Welfare Reform Bill
Ian Paisley Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)
I know that the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) is keen for us to make progress today and was somewhat concerned that we did not complete consideration of all elements on Monday. I will try to address all the issues that I am able to address in a speedy manner so that we can consider things fully.
Right hon. and hon. Members who have been listening to the debate thus far will already have a flavour of the complexity of the current scheme. Unfortunately, the scheme is open to widespread abuse, and some of that is driven by the remoteness of the administration of these elements of the discretionary social fund. Just so that hon. Members are absolutely clear, I should say that we are talking about replacing budget loans, crisis loans and the community care grant with national payments on account, including advances and alignment payments, and with local authority -delivered local assistance. The bulk of the comments of the hon. Members for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and for Westminster North (Ms Buck) were about crisis loans, half of which are alignment payments, which will continue to be paid at national level through payments on account. It is important that hon. Members are aware that to all intents and purposes people will still have access to that money on a national basis. I hope that will reassure hon. Members regarding a number of the issues raised.
I do not think that the status quo is an option because of the level of abuse in the system at the moment. First, the number of crisis loans has tripled since 2006, but we do not believe that that increase reflects an underlying increase in genuine need as a result of the recession or anything else. We have looked in detail at the individuals who are causing that increase in demand and our analysis has shown that it is being driven by young single people on jobseeker’s allowance, many of whom are still living at home. We should be looking at what is driving that demand and asking whether the money is getting through to the sort of vulnerable people about whom the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington is rightly concerned.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
What is the Minister going to do to ensure that the operation of the social fund across the devolved regions does not set a hierarchy of standards and differences that are so far apart that people come to realise that the social fund operates very differently in certain parts of the UK? That would create hardship for many vulnerable people.
Maria Miller
The national payments on account will be dealt with on a national basis in the same way in any part of the country and the regulated part of the social fund will continue as it is. The hon. Gentleman is talking about how local assistance will be dealt with and I am sure that he, like all hon. Members, will know that local authorities want to do their best by the vulnerable citizens we are talking about. That is certainly my experience of most, if not all, local authorities.
Ian Paisley
The point that the hon. Lady is making is critical. A local authority might lay down a policy on this matter that is very good, but if another authority then does something slightly different that appears to be better, automatically all the good work that the first local authority has done will be seen as of no use as it will be held to another standard. We must have a single national standard so that people who require this fund, whether in Bushmills or Birmingham, know that they will see the same standard, with the same requirements, the same grant and the same opportunity to avail themselves of that assistance.
Bridget Phillipson
I agree entirely. It is vital that people feel that appropriate safeguards are in place with a national scheme and a national appeals system so that when things go wrong, as they sometimes do, there is an appropriate means of redress and decisions can be looked at again.
My concern with the Government’s proposals is that we will end up with massive variation between councils and between different parts of the United Kingdom, which will disadvantage people in certain areas. Some councils might choose a system that works very effectively and addresses the needs of vulnerable groups, but others might not do that so well. That is why the Government must be very clear about the standards that they will demand of local authorities, but they are not being clear.
Women fleeing domestic violence are often forced out of their local area in order to seek safety, so what safeguards can we expect when a woman is forced to move to an area where the local council might decide that she is ineligible for support? In the urban areas of the north-east, where large local authorities cover small geographical areas, it is not a great distance from Gateshead to Sunderland, but might the local authority in Sunderland, for example, take the view that the woman should seek support from her local authority in Gateshead? I sincerely hope that it would not take such a view, as that could hold up the process when the woman desperately needs financial help. This is not a factor at present because the scheme is a national one, but devolving responsibility to local councils will create a raft of potential problems for those councils and risk placing some very vulnerable people at risk of harm.
It is simply not good enough for the Government to hope that local councils will be able to manage this complex change. With a budget that is not ring-fenced and the potential for a reduced level of funding from recovered grants, it is inevitable that some local councils will not want to take people without a clear and established local connection, which I believe will be particularly damaging for women fleeing domestic violence if this is not done properly. That is why it is imperative that the Government set out detailed proposals, as amendment 39 makes clear, including eligibility criteria and an independent appeals mechanism. Without further clarity and detail, there is a real likelihood that some of the most vulnerable people in our communities will be unable to access financial support when they need it most.
Ian Paisley
Does the hon. Lady agree that what will be foisted on people tonight if we are not careful is a sleight of hand whereby, from March 2013, people will be moved across duplicitously from DLA to PIP, and then PIP will be withdrawn? Of course, DLA will not be withdrawn because it no longer exists. That sleight of hand should be rejected outright by this House.
Margaret Curran
That is a very interesting observation, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing it to the House’s attention. I know that he takes a great interest in these matters. That point gives us even more reason to argue that Members should support the amendments—they would avoid any problem of that nature.
When the Minister is not talking about “overlap” in an attempt to address the problem in question, she is talking about the need for a review. It was promised that the review, first announced earlier this year, would look into the provision of DLA mobility to those in residential care homes, which I know offered some succour to Members who were concerned about the matter. Labour Members were mildly optimistic that that was a signal that the Government were undertaking a rethink, as we know they are prepared to do when the time is right. However, we have been sadly disappointed. Although a review was launched, it has no time scale, there are no terms of reference, no review group has been established and there is no involvement for disabled people. No wonder people are confused about where the policy stands.
I remind the House that at Prime Minister’s questions on 23 March, the Prime Minister offered the Leader of the Opposition an opportunity to contribute to the review. I do not think that possibility actually exists. Have the terms of reference of the review been made public? No. Will the findings be published? No. This is not a review, it is, as the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) said, a delaying tactic to cover up a deeply flawed policy. In my wilder moments I thought it was perhaps an appeasement of some Liberal Democrat Members, because we know that their party conference overwhelmingly passed a resolution condemning the policy. The Liberal Democrats in Committee disappeared when the matter was voted on. They are here today, so I hope they will join us and help to defeat this particularly pernicious part of the Bill. I appeal to them to make their presence felt today in a way that they did not in Committee.
Ian Paisley
Does the hon. Lady agree that throughout all of this—no matter how it is dressed up or how Opposition Members are criticised—the policy is about doing one, well named thing? It is about making the pips squeak among the most vulnerable in our country. That is another reason why it should be opposed.
Margaret Curran
This is embarrassing, because hon. Members are putting the argument so much more effectively than I am.
To conclude on this section of my contribution, may I make an appeal to Members of the House? We have a moment in time. We are being watched by disabled people this afternoon, and by their organisations. This goes to the heart of what we are about. People will be prisoners in residential care and prisoners in their own homes if this provision is removed from them. Many opportunities for them will also be withdrawn. I appeal to hon. Members: let us do the right thing this evening and vote for amendment 43—I also intend, Mr Deputy Speaker, to press amendments 42 and 44 to a Division when the time comes.
I shall now discuss specific aspects of the personal independence payment that should be changed to make the new benefit fairer and more effective in giving support to those who need it, and to assist a smooth transition for existing claimants to the new benefit. Amendments 44 to 47 seek to amend clause 79 and the proposed change to the required period condition for PIP. The amendments would retain the three-month period that claimants must wait before they are eligible to receive PIP, but would extend the period over which a claimant must show that they will be with that disability from six months, as is currently the case with DLA, to nine months.
In other words, for those who have not followed every single detail of the Bill like those of us who served in Committee, like the Government intend, the Opposition would extend the current DLA required condition period from nine months to one year for PIP. However, the Opposition would extend the provision after receipt of the benefit, not at the beginning. To do otherwise would be to penalise unfairly those disabled people who need extra help associated with their disability early in their treatment.
Yet again, there is some confusion about the rationale behind the change in the waiting time for PIP. In Committee, the Minister said that the change was categorically not about savings. She clearly stated:
“I will be honest and open with my answer. I would like to reassure the hon. Lady”—
meaning me—
“that the principal aim of extending the qualifying period from three to six months is not about savings. We do not expect the measure to provide any significant savings.”––[Official Report, Welfare Reform Public Bill Committee, 10 May 2011; c. 848.]
Furthermore, I have asked the Minister in a series of written parliamentary questions what the projected savings are. Again, her Department was unable to provide any sort of answer—nor do its answers so much as allude to potential savings resulting from this policy decision—yet at Department for Work and Pensions questions on Monday, the Minister appeared to backtrack, stating that “modest” savings were now part of the reasoning for pushing ahead with the change. In her response today, will she indicate the scale of those modest savings? It is a little concerning that the rationale behind changes that will make such a big difference to the lives of many disabled people in this country is, even at this late stage, being cobbled together by the Government.
If we cannot comment on savings from the policy, we can at least discuss its impact on disabled people who require PIP to help them to meet extra costs associated with their disability. In Committee, we discussed in great detail the different conditions that are likely to require early support, so I will not go into them in great depth today unless pushed to do so.
Jenny Willott
I give way first to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley).
Ian Paisley
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who is being very good and lenient with her time. On the issue of overlapping, which was raised at the start of her comments, I want to point out that the disability living allowance as currently constructed is a non-means-tested benefit. Overlapping implies that there should now be a means test. If part or all of someone’s benefit were to be taken away, means-testing would be necessary. Is the hon. Lady saying that she will support a provision that would introduce a new means test by stealth?
Jenny Willott
I do not believe that this is about means-testing of benefits. It is about looking for sources of state support or Government funding for the mobility needs of individuals with disability. It is about looking at the different sources of money to ensure that it is provided evenly to people with disabilities so that their mobility needs are covered.
Welfare Reform Bill
Ian Paisley Excerpts(13 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jonathan Reynolds
The benefits changed, so I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is not comparing like with like. If he goes to the Library, he will see that the overwhelming rise in sickness benefits occurred in the 1980s, when take-up doubled. That is because when we went through the process of deindustrialisation the Conservative Government threw people on to the scrapheap, encouraged them to take that benefit until they retired, and did not care one bit about them. That is where he should look if he wants to find a reason behind these figures.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that in Northern Ireland there is over £700 million in unclaimed benefit that people should be claiming and have not claimed? If that is the case in Northern Ireland, the same must be true across the rest of the United Kingdom.
Jonathan Reynolds
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point; I am pleased that he has been able to put it on the record.
I am proud of the Labour Government’s record on welfare reform, which stands in stark contrast to what occurred in the 1980s and 1990s, when there was no such reform at all until the end of the Conservative Government. Only now are the Conservatives coming back to it, but against the backdrop of public sector cuts and deficit reduction. The question that people will ask is whether the Bill is really aimed at getting people back into work or, once again, merely pursues the Government’s ideological goal of reducing the size of the state.
In principle, I welcome the move towards a single, simplified universal credit; few would not do so. That has the potential to ensure that people are clear about the income they will have if their circumstances change, and in principle I wish that we had done it. However, only through scrutiny of the detail of the Bill will we determine whether the reality of these reforms matches the promise, or whether they are really a cruel camouflage to hide savage cuts targeted at the most needy members of our communities. The measures in the Bill will penalise savers. Estimates suggest that nearly half a million families could lose all eligibility for financial support. Some reforms, such as the removal of the mobility element of DLA, are simply cruel and unfair. The Bill leaves many questions unanswered, such as how some benefits—crisis loans and council tax benefit, for example—will maintain any consistency if eligibility is decided locally.
Furthermore, we still know far too little about the Government’s plans for the most important area of all—child care. For all the good that any reform might do, unless the Government continue to provide support for childcare, we will not make anything like the progress that could be made.
I believe that the principles behind the Bill are right, but there is too much in the proposals that is ill thought through, and will be detrimental to many vulnerable people. The Bill is not ready in its present form, and the Government should recognise that. Welfare reform has a great many supporters in all parts of this House. The Government should have built on that consensus in creating the Bill, but they did not. That is why I will not support the Bill today, but will vote for the reasoned amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne).
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
Like many other Members, I welcome the concept of simplicity in the welfare system—of which I have experience, having worked in it. I also welcome the aim of ensuring that work is a route out of poverty. However, I do not believe that the Bill demonstrates fully how that will be achieved. Among two groups in particular, it could actually increase the number of people falling into poverty and debt. Like others, I am seriously concerned that people who are ill or have an accident, and have to take prolonged time off work, will suddenly be negatively affected by the plans to replace disability living allowance with the personal independence payment and by the changes to employment and support allowance, and will get less help from the universal credit, particularly during the first six months of their illness or disability.
People in that situation are coping with significant stress and coming to terms with a fundamental change in circumstances, as well as a sudden and dramatic drop in income. I had worked out some examples, but I shall not have time to give them. Suffice it to say that in months three to six, a single person who has worked all their life but has had a stroke and can no longer work is likely to be more than £130 a week worse off unless the qualifying period for the personal independence payment is brought forward to three months.
The importance of the severe disability premium cannot be overstated. It is a source of extra help for people who do not have a carer and have higher costs because of that. If it is not included in the Bill, the drop in income for hard-working people who suffer a life-changing illness or disability will be catastrophic. If they have a mortgage, the position will be even worse. Almost 20% of the people who attended an advice desk run by the citizens advice bureau at the county court said that an illness was the major factor in their falling into mortgage arrears, putting them at risk of losing their home. No fewer than three measures in the Bill will substantially reduce the amount of financial support available to people in that situation.
I now turn to families, particularly those paying for formal child care. If, as has been suggested, only 70% of child care costs are covered, many second earners on a low income will not have a realistic option of returning to work until their children are older and need less care. In some cases it could cost people money to return to work, which was not the intention behind the Bill at all. In fact, somebody’s problems might start not when their baby is born, as is usual, but when statutory maternity pay or maternity allowance is paid, because it is unclear in the Bill whether that will be treated as “income other than earnings” and lost pound for pound.
Clarification is also needed on other issues, such as whether benefit will be paid to the household rather than to the main carer. That is a big issue for many families.
Ian Paisley
Does the hon. Lady accept that there is a huge policy contradiction? The Government claim that they want to eliminate child poverty, yet at the same time they want to cut the social security payments that go right to the heart of benefiting children from low-income households.
Yvonne Fovargue
I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I have evidence that some lone parents will not be able to work their way out of poverty.
To return to the question of to whom benefits are paid, I have seen mothers whose only source of stable, reliable income is child benefit, and many more mothers who do not know what their partners earn and who are given an allowance every week. That problem will be exacerbated if benefit is paid to main wage earner, which is usually the man.
Finally, if there is a query about one element of a claim there is often a delay, particularly when housing benefit and private landlords are involved. I can only hope that the other elements of the universal credit will be paid while such matters are investigated, and that the benefit is not so universal as to be “all or nothing” in such cases.
On sanctions, it is quite right that people refusing reasonable work should be penalised, as indeed they are under the current system. However, I urge the Government to ensure that great care is taken when sanctioning vulnerable claimants. For example, I dealt with a client who was sanctioned for not turning up for an interview to discuss his claim. Hon. Members might think that that is perfectly reasonable, but that client was in a secure institution—a secure mental health unit—and the letter requiring him to turn up for interview was sent there.
The £50 civil penalty for claimant error should be withdrawn. I am sure that, like me, many hon. Members deal almost daily with constituents who have been the victims of official error. The focus on claimant error is out of proportion. People who claim those benefits include the most vulnerable people in our society. They are the most likely to make errors, particularly with official forms, and the least likely to be able to afford the penalties. We should not simplify the benefit alone; the claiming process should also be simplified.
I hope that the amendment will be supported, because the Bill lacks clarity and detail. In fact, it will have the opposite effect of what is intended in terms of the Government’s stated broader goals and obligations, such as making work pay, reducing child poverty and protecting vulnerable groups.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
This is a profoundly important Bill. It is born out of the Secretary of State’s deep passion for helping people to get out of poverty—he has spent the last decade looking at that. There are few ways in which people who are born and grow up in poverty can find a way out. I can think of some, but winning the lottery does not happen very often and it is unlikely that someone will get a surprise inheritance from a relative whom they did not know existed. Marrying a top footballer is rare, and it would probably be quite hard work. The hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) spoke of work as “a” route out of poverty, but it is “the” route out. If Opposition Members have alternatives to work as a route out of poverty, I would be interested to hear of them.
The Bill removes the barriers that the welfare system puts in the way of people working their way out of poverty, which is important. We must recognise—this is why I am so disappointed that Opposition Members will not support Second Reading—that there are many barriers in the system’s construction that prevent people from getting the important message that they need to go out to find a job and to work, and that that is how they will improve their economic circumstances.
Ian Paisley
I appreciate what the hon. Lady says about people who are able-bodied and who can work working their way out of poverty, but how do people find their way out of poverty if their impoverishment is a result of disability?
Harriett Baldwin
As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are many provisions in our welfare system for exactly that sort of situation. I do not think that anyone is suggesting that people with no capacity for work should get out and work. We should have a generous safety net, as we do for people in those situations.
However, the system as currently constructed has many barriers that send the message that taking on full-time work is not worth while. With single parents facing a withdrawal rate of 96%, what kind of message does that send to people about the sense in going to work? We have all met people who work 16 hours a week. As we know, the way that working tax credits work gives people an incentive to find a job working 16 hours a week. At the moment, those working 15 or 17 hours a week find themselves financially worse off. That is why it is so important that the Bill tackles those cliff edges, ensuring a much smoother process and a linear relationship between the time that people work and the amount that they take home. At the end of the day, we all respond to the financial incentives that are inherent in the system.
As we heard earlier, the current benefits system also pays couples more to live apart than to stay together. I believe that I am right in saying that 2 million people in this country would identify themselves as being in a relationship but living apart. No one can deny that, in large part, that is down to the messages and the financial incentives sent through the welfare system, which will be reformed by this Bill.
I am sure that Opposition Members will welcome the fact that the distributional analysis of the universal credit shows that the vast proportion of additional money in the system will go to those in the lowest income deciles, with 85% going to those in the four lowest-paid deciles.
I should point out, however, to the Secretary of State that it was still a shock to realise that even under the changes that we are discussing today, the benefit withdrawal rates for those going into work will still be 65p in the pound. That is still a shockingly high marginal deduction rate, when our higher-rate taxpayers are on 51% or 52%. The Child Poverty Action Group, the Centre for Social Justice and Family Action have all argued for a withdrawal rate of 55%, with Save the Children arguing for a 50% withdrawal rate. I hope that everyone in the House will welcome the fact that the Bill gives the Chancellor in future the ability to stand at the Dispatch Box and say that he is making a change in the marginal withdrawal rate, because we would all like it to be reduced over time.
Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)
I am delighted to have the opportunity to contribute to this important debate on the future of the benefits system.
I think that the whole House would agree that the way in which a Government treat the most vulnerable will always be a good measure of whether they can claim to have been fair. When the last Labour Government failed to restore the link between pensions and earnings during their 13 years in power and introduced the infamously derisory 75p pension increase, people rightly saw that as unfair. Similarly, their cut in benefits for single parents—described by one former Labour Member of Parliament for Halifax as “punitive and cruel”—was vindictive and unfair.
If the coalition Government are to be able to make that claim of fairness, we must ensure that we protect the most vulnerable. We have made a good start by restoring the link between pensions and earnings with the triple lock and committing ourselves to raising the personal allowance to take hundreds of thousands of the most poorly paid out of tax altogether. However, changes in the benefits system present a real challenge. If the Bill is not amended during its passage, it will certainly not receive my support.
I want to concentrate on housing benefit and possible changes in disability living allowance. Let me begin with the positives. Ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions have certainly been listening. I have had the opportunity to meet all of them to discuss the proposed changes and am pleased that the plans to restrict housing benefit to 90% of the full award after 12 months for claimants on jobseeker’s allowance have been abandoned. That terrible idea would have resulted in numerous people who were actively seeking work being worse off through no fault of their own. Many people and organisations inside and outside the House have worked hard to ensure that that does not happen, and I am glad that Ministers have recognised that it would have caused real hardship for many vulnerable people.
A great deal of attention has been paid to the proposal to remove the mobility component of disability living allowance from people in residential care. Last month, in an interview in The Guardian, the Minister sought to reassure disabled people in care homes and their families that the Government would not remove their ability to get out and about. I have no doubt that that is the Government’s intention and welcome their commitment to reconsider the proposal. Unfortunately, I do not share the Minister’s optimism that the mobility needs of those in care homes will be met if disability living allowance or its replacement is taken away, and I urge her to abandon any such plans.
The proposal has caused concern to organisations such as the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign, whose petition I submitted to Parliament only last night. The petition stated that the mobility component
“helps to meet the higher costs of accessible public transport”.
It also stated that
“without DLA mobility component, thousands of adults of all ages with severe disabilities who are supported by the state to live in residential care will be unable to retain voluntary employment or simply to visit family and friends”.
I urge the Minister to ensure that that does not happen.
Ian Paisley
I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said. Does he believe that linking benefits to the lower consumer prices index rather than the retail prices index is “punitive” and “unfair” to those who have to claim benefit?
Mr Leech
I was just coming to that. Yes, I do think it is unfair.
The Bill proposes that from April 2013 the local housing allowance should be uprated in line with the consumer prices index rather than real rent increases. I shall avoid the temptation to reopen the debate about whether RPI or CPI is a better measure to use. I merely point out that the Government do themselves no favours by picking and choosing which measure to use. If CPI is a better measure of inflation, we should not allow train operating companies to increase train fares in line with RPI, but that is a debate for another time. I recognise that the current arrangements do little to keep rents low, but there is a real danger that rents will increase at a much faster rate than CPI. The Government must be prepared to keep a watching brief on increases in rent and to take further action if the changes fail to keep housing benefit in line with rent increases.
I do not think that any Member has raised the issue of under-occupation so far. The decision to restrict housing benefit in social rented homes when tenants are under-occupying properties is ill thought out, and will cause significant hardship to many families who are existing tenants. I recognise that this is designed to bring housing benefit for social-rented property into line with the private-rented sector, but it does not take into consideration local circumstances. In Manchester, for example, under existing rules a family with one child is entitled to queue for a two or three-bedroom property. That is intended to allow for the possible growth of young families and reduce the need for future moves caused by overcrowding. Similarly, in low or no-demand areas where there are a lot of two-bedroom flats, property has been provided to single people or childless couples either to allow children who live elsewhere to visit, or simply to fill the vacancies in hard-to-let properties. As a result, a significant number of families on housing benefit could face a reduction in benefit through no fault of their own. We need to look at this again and recognise that a one-size-fits-all approach will not work. I suggest at the very least applying a gross under-occupation test whereby restrictions to housing benefit could be applied if more than two rooms were unoccupied.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ian Paisley Excerpts(13 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Duncan Smith
First, what we are doing will really open the door to the voluntary sector’s engagement in the whole process. As my hon. Friend knows, the Work programme that the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) has been working on has the voluntary sector embedded at the heart of how it will deliver its work. The desks in jobcentres that will be manned by representatives of the Prince’s Trust should open up the door to such people being able to see jobseekers as they come in. My hon. Friend should advise people to look at using provisions such as the enterprise allowance and, if necessary, to come and see my right hon. Friend the Minister about any other advice they need.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
While the benefit system is undergoing change and reform, what plans does the Secretary of State have to change the delivery mechanism for benefits? Will he ensure that it remains customer focused, local and accessible?
Mr Duncan Smith
At the moment, the vast majority of people—about 98%, I think—receive their benefit payments directly into their bank accounts. There is a small number of people who are still, for various reasons, in receipt of cash payments. A proposal was left to us by the previous Government on how all this can be delivered in the next few years, but we have not made a final decision on it yet. We will announce our decision very shortly.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ian Paisley Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Maria Miller
The hon. Lady brings up a very detailed point, and I should be very pleased to look at it with her separately, but I should underline the fact that in all the changes we are making, we want to make sure that we are judging disabled people on what they can do, not what they cannot, and we want to make sure that more disabled people are able to get back into work. At the moment, 50% of disabled people work, and many more want to, with the right support.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
The Minister will be aware that the employment and support allowance has largely superseded incapacity benefit. In week 11, the claimant is assessed by a medical board. What plans does the Minister have to involve a claimant’s GP in future assessments, so that we can ensure that they are more accurate, as opposed to being a snapshot at week 11?
Disability Allowance
Ian Paisley Excerpts(13 years, 5 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 Clarke
The hon. Gentleman will know that there are benefits at the moment—we all hope that they will continue—for people who live in care homes, as there are for people who live in their own homes. There are two approaches to the matter. I think that that is the answer that he seeks.
On the question of clarification, the coalition has been unclear and ambiguous, which is one of the reasons why I called for the debate. I genuinely hope that by the end of our discussions today, the Minister will have left us in no doubt that people with disabilities will not be left isolated, as so many fear, because they live in a residential home.
What has caused the current uproar—there is certainly uproar in my constituency—among people with disabilities and disability organisations? Many have been in touch with me as their Member of Parliament, and I am sure that other hon. Members have shared the same experience. I think that the uproar is based on two things. The first is the Government’s proposal as we understand it so far. The Treasury estimates that 58,000 people who live in care homes will be affected by what is an outrageous decision. What would the cuts mean in reality to individual people?
Patricia King drew my attention to the case of Doug Paulley, a 32-year-old wheelchair user and campaigner for disability rights. Doug was diagnosed 14 years ago with a degenerative neurological disorder and now lives in a residential home in Yorkshire with 17 others aged 20 and above. Already they are allowed to keep a personal allowance of only £22.30 from their benefits, or £20 from any earnings, with the rest going to offset the cost of their local authority care. Those sums cannot provide or cover clothes, phone bills, stationery, personal items and so much more. Their only other income is the mobility element of up to nearly £48 a week, which Doug described as a “quality of life-saver”. That is a disabled person speaking for himself and others.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there appears to be a lack of appreciation of the number of people who would be affected by a cut in this budget if that were to come about? In Northern Ireland, it is 10% of the population—about 182,000 people. In my constituency, the proportion is higher—about 12%, or 16,000 people. There appears to be a lack of recognition that this is not about people who are fraudulent or feckless or who fear work, but about people who are incapacitated and cannot work and therefore must be supported.
Mr Clarke
Again, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He will know far better than I do what is happening in Northern Ireland, but one of the persons whom I quoted earlier comes from the Province and I know that there are very severe difficulties there, too.
So what are we saying as we ask these questions, seek more information and express the views that we know disabled people living in residential care and their carers hold? We are simply saying this. While disabled people who live at home are to keep the mobility component of their benefits, and that is as it should be, it cannot be right, it cannot be fair and it certainly cannot be equitable for 58,000 disabled people in residential care to be hammered with a 69% cut in overall benefits.
Let us hear what care homes themselves are saying. The chief executive of Norwood, a fairly large, third sector provider for people with learning disabilities, wrote this to me:
“I am delighted that you are able to draw this matter to the House’s attention as it is certainly an issue that appears to have been so far unclearly presented. We provide residential Care Homes for 250 people whose needs are profound or complex in nature…they therefore require additional support for their daily requirements.
The mobility component of the DLA is given only to those people whose mobility is severely impaired. As such it enables them to access day opportunities, shops, leisure pursuits, holidays (often requiring special transport), all things that more able-bodied people take for granted.
To remove this allowance would be extremely regressive.
Surely the solution is straightforward…the mobility component remains to ensure that the people who need it are not penalised. LAs”—
local authorities—are
“instructed never to include this in their fees and the mobility component remains intact.”
Robert Halfon
I thank the hon. Lady, but I do not agree that all care homes would be unable to afford to provide mobility equipment if there was a statutory requirement. I have a further response to what she says, but I will come to it later.
Ian Paisley
Does the hon. Gentleman not realise the extent of the problem? There are 42 care homes in my constituency. As the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) indicated, this issue affects a massive population of elderly and young people. In my case, we are talking about hundreds of people. Every one of those care homes without exception has written to me about this issue—this is massive.
Robert Halfon
I am here today because I accept that this is a serious problem. Opposition Members do not have a monopoly on compassion; I care just as much about disabled people as they do.
Let me explain what I want to happen and what I believe should happen. Local authorities will have a legal obligation to provide mobility services for residents from their social funding. That funding will increasingly be distributed in the form of personal budgets, giving disabled people more choice and control over their services, including access to mobility equipment, taxis or scooters, if that suits them. That will end the anomaly whereby two state-funded residents with similar needs who are placed in the same care home can be treated differently according to whether they are funded through the NHS or the local authority.
I welcome the fact that the Government are waiting until 2012 to introduce this change, because it is important to give local authorities enough time. They will need safely to translate people on to personal budgets and to get those budgets up and running on a mass scale. Despite the welcome introduction of personal budgets in 2007, progress in rolling them out was simply too slow.
Margaret Curran (Glasgow East) (Lab)
I am very pleased to be here to respond to this debate. Of course I want to begin by thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke)—I think that I have got the geography right there, but I am very bad at geography so please forgive me if I make mistakes along the way—for securing this debate. I have been in this particular “garden” for many years, as has my right hon. Friend, and I know very well his work on disability. He is an outstanding figure in that field. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) said, when he speaks he commands respect, and I counsel the Government to listen to him.
Of course this has been a very important debate on a vital issue. It has been said that, at first glance, this change appears to affect only a very small number of people. However, as my hon. Friend from Northern Ireland, if I may say that—
Margaret Curran
Thank you. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) has said, actually this measure has an impact on thousands of lives and it could radically alter thousands of lives. He put it well. However, although £135 million is a huge amount of money, it none the less represents a small percentage of the cuts being proposed by this Government.
As we have heard, there are concerns about the impact of the cut. We have heard dramatic examples of how real-life circumstances have been altered. I have observed in the past few months that the issue has energised many in the disability, voluntary and charitable sector who are deeply concerned. To quote Mencap:
“Without this vital lifeline, many disabled people in care will lose much of their independence, be unable to take part in many community activities they enjoy and have fewer opportunities to meet with friends and family.”
Fear of the cuts’ implications has become widespread and has now captured a wider audience for this debate.
I should make my party’s position clear, although it has been mentioned. Labour supports welfare reform; I quote the Government as saying that they are continuing our work of welfare reform. However, we cannot support these crude cuts. They are ill thought out and, as has been said, they go against the central principle of personalised support for disabled people by actively undermining their empowerment to choose how they live their lives.