Disability Action Plan

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

Monday 5th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mims Davies]

If the hon. Lady send me the details, I would be happy to have a look at the specific issue and that particular group. In this disability action plan, the Government truly believe that considering disabled people’s needs in policy making makes for better and more inclusive outcomes for everyone. That is why reaching net zero by 2050 is engaged in actions 7 to 11. There is also our work on clean air zones and ultra low emission zones, including making sure that disabled people’s access needs are fully balanced when creating such schemes. When it comes to access—whether it is about road closures, or rail—that is exactly what this plan is about, and I am keen to look at the details she mentioned.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

A constituent of mine who has been hospitalised multiple times over the past 20 years as a result of a serious bipolar disorder was deemed ineligible for PIP. He received absolutely no help navigating the complex PIP process and had to go through a lengthy tribunal until he was finally deemed eligible. How will this plan bring about any meaningful change when the Government have repeatedly failed to get to grips with the long-standing failures in the disability benefits system?

[Mims Davies]

That sounds like a very concerning case. This action plan is part of a wider structural reform on health and disability. We know from our research that one in five people with a disability or health condition is not expected to engage in work preparation, but they might want to work. The hon. Lady’s constituent is seemingly very vulnerable, and this is a difficult process to navigate. We have our help to claim service and other support for vulnerable claimants, and I am happy to look at this issue for the hon. Lady. The White Paper transformations include a new potential passporting to UC health element through PIP, but I am conscious that every PIP delay or PIP challenge involves a person and a situation and is very concerning, and I am making that a priority in this role.

Child Support (Enforcement) Bill

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 1st March 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Bardell. I am grateful to you and to all the Committee members for joining me to look at the Bill in more detail.

This Bill is dry and technical, but it is important to say that child maintenance has a massive impact on the families who are reliant on it. All of us as constituency MPs will have cases coming across our desks and, as a family law solicitor, I know that the issues go far beyond ensuring that child maintenance gets to children and helping in situations of poverty. They can also sometimes affect whether children see their parents, because issues with child maintenance can have an impact on prolonging the conflict between parents and on other difficulties.

I am thankful to the Department, which is working so hard on child maintenance and on the Child Maintenance Service, and to my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) who sponsored the Bill before she was made up to be a Minister. It is incumbent on all of us in this place to fix any problems that we see.

The Bill will enable a more efficient process to enforce unpaid child maintenance. It has only six clauses, but I am sure all hon. Members will recognise the Bill’s importance, as it will help to get much-needed money to children more quickly. Before going into more detail, however, I will recap briefly how the CMS works, just in case any hon. Members present whom I have pulled in to help in Committee are unaware.

The purpose of the CMS is to facilitate the payment of child maintenance between separated parents who are unable to reach their own agreement following a separation. That is an incredibly challenging job, done in difficult circumstances. Once parents are in the CMS system, it manages child maintenance cases through one of two service types: direct pay or collect and pay.

For direct pay, the CMS provides a calculation and a payment schedule, but payments are arranged privately between the two parents. That is by far the most favourable way to proceed. Where necessary, for collect and pay, the CMS calculates how much child maintenance should be paid, collects the money from the paying parent, and pays it to the receiving parent. Cases in collect and pay tend to involve parents where a more collaborative arrangement has either failed or not been possible to achieve, or there are high levels of conflict. Paying parents on collect and pay are therefore considered to be less likely to meet their payment responsibilities.

The difference child maintenance payments make to children’s lives is critical. I defer to charities such as Gingerbread, which does so much for single parents, mothers in particular. The Child Maintenance Service takes action to tackle payment breakdowns at the earliest opportunity, to re-establish compliance and to collect unpaid amounts that have accrued. Where compliance is not achieved and the parent is employed, the CMS will attempt to deduct the maintenance, including any arrears where appropriate, directly from their earnings. Employers are obliged by law to co-operate with such action.

Enforcement powers also allow for deductions to be taken directly from bank accounts, including joint and business accounts, either as a lump sum or a regular amount. That is a useful power where the parent is self-employed and deducting from their earnings is not possible. All the time, we still meet parents who do not know that the system is available or do not know its reach—that when their ex is self-employed, they can still have help.

Where such powers prove to be inappropriate or ineffective, under current legislation the Child Maintenance Service must apply to the magistrates or sheriff courts to obtain a liability order before the use of other enforcement powers, such as instructing enforcement agents or sheriff officers, or even more stringent court-based enforcement actions such as forcing the sale of a property, disqualification from driving or holding a UK passport, or commitment to prison. The Bill will amend uncommenced primary legislation to enable the DWP to take further enforcement action without the need to apply to the magistrates or sheriff courts, instead allowing the Secretary of State to make an administrative liability order.

This power, once enacted, will allow enforcement measures to be used more quickly against parents who have failed to meet their obligation. At the moment, to even get a liability order is taking about 20 weeks, and we all know that the courts are under increasing pressure, particularly post covid, so we will try to remove that step.

Let me turn to the specifics of the Bill. Clause 1 gives an interpretation of the primary legislation being amended by the Bill and defines the Child Support Act 1991 as “the 1991 Act” and the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008 as “the 2008 Act”. Clause 2 makes provision for the Secretary of State to make a liability order where the paying parent has failed to pay an amount of child maintenance and a deduction from earnings order is either inappropriate or has been ineffective. The clause provides an assurance that administrative enforcement measures will be appropriately considered before more stringent measures are taken.

Clause 3 expands the power to make administrative liability orders by setting out in regulations provision for the variation of a liability order—for example, where the amount of arrears upon which the liability order is based is subsequently amended as more information about the paying parent’s income is obtained. That works both ways. Sometimes the responding and paying parent needs to say, “I’m not earning as much as you think I am. I need to make a change.” Equally, the other parent may say, “Actually, he or she has more cash than they’re claiming”, so the clause is important.

Clause 4 gives the Secretary of State the power to set out in regulations provisions that relate to a parent’s right of appeal against a liability order. Those provisions will include the paying parent’s right of appeal to a court, the period within which the right of appeal may be exercised, the powers of the court in respect of those appeals, and for a liability order not to come into force in specified circumstances.

As with liability orders issued under current legislative provisions, in the event that a paying parent does appeal, the court will not be able to question the child maintenance calculation itself. Appeals about the maintenance calculation are dealt with via the appeals tribunal. A paying parent can ask the CMS to reconsider any calculation within 30 days of the calculation decision being made, through the mandatory reconsideration process. They can also report a change of circumstances that could lead to their calculation being amended at any time. It is therefore right for the role of the court when considering a liability order to be, as now, to satisfy itself that the debt is properly owed, and owed by the individual named in the order.

The provisions in clause 4 will prevent court time from being used to consider day-to-day CMS business that can be completed operationally—again, speeding things up—and it aims to strike a balance between giving a paying parent a reasonable window to appeal and the CMS moving swiftly to enforcement measures. The provisions will therefore not place any additional or unreasonable constraints on a parent’s ability to seek an appeal. I have acted for a number of fathers who came to me in a complete pickle, particularly in the old Child Support Agency days, because the calculations were wrong or allegations were made about their income. It is very important that a paying parent has the right to appeal. My dad had quite a lot to say about his own child maintenance payments when we were growing up—don’t get him started on that!

Clause 5 sets out minor and consequential amendments. Finally, clause 6 sets out standard but crucial information covering the extent, commencement and short title of the Bill, which will bring it into force.

I want to say a few words about the devolved Administrations, as it is important that we think through these issues. Primary child maintenance legislation is a reserved matter in Great Britain, but it is devolved in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland has traditionally maintained parity with Great Britain by mirroring our child maintenance legislation. In respect of administrative liability orders, Northern Ireland has similar uncommenced provisions to those in Great Britain that it plans to commence, thereby enabling it to use and enforce administrative liability orders, so we are expecting Northern Ireland to get there. However, with the Northern Ireland Assembly suspended, it is not possible for Northern Ireland to match the changes that we are making through the Bill today, but it intends to do so as soon as it is able.

In Scotland, child maintenance is reserved but the judicial system is devolved. As such, the Scottish Government are engaged on the impact of the Bill in Scotland and exactly how its provisions will work in the Scottish court system.

The Bill is of great importance to ensuring that the Child Maintenance Service can make the necessary improvements to enforcement processes and get money to children more quickly. We are fortunate to have cross-party support, and I am grateful to the Government for backing the Bill and seeing the value in making these changes. We must ensure that when someone asks for help through CMS, they get help quickly and in a way that makes them feel supported. We must also ensure that parents who are messing about know that there will be sanctions and action against them, thereby providing a deterrent to other parents. I am grateful to the Minister and will be happy to hear from her today.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Bardell. Let me start by congratulating the hon. Member for Stroud on securing cross-party support for this important Bill. Members may want to know that this is not the first time that she has campaigned on this topic; she campaigned on related issues even when she was a local councillor in my patch. I did not vote for her, but I recognise that she was a very good councillor and she has a long history of campaigning on issues relating to support for children.

Last year’s report by the Public Accounts Committee concluded that in the 10 years since the Child Support Agency was replaced by the Child Maintenance Service, there had been no improvement in the system for parents, children and families. The Committee’s shocking report found that around half of children in separated families—1.8 million children—receive no support at all from their non-resident parent, and that enforcement is just too slow to be effective, as the hon. Member outlined. That is a serious failing in the child support system, and we all know that it is often mothers who pay the price.

A mother in my constituency of Hampstead and Kilburn wrote to me to explain that her child’s father had not paid child support for three years. She had contacted the Child Maintenance Service on numerous occasions, but for three years there was simply no progression in her case at all. Eventually, she came to see me. Members across the Committee will know that our constituents come to see us in our surgeries as the last resort, having gone through everything else. I applied significant pressure as her MP and, in the end, the Child Maintenance Service launched an investigation. But it should not have come to that; it should not have been so difficult for my constituent in the first place.

Sadly, as I am sure Members across the Committee will know, that experience is far from uncommon. It has probably happened to everyone’s constituents at some point. Mothers and children across the country are missing out on the payments that they so desperately need to get by.

The implications for child poverty are particularly concerning. The Nuffield Foundation—a social mobility charity—estimates that as many as one in five single parents on benefits are lifted out of poverty by receiving child maintenance payments. That is to say nothing about the severe impact that non-payment of child maintenance can have on the mental health of children and families. That is why the Bill is so important to me and people across this country. It is completely right that absent parents honour their full child maintenance payments. When they fail to do so, there must be adequate enforcement to force them to pay, so that people’s lives are made easier.

Before I conclude, I have one question for the Minister. Enforcement action was significantly affected by the national lockdowns. Child Maintenance Service staff were redeployed to manage the surge in universal credit claims, and the courts were closed. But the number of enforcement agency referrals now in process is still less than half the figure before the pandemic. Can the Minister give me some information about what the Government are doing to address the backlog?

I fully support the Bill. I hope that it is successful and that it forms part of a wider strategy to ensure that the child maintenance system is fit for the 21st century.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

I sincerely thank the hon. Member for Stroud for bringing forward the Bill. As she has explained, the territorial extent and application applies to England, Wales and Scotland, as it is a reserved issue.

I would like to briefly express my wholehearted support for the Bill. Most of us will have seen, through our casework, just how frustrating CMS cases can be, particularly when the paying parent does not uphold their financial responsibilities. I am dealing with a number of such cases at the moment.

I put on record my thanks to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross for setting up the child maintenance services all-party parliamentary group, of which I am a Member. We will continue to have meetings of that APPG, and hopefully push our casework forwards.

The changes that this Bill will make to enable the CMS to take stronger action in serious cases are very necessary. Many parents, survivors of domestic or economic abuse, have been telling us for far too long that the system is weaponised by their ex-partners to continue to perpetrate abuse. It is not acceptable that it is so easy for abusers to deliberately delay or frustrate payments.

Ultimately, the most important thing is that any changes benefit the children at the heart of what can often be very difficult and emotionally charged situations. I put on record again that I believe that this Bill has the potential to do that, so I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud.

Disability Benefits Assessments

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

Tuesday 1st February 2022 Westminster Hall

[Marsha De Cordova]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. He is absolutely spot on; it is so important that these decisions are got right first time around. I will come on to that issue later in my speech.

The overwhelming body of evidence shows that the assessment frameworks for both ESA and PIP are not fit for purpose. They use a series of points-based, functional descriptors and a tick-box approach. PIP looks at an individual’s ability to carry out a series of everyday activities relating to daily living and mobility, and the WCA is supposed to test someone’s capability for work, based on various activities. Its main flaw is its failure to include real-world factors, and it takes no consideration of how carrying out work could affect a particular person’s health. For example, I heard from one person who was asked to touch their toes, no matter how much pain they were in or how such an activity relates to their doing work.

For more than a decade, there has been a growing mistrust of assessors as a result of the errors in reports, and many people do not feel that they are being treated fairly. Research by Demos revealed that WCA assessors assume that people are not telling the truth or are exaggerating their condition, and many people report being treated as if they are making a fraudulent application.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for bringing this important issue to the House. Like other Members, for years I have been receiving heartbreaking stories from constituents in Hampstead and Kilburn about the degrading tribunal process that they are forced to sit through just to access the disability benefits that they desperately need. One constituent told me that she had been to a tribunal on four occasions. She won each time, but while she was waiting for each decision she lost all her other benefits. That included her specially adapted car, leaving her trapped at home. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Green Paper lacks ambition on this issue, and that it is fundamentally unfair that anyone in that situation should lose their social security benefits?

[Marsha De Cordova]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She is absolutely spot on. The knock-on effect of someone being turned down for the support they are entitled to leads to their losing other forms of support, as was the case with her constituent who lost their Motability vehicle.

Assessors often do not have an adequate understanding of the specific disability, impairment or health condition that is being assessed. Although it is accepted that no one can be an expert in all these conditions, it is essential that all assessors receive appropriate disability awareness training and have access to condition or impairment-specific expertise and tools. The charity Scope has rightly called for the categorisation of assessors into groups for specialisms such as mental health, learning difficulties and so on.

Covronavirus, Disability and Access to Services

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

Thursday 15th April 2021 Westminster Hall

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab) [V]]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I thank the Women and Equalities Committee for its work on the report, which shines a light on issues that, sadly, have been too often overlooked throughout the pandemic. Before I get to the main points raised with me in the last year by my disabled constituents, I will echo the Committee’s findings about systemic issues in the SEND system and the way in which covid-19, and in my view the Government’s inadequate response to it, has exacerbated them.

The report correctly concludes that there must be targeted support for pupils with SEND to recover, and fundamental reform of the broken SEND system. I share the Committee’s hope that the Government’s SEND review will bring forth a blueprint for reform at the earliest opportunity. I feel that disabled people, much like children, have been an afterthought for the Government in the pandemic even though they have been disproportionally affected by the virus in health and social terms. We have seen that particularly in engagement and communications this past year, which the report rightly focuses on as a key issue facing disabled people.

Straight after the very first coronavirus press conference on 16 March 2020, I wrote to the Prime Minister requesting a British Sign Language interpreter. We eventually got one for the BBC coverage, but, despite the hefty £2.6 million price tag for the flash new press suite at Downing Street, no one thought to make provision for a BSL interpreter, as the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) said. Similarly, at the start of the crisis, it took weeks for written Government communications to be available in accessible formats or large fonts. As evidence gathered by the Committee shows, many deaf people and people with learning disabilities were not properly informed about what was happening around them or about the latest public health advice as Britain was plunged into lockdown. Lessons should have been learned from those early failures, but I am afraid that recent failures to provide BSL interpretation for Government communications indicate that they were not.

Face masks are another issue for deaf people and the hard of hearing. They are of course essential to protecting us against coronavirus, but they can be profoundly isolating for those who rely on lip-reading and facial expressions to communicate. In Parliament last year I raised several times the importance of rolling out clear face masks—those with a transparent strip over the mouth. Like the Committee, I was pleased to see procurement of clear face masks for NHS trusts towards the end of last year, and I echo the Committee’s call for a proper evaluation of the roll-out and an assessment of need across services. However, I remain concerned that the Department for Education’s guidance continues to state that there is

“currently very limited evidence regarding the effectiveness or safety of transparent face coverings”

given that they have been rolled out in health and care settings. I urge Ministers to take another look at that guidance to avoid teachers being unnecessarily put off using clear face masks and impeding the education of children with hearing loss.

I want to focus briefly on “do not attempt resuscitation” notices being issued without consent, which in the last year has, perhaps more than anything else, sowed mistrust among the disabled community and made many feel their lives were valued less than others’. During the first wave of coronavirus, some people with learning disabilities were told, shockingly, without prior consultation, that they would not be resuscitated if they were to fall ill from covid-19. The Care Quality Commission found that, since March 2020, more than 500 DNAR decisions were made without being agreed with the individual or their family beforehand and, in some cases, such decisions caused potentially avoidable deaths.

Given the outcry when that first happened, I was appalled to hear reports from Mencap that the same practice was happening again at the start of this year. As one constituent, who has been a care home operator and seen this issue affect elderly people in hospitals, wrote to me,

“imagine the horror and terrible stress now imposed on parents or relatives to think that their child or adult will not be given the absolute best care and may be abandoned by the NHS in their hour of most need”.

The truth is it that this is unimaginable, and it is something that we have fought to address.

I urge Ministers to heed the advice of the CQC by making urgent and wide-ranging improvements to care planning, including better training and information storage, and creating better oversight structures. What struck me most when reading this report is that there seems to be no one at the highest levels of Government actively thinking about the impact of policies and communications on disabled people. This failure to consider the needs of disabled people has to change, and I hope that this report and this debate can be part of that push to ensure that disabled people are properly represented and accounted for in policy making and Government decision taking, especially at moments of crisis.

The Secretary of State’s Handling of Universal Credit

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

Wednesday 11th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

I want to raise two key issues to do with UC that affect my constituents: first, the associated decisions that compromise the Government’s stated aim of helping more people into work; secondly, some adjustments that my constituents are asking to be made to ensure that the programme is fit for purpose for families with childcare needs.

One of the more reasonable aims of UC is to try to get more people into work, yet the Government seem to fail to account for how decisions taken elsewhere by the DWP will affect the outcomes of the policy itself. Many have talked today about the top-slicing of UC, the bedroom tax, and the changes to disability payments, but in my constituency a particularly damaging development has been the closure of jobcentres. Many of those affected have contacted my office saying they are being pushed ever further into crisis due to the added travel distance and the cost of travelling to the remaining centre in the borough. House of Commons Library figures show that 60% of the legacy benefit claimants in my area were served by the Jobcentre Plus in Kilburn. There is now a significant gap in support for vulnerable individuals; they will miss out on vital employment support as they have little or no funds to pay for that commute. To add insult to injury, these changes were made with little or no prior consultation and, as far as I am aware, there was no equalities impact assessment before they were confirmed.

The closures undermine the Government’s rhetoric about helping people into work. For all the good intentions of DWP Ministers, they are being betrayed by the reality of their own policies on the ground. I hope the Minister in summing up will explain how the DWP will support the local council with the funds and resources necessary to ensure employment support is truly available to this community. The Public and Commercial Services Union and the Kilburn Unemployed Workers Group have long called for proper consultation on what employment support in the area looks like, and I hope the Minister will respond accordingly today.

As the chair of the all-party group on childcare and early education, I am very conscious that this policy will also have consequences for parents across the country, and of course in my constituency. Paola is just one of the single parents from West Hampstead who have asked that I raise specific concerns about UC today. She has demanded better access to fortnightly payments and for the Government to offer flexibility for those managing fluctuating incomes. Similarly, she has raised concerns over the new job-seeking requirements for parents of three and four-year-old children. Making adjustments on these points would be a huge support for single parents who are self-employed, or who face huge childcare costs, and often both. The pressures on single parents are running in tandem, with many more families claiming UC and having to pay monthly childcare bills up front.

I hope the Minister will address these issues in summing up. If the Secretary of State is truly being honest about wanting to make this work and wanting to work together, she must take into account that fact that there are parents with childcare costs for whom UC is not currently working.

Independent Living: Disabled People

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

Thursday 13th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

I decided to call this debate because I wanted to highlight the cost of living people for disabled people. The truth is that disabled people should be able to learn, work and live independently without facing a financial penalty. Unfortunately, however, that is not the case. Whether because of a huge digital divide, or a wheelchair charge in taxis, or unaffordable social care, disabled people face a financial penalty in almost every aspect of their lives.

When we consider the ability to live independently in 21st-century Britain, we often think of factors such as growth, prices, wages and, of course, short-term shocks to the economy. But as we try to ensure that the taxpayers of this country can afford to get by and we put financial costs at the heart of policy making, we often overlook the fact that disabled people face a financial penalty that none of us have to face if we are able bodied. We do not think about the difficulties that disabled people face in order to live independently and the extra costs they face from time to time. Approaches to the root causes of these extra costs have been fragmented, and imbalances in the market mean that the costs of things disabled people have to buy, such as assistive technology, remain higher than they need to be.

--- Later in debate ---

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Heather Wheeler.)

[Tulip Siddiq]

Owing to the lack of time in the debate, I will focus mainly on the causes of the extra costs rather than the well-trodden path of existing support payments, although I acknowledge from the outset that the battle to manage the extra costs is made all the more difficult by the fact that state support is increasingly difficult to obtain.

As most people will be aware, the Government are currently undertaking a second review into personal independence payments. They must continue to protect PIP from any form of taxation or means-testing so that disabled people have adequate support to help meet extra costs. The PIP assessment cannot be said to reflect the extra costs that disabled people face, and the sector is clear that the Government must redesign the PIP assessment so that it more accurately captures the level of disabled people’s extra costs. However, it seems to me—I am sure many Members would agree—to be a grave injustice that disabled people face disproportionate costs to live a life of dignity and independence.

I am of the firm belief that a society is judged by how it protects the most vulnerable and the most needy. If we as a society allow those costs to mount, we are abandoning our principles, because we will be failing to protect the most vulnerable. In my constituency of Hampstead and Kilburn, there are around 12,000 disabled people of working age. According to February 2016 Department for Work and Pensions figures, the number of my constituents in receipt of employment and support allowance, personal independence payments and incapacity benefits stands at nearly 6,000. The number of people awarded PIP in London stands at just over 80,000.

My personal experience of supporting a disabled parent and the number of disabled people who live in my constituency is why I have brought the debate to the House. Some of the disabled people in my constituency live in the top 4% of income-deprived wards in the country. The extra pressures they are under are clear—they have been underlined heavily by the Extra Costs Commission in an independent report undertaken by Scope. I put my thanks to Scope on the record it has helped a lot with this debate. Scope has found that the average additional expense to a disabled person living in Britain is £550 per month, which means that disabled people are spending £6,500 per year to live a life in which they can independently eat, independently travel and independently function as part of a community. The consequences of that are profound.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, severely disabled people who relied on the independent living fund to function—to eat independently, take part in society and so on—face additional problems, because the funding for the ILF has not been replaced? My constituent Mary Ellen Archer is an active member of the community but needs help for many hours every day so that she can eat when she wants, and get up and go out and about when she wants. By withdrawing ring-fenced funding from local authorities, the Government are making life almost impossible for people such as her to live a normal life.

[Tulip Siddiq]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. Like her constituent Mary, others want to live independently and not be humiliated in their everyday living, and it is being made more difficult for them. The other point I should add in respect of my hon. Friend’s point is that people who are severely disabled are at the bottom of the ladder when it comes to receiving payments.

The consequences are profound. Disabled people are twice as likely to have unsecured debt totalling more than half of their household income. Disabled people are three times more likely to use payday loans. Disabled people have, on average, £100,000 less in savings and assets than non-disabled people. In London, where my constituency and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) is based, 51% of disabled people have a household income of less than £10,000 compared to 19% of non-disabled Londoners. Worst of all, disabled people are twice as likely to live in poverty. That statistic should shame us all.

The ghastly £6,500 tax on living has been itemised by the Extra Costs Commission, with a clear set of recommendations on how to reduce it. It identified transport, energy, clothing, bedding, specialised disability equipment and insurance as areas where the impact of additional costs are most starkly felt. However, one year on since its publication, there has been only a piecemeal response from the Government. That is disappointing.

One area in which the Government could take great strides to support independent living, is through improving digital accessibility. Some 25% of disabled adults have never used the internet, compared to 6% of non-disabled adults, highlighting a considerable digital divide. Some disabled people face instances where websites are not accessible and others may not have the necessary skills to use the internet. For example, in London, Transport for London statistics reveal that only 46% of disabled people use the TfL website compared with 81% of non-disabled people.

A significant challenge in reducing extra costs is to unlock the potential of disabled people as a collective of consumers. Equal access to the internet for disabled people will empower them, and it will increase access to the job market and learning opportunities. The rewards for business will be great, with an estimated £420 million a week currently being lost through the failure to meet the needs of disabled people. Ultimately, however, it will enable disabled people to participate in an increasingly digital society and digital age.

A number of charities have suggested that the Equality and Human Rights Commission should review the impact of the Equality Act 2010 in improving web accessibility. I hope the Minister will consider the request carefully. It has also requested that the Government ensure that a proportion of existing and future funding for training in digital skills is targeted at disabled people who never or very rarely use the internet. Expanding digital access could be vital for reducing the disability employment gap, which is a critical factor in independent living. I will not cover this in detail today due to lack of time, but I simply note for the record that in London about 48% of all disabled residents in London are employed compared with 74% of non-disabled London residents. That needs serious attention. I know that right hon. and hon. Members across the House are focusing on this issue. I am sure the Minister will embrace the opportunities in her new brief and see this issue as a path to improving lives for disabled people.

Transport is a common and hugely restrictive area of extra cost for disabled people. They are much more regular users of taxis and buses. Section 165 of Labour’s Equality Act 2010 states that taxis and private hire vehicles are required to carry wheelchair users and that they must not charge extra for doing so. This, however, is flouted on a regular basis. Two thirds of wheelchair users report being overcharged when using taxis or private hire cars because of their wheelchair. That practice is unforgiveable and must not be allowed to continue. I therefore join Leonard Cheshire, Scope and others in welcoming the decision by the Government to bring Section 165 of the Equality Act into force.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech and putting the issue firmly on the agenda in the House. On her points about accessibility to taxis and private hire vehicles, does she agree that that is because of some of the problems that people with disabilities can experience with public transport? My constituents have told me that that can sometimes include difficulties getting on buses, which mean they can be left in the cold and rain, waiting in the hope of getting on the next bus.

[Tulip Siddiq]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I have seen real-life instances of what she describes in my constituency. I agree that we need to do more to ensure that Transport for London makes both buses and tube stations more accessible. Indeed, only 4% of the tube stations in London have full wheelchair access. I am proud to say that our station here in Westminster has full wheelchair access, but there needs to be a focus on that all across London.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and for raising this important issue. I hope we can shortly achieve a breakthrough in the long-running campaign for step-free access at Newbury Park station. As chair of the all-party group on taxis, may I say to her that the wheelchair accessibility of London’s black taxis is something in which drivers take immense pride? I share her concern that people should not be charging for wheelchair access, because the behaviour of the small number of taxi drivers who are engaged in that practice damages the otherwise excellent reputation of London’s iconic black taxi trade.

[Tulip Siddiq]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I absolutely agree with him and recognise all the hard work he has done to secure the voices of black cab drivers in his area. Not long ago I was in a black cab with him and the driver instantly recognised him because of all the hard work he has been doing—he did not recognise me at all. My hon. Friend has been championing the voices of black cab drivers and he is absolutely right. Every time I am in a black cab, the driver is very supportive of me with my pram or my disabled father. It is a small number of people who are making it uncomfortable for disabled people to live and travel independently.

As the Minister will know, drivers have an obligation to comply with the Equality Act 2010. The problem is that compliance is not an explicit condition of licence. Making compliance an explicit condition of the licence would underline its importance and enable disabled people to live independent lives, get to work, visit friends, attend hospital appointments and do everything that we take for granted. Such changes would be crucial, especially in London, where 62% of all disabled residents define themselves as mobility impaired. Although 45% of disabled Londoners own a pass that gives them reduced fares or free travel, 26% of disabled people said in a recent survey that transport costs remained a barrier to use. The wheelchair charge in taxis will not be helping their situation at all. I therefore urge the Minister to support the private Member’s Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) and oversee real progress in this crucial area.

I wish briefly to cover housing. Research shows that inaccessible housing can contribute to extra costs, as there is a strong correlation between suitability of housing and disability-related spending. Leonard Cheshire Disability has revealed that almost two thirds of councils broke the law at least once by failing to fund agreed property adaptations within the one-year legal deadline. As a result, almost 2,500 disabled people waited over a year to get the vital funds to make their homes accessible to use. As Leonard Cheshire went on to highlight, the impact of this issue, along with social care, can vary from the worrying to the unforgivable.

For some, delays to housing adaptations may result in disabled people spending far too much time at home, feeling isolated, and using their income to make adaptations themselves, again with knock-on effects for their long-term finances. Others will incur preventable injuries, illnesses or other health problems due to inaccessible homes. In 2014, that led to nearly 180,000 hours of GP time being taken up, with a cost to the NHS and care services of up to £450 million.

I wish to give the Minister as big an opportunity as possible to cover all the areas I have raised, so I will close with these few comments. Disabled people deserve the same life opportunities as able-bodied people. They deserve to reap the same benefits from the legislation as able-bodied people. They deserve to shop in a market that treats them with the same dignity as able-bodied people. And they deserve homes that afford them the same dignity and independence as anyone else.

Having spoken with so many disabled constituents across my area about these costs, I am clear that the huge number of causes of these restrictive extra costs demands a cross-departmental approach from the Government in finding solutions. For too long, disabled people have had to rely on piecemeal, fragmented progress, and I sincerely hope that the Minister’s comments today will provide a strong framework in which disabled people can expect serious progress to be made over the course of this Parliament. As I mentioned earlier, I judge society by the way in which we look after the most vulnerable and the most needy. If we cannot look after disabled people, we are failing in our duty as members of society and as parliamentarians.

Universal Credit Work Allowance

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Justin Tomlinson]

I will make a bit more progress and then take a few more interventions.

Finally, and importantly, we are increasing the childcare offering. Universal credit currently covers up to 70% of eligible childcare costs, but from April we will increase that to 85%. That will make a huge difference to people’s lives, with the increase worth up to £1,368 per year for every child. We are also doubling free childcare to 30 hours a week for working parents of three and four-year-olds, which is worth up to £5,000 per child per year to working parents. Tax-free childcare from early 2017 will give working parents who are not in receipt of universal credit or tax credits up to another £2,000 per child per year, or up to £4,000 for a disabled child. All those measures are designed to help families keep more of the money they earn and support them in work. Therefore, our combined package of measures will make a real difference to real people’s lives.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

I wish briefly to divert the Minister’s attention to homelessness and, in particular, its rise in London. A network of charities have said that the rise is a result of not only the chronic housing shortage, but cuts to welfare reform and social security, particularly universal credit. I do not know now whether the Minister is aware that last year the level of homelessness rose to a point where 7,500 people were sleeping rough on the streets of London. Does he recognise that universal credit will exacerbate that problem? Can he say how the rolling out—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. An intervention has to be very short, and I think the Minister has got the gist of this one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

I would like to start by reassuring the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) that I think universal credit is a total and utter shambles. I invite him to my constituency to speak to my constituents who are claiming benefits, because all of them are already in work. Tax credits did not stop them from going to work; tax credits incentivised them to go to work. He needs to visit constituencies in London to find out the truth and to dispel the myth that people claiming benefits are just scroungers. They are working hard; it is just that work does not pay.

[Richard Graham]

I have never said and would never say, and I do not believe anyone in this House would say, that people who work or do not work are scroungers. That is way beyond what I was implying. Let me put the record straight.

[Tulip Siddiq]

The hon. Gentleman certainly implied that in my opinion.

In January 2012, a considerable period of time before I entered the House, I listened to the Secretary of State tell the House in departmental questions:

“Universal credit is on track and on budget.”

Several years later and several billions of pounds of expense to the taxpayer later, his claim that

“I am not complacent about delivery”—[Official Report, 23 January 2012; Vol. 539, c. 8.]—

has not stood the test of time. Millions of families across the country, and especially in my constituency of Hampstead and Kilburn, have faced periods of relentless anxiety over the future of their welfare support. The year 2015 did not bring any fresh hope.

The Work and Pensions Committee’s report in December revealed that the roll-out of universal credit, from Royal Assent to resolving the final outstanding legacy payments, could stretch beyond a decade. The Government promised that universal credit would reach 4.5 million people by the 2015 general election. This has not happened. The Secretary of State may be content for his Department to cruise through endless periods of trial and error, but the delays to the roll-out have been at a significant cost to the taxpayer, with the Major Projects Authority revealing an increase of £3 billion in the past two years. The bill now stands at a staggering £15.8 billion. If the Secretary of State truly understands the pressures faced by claimants, he will apologise for the years of anxiety his delays have subjected them to.

The autumn statement fundamentally contradicts the Secretary of State’s ridiculous claim on “The Andrew Marr Show” that “nobody loses a penny” through the changes. They also mark the end of the Chancellor’s ludicrous claim at the Conservative party conference that the Tories are the new workers’ party. Nothing could be further from the truth. Cuts to the work allowance are so severe they will mean that single people and couples with no dependent children will lose out the moment they start working. Just listen to the facts: the poorest 20% are on average set to lose between 6% and 8% of their income. Just listen to Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, who stated that 2.6 million families will on average be £1,600 a year worse off. Further to that—this point was made eloquently by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms)— we know that transitional protections for claimants moving from the old system to universal credit will provide only £200 million against a background of £3 billion of cuts. Transitional protections are dropped when a claimant’s circumstances change. We know that new claimants will have no protection whatever.

[Richard Graham]

Is the hon. Lady aware that the IFS has actually said that anyone transferring on to universal credit will be protected and will not be worse off in cash terms?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tulip Siddiq]

I have not seen that. What I have seen from the IFS is what I have just reiterated: it shows very clearly that 2.6 million working families will on average be £1,600 worse off. The hon. Gentleman just needs to look at the statistics for inner London constituencies to see that that will be true.

Given the prevalence of part-time, low-paid jobs created by the Government and the well-established impossibility of the so-called national living wage to mitigate cuts to the work allowance, the Secretary of State must update the House urgently on whether he stands by his claims that “nobody loses a penny” through these changes. We need a Government who work towards an economy where employers, city leaders and central Government work together to make sure that economic growth creates new opportunities and high quality jobs. Instead, the Government are embracing cuts that will simply worsen the bleak picture of deprivation that is rampant across the country, and especially in inner London constituencies. Earlier in the debate, I made a point about the rise of homelessness and I did not get an answer from the Minister. Does he acknowledge that the changes to welfare will increase the number of people sleeping rough on the streets of London?

As a London MP, I have real fears that the significant growth in homelessness and destitution in the capital will only be made worse by the changes to welfare. Independent analysis by the IFS and the Resolution Foundation, and the Select Committee’s report, all acknowledge the consequences of the cuts to work allowance on the lowest paid, when they are eventually signed up to receive universal credit. I have a real fear that the decisions being pushed through will ensure that many people in Hampstead and Kilburn, who are already making the choice between eating and putting on the heating, will reach breaking point. Some 8,000 of my constituents are expected to be on universal credit by the time it is rolled out properly. It is not too late for the Government to rethink the cuts to the work allowance if they have any ambition to increase earnings. Higher and more stable levels of pay are the only way to improve financial security and move people out of poverty for good.

We saw the Secretary of State celebrate in this House when the so-called national living wage was announced, but he must reflect on cheerleading in the face of the stark reality that Britain’s low and middle-income families stand to lose thousands of pounds under the flagship policy. I ask him to carefully reconsider where he thinks his legacy lies, and whether he wants to put low and middle-income families through this trial when universal credit is rolled out.