Housing Benefit (Abolition of Social Sector Size Criteria)

John Robertson Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)]

This is a tax by any other name. It is horrendous and pernicious, as was said, and targets some of the most vulnerable people in our communities. It attacks the elderly, the disabled, families of all sizes and, above all else, those already struggling to get by day after day. I am incredibly saddened to see that my city of Glasgow is one of the worst affected in the whole UK: 12,000 people in Glasgow have been hit by the bedroom tax, including 2,000 in my constituency alone. That is too many.

[Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend think that the Secretary of State learned anything when he visited Easterhouse in Glasgow and listened to what he was told about the level of poverty there?

[John Robertson]

The one thing we know about Ministers, who are having a wee chat among themselves, is that they do not listen to anybody. That is the problem with the Government. They sit and have their little chats because they are bored by the common people in the Opposition trying to help them. [Interruption.] They can say what they like, but that is how it looks to me.

[Mr Harper]

I was listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and I was quite surprised by his comments, because the Scottish Government have decided to use some of their own money to ensure that people in Scotland are not affected by the spare room subsidy withdrawal.

[John Robertson]

The Minister is right, except for one thing: it was thanks to the Labour party north of the border frightening the Scottish Government into it. [Interruption.] They are having a wee chat again, but that’s okay. He misses the whole point. This is about people who care. It is about a side of government he does not understand. The Opposition worry about people who do not have much. Whether they live in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or England, I still care about the people of this country. I am a United Kingdom Member of Parliament, and I will look after everyone within this nation.

I want to mention a couple of cases. John, a disabled man, lives on his own and has two teenage kids at school. He wants to keep in touch with his family—he wants them to be a part of his life, and he wants to be a part of theirs—so he keeps a bedroom ready for them so they have the freedom to visit at weekends, to stop in on the occasional weekday and to come and go as they please. He desperately wants to keep his family together, but moving to a one-bedroom house would end that freedom for him and his children. I cannot imagine the hurt and anger I would feel, as a father of three, if I had to tell my children or my grandchildren what John now has to tell his kids: that they cannot come and stay, even to look after him when he is not well. That is due to this Tory-led Government—make no mistake about that. It is the Tories who have done this.

I know the Minister said he did not want to hear about cases, but I will mention another one. I know why he does not want to hear about cases: because they are about real people, people we care about but they do not—[Interruption.] They are having a little chat again. A constituent of mine, Christina, wrote to me and explained her situation. She is a self-employed 60-year-old who lived in her house for 19 years with a son who recently moved out. She gets by in life, but gives all the time she can to voluntary work in her community, and she suffers from mental health issues. She feels safe in her home and in her community. She is not opposed to downsizing, and she understands that another family might need the two bedrooms more than she does, but she cannot afford to move: she cannot afford the new white goods she would need in a new home; she cannot afford to furnish and decorate a new home; and she cannot afford a removal van to take her possessions with her. Most importantly, however, she cannot afford the £41 a month she will need to make up the difference. For people such as Christina, it is literally a choice between rent and food.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I have taken two interventions already, and I do not want to take up any more time. I think I have made my point. This pernicious tax on the poorest in our society has to be got rid of, and if the Government, with their friends on the Liberal Benches, will not do it, we will.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Webb]

Nottingham was allocated discretionary housing payment and was given an additional £0.5 million, and of that combined amount it spent 78%. On the question of HomeSwapper, this policy has prompted more people to look to downsize and swap. That is an entirely good thing, as it makes better use of the housing stock.

I want to respond briefly to some of the contributions to the debate. The Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), initially made the claim that the spare room subsidy measure was forcing people into the private rented sector. When my hon. Friend the Minister for Disabled People pointed out that the rate of moves into the private rented sector had fallen, she then said in response that people are not moving to the private rented sector because rents are unaffordable. Well, it cannot be both. It has to be one or the other.

The hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) referred to the position of foster carers, but we have recognised this particular need and provided an exemption for foster carers. The hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) referred to his constituents as the most affected by the policy, whereas the policy—

[John Robertson]

I never said that.

[Steve Webb]

Yes he did. The policy is bought out in Scotland.

[John Robertson]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you could protect this Back Bencher from a Minister making a statement that I never made. I never said we were the worst area of all. I said we were one of the worst. That is completely different. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not strictly a point of order. He wished to correct the record and he has done so. He has also taken up more time in this short debate.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Robertson Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2014 Commons Chamber

[John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)]

T8. My hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) mentioned the carers caught up in the bedroom tax. How many of them are still caught up in it?

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman knows that, as I have just said, if someone has an overnight carer, that is a perfectly acceptable reason for having a room. He will also know that local authorities have been given significant sums in discretionary housing payments to deal with difficult cases that do not clearly fit the rules. Most local authorities are not spending the money that the Government have allocated to them.

Independent Living Fund Recipients

John Robertson Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Westminster Hall

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[John Robertson (in the Chair)]

Order. Opposition spokesmen are not allowed to take part in a half-hour debate, whether intervening or making speeches.

[Nic Dakin]

Thank you, Mr Robertson, but it is important to recognise the number of Members present wanting to take part. I very much welcome that.

The Minister is a good Minister, and I am sure that he is not naive enough to believe that passing responsibility to local authorities absolves him of the responsibility for the decision. I am afraid that he will not get away with devolving responsibility and blame for the consequences of the decision to others.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

rose—

[John Robertson (in the Chair)]

Order. Contrary to what I said earlier—I have just reread my notes—Front Benchers may contribute with interventions, but not on subjects that are part of their own portfolio. Sorry about that.

I call Barbara Keeley.

[Barbara Keeley]

Thank you, Mr Robertson. I am glad that that is clear now.

My hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) is making an excellent speech on behalf of people who are worried about those vital resources, which will not be ring-fenced. Does he agree that there is an issue, as he has pointed out, about devolving to local authorities? My local authority is cash-strapped; 1,000 people will lose their care packages this year. Will the change not simply put a burden on unpaid family carers? Is that not a double burden, because people with the most difficult physical problems might be hard to lift and move—except by trained carers—which risks injury or fracture to them, as well to the carer doing the lifting?

Oral Answers to Questions

John Robertson Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

Yes, we do. There is a financial penalty regime that I have every intention of implementing.

[John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)]

2. How many claimants have received the personal independence payment since April 2013.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mike Penning)]

The Department intends to publish official statistics in the spring. In the meantime, we are looking to see whether we can publish interim information as soon as it becomes available.

[John Robertson]

I thank the Minister for that answer, which is good news for a lot of people. He will appreciate that a lot of people are suffering while Capita takes so long to get that information out; they have the anxiety of not knowing whether their appeals, or even their applications for assessment, have been agreed. What kind of monitoring of Capita is he doing, and does it have enough people to do the job?

[Mike Penning]

We are monitoring the work of both Capita and Atos, and we will have the figures as soon as we can. Under the previous Administration’s scheme, fewer than 6% of people claiming this or a similar benefit were ever assessed. It must be right and proper that there is not self-assessment; it is done by the experts.

Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill

John Robertson Excerpts

Monday 21st January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Richard Graham]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for letting me intervene and I will come straight to his specific point. It would be interesting if he came to meet some of my constituents who work in the public sector in Gloucester. We have over 20,000 people working in the public sector—as I used to—and most of them are seeing no increase in their salary whatsoever, with a cap at a maximum of 1%. The hon. Gentleman appears to be supporting an increase of 2.2%—more than double what those in work will be getting—for those who are out of work. I would like him to respond to a constituent of mine who wrote to me. She is a retired nurse—

[The Temporary Chair (John Robertson)]

Order. Will the hon. Gentleman make his point?

[Richard Graham]

I am making my point as fast as I can. My constituent has two daughters who are nurses and who are receiving a 1% rise. She is asking why so many people in the House of Commons are desperate to increase the benefits of the unemployed by more.

[The Temporary Chair]

Order. Will the hon. Gentleman sit down?

[Toby Perkins]

It is almost as though the last two minutes of my speech did not exist. I had answered the hon. Gentleman’s point before he made it and I have no idea why he felt the need to intervene when I had specifically dealt with that issue—[Interruption.] I have already dealt with that point. We just cannot compare what 1% means to someone on £70 a week with what it means to a doctor. People on poverty money and in severe poverty have not got lots of options as to what they can cut back. They cannot decide, “Well, I’m only going to have one holiday this year”, as those whose jobs are more lucrative might be able to do. Interruption.] I have reflected on that point and I think I have answered it at some length.

There is a particular irony in the Chancellor, who was a millionaire the day he was born, railing against the extravagance of those on £71 a week. The debate needs to be put in proper context.

Personal Independence Payments

John Robertson Excerpts

Tuesday 13th November 2012 Westminster Hall

[John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this important issue. I welcome the new Minister to her post and wish her well.

I have brought the matter of preparing for personal independence payments—PIPs—to the House as a representative of a good number of people in my constituency who have come to me to ask for advice and to express their concerns about the replacement for the disability living allowance. I feel that the issue is so crucial and of such great concern to disabled people, in my constituency and the rest of the country, that we should keep it on the agenda. It is vital that we discuss the plans for personal independence payments now, so that we can be proactive in solving any issues, rather than waiting for them to become problems and reacting to them too late.

Let me start by saying that disability living allowance needed to be reformed. Crucial problems had to be addressed, about which people across the board were in agreement, but the reforms that have come through have raised a great number of concerns. I do not, however, want to talk about any of the flaws in the policy as a whole. It is far too late for that. We need to move past them now and look to the future, to ensure that the philosophy behind the policy—the slashing of the welfare budget—does not undermine its implementation and that the final regulations and guidance are designed around the needs of disabled people.

In its research, the Department for Work and Pensions has calculated that half a million people who would have been eligible for DLA, had it continued, will not be eligible for personal independence payments. That tells only half the story. Many other people will be significantly affected by changes to the system: 280,000 claimants will lose their entitlement to the enhanced or higher rate mobility allowance and some 370,000 fewer claimants will be entitled to standard or lower rate mobility allowance. Those people will also lose many of the benefits and necessities associated with DLA.

Scotland’s disabled people will be severely affected, with an estimated 74,000 people losing some or all of their mobility allowance. I can see why so many people in my constituency have come to me with their concerns. Library figures show that 1,260 people are likely not to be transferred on to personal independence payments. That is a huge number of people, and let us remember that many more will lose their entitlement to higher levels of benefit.

With so many people losing so much, we need to discuss what will happen to them. People who do not qualify for PIPs will need to look elsewhere to cover the loss in their income; people not entitled to PIPs may appeal such a decision and be left in limbo; and people will lose some of their passported benefits, because of the difference in the number of levels in the daily living category. There will be carers who lose their benefits, which will impact on both themselves and the people they care for.

We must discuss what happens in those situations and where people are to go for help. Why? Because so many of the constituents who are coming to us about the issue want to know exactly that. They are scared, and as their representatives, we need to ensure that we have done everything that we can to protect their rights. Their concern, which is mine, is about the process itself and how it will be conducted.

The PIPs system is intended to provide more face-to-face assessments than the DLA one. That raises several issues, the most important of which is that assessors should be given adequate training to enable them to identify disabled people’s issues and how they face such issues. That is an extremely difficult challenge, and I want guarantees that that has been thought through.

The number of disabilities is vast, and they vary from extremely physical ones to those that are less obvious to someone who has not been trained adequately. The system involves a very medical model, looking at what people can do, rather than what they cannot do. That might be appropriate for some types of disability. However, someone with a learning disability, for example, might be asked by an assessor, “How are you?” and they might reply, “I’m good.” Of course, they may be good physically, but such a conversation would not necessarily pick up the many problems that the person with a learning disability does not realise they have but needs support for.

Face-to-face interviews will be very stressful for those with mental health problems, who find it difficult to communicate with strangers. People with a different category of disability, such as those with acquired brain injury, need more time to consider and understand issues and find it difficult to grasp the scope and complexity of interviews. Will we have trained assessors for people with all those and other examples of disability? Will assessors have access to medical records with written consent? They need to be able to identify all issues correctly and must have the expertise to conduct interviews effectively. For example, I do not want what happened to one deaf-blind person during the trial period to happen to others. She was unable to be assessed as the assessors could not find, and had not asked for, a deaf-blind manual interpreter.

Will we have trained assessors for disabilities the symptoms of which cannot be seen, such as those caused by a stroke? I asked that very question about whether additional training would be provided to assessors, and I was told that clear guidance has already been received and that there are

“no plans to provide additional training.”—[Official Report, 29 October 2012; Vol. 552, c. 64W.]

I have heard many horror stories that suggest that that might not be the case. We need to learn from the problems caused by the lack of training and awareness in employment and support allowance and work capability assessments and incorporate the lessons learned into a better system for PIPs.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend share this concern? I welcome the fact that there will be some piloting with a small number of applicants, but that pilot is scheduled to last for only two months before the start of the wider roll-out to new applicants. That will not give sufficient time to ascertain what the problems might be and certainly not to evaluate them and make changes.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Robertson]

My hon. Friend is quite right. Even if the Government learn lessons from the pilot, will they be ready to go back to the drawing board to look at the role of assessors? Somehow, I doubt that they will be.

We need excellent assessors, who can see the nuances of difference between disabilities and are fully trained to identify and advise those they assess. That is the first issue that I hope will be addressed by April 2013. The guidance provided to assessors is another source of concern for disabled people and charities. I am interested to know whether the Government have changed their mind on whether they will consult on the guidance once it has been drawn up. Assessors would be helped greatly if they had clear and effective guidance in front of them.

An aspect of the issue that is close to my heart, as hon. Members may be aware, concerns the identification of mobility issues for blind and partially sighted people. I campaigned for an automatic entitlement to the higher rate of mobility allowance for cane and dog users. That is being lost in the PIPs system, along with many other automatic entitlements. Many people are concerned that that will create an unnecessary burden for disabled people, whether or not they eventually receive the higher rate. Will the Minister restate her reasons for creating that additional burden?

There is also concern that, under the new guidance for PIPs, guide dogs will be seen as the only evidence of mobility issues for blind and partially sighted people. I have heard rumours that the final guidance will include canes as well as guide dogs, but I would like reassurance from the Minister that that will be the case. We cannot go backwards when dealing with such people.

The guidance must be all-encompassing and provide for all types of disability. It must also recognise that being disabled can be a lifelong condition and a lifelong drain on income. The Department for Work and Pensions has published various case studies that show how PIPs would work. For example, referring again to blind and partially sighted people, one of the studies shows someone who has been living with sight loss for some time receiving a lower award than someone with the same impairment but recently diagnosed. Costs do not diminish over time, and as people learn to live more independently, they might need more help and money to deal with what they can then do. The Government want to put those people back rather than help them to go forward. People should not be penalised for having learnt to live with their condition, and the Government must consider that.

Regarding the guidance that assessors receive, I have raised a number of points that concern many of my constituents. Again, I would be interested to hear some assurances from the Minister that the guidance will be designed to reflect the multitude of disabilities. I have spoken about how we can ensure that the 1,260 people in my constituency who will lose out on PIPs, along with the hundreds of others who will not qualify for higher rates, do not lost out because of untrained assessors or inadequate guidance. We must now address what happens to the people who do not qualify for PIPs.

[Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman makes some important points, and I look forward to the Minister’s replies. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is unacceptable that 48% of disabled people should not have employment, along with the well-being and stronger financial position that comes from that, and that PIPs, with the regular reviews, are a step in the right direction for many disabled people who want to work and are able to do so?

[John Robertson]

I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman, but we see Remploy factories being closed down and other areas where there is no work for disabled people, yet we try to tell them they have to find employment. If there was employment, believe me, most people who are disabled would want to take it up, and right away. Unfortunately, the realism of the work market at the moment is that there are not the jobs for every person who would like one, never mind every person who is disabled.

I asked a question about the notice given to someone who is not eligible for PIPs and was told:

“Where entitlement to personal independence payment has not been established the DLA will stop shortly after the decision notice has been sent.”—[Official Report, 23 October 2012; Vol. 551, c. 837W.]

The vague “shortly” shows an absolute lack of evaluation of what it will mean in practice. I have subsequently received another letter in which the same word is used as a time frame. That is not good enough. Far more thought and consideration needs to be put into what that will mean for people who lose their benefit. How long will they have to find another source of income? Will there be enough time for them to find other sources of benefit from the Government?

In oral evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee, Professor Roy Sainsbury said that based on the 1990s take-up rates of between 50% and 70%—we can probably assume that the rate has increased a little—perhaps as many as 25% of disabled people still do not claim DLA. We can therefore only assume that the people currently claiming DLA are those who need it most, and we can therefore also assume that they will be the people most affected by its loss. Some of the most vulnerable people in our society will now have the complicated responsibility of navigating the PIPs system, and those who have already been identified as vulnerable should be given specific attention during the handover. We need clearer answers on how long DLA claimants will have before the benefit is stopped and on what kind of help they will receive to get them over the initial period.

We can also assume that a number of appeals regarding PIPs are likely. In most places, the assessments are to be administered by Atos—a company that is notoriously bad at making accurate assessments. We already know that it got one in five ESA assessments wrong between October 2008 and November 2011, so I am certain that many people who are not eligible for PIPs will want to appeal the decision. In Scotland, the system will now be run by Salus, but I am sure that many people there will still look to appeal. We must ensure that the lessons learnt from the ESA and work capability assessments are not lost. I would like to ask that the process for people who are appealing their decision is properly conducted. Will their DLA be cut, and will they be expected to find another source of income?

I would also like to ask about how the loss of DLA and the higher or enhanced rate of mobility for PIPs will impact upon carers. I have more than my fair share of carers in my constituency, and if money is lost to them what do they do about caring, and how will carers be looked after? I am sure that they will continue to care, but they will struggle to pay their bills at the same time. We must give carers the respect that they deserve. They save this country billions of pounds every year. I am interested to hear how the Minister will deal with that.

My final point is on passported benefits—a key concern for my constituents that alerted me to the practical problems with PIPs. The Motability scheme, for example, is paid for through the higher rate of benefits. As I explained earlier, 280,000 people will lose their entitlement to higher or enhanced rate mobility, and a large proportion of them are likely to have their Motability vehicle seized. They will be unable to make the payments for the vehicle, and if they have already been relying on it—I am certain that some people will still need such a vehicle despite not being eligible for the higher rate—what will they do to get around? Will they be left in a state of isolation? At what point will their vehicle be seized? Will they be given time to get another mode of transport?

I hope that the impact of losing the higher rate of mobility has been carefully considered, because it will make a massive difference to the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. There will also be an impact on blue badge holders and concessionary travel benefits, and holding separate assessments for passported benefits will not only cause stress for people who have lost their DLA, but incur extra costs for the taxpayer. As I have said before, the aim of the policy is to save money, so this all seems pointless and unnecessary.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Esther McVey)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) on securing the debate. I recognise the contribution that he has made in campaigning for rights for disabled people down the years, including his significant involvement in recent changes to disability living allowance. I also welcome his acknowledgement that DLA is a benefit in need of reform; we need to ensure that we get it right.

The starting point, therefore, must be that the Government remain committed to supporting those in greatest need, so that they can live independently. However, we also must ensure that the right financial support gets to the right people for the right reason. After all, the Government spend £50 billion a year on benefits and services for disabled people. It is worth remembering that DLA has not been fundamentally reformed since 1992 and that the expenditure increased by a third between 1998 and 2010. More than two thirds of the current case load has an indefinite award, and because people’s claims simply are not systematically checked or updated, there are significant overpayments and underpayments. Twenty years later, we are left with a system that is a lifeline for many people, but it is widely acknowledged that we need to reform it.

The reforms are about targeting support more effectively and keeping the best elements of DLA—the ones that disabled people value—but also about bringing the benefit up to date and fit for the 21st century. I assure Members that we are fully committed to the implementation of the personal independence payment from April 2013 and that we are on track for delivery. We will start with small volumes of new claims in the north-west before the national roll-out begins in June 2013. I will not go into the details of that, however, because the hon. Gentleman has raised some specific points.

It is important to get the assessment and assessor training right, with an emphasis on the importance of assessors being able to identify the wide range of barriers that people with disabilities and impairments may face. The Department for Work and Pensions has set clear standards for providers on the skills, training and competence expected of those assessors. We will work closely with the providers to ensure that training is of that required standard, and we will approve the training plans only when we are fully satisfied that they meet the necessary quality. All assessors will be health professionals with broad training in disability analysis, as well as training on specific impairments. Although we expect assessors to have good general knowledge of health conditions and impairments, they do not need specialist knowledge of particular conditions.

[John Robertson]

I totally disagree with the Minister’s last statement. There are certain times when specialists are required. Putting the onus on the assessor to make a decision on something that they know very little about suggests that the process is more about ticking boxes than an actual assessment.

[Esther McVey]

If I had reached the end of my paragraph, I might have answered those questions.

Assessors will have broad knowledge and specialist knowledge, but the assessment will not be medical; the assessment focuses on outcomes and how the health condition affects the individual. We recognise, however, that assessors might need support on mental, intellectual and cognitive impairments when assessing individuals with, for example, mental health conditions, learning disabilities or autism. As such, we require providers to have mental and cognitive champions, as recommended by Professor Harrington.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Robertson Excerpts

Monday 28th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Universal credit is now widely perceived as being very beneficial to women, particularly to lone parents who struggle a lot. They are in and out of work, and often their hours change. That will be reflected almost immediately in universal credit. I know that many who come out of work temporarily lose some of their housing benefit because it takes so long to reorganise it, and thus are worse off. That should all be brought to an end by universal credit, and it will also improve the support for child care.

[John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)]

18. How much his Department paid in winter fuel allowance in (a) Glasgow North West constituency and (b) Scotland in 2010; and how much it will pay in 2011.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

Winter fuel payment expenditure in 2010-11 was £3.6 million for Glasgow North West and just under £240 million for Scotland. If those shares of total Great Britain expenditure in 2010-11 were maintained in 2011-12, the projected figures would be approximately £2.8 million for the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and £185 million for Scotland.

[John Robertson]

This year, 440 fewer households will receive winter fuel payments in my constituency, and 3,560 fewer in Glasgow as a whole. With the elderly population and housing numbers growing, how can that happen?

Oral Answers to Questions

John Robertson Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is why the extra apprenticeships that we have launched are so important. His experience is the same as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy)—who is no longer in his place—at whose jobs fair several leading engineering companies were looking for young people. If we deliver the apprenticeship opportunities, the private sector is out there ready to create the jobs for young people.

[John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)]

With people living longer and being employed in jobs longer, with people coming in from outside this country and taking up the cheap labour jobs, and with there being no law in effect that means that anyone taking up an apprenticeship has to be below a certain age, what is the right hon. Gentleman going to do in the years ahead to ensure that young people get employed?

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Gentleman is, of course, describing some of the failings of the previous Government. What we have to do is ensure that we have a work-ready, well-trained work force of all ages, ready to take advantage of the opportunities that arise, when they arise. We can do that through more apprenticeships, through the specialist support in the Work programme, and through work experience placements that give young people their first taste of the workplace. I am delighted to say that youth unemployment is lower today than it was when his party left office.

Disability Living Allowance

John Robertson Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2011 Westminster Hall

[John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)]

I will give colleagues leaving the previous debate an opportunity to sneak out—I am sorry that they cannot stay.

I am delighted to have secured this debate and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply and her comments on the wider issues that I am about to raise. There is probably no better place to begin debating disability living allowance than with the mobility component for blind people. An amendment that I tabled to the Welfare Reform Act 2009 and that will come into force in April will enable blind people to claim the higher mobility rate component of DLA. However, if the Government go ahead with the proposals in the consultation on a new assessment for DLA to remove the amendment that I successfully tabled to the 2009 Act, about 20,000 blind people across the UK could lose out. That means that 20,000 blind people in the UK, including 2,000 blind people in Scotland and 300 in my own city of Glasgow alone, could lose access to the higher rate mobility component DLA. That means they would lose at least £1,500 a year. That is a considerable sum for anyone, but it is a vital lifeline for blind people, who generally come from poor backgrounds.

The public consultation by the Department for Work and Pensions on DLA reform, which was published in December last year, raised concerns about the issue. The specific threat to the DLA mobility component appears in point 6 on page 4 of the document, which says:

“Currently individuals on DLA with certain health conditions or impairments are automatically entitled to specific rates of the benefit without a full assessment. We propose that for Personal Independence Payment there are no automatic entitlements, other than the special rules for people who are terminally ill. Instead, each case will be looked at individually, considering the impact of the impairment or health condition, rather than basing the decision on the health condition or impairment itself.”

[Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)]

Can my hon. Friend think of a way in which a blind person’s condition can improve? Why is there a need for a review?

[John Robertson]

My hon. Friend makes a good point and I will use a couple of cases as examples as I go through my speech.

On page 37 of the DWP consultation document, there is a list of automatic entitlements that the Government propose to remove, including one for blind people—the “severely visually impaired”. That entitlement was brought in as result of my amendment to the 2009 Act. The DWP consultation posed many more questions than it answered. We learned that the assessment for the new personal independence payment, which I will call “PIP”, will

“prioritise support on those individuals who face the greatest day-to-day challenges and who are therefore likely to experience higher costs.”

However, that wording was sufficiently vague that it could be overshadowed and interpreted in the light of other developments. Rules on eligibility would be restricted in such a way as to question the ongoing entitlement of disabled people in receipt of the lowest rates of the care and mobility components. PIP would consist of a mobility and daily living component, but unlike the existing care component, the new daily living component would comprise two rates, not three. An individual’s adaptation to their impairment would be taken into account in determining entitlement to PIP, presumably as a cost-cutting exercise.

I will not deal now with the plans to remove DLA mobility from individuals in residential care, as those plans were the subject of another Westminster Hall debate that was secured by the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams). I will simply add that it is reassuring that the Government will review mobility provisions for people living in care settings, but I still note the intention to remove DLA mobility for people in residential care in 2013, albeit one year later than originally proposed.

One of my most serious concerns relates to the Government’s plans to end automatic entitlement to DLA for people who clearly ought to have it, including the higher mobility component for people who have severe mental health problems, who are deafblind or are severely visually impaired. Individuals with those disabilities, along with people who are double amputees, automatically qualify for the higher rate, because they meet the strict criteria on the severity of their impairment.

That automatic entitlement is a clear and administratively efficient way of identifying disabled people with the highest level of mobility needs. In future, each case will be looked at individually, except the cases of people who are living with a terminal illness. Organisations for disabled people tell me that they do not believe that that is a sensible approach, as it will increase the costs of assessment while leading to the same outcome as the original system, and people with the most severe impairments will still receive the higher rate of benefit.

As I have mentioned, in three weeks’ time, more than 20,000 people in the UK with severe sight loss will be entitled, for the first time, to the higher rate mobility component of DLA and they will receive the extra £30 a week that they need in their pockets to maintain a decent quality of life. I tabled my amendment to the 2009 Act in the first place because of my strongly held belief that there is no good reason for discriminating between someone who faces physical barriers to mobility and someone who is unable to move around safely and independently as a result of blindness.

I want to tell the Minister about one of my constituents, as his case was the one that spurred me on to table the amendment to the 2009 Act in the first place. Alan McDonald has been blind from birth, has orientation problems and faces huge hurdles in getting around. He is unable to use public transport because of his difficulties in getting on and off buses and trains. Either he has to spend his other benefits on taxis, although they are meant to provide other support, or he is forced to rely on his sister to give him a lift to wherever he needs to go; otherwise, he has to stay at home.

Alan’s blindness is not the only barrier to his mobility. For example, when I tabled the amendment to the 2009 Act he was awaiting a second kidney transplant and was due to undergo surgery for hardening of the arteries. Despite all those difficulties, however, he was told on several occasions that he simply did not qualify for the higher-rate mobility component of DLA, because he was physically able to walk. Yes, he could walk—he could walk into wheelie bins, or into a set of traffic lights, or even into the middle of the road where he would be knocked down; but he could walk, so he did not get the money.

The barriers that Alan faces are just as great as those faced by someone who cannot walk, and the current situation is nonsensical. I believe that the Minister has to consider such things. It is unbelievable that somebody with such disabilities might not receive the higher rate of disability allowance in two years’ time, having finally received it after all these years.

Blind people such as Alan are justifiably angry about the discriminatory and unfair treatment that they receive, but they will feel even angrier and let down when the DLA mobility component, which comes into being in April, is taken away from them in just two years’ time. That will put them back to square one.

Many charities have contacted me because they are alarmed about the Government’s proposals. For example, the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association is concerned about the proposal that PIP should replace DLA. In particular, the association is concerned about the proposal in the DWP report on DLA reform proposals to

“take greater account of aids and adaptations”.

Taking into account the use of aids and adaptations when assessing eligibility could inadvertently penalise an individual who uses such equipment to try to reduce some of the difficulties that they face as a disabled person.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I commend my hon. Friend’s campaign and the passion with which he is putting a very powerful case. Has he been contacted by the National Autistic Society? I ask that because there is enormous concern on the part of those who care for autistic people and those with family members who are autistic, as DLA is crucial for communication, travel and services for autistic people. It is crucial that access to DLA be retained for autistic people as well as for the other people whom my hon. Friend has mentioned.

[John Robertson]

I thank my right hon. Friend, who has more than a little reputation of looking after these people, both as a Minister and as a member of the previous Government. I congratulate him on the work that he has done. I have been contacted by so many groups that I could not possibly name them all in my speech today. If I miss any of them out, it is not because I want to do so, but because my speech is time-limited, but yes, I have received correspondence from the National Autistic Society and I thank my right hon. Friend for his input.

Any reduction in disability-related benefits simply because of someone’s access to equipment could significantly inhibit their efforts to lead a more independent life. Disability-related benefits enable people not only to live independently, but to participate in community activities. Such community engagement could include volunteering, which is a core component of the big society and could help someone to gain skills and experience that could enable them to go on to seek and obtain work.

Several wrong assumptions could be made about the effectiveness of aids and adaptations. They might work for some individuals, but others might struggle with them. Issuing someone with a cane or a low-vision aid such as a monocular, does not necessarily mean that that person will continue to use it, or use it correctly. Even if the aids and adaptations are used appropriately, they are likely to have only limited uses. For example, a liquid level indicator might help someone safely to make a hot drink, but it will not make it any easier for them to make a meal to go with that drink. How will the Government help these people?

I know of another gentleman, David Griffith from Walthamstow in London, who receives the mobility component of DLA because he is deafblind, like Alan. He uses his DLA to pay for taxis, and for other support in getting out and about. He also tries to walk in his local area, and has recently applied for a guide dog because he has had a few near misses with cars of late. However, having heard a feature on the BBC Radio 4 programme “In Touch,” he is now worried that becoming a guide dog owner might result in the removal of his DLA. Under the proposals, a guide dog would enhance his life and make him safer in one element of his mobility, but he would never have the independence that sighted people have. He would not be able to jump out of the way of the car that was about to hit him, and he might travel on a bus that he did not mean to get on in the first place.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that something else that is hitting people is the proposed extension of the waiting period for DLA from three to six months? A constituent came to me who had been blinded in a road accident and was considering adaptations. He faced the cost of those straight away, and under the proposal he would have to wait even longer for the money.

[John Robertson]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. She is absolutely right, and perhaps the Minister could reflect on the impact of that increased period on people who do not have the extra time to wait. They need the money now, not in six months’ time. There is a danger that people like David will turn down help such as that provided through mobility training with a guide dog or a cane for fear of losing a benefit that they would still need, with or without the mobility aid. What does the Minister propose to do for Alan and David and people like them?

In conclusion, the Government state that 3 million people receive DLA and that the budget will reach £12 billion, and they draw the conclusion that the benefit is not fit for purpose. I wonder whether a better conclusion would be that the benefit rightly reaches the millions of people it is supposed to help. Reform might be necessary, and disabled people have expressed themselves on the changes they would like, not least shorter application forms in line with their disability and, of course, quicker receipt of the money. Are we not in danger, however, of going so far with the reforms that we lose sight of what DLA was originally set up for? DLA is there to assist people with disabilities that make life more expensive. It is there to help people stretch their incomes that little bit further, so that they can achieve the levels of independence and enjoy the opportunities that their non-disabled peers take for granted. Are we really saying that a fifth of today’s case load is no longer in need of that support? Have we really examined how the reforms will exacerbate disability poverty? Those questions are, in my view, central to this debate on the Government’s plans for DLA.

I hope that the Minister listens to and answers my questions. Let me reiterate some of them. Will the Government confirm that their intention is to revise this policy, which has been hard fought for and pursued over a number of years by parliamentarians on every side? Will the higher rate mobility component for individuals with severe visual impairments be awarded for just two years? Have the Government modelled the net loss of household income when individuals lose entitlement to DLA, and does their equality impact assessment acknowledge the lack of social care and other support for people with less complex needs? How much will that cost? What steps will the Government take to ensure that the assessment for PIP is not just a cost-cutting exercise but is fair and accurate, especially with regard to its suitability for people with fluctuating or mental health conditions, and those with lower-incidence conditions? At a time when the Government wish to tackle bureaucracy and simplify the benefits system, how can it make sense to insist that all disabled people, including individuals who evidently have severe needs, undergo regular reassessment?

I am calling for greater clarification on what impact the 20% cuts will have on determining who will be eligible for the new PIP and at what level. Will people who qualify for the lowest rate of DLA qualify for PIP under the new system? Will the Government ensure that those who qualify for the higher rate mobility component because they are deemed to have severe blindness can continue to receive PIP via that route? Finally, will a comprehensive training programme on blindness be made available for assessors for PIP? I look forward to the Minister’s answers.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Robertson]

Will the Minister accept that the impression is that it is the budget and not the people who have the disabilities that will determine how much people get? It is not possible to budget for people with disabilities, but if we do we have to say, “We’re going to let only so many people get disability allowance.”

[Maria Miller]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that the Government have to make difficult decisions in many areas, not only regarding how much we spend to support disabled people. At a time of financial crisis, as a result of the problems with controlling costs under the previous Administration, we have to make tough decisions, but the decision that we have made is that we want to support the most vulnerable people through DLA and its successor, and also through many of the other benefits that we have. The introduction of universal credit will do a great deal to support those people in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, and in mine, who are disabled.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Miller]

I shall just make some progress.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North West has long battled to change how blind and severely impaired people are treated under the old DLA regime, and that serves as an excellent example of the shortcomings evident in DLA because of its complexity, poor targeting and inflexibility. I certainly applaud his determination to get the support that disabled people need. The failure of his constituent to get the support that he needed through DLA is a great example of why we need reform.

If the hon. Gentleman had not had to deal with the faulty framework of the DLA in the first place, it might have taken him slightly less determination, and slightly less than two years—some people might say less than 10—to make the changes in primary legislation and then in regulations that were needed to get the present measure supporting severely visually impaired individuals on the statute book. That is why we are taking a fundamentally fresh approach to dealing with that area of benefits through the personal independence payment, so that we can adjust it and the assessments through regulations in the first instance and maintain the flexibility required to ensure that the benefit reflects people’s experiences and is adaptable enough to cope with the dynamic nature of society’s response to disability.

The personal independence payment has been designed with the support of disabled people and specialists to provide an objective assessment and ensure that we can help disabled people overcome the barriers that they face to living full and independent lives. That means looking past broad categories of impairment and labels and instead treating people as individuals. In doing so, we must consider the impact of all disabilities: not only physical disabilities—some criticise the DLA for favouring people with physical disabilities—but the mental, cognitive and sensory impairments that many of us know need more support. The right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) mentioned individuals dealing with autism. Some people deal with multiple disabilities as well. That is the only way for us to deliver targeted benefit that is fair to all those who need extra help and who face the biggest challenges leading independent lives.

The personal independence payment also addresses yet another of the many weaknesses of DLA. The DLA assessment for the higher rate of mobility component, on which the hon. Member for Glasgow North West focused, is framed in the rather simplistic medical context of whether the person can walk. In practice, that means that people facing broader issues involving mental health problems, learning disabilities or sensory impairments such as blindness could be left, as they have been, disadvantaged under that narrow definition. With the introduction of PIP, what we want to ask is not simply whether people can walk but whether they can get out and about, plan a route and navigate from A to B, because that is the challenge that disabled people face.

[John Robertson]

I understand what the Minister is trying to say, but just because I can plan a route does not mean that I can go that route. We are trying to help people who have been assessed as unable to work, but who might be able to work if we can get them to the right place. My constituent Alan can work at a computer, but first he must get there, and the only way for him to do so is for somebody to be with him. He must get a lift, and he must be accompanied. If people have no one to do that for them or cannot afford a taxi, it cannot happen. The money that Alan gets is vital, and he is not alone. There are lots of people like him all over the country. Why must they be reassessed all the time? They know what they are like. They have been through the system already.

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Gentleman raises several issues. DLA is not an out-of-work benefit. People in work can claim it, as they can claim access to work, which can also help them. However, I think his fundamental point is that we must recognise the true barriers that people face, not simply say that because they have a particular impairment they should receive a particular rate. We must understand the realities of their lives. He has made that point clearly on behalf of his constituent. I agree absolutely. That is how we are designing the personal independence payment. We are not saying that if somebody has a particular condition, their assessment should have a particular outcome; we are doing what he has done and considering the impact on people’s lives. I do not think that DLA does so.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned aids and adaptations. We must ensure, again, that we do not try to squeeze individuals into a one-size-fits-all box. That is doomed to fail, as he has pointed out. We need to consider how people can use aids and adaptations to improve how they live. We cannot simply ignore or discount aids and adaptations; the taxpayer pays £250 million a year for them. The main point is that if we do not consider how people actually live, we will never be able to provide more targeted support. What has happened is an extrapolation of what that might mean for the assessment process. I am not saying that we will include the imputed value of an aid or adaptation as a part of the assessment process. We are asking what day-to-day adaptations help improve people’s ability to live an independent life. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the example of guide dogs. I will explain why the issue is not being understood as well as it needs to be.

I assure hon. Members that we have absolutely no intention of penalising visually impaired people who can get out and about and live independently only with the help of a guide dog, largely because the activities that the assessment is likely to consider are not activities with which a guide dog can necessarily help. Guide dogs are extremely intelligent animals, but they do not help people eat, drink, manage their personal care, take treatments or communicate. Well, some of them help people communicate, but in a different way. Although guide dogs help people get out and about, they do not in themselves improve an individual’s physical ability to walk or to plan a journey. I hope that reassures the hon. Gentleman that there is little opportunity for someone who uses a guide dog to feel that they will be penalised for making that important adaptation.

Another aspect on which we have been asking for people’s thoughts in the consultation is whether we could use the new personal independence payment assessment as an opportunity to signpost people to additional support and help, or a touch point for getting people the help that they need. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that we should not miss such an opportunity. Too often, disabled people do not get treatment for all the conditions with which they must cope. The assessment is an opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Robertson Excerpts

Monday 19th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend is right, and it is clearly an absurd situation when work does not pay. We have to make changes, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is leading an effort to address that problem. In this country we have to ensure that work pays, and that we do everything possible to help people off benefit dependency and back into the workplace.

[John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)]

3. What assessment he has made of the likely effect on pensioners of his proposed changes to the welfare system.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

Since the general election a number of changes have been announced to benefits and pensions. The most significant for pensioners was our decision, after 30 years of decline in the pension’s real value, to restore the earnings link with the basic state pension.

[John Robertson]

I thank the Minister for his answer, but he is well aware that the earnings link will not help pensioners as of January, when they start to pay their increased VAT. That increase amounts to almost £8 billion over the life of a Parliament, so when will the hon. Gentleman stick by his party’s promise during the general election campaign to fight any VAT rise? What will he do to protect those elderly people who, through no fault of their own, will be left with enormous debts, thanks to this Government?

[Steve Webb]

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that the Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that the country’s structural deficit is now more than £12 billion larger than it was thought to be at the election. I do not know where he would have got that £12 billion from. As for pensioners, not only will we ensure that we restore the earnings link, but in April 2011 the full value of the cash increase in the state pension will go through to the poorest pensioners on pension credit.