Personal Independence Payments

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2015 Westminster Hall

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

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

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

[Jim Shannon]

Perhaps they are away campaigning.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“resulted in the request for an assessment”—

presumably by the DWP—

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

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

As to the comment that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is true. The Committee’s report said:

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

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

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

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

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

[Jim Shannon]

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

[Mark Lazarowicz]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Disabled People (Mr Mark Harper)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) on securing the debate. In the time available, I will do my best to answer as many as possible of the questions that she and others asked.

A number of colleagues raised the issue of delays and statistics. I think that colleagues got the message that I gave before, because a number of them helpfully repeated it, about dealing with the delays that claimants have experienced. It was and remains the issue on which I am spending a lot of time, to ensure that we resolve it. Both I and officials have been working very hard to do so, as have both the assessment providers.

We have quadrupled the number of assessments cleared each month since January last year, and the number of people with a PIP claim in payment almost doubled between July and October. This morning, the Department has pre-announced that we will publish next Wednesday information on the number of PIP claims processed. I have written to the Chairman of the Work and Pensions Committee, the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), to inform her of that fact, and I will of course take the Committee through those key pieces of information on the day on which I give evidence.

The normal publication of clearance times and outstanding case times, which we pre-announced in December, will take place in March, and the exact date will be pre-announced in the usual way. That will be the publication of the normal set of statistics, which will then take place on a regular basis. However, there will be an ad hoc publication next week, so that my conversation with the Select Committee will be informed by properly verified statistical information, which I think will be helpful, rather than unverified management information. As I said, I have written to the Chairman of the Committee this morning to let her know.

Hon. Members referred to the impact of the delays. It is worth making the point that PIP is designed to meet the extra costs of someone’s disability or health condition; it is not a benefit designed to meet normal day-to-day costs. In this and other debates, hon. Members have sometimes talked about someone who has had to leave work because of their health condition. PIP is obviously not designed to deal with the costs of that. Those costs will be dealt with by other benefits—for example, employment and support allowance.

All new claims for PIP are backdated to the date of the claim. I recognise, of course, that that presents a cash-flow problem for people, which is why we are working hard to deal with the delays. Of course, in the case of all reassessed claims, people will continue to receive their DLA while awaiting the PIP decision. Other support, which is not tied to receipt of PIP, is available for those on a low income. I am talking about help with energy bills, concessionary bus passes and help with NHS transport costs; and there is the ability to get a blue badge through an assessment, rather than being passported through PIP. Carer’s allowance can be backdated to the point from which PIP was awarded, as well. Again, I recognise that there is a cash-flow issue there, but people are able to backdate the costs.

I thank Paul Gray very much for his report. He did a thorough job. He talked to the assessment providers, to a lot of people who have had experience of claiming the benefit and those who have assisted them, and to many organisations involved in the process. It is a thorough report, and we will of course respond to it in due course. I can say some things today, because some of the recommendations are about things that are already under way. For example, we are reviewing and rewriting all the letters to claimants to make them simpler, easier to understand and clearer. We are also exploring the use of other medical evidence held by the Department. For example—this relates to a question asked by both the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green)—if someone has gone through a work capability assessment and we have an ESA85 report from that assessment, we are using that information to support and help inform the decision to award PIP. Sometimes that will enable us to make a decision without a face-to-face assessment. It may mean that we have enough information to make those decisions on paper—it is obviously welcome if we can do that—or it may help to inform the decision, so we are looking at doing that.

We are looking at using more proactive communications. For example, since last April claimants get a text message to confirm that their form has been received, so that they know that it is in process. We are also building better relationships between the DWP case managers who make decisions and the health care professionals who make assessments.

We have made changes to some of our internal processes and IT to further streamline clearances of claims. We have improved communications to claimants at the beginning, to try to ensure that they know what the best evidence to supply is and how long their claim may take to be assessed, and to stress the importance of sending us information and following the process. We have a dedicated customer claim line for terminally ill claimants. The assessment providers are also providing claimants with better information about how long a claim may take and whom they should contact at each stage of the process.

As a number of hon. Members mentioned, including the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz), there is a fast-track service and a dedicated claim line for terminally ill claimants with a prognosis of six months or less. We are clearing those cases in about 10 days, which is in line with expectations, and 99% of the decisions lead to an award. In the review, Paul Gray acknowledged that the process for terminally ill claimants had significantly improved following the work that the Department and my predecessor did with Macmillan Cancer Support.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

I hear what the Minister says, and perhaps he will come to this later, but what about the situation that I described of people whose prognosis is more than six months but still relatively short, who will be hit badly when there are delays of much more than 16 weeks?

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly sensible point. The solution is to fix things so that people are not having to wait so long. Clearly, we have to state a time. People have various health conditions and disabilities, and we have to draw a line somewhere, but the real solution for the cases that the hon. Gentleman mentions is to do what we are doing, which is to ensure that people going through the process have an assessment within a sensible time. Then the issue that he set out simply does not arise, because they are getting an assessment, a relatively speedy decision and the support that they need. That is the solution for those with a progressive condition, with a longer prognosis, but obviously for those with a terminal illness who have a very short time to live, we have put in place a much faster process, which is working well.

The hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead mentioned interventions. The point of them is to ensure that the amount of PIP paid is correct, so that awards can be adjusted upwards if someone’s needs have increased or downwards if they have decreased. That has happened in a very small volume of cases to date. The hon. Lady gave a specific example of one of her constituents. Interventions are set on the basis of when needs change and when awards are made. Given that interventions can go in both directions, it is certainly not in the interests of the Department to review awards more frequently than is necessary, because to do so creates unnecessary work.

The hon. Lady mentioned reassessment. There are two kinds of reassessment going on. For those who have time-limited awards, there is a process called natural reassessment—the names are not brilliantly informative—which is being switched on only in areas where we know that we have the capacity to carry it out. One of the things that I do before I take those decisions is to ensure that our assessment providers have the necessary capacity, and I have been switching the process on only when where there is that capacity.

The hon. Lady mentioned managed reassessment, which has previously been announced as starting in October, under which those with an indefinite DLA claim will be reassessed. We have made it clear that we will roll that out only where and when we have the capacity to do so. It is clearly not in our interest to start reassessing people if the system does not have the capacity to do so. By the way, I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith for his positive comments about DWP staff and staff in my private office, where he has had to raise issues. People do not often say nice things, so I acknowledge his comments on behalf of the Department.

Colleagues from Northern Ireland raised a number of matters. The hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) and for Foyle (Mark Durkan) talked about the Stormont House agreement. I have been in correspondence with Mervyn Storey, the Minister with responsibility for welfare in Northern Ireland, and he and I are trying to get a date in the diary to meet. One thing that we will talk about is the progress that has been made on the Stormont House agreement and welfare reform. I am sure that we will both want to talk about the lessons learned from rolling out PIP in Great Britain, which may apply to the roll-out in Northern Ireland.

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

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2014 Commons Chamber

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

I, too, have several constituents who have expressed to me their anger at the statement by Lord Freud. They wanted me to raise those concerns in Parliament, so I am glad to have the opportunity to associate myself with the motion today. As time is limited, however, I will not dwell on those comments, but concentrate instead on the delays to assessments and to decisions on applications for the personal independence payment.

Members on both sides of the House will know that PIP affects many of our constituents. Countrywide the numbers are immense and underline that yet another welfare reform policy from this Government is being introduced in a botched and chaotic manner. According to Government figures, 329,000 disabled people are currently stuck in a backlog to see whether they qualify for PIP. A recent powerful report from Citizens Advice Scotland, “Voices from the frontline” highlighted the personal impact on so many people of delays in PIP assessment decisions. It estimated that claimants typically wait at least six months for the assessment. A Macmillan Cancer Support report last June came to the same finding—cancer patients are waiting at least six months—and many Members will have examples from their constituencies of much longer delays. I have had cases of people who applied for PIP in July or September 2013. More than a year later they are still waiting for a decision.

We must ask why there are such delays on PIP assessments and applications. One strong argument is that there are not enough assessment centres. That is important for people who live a long way from a centre—obviously, the more centres there are, the easier it will be for people to get to them. There are also indications that the number of people having face-to-face assessments is higher than the Government originally estimated and that claimants’ interviews are taking longer. That may be a good thing, but those factors will presumably impact on the demand for assessments and the delays that result from that. The introduction of PIP was called a “fiasco” by the Public Accounts Committee. The accumulating evidence of what is happening is all the more shocking because it is so similar to what occurred with employment and support allowance and work capability assessments—the same company, Atos, was involved there.

In the time available I want to highlight a different aspect of this issue. For many people, delays to PIP, ESA and other benefits will not only affect their income but have consequences for their health because of the stress involved in the delay and the associated impact on them and their families. Some people will face difficulties as a result of a delay. For others, the assessment will come too late as they will no longer be alive.

Let me take this opportunity briefly to raise one issue from the campaign by Gordon Aikman, who is well known in Scotland, to improve the care and support of people with motor neurone disease. Half of those diagnosed with MND die within 14 months. Claims from people with a terminal illness who are not expected to live more than six months can be fast-tracked, but where does that leave people living with a rapidly progressing condition such as MND who may be expected to live longer—although perhaps not much longer—but who could still have to wait at least six months for their PIP claim to be assessed? I call on the Government to introduce measures to fast-track PIP applications for people with MND or other rapidly progressing conditions, so that at least a decision can be made and they can get the benefits to which they are entitled.

Personal Independence Payments

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I welcome this debate.

The measure of a Government’s compassion is their treatment of the most vulnerable members of society. Although we all recognise the unfortunate reality that we must deal with our nation’s deficit, that should never be done on the backs of that section of our society. I requested this debate in response to the dreadful experiences of some of my constituents with personal independence payments. Many of them require the state’s support in order to enjoy a life that those of us fortunate enough to enjoy good health often take for granted. For them, a fair measure of support makes the difference between spending their lives at home, isolated, alone and cut off from the rest of society, and enjoying as active a life as possible and participating in their communities.

Colleagues will know that in the past I have raised the deficiencies of the former disability living allowance. When a constituent of mine endured the difficulties associated with a laryngectomy—the removal of the voicebox, which is almost always carried out as a means of treating cancer—I spoke in the House. The benefits process was so convoluted that it resulted in an individual having to fill out an application form of massive proportions. That would be difficult for many of us, let alone for an individual with a profound physical or mental disability. In this individual’s case, using a telephone was just not possible. Enable, the charity supporting people with learning disabilities in Scotland, has said:

“Whilst it may be possible for many claimants to make this initial call without support, it is our experience that people with a learning disability are often unable to do this and require the physical support of advice services. This is especially true when no family or other support is available to assist.”

Citizens Advice Scotland agrees.

I sought this debate today not least to congratulate Citizens Advice Scotland, which runs the Scottish citizens advice bureaux, on its 75th anniversary. I warmly commend its excellent staff and many volunteers. Crucially, it released a report recently that shows that the rollout of PIP to replace DLA is in an utterly shambolic state. I commend that report to the House for its consideration, and I intend to make a number of references to it. For example, for some rural residents in the north of Scotland the nearest assessment centre is in Inverness, which requires an 80-mile round trip. In some cases, people have to go even further, travelling distances of up to 100 miles, and even in urban areas there are serious problems.

I will give another example of a person who was contacted by Atos for a home visit, so that they could receive a medical assessment for PIP. The individual was receiving in-patient care in hospital on the arranged date and informed Atos, which told her that non-attendance at the meeting would affect any award of PIP. Therefore, the patient had to arrange for an early discharge from hospital and pay for a taxi back to her home. Using a walking frame and with a nasogastric tube in place, she was told by the health care professional who arrived to see her that the assessment could not be carried out because she was too ill. Of course, that left the patient very upset and the health care professional informed her manager of this. Consequently, the health care professional was told that she could carry out the assessment if the patient agreed that it could go ahead. Afterwards, the patient had to get another taxi back to the hospital, at a cost of another £12.

Numerous cases involve what is at best a very sceptical line of questioning and at worst an outright interrogation of a claimant’s circumstances, and I know that many of my colleagues know of similar experiences.

Another decision involved an individual with heart failure who was initially refused any component of PIP, because she had walked from the car park to the assessment centre, albeit with enormous difficulty.

Time and again, the main reasons why people are asking for PIP decisions to be reviewed are, first, the failure to consider fully the impact of a client’s condition during the medical assessment, and, secondly, inconsistencies in the information provided by the Department for Work and Pensions following a decision.

Decisions about the refusal of the mobility component also cause problems. In its comprehensive report, Citizens Advice Scotland states that it has found selective use of evidence in order to make a decision not to award the benefit. Clients feel that not all of their circumstances have been considered, or that they have been over-simplified.

Another awful example is that of a client who had just been awarded a PIP daily living standard rate. He was told that he could drop dead at any time due to a heart condition, and he had a specialist cardiologist’s report from the beginning of last year stating that. The person is so traumatised by the wait and the hardship that have been caused that he cannot face the appeal; he has been told to avoid stressful circumstances at all costs. All that, and much more of what is in the report, is totally unacceptable.

Four in five advisors say that delays are causing worsening health, and in nine out of 10 cases are causing additional stress and anxiety, not to mention financial strain, while claims are being assessed.

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

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this debate, and I am sure that we will continue to discuss this issue during the course of the day.

What can double or treble delays is the delay upon delay in the appeal procedure. I know of the case of someone who first applied for PIP back in September 2013. She was refused it in the first instance. She was then successful at the first-tier appeal, but the Department has not yet decided whether or not to appeal to the next tier up; because of various delays and errors, that decision has not yet been reached. So, 13 months after first applying, she is still facing nobody knows how many months of delay, and that kind of thing is causing people much tension and pressure, is it not?

[Mr James Gray (in the Chair)]

Order. Interventions must be brief.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The problem is not what the hon. Lady describes. It is with Labour Members, who cannot bear the idea that, when they were in government, they had an archaic system that worked only from 8am to 6pm. Our system works for 24 hours. It works while people’s computers are shut down. It nominates jobs, and advisers can offer advice online. This is a major success story. The problem is that Labour does not get it. We are getting more people into work, higher levels of employment and falling levels of unemployment. In fact, we have some of the lowest levels in the European Union.

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

7. What recent progress he has made on the universal credit programme; and if he will make a statement.

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

Universal credit is on track to roll out against the timetable set out last year. The claimant commitment is in place across all jobcentres. Universal credit is live in 14 sites, and from today further expansion is under way across the north-west, with couples and families joining at a later stage. Based on the case load projections, there are, at the moment, around 11,000 people making those claims on universal credit.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

I am interested in the Secretary of State’s answer. In 2011 he announced that a million people would be claiming universal credit by April 2014, when the true figure was just 6,000. What went so badly wrong with his projections, and what are his current milestones for the delivery of universal credit?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I think I made that clear before, but I will repeat it again. Back in 2012, I was not happy with the plan for the roll-out, because it mirrored too much the roll-outs that used to happen under the previous Government—[Interruption.] We hit the bump. [Laughter.] It is interesting that Opposition Members sit there laughing, because I remember the tax credit fiasco. They launched tax credits and people suffered. People did not get their payments and were out of pocket. That has not happened with universal credit. In answer to the hon. Gentleman, I simply say that we deliberately set a pathfinder and we are expanding it now, with 90 new sites. Universal credit is rolling out carefully, and we are ensuring that all those who are eligible get the money that is due to them when it is due. It is not the disaster that we had under the previous Government.

Work Capability Assessments

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

I am very grateful to have secured this debate. I have been pursuing work capability assessments for those on employment and support allowance since I was elected to this House. Indeed, I think I mentioned in my maiden speech that I would take up this issue. This is my sixth debate on specific aspects of the WCA.

I want to develop an issue I first raised on 6 September 2013: the support that people receive while they challenge a decision on their entitlement to benefit. This will generally involve somebody who has been found fit for work, but who believes that the decision is wrong and that they are entitled to ESA. It could, in some circumstances, also apply to someone placed in the work-related activity group, as opposed to the support group.

In the past, a claimant could immediately lodge a formal written appeal with a judge from Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service. A Department for Work and Pensions official, known as the decision maker, would look at the original decision again, and either change it in the claimant’s favour or uphold it and pass the appeal on to a judge. That initial stage was, and still is, referred to as a reconsideration. What has changed is that since October 2013 claimants have to apply for reconsideration formally and separately before they can lodge an appeal. This two-stage process was introduced following the passage of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 and its subsequent regulations.

I emphasise, as I have done before, that I do not object to the introduction of even a mandatory reconsideration process. It can be quicker, less stressful for claimants, a lot cheaper for taxpayers, and, as I think the Minister himself said last week, it may be contributing to a reduction in the number of formal appeals. There are, however, serious practical consequences to mandatory reconsideration: the gap in payment to claimants prior to the formal appeal process, long delays in receiving a decision on reconsideration, and the lack of statistics on outcomes.

Claimants, although they may not be aware of it, have never formally been entitled to employment and support allowance during the reconsideration process. However, prior to October last year the benefit was usually paid at the assessment rate because reconsiderations —we could, perhaps, call them informal reconsiderations —took place under the auspices of having lodged an appeal, and when claimants lodge an appeal, they are entitled to receive assessment-rate employment and support allowance. Now that claimants have to apply for reconsideration and then appeal at a subsequent date, there is a gap in payment. Official advice suggests that during this period claimants can apply for jobseeker’s allowance, rather than employment and support allowance, while their reconsideration request is being considered. They can then go back to claiming ESA at the assessment rate if their original decision is upheld and they submit an appeal.

As I noted last year, however, JSA comes with a high level of conditionality. Claimants have to be available for work, actively seeking work, attending work-focused interviews, searching for jobs and making a minimum number of applications every week. In itself, that can prove tiring and stressful, and can exacerbate existing physical or mental conditions. Even more important is the fact that those who apply and fail to meet these conditions can be sanctioned or refused benefit altogether. In my previous debate, I predicted that this would lead to people having no support from the state, with people being too fit for ESA and too sick or disabled for JSA. I have encountered many such examples in my constituency. Citizens Advice Scotland, which has given me a great deal of support for this debate, has today published a report on this issue. It describes some of the situations in which people find themselves. These are real cases that have come to their bureaux. I suggest that the Minister look at the report.

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

I am glad that my hon. Friend has secured this debate. She mentions the Citizens Advice Scotland report, which I too have seen. Does she agree that the Minister should look at its recommendations? Like her, I deal with many of these problems in my constituency casework. The Government cannot just leave the situation as it is.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Indeed. The report’s recommendations are very sound. One fundamental recommendation is to reinstate the payment of ESA for practical reasons, and I will come on to that.

Of those cases, most who applied for JSA while their reconsiderations were ongoing were either refused outright or failed to attend necessary appointments, owing to their mental health condition, perhaps, or, in some cases, their learning disability. Others did not apply because they could not face another benefit application, or simply because they did not know that they could. In one case where a claimant applied and was paid JSA, he emphasised that this was only as a result of support he received from his Jobcentre Plus adviser. For those who did not receive JSA, few had savings or other income to fall back on and had to rely on already overstretched food banks. Others took out high interest loans, amassing debts they will struggle to repay even if they subsequently receive backdated payments at a later date. One constituent sold off his few remaining possessions to survive.

When I first raised these concerns last September, the then Minister, the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr Hoban), assured me, as he did in subsequent correspondence, that claimants with an outstanding reconsideration request could ask for what was described as “flexible conditionality” when they met their Jobcentre Plus adviser. Last week, however, the Benefits Director at the DWP acknowledged to the Work and Pensions Committee that

“not all advisors had been aware of this”

and that new guidance to jobcentres had been circulated at the end of April this year—several months after the introduction of mandatory reconsideration. That is welcome, but it is hard to have confidence in the Department, given that previous assurances were clearly unfounded.

In addition, we were told at the same meeting that people should never be refused JSA outright without the opportunity to have a meaningful conversation about conditionality with a jobcentre adviser. However, the DWP’s own guidance specifically states that

“a claimant will not be able to remain on JSA if their period of sickness exceeds 14 days”.

Citizens Advice Scotland has suggested that this is a particular problem for those claiming JSA during an ESA reconsideration. I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments on that.

More broadly, however, I question the whole rationale for preventing claimants from receiving ESA at the assessment rate during this period. Last week the Minister tried to hide behind legal semantics, arguing that claimants are deemed to be fit for work during this period and must apply for benefits accordingly. However, that ignores the fact that claimants are also deemed fit for work during a formal appeal, yet because of the way in which regulations are framed, they are entitled to ESA at the assessment rate during that process. If the problem is how the regulations were set out following the Welfare Reform Act 2012, they can be changed. There is no real reason why people should be treated differently during the reconsideration period and the appeal period.

There is also an administration cost involved in a claimant receiving the assessment rate of ESA, ceasing to receive it, claiming JSA and then potentially claiming the assessment rate of ESA again. These are significant costs when multiplied by the number of people involved. In addition, if everybody claimed JSA successfully, they would receive benefit at exactly the same rate as they would have been getting on ESA, so if there are any savings to be anticipated, is it because Ministers thought that people would, in fact, struggle to claim JSA during the reconsideration process, given that administration costs are likely to outweigh anything else? I am sure that cannot be the case.

The other issue that has come up as mandatory reconsideration was rolled out since the end of last year is the length of time that people are waiting for decisions. We were initially told that reconsideration should take around two weeks, but in many of the cases I have seen, as well as in those seen by Citizens Advice and many of my colleagues, the time taken has varied between seven and 10 weeks. Those delays have exacerbated people’s health conditions and the financial and other issues they face as a result of receiving no benefit at all. The Minister acknowledged in evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee last Wednesday that there was a backlog. My staff have been told by our local office that there is indeed a backlog—that is how it was referred to. I would like the Minister to confirm today how long claimants are being told they will have to wait, and when he will publish statistics on average times and the total number of claimants who are waiting for a decision.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

My constituents are served by the same office as my hon. Friend’s and we have had the same experience. Would it not also be useful for the Minister to tell us whether the backlog is increasing or declining? If measures are not taken to deal with the problem, the danger is that it will get worse, not better.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I agree. One of the problems with many of the backlogs we are experiencing is that they are increasing.

Last week the Minister also defended the decision not to set a statutory time limit on how long reconsideration decisions take. This issue was raised with Ministers when the legislation was going through the House and in subsequent sittings of the Work and Pensions Committee, for example. In April 2012, the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council warned that the absence of a time limit could have the effect of

“delaying indefinitely the exercise of the right of appeal to an independent tribunal”.

Just last month, Judge Robert Martin expressed concern that judges could no longer intervene if they felt the reconsideration process was taking too long, because cases do not reach them until after reconsideration is completed. Setting a time limit will be one option before the Government at this stage, but a much simpler option might be not to have to do so, and instead simply to reinstate assessment rate ESA during that period. Indeed, that might be an incentive for the Government to speed up the process in any event.

Finally, I return to another issue I have raised previously. In a debate on 9 April this year, I argued that, given that reconsideration is now mandatory and that, as a result, we might expect many more decisions to be overturned in that way, the DWP should now publish statistics on the number of successful reconsiderations—something that is currently done only for successful appeals. Successful reconsiderations are lumped in with original decisions, so it is impossible to tell exactly what has happened. If we do not have separate overturn figures for reconsiderations, that might make the performance of whichever contractor is involved—including a new contractor in future—more difficult to monitor and track.

The Minister’s response at that time was that doing so would be premature, because mandatory reconsideration had only started in October 2013 and would need some time to take effect. However, it would appear that informal reconsideration has been taking place for some considerable time, even before the mandatory process was introduced. A previous Minister—I think it was the previous Minister but one—told the Work and Pensions Committee in March 2012 that the Department was

“effectively putting every case that is going to appeal, or where a person is not happy with it, through a reconsideration where we look for additional evidence”.

It would therefore appear that, as long ago as March 2012, reconsiderations were taking place in virtually every case that went to appeal. By this stage, therefore, we must have a considerable amount of management information—at least two years of reconsideration decisions—which could be published as official statistics in due course and which would give us an impression of what was happening.

Although I have to go on what the Minister said on that occasion, that might or might not have been an entirely accurate reflection, given that in the same evidence session the same Minister told us that although there had been a slight backlog at that time because of the implementation of some of the Harrington recommendations, everything was back on track and by the summer—the summer of 2012—there would be no backlog of ESA assessments. Two years later, however, there are now apparently 700,000 people awaiting an assessment as new claimants.

However, there is other evidence to suggest that the statistics are there to be captured and reported on. There appears to have been a reduction in the number of appeals. The most recent statistics on appeals—which were published just last week, on Thursday 12 June—appear to show a reduction in the rate of cases going to appeal, from around 42% to 43% up to mid-2011 to around 35% for claims begun in November 2012, with possibly a further reduction, to perhaps even as low as 25%, for cases started in March 2013. I say “possibly” because some of the March 2013 cases may well be still in the reconsideration process—indeed, they might even have barely got out of the assessment process, because of the backlogs.

However, there appears to have been some change in the number of cases going all the way to appeal. That is not necessarily a bad thing, because we have all criticised the cost of appeals, the stress of appeals and the time taken. That is happening, and even though this may be in everyone’s best interests, we really need to know what is happening. The publication of statistics at the earliest possible opportunity, based on at least the last two years of experience, if not more, would enable us to judge the performance of the contractor far better. Given that we are going to have a new contractor for these assessments very soon, it would be good to have this in place well before that starts.

In conclusion, will the Minister confirm when he expects statistics on successful reconsideration to be published, and will he reconsider his position on the statutory time limits? More than anything, I want to emphasise to him that many claimants who claim JSA in this situation are, in effect, being denied it. They are told that they are too fit for one benefit and too sick or disabled for another. Let me ask the Minister again: why not amend the law, so that ESA claimants can continue to receive the benefit at the assessment rate during the reconsideration process? The only way that could be more expensive for the Government would be if Ministers expected sick and disabled people to go without any benefit—and I am sure that that cannot be the case.

Bedroom Tax (Scotland)

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2014 Westminster Hall

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

I hoped to take some time to discuss the experiences of some individuals in my constituency, but since time is limited, I will not do so; I will simply say that I have had the same experience in my constituency that other Members have described.

The Government’s claim that the bedroom tax will free up more housing flies in the face of reality, certainly in my constituency and city. For example, the latest council figures for the end of March showed that some 3,300 tenants were over-occupying, according to the Government’s definition. However, at that same time there was a total of only 22 one-bedroom properties available in the social rented sector, from Edinburgh council and the housing association combined.

The Government’s solution to the problems with the bedroom tax has been to say that people can apply for discretionary housing payments. They have increased the sums available for such payments, but the very fact that they have had to do so more than once underlines how badly the policy has been working.

To introduce a complicated and bureaucratic system, with means-testing, different criteria applied in different areas, and no reasonable certainty that applications will be successful—a system no doubt costing millions to operate throughout the UK, which is the reality of the discretionary housing payments now used to deal with the bedroom tax—is certainly not an advertisement of successful Government policy; to do so by releasing cash to local authorities in a piecemeal way causes extra complications. It has meant that local authorities have had to change their criteria for DHP applications during the course of a financial year in an attempt to ensure that cash is paid out in cases that previously had been refused. No wonder some local authorities have found they cannot use up all of the funds that became available during the course of the year. That does not show that the policy is right or the Government generous; it is yet another example of a bankrupt policy that has caused immense distress and financial loss to people throughout the country.

The Labour party believes that the answer to problems caused by the bedroom tax is clear: abolish it and provide a real increase in the amount of affordable housing available to rent throughout the UK. That is certainly an urgent priority in my constituency, and both the UK and Scottish Governments are not doing enough; more must be done.

The focus of today’s debate is of course on the recent decision by the UK Government to allow the Scottish Government to lift the cap and spend more of their resources to deal with the effect of the bedroom tax in Scotland. The UK Government’s decision has come very late in the day, on top of an approach by the Scottish Government that, as many of my hon. Friends have pointed out, seems to have been motivated more by other political objectives than the interests of those in Scotland hit by the bedroom tax.

I am glad that my Labour colleagues in the Scottish Parliament, along with many community organisations, pressed the Scottish Government to change their stance, and that they eventually did so. It is good to see that parliamentarians in the Scottish Parliament can work together in the common interests of Scotland—I mean that with all sincerity, because that is what they have done on this occasion.

Nevertheless, as the Select Committee report points out, lifting the spending cap is by no means a complete solution. I suspect that some of those most affected by the bedroom tax will be precisely those people who are least likely to apply for discretionary housing payments—we all know about the problems with benefit take-up in other areas of welfare. Nevertheless, we must work with the UK Government’s concession.

The task now must be to ensure that the new power is devolved to the Scottish Government and Parliament as quickly as possible and the necessary legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament. Thereafter, the Scottish Government and local councils should work together to put in place a system for discretionary housing payments in Scotland that is as simplified and streamlined as possible, in order to ensure that decisions on discretionary housing payments are made speedily and with the minimum of bureaucracy, and that no one in Scotland suffers because of the bedroom tax until it is finally abolished.

--- Later in debate ---

[Esther McVey]

We have, in our latest discussion—this is why we are here today—asked how we could best deal with this situation and what to do. We have put extra money on the table, and the Scottish Government were paying in as well. We have now allowed the matter to be devolved to Scotland, for it to consider what it can do. Although the proposal in Scotland might be an immediate answer to Scotland’s issues and problems in this regard, it does not solve the underlying problem about what people are doing, how Scotland will change its housing stock, how it will get the right people in the right houses, and how it will pay the bills, with an ageing population and more people going into social housing.

Although money might be put towards this issue, we are dealing with other issues too, not only in England but in Wales; we are looking at the stock and getting the right people in the right houses—something that Labour has kicked down the road. It is not dealing with those issues now, and did not deal with them in office.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Given that the Minister has mentioned the solution that the Government are putting forward, will she say when the necessary order will go through the House of Commons? We may prorogue next week; can she guarantee that it will be put in place before we prorogue? Otherwise, the Scottish Parliament will not be able to take the necessary action until several months have passed.

[Esther McVey]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that the announcement was made only on Friday. It is very much early days. We are working through the detail of how the policy will work, and we have to make sure that the solution works. I want to check the debate timings with you, Mr Bone, because I know that the Chair of the Select Committee wants to reply. How much longer has the debate got?

Welfare Reform (Sick and Disabled People)

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2014 Commons Chamber

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

I am grateful for the chance to speak briefly in this debate, and I thank the hon. Members who arranged it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said in the opening speech, in this debate we in Parliament are giving voice to the thousands of disabled people and many others throughout the country who are concerned about the impact of Government welfare policies on those with disabilities.

Like many hon. Members, in preparing for this debate I thought that the most useful thing I could do was to highlight the experience of, and briefly quote, some organisations who work daily with disabled people in my constituency. The welfare rights officer at the Royal National Institute of Blind People Scotland, whose Edinburgh office is in my constituency, has told me:

“The main issues that we are seeing in the RNIB service are long delays in the applications for PIP. So far I have only had one decision out of 9 claims made between July and November of last year… Clients making PIP claims are waiting 3 months and longer for medical assessments…also, if assessment has been carried out still not getting a decision from DWP.”

I am sure that hon. Members are aware of the report published today by the National Audit Office, the spending watchdog, which has highlighted, as one would no doubt understand, that such experiences are not unique. In its words, thousands of disabled people are facing “distress and financial difficulties”, because claims for the new personal independence payment are taking too long to process. Most claimants are waiting more than three months for their cases to be decided, rather than the target of 71 days, while terminally ill patients are waiting up to a month, instead of getting a decision, as they are meant to do, within 10 days.

I have been told by Waverley Care, a charity that provides care and support to people living with HIV or hepatitis C, that as a result of the overall benefit changes, the case load of staff dealing with benefits has increased dramatically, especially regarding appeals. It says that an increasing number of people are going to it for help because they find it too daunting to deal with the Department for Work and Pensions. Demand has also gone up sharply for the food parcels that it distributes, as has demand for help from its hardship funds. Typically, it has found that people are struggling to pay for food, toiletries and fuel. One reason why the demand for food parcels has increased is that people are running out of money between benefit payments, often because they have been switched to a benefit on which they receive less money, but also because, in the process of being switched from one benefit to another, there is a gap of two to three weeks during which they do not receive any money.

I have received similar information and reports from HIV Scotland, and reports from Citizens Advice Scotland again highlight that such experiences are not unique to my constituency, as I am sure hon. Members would understand and expect. I have spoken not only to organisations, but directly to disabled people who are going through those experiences daily. On the national day of demonstrations about Atos, I went along to join disabled people at the demonstration outside its Edinburgh headquarters, which happens to be situated in my constituency.

Like colleagues across the House, I of course hear the experiences at my surgery every week of people whose lives are being turned upside down by the impact of Government welfare policies, of people who are sanctioned without any apparent cause and—in relation to all the problems of the work capability assessment procedure, which many hon. Members have mentioned—of people who are rejected in spite of having the clearest medical advice that they are incapable of doing the work that they are expected to do.

I contacted Inclusion Scotland, which represents a wide range of organisations involved with disability issues, and I am afraid that its report just highlights the fact that although we have so far seen chaos—as well as inhumanity and, bluntly, cruelty—the way Government policies are going suggests that the worst is yet to come. It highlights that the consequences of those policies, taken together, will be incredibly damaging for so many disabled people in this country. In Scotland alone, 80,000 working-age disabled people will lose some or all of the mobility allowance to which they would otherwise have been entitled if the DLA entitlement criteria were still used, while 90,000 fewer disabled people in Scotland will qualify for the assistance with their care needs and daily living costs to which they would otherwise have been entitled under the DLA eligibility criteria.

The same experience is of course true across the entire UK. Under this Government’s welfare reforms during the past four years, we have had chaos, misery and a bureaucratic nightmare, as well as a waste of money with the bedroom tax, as we are increasingly seeing throughout the country. The policies are fundamentally wrong and they need to be reversed.

Housing Benefit

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

Closing the loophole will indeed cost a huge amount of money—borne by local authorities that will have to do the work to sort out this mess.

Even as they seek to close this loophole, the Government do not have any understanding of the number of people affected by it. We asked Ministers on the Floor of the House to tell us how many people have been unlawfully charged the bedroom tax as a result of the loophole. On 13 January, the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey), who has responsibility for employment, told us in a written answer:

“This information is not available.”—[Official Report, 13 January 2014; Vol. 573, c. 449W.]

On the very same day, the Secretary of State told us in this House that

“the number is likely to be between 3,000 and 5,000”.—[Official Report, 13 January 2014; Vol. 573, c. 577.]

The next day, Lord Freud, the Minister for welfare reform, said in another place that

“the numbers involved in this anomaly are small and the amounts are modest.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 January 2014; Vol. 751, c. 106.]

At oral questions this week, the Secretary of State told me that

“some 5,000 people may be affected.”—[Official Report, 24 February 2014; Vol. 576, c. 19.]

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

If 5,000 people were affected across the UK, I would expect about 50 people to be affected in Edinburgh. So far, the council has identified at least 113, and others in housing associations may be affected as well. I am sure that the situation is even worse in other places. Does my hon. Friend accept that as well as the extra cost and waste of money caused by the bureaucratic chaos, many people will apply for and get discretionary housing payments, so the savings to the Government, if there are any, are ultimately likely to be minimal? Why do they not just drop the entire tax completely?

[Rachel Reeves]

That is what we are calling on the Government to do today—to scrap the bedroom tax altogether.

We had no idea of the numbers affected and the Government clearly did not have a clue, so we asked the question that they should have asked: we asked local authorities how many people have been affected. Of 378 local authorities, 197 have now responded, including Birmingham city council, where 2,100 households are affected, Cardiff with 220 and Glasgow with 913, as well as Tory local authorities, such as Cheshire West and Chester council, where 275 households are affected, Tory Peterborough with 200 and Tory Wandsworth with 234—the list goes on. In total, our replies so far suggest that 21,655 households have been affected. That is on the basis of responses from barely half the councils, while many of them have said that they cannot give complete answers that include housing association tenants. It is therefore already clear that not only have this Government made a complete mess of their own policy, but they do not even have a clue how many people are affected by the loophole.

The Government have responded to this fiasco by scrambling to cover up their own mistake. They introduced a statutory instrument to close a loophole in their own legislation, without even giving this House an opportunity to scrutinise and debate it; it is only through this Opposition day that we can have a vote, which is why we called this debate today.

The bedroom tax was misconceived from the start, and it has been incompetently executed every step of the way. The chaos, confusion and extra costs are mounting, with the heaviest price being paid by the poorest and most vulnerable. The Government should scrap the bedroom tax today, but instead they are making it apply to an extra 40,000 households. If this Government will not scrap the bedroom tax, the next Labour Government will do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing up the situation in Wales. Of course, the coalition Government are proud to have ensured that that funding was in place to make that happen for the people of Wales. As he will know, if it was up to the Labour party, all that the people of Wales would be receiving by now is 2 megabits, which would absolutely not have been right for businesses in his area.

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

There appear to be a large number of businesses and houses in my constituency, right in the centre of Edinburgh, that will not get superfast broadband in the foreseeable future. I have been in touch with the right hon. Lady’s Department, the Scottish Government, the council and BT, but nobody seems to be able to offer any hope that we will get superfast broadband. What is she going to do about it?

[Maria Miller]

As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, it is important for the Scottish Government to address such issues. I was pleased to see BT pledge only this week to put an extra £50 million into exactly the sorts of areas he is talking about—city-centre areas where that is currently not commercially viable. I welcome that extra investment from BT.

Welfare Reforms and Poverty

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2014 Commons Chamber

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

I am glad to have the opportunity to say a few words. I wanted to speak in the debate to make the point that the crisis caused by the Government’s welfare reform policies is affecting constituencies up and down the length of the country and is affecting all types of constituency. My constituency comes out about average on the statistical lists of poverty, employment, unemployment and wealth in the UK. We have some areas of high wealth with wealthy individuals, but other areas, and some individuals living in the generally richer areas of the constituency, are suffering from the effects of Government policy in a way that has not been seen for a generation. That experience is evidenced by the growing demand for and reliance on food banks, soup kitchens and other outlets that provide free food. One such food bank was opened in my constituency last year, and another is under way. Another six, seven or eight organisations provide support of various kinds which enables people to survive from day to day, but, given the shortage of time, I shall not list them all.

As many other Members have pointed out today, food banks are a symptom of a wider problem. People depend on them for a host of reasons. Sanctions are one of the most important, but others are the delays and mistakes caused by all the changes and complications that the Government are increasingly imposing on those who rely on benefits, and the effects of their economic policies, such as the need for people to rely on part-time work when they want to work full-time.

Another reason is the bedroom tax. I want to say a little about what is happening in my city of Edinburgh, and also to explain why I think that a commission of inquiry would be a good way of at least trying to inject some sense into the attitudes that were expressed during DWP questions earlier today. It appears that most members of the coalition believe that numerous people living in large houses are desperately avoiding moving to smaller houses, and fighting off all the people who are trying to move into the larger houses. In fact, that is happening almost nowhere in the country. In my constituency, many people who live in under-occupied houses are in houses for which there would not be a great demand if they became vacant.

Above all, in Edinburgh and elsewhere, the number of people who could possibly qualify for smaller, one-bedroom accommodation is vastly greater than the number of such homes that are available. According to a figure that I saw a few weeks ago—and I have no reason to believe that it has changed since then—more than 3,000 people were living in under-occupied housing, according to the Government’s definition, and a further 14,000 were on the waiting list for one-bedroom houses. In that week, only 24 one-bedroom homes were available in any part of the council or the social housing sector. A commission of inquiry might at least get some awareness of the reality of the situation into the minds of Ministers and Government Back Benchers.

I suspect that when the House votes on the motion, Government Members who have not been in the Chamber for the debate will come flooding in to defeat it. Perhaps the Minister will surprise us and tell us that the Government will allow the motion to be passed, but I suspect that that will not happen. However, given that this is a Back-Bench rather than a Government or an Opposition motion, I hope that at least some members of the coalition parties will show the humanity that others have shown today. I hope that they will recognise that there is a problem whose extent needs to be assessed, and will stand along with those in the Chamber and outside who are prepared to speak up for the people who are suffering as a result of the inhumane policies of this Government.