Benefit Claimants (North-east)

Linda Riordan Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2015 Westminster Hall

[Chi Onwurah]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent contribution herself. I am not using all the examples I have, because I have so many. However, I am aware of the way some veterans in my constituency have been treated, and of the disgraceful impact it has had upon their lives. I look forward to hearing from her about the cases in her constituency.

My constituent, Adam, went on to say:

“How can it be right that an unemployed person…not only has the shame of completely having to rely on the government for my next meal but can have my only income arbitrarily stopped? A civil servant promises to get an emergency payment to me then what…? Forgets? So now I have to wait an extra week. Christmas is ruined…I can’t even go see my little girl, let alone put the heating on or buy some food.”

I want to make it clear that I am not blaming those who work in jobcentres or in the DWP. As I mentioned earlier, I have spoken to current and former jobcentre officers, and they have told me how they are pressurised to sanction claimants and how, as one former agent told me, the atmosphere changed immediately following the general election. Their job was no longer to help claimants into work but to “find them out”. I accept that mistakes are sometimes made, but it is the organisational culture that the Minister is responsible for, and I am sure she will want to take responsibility for it, as any business leader would. I would welcome her comments on this issue. I am sure she will acknowledge, as I do, that this challenge is not an easy one, but that much more needs to be done. That means supporting those in work, and not vilifying those seeking work or unable to work.

Five charities have come together for the Who Benefits? campaign. I know the Minister prefers charities to be seen and not heard; that is the Victorian mindset of this Government. However, the Children’s Society, Crisis, Gingerbread, Macmillan Cancer Support and Mind often work with people who find themselves in receipt of benefits. The charities are campaigning because they believe that

“politicians should do more to listen to, understand and act on the realities of people’s lives”



and to focus on

“the real reasons that people are struggling to address, like low wages, the high cost of living and the housing crisis”,

rather than demonising those on welfare benefits.

I have a number of specific questions for the Minister. First, will she make it clear in her own words how much she recognises the challenges that benefits claimants face, and outline the kind of nurturing, supportive environment that she is seeking to establish? Secondly, what measures are in place to ensure that benefit claimants are nurtured and supported, and that those who work for the DWP and its agencies treat them with dignity and respect? Thirdly, what assessment has been made of the impact of measuring and comparing the number of sanctions meted out by jobcentres? What other measures have been looked at, such as measuring the number of claimants in every jobcentre who found and stayed in work for six months? Fourthly, what sanctions are in place for those who are not respectful towards benefits claimants, and are those sanctions applied to Ministers? Fifthly, why do the Government refuse to acknowledge the link between increased sanctions and increased food bank usage? Finally, why did the recent Oakley report on sanctioning not extend to all benefit claimants? I look forward to the Minister’s response.

When the Minister’s office wrote to me asking what this debate would be about and what my concerns were, I wanted to give her lots of time to prepare for it, so I made it clear to her that the debate would centre on the culture and treatment of benefit claimants, and that I would cite examples where that culture and treatment had not met the standard that I hope the Minister aspires to. I would also like to reassure her that I have studied the recent Westminster Hall debate on benefit sanctions, on 2 December 2014. I have read the questions posed by my hon. Friends in that debate and her response to them. I think it fair to say that there is not a strong correlation between the two. I assure the Minister that she does not need to repeat the points made in that debate about the importance of getting work, the history of sanctions or the role of incentives to work. I and the vast majority of benefit claimants are familiar with them. No one wishes to make it easy for freeloaders, or foster a culture that does not recognise the value of work. That is not what the debate is about. Will she ensure—unlike on the last occasion—that she saves some time to address our concerns? They are important.

The sense that claimants are being treated as second-class citizens, scroungers and cheats has a terrible impact on their well-being and, in particular, their mental health. I have some experience of that. I was brought up largely on benefits. We were a one-parent family. My mother was crippled with rheumatoid arthritis and also suffered from breast cancer. It was hard for her, not only because of our poverty but because of her shame at taking handouts. I am so glad that she did not have to face the sort of vilification and abuse that benefits claimants face now—abuse caused in part by a sustained campaign from those on the right of the political spectrum. Contrary to what many of them would imagine, I was brought up with a strong work ethic and to believe that the state should provide a robust safety net for those who need it. I am not proud that I grew up on benefits, but I am not ashamed either. I want to know what the Government are doing to prevent the demonisation of those claiming benefits.

[Mrs Linda Riordan (in the Chair)]

Before I call the next speaker, I remind the Chamber that several Members want to take part in the debate. I want to give the Minister enough time to reply to all the points raised, so I would be grateful if Members kept their speeches to about six minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship so early in the new year, Mrs Riordan. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) on securing this important debate. I am conscious of the time and the fact that several of my hon. Friends want to speak, so I want to make several quick points, based on the experience of constituents who have contacted me.

The first point is about the rise in the use of sanctions in the past couple of years. Most people would accept the principle that if people flagrantly and persistently fail to adhere to mutually accepted requirements, they should face consequences. I have a constituent who failed to attend 22 out of 26 appointments, without any real explanation, and it is difficult to argue against some sanction in that case. However, like my hon. Friends, I have noticed a large increase in the number of sanctions imposed, often for a first or light transgression, and often with no regard to the context. Life is not so black and white. If it were, everyone who went over their parking meter allocation by a minute would be fined automatically, and I think there would be outrage at that.

A constituent contacted me about his experience of realising, on the date of his appointment, that he had missed the time. He phoned up the same day to apologise and make another appointment, which was offered for the following day. He turned up and went through the interview, and was then sanctioned by post. The staff did not even have the respect to do it face to face. He was left with no income—no means of feeding himself or heating his home—for an entire month, on the basis of one missed appointment.

There have recently been roadworks at the junction of Raby road and Middleton road in the centre of Hartlepool, which have caused chaos. All road users have been affected, including bus passengers. A constituent of mine was late for her appointment because her bus could not navigate Raby road and was delayed on the first day of the roadworks. That was not her fault. She had no way of knowing it would happen; but she was sanctioned and left without money for a month.

One of my constituents was told that her appointment for a work capability assessment was cancelled; she was then sanctioned for failing to attend the cancelled appointment. If it were not so serious it would be ludicrous. Another constituent was sanctioned for a month, and left with no means of feeding herself or heating her home, because she missed an appointment once. The reason she missed it was that on the day of the appointment she was burying her grandfather, having been at his deathbed for the previous week. In all those cases, and in others, I have been able to get the sanctions overturned; but that itself raises some issues. Is it an efficient use of taxpayer resources to apply a sanction, only for staff time to be employed in overturning it? How robust, efficient and effective is the process if that continues to be the case?

My second point is about jobcentre culture. Front-line staff do not have any flexibility to determine whether a benefit claimant has failed to comply with a requirement. They have to see things in black and white and they cannot provide personalised support. The system is geared not to help individuals, but merely to process them.

Claimants can suffer appallingly as a result of their treatment. Jobcentre Plus is not seen as a place that assesses people’s skills and training needs and helps them get back into work, but as a negative place where any contact results in the delay or stopping of benefits. It is seen as somewhere where claimants are punished and belittled, rather than helped. I have constituents who have independently told me that Jobcentre Plus staff have said to them, “But you sit on your backside all day watching ‘Jeremy Kyle’, don’t you?” That cannot be acceptable. What is the Minister doing about that top-down, politically driven culture? It is demoralising for staff and claimants, and something needs to be done.

My third point relates to personalised support. Hartlepool, like other parts of the north-east, has a large number of men—it is largely men—who worked in manual occupations for most of their working lives. Many reach their late 50s and find that, because of their personal circumstances, the fact that they are becoming ill or changes to the economy, those occupations are no longer available to them. The jobcentre is simply not interested in helping them secure a new job. Through its indifference and latent hostility, it is consigning my constituents and those of other hon. Members to the scrap heap long before their time.

A constituent came to see me who had worked in factories for 35 years and had been made redundant. He was a hard worker and a proud working man. He had never been on the dole in his life, but he said that the jobcentre was treating him like a leper because he had asked for assistance. He was told to apply for benefits online, and was not given an answer or any support when he said that he did not have a computer, had never used one and did not even know where to begin. There are many people like my constituent in Hartlepool and the north-east. The digital divide is creating social exclusion that is affecting the most vulnerable people. What will the Minister do to address that?

My final point is a technical one. Will the Minister take action to ensure that jobseeker’s allowance or employment and support allowance sanctions result in the suspension, rather than the closure, of claims? The different public agencies are not talking to one another. Will the Minister also ensure that her Department distinguishes between claims that are closed because the claimant has gained employment, and claimants who are sanctioned and are entitled to housing benefit on the grounds of low income? If the Department provides local authorities with that additional information, it will ensure that those claimants’ entitlement to housing benefit continues and that they do not lose their houses as a result of that culture and their treatment.

My constituents deserve better, as do many others in the north-east and elsewhere. They are treated shabbily and with contempt. They are proud people who want to work. The Minister should be trying harder.

Several hon. Members rose—

[Mrs Linda Riordan (in the Chair)]

Order. I will call the Front Benchers at about 3.30 pm, so I ask the two remaining speakers to limit their speeches to a maximum of five minutes each.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Linda Riordan (in the Chair)]

Order. The Minister must be heard. I know that emotions are running high, but the Minister is replying and it is entirely up to her whether she chooses to give way.

[Esther McVey]

On what happened pre-2010, that was so significantly different from what is happening now. There was widespread inconsistency in decision making, with similar cases treated differently in different jobcentres.

Universal Jobmatch Programme (Fraud)

Linda Riordan Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

It is the first time that I have had the privilege of speaking under your chairmanship, Mrs Riordan, and I welcome it. You will realise from your own constituency work that the debate is immensely serious. It originated with a constituent who was ripped off, to put it in delicate language, through using the Universal Jobmatch that the Government, rightly, provide. I want to say at the outset, to avoid any doubt, that while I have been a Member of the House I have always been in favour of conditionality. The Government’s latest move on conditionality—

[Mrs Linda Riordan (in the Chair)]

Order. Will hon. Members who attended the previous debate leave quietly? I should be grateful.

[Mr Field]

I should have hoped for more order at Jobcentre Plus than some hon. Members have been displaying, Mrs Riordan.

It must be at least 25 years ago that I suggested that help should be given to those who had difficulty finding a job. There may be fraud, and we should ask people from that group to come in at different times each day to sign on. I am pleased that after about 25 years a Government have got round to that idea. I approach the debate not in an attempt to wreck what Jobcentre Plus does, but in an attempt to improve it. As a start, Andrew Forsey of my office, who has done all the work on this, checked the Jobmatch scheme for Birkenhead today, as I am sure the Minister did. I know that many of her constituents use the same facilities. In the Birkenhead constituency there are 2,647 people claiming jobseekers’ allowance and, an hour or so ago, 24 jobs were advertised as available within 20 miles of Birkenhead. Fifteen of those were duplicate agency jobs, and two were stand-alone agency jobs. Despite the fact that the search was for jobs within 20 miles, one of those advertised was in Milton Keynes, two were in London, and one was for an overseas worker. There was a grand total of three actual vacancies. The Monster jobsite, run separately from the work that Monster does with the Department for Work and Pensions, had one job listed today, which was a teaching job.

To focus the debate, I thought it would be worth while considering the letter that the Minister wrote to the Chairman of the Select Committee, and the annex to that. The Clerk to the Select Committee kindly sent me a copy of both, and I have 12 questions for the Minister. Five are about the letter, and the others are about the annex. First, the Minister says in her letter:

“We have well established procedures to minimise the risks of this”—

bogus jobs—

“occurring within Universal Jobmatch.”

What are those checks and what are the results of using them? Secondly, she says:

“We have closed the fraudulent account and will compensate all jobseekers that have been affected in this case.”

I refer to constituents who were taken for a ride by a fraudster advertising on the Department for Work and Pensions site. The Minister says that they will be compensated. They lost at least £65 each—the money that they were asked to provide for a Home Office check—and have been offered £25. What does the Minister mean by compensation in those circumstances?

Thirdly, the Minister’s letter states:

“If the employer is in breach of our Terms and Conditions we will remove their right to advertise on Universal Jobmatch.”

What trawling of the site does she carry out, and how many removals occur? My constituent received a letter from the Department, which said:

“Currently there are 179 accounts advertising 352,569 jobs which potentially breach the Terms and Conditions”

that the Department has laid down. If the Department is telling one of my constituents that well over 350,000 jobs advertised may be in breach of the terms it lays down, how are the removals carried out? Fourthly, the letter states that that Department has

“removed…400 non-compliant accounts since…November 2012.”

May we have some idea of the reasons for the removals? How were the accounts breaking the contracts? Will the Minister explain more about the cleansing undertaken to get to that total?

My fifth and last question about the Minister’s letter arises from her saying that

“we have now concluded our investigations into 183 distributor accounts, resulting in the removal of the accounts and the associated vacancies.”

What are those distributor accounts? What sorts of vacancies were removed, and how many jobs were involved? Answers to those questions arising from the letter will enable us to understand more fully the action that the Department takes to ensure that people who use Universal Jobmatch will not be ripped off.

The first question arising from the annex is about its slightly boastful statement that DWP and Monster

“have already made major improvements”.

May I ask what those are? Secondly, it says:

“Sadly, the existence of ‘rogue’ employers is nothing new”.

If they are nothing new, what does the Department learn from finding out about those bogus employers and acting against them? After all, the Department offered facilities to someone who was known, certainly in some circles, as a fraudulent individual. People skilled in fraud do not normally turn up using their correct names, and nor did the person in question, but he was ushered into DWP to conduct his fraud. What action does the Department take in that respect? Thirdly, the annex mentions “well-established procedures to minimise” fraud. What are those procedures?

The fourth question arising from the annex to the letter is about the assertion that

“like all internet job sites, we manage the issue of duplicate or inappropriate vacancies.”

I remind the House that there are 15 duplicate jobs in the 54 advertised today on the DWP site. How well is that managing the issue? Fifthly, it is claimed that

“whenever we have a doubt”

action is taken. Who registers those doubts, and what is the doubt test that could lead to action? Sixthly—there are only two more questions—the annex states:

“If an employer breaches our terms and conditions we remove their right to advertise.”

Yet, as I said, the letter to my constituent said that there might be more than 350,000 jobs in breach of the terms and conditions. What action is the Department taking?

Lastly, the annex says that

“there has been inaccurate speculation about the relationship of the DWP and Monster.”

Will the Minister tell us something about that relationship, so we can be clear what it is? It is totally proper for them to have a relationship and for the DWP to ask Monster to carry out its functions; but it is not proper to expose constituents to fraud. That is the main point of the debate.

Today, even if we took the Department’s website at face value, only 24 jobs are advertised within 20 miles of Birkenhead, with more than 2,500 people claiming JSA. Large numbers of people are dead serious about trying to get a job, quite rightly, using that service, and they are being let down badly. What actions will the Government take to improve the service? Again, if people do not use the Jobmatch website actively, might they face sanctions, given the numbers of sanctions being employed at present? It is totally proper that the Department should have a website on which to advertise jobs, and totally proper that Beveridge’s idea of labour exchanges should be brought into the IT age, where people can easily advertise and where—we hope—claimants can as easily find jobs. However, the Department has totally failed not only to ensure that there are serious jobs on the site but, even more important, to take action to combat fraud.

I welcome the opportunity for the debate and to face my neighbour in Wirral West. Some of our constituents use the same jobcentre and the same site. I look forward to her replies, although I quite understand that she may need to write to me afterwards with some of them. I am grateful for the debate, Mrs Riordan.

Oral Answers to Questions

Linda Riordan Excerpts

Monday 10th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We are consulting widely with those organisations, and when we introduce the consultation process we want to hear from them all about how best to look at the issue of measurement so that the effect of what we do is felt by those who need it most. We are taking the recommended steps suggested by Save the Children, and we are committed to eradication. Universal credit is critical to the process of taking some 900,000 adults and children out of poverty, which we should all support.

Topical Questions

[Mrs Linda Riordan (Halifax) (Lab/Co-op)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)]

I pay tribute, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey) has done, to our Paralympic athletes, whose feats we have watched over the past fortnight. They have impressed us all and excited us by the very idea of competition, as well as overcoming their major difficulties. Next week my Department will publish the responses of thousands of disabled people to the “Fulfilling Potential” consultation that was launched earlier this year. Changing perceptions is key to helping disabled people overcome the barriers they face, as is tackling discrimination wherever it occurs.

[Mrs Riordan]

Will the Minister explain why so many people with Parkinson’s disease, such as my constituent Ian Barraclough, face endless form filling and bureaucracy to get the money to which they are entitled? Are welfare reforms failing when such people are failed?

Atos Healthcare

Linda Riordan Excerpts

Tuesday 4th September 2012 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mrs Linda Riordan (in the Chair)]

Order. With the permission of the Chairman of Ways and Means, and due to the number of Members wishing to speak, I will limit speeches to three minutes. When you hear the bell, you have one minute left. I remind Members that interventions should be short and remind those in the Public Gallery that they should listen in silence and not interrupt the debate. I call Duncan Hames.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

Given the number of Members wishing to speak, I am happy to forego the opportunity. Thank you for calling me, Mrs Riordan, but I would prefer to listen to other speakers who are clearly keen to take part in the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick de Bois]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. My point—my argument—is that if we stick to the headline statistics, we start to get into a debate that dwells on statistics. If we are going to do that, I am keen that we dig down and analyse them correctly before we make sweeping judgments.

I am pleased that the Government, along with the specialists, the occupational therapists and Professor Harrington, have not sat back since coming to power, and have not failed to review the process. They have reviewed it twice, and Professor Harrington has been asked to review it a third time. That is right, but it should not detract from the overriding principle that the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) highlighted. It is right that we should encourage and help people back to work where possible. After all, they were not assessed for a long time and it would be wrong to ignore them, because many have returned to work and will continue to do so. [Interruption.]

[Mrs Linda Riordan (in the Chair)]

Order. May I remind Members and those in the Gallery that other Members must be heard?

Parkinson’s Disease (Employment and Support Allowance)

Linda Riordan Excerpts

Tuesday 19th June 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Linda Riordan (Halifax) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Leigh, and I am delighted to have secured this debate on Parkinson’s disease, which is a very important issue for many of my constituents and thousands across the country.

A few weeks ago, a number of people with Parkinson’s came to my surgery and I listened with astonishment to the account of the impact that Government welfare changes could have on their lives. They felt penalised for things out of their control. At a most difficult time in their lives, they were being dealt yet another blow due to the heartless system that is in place.

Before I come to my main points, I will set out some background about Parkinson’s disease. It is a progressive and incurable neurological condition. Although it can be well managed with medication and treatment, there is no prospect of a person’s condition improving over time, and there is currently no cure. It is a fluctuating and unpredictable condition. Everyone with Parkinson’s is different, but many people report that symptoms can fluctuate rapidly during the day or week by week. That can include sudden freezing, tremor, muscle-tightening and slowness of movement, or other less visible symptoms such as pain and fatigue. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on chronic pain, I care passionately about the issue.

Parkinson’s onset is common in people in their 50s and early 60s, which presents an additional age-related barrier to employment for those affected. Many people with Parkinson’s are able and want to work, but many find it difficult to return to work because potential employers make discriminatory judgments about what it means to have Parkinson’s. Many people with the disease now receive employment and support allowance. Currently, claimants with Parkinson’s need to show that they have significant functional impairment that creates serious barriers to work to be eligible for ESA.

I was staggered to hear the stories of people with Parkinson’s—how their illness is dealt with and how the, to be frank, rather cold and heartless system in place fails to recognise the nature of their condition. It fails to understand what people might be going through and offers a fairly rigid process that is the same for any other group of people looking to claim benefits. The process that determines someone’s qualification for ESA uses a points category, as the Minister knows. People are assessed on different criteria and currently if someone scores 15 points they are found to be eligible for the work-related activity group. I will say more about that in a minute.

Through listening to people, such as my constituent Ian Barraclough, I found out the reality of the process, which, as is often the case, is somewhat different from the spin. Sadly, the assessment system fails to recognise, let alone understand, the condition of Parkinson’s. The group that visited my office outlined how there are good days and bad days. Sometimes they can feel fine and then suddenly freeze and their movements become much slower. However, that is barely recognised by the current system; it needs to be changed urgently. I ask the Minister: when do the Government plan to recognise the unique nature of Parkinson’s in the current welfare system and when will they adapt the claim form to ask specific questions relating to the fluctuating and progressive nature of this and other similar conditions?

As things stand, people with Parkinson’s are not asked their prognosis and what precautions they have to take in everyday life because of the sudden and unpredictable nature of their condition. For each of the simple tasks on that form, they are not asked if they can do something repeatedly, reliably or safely, or even how long it takes to perform a task. Surely those are common-sense matters to establish if an assessor is to make a judgment about ability to work. Parkinson’s UK and other charities representing those with fluctuating conditions have given their recommendations to the Department for Work and Pensions on how the claim form should change and they see no reason why those cannot be adopted as a matter of urgency.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, which I know will be much appreciated by all those caught up in the work capability process. The Minister’s stock response when questioned about it seems to be to imply that it needs time to bed in. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need the Minister now, after all these months, to step in, get a grip and take responsibility for the process, which is not only deeply unfair to those with serious conditions but is costing the taxpayer dearly through the appeals process?

[Mrs Riordan]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It needs to be looked at now because people are suffering and it is costing the taxpayer in the long run. I will say more about that later. With respect to the Minister, the people with the condition are best placed to comment on what should be in the forms and what needs to be done to serve people with the disease best.

The nature of the work-related activity group also needs to be addressed.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Before my hon. Friend leaves the issue of forms and tests, proposals were brought forward, and were endorsed by Professor Harrington. The Minister promised what he calls a gold standard review in his response to Professor Harrington, which we were told would start early in the new year, to look at this and other issues about the test and descriptors. Does my hon. Friend agree that must now be done urgently? We are now in June and there is no sign that the review has even started.

[Mrs Riordan]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. That is the message I picked up from the visitors to my surgery. I will move on to when things changed and to show that they are already losing benefits.

That work-related activity group is for those people with Parkinson’s and other conditions and disabilities where it is recognised that the person cannot currently work but may, with considerable support over time, be able to move into employment, which is what the majority of those suffering with Parkinson’s want. Around 45% of people with Parkinson’s assessed for ESA are placed in that group. By common consent, far too many people are placed in that group because the process is very crude and simplistic—as my hon. Friends and I have outlined—and does not take into account the fluctuating and progressive nature of Parkinson’s. Indeed, I have heard of people with Parkinson’s being repeatedly reassessed in the WRAG.

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

Bearing in mind how Parkinson’s effects can change from day to day, surely those making decisions on benefits for sufferers must have a more sympathetic and helpful approach, rather than giving a clinical and cold decision?

[Mrs Riordan]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. As I said, people are reassessed in the WRAG with a computer-generated report churning out recommendations that the person should return to work in six, 12 or 18 months. To imply that someone with Parkinson’s will miraculously recover and get back to work is frankly insulting. The matter does not end there. The person then has to attend meetings with Jobcentre Plus, but the support that is meant to be offered to find work just is not there. Sometimes a person is told, quite bluntly, “Come back in six months or a year’s time; we know you’re not going to get a job.”

The final insult from the Welfare Reform Act 2012 is that many people with Parkinson’s in the work-related activity group are now losing their ESA after a year. That happened to my constituent, Ian Barraclough. Those who have paid their national insurance now have the safety net of the financial support from ESA whipped away from them. They have done the right thing yet have an uncertain future, and they now have to rely on a working partner or on eroding their modest savings because the state will no longer support them.

Herein lies the contradiction at the heart of the Government’s policy. They ruthlessly means-test people’s allowance and fail to have an adequate system in place to check the seriousness of a person’s Parkinson’s disease. When everything is finished, they tell people that they should recover and get back to work. For many people with Parkinson’s, this leads to a feeling of lack of worth and that they are not being listened to. A computer-generated system tells them that they are fit to work when that is not the case.

There are not many jobs to go to anyway. Even if a person feels they can, with support, do some work, many employers are not willing to take on people with Parkinson’s, as they know that the condition can change from day to day. Sadly, the Government fail to recognise that, and people with Parkinson’s do not get the welfare support they need and deserve. These cold-hearted, unnecessary and disgraceful reforms need to be looked at again.

Instead of being placed in the work-related group, it is my belief, and that of Parkinson’s UK, that many more people with Parkinson’s should be in the support group. That group is for those with the most severe functional impairment, where there is no expectation that they can return to work. However, currently only 27% of people with Parkinson’s are placed in that group. The Government need to extend the range of the criteria that allow people with severe and progressive neurological diseases to be placed in the support group. Yet again, the Government fail the compassion test with their dogmatic insistence on placing people in the work-related activity group. They fail to acknowledge that many people with Parkinson’s have reached a stage where they are not able to work again. Can it be right that someone whose tremor is so bad that they cannot hold a pen or do up their trousers is placed in the work-related activity group? Yet there are many examples of people affected by Parkinson’s who are being put into this group.

The Government need to think again. They need to recognise that, by the time they are assessed, many people with Parkinson’s have given up work because it is making their condition worse. They are not scroungers. They have worked hard all their lives. My constituent Ian Barraclough has paid his tax and national insurance for four decades, since he was 17. They need to stop means-testing and put more people with Parkinson’s, who are clearly unable to work, in the support group. They need to stop the heartless treatment of people with this condition. I have heard story after story in my office from people about how they had been treated; none had many positive things to say. At a time when they need society to support them, they think the Government are walking by on the other side.

The independent review by Professor Harrington, who was mentioned earlier, made recommendations last year for what he calls a “gold standard review” of the validity of the tests for those with fluctuating conditions and mental health, intellect and cognitive issues. Only now has the Department seemingly woken up to the need to do that. The longer that people with Parkinson’s are subject to these unfair tests, the greater the stress on them and their families. I urge the Minister to make this his priority—both testing thoroughly the validity of the descriptors and those put forward by charities, and revising the claim form.

I secured this debate because I was moved by the countless stories of despair in people’s lives, when what they need is hope and support. I hope the Government recognise that they are wrong, and have the decency to look again at their approach to people with Parkinson’s. I hope that they put in place policies that are decent, fair and just, rather than the current system that, disgracefully, leaves people with Parkinson’s feeling like second-class citizens.

Unemployment (Halifax)

Linda Riordan Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Linda Riordan (Halifax) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am delighted to have secured this debate, and to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I also thank the Minister who will reply to the debate. Before I get to the heart of the issue, however, I would like to paint a background picture of Halifax and describe the social and economic situation in which we find ourselves today.

I grew up in Halifax and went to school there, and I know the people of Halifax well. It is a great place in which to live and work. No one wants to be out of work, but sadly far too many people are. People do not want handouts but the chance to do a good day’s work for a good day’s wage. People do not want to live in—and I do not want to represent—a town where levels of unemployment might be at 15% or 20%. I requested this debate to place on the record what is happening in Halifax, and say why something needs to be done.

Even if the possibility of 20% unemployment in Halifax sounds a little exaggerated, that is sadly where we could be heading unless something radical is done to get people back into work. In recent times, too many regeneration schemes have been axed and new projects scrapped, and too many policies have made the poor poorer, instead of giving them hope of work.

For many years, jobs in Halifax and Calderdale came from a number of industries that sadly are either no more, or are shadows of their former selves—I am talking about engineering, manufacturing and, going further back, the woollen industries. Over the past two or three decades, we have seen a steady decline in those industries that provided employment to key groups of people in my constituency. Today, the two biggest employers are the Lloyds Banking Group—better known to most local people as either the Halifax building society or HBOS—and Calderdale council. Other key employers include the hospital in Calderdale and the primary care trust, and other public sector employers.

Well-run private companies such as J&C Joel in Sowerby Bridge, Harveys department store, or Iplas recycling group in the heart of Halifax, together with many more small companies, provide much needed employment and are key businesses in my constituency. They are models of how to make a profit, provide employment and maintain a dedicated and motivated work force. Over the years, Halifax has relied on specific sectors to provide employment, but when those sectors declined, a vacuum was created. In Halifax, it has never been enough to rely on private sector jobs to fill the void that is created when public sector jobs are lost. The town needs much more than that, which is why regeneration schemes, investment in new schools and the new hospital, together with a strong public sector and the right macro-economic policies, have helped maintain levels of employment in the town.

[Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Lady for securing this debate. My constituency is also in the Calderdale district, and like her, we are all concerned about unemployment, although I think that the figure of 20% may be a little far-fetched. As MPs, we must do all we can promote the area for business growth, which we know to be the key thing. That is particularly true when 20% of constituents in Halifax and Calder Valley work in manufacturing.

Does the hon. Lady agree that although we are incredibly concerned about unemployment, we must also celebrate success? I highlight the example of JLA in Ripponden, which has spent £1 million; KT Hydraulics has recently spent £2 million, and Decorative Panels has invested £8 million. Boxford has recently moved from the hon. Lady’s constituency to mine, spending £6 million and creating many jobs.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. I have been very tolerant, but an intervention must be an intervention.

[Mrs Riordan]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and as I will show later in my speech, I do not intend to talk down Halifax—quite the reverse. I saw the Halifax Courier on Saturday night and read about the new jobs that have been created in Calder Valley. The Halifax Courier is a great source of local knowledge. It talks up Halifax and I have worked with it on many local campaigns, including that to get a direct train service to London, which we accomplished a couple of years ago.

Why have I called this debate today? It is not to make overt party political points, but rather to set out the background and put on the record the current unemployment figures in Halifax which, I am afraid, speak for themselves. I find such figures alarming and wish to seek answers and assurances from the Minister about what can be done. What can be changed, and what initiatives is he planning to ensure that levels of unemployment start to reduce in my constituency?

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate; the difficulties that she has expressed are mirrored in many of our constituencies. Does she believe that the onus should be put on apprenticeships and further education colleges to provide proper courses for what industry needs, together with a closer working relationship with organisations such as the CBI and the Federation of Small Businesses?

[Mrs Riordan]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I agree with his point about apprenticeship schemes. In fact, just last Friday, I visited Goodall Transport in Sowerby Bridge in Halifax. It has been there for quite a few years. It would like more money coming up north, because it sees money directed more to the south of England. Also, it struggles with paying VAT before it gets that VAT into the company. It might invoice someone today and have to pay the VAT at the end of February, but not get the VAT by then. Perhaps the Minister will reply to that.

I hope that the Minister agrees that the current levels of unemployment in the town that I represent are unacceptably high, that the current upward trend in the number of people out of work is alarming and that a worryingly large number of those people are in the key 18 to 24 and 25 to 50 age groups. For example, the number of people out of work aged 24 and under has gone up by more than 25% in the last year, and in the 25 to 49 age group, it is up by more than 15%. The overall employment rate is only 66%. That is an alarmingly low level. I hope that the Minister shares my concerns about those rates. Does he agree that under one in four of the active adult population out of work in Halifax is a damning statistic? Will he outline what initiatives can be taken to improve that situation and put in place job creation measures as a matter of urgency, not just at macro-economic level, but at a micro-economic level that benefits my constituents?

Earlier today, I was looking at the statistics from five years ago. The unemployment level in Halifax has nearly doubled in that period. Despite the stereotyping last week of benefit claimants, they are people who want to work and need to work. The whole social fabric of a town can collapse if unemployment levels get too high. Let me be clear: I think that one person out of work is one too many. Does the Minister share my concerns about the figures that I have mentioned? What policies can he introduce to help to stem the flow of job losses, which is rapidly becoming a torrent?

The current situation is fragile, and the campaign to save jobs in the town’s two biggest employers—Lloyds HBOS and Calderdale council—goes on. The knock-on effects for the town of more job losses at those two big employers would be devastating. As Roger Harvey of Harveys department store regularly says to me, “Many town centre businesses need and rely on these jobs.” The fabric of the town is held together by them, and we need both a strong public sector and a private sector in Halifax to ensure that the town’s economic and social base is held together. With the greatest politeness and respect, I say to the Minister that the Government might be misunderstanding towns such as Halifax if they think that a reliance on private sector jobs will create new jobs or replace the ones that are being lost and being lost at a rapid rate.

In that sense, every effort should be being made to protect all jobs at Lloyds HBOS. The Government own more than 40% of that company. Will the Minister tell me what input he has into the board of Lloyds and what he is doing to protect jobs in Halifax and other constituencies? Will he also tell me how shedding public sector jobs helps towns such as Halifax? Will he do all that he can to compensate for those losses and outline what measures he is taking to ensure that new jobs will be created?

Calderdale council is at the heart of the Halifax and Calderdale economy. The reductions in council budgets are hurting the town. Again, may I gently mention that towns in the home counties and other parts of the country can better absorb public sector job losses? When there is a private sector, or towns have grown up with more service-based industries, new jobs can be created much more easily. In northern towns such as Halifax, which have always had a strong and important public sector, that is much harder to do. I hope that the Government fully realise what makes the economy in places such as my constituency tick and how cutting the public sector, but not giving the private sector the means to create new jobs, leads to a damaging and shocking increase in unemployment.

I do not want to knock everything. There are success stories, such as those that I mentioned at the beginning of my speech. I recently visited the Iplas recycling company. The managing director, Howard Waghorn, has visionary and innovative ideas for his company. Likewise, the order book of J&C Joel in Sowerby Bridge continues to expand. However, those are well-run, long-established companies. The new industries and entrepreneurs with innovative ideas needed for the 21st century will not appear in towns such as Halifax simply through the waving of a magic wand and hoping that new jobs are created. I do not want to pretend that everything in Halifax is gloomy. It is not. We need to keep our self-confidence and hope. There are success stories. I am sure, or rather I hope, that the Minister will quote them back to me when he replies.

In essence, I would like the Minister and the Government to recognise the underlying problem that exists in towns such as Halifax, not hide away from it. I hope that the figures that I have cited alarm the Minister as much as they have alarmed me. I would like to hear some answers about what can be done, not excuses for what has not been done. I would like the Minister to assure me that job creation and regeneration schemes will be targeted on Halifax. The initiatives from the Department for Communities and Local Government will help Calderdale council. However, we want not short-term fixes, but long-term solutions. Therefore, I would be grateful if the Minister outlined what his short and long-term plan is for reducing unemployment in Halifax today, before the terrible consequences of further unemployment become a crisis, with people out of work and the whole social fabric of the town ripped apart.

Oral Answers to Questions

Linda Riordan Excerpts

Monday 13th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

Reducing such conflict by putting in place support for parents to work collaboratively at the time of family breakdown lies at the heart of the reforms that we are looking at. I think Members of all parties can welcome that, and it has certainly been welcomed by organisations in the charitable sector who work with families.

[Mrs Linda Riordan (Halifax) (Lab/Co-op)]

What were the terms of reference that the DWP gave to the Sayce team, what was cost of the report, and was the main beneficiary Radar?

[Maria Miller]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I apologise for not quite hearing the end of it, but let me say that we commissioned the report to look generally at how employment programmes were supporting severely disabled people, including all the programmes currently run by the Department. It is a very fragmented bunch of programmes, and Liz Sayce has done an excellent job in pulling that together and recommending a strategy and the way forward. Yes, we did remunerate Radar, because it was required to have additional help to support it in the running of its business while Liz Sayce was helping us.

Oral Answers to Questions

Linda Riordan Excerpts

Monday 28th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

We are going to bring forward our proposals. It is because we acknowledge the importance of this area that we want to get it right. We are going to consult and we want people to recognise their priorities and have the opportunity to decide with us what they think those are. It is our intention—this can be stated absolutely, because it is the purpose of universal credit—to ensure that people will always be better off in work than out of work.

[Mrs Linda Riordan (Halifax) (Lab/Co-op)]

2. What estimate he has made of the number of people in Halifax who will be affected by planned changes to disability living allowance.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)]

After disability living allowance reform, we will be spending broadly the same in 2015-16 as we spent in 2009-10. At present, some 5,480 people in the Halifax parliamentary constituency are in receipt of DLA. That is after a 30% increase in the number receiving DLA nationwide in the last eight years. We will work with disabled people and the organisations that represent them on the design and delivery of the personal independence payment. Until this work is more advanced, I am unable to predict precisely whether individuals will see a change in their entitlement.

[Mrs Riordan]

I recently visited Mayfield house, a residential home in Halifax, to meet people who need and rely on DLA. The Government say that they are delaying their cuts to this benefit, but I hope they are not giving false hope to many of my constituents. Will they just admit that they have made a mistake and simply keep this benefit?

[Maria Miller]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity to clarify the situation yet again, even though the Prime Minister did so last week in Prime Minister’s questions. The Government are not removing DLA mobility from care home residents from 2012. We made it clear that we have listened to concerns across the House and from disabled people. We will consider care home residents at the same time as all other recipients—both current and future claimants—as we develop the personal independence payment. What we have uncovered is an unacceptable way in which mobility is often dealt with in care homes, and we will look at that further.