Oral Answers to Questions
David Amess Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Duncan Smith
Just in case the hon. Lady does not realise it, I should point out that this is not a failed policy: it will roll out successfully on time and within budget. Where does the word “failure” apply to that? She is part of a party whose time in office saw more than £28 billion wasted on IT programmes, with complete chaos most of the time it was there. This will roll out on time and within budget. At any time when we announce the new reset, she can, if she would like, come and talk to us about it. Perhaps for once, instead of voting against stuff and then saying she supports it, she might tell us how many of the benefit cuts Labour Members voted against they are now in favour of.
Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
T10. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the number of jobseeker’s allowance claimants in Southend West has fallen by 12% in the past year? Will he join me in congratulating everyone on this very encouraging trend?
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Esther McVey)
I will indeed do that. Although my hon. Friend talks about an average of 14% fewer people claiming in his constituency, across the country the average is 11%, and 400,000 fewer people are claiming since 2010, so it is success all round for this Government.
Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill
David Amess Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Temporary Chair (Mr David Amess)
Order. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his brevity. May I remind the Committee that three hon. Members are still seeking to catch my eye, that our Committee proceedings finish at 9 pm and that we still have to hear from the Minister and the Opposition spokesman? I call Mr Richard Graham.
Richard Graham
Thank you, Mr Amess, for calling me to speak in this debate. I will follow your advice and try to be as brief as I can.
Tonight I came to listen to different views on options for this Bill, and we have heard an interesting mix of practical ideas, impractical ones and vacuums. Much of the debate has been wrapped in an argument about, on the one hand, who can claim the moral ground as the more compassionate and, on the other, who can claim to be more practical on economics.
We have just heard from the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), for whom I have enormous respect. He made the argument that this is ultimately all about fairness, but given that Labour Members wanted to retain child benefits for all higher-rate taxpayers, no matter how many millions they earn, I find it hard to take that argument at face value. I also reject the bizarre argument about taxing the richest by more than his party ever did in its 13 years in power—that raising £7 billion less in tax revenue for services that all our poorest constituents most value is somehow beneficial to our poorest and most vulnerable members of society.
On the proposals that have actually been made, the only person who emerges with real credit for honesty is the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). She has the guts to say that these benefits should be uprated now and for ever by the retail prices index, at a preliminary cost of some £7.6 billion. She might have some idea where that money will come from—I am sure she does not, as certainly none of the rest of us does—but at least she has tried to put a value on her compassion. Personally, I think that it is as practical as some of her efforts to spread wind farms across the country, in a passion for green energy for which our constituents will also pay heftily through their energy bills, but that is a separate matter. At least she has put a mark on the ground.
In contrast, Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), disappearing from her seat after speaking at great volume, and the hon. Members for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) and for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) were unable to say with what they would replace the Government’s proposed uprating of 1%. It was as if they would offer a happy vacuum in which we would depend on the munificence of the shadow Secretary of State—he who famously apologised for having no money left—who would somehow find the money to fill it.
Toby Perkins
On a point of order, Mr Amess. The Minister is misquoting me, so let me clarify this. I said that if it was all about stability, why do we have a Budget every year instead of setting three-year budgets, which would reflect that fact?
The Temporary Chairman (Mr David Amess)
That is not a point of order—it is a point of debate.
Oral Answers to Questions
David Amess Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
7. How many people have come off benefits after joining the Work programme in (a) Kettering constituency, (b) Northamptonshire and (c) England to date.
Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
15. How many people have come off benefits after joining the Work programme to date.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mr Mark Hoban)
Last month, we published data showing that 57% of claimants who joined the Work programme in June 2011 had spent some time off benefits. The figures showed that the programme was moving people off benefits and that, as claimants spent longer on the programme, more of them came off benefits.
Mr Hoban
There is a range of ways of helping people with their travel costs in order to get them back into work. Jobcentre Plus can provide money through the flexible support funds, and Work programme providers can provide support to help people to reduce the cost of their travel. There is also funding available to help people who want to work to get free child care.
Mr Hoban
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The figures produced by the ERSA last month show that more than 200,000 people have found work through the Work programme. They also show that the programme is effective at moving people into work and that job entries are rising from month to month. They clearly show improvements in performance as the programme matures.
Working-Age Disabled People
David Amess Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr David Amess (in the Chair)
A number of colleagues want to speak. I understand the time pressures and the arrangements, and I will accommodate everyone. I hope that we can work together so that everyone is satisfied in terms of their commitments. I call Anne Begg.
Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)
I am glad to hear you say that you hope to accommodate everybody, Mr Amess. Rather a lot of people have turned up, I am glad to see.
As Chair of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, I shall speak to our report published in February. Although the title is “Government support towards the additional living cost of working-age disabled people”, most people know the issue as the switch from DLA to PIP, but we thought that that might be confusing, which is why we used the long title.
I begin with a declaration: since 1977, I have been a recipient of, first, the mobility allowance and then the mobility element of disability living allowance. Therefore, any changes to DLA will directly affect me in terms of the benefit for which I qualify. Some people might think it a handicap that I have to make such a declaration, but I hope that having been the recipient of the benefit in question gives me not a unique perspective, because everybody else who receives the benefit will feel the same, but an unusual perception and understanding, in parliamentary terms, of how important the benefit has been.
When I first qualified for the original mobility allowance, I was an impoverished student finding it difficult to get around. I certainly could not afford to own a car and did not come from the kind of family who could afford one, although I had been able to drive since the age of 17. The mobility allowance and then access to a Motability car revolutionised my life as a young teacher on a not particularly high wage. It made my life so much easier, and I have always paid great tribute to the late, lamented Lord Alf Morris, whose idea Motability was. He will be sadly missed for all the work he did in that area.
Returning to the report, the Select Committee’s first finding was that there is considerable scope for reform of DLA. Much of the evidence that we got, even from people who might be critical of the new scheme, admitted that many things about DLA perhaps needed to change. The claim form was long and complex, the criteria were not straightforward and there was no proper or rigorous system for reviewing awards where necessary. Having accepted the need for reform, many of the people from whom we took evidence went on to say that that could have been done by reforming DLA, and not necessarily by introducing a completely new benefit, although the Government said that the new benefit could represent an opportunity to address the problems of DLA while improving support for disabled people. In their response to our report, they said:
“These reforms present an ideal opportunity to start afresh, keeping the best elements of DLA… but bringing the benefit up-to-date in order to better reflect 21st century society.”
However—this is a big “however”—the Committee felt strongly that part of the problem was that the backdrop to the introduction of the reforms got them off to a poor start. The first knowledge that anyone had of an intention to reform, and indeed replace, DLA came not from the Department for Work and Pensions, but from a Budget document in 2010. Page 36 of the Budget policy costings said:
“This measure will introduce an objective medical assessment and revised eligibility criteria… The assessment will follow a similar process to the Work Capability Assessment (WCA) used for claims to Employment and Support Allowance, with a points based system to assess eligibility… the central assumption for this policy is that it will result in a 20% reduction in caseload and expenditure once fully rolled out.”
That was the introduction to the change. Because it mentioned a 20% reduction, people in receipt of DLA and many of the disabled organisations that represent them immediately felt that the reason for the change was not to improve the benefit, but to save money. The mention of the WCA and the fact that the Government would follow the kind of framework used for employment and support allowance also rang a large number of alarm bells among disabled people. By the time the Government’s proposals were published, the WCA had already obtained a bad name for being mechanistic, uncaring and unfeeling, and for getting assessments wrong. Putting all those together, we find that the principle of reforming DLA was somewhat overshadowed, because those to whom it would apply were immediately suspicious about the Government’s motives. We said in our report that we thought that that was unfortunate, because it certainly did not get the reform off to a good start.
It is true that during the process the Government listened to some of the criticisms. They dropped the proposals in the original draft of the Welfare Reform Bill to end the payment of the mobility component to care home residents. They also agreed, as the Bill went through the House, to extend the personal independence payment qualifying period, and it is certainly true that the first consultation on the first draft of the eligibility criteria produced some welcome changes, particularly on, for example, people’s ability to get around and preparing a meal. Important changes were made.
However, there are still a lot of questions. I hope that the Minister will not mind, but most of what I am about to say takes the form of questions. I know that she is a new Minister and keen, but I suspect that she will not be able to answer them all today. It will be good if she answers what she can. I know that she has already agreed to appear before the Select Committee some time in November; perhaps this debate will give her a taste of what we might ask her when the time comes. In some cases, she might be in a position to write to us with explanations, and about what has changed.
Part of the problem is that we do not yet know a lot of the detail of what will happen. The framework in the Welfare Reform Act 2012 was very vague. Everything is being done through regulation, but we still have not seen the final regulations. The most recent criteria were published in November 2011. Considering that PIP will be paid to new claimants from April next year, time is getting tight, and a lot of people are concerned about exactly how it will be tested and what the impact of the reform will be.
The first issue I want to raise is the lack of an impact assessment. Although the Government introduced the original PIP proposals in December 2010, it was not until January 2012 that they estimated the claimant count reduction—at about 500,000 people by 2015-16, which would be 23% of the claimant cohort. The published criteria included a number of hypothetical case studies that showed which types of claimant would and would not qualify for the new PIP, and at which rate. Crucially though, the case studies did not state whether, and at which rate, claimants would have qualified for DLA, so, without that information, it has been impossible to do a comparison and get an idea of who would and would not get the new benefit, and which types of claimant would lose out.
According to a survey published this week by the Hardest Hit coalition, entitled “The Tipping Point”, some 94% of disabled people fear that losing their DLA would be detrimental to their health, with 65% feeling that they would be unable to work and 75% saying that losing DLA would increase their local authority care needs. Without a full impact assessment, we are unable to answer a number of questions. How many people will lose their adapted Motability cars, and how will that affect their ability to work? Many people use a DLA care component to pay for local authority services, so what will the impact be on local authorities if those people do not qualify for PIP? What assessment have the Government made of DLA’s role in preventing people’s health conditions from worsening? What could the impact be on NHS budgets?
The Government need to consider the cumulative impacts on disabled people of welfare reforms, including the reform of DLA. We also have the 12-month time limit on contributory ESA, the incapacity benefit reassessment to move people on to ESA, cuts to local authority care budgets and the lowering of disability premiums under universal credit. Some claimants might be hit by only one or two of the changes, but some might have to deal with them all as they come in over the next three years. That would be an enormous change for them.
Our report said that we were glad to hear in evidence that there had been a form of co-production of the PIP criteria and the implementation of PIP, involving organisations that represent disabled people. However, we have spoken to some of those organisations, and they said that calling the PIP policy development “co-production” is somewhat absurd. There has been some consultation, but until we get the final assessment criteria, we, and they, will not know whether the Government have listened to them and acted. The Government consulted the organisations and might have heard what they had to say, but action is a different matter.
Disability groups have not been consulted about the framing of the PIP assessment contracts or the guidance to assessors, so, although there has been limited consultation, the wider implications of how the measure will work in practice have not been subject to any kind of co-production. In one meeting, the Disability Benefits Consortium told us that the documents had been counted in and counted up, and that it had been given 15 minutes to look at them. That, again, is hardly co-production.
On the PIP assessment, the Government have said that there will be a requirement for face-to-face assessments for most claimants. That also raises a number of questions. On what basis did the Government come to that conclusion? Will the Government not be able to take account of existing evidence in most cases? That leads me to a question on a slightly different point: will there be any transfer of information already held by the Department for Work and Pensions, so that people do not have continually to remind it of such things as, “This is a glass eye, and of course I am not going to see out of it.” That is not as daft as it sounds. Sometimes, when people have gone for a WCA they have been asked what vision they have in their left eye when they have not had a left eye for decades.
The Department clearly has that kind of information—for example, details of a claimant’s need for different formats—or information that highlights the fact that a claimant is particularly vulnerable or lives in a care home or supported accommodation, which might not be clear from their address, so will it be passed to whoever is administering PIP assessments so that people are not insulted by constantly being asked questions the answers to which would be obvious to anyone who knew them.
There is another question about the face-to-face assessment. Does an arbitrary decision to require a majority of claimants to undergo such an assessment not risk subjecting large numbers of disabled people to unnecessary stress and anxiety, and wasting a considerable amount of public money? I understand that the companies that might deliver the assessments have come up with wildly different figures for the number of home visits there will be.
The other concern regarding the PIP assessment relates to the assessment of fluctuating conditions, which has also been an ongoing problem with the work capability assessment. The activity descriptors attempt to capture the effect of fluctuating conditions by considering impacts that are present on over 50% of days, and that is a welcome change to the provision.
Where two or more activity descriptors apply on fewer than 50% of days individually but reach the 50% threshold when combined, the descriptor that applies for the greatest proportion of time will apply. However, people with such conditions can experience enormous fluctuations; one person might have a condition that fluctuates in such a way that they walk well one day but need an electric wheelchair the next. The difference between their good days and bad days is so extreme that they need the adapted house and all the equipment, although the bad days account for less than 50% of the time. Can the Minister shed some light on that?
The other big concern is the contracts. Atos has won the contract for two of the three areas that cover most of Great Britain, and Capita has won the other. Some of the criticism of the work capability assessment falls unfairly on Atos, and some of it perhaps not. Atos is delivering a contract that was written by the Government, so any problem with that contract is the Government’s responsibility. There has been little public discussion about what the Atos and Capita contracts will hold, so we do not know whether the Government are likely to get those contracts right.
One of the flaws of the WCA contract is that providers get paid for every assessment, regardless of whether they get them right, and right first time. On what basis will the providers be paid? The Committee argued that they should be paid for assessments that are right first time. There might be some leeway, but given the number of wrong WCAs there should surely be a penalty in the contract so that the companies would not be paid regardless of the accuracy of the assessments.
On top of that, will there be robust sanctions for provider failure? Will the Department look at the different approaches of the two providers and compare their accuracy and assessment reports? I think that will be crucial, a number of months in, in judging how the providers compare with each other and how they are doing. I know part of the reason why the Government adopted the framework approach to the contract, rather than a single contract covering the whole country, was, hopefully, to get that information and to see which provider was the most successful.
On the PIP assessments and the new assessments for the transition from IB to ESA, we recommended that the Government be sensitive to the timing of WCAs when scheduling PIP assessments. The Government should not underestimate the cumulative impact on vulnerable people of frequent reassessments. There is ample evidence that the WCA has been damaging individuals’ health and may be a factor in some suicides. The Government’s response to the Committee’s report was vague on that matter. They said they would try to ensure, where possible, that claimants will not be called for multiple face-to-face assessments in close proximity. How will they ensure that? Will there be data sharing from the part of the DWP that deals with employment support allowance and the part of the DWP that will deal with the new PIP?
The claim process is meant to be streamlined and very fast, which is to be welcomed, but that may cause some problems because it might be too fast for some people. We know the Government are saying that PIP claims should take about a month, yet, at the moment, the average waiting time for a citizens advice bureau appointment is six to eight weeks, which may be a problem for people who need expert help.
Will four weeks be sufficient to gather medical evidence and for vulnerable claimants to get the help and advice they need? How many people are likely to drop out of the process? If the claimant has a lifetime award, might they think that the reassessment does not apply to them? If the DWP does not hear back from people, will it send reminder letters to say that there may be an issue that has not been picked up? Again, some people will get the letter and think it is a circular, not realising that it is very specific to them and their position.
If the providers’ deadline is to be 30 days to make a judgment, and the end-to-end process is likely to take about two months, will there be flexibility in the time allowed to complete the end-to-end process to ensure that all relevant medical evidence can be collected?
What responsibility will the assessment provider have to seek relevant medical evidence? That is what happens at the moment with DLA, but it looks as if it might be different with PIP. Will all the evidence have to be supplied to the claimant? More crucially—again, this has been a problem with the WCA—who will pay for that medical evidence? Doctors, consultants and other health care professionals are being inundated at the moment with requests to provide such reports. Traditionally, they do not always charge the patient, although they do charge the DWP. Who is going to pay for, in some cases, multiple medical letters, especially as there is a good chance that a large proportion of claimants have a limited income?
Another thing is the scale of the task and the implementation timetable. As I have already said, new PIP claimants will start to be assessed next April. The figures involved are mind blowing. We as a Committee concluded:
“It is…essential that DWP allows itself sufficient time to get the assessment right and to be able to convince disabled people and their representatives that this is the case.”
It is very difficult to see how that can happen under the existing timetable. How can the DWP hope to learn from the early implementation of 10,000 new claims a week from April 2013 in time to implement new claims nationally from June 2013? The Department has from April to June to see whether the thing is working for new claimants. Why is there no pause before national implementation to make that assessment and see whether there is anything that has to change? We know that with all welfare benefit changes there are always unintended consequences and difficulties that people did not expect—they start hammering our doors, as MPs, saying, “This is what has happened.”
What happens if the assessments are found to take much longer than anticipated in the planning? What if there is found to be a greater need for home visits than was envisaged? All that takes longer. What if the descriptors are simply found not to work in real-life situations? I know there has been some testing, but there seems to be no time to test the final descriptors, which we have not seen yet.
I have done a very quick calculation—I suppose it is called a back-of-a-fag-packet calculation—that we have almost 2 million DLA claimants, and the Government will have 31 months end-to-end to assess all of them. We should remember that, to begin with, they will assess only 10,000 claimants a week, but the DWP will have to reassess some 70,000 claimants a month. That, in itself, is a huge amount. The calculation is fairly rough and ready, and I am not saying that that is the figure, but it will be in that ballpark.
The DWP is already assessing people for the move from IB to ESA. At the moment, the number is meant to be some 11,000 a week, but we know the providers are finding that incredibly difficult to manage. They are finding 11,000 a week—44,000 a month—difficult to achieve, and they will have 70,000 DLA/PIP assessments and 40,000 or 50,000 IB/ESA assessments to do, so to deliver their timetable they are looking at having to assess 100,000-plus disabled people face-to-face each month.
I do not think that is going to be possible, because I do not think there are enough health care professionals in the country for Atos or Capita to get through such a work load. I would not be particularly perturbed if the timetable slipped, which might be what is needed, but the Government have set a rod for their own back by trying to get so many people through the assessments when we know, anecdotally—we do not have the final figures—that they are really struggling to deliver the much lower numbers who are being put through the work capability assessment.
We know that being online might speed up the process—as a Committee, we have some concerns about that—but the online claims system will not be available for April 2013. Is that not indicative of a rushed implementation process? The most important thing is that we need the claimants’ outcomes to be tracked. Will the outcomes be tracked as part of an evaluation strategy? What monitoring will the Government put in place to ensure that all that is working and not falling apart?
Mr Amess, you will be glad that I am about to draw my remarks to a close because I know other people want to speak. I realise I have asked a lot of questions, and other colleagues will have questions, too, so I appreciate that the Minister will not be able to answer them all, but we look forward to taking evidence from her.
I have one last question on the legislative process. When will the final regulations and the final assessment criteria be laid before Parliament? Will the criteria be published in draft before the regulations are laid? If so, when?
We think that time is running out and that the Government have, unfortunately, started off on the wrong foot on what could be a useful reform by giving a lot of wrong messages to disabled people. It is understandable why disabled people feel that the reform is not to help them but merely a cost-saving measure.
The people who will be involved in the process are the most vulnerable people in society. It will be difficult for all of them, including those who will qualify for the benefit and for whom there is no doubt that they will qualify. If the WCA and the change to ESA are anything to go by, even those genuine claimants feel very stressed at having to go through this process. It is incumbent on the Government to get the process right and make it as easy for people as possible and to listen to the criticisms and do something about them, because the people who will lose out are those who need the money they receive through the DLA, and consequently PIP, to survive and have any kind of quality of life at all. They depend on that money to participate fully in society. I am sure the Government agree that that is the absolutely correct and laudable aim of any benefit, and they have to ensure that they deliver.
Mr David Amess (in the Chair)
I apologise to the hon. Lady for not addressing her by her correct title, which is Dame Anne Begg. Secondly, on behalf of the House, I should have welcomed her back after her awful accident, which I learned about in The House magazine. I am sure I speak for everyone in welcoming her back.
Mr David Amess (in the Chair)
Order. The winding-up speeches will start at 4 pm. I do not want to impose a time limit and I want to call everyone, if we can share the time out.
Minister for Older People
David Amess Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I hope to give some practical examples of where I think that will have an effect.
The ministerial position should not be a new one; it should be an additional responsibility, and given to a member of the Cabinet. Hon. Members can see that I am not trying to insert an extra card with my name on it into the pack ahead of a reshuffle.
Penny Mordaunt
Thank you.
At the Cabinet table, Secretaries of State are jealous of their remit, ready to explain when another policy trespasses on their departmental interest. If there was someone with responsibility for older people, the implications for them of each policy presented to Cabinet could be considered. We have had forums, tsars, taskforces and champions but we are still a long way from where we need to be. We need to try something new. An older person is likely to get a better standard of care on a hospital ward if there is one nurse on the shift with particular responsibility for that patient. Someone who has responsibility and is accountable will speak up to protect the interests of those in their care.
In the days leading up to the debate, it was suggested to me that older people are doing rather well at the moment. The Government have introduced the triple lock on pensions, guaranteeing that the state pension will increase by the greatest of earnings, prices or 2.5%. Pensioners enjoy free bus travel and winter fuel payments, and the over-75s get a free TV licence. The DWP has done well, so it is not a shock that the Department is responding to the debate, and I am delighted about that. Against those arguments, however, we have to consider the disproportionate impact of cost of living increases on older people. Saga has shown that between 2007 and 2012, retail prices index cost of living increases affected the whole population by 16.5%, but for 50 to 64-year-olds, the figure was 19.1%; for 65 to 75-year-olds, it was 22.4%; and for the over-75s, it was 22.2%.
We would do well to consider the many reports on health and social care that do not paint a rosy picture. The Equality and Human Rights Commission report on domiciliary care, the Care Quality Commission report on hospital care, the Centre for Social Justice report on quality of life in isolation and today’s CQC report on medication management beg to differ from the optimistic view. There is huge unmet need. In my city, Portsmouth, the local authority has budgeted for an extra 200 social care clients over the next five years, due to an ageing population, but today 1,000 people in the city have dementia and no access to any services. Major policy issues such as pension reform, which I am pleased the Government have tackled, and social care reform, which we still have to tackle—I am pleased that we are to do so—have been left for too long.
We need to do better. There is an argument for additional responsibility for a Cabinet member, but such an initiative will be judged on the practical differences it makes. What might they look like? A YouGov survey on the attitudes of people over retirement age found that 14% of people aged over 60 live more than 100 miles away from their most significant family members, excluding their partner. Six per cent have to travel between 50 and 100 miles to family, 8% between 25 and 50 miles, and 12% saw or heard from their family less than once a month. Isolation and inactivity were recognised by the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology as accelerating
“physical and psychological declines, creating a negative spiral towards premature, preventable ill health and dependency.”
How are those issues reflected in transport policy? In my area, Southern Trains has recently introduced on the Portsmouth to Brighton route—a journey of 80 minutes —rolling stock that has no toilets. In rail franchise agreements, there is no mention of comfort standards or the provision of toilets, so old age pensioners could have to travel in crippling discomfort. The impact of the subsidy on train fares for old age pensioners is blunted, because it does not matter if the ticket is free when the mode of transportation is unusable. Older people are left with a poorer quality of life because there is another obstacle for them to overcome to stay in a job that involves a commute, and inactivity leads to demands on the health and social care budget. Transport Ministers may be sympathetic, but the Department refuses to act. A Minister for older people could intervene.
Let us look at the Treasury. In July 2011, the Office of Tax Simplification was asked to review the system for pensioner taxation. The interim report, published earlier this year, identified pay-as-you-earn on the state pension as an area to explore. People would not be taxed more, but would pensioners have to fill out self-assessment forms? Would they cope? Would they simply end up paying more tax through inability to process the forms? Plans have been mooted to combine income tax and national insurance contributions. Old-age pensioners do not pay such contributions, so will there be a different tax rate for them, or will pensioners be taxed more?
Quantitative easing and low interest rates are right for the economy as a whole, but they are not good for older people who annuitise their pensions and live off their savings. Quantitative easing has reduced gilt yields, on which annuities are based. The level of that annuity is then locked in. Should not offset measures be considered? What about an extra individual savings account allowance? More thought is needed if fairness is to be upheld.
Looking at work, economic analysts SQW found that older people benefit the economy by £175.9 billion, including £34 billion in social care and £10 billion in volunteering. Projections show that by 2030, those figures will be £291.1 billion, £52 billion and £15 billion respectively. That affirms what Saga has found about the willingness of older people to participate, in and out of work. Retirement is not a retreat from the world. Turning Point has asserted that integrated work to enable older people to stay independent for longer could produce savings of between £1.20 and £2.65 for every £1 spent from the public purse. Saga’s research suggests that 71% of over-50s would like to work part-time after 65, and 7% already work past the age of 70. The Office for National Statistics confirms that 1.4 million pensioners already work.
The demographic shift requires us to work longer, and we are willing and able to do so, but have businesses and industry really caught up? The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development suggests that 14% of managers do not believe that their organisations are ready for an older work force. The Government have responded to that need and willingness by abolishing the compulsory retirement age and increasing the state pension age, but those excellent policies have not been accompanied by moves really to help employers manage their older workers and recruit new ones. At the close of 2011, 189,000 over-50s had been unemployed for more than one year. Of unemployed over-50s, 43% are long-term unemployed, compared with 26% of unemployed 18 to 24-year-olds and 35% of unemployed 25 to 49-year-olds. Training is often denied to workers nearing state pension age, as is promotion. Flexible working, phased retirement and mentoring schemes are few and far between. We need to do more to help older workers and to encourage employers to take them on.
In social care, we could certainly make better use of what we already have. As chairman of the all-party group on ageing and older people, I often hear care home providers boasting about their wonderful new home—its facilities, hairdressers, spas and shops. Those care homes’ doors are often closed to the local community, yet a few streets away there will be an elderly woman who is still independent, but whose quality of life suffers for want of a social life and bathing facilities. How many bathing facilities lie unused in our hospitals, homes and hospices?
Another example of missed opportunity is that most local authorities do not direct self-funders inquiring about care home options to financial advice. Instead, they wait until those people have spent their savings and are a burden on the state. Schemes that enable people to offset the cost of their care and keep their property assets intact by renting their home to the local authority, thus easing pressure on housing waiting lists, are not widespread, despite the headache that such initiatives would cure.
Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
When I saw the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) and her mother in a wheelchair on the Terrace on the day of the flotilla, I had no idea what the circumstances were. I have now found out that it was the first outing for her mother. All I would say after the hon. Lady’s moving speech is that her mother can be extremely proud of her daughter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) made a splendid speech—her remarks about the other place will live with me for some little while. I congratulate her on securing the debate, and the Backbench Business Committee, of which I am unashamedly a member, on having the good sense to grant it.
There is some disappointment with the motion. I had rather hoped we would be given the opportunity to make our pitch to become Minister for the elderly, but my hon. Friend cleverly says in the motion that the responsibility will go to a current member of the Government. I should also tell my hon. Friend that the longer she is here, the more she will struggle to find anything original to say. She will not be surprised that, over the years, a number of colleagues have made similar suggestions. However, I want her to be in a position to celebrate after the debate, and after, perhaps, we hear from No. 10 of the appointment of a Minister with responsibility for older people.
As my own dear mother starts her second century, I have some experience in these matters. There seems to be a fashion—I think it was started by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon)—for colleagues to go around with broken arms, wrists and knees, and hip replacements. Everyone seems to be on crutches or in wheelchairs. Only when people associate with those who need wheelchair assistance do they stop saying, “What a wretched nuisance” when they see someone trying to get by on a Zimmer frame or in a wheelchair. They instead say, “How can we raise the money for a lift for elderly people?” Only when those things touch people do they realise how valuable they are, as the hon. Member for Bolton West rightly reminded the House. I congratulate Anchor, which is a wonderful organisation, on getting 140,000 people to sign an online petition. That is a great triumph.
Many people would say that as people move on and become older, they return to childhood. I do not mean that judgmentally. When we are very young, we are totally dependent on others, which is eventually what happens in later life. There is a further link between young and old: they are the times of life when people are best placed to impart wisdom. Older people’s roles as grandparents and great-grandparents should be recognised—that vital glue across generations holds our society together.
There is a crucial difference between the old and the young in this country: younger generations are heavily catered for in politics through the Department for Education, but far less support is available for those classified as older people. We used to hear about joined-up Government and Departments working together. No doubt the Minister will contradict me, but I need to be convinced that that is happening currently. For the sake of joined-up Government, however, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North—my younger hon. Friend—on introducing the motion to give a Minister responsibility for older people.
According to Age UK Essex, there are fewer under-18s in the UK than over-65s. The total number in this age group stands at 10.3 million. Each year, 650,000 more people turn 65, and one-fifth of the population is of pensionable age. What is more, with ever-better health care, life styles and support, more people are living longer. On average, people in Southend live to 80. We all welcome that change, of course, but we want people to grow old with dignity. According to projections from Age UK, the number of people aged 60-plus will increase by 50% over the next 25 years, while in 2083 one in three people will be over 60. So we are clearly faced with a serious problem.
My constituency has the most senior citizens in the country. Every year, we have a tea party—we have been in the Guinness book of records three times and are having another one this year to break the world record again. It is wonderful: as they leave the tea party, they always say, “See you next year.” According to recent statistics outlined by Age UK, 36.1% of Southend’s population is classified as “old”. More than 24,000 people are aged between 65 and 84, while more than 5,000 are over 85. The trend in Essex is clear: over the next 15 years, we can expect a 39% increase in the number of over-65s.
All I am saying is that this is happening, and we cannot bury our heads in the sand. In earlier years, we have had big arguments about people having to sell their homes—it was all wrong in terms of people’s inheritance and so on. It will be a brave political party—I know we have a coalition at the moment—that faces up to the terrible question of how we fund the future care of an ageing population. When I go around the excellent care homes in my constituency, it is heartbreaking to be told, “There are never any visitors for some of our residents, but when it comes to the funeral, they all turn up to see what they’ve been left.” These are real issues that we need to face up to.
There is a wide variety of issues affecting older people, and services need to be co-ordinated. From pensions, and health and social care, to fuel poverty and housing, each individual will have problems unique to them, and in most instances these problems will span several Departments. Essex Age UK has researched what sort of support older people would like, and its conclusions included: mobility, managing personal affairs, transport, better access to information and recreational opportunities. Older people need to be stimulated. It is no good everyone sitting in a lounge with no stimulation. If we stimulate older people, their quality of life improves.
Dr Wollaston
Would my hon. Friend add to his excellent list the role for technology in helping to improve the lives of older people? In my area, Devon and Cornwall, more than 250 older people go missing every year, many of them with dementia. Many technological advances can be used to give older people much greater confidence to go out, knowing they can be found quickly and easily, and to reduce distress. Also, many technological improvements can keep older people in touch, give them a link with younger people and improve their IT skills.
Mr Amess
I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend, who is right to mention dementia. Fortunately, in our area, through the generosity of a local resident, Ivan Heath, we will shortly be opening Peaceful Place to care for people with dementia. My goodness that is an issue we must increasingly face up to, given our ageing population. She is also right to talk about the assistance that improved technology can provide.
The Dilnot commission, agreed to in the coalition agreement, has now reported, with some controversy. I have been involved in this issue for some time, and in 2000 I was fortunate to come fourth in the ballot for private Members’ Bills, so I am associated with the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000, which sought to eliminate fuel poverty, and the more that colleagues can do to advertise the help available to older people, the better. There is much they can claim.
In conclusion, there is a good precedent for creating a Minister for older people within the current Government. We have a Minister for nearly every walk of life—for children, for disabled people, for women and equalities—so why can we not have one for older people? Such a position might even warrant a promotion. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) who does a splendid job as Home Secretary is concurrently the Minister for Women and Equalities, managing both roles equally well. A dual role could easily be managed by one of my right hon. or hon. Friends. It is important to note this has been done internationally—in Ireland, Canada and New Zealand, for example. Ministers for older people have been appointed in those countries.
We should do everything we possibly can to ensure that people in old age are treated with as much respect and dignity as possible. They have worked all their lives, experienced a huge number of scenarios and situations and contributed to this country in countless ways. If it were not for the sacrifices of older people in the first and second world wars, we would not have our Parliament today. We have a duty to support them. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North again, as this debate represents a significant step in the right direction. I fully expect a Minister to announce from the Dispatch Box at the end of the debate that the Government will indeed appoint a Minister for older people.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) on securing this important debate, and I am glad to have an opportunity to raise the views of Blackpool here in the Chamber. Blackpool is in many respects a pensioners’ capital. We have just hosted the National Pensioners Convention, at which the Minister with responsibility for adult and social care, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), was due to speak. Unfortunately, however, he had to return to the Chamber to reply to an Opposition day debate. The NPC replaced him at the Winter Gardens with a cabbage. I am not sure what fruit or vegetable the pensions Minister might like to be represented by; he might tell us when he delivers his winding-up speech. I should warn him, however, that the banana has already been taken by the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband), so it is off the menu.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) told us that his constituency had the most pensioners. I am trying to compete with him in that regard. As with most coastal towns, both Blackpool and Southend have large populations of retirees.
Paul Maynard
Modesty forbids me from commenting, so we will draw a veil over that.
My constituency has the most people who live in a household with someone with a long-term medical condition, so carers policy perhaps matters more there than in any other seat. I am therefore as aware as any Member about some of the issues raised today.
In order to access carer’s allowance, people have to apply for pension credit, to which they may not be entitled. People might know that that application will be rejected, but they still have to apply in order to access carer’s allowance—an obvious anomaly in accessing benefits. Although we all know that many pensioners do not claim everything that they are entitled to, they are still not getting what they should be getting.
I know from my postbag and my surgeries that there would be no shortage of work for a Minister for older people. Almost every Government Department has some policy issue that matters more to older people than to any other group.
The Service Personnel and Veterans Agency is located in my constituency. I will spend the next three days attending various Blackpool veterans week events, because I know that matters, not least to my older constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North talked about the Arctic convoys medal, too.
Buses are another key issue, as in my constituency they are used predominantly by elderly residents. There are also complicated matters such as the past presence test, about which we are arguing with the European Union, as well as eligibility for benefits when abroad, and what happens when people return. There is a long list of such issues—and I have not yet mentioned long-term care for the elderly and the Dilnot report.
I am something of a nostalgia specialist. I like to look back at the first post-war Labour Government, and try to do so with a degree of fondness because they knew how to use royal commissions as a policy-making tool. They managed to secure all-party support, and produced some of our greatest welfare reforms. Sadly, the last Labour Government turned their back on royal commissions as a policy tool. I remember the royal commission on long-term care. It was a gargantuan exercise—voluminous, colourful, pretty—yet it was utterly ineffective because nothing ever happened after it. The journey to secure reform of long-term care has been long, arduous and, hitherto, fruitless, yet I retain some optimism that the current Government might find enough coins down the back of the sofa to get things right this time; I have my fingers crossed.
As well as the range of issues Members on both sides of the House have raised today, it should be stated that we face a demographic challenge, which we must overcome. It is time that we thought about setting up a royal commission on the consequences for this country of having an ageing population. It would cover a much wider remit than trying to solve a specific policy problem. It would assess what the challenges are and what they mean for every Government Department.
A key issue in this regard is the consequences of having a population that is—to put it crudely, perhaps—dying more slowly. We no longer die rapidly from heart attacks or other such conditions that might hit us in our prime. Now, the decline is much slower and gradual, and it is much more expensive for the taxpayer in providing appropriate care. That deserves some analysis.
The specific proposal to have a Cabinet Minister in this area is an interesting one. This question is not so much about policy towards the elderly, but about government architecture: how do we make things happen in government? As many have pointed out, we have Ministers for the disabled and for children. Both positions are at Minister of State level and both cross more than one Department. We also have a Minister for pensions—the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), whom I am delighted to see on the Front Bench today—and a Minister for adult social care. Perhaps they could arm-wrestle each other for the title of being the Minister for older people. That Minister could sit across both the relevant Departments and perhaps could have the same effect that the Ministers for children and for the disabled are having. I do not think that someone needs to be in the Cabinet to achieve things. There is a grave danger of our being more concerned about the name and where this person sits than about what they can actually achieve. We have had a history of tsars—an entire palace of Romanovs was produced by the previous Government—all of varying effectiveness, which was often not related at all to where they sat or where their home was. What matters is what someone does.
It is worth looking at what is done abroad, because there are some instructive lessons. I do not normally take the French as a model of how to behave in any situation in life, but they have often had a ministry of solidarity between the generations, as they put it. That is an interesting concept. We often battle in this country, with some saying that the young are getting too many resources and others saying that the elderly are. That French Department tried to resolve the two, to bring them together and to work out how intergenerational solidarity is actually created. To be honest, I do not know whether it worked terribly well, but it is an interesting idea that is worth thinking about.
Australia has a Minister for Mental Health and Ageing, who is No. 2 in the health Department. So the Australians do have a Minister for older people, although some might quibble about the linking of those two things. In Ireland, Áine Brady, a Fianna Fáil Minister in the previous Government, was Minister for Older People and Health Promotion. Sadly that particular Government left office—it was not sad for the Irish people, as this is democracy—and the current Government decided not to retain that title.
I note that the Labour party has a Front-Bench spokesman on this specific issue. I can go as far as to welcome that, but I note that in opposition we had a shadow Minister for coastal towns and that role did not survive the transfer to office. It is far easier in opposition for people to create the architecture around what they want to campaign on, rather than around the architecture of the Government buildings that they then have to slot into. So that provides a good example, too.
The example I pray in aid in particular is that of New Zealand, which does have a Minister for older people, sited in its Ministry of Health. New Zealand also has an office for senior citizens, situated in its Ministry of Social Development. That is a particularly interesting combination. Before Conservative Front Benchers start to worry that I am proposing yet another quango, I can tell them that they need not fear as nothing could be further from my mind. None the less, what both Ireland and New Zealand had in common was that they had first developed what they called a “positive ageing strategy”. So before they appointed the Minister, they ensured that the Minister had something to do. One of my concerns is that if we have a general Minister whose objective is to proof all policies so that older people do not experience a disbenefit, we will end up getting a bit fluffy and soggy. I would far rather have a set of very specific areas that affect older people that the Government should be focusing on; these would be certain policy areas that should be driven through.
As much as I love the Deputy Prime Minister—I adore him, I swear I do—I know that he is burdened by trying to cope with the problems of social mobility, which are being discussed in Westminster Hall at the moment. I am not sure that I would wish to give him older people to deal with as well, because he has to fit in trips to Rio; one man cannot do everything, surely. Rather than simply nominating one Cabinet Minister and tacking older people on to the end of their responsibilities, I would far prefer it if we created a new role that had a very specific remit, that had a positive ageing strategy behind it and that had only a handful of specific policy proposals to see through. In this country, we do not define the remit of a Government Department closely enough. We have aspirations, but often they read to me as waffle. A good example is HS2. One of the Department for Transport’s goals is to introduce HS2, which is fine, but it never says why that is particularly important. It states the goal, not the reasons for it. I would far rather we had a much narrower focus.
I welcome the debate and think it is an opportunity to put dignity at the forefront of everything we do in government. Sometimes, I am disappointed that Ministers do not always have dignity at the forefront of their minds in every decision they take. We should not need a new Minister to achieve that, but if that is what it takes then so be it. Once again, I congratulate the hon. Member for Portsmouth North on securing this important debate.
Oral Answers to Questions
David Amess Excerpts(11 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Duncan Smith
Universal credit is on time and on budget. This is so typical of the right hon. Gentleman. He knows that universal credit is a programme that will be introduced over four years. He needs to go and check his figures again. There is something rather pathetic about the way he pauses on little figures and seems to think that that spells something. Universal credit will do more to get people back to work and it will rectify the mess that the previous Government left. It is on time and it is on budget.
Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
T7. How many fewer benefits are there for people who are out of work than there were at the last general election?
Oral Answers to Questions
David Amess Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
8. What assessment he has made of the effect of work experience programmes on employment prospects.
Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
9. What assessment he has made of the effect of work experience programmes on employment prospects.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
13. What assessment he has made of the effect of work experience programmes on employment prospects.
Chris Grayling
I am very happy to support and pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s efforts. He is a model example of how an individual Member of Parliament can make a real difference by identifying an area where they can transform people’s prospects. His work on apprenticeships is a credit to him and to the House.
Mr Amess
As someone who was involved in recruitment for many years before becoming a Member of Parliament, I know that it is certainly better to have work experience on a CV than a gap, so will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to condemn those people who have described the scheme as akin to modern-day slavery?
Chris Grayling
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are times when I read things and have to step back in amazement and think, “Some people just don’t get it.” The work experience scheme is making a real difference for young people. I pay tribute to the firms taking part in the scheme, particularly, given recent publicity, our supermarkets, which are large and diverse employers with wide-ranging opportunities. They are playing an important role in giving young people a start in their careers. The scheme is working, and that is enormously down to the work of employers in helping to give young people an opportunity.
Benefit Entitlements (Joanna Cranfield)
David Amess Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
In the Christmas Adjournment debate I raised the case of Joanna Cranfield and I asked the Deputy Leader of the House to bear in mind three specific issues concerning Miss Cranfield’s circumstances. I am delighted that during the period between my raising the case and tonight, one of those issues has already been dealt with satisfactorily.
Joanna Leigh Cranfield is a 17-year-old young lady who is an exceptional swimmer. She is an up-and-coming talent whom I very much hope will represent the United Kingdom in next year’s Paralympics. Joanna was born with her left lower arm and hand missing. Also, her left clavicle is short and twisted, which results in her having a dropped shoulder and a slight curvature of the upper spine. Despite all that, Joanna is, as one might expect, an extremely attractive and glamorous young lady. As a result of the challenges I have mentioned, Joanna suffers from repetitive strain syndrome in her remaining right hand and wrist from overuse. On top of those difficulties, she also suffers from a condition known as pump heel or foot spurs—an abnormal growth of the bone that in turn makes the tendon in her legs short and tight. For that condition, Miss Cranfield has had to undergo an operation to remove part of the deformed bone in her heel. Further to all those conditions, Joanna is under the care of Moorfields eye hospital for light-sensitive eyes and poor 3D vision, which results in her having trouble with depth perception and other abilities that healthy eyes grant, which most of us take for granted.
I am only too well aware that there are hundreds of everyday tasks that Joanna cannot do, but the things she can do she does exceptionally well. Her swimming ability is an example to every one of us and I repeat that I strongly hope she will represent us in next year’s Paralympics. She has achieved British records in the swimming pool at a number of different distances within the S9 category, including the 1,500 metres long course and short course, the 800 metres short course, the 400 metres short course and the 200 metres short course. She is a highly competitive swimmer in breast stroke, butterfly and back stroke. How anyone can do all that with one arm beggars belief, but Joanna can. She is a very talented swimmer, and I strongly hope that the Minister will intervene and have a word with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport to see whether there is any way in which Joanna, with her particular talents, can be given some sort of funding. Also, if anyone out there has a little extra money in these challenging times and wants to help a Paralympian to achieve her goals, I hope they will help her.
Joanna has received numerous awards for sporting achievement. This year alone she was given the Paralympic hopeful award from the Essex Disability Sports Academy and was named the disability sports personality of the year 2010 in the Rochford district sports awards. Despite her remarkable sporting success, it is clear that Miss Cranfield has a disability that is a great hindrance to her everyday life. For the past five weeks, I have been able to use only one arm, which has presented all sorts of challenges that I had not anticipated. For a young lady such as Joanna, all sorts of tasks, such as grooming her hair and looking after her personal needs, will be jolly difficult. Having met Joanna and her mother on several occasions, the last thing that she wants to be perceived as is disabled. That said, if there is anything at all that can be done through my hon. Friend’s departmental responsibilities, Joanna and her family would be very grateful. I hope that our welfare system can help someone in Miss Cranfield’s position.
I understand all the arguments about the fact that there has to be a cut-off point, but why, on Joanna’s 16th birthday, were almost all the benefits that she received relating to her disability suddenly stopped? I would hope—again, I understand that there has to be a cut-off point, and when someone is 16, they can get married, fight for their country and all those things—that if under the system that is in place, funding has to stop, there would be other sources of funding to help her with her needs.
I return to my opening point, on which success has been achieved. Joanna had been awarded a blue badge and, without wishing to delay tonight’s debate, for all sorts of reasons she lost it when she turned 16. I had a number of exchanges with the Minister in the Department for Transport, more or less to no avail, but I have received a letter, dated 4 January, from Southend-on-Sea council that says that it has looked carefully at the legislation and has found that there is some leeway. I am delighted that Joanna has been awarded a blue badge, at least for the next three years, which is a cause for celebration. May I tell colleagues in other parts of the House that if Southend can do it, regardless of party politics, I very much hope that other local authorities will use the same leeway.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I acknowledge Joanna’s courage, what she is doing, her energy, ability and drive. It is obvious, however, that Government Departments need to be flexible. Is it the opinion of the hon. Gentleman, and perhaps of the House, that that should be the case? Not everything is black and white—there are in-betweens and grey areas, and this is clearly such a case.
Mr Amess
I am a Government supporter, and the hon. Gentleman slightly challenges me. All I would say is that the two letters I received from the Minister in the Department for Transport stuck to a pretty heavy briefing. I will not enlarge on that any further. However, I challenged the local authority on it, and I am delighted that it found a way through. This is not the responsibility of the Minister responding to this debate, so it would be unfair for me to unload it on her, but I am sure that she will pass the message on to the Department for Transport, because it is utterly ridiculous that Joanna should have been denied a blue badge. I pay tribute to Southend-on-Sea council for finding a way through, and now it is up to all other local authorities, if they experience stonewalling from the Department for Transport, to find a way through the guidance.
Since Miss Cranfield was two years old, she had a blue badge, which was suddenly taken away from her at 16, but I am delighted that it has been restored. She also received disability living allowance at the middle rate, amounting to £47.10 a week; mobility allowance at the lower rate, amounting to £18.65; and carer’s allowance, amounting to £53.10 a week. Since she turned 16, all that has changed, and Miss Cranfield now receives only £18.65 a week. The reason given by the Department for Work and Pensions to Miss Cranfield’s mother was that as she was now an adult, she would have to learn to deal with her disability. I do not think for one moment that the Department meant that in an unpleasant way; I think it was saying that she had reached an age at which she basically had to get on with her disability and try to cope with it. It was argued that the condition would no longer be a factor. Her mother seemed to have got the impression that somehow the Department was saying that the disability would go away.
When the Minister replies, she will no doubt say that Joanna’s mother had misunderstood the point being made. However, I should tell my hon. Friend that in her last visit to my surgery, Joanna’s mother asked whether the Department was expecting her daughter’s arm to suddenly grow back; obviously, that would be a ridiculous proposition.
At a tribunal held in January 2010, Miss Cranfield, as was quite proper, was submitted to an intensive interview by a doctor, an occupational therapist and a judge. After the hearing, they decided that Miss Cranfield was not entitled to any further benefits aside from the £18.65 per week that she was already receiving. The main point of contention during the tribunal was that Miss Cranfield does not wear a prosthetic arm.
Joanna cannot have a functioning prosthetic arm as she retains part of an elbow—a floating, pea-sized piece of bone. As a result, doctors are unable to fashion a prosthetic arm with a working elbow. As such, Miss Cranfield can have only an inanimate prosthetic arm with no functioning capabilities. Her mother has brought the arm along to show me. I suppose it is like something that we would see at Madame Tussaud’s; it looks very good, with lovely finger nails and all the rest of it, but it literally does nothing at all.
Miss Cranfield has been advised that if she was prepared to have more of her arm amputated, a more functional prosthetic arm could be made for her. However, I understand that the risks are quite high, with the possibility of infection leading to major complications. The Minister will understand that Joanna wants to represent us at the Paralympic games, so she does not want to risk that sort of operation.
At the tribunal, unfortunately, that point was focused on, with one interviewer—apparently; I was not there—accusing Miss Cranfield of not wanting to help herself as she does not wear a prosthetic arm. Her current prosthetic arm, which does not do anything, cost £2,500. It was also said at the tribunal that she should have the operation, but I am sure that the House will understand why my constituent does not want that.
Miss Cranfield has further problems in her efforts to learn to drive. As she has only one arm, it is essential that she drives an adapted vehicle while learning. That is very expensive and she comes from a humble family that does not have the money. Again, I say to my hon. Friend that this issue is all about aspiration, and here we have a 17-year-old who has great aspirations. She does not receive disability living allowance, and that means that the organisation Motability is unable to help her with the cost of buying an adapted car or to help her find a driving school that can meet her needs. Again, she has been clobbered doubly and her ambition has been frustrated.
It is vital that this young lady is given whatever help we can offer. She will, I hope, represent our country in the Paralympics next year and she deserves our full support because she is a very brave young lady. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister if she will review Joanna Leigh Cranfield’s case again to see if there is some sort of common-sense approach that could be taken—this is not a matter of special pleading—to ensure that Miss Cranfield receives the benefits to which she is rightly entitled. I also ask the Minister to look further at the guidelines, so that we can ensure that all people who have one missing limb are not forced to go through the degrading process that Joanna has experienced. If there are no further benefits to which my hon. Friend can direct Joanna, I would welcome her thoughts on other lines of funding that may be available to Miss Cranfield to help her live as normal a life as possible.
Oral Answers to Questions
David Amess Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Maria Miller
Undoubtedly, the hon. Gentleman will be very pleased about the coalition Government’s announcement of 50,000 additional apprenticeships, which will provide the sort of long-lasting job opportunities that his constituents want. Obviously, other decisions on budget taking are made locally, and it is for local authorities to make important decisions on how best to use their local resources.
Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
2. What plans he has to reduce the number of people claiming out-of-work benefits.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)
One of our top priorities is to reduce the number of people—nearly 5 million—on incapacity, lone parent or jobseeker’s benefits. We will reform the benefits system to make work pay and reassess the position of people on incapacity benefit, through a single, integrated package of support, to give people the personalised support that they need to find work.
Mr Amess
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment. He might be aware that this subject was raised regularly on the doorstep in Southend West, since when I have found out from the Department that 1.4 million people have been on out-of-work benefits for nine or more of the past 10 years. How does he intend to deal with that situation fairly but firmly?
Mr Duncan Smith
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The figures are somewhat worse than that—the UK has a higher proportion of children growing up in workless households than almost any other EU country. We have had a very high level of residual unemployment for far too long. The key to dealing with that is the integrated Work programme, which will look at ways of trying to get back into work some of those long-term unemployed—many of whom have been parked on incapacity benefit and forgotten about—and support those who have not been contacted. Something like 40% of unemployed people had not been contacted for over six years; no one had bothered even to speak to them. We will also try to reform the benefits system so that when someone can go to work they will straight away see that it is worth their while to do so, whereas at the moment work simply does not pay, or appears not to.