Personal Independence Payments

Paul Sweeney Excerpts

Tuesday 11th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Hugh Gaffney]

Yes, I agree. In doing research yesterday, I found that Disability Rights UK has highlighted DWP research that four out of 10 PIP claimants do not appeal, as it would be too stressful for them. We have unfair assessments that result in people losing money, but they do not appeal because of the stress that would be caused. What a disgrace!

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. He represents a constituency that neighbours mine. Glasgow North East has had the worst impact from the change from DLA to PIP, with some £2 million a year being taken from the pockets of the poorest people in my constituency. More than 580 people have lost their entitlement as a result of the change. Behind the figure is a litany of despair and misery. Does my hon. Friend not agree that the Government have to understand that they need to take a compassionate approach? The misery faced by my constituents and his has to end.

[Hugh Gaffney]

Talking about compassion, the introduction of PIP, which was supported by the Tories—we should not forget that the Liberals backed it, too—was meant to lead to a fairer, more transparent and more consistent system. It has been anything but. We should not forget that the overarching aim was to slash public services—in other words, saving money on the backs of the most vulnerable in our country. They are the people who are suffering. Has it worked? No, it has not worked for those who want a fairer, transparent and consistent system.

Despite all the Tory and Lib Dem cuts, the Office for Budget Responsibility has continued to downgrade its estimate of the savings from the introduction of PIP. So the Government’s aims have not been achieved. At the same time, we have seen many people and families hurt in the process. That hurt is made worse by the fact that despite the DWP being responsible for handling PIP claims and making the decision on entitlement to benefits, private companies such as Capita and Atos have been doing the assessments. Perhaps we should not be surprised by what we see and hear every day. It is time for change.

Universal Credit and Welfare Changes

Paul Sweeney Excerpts

Thursday 21st June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms McVey]

If the hon. Gentleman has been calling for some of the changes I have just made, surely he should be celebrating those along with me, because we have listened. It is about getting this right for the citizens, not just opposing for opposing’s sake.

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

As the result of a freedom of information request, I know that my constituents who are now on personal independence payments but previously qualified for disability living allowance are losing £2 million a year. What will the Secretary of State do to address that obvious failure?

[Ms McVey]

More people now are getting more money on PIP than they ever got on DLA. Every year from 2010 right the way through to 2022, more people will be getting more support and there are higher rates of support.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Sweeney Excerpts

Monday 21st May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Newton]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s question. I am pleased that we have got more than 600,000 people with disabilities into work in the past four years, and assistive technology plays an incredibly important part in that. I have recently announced changes to the tech fund in the Access to Work programme, removing barriers so that people have access to assistive technology, and there is much more that we want to do.

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

The loss of the protected places scheme is likely to have a devastating impact on disabled workers, particularly in my constituency, where Royal Strathclyde Blindcraft Industries employs 250 people, half of whom have a registered disability. What has the Minister done to assess the impact this move will have on disabled workers?

[Sarah Newton]

I am glad the hon. Gentleman asked that question, because this was totally misreported in The Times today; we are not going to close down any organisation at all that is supporting disabled people into work. I have been in ongoing discussions with the sector to make sure not only that we have the existing scheme, but that it is enhanced and mainstreamed into a new, improved programme.

Scottish Welfare Powers

Paul Sweeney Excerpts

Tuesday 20th March 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Mr Rosindell, for your expert chairmanship of the debate. We have had a spirited introduction from the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant), with some interesting re-writing of history regarding the Tory party’s legacy when it comes to defence of the welfare state in Scotland.

At every stage of the process of devolution, it is Labour that has led the charge. During the passage of the Scotland Act 2016, although the welfare provisions were agreed by the Smith commission, it was only the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) that extended the new benefits in devolved areas, and top-ups in reserved areas. It was only his action that forced that change in the Lords, and pressure from the Labour party that ensured that that provision was included in the Act.

A huge opportunity has been presented to the Scottish Government with the extension of welfare powers. That is exactly what devolution was intended to do. Remember that the spirit of devolution was set up in the face of rampant Thatcherism and the rolling back of the industrial and welfare settlement that Scotland had enjoyed since the end of the second world war.

[Stephen Kerr]

On a point of information, Mrs Thatcher left office in 1990. The devolution settlement the hon. Gentleman is referring to occurred under Tony Blair’s Government, eight years later.

[Mr Sweeney]

I think I referred to the “spirit” of devolution. If the hon. Gentleman recalls his history, devolution, which of course the Tories implacably opposed throughout, was born in the 1980s. Likewise, the popular campaign for a Scottish Parliament was born out of the 1980s and the reaction against Thatcherism, the policies of which were anathema to the Scottish people. Devolution was born in the face of Thatcherism. If I am not mistaken, it was the former Secretary of State for Scotland, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who referred to Thatcher as the midwife of the Scottish Parliament.

Clearly, Labour led the charge at every stage in the process. Although there is a great opportunity for the Scottish Parliament to be what it was designed to be—a bulwark against Tory austerity, not a conveyor belt for it—we have seen a weakness in the Social Security (Scotland) Bill, which was built on empty rhetoric, not substance. Again, it has been Labour pressure that has led the charge against the SNP pulling off an audacious power grab, without any scrutiny or accountability, in the Bill’s development in the Scottish Parliament.

Scotland has the powers to create its own social security system, to change the lives of disabled people, to tackle poverty, and to reinforce the safety net, but there is still so much missing from the Bill. The Bill at stage 3, as it goes through the Scottish Parliament, will be very different from the form it was issued in last June. That has been achieved through campaigners lobbying, and Labour holding its ground, seeking to deliver real change to improve the lives of the people of Scotland. I want to be clear about how it has progressed through the Scottish Parliament, for the avoidance of any doubt and any rewriting of history.

In June 2017, a briefing was circulated to all MSPs highlighting that the Bill contained no top-up to child benefit, no rules setting out how the Government should create new benefits in devolved areas, and no ban on the private sector, going back on the Scottish Government’s word from April 2017. There was also no hard commitment on uprating, going back on their word from June 2016, and no scrutiny through the legislative process. By the end of that summer, during stage 1 Labour had secured the following concessions in the Bill: scrutiny and parliamentary procedure, a right to independent advocacy, a right to payment cash as default, and a statutory duty to maximise incomes.

However, the Minister for Social Security in Scotland continued to block protections for recovering overpayments made by office errors, which is more onerous than the UK system. She also blocked inflationary uprating—that is to say, the Minister wanted to do less than the UK system—and redeterminations, as they wanted to replicate the UK system. She also blocked the banning of the private sector, and the setting of binding targets to encourage the uptake of £2 billion in unclaimed benefits. However, since January we have seen a U-turn on all those issues, by laying or supporting amendments and seeking Labour’s support, while antagonising the third sector and civic society in the process.

During stage 2 of the Bill, the SNP and the Tories voted down amendments to secure human rights in the Bill. For months, a key and fundamental part of SNP rhetoric focused on how the system would be built on dignity and respect, yet when put to a vote they teamed up with the Tories to vote that down. That rightly angered the third sector, and some of the Scottish Government’s key supporters, who have long called for the right to social security to be part of the legislation. The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations said in response to this issue:

“This ‘due regard’ amendment...was to ensure that the principles in the Bill, something we have heard a lot about from the Scottish Government, could be realised in practice.

Astoundingly, despite the Scottish Governments rhetoric around a social security system based on human rights, the amendment was not agreed and no such duty will exist in the Bill.

Confused? You should be.”

That is a shameful indictment of the Scottish Government’s true commitment on this issue.

[Stephen Kerr]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. I congratulate him on his powerful speech, even though I do not agree with everything that he is saying. Does he agree that the evidence that he is presenting shows how difficult it is for the Scottish Government to get their arms around the issue of providing a social security system in Scotland? It is a complex issue, is it not?

[Mr Sweeney]

I agree that the complexity of the social security system should not be underestimated, but none the less we should have committed at the outset to the objectives and the vision that we wanted to see, which we share. Surely they should live up to their rhetoric on this issue.

[Patricia Gibson]

The hon. Gentleman says that the Labour party has been leading from the front on this issue. In the light of that statement, I ask him whether he regrets, and would like to apologise for, the fact that 184 members of his party abstained on the Welfare Reform and Work Bill in 2015, thereby letting through £12 billion of welfare cuts.

[Mr Sweeney]

I am afraid that is a total misrepresentation of what Labour was voting for in that case. If anything, the SNP should apologise for abstaining on the Third Reading of the Tory Finance Bill just last month, when we were all in Parliament. I cannot speak for colleagues who were not elected at the time she refers to, but I can accuse the hon. Lady of that act just last month.

On the progress of the Social Security (Scotland) Bill and how complex it has been, even at stage 2 in February, Labour continued to challenge the Scottish Government to deliver a number of further improvements, which have been resisted. For example, a child benefit top-up of £260 per year was blocked by the Tories and the SNP voting together. Changes that would prevent the winter fuel payment as well as disability and industrial injuries benefits from being means-tested were backed unanimously by Labour, the SNP, the Tories, and the Greens—a good concession. Binding targets to boost the take-up of all benefits were also backed, and protection for carers from inflation—the current carefully crafted Scottish Government plans look set to save £5 million—was backed unanimously.

However, a requirement in law to secure the automatic splitting of universal credit so that women are protected from financial abuse was blocked. The competency of that is contained in section 30 of the Scotland Act 2016. The Tories and the SNP blocked that by voting together—just days before, somewhat ironically, the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) introduced a Bill in this place on the same issue. It is an example of how the SNP talks a good game at Westminster, yet acts very conservatively at Holyrood. An attempt to secure a higher legal threshold to prosecute claimants who fail to notify a change of circumstances was also blocked when the Tories forced a vote on it.

There is clearly much more scope to improve the quality of the social security system in Scotland. The only party that has driven real change and a real defence of working people in Scotland who rely on a social security system and a safety net has been the Labour party at every stage. We should not forget that the only force that will ensure that we have real, radical change for disabled people, that we tackle poverty, and that we reinforce the safety net will be a Labour Government at Holyrood in Edinburgh, and at Westminster in London.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Jobcentre Closures

Paul Sweeney Excerpts

Monday 5th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

It would not be an Adjournment debate without an intervention from the hon. Gentleman, so this one now almost feels complete. I commend him for the work he has done to save a jobcentre in his constituency—of course I understand that the powers over that are devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly. I welcome his words of encouragement for myself and other colleagues to continue our campaign, but gently point out to him that he has more sway over Ministers here than we do, so any effort he can swing in behind us on this issue will be most welcome.

I wish to discuss another hugely important issue in this whole topic: equality impact assessments. Undoubtedly, Ministers will have carried out such assessments, as they have come to the Chamber and said repeatedly that they abide by all the requirements that they must follow under the Equality Act 2010, and they could come to that conclusion only having carried out an equality impact assessment, so where are they? Why have we never seen them? Why have the trade unions and Members of Parliament never seen them? They are not anywhere in the public domain. When the Minister responds, will he tell us why they have not been published and whether they will be published? If he does not intend to publish them for wider public viewing, will he at least endeavour to share that information with MPs?

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

We are seeing a scythe tearing through the poorest communities in Glasgow, with the closure of Maryhill and Possilpark, Easterhouse, Parkhead and Bridgeton jobcentres. The idea that a quarter of a million people will be reliant on Springburn and Shettleston to sustain these critical services is absolutely appalling. The equality impact assessments have been identified through freedom of information requests, which have shown that the closure of these jobcentres would disproportionately affect people from ethnic minorities, women and people on low incomes. That is clear already. What is the Minister doing to mitigate that effect? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is essential that that justification is presented tonight?

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. Indeed, the issues he raises were the very motivations for our demanding that equality impact assessments be carried out before a decision was taken. It was obvious, though, that a decision was taken before the sham consultation that the Government had to be dragged kicking and screaming to hold.

I have asked Ministers about the impact of the closures on disabled people, minority ethnic communities and women. For example, in a recent written question, I asked the Government how many disabled people used Langside jobcentre, which they closed two weeks ago. They told me that they do not hold those figures. If that is true for one jobcentre in my constituency, what is the answer for all the jobcentres across Glasgow? What is the answer for all the jobcentres that they are closing throughout the United Kingdom? This is a ham-fisted decision that has been handled in a ham-fisted way. The Government have relied on Google and do not know how the closures will affect huge numbers of people because they do not hold the data. I suspect that they do hold the data. I have to be honest: when I read that answer, I did not quite believe it. We would like to see the data and I can see no reason why the Government cannot give us the answers.

The other issue is that the Government have not actually thought through what they want jobcentres to do. I would have loved to have had a debate, when the Government announced the closures in December 2016, about how jobcentres can properly serve the people who use them and the communities in which they are based. The problem is that we were not offered that debate. We were offered a straight up choice: closure or non-closure. Rather than have a discussion about how jobcentres can, for example, better work with citizens advice bureaux and other employment agencies, perhaps under the auspices of local or devolved Government, all we were offered was a straight up closure programme. The Government did not even want to consult the very people who would be affected.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) for having the foresight not only to secure an Adjournment debate, but to secure an Adjournment debate that allows us to detain the Minister for a certain amount of time and to rake him over the coals about this deeply flawed decision. If the Minister thinks that he is getting out of here before 10 o’clock tonight, he has another thing coming.

I commend the Minister for his promotion to this post. He will be aware that I, my colleagues on the SNP Benches, the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) and other cross-party politicians from the city of Glasgow have written to him commending him and congratulating him on his new post, and inviting him to Glasgow. Now, I have not checked my mailbag this evening to see whether we have yet had a response to that letter. I am sure that his response will be there when I toddle over to the mail room tonight; he will be telling me that he is coming to visit the city of Glasgow in the next couple of weeks.

The main issue I want to address is the disproportionate impact of jobcentre closures on the east end of Glasgow. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) has, in her time in this Parliament, very passionately outlined the case for retaining Bridgeton jobcentre, the doors of which closed on Friday last week. My own constituency of Glasgow East will see the closure of Easterhouse and Parkhead jobcentres over the next two weeks, with everybody being relocated to Shettleston. I will come back to that point in a moment.

Since being elected to this House in June last year, I have been clear that Ministers sit in their ivory towers in Whitehall, making decisions by spreadsheet and Google Maps. They decide what they are going to do in communities in Glasgow and in Scotland without having the foggiest idea about those communities. A visit to the Easterhouse Housing and Regeneration Alliance in December reaffirmed that for me. The Minister will have heard me mention the alliance in questions this afternoon. It is a coalition of independent housing associations that has been operating for as long as I have been alive. These associations know their tenants and their local communities. Every single director, staff member and board member of the alliance was absolutely clear that these closures will be deeply damaging for some of the most vulnerable people in the city of Glasgow.

If the Minister will not listen to the Easterhouse Housing and Regeneration Alliance, he could listen to the citizens advice bureaux in our city. There are fantastic citizens advice bureaux: in Easterhouse, led by Joan McClure; in Bridgeton, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central, led by Frank Mosson; and in Parkhead. I am sure that it is only a coincidence that the only jobcentre that the Government plan to keep open in the east end of Glasgow is not located next to a citizens advice bureau. When people are sanctioned or treated unfairly at the jobcentre in the east end of Glasgow, they can currently go to their citizens advice bureau to receive support. It is deeply damaging that we are going to remove that support.

After I was elected and met the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), who is now the Education Secretary, I was struck that there is this idea that this campaign is party political or that it is a campaign against the Tories. If the Minister wants to believe that, that is absolutely fine. He can take it from me that, as an SNP politician, I do not have a huge amount of love for the Tories. But if he will not listen to me, will he at least listen to the three Tory councillors in the east end of Glasgow—Councillors Thomas Kerr, Phillip Charles and Robert Connelly, who is the councillor for Calton—who have all added their voice to the campaign to save our local jobcentres? If the Minister leaves this debate tonight thinking that this is some sort of Labour and SNP campaign against the Tories, he is deeply mistaken. This is a campaign to protect our jobcentres and some of the most vulnerable people in our city.

I want our jobcentres to be kept open for three reasons: digital exclusion, transport and the deep-rooted issues of the gangland culture and territorialism that, sadly, still exist in our communities. On a cross-party basis, we politicians all have to solve that. Fantastic research has been undertaken by the likes of Citizens Advice and the Church of Scotland about the real problems associated with the total exclusion of people. Something like half of my constituents have never touched a computer. Some people are able to use the internet on their smartphones, but that is not the way to do a 90-minute universal credit application. If the Minister wants to come to Glasgow and find a library that is willing to allow people to sit for 90 minutes to complete a universal credit application, he will be quite shocked to find that that is not actually the case.

[Mr Sweeney]

I thank my constituency neighbour for giving way. The Public and Commercial Services Union has done an assessment of the rationalisation of jobcentres. Its survey data shows that libraries in Glasgow are so in demand that they place time limits on the use of computers, thus excluding people from being able to do these onerous applications using their facilities. This just places another barrier before people who are already IT illiterate or who do not have the capacity to do this.

[David Linden]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that very powerful intervention. That is reaffirmed by the fact that I do a surgery in Baillieston library and Parkhead library, and as soon as I arrive at 10 o’clock there is already a queue of people waiting to use the computers. What the Government will do by removing the computer access at jobcentres will be deeply damaging.

The Minister will be aware, no doubt, of his predecessor answering a slew of written questions from me about the number of wi-fi connections and computer log-ons at Easterhouse jobcentre—the very jobcentre he wants to close.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) on securing the debate. This is a critical issue for all Members who represent the city of Glasgow and the Greater Glasgow region, and all areas of Scotland that are affected by the jobcentre closure programme.

I represent the constituency of Glasgow North East. It is adjacent to the constituencies of the hon. Members for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) and for Glasgow East (David Linden), but we are all affected by this jobcentre rationalisation—the closures. Although the jobcentres are not physically located in my constituency, their catchment areas massively overlap it. In the last month, I have already seen the closure of the Maryhill and Possilpark jobcentre, which is to be merged into Springburn. The next tranche of closures will see Parkhead, Bridgeton and Easterhouse jobcentres merged into Shettleston.

That will be a major issue in my constituency, because unemployment there is twice the national average. The argument has been, “Well, there’s over-representation of jobcentres’ footprints in Glasgow,” but that is because historically there has been a higher than average unemployment rate in Glasgow. We also have to look at the historical development of that unemployment rate, which is particularly intractable. It is not the sort of transient unemployment rate that we see with economic cycles; it is a structural rate of unemployment, particularly among those with long-term addiction or IT literacy issues, or people affected by massive exclusion from society. This is just another measure that will push these people to the margins of society.

I have heard the Minister’s DWP colleagues saying that the Department’s objective is to minimise harm and improve general happiness in society. How will this programme deliver that outcome? On any rational assessment, it will serve only to visit further despair, dissatisfaction and problems on the lives of people who are already blighted by a number of structural problems.

Hon. Members have raised this in the House before, but the issue is clear. The geography of Glasgow, particularly in the east and north-east of the city, is very fragmented. Historically, the built environment has been particularly fragmented. Believe it or not, but 80% of the built environment from prior to the second world war was demolished. We have been subject to huge dislocation, with the development of motorways and the fragmentation of the area, so there is no major town centre that people can visit to access jobcentres. I encourage the Minister to observe the nature of Glasgow’s public transport system, as its privatisation and fragmentation makes things even more complex and difficult.

[Neil Gray]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very good speech in support of the very good speeches that have been made. We have heard about the fear that many people will deny themselves the support to which they are entitled because of the closures. There is evidence from the DWP’s own figures on employment and support allowance and jobseeker’s allowance that people have fallen off the system but have not yet found work. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that that may well end up happening in Glasgow?

[Mr Sweeney]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point—I absolutely agree. Plenty of people come to my constituency office with their concerns, but the thing that worries me, as a new Member of Parliament, is the people who do not turn up. What about the people who are not aware of the opportunity they have because of the service provided by a Member of Parliament, never mind a jobcentre? What keeps me awake at night is thinking about the people sitting in a flat somewhere in Possilpark, Milton or Springburn who are sick to the back teeth and worried out of their wits about what they are going to do—how they are going to heat their house or how they are going to feed their family. They are not necessarily made aware of the opportunity that an MP can provide them with.

[Hugh Gaffney]

On the point about geography, travel and all the rest, jobcentres have closed and there has been a high number of sanctions, but there has been no leeway and no reprieve, and nobody has looked at these cases again. As we heard earlier, people are learning how to dodge the gangland and how to get to the jobcentre—how to walk there and what the shortcuts are. They can walk over an hour to get there; they are getting sanctioned, but they are still learning the new geography.

[Mr Sweeney]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important contribution, which leads back to the point I was making about the geographical issues that people face, particularly in the north and east of Glasgow. There are structural issues. The hon. Member for Glasgow East made the point that gangland issues are a deterrent for people who want to move around. There are structural issues with public transport, and there is also the general fragmentation of the built environment in that part of the city. None of that has been taken into consideration in the assessment process, and I urge the Minister to apply a reasonable approach to that issue when considering the mitigation of these jobcentre closures.

[Douglas Ross]

I do not want to dwell too much on the geography aspect, because in a constituency such as Moray, 8 miles would be an incredibly short distance for some of my constituents to travel to go to get to a jobcentre. I would have liked to have intervened a little earlier when the hon. Gentleman was talking about the problems that will be caused. I visited my local jobcentre in Elgin just a couple of weeks ago, and the staff there go above and beyond to try to accommodate every single person who comes through the door. So, yes, there are issues with getting to and from the proposed jobcentres, given the closures, but I think that all Members can agree that once they get there, people across Glasgow, Scotland and the UK get a great service from jobcentre staff.

[Mr Sweeney]

I speak for many members of DWP staff in these jobcentres—including members of my own family—and members of the Public and Commercial Services Union, which represents them, and those workers are viscerally against this rationalisation programme. Although they do their best to help people, they are stuck in a Kafkaesque nightmare. Rigid decision-making processes mean that they have to deliver services that they would rather not deliver, but they are forced by policy to do so on pain of disciplinary action. Not only that, but the capacity to help people is severely limited by the huge demand for services in the ever-more depleted number of jobcentres. Staff are physically unable to provide the level of service and interface that they might otherwise offer, such as close coaching in making a universal credit application online. Those things are simply not available.

The alternative is to access Citizens Advice. We have heard about the closure of citizens advice bureaux, and about the dislocation between Citizens Advice and jobcentres. That will only add to the complexity that people face. The Minister has not taken that major issue into consideration.

I think that we are all here in a spirit of making constructive efforts to mitigate the problems faced by our constituents, and I would hope that the Minister approaches the debate in the same spirit. To give a good example of that, I was looking, as a new Member of Parliament, at where to locate my constituency office. I have picked a location on Saracen Street in Possilpark, which is right next to Maryhill Road, where the jobcentre has recently closed, and near to where the citizens advice bureau has recently closed on Saracen Street. I am occupying a building that is only one fifth occupied, but it is currently paid for by Glasgow City Council, Jobs & Business Glasgow and Skills Development Scotland. Why on earth has the Minister not engaged with those agencies to say, “Look, we have a cost-neutral option for providing a jobcentre service in that building”? That could actually be done with the same overhead as would be involved in rationalising provision into a smaller footprint. That is a ready-made opportunity I have observed in the last few months as a Member of Parliament, having looked at these things on the ground.

Why does the Minister not engage with that opportunity, or look at opportunities with housing associations, as the hon. Member for Glasgow East mentioned, or other agencies in Glasgow that could offer the possibility of providing the same service footprint within buildings that are already paid for by the public sector? That would be a cost-neutral option. There are options out there to mitigate this. I urge the Minister to take a fresh approach and look at these ideal opportunities to maintain the footprint of the service across Glasgow. It is out there for the taking, so I urge the Minister to do it.

There is a major issue in Glasgow North East and across the adjacent Glasgow constituencies. We have a structural unemployment issue. Universal credit will hit my constituency later this year, and I can see the demand for jobcentres only increasing. The IT exclusion faced by my constituents is disproportionately higher than in other parts of the UK, with Citizens Advice estimating that 39% of people have never accessed a computer or do not have access to a computer. Library services are increasingly constrained, as is the ability to offer such services to constituents, and the footprint of jobcentres is reducing.

We can see the clear outcome of that situation: pushing people who are already marginalised—the people we need to coach into becoming participants in our society and back into being productive members of it—further to the margins of society. That is simply unacceptable. We are all here in the spirit of trying to engage our citizens, and to make them productive and feel that they are engaged and involved in our society. I am sure that we all agree on that at least, but by penalising them and pushing them further away, how on earth are we going to mitigate the problem?

I urge the Minister to approach this debate in the spirit in which we have engaged with it. We have offered meaningful and proactive options to mitigate the jobcentre rationalisation in Glasgow and the Greater Glasgow region. I hope that he will engage with those points and that we can reach to a successful outcome that will at least make the lives of my constituents, and those of other Members who have contributed to the debate, better in the long run.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alok Sharma]

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman feels that there is sarcasm in what I am saying. That is certainly not my intent, and I do not think it is the intent of the DWP staff who have sent us feedback. I can give the hon. Gentleman a list of the things that staff and claimants have said about the moves involving Broxburn and Anniesland. Perhaps things are not quite as some Members feel that they are.

[Mr Sweeney]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alok Sharma]

No. I want to continue.

Claimants moving to Springburn have reported how much better the facilities are, and how welcoming the environment is. Claimants have also said that they have appreciated the individual tailored support. For instance, during the recently completed move of Anniesland to Drumchapel, some claimants who preferred to move to Partick instead were easily accommodated. The impact on staff is also being well managed. The vast majority of staff affected are moving to other locations. A very small number will leave the department, but the vast majority have accepted voluntary redundancy.

Personal Independence Payments

Paul Sweeney Excerpts

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to sum up for the SNP in this debate with you in the Chair, Mr Hosie.

I congratulate the hon. Member for North West Durham (Laura Pidcock) on securing this debate and on her recent promotion as shadow Minister. She made a typically impassioned speech outlining the experiences of her constituents and the thousands who have got in touch with her before the debate. Those are experiences that many of my constituents have sadly shared. She was right to point out how scunnered disabled people are with the PIP process. I have had constituents across the surgery table whom I have been trying to convince to go through an appeal process, but they have been so fed up and upset at being turned down for PIP that they have told me in tears that they refuse to go through an appeal process, despite clearly being entitled to, and in desperate need of, the support that should be provided. They and many others are effectively denying themselves support that they should be entitled to.

Members have raised a range of concerns about the PIP process, and I will touch on some of their speeches. The former Minister, the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), acknowledged that mistakes have been made and that improvements could be made. He is right. One of the biggest mistakes was the UK Government’s attempt to deny people with mental health conditions access to personal independence payments. They were ruled discriminatory for doing that. Perhaps the UK Government should look at making improvements that improve people’s experience and are not discriminatory.

The hon. Members for North Durham (Mr Jones) and for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) described issues faced by their constituents in applying for PIP. My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) rightly raised the additional difficulties being faced by people with terminal illnesses and touched on the briefing from the MND Association.

My hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) made a very good speech based on his constituents’ experiences. He was right to highlight the total disrespect of a couple of the Scottish Tories who came in with prepared interventions and were clearly trying to upset and disrupt the opening speeches. They showed total disrespect to those Members who have prepared speeches and not been called, and total disrespect to the disabled people watching this debate. They turned up to get their names on TheyWorkForYou and up their speaking record, then cleared off halfway through the debate. That is cynical, disrespectful behaviour and I hope they will reflect on it.

In this otherwise informative and impassioned debate there were good speeches from the hon. Members for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn), for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), for Reading East (Matt Rodda), for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith) and for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones). This debate could not be more topical, as we have been hearing about and debating the UK Government’s approach to PIP in the past week. We have had a written statement, two urgent questions and a stream of written questions on the UK Government’s response to the High Court ruling on PIP. The High Court ruled that the UK Government’s PIP regulations were “blatantly discriminatory” against people with mental health impairments. That follows the damning report from the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which found “systematic violations” of disability rights.

We welcome the fact that the UK Government are finally going to accept that they got this wrong and will implement the High Court ruling, but this whole shambles prompts a number of questions. It is going to cost £3.7 billion for the Government to review all cases and to rectify the error of excluding people with mental health issues, but how much has it cost the Government to oppose the matter in the courts? How much has it cost people who have applied and been turned down for PIP support, not just financially, but in terms of their health?

Yesterday the Minister was angry that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) suggested that some people’s experiences of PIP and other benefits may have led them to consider suicide. The sad story that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) gave in her intervention, and a case that I have shared with a previous Secretary of State, will hopefully allow the Minister to reflect on her comments yesterday. It is absolutely clear that there is an issue in this regard, and I hope she will reflect on that.

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I also raised a case yesterday with the Minister of someone who had followed the process correctly, had completed their review forms and had submitted them in the timescales, yet were called to refund all the money they had received thus far. That was the administrative failure of the Minister’s Department. That case is exceptionally bad. We talk about reducing harms for people in society, but it shows that when the DWP fails, the onus is on the individual to suffer the consequences and not on the Department to compensate them and deal with the issue.

[Neil Gray]

The hon. Gentleman was right to raise that case yesterday, which I saw him do, and I hope the Minister will reflect and respond on it.

Yesterday, the Minister suggested that savings will not be made to cover the £3.7 billion cost, but I would appreciate it if she categorically ruled out any further cuts to any other aspect of social security to fund the review, and if she explained how the DWP intends to cover the cost. Does this shambles not expose the urgent need for the UK Government to review the whole PIP application process? We hear time and again, as we did this morning, about the appeal process success rate and about how Ministers have lost court cases on their policy. We have also heard personal testimony about the way in which the application process impacts those who apply and need support.

This is topical because PIP will be devolved to the new Scottish social security agency, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden). The Bill to create the agency is currently being debated in Committee in the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Government are seeking to make a number of changes to the way in which PIP is assessed to make sure that it treats people with dignity and respect. First, the Scottish Government are seeking to make an automatic provision that would allow the agency to gather all the relevant medical or related information at application stage, which would reduce the number of face-to-face assessments, reduce the burden on the applicant and hopefully ensure that the correct decision is taken at the outset, rather than people having to go through the flawed mandatory reconsideration and appeal process, which was raised by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green).

Secondly, the Scottish Government will ensure that private contractors are not involved in the assessment process. There are a range of other measures that the Scottish Government will take to ensure that we get the system right for those seeking support. In conclusion, hopefully the Minister will consider the new system in Scotland once it is up and running, and the UK Government will look north and learn some lessons.

PIP Back Payments

Paul Sweeney Excerpts

Tuesday 30th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Newton]

I thank the hon. Lady for her kind words and her question. I would be delighted to meet her to consider that specific case to see what more I can do to work with Motability to ensure that people who need their cars get to keep them.

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

A constituent of mine, a 63-year-old man, was deemed by his doctor to be unfit for work, having suffered from coronary artery disease, and was placed on the higher rate of PIP. He subsequently received a review form, which he duly completed within the timescales and resubmitted. He was then informed by the DWP that the form had not been received, and that as a result he would forfeit his benefits and be liable to pay back everything he had received up until that date. That clearly caused him unacceptable mental anguish, on top of his bad physical condition. It was only after the intervention of my caseworker that that review form was identified, found and his payments were reinstated. What will the Government do to deal with the clear anguish that that has caused my constituent as part of a wider symptomatic issue? Will they reinstate a compensation scheme to ensure that these people are adequately compensated, particularly when they have fallen into severe debt?

[Sarah Newton]

The hon. Gentleman exemplifies the important role of a Member of Parliament in supporting constituents through their casework. He might like to meet me about that case. It is by reviewing individual cases that we find out how we can make improvements. I reassure all Members that if a decision is overturned and the Department has made a mistake, we back pay people to the date from which they are eligible for the benefit.

Pension Equality for Women

Paul Sweeney Excerpts

Thursday 14th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Onasanya (Peterborough) (Lab)]

I not only congratulate but commend my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) on introducing this important debate. I have heard many voices across the Chamber, but we must recognise the injustice that these women have suffered. It is not a case of simply saying, “We hear the issues that our constituents have raised with us.” We need to listen. The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) talked about proportionality and cost. The Government could take actions such as early draw-down now. It would be cost-neutral and would have a beneficial impact. I do not understand what prevents the Government from introducing early draw-down for women who wish to pursue this option. To do nothing is not only inadequate, but unfair and unjust.

I have been contacted by a number of constituents about proportionality. We cannot simply say that only one or two women in our constituencies have come to our attention and we need to look at individuals. This is a massive issue for a number of women, which the WASPI women’s plight brings to our attention. We must do something; it is not enough just to say that we hear. We need to listen and take action. While I understand that the pension age has to go up, the rate of the increase has been rapid and women have been given little warning or time to prepare. Many Members will have heard the phrase “to forewarn is to forearm”. Where was the forewarning for some of these women? We cannot sit back and say, “Oh, we are very sorry that you didn’t get a letter.” We cannot compare them with young people much like myself and say, “But in years to come we will have to deal with differences in the state pension we are eligible for.” This is the specific plight of the 1950s-born women who have been dealt a very unjust blow. It is simply not acceptable to say, “There were letters. Everyone has to suffer. At some point everyone will come across this. Younger people will be affected.”

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

A disproportionate number of 1950s-born women do not have occupational pensions, so they are uniquely exposed and are reliant on the state pension. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is all the more galling for them as a result?

[Fiona Onasanya]

I agree with my hon. Friend. That is absolutely correct. We need to understand that the state pension is not a welfare benefit. We are not saying, “Sorry, some of you have paid in but we just cannot do what we promised you.” If someone has worked since they were 15 and paid into a system that they believed would pay them back in their time of need, if they have been relying on that and it is then taken away, and if they do not have a workplace pension or did not get put into that type of pension, that will have dire consequences and cause negative impacts on their life.

I was contacted by a number of women in my constituency, one of whom was Wendy Hopkins. She advised me that she had been working since she was 15 and had paid all her national insurance contributions, thinking that she could retire at 60. Two years before, she was told that the retirement age had been increased to 63. Within 18 months of that, she was told that she had to wait until she turned 66. As hon. Members can imagine, that did not afford sufficient time to make arrangements to make up her financial loss. She had to rely on her husband, who is 67 and is taking a part-time job to cover their financial loss.

It is important and prudent to acknowledge that some women received the letter about the Pension Act 2011 advising them that their pensionable age would be increased by another 15 months. However, personal circumstances, which some hon. Members seem to overlook, mean that not everyone is in a position to take up an apprenticeship, or work. They may have to care for their partner or even their children. They should not have to continue to work. This is something they were promised, and we need to respect that.

We need to act now. There are cost-neutral actions that we could take, and we need to take them.

Work Capability Assessments

Paul Sweeney Excerpts

Wednesday 13th December 2017 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, which will be mirrored by me and everyone else in this Chamber. Indeed, I do not see how anyone could have a different opinion. We see the reality in our offices every day.

The vicious cycle continues. Although it might look good on paper for the decision makers to meet their quotas, it does not look good to the doctor who has to care for the person. We need a system that lends adequate weight to the illnesses that people have without having to tax doctors even more. We all know how difficult it is for doctors to make appointments, and we are asking them to provide additional information that puts more strain on local GP practices. I understand that system. GPs in my constituency have decided to inform patients they will no longer provide letters for PIP or ESA, and will give information only if requested by ESA or by PIP. Again, that happens irregularly.

On the other hand, ESA and PIP request only certain information, so the whole case is not heard and the loser is the person applying. What comes first—the chicken or the egg? People are bouncing back and forth between the benefits office and the GP. It really frustrates me.

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

On becoming a new Member of Parliament I had a stark introduction when I held a street surgery in Dennistoun the day after my election. Some of the massive problems highlighted by the hon. Gentleman came to light for me when a woman approached me in tears in the street and said that she had to support her son who had a high-grade brain tumour—a terminal brain tumour—and yet was still deemed fit to work. In that context, in the face of all the medical evidence, we still see flaws happening in the most degrading and humiliating way. In the face of the most vindictive box-ticking exercise, we see such hard-hearted approaches. Medical opinion must take greater weight in the process. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with that?

[Jim Shannon]

I absolutely agree with that. The evidence is very clear from the overturning of cases at tribunals. There are people who have complex medical conditions, who are obviously unwell, and there are even wards of court where the court has decided a person is unable to look after their financial affairs, and yet the ESA writes to the person and all of a sudden we have myriad problems.

Delays in mandatory reconsideration and appeals to the tribunal mean that claimants may have to wait many months for the correct result. As the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) says, that adds to the strain that the appellant faces. It does not affect just a single person, but the family as well. As the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) mentioned, it affects the family and everybody coming together.

I am glad to say we have a food bank in our area. Thank the Lord for food banks. One of the biggest reasons why my office points people in the direction of the local food bank is because of benefit delay. The DWP has failed to make reasonable adjustments in line with the Equality Act 2010. The 2017 Green Paper “Improving Lives: the Future of Work, Health and Disability” contained no proposals to substantially reform assessments. I ask the Minister why.

Universal Credit

Paul Sweeney Excerpts

Thursday 23rd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

We have of course put transitional protection into the system. The hon. Lady represents a Scottish constituency; if the Scottish Government wish to provide support for third, fourth and fifth children, they can provide exactly that.

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Secretary of State might be interested to know that Citizens Advice Scotland recently carried out a survey in my constituency and determined that 32% of my constituents do not have any access to the internet and a further 32% would have difficulty accessing the online full service universal credit system. In the context of half the jobcentres in Glasgow being closed, will he consider additional measures to ensure that the interface for the full service universal credit system is improved, so that those claiming universal credit can have increased confidence that they can access the system efficiently?

[Mr Gauke]

The vast majority of people do have access online, but of course it is possible for people to access facilities in jobcentres, and that will continue to be the case.