Work Capability Assessments

Debate between Mark Lazarowicz and Sheila Gilmore

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.

High Speed 2

Debate between Mark Lazarowicz and Sheila Gilmore

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), on securing the debate, because it is important that we continue to advance the economic case for High Speed 2 as part of the wider case. I assure the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) that I am not speaking as part of any lobby, and I have not been asked by anybody else to come here. I have simply come to express what I think is important for my constituents, for my city and for Scotland and Great Britain as a whole.

From a Scottish perspective, support for high-speed rail continues to be almost universal. One or two people oppose it, but the vast majority of interest groups across different sectors support it. The Scottish Government are united with the other political parties in Scotland in supporting HS2. The Scottish partnership group for high-speed rail has a wide range of supporters, including the major local authorities in Edinburgh and Glasgow, CBI Scotland, the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, Scottish Enterprise, the Scottish TUC, Transform Scotland—an environmentally focused transport organisation—and the local transport networks. There is wide public support as well.

Those organisations clearly set out the case for high-speed rail in the UK and the benefits that it will provide to Scotland. To me, those seem self-evident, although others do not agree. There are numerous arguments, and it is not right to single out one issue as the priority, whether it be speed, capacity or modal shift, because they are all important. HS2 will provide faster journey times, increase capacity and promote modal shift from air and road to rail, and it will support and benefit businesses not only in Scotland but in the rest of the UK. All those factors together make a powerful case for HS2.

We have heard the argument that instead of spreading economic benefits throughout the country, HS2 will suck economic activity into London. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) has pointed out, if we took that argument to its logical extreme, we would have to tear up all the existing roads and railways. Presumably, if we were to return to the days of toll roads with a turnpike every few miles and highwaymen along the road to stop us getting anywhere, it would lead to wonderful economic benefits for the rest of the country. I take that argument to its extreme to highlight the folly of the suggestion that HS2 will suck economic activity into London. Supporters of HS2 cannot simply assert that, however; we must give examples of the economic benefits that will result from the project, and recognise that some cities and some parts of the country might lose out from HS2 if it were not done in the right way. The answer is not to say “No HS2”, but to address the problems of areas that might suffer genuine negative economic consequences if high-speed rail is not introduced in the right way.

Let me outline the powerful case for HS2 from a Scottish perspective. Scotland has an important tourist industry, and many tourists come to Scotland not only by rail connections, but by road and air. Anyone who travels regularly on the routes from Scotland to the south will know that the passenger trains are already pretty busy, so tourism might be further enhanced by better, faster trains with improved capacity. Again, it is a question of people’s choices. London is and always will be a major tourist hub, and visitors to London increasingly go on to visit other places. They have to decide whether to go on, for example, to Edinburgh, Glasgow, Manchester or somewhere on the continent of Europe. If the choice is between travelling to other destinations in the UK on relatively slow routes, and travelling in Europe using better rail routes or improved air connections, visitors may well choose not to travel within the UK but to go elsewhere. The tourist industry, therefore, strongly supports HS2.

HS2 also has business consequences. It is not simply a question of speed, because modern technology allows people to work together without necessarily all being in the same place at the same time. Nevertheless, we still need to produce things that must be transported, and we still need to have business meetings, so people make choices based on the accessibility of locations to head offices and other sites of economic activity. A business that is well connected to a major economic hub—in reality, that will often be London—has a much better chance of being successful than one that is not easily accessible.

In addition to improving connections to London, it is important to improve connectivity between other cities and regions in the UK. We have heard about the benefits of faster links between cities such as Leeds, Manchester and Birmingham, and I have another example of how regional economies might benefit from high-speed rail. In Edinburgh and the south-east and east of Scotland, the strong renewables sector is an important and growing part of the economy. There is also a strong renewables cluster around the north-east of England, but although there are some connections between the two, I get the impression that they do not work together as much as they could to achieve maximum benefit. Who knows where high-speed rail might go in the future? Increased connectivity between the east of Scotland and the north-east of England would benefit that potential regional economy.

Edinburgh, in particular, has an international, outward-based economy, which depends on good air links as well as rail links. HS2 would allow travellers the option of using airports further south by providing direct links to Scotland.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Does my hon. Friend agree that even after the recession, the financial services sector remains an important part of Edinburgh’s economy, accounting for 11% of employment in the city? Does he agree that good connectivity is essential to sustain that industry and ensure that headquarters and major offices are retained in Edinburgh, rather than being drawn to other places?

[Mark Lazarowicz]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was about to come to that important point, so I will not repeat what she has said. As I suggested, high-speed rail stations can be important hubs and promoters of economic activity, and it will be up to local governments, communities and businesses to make the most of the opportunities that those connections offer. They will have to choose whether to view high-speed rail as a benefit, or as something that will suck prosperity away from their economy.

At the start of the railway age, towns reacted in all sorts of ways to new railway lines. Some towns chose deliberately to keep the railways away and avoid building stations, but they soon started to campaign for branch lines to reach their communities. I believe that some communities close to the route of HS1 regret choosing not to have a station and reap the benefits that we now see. That emphasises the fact that communities across the country must take the opportunities that arise from HS2, because if they do not, they will not get the benefits.

There is a question about whether HS2 could damage the economic position of certain parts of the country. If HS2 does not go from London to the midlands, the north and Scotland, those parts of the country are in great danger of becoming worse off as a result of economic developments elsewhere. If there are improved transport links from London to elsewhere in Europe and the world, but no such links going further north, those of us from communities further north will be relatively worse off. In addition to the high-speed services from London to Brussels and Paris, operators are planning direct high-speed services all the way from London to Cologne and Frankfurt, for example. If people and businesses in London have access to that high-speed link, but we are relatively worse off further north, our economic position is likely to be damaged. That is why I strongly support the argument for high-speed routes reaching Scotland as early as possible.

It would be damaging if we had the development of high speed to Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and York, but did not take further the benefits of those connections and faster services. That is why I welcomed the announcement from the UK and Scottish Governments a few months ago of a study to look at ways to ensure that high-speed rail reaches further north to Glasgow and the rest of Scotland. I understand that the parameters for the study laid out by the Department for Transport state that all options should be considered. That could include new lines, upgrading existing lines or a combination of both. I am interested in hearing from the Minister an update on that study of the lines and connections from the end of HS2, as currently planned, on to Edinburgh and Glasgow.

East Coast Main Line

Debate between Mark Lazarowicz and Sheila Gilmore

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure, Mr Bone, to serve under your chairmanship. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) for securing and leading the debate today.

This is not the first Westminster Hall debate on the east coast main line and, unless the Government change their position, it will probably not be the last. The Government might not like to have such repeated debates, but the Opposition make no apologies for bringing the issue back for discussion time and again. We will do so until the Government change their policy, because there is an overwhelming case against forcing East Coast trains back into the private sector without even giving the public sector a chance to offer an alternative.

My hon. Friend reminded us of the positive financial record of East Coast trains and that the public are clearly against the return of the east coast service to the private sector. The staff on the line, and the cities up and down the line, do not want the service to return to the private sector, and public opinion is overwhelmingly against the proposals that the Government seem determined to push forward.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mark Lazarowicz]

I give way to my hon. Friend, whose constituency neighbours mine.

[Sheila Gilmore]

My hon. Friend and I have spent a considerable time campaigning on this issue in Edinburgh. Does he agree that the overwhelming response of the people we have spoken to while we were gathering signatures has been that they do not want the line to be re-privatised?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheila Gilmore]

I think the right hon. Lady knows that I do not share her views on this matter. We should not cast one railway line against another, because one of the advantages of HS2 is that it provides an opportunity to improve some of the other services, not least by dealing with the capacity question.

One issue is the opportunity cost of prioritising East Coast over some of the other long-distance franchises. Under the original franchising timetable from August 2011, a new contract for the west coast main line was due to start in October 2012, with Great Western starting in April 2013 and the east coast main line thereafter. However, following the debacle of the west coast main line bidding process, a new timetable was announced in March this year. The east coast main line, which was previously the last in the trio of inter-city franchises to be let, was brought forward to be the first. That was only made possible by the current operator of the west coast main line, Virgin, being given a franchise extension of four and a half years to April 2017. At the same time, the Great Western operator, First, has been given an extension of two and a half years to September 2015. In total, that is 77 months’ worth of extensions.

The Government justify prioritising East Coast by referring to the Brown review, which was carried out after the problems with the west coast main line. They are restating their belief that competition in the bidding process should drive down the subsidy required or drive up the premium payments offered. They say that that will push operators to be more efficient and innovative, and prompt investment in new services. One can argue that franchise competitions might achieve these goals, but the one thing that certainly will not achieve those goals is franchise extensions. That is because the Government, by setting up this arrangement, have no option but to negotiate with the existing operators on other lines. The only bargaining chip that Ministers can use is to threaten to call in East Coast’s parent company, Directly Operated Railways, but they are reluctant to do so, as is highlighted by their desperation to extract DOR from the east coast main line. How are the other franchisees threatened by Ministers saying, “If you don’t agree reasonable terms, we’ll take you into the fold of Directly Operated Railways,” when Ministers are running as fast as possible in the opposite direction with the east coast main line?

[Mark Lazarowicz]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. When there were problems with East Coast trains, as there were with Southern some years ago, Directly Operated Railways was able to step in and provide an alternative when the private sector failed. If Directly Operated Railways is taken off East Coast trains—I do not know what will happen to the organisation, but I presume that there might still be a shell company—the nucleus that allows it to operate an alternative may disappear, so there might not be an alternative even if a future private sector operator fails.

[Sheila Gilmore]

My hon. Friend gives a helpful example of where, instead of increasing competition and providing opportunities for the Government to exercise some control over the rail companies, that possibility might be being reduced.

The contract extensions, which were made necessary by the Government’s determination to pull East Coast forward, will cost the taxpayer a lot of money. In 2011-12, Virgin paid the Department for Transport a premium of £165 million, and First Great Western paid £110 million. Will the Minister confirm that there will not be payments of anywhere near those sums during the extension period? Will he also confirm that, apart from the roll-out of wi-fi on First Great Western, which all train operators are beginning to offer, the two extensions offer no improvements for passengers? There is less money coming in and no improvements; the extensions need not have been given had the Government stuck to their original timetable.

If the east coast main line had not been prioritised, the extensions simply would not have been necessary. There could have been fresh competitions, if that was the Government’s will, for the west coast main line and the Great Western main line. If East Coast had been performing badly in the public sector, there might have been some justification for what has happened—the imperative of turning East Coast around would have trumped other disadvantages of negotiating extensions on the west coast main line and the great western main line—but East Coast is performing well, so that reason simply does not apply.

The Government clearly hope that they can get to the next election with all the main line routes back in the private sector. The Government could take credit for that in the hope that it would be extremely difficult for any incoming Government to do anything about it. If that is not the motive, the Government have to say what is their real motive for proceeding in that way.

Public opinion has changed. People have seen the reality. Some people, although not necessarily all of us—there are always some critics—warned that privatisation of rail might be a step too far. Members of the public who were prepared to give privatisation a chance now see Directly Operated Railways as an opportunity to have a rail service in public ownership that brings money back to the Treasury. As I said earlier, when we talk to people, they enthusiastically support our campaign. The Government sometimes say that they listen to public opinion, and on this occasion I suggest that they do indeed listen to public opinion and stop the process before it goes any further.

Cycling

Debate between Mark Lazarowicz and Sheila Gilmore

Monday 2nd September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Indeed. I saw that with my own eyes, and I took part on a more conventional bike in that Pedal on Parliament. The point that my hon. Friend makes is a good one. One reason we have seen an increase in Edinburgh in the percentage of journeys undertaken by bike has been the political commitment over many years—political commitment in which, I am pleased to say, the Labour party over the decades has taken the lead, and which, to be fair, is now widely shared across the political parties in Edinburgh, just as it is in the Chamber today.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) pointed out—and I should mention that we were joined by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) in Pedal on Parliament this year—we have also had a very effective grass-roots campaign, first in the form of Spokes, the Lothian cycle campaign, of which I have been a member for many years. That campaign has consistently and in a well-informed way put pressure on local government and central Government to deliver both cycle spending and the integration of policies in wider planning and transport activity, to give cycling a higher profile. We have also seen the very successful Pedal on Parliament initiative, which started in 2012 with a couple of thousand people lobbying the Scottish Parliament at the end of a cycle ride, and which in May this year ended up with 4,000 people in a very impressive lobby of the Scottish Parliament.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the significant things at that event was the reaction of those who were there to a spokesperson from the Scottish Government who gave only warm words—compared to the local council, which has committed 5% of its transport budget, to rise by 1% each year to 9%—because cyclists know that words are not good enough?

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend points to the commitment of Edinburgh council not just to maintain a 5% level of all transport spend, both revenue and capital, on cycling but to increase it year on year by 1%, which is a major commitment. In a briefing to some of us earlier, Chris Boardman said that it was the first city in the UK to make that commitment. That contrasts with the poor record of the SNP Scottish Government in supporting cycling. It is interesting that the success of the Pedal on Parliament campaign in Edinburgh has had the effect of shaming the Scottish Government into putting more money into cycling. That is a tribute to such campaigning work, which is so important at the grass roots.

I do not want to make jibes at other political parties in what has otherwise been a non-partisan debate, even if those parties are not represented in the Chamber today. In Edinburgh we have now seen a cross-party consensus on cycling policies. Although it is true that our Labour colleagues on the council made a commitment to increase the spending on cycling year on year, it is being done now with the support of the minority party in the Edinburgh council coalition, the Scottish National party. So let us hope that the SNP at Scottish Government level will follow the example of its colleagues on Edinburgh council.

As has been mentioned a few times in the debate, some of those who organised the Pedal on Parliament campaign to lobby the Scottish Parliament had personal experience of death and serious injury to cyclists on our roads. The increase in deaths and serious injuries to cyclists in England over the past five years has been replicated in Scotland. We have seen a similar increase over the past five years. Let us not forget that as well as being in every case a personal tragedy for the families and friends of those involved, every cycling death or serious injury has the effect of discouraging people who might otherwise come back to cycling, because they do not realise the wider relative or absolute safety of cycling compared with most forms of transport.

There are many reasons why it is vital to have targets to bring down the toll of death and serious injury to cyclists on our roads, and I have no doubt that if the measures proposed in the “Get Britain Cycling” report were implemented, they would dramatically reduce the number of cyclists killed and injured on our roads.

East Coast Main Line Franchise

Debate between Mark Lazarowicz and Sheila Gilmore

Thursday 20th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sheila Gilmore]

I thank my hon. Friend for clarifying the position. Perhaps for the rest of this debate, unlike the one in Westminster Hall, we will concentrate on the main issues before us and the reasons why the Government made the decision they have.

In the Westminster Hall debate, a number of hon. Members questioned the Minister’s claim that East Coast’s performance had plateaued, noting the remarks the right hon. Gentleman made to the Select Committee on Transport on 24 April:

“If you look at the latest monthly figures for reliability and punctuality, it is the worst of the 19 franchises.”

That struck me as odd, because in my experience East Coast trains are, more often than not, on time. That was borne out in the debate, in which many speakers pointed out that the Minister was quoting figures from a narrow four-week period in which bad weather had caused flooding and brought down overhead wires. East Coast is powerless to prevent such incidents, and responsibility for subsequent delays lies with the infrastructure manager, Network Rail. In fact, according to the moving annual average punctuality figures, which offer a more balanced picture, East Coast is in the top three of the seven long-distance franchises.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend and neighbour and those who signed the motion on securing the debate. Is it not worth pointing out that, over the decades, a consistent cause of delays has been problems with the overhead wires? Is she aware that one of the main reasons those problems have arisen is that, back in the ’80s when the line was electrified under the previous Conservative Government, the overhead wires system was installed on the cheap? Ever since, we have suffered problems precisely because they did not do the good job they ought to have done.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Indeed. I am not saying, and I do not think any Opposition Member would say, that there is nothing that needs to be improved. Track and rolling stock can always be improved, and the current state of the track and overhead cables is a problem, but I would argue that it would be a problem for any operator. That is not what lies behind the Government’s proposal.

There is also the question of the premium payments. Again, I quote the Minister, this time at Transport questions on 25 April, when he said that

“the premium that the east coast main line pays to the Treasury is less than that paid by the west coast main line.”—[Official Report, 25 April 2013; Vol. 561, c. 995.]

In fact, a recent report from the Office of Rail Regulation suggests that, in 2011-12, the Government received £156 million in net franchise payments from the operator of the west coast main line and £177 million from East Coast—the opposite of what the Minister asserted.

East Coast Main Line

Debate between Mark Lazarowicz and Sheila Gilmore

Wednesday 5th June 2013 Westminster Hall

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

The ideology in this debate is clearly not on the Labour side, as is shown by the speeches we have heard. What is puzzling many of my constituents is why it is somehow so urgent to put the east coast line out to franchise now, when East Coast is working well and when the franchise process for the west coast main line was such a disaster so recently. It sounds like the answer is ideology.

A couple of misconceptions have arisen in the debate so far. One of the previous speakers suggested that refranchising would fund improvements such as electrification, but during the past few years Network Rail has made infrastructure investment from public money. It is clear that refranchising will not bring about that kind of investment. I also say to the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) that, instead of perpetuating the notion that somehow East Coast is uniquely expensive, if he took his Government’s advice to benefit claimants and became “digital by default” he could considerably reduce fares by booking in advance. That is no different from the situation with any of the other rail operators.

There is now a good argument for looking at the situation. I am sure the Minister will say, as some Government Members have already said, “Oh, but the Labour Government were going to refranchise.” We learn from experience, and we have learned that there is no inherent reason why a publicly operated railway company cannot make a success of things. One reason for that is that such a company will be operated not by some anonymous Department, but by rail professionals; it will not be run from the Department for Transport. Those rail professionals are clearly motivated to make things work, which is why we are seeing the improvements that we feel are happening on the east coast line.

The time has now come for us to look again at some of the assumptions that were made at the time of privatisation.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Sheila Gilmore]

I am sorry; I do not think I have time to give way.

There was a view that the track should be separated from the trains and that the network should all be split up. However, we know from the McNulty report that the unit cost of railways in this country is 40% higher than in countries in Europe where there are publicly owned, integrated rail services. The time has come not to be ideological about this issue, nor even defensive about what anybody’s Government did in the past, but to look at what is actually happening out there.

In the first instance, we should say of the east coast line, “No, we will not put this out to franchise again at this stage. There is no need to do so.” Secondly, we should look at the whole process and analyse what is happening. Thirdly, we should perhaps look again at having an integrated rail system—

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Mark Lazarowicz and Sheila Gilmore

Wednesday 17th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sheila Gilmore]

The test of what is happening is whether the economy will be stimulated. That is the real test that we should keep under review. If we want collectively to stimulate the economy, the most direct way of doing that would be to fund socially rented houses. That would get people into jobs, who would then help to stimulate the rest of the local economy. I do not know whether an ideological aversion to that has brought about the proposals we have before us; perhaps it has, because all the affordable housing the Government seem to want to fund directly is not even affordable.

In this very week, when we are remembering the 1980s and the Prime Minister of that time, we are in grave danger of repeating what happened then. The Government chose to allow housing benefit to take the strain rather than investing directly in housing, which resulted in the problem that we now have a large housing benefit bill. The way this Government are going about even the affordable housing they say they will build, which will not of course truly be affordable, again runs the risk of increasing the housing benefit bill.

We are looking to stimulate the economy with something for which there will probably be no take-up, judging from experience, and it will not benefit the people we should really help. If we do not review this policy quickly, we could be going down a very dangerous road.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

As time is limited, I take this opportunity to pursue with the Minister some of the issues raised earlier by colleagues on the Opposition Benches about how the schemes will operate in Scotland and Wales—outside England. I hope the Minister can answer these questions.

Will the Minister confirm that the mortgage guarantee scheme will apply to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as well as to England? If that is the case, will he indicate which Department will operate it for Scotland and the other devolved areas? If it is to be the Department for Communities and Local Government, I suggest that it would be more appropriate for the scheme to be operated by the Scottish Government or the relevant devolved Administrations.

Would it be possible for the Scottish Government and the other devolved Administrations to amend the scheme to take account of the objections raised, which will no doubt be shared by all of them, that it would benefit the buyers of second homes and people on relatively high incomes? In most parts of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, prices of £600,000 are very much at the higher end of the housing market.

If someone in one of the devolved areas defaulted under the mortgage guarantee, would the cost be borne by the Treasury or the devolved Administration? I appreciate that these are technical questions but I am sure that, as the Minister has thought through the policy in great detail, he will be able to answer them.

Housing Benefit (Under-occupancy Penalty)

Debate between Mark Lazarowicz and Sheila Gilmore

Wednesday 27th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sheila Gilmore]

That is a good example. We are talking about real people, not just apparently unused and unloved bedrooms—despite the fact that the latter appears to be the view of many people on the Government Benches. Real people will experience real harm, but I suspect that that is part of a wider view of social housing and is not entirely accidental.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

On the question of people having spare bedrooms and houses that are too big for them, will my hon. Friend also bear in mind the fact that on occasion local authorities trying to let houses in hard-to-let areas have encouraged people to take houses that are slightly bigger than their immediate need would suggest in order to ensure that they are not left empty? Is that not the kind of approach that would be undermined if the policy was to go ahead?

[Sheila Gilmore]

I know that that has been the case in many areas. My hon. Friend comes from Edinburgh, as I do, and he will know that the problem is not always about hard-to-let areas. As far back as the 1980s, single people in Edinburgh have been housed in two-bedroom houses in some circumstances. That is partly to do with the nature of the stock, as there are not enough one-bedroom houses to match the number of people, and it also acknowledges the fact that people’s lives are not static.

We have heard a lot from the Government about dynamic benefits, but people’s lives are pretty dynamic and they change. The single person housed in a two-bedroom house might well have a child. If we insist that they can never be in a two-bedroom house, they might have to move later. The same happens in reverse, as people’s families do not stay static. Even grown-up children, as many of us know, do not necessarily simply go and stay gone. They take a job and move away, but the job or relationship might not work out and they come back. Families also want to visit. Part of this change is about saying to the not very well-off, “You cannot have the normal elements of family life; we are not going to let you.”

I was about to make a point on the general view of social housing. I think perhaps this policy is part of a pattern, because we have heard from UK Housing Ministers—those dealing with England—that they do not want social housing to be permanent housing; they want to introduce short-term tenancies of various types so that people can be moved on. This policy may not be as much of an aberration as some of my colleagues think.

Incandescent Light Bulbs

Debate between Mark Lazarowicz and Sheila Gilmore

Tuesday 22nd May 2012 Westminster Hall

[Sheila Gilmore]

As chair of the all-party lighting group, my hon. Friend has extensive knowledge of that subject and the issues that should be raised. Although long-term research is always helpful, we must also focus on the impact on individuals. As the Health Minister indicated, the figures she gave could equate to 30,000 or 40,000 people in the UK being affected by this problem. Those, however, are people who are known to have a pre-existing condition, and the Spectrum Alliance estimates that the true number of people affected in the UK—with, as has been said, varying levels of impact—could be as many as 2 million, many of whom are already suffering from conditions such as migraines or autism.

The science behind this issue may not yet be entirely resolved, and although the light bulbs in question have a clear impact on people, we must do some research into the matter. Low-energy lighting operates differently from incandescent bulbs in terms of levels of ultraviolet radiation, electric fields, flicker and peaks in light wavelength, especially with blue light. As yet, research has not been sufficiently in-depth to enable us to say which features of fluorescent bulbs have an effect on health, because they differ from incandescent bulbs in multiple ways. We do know, however, that people’s health is not affected in the same way when they use incandescent bulbs.

Let me be clear: I do not seek to discourage the use of low-energy light bulbs and lighting where that is useful and helpful. I acknowledge that climate change is one of the most significant challenges that we face as a country and I welcome the positive contribution that lighting can make in reducing our energy consumption. However, I do not believe that it would be right to implement the ban on incandescent light bulbs so dogmatically that people suffered. That is the crux of what I am saying.

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

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing the debate. I am sure that many hon. Members agree with the point that she is making. This is not about being against low-energy light bulbs as a generality, but about recognising that some individuals have a particular problem with that lighting. There is a danger in just dismissing their concerns, which need to be taken seriously. That is all we are asking for, and I hope that the Minister will respond positively at the end of the debate.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; that is indeed the outcome for which I am hoping.

The key legislation in this area started with the ecodesign of energy-using products directive in 2005. That was updated and recast four years later by the ecodesign directive of 2009. Those directives set down rules on the environmental performance of products that used energy, such as light bulbs, and those that related to energy use, such as windows. They set the framework for further implementing measures, and the relevant Commission regulation of 2009 set out a timetable for the phasing out of the manufacture and import of incandescent bulbs. The position is that 100 W bulbs were banned in 2009, 75 W bulbs in 2010 and 60 W bulbs in 2011. The remaining 40 W and 25 W bulbs will be banned as of 1 September 2012. That regulation was not voted on by the European Parliament—it went through without debate—and it is directly applicable. That is why there is no transposing legislation at our level.

Concerns about health impacts have been acknowledged at EU level, although that has not yet been reflected in better policy. In 2008, the European Commission scientific committee on emerging and newly identified health risks—commonly referred to as SCENIHR—produced a report that concluded that although single-envelope CFLs could induce skin problems among some people, that might be alleviated by the use of double-envelope CFLs. However, Spectrum Alliance is clear that its members have tried those double-envelope bulbs and that, although they are an improvement for some people, they still induce similar symptoms in most of those affected.

The concerns were acknowledged when the European Commission asked SCENIHR to produce an updated report in March 2012. That was published in draft form in July 2011 and in full in March this year. It, too, referred to the possible health impacts of low-energy lighting, but SCENIHR itself does not carry out first-hand research; it simply reports on research that has been carried out. It concluded that because of the considerable variability of the components for lighting technologies, no general advice could be given to individuals about how they could avoid those health impacts.

It is possible that some people will be able to find means of lighting other than incandescent bulbs. It has been suggested that they could try light-emitting diodes—LEDs—or the double-envelope CFLs, but again the Spectrum Alliance campaigners are clear that neither of those technologies has yet succeeded in overcoming the problems that people are suffering.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) chaired a meeting of the all-party lighting group last October. Present were representatives from Spectrum Alliance, the lighting industry and the relevant Departments: BIS, DEFRA and the Department of Health. We discussed a number of options. It was made clear that the Government would not wish to defy the regulation, that they did not simply not implement things that they did not agree with and that they could be fined under the infraction proceedings if they sought to do so.

We then discussed the possibility of an exemption for people with medical needs. There is a precedent: rough-service lamps are already exempt under the regulation. Rough-service lamps are incandescent bulbs that are used for industrial purposes where a low-energy alternative would not work properly. There is, therefore, a precedent for having an exemption for industry. We argue that an exemption should also be made for people with specific health needs.

Earlier this year, my hon. Friend and I met Lord Taylor of Holbeach, the Minister with responsibility for this area. On hearing the arguments, he expressed some concern that people might seek to take advantage of any exemption, but I would have thought that it was possible to configure a system to prevent, or at least to minimise, that risk. For example, incandescent bulbs could be dispensed by prescription at pharmacies.

The Minister also expressed the strong hope that emerging technologies would resolve the problem for us. That may be the case in the future. There may be—I sincerely hope that there is—a lighting technology around the corner that will resolve the problem. It would meet the low-energy requirements but without the health effects that I have described, but at the moment it does not exist. That is a serious practical problem.

Lord Taylor also indicated that he would be keen for further research to be carried out, and I certainly would not in any way say that there should not be further research. However, although I support further research, I want to suggest that both the Government and the European Commission are coming at this issue from the wrong direction. It makes sense to resolve any uncertainty about the safety of products before we force people to use them—rather than afterwards, when the alternatives have been withdrawn. In this case, consumers are being expected to prove that certain products are unsafe, rather than the Commission and the Government having ensured that they were safe in the first place.

I ask the Minister this central question: if nothing is done, what are my constituent and many more like her to do? Are the Government comfortable with forcing people to live in the dark for the foreseeable future? I am sure that the Minister finds that situation no more acceptable than I do. I understand that limited options are available, but I ask him to do whatever he can to allow people who suffer negative health impacts from low-energy bulbs to continue to purchase incandescent bulbs when the ban comes into full effect in September.