes. I am particularly concerned for people in Stretford and Urmston, who have lost out repeatedly in trying to ensure that under Tory-led Trafford council the poorest wards in my constituency are properly protected. I am very concerned that the Bill serves merely to legitimise such an approach.

Barton Biomass Plant

Debate between Kate Green and Sheila Gilmore

Wednesday 27th October 2010 Westminster Hall

[Kate Green]

Steam vapours are of course no respecters of constituency boundaries. Indeed, the Breathe Clean Air Group has shared with me a footprint plan suggesting that the effect of the emissions would be felt across much of Greater Manchester, as far south as Manchester airport and well into the city centre.

There are significant anxieties about the health analysis that has been made. It is not sufficient for my constituents, who are very concerned about the proposal, or for others in the Manchester vicinity, simply to be told that the Health Protection Agency has reviewed the available evidence. I hope that the Minister will be able to help this afternoon by giving much fuller information on that aspect.

Will the Minister explain how the ongoing review processes on the latest evidence about the health impact of emissions will be maintained following the Health Protection Agency’s abolition, which was announced the other day? My understanding is that local public health directors will take a significant role, and I would be grateful for any information that the Minister provided about where they could obtain the most up-to-date evidence, research and advice necessary to inform future debates.

I turn to the arrangements for monitoring the emissions. I acknowledge that Peel Holdings has been very forthcoming in its responses to my questions. It has indicated that it will be putting in place sophisticated computer monitoring systems, and it says that the Environment Agency will have the power to make regular and unannounced checks. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the agency will continue to fulfil its inspection function, and that there will be no slackening of the inspection regime following the announcement the other day of a redefinition of its functions. That is important to my constituents, and I look forward to what the Minister has to say. I also wish to know how as much as possible of the data that are captured and monitored can be made transparent to the public, especially to my constituents, and how the Environment Agency will ensure that they cannot be suppressed if standards are not met.

Let me refer to the issue that was at the heart of yesterday’s debate on incinerators that was initiated by the hon. Member for Congleton. It was said that Government policy, both in relation to incineration and renewable energy sources, will be reconciled to empowering local communities to make decisions about their local areas.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

One concern that has been raised by my constituents about the proposed construction of a biomass plant nearby is that the concept of renewable energy as a good thing is being used to cover up, or to disguise, practices that are by no means environmentally friendly. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a danger in that? Only 30% of the fuel for the plant proposed in my area would come from recyclable elements, which might be polluting, and up to 70% will be from virgin wood, some of which may be sourced from South America, which does not sound very environmentally friendly. Does she not agree that, because of greenwash, there is a danger that things will be agreed that are by no means green?

[Kate Green]

I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. There is a sense that a number of proposals, many of them very different in their detail, are being branded with a collective greenwash, as she so eloquently describes it, which is, perhaps not intentionally, serving to brush aside debate. The Breathe Clean Air Group and Peel Holdings have supplied me with a considerable amount of scientific information, very little of which I can make sense of. I strongly suspect that that will be the case for many of my constituents who are closely attending to this debate. It would be helpful if we had the fullest possible public information in terms that are easy to access and understand, so that we can have a genuinely well informed debate about renewable energy sources and their green impact.

I am particularly interested in an issue that has been raised by the Breathe Clean Air Group about the European requirement to make use of the best available technology. Its view is that the best available technology may not be represented, even in the context of energy renewables, and I should very much like to understand more about that, as would many of my constituents and those of my hon. Friends.

I am keen to understand how the information and the wider context will be played out in relation to the role of local communities in making decisions about the issues that directly affect them. Yesterday, in responding to the debate initiated by the hon. Member for Congleton, the Minister said that where applications were made for such plants—he was talking at that time about waste incineration—the Government wanted to ensure proper, informed and vigorous debate in the community. I very much welcome that. In Trafford, such a debate is already taking place. None the less, it seems that there could be a tension between Ministers’ avowed commitment to localism and the assertions about health standards and emissions that were being made by the Minister yesterday. Perhaps the Minister will expand on how he expects the will of local people to be properly taken on board in planning decisions and in any potential planning appeal.

I ask such questions in advance of a planning application being submitted in relation to the Barton renewable energy plant, because local people are very concerned that the decision has been stitched up. What guarantees will the Minister give my constituents that that is not the case and that local concerns about the proposals will be given appropriate weight?