| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Denham: As I shall make clear, DLA has not been singled out in the process of action being taken on incorrectness and other problems in the Department of Social Security.
Guidance given to decision makers on the need to take into account all appropriate evidence remains unchanged. I want to reassure disabled people. We want to ensure that benefit payments are right. We want to act sensitively and we want people to have confidence in the actions taken as part of the project.
Why was the benefit integrity project initiated? I do not think that any Member would question the need to take action across all benefits to ensure that benefit payments are made to those--and only those--who have a legal entitlement to them. As the hon. Member for Moray said, we must, of course, recognise that even establishing that somebody is not entitled to benefit has an impact on their life, so the situation needs proper and sensitive treatment.
The previous Administration initiated a series of benefit reviews to establish the extent of error and fraud across all major benefits. In each benefit, the findings of the reviews have or will lead to appropriate changes in the way in which benefits are administered and entitlement is established. Disabled people and DLA recipients have not been singled out.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire):
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Denham:
I will not give way because I have very limited time in which to answer at least some of the points raised.
The DLA benefit review was undertaken in 1996 and published in February 1997. It reported that 73 per cent. of people were receiving it at the correct rate at the time that they were visited, meaning that 27 per cent. of people were receiving DLA at an incorrect rate. Incorrectness may have arisen for a variety of reasons, and involved under-provision as well as overpayment. In line with other benefit reviews, the DLA review reported a headline estimate of fraud of 12.2 per cent. The sample was extrapolated to produce the estimate of fraud of about £499 million that has been used.
I should make it quite clear that it would be totally wrong to suggest that the majority of people receiving DLA are doing so fraudulently. There is absolutely no evidence to support that. I should go further. Although the benefit integrity project has broadly confirmed the level of incorrectness identified by the DLA benefit review, it has not sustained the suggested level of fraud. But--this is the critical point--even if the benefit review estimate of fraud can be debated, it none the less indicates a worrying level of incorrectness.
The benefit integrity project has broadly sustained the estimated level of incorrectness and has justified the decision to proceed with the project when we took office in May. I should make it clear that the BIP was already fully designed under the previous Administration--contrary to the history described by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns)--and we had to take some very early action to improve its design.
Hon. Members need to understand that the points that they raised about decision making relate not to the BIP, but to the fundamental nature of DLA as a benefit. It is a complex benefit. It is paid to provide help with the extra costs associated with a disabling condition. Entitlement is based on the effect of a disability, not purely on the fact that a person claiming benefit is disabled in some way. The same condition can, of course, affect individuals in very different ways. As part of the claiming process, we ask people to describe the effect of their disability on their daily life, and through an understanding of the need that they have for help with personal care and getting around, decisions are made about entitlement. The BIP uses the same process.
It is fundamental to the nature of DLA that we rely to a considerable degree--sometimes entirely--on the information that we ask people to provide about their daily lives. It is not easy for many people to describe accurately the precise levels of need which arise from their disability. That is not to say that people are setting out to mislead or exaggerate, although it is important that we recognise constraints in the assessment of DLA entitlement generally before we begin to look more closely at the operation of the benefit integrity project.
Mr. Denham:
I hope that I can make some progress because I have some important points to cover.
I have already mentioned the difficulties that disabled people may have in recognising when to let us know that their circumstances have changed. The focus of the benefit integrity project was dictated by the findings of the benefit review, and is focused on groups of recipients who are thought to be the least likely to contact the Department about change. The House will, of course, recognise that there is a strong incentive for people to let us know when their needs increase, but less so as needs decrease, and even less if it is unclear when they should take such action.
The project results so far have underlined the need for the exercise. Up to the end of January, 55,000 cases had been examined and more than 12,000 people had had their benefit changed. Almost 1,300 people have seen an increase in their award, while some 4,000 people have moved off benefit altogether. Of the 44,000-plus cases with an on-going award of benefit that have so far been examined, 16 per cent. have resulted in change to the benefit paid. Some 48 per cent. of awards in renewal claims are being changed. In total, the level of incorrectness found, at 21 per cent., is broadly in line with the level of incorrectness found in the review. I should stress again that the project is seeking to establish current entitlement against current rules. None of the rules has changed.
In seeking to reassure the House that there is a sound basis for the benefit integrity project--the integrity, of course, refers to the integrity of our system, not to the
integrity of recipients--I do not want to give the impression that we are in any way complacent about the way in which the project is being carried out or the concerns of disabled people who receive DLA. It is essential that the project is carried out properly, sensitively and with full and proper concern for each individual disabled person who might be affected by it. Although I cannot comment on individual cases raised in the debate, I accept that we do not always get it right, despite our best intentions and--I genuinely believe--the best efforts of our staff to carry out their responsibilities properly and effectively.
From the outset, the Government have sought to address issues of concern, learn from the experience of the project and tackle problems that emerge. We are determined that disabled people should be dealt with properly and fairly, and that they should have sufficient information about what is required of them and the purpose of the exercise to allow them to provide the required level of information about the effect of their disability on their need for help with personal care and getting around. Most of all, we want the decisions that are made as a result of the project about benefit entitlement to be the right decisions.
When we inherited the project designed by the previous Administration, we discovered at the outset that no effort had been made to ensure that visiting officers had appropriate disability awareness training. The present Administration introduced that.
We have had several meetings at ministerial and official level to discuss the development of the project, and have recognised that some of the individuals contacted may not have understood the level of detail required about their daily lives. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security announced on 9 February that a new safeguard was being introduced. Details have been sent to hon. Members.
So far, we have kept the working of the project under constant review, and we shall continue to do so. We shall also continue to meet organisations of and for disabled people. It is important to understand that the project is about ensuring that disabled people receive the right amount of DLA--that to which they are entitled. I believe that the results so far endorse the need for the exercise, and that it would be difficult for us to stop taking action to secure the proper payment of benefits.
Mr. John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington):
Astoundingly, this appears to be the first recorded debate in the history of the British Parliament specifically on the subject of the Irish community in Britain. That is all the more astounding because, as the House will be aware, Irish migration to Britain goes back as far as the first forays by Irish chieftains to Wales, during which they reputedly kidnapped a small boy who grew up to become our patron saint, Saint Patrick.
After the 12th century Anglo-Norman invasion of Ireland, emigration escalated, and by the 1600s there were sizeable Irish communities in most major cities. Some of that migration was the inevitable and natural movement of peoples, but certainly over the past two centuries the growth in the numbers of Irish people coming to Britain was overwhelmingly a direct result of the colonial exploitation of Ireland--a process which included discriminatory measures that suppressed and destroyed whole sections of Ireland's economic base.
Racism and discrimination are also tools of colonial oppression. The denigration of the Irish has been used not only to justify colonial invasion and occupation but to reinforce oppression. Liz Curtis's excellent book, "Nothing but the Same Old Story", charts the depiction of the Irish within British culture and the media as some brutish sub-species, from the earliest Norman tracts to the present-day Murdoch newspapers.
Over time, racism has been as effective a weapon of oppression as any sword or gun--more effective in some ways, because it is less overt and can even be internalised by the victims, undermining their feelings of self-worth.
Remarkably, however, until last year there had been no comprehensive investigation into discrimination experienced by the Irish community in Britain. Throughout the 1980s, a number of organisations, including the Federation of Irish Societies, the Irish in Britain Representation Group, the Action Group for Irish Youth and the Irish Women's Centre, campaigned to highlight the discrimination faced by the Irish in Britain.
Those organisations were joined by local authorities such as the Greater London council, Camden, Haringey and Lewisham, and the Association of London Authorities. To its credit, the Irish Post, under the editorship of Brendan McCluha and Donal Mooney, became the vehicle in which that anti-Irish racism was exposed.
The campaign culminated last year in the publication of an excellent and authoritative research project by Dr. Mary Hickman and Dr. Bronwen Walter, commissioned by the Commission for Racial Equality. The report examines the extent to which Irish people in Britain experience various forms of discrimination. I pay tribute to Herman Ouseley, the first chair of the CRE to take the issue of anti-Irish racism seriously.
To many, the results of the research project are startling. The researchers drew on the 1991 census data and consulted a wide range of organisations working within the Irish community. They also conducted a pilot
survey among the Irish population in Britain. They catalogued the inequality that Irish people have experienced, and described finding in many people of Irish origin
The findings revealed that the Irish experience lower than average rates of upward social mobility, and that their housing provision is of significantly lower standard than that of the white population, with twice the level of overcrowding and the worst amenities of any major ethnic group.
Of all the ethnic minorities in Britain, the Irish have the poorest record of physical and mental health. That finding has been reinforced recently by a research report in the British Journal of Psychiatry that revealed that Irish men are the only migrant group whose life expectancy worsens on emigration to England. Those excessive mortality and morbidity rates persist into the British-born children of Irish migrants.
The research study's survey of Irish community groups and advice agencies consolidated the results extrapolated from the statistical data with the views of those working at the sharp end of dealing with the problems faced by the Irish community.
The survey exposed a widespread denial of specific Irish needs and a refusal by statutory bodies to include an Irish dimension in consultation on, and the planning of, service delivery, including community care plans and housing investment strategy. It depicted the stereotyped responses and comments by service providers that meant that Irish concerns were not taken seriously, and included reports of harassment ranging from violent physical attack on Irish individuals and organisations to the everyday occurrence of verbal abuse.
Regrettably, the survey also revealed an element of police harassment, sometimes triggered by the hearing of Irish accents of names, and often associated with the use of the prevention of terrorism Acts.
The research programme went on to survey a cross-section of the Irish population in Britain, and the researchers concluded:
Occasionally and increasingly, Irish people have resorted to legal action under the Race Relations Act 1976 to overcome racism and discrimination, and there is now a body of court and tribunal judgments against anti-Irish discriminatory practices. However, the survey found that the general response of Irish people when they encountered anti-Irish racism was to adopt a low profile or "heads down" approach.
That must not be the Government's response to the findings and recommendations of the research. We must develop a strategy that puts in place the policies, structures and resources that will enable us to take the first steps in eradicating anti-Irish racism in our community.
The CRE report and the contribution of many Irish community organisations to the debate has set a clear agenda for the Government, and for us all, to follow. The first step is to break through the barrier of the traditionally crude, "black and white", binary approach to tackling racism and discrimination in this country.
The debate about racism in Britain has been limited by the definition of ethnic status based on skin colour, and the belief that the white population is a homogeneous group. That denies the diversity of ethnic composition of the white population and the diversity of its cultural and historical roots.
The strong resistance, especially in central Government bureaucracies, in sections of local government and in Government-appointed agencies, to the acceptance of a distinctive Irish experience in Britain has meant that Irish needs are generally not accepted or specifically catered for.
If we accept that the Irish in Britain encounter particular problems and have specific needs, it follows that we can tackle those problems only if we have a sound body of information and research relating to the Irish experience in Britain. For that reason, I join with the organisations, including the CRE, that are pressing for the inclusion of an Irish category in ethnic monitoring systems and in the next census in 2001.
Unfortunately, the introduction of ethnic monitoring has been uneven across public bodies. It is vital, therefore, that the Government take the lead in insisting on the establishment of ethnic monitoring systems within all key areas of public service, and on the inclusion of an Irish ethnic category within those systems.
Given the deep-seated resistance of some public agencies to the very concept of anti-Irish racism, I do not believe that it can be left to individual Government Departments and agencies to decide on the principle or the practice of ethnic monitoring for the Irish in their respective spheres. Thus, I would urge the Government to co-ordinate the introduction of these systems, setting a definite pre-determined deadline for their implementation. That could be facilitated by the convening of a cross-departmental group, meeting representatives of the CRE and the major Irish representative community organisations to work through a programme for the common introduction of ethnic monitoring.
If we are to be a Government dedicated to providing equal opportunities to all in our community, we must ensure that the needs of the Irish are recognised in the
development of our policies and the allocation of resources. That must include the firmer recognition of the housing needs of the Irish community by the provision within the housing association sector of a fairer allocation of resources to successful and effective housing associations, such as the Cara and Innisfree housing associations.
The strategy should also include greater support to the voluntary sector organisations and advice bodies that are struggling to work within the Irish community to provide culturally sensitive services and to develop self-help groups to tackle the problems faced by the Irish community.
If we are to tackle the disproportionate level of ill-health among the Irish in Britain, we need to ensure that resources are targeted to health authorities where there are concentrations of the Irish population. That would provide the basis for addressing the specific health needs of the Irish community, taking into account the particular problems identified recently among the elderly and the mental health problems of a migrant community. Integral to our approach to combating anti-Irish discrimination should be an exercise that provides training to staff involved in direct service delivery, raises consciousness on the issue among policymakers in all echelons of Government and develops that within other funding bodies.
Within the criminal justice system and police service, it is clear--regrettably--that some discriminatory attitudes remain to be changed and could be best addressed by training programmes, backed by performance monitoring. We do not want to repeat the cases of the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six, but there are other cases outstanding that need to be tackled in the near future. I name Frank Johnson as one such case in which we must secure the release of an innocent person.
Change will not be effected unless structures are established to co-ordinate implementation. For that reason, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider the establishment of a cross-departmental ministerial group to take forward a programme of policies aimed at addressing the needs of the Irish community and, alongside that, to set up a consultative forum between Irish community organisations and the Government.
I also recommend that close liaison takes place with the Irish Government, especially on issues such as mobility between Britain and Ireland and enabling housing transfer and exchange for many who may wish to return home on retirement or simply to be nearer their family. Such dialogue has commenced, but it may need resourcing to ensure its effectiveness.
Parliamentarians can also play a part in progress chasing the implementation of the Government's policy and overall programme, and in voicing the concerns and aspirations of the Irish community. To facilitate this role, I intend to seek support for the formation of an all-party parliamentary group devoted to representing the interests of the Irish community in Britain and to serving as a channel for the Irish community to voice its concerns to Parliament.
The Irish have made their contribution to British society over centuries. They have--literally--physically constructed Britain's infrastructure. They have served in every walk of life, but have made a special contribution to our health and education services.
The Irish have made eloquent contributions to our artistic and cultural lives--ranging from Oscar Wilde, Bernard Shaw and James Joyce to the brilliance of today's poets and writers, such as Seamus Heaney, Edna O'Brien and Ronan Bennett. In theatre, film and dance, we have recently been inspired by an Irish renaissance.
12.30 pm
"a powerful sense of hurt and unjustified exclusion from an equal place in British society."
The researchers demonstrated that
"deep seated Irish stereotypes affected many areas of the lives of Irish people, including workplaces, access to housing, treatment at benefits offices and interactions with neighbours and the police.
Drawing on the census data, the research confirmed that the Irish in Britain experience a range of social disadvantages compared with the white indigenous population.
"The most striking finding was the high levels of anti-Irish hostility routinely encountered by Irish people in Britain".
They revealed
"a catalogue of demeaning treatment which built into a cumulative picture of normal levels of harassment, punctuated by a number of more frightening and aggressive acts".
The survey showed that all aspects of Irish people's lives were affected by racism. That was manifested in many ways. For example, 25 per cent. reported negative responses from the police, ranging from verbal abuse to assault, 24 per cent. described discriminatory treatment at benefit offices, and 79 per cent. recorded that they were
subjected to derogatory anti-Irish remarks, jokes and comments, which 70 per cent. of those surveyed found offensive.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |