Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Alison Thewliss and Angela Crawley(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
Invisible Disabilities and Accessibility Challenges
Debate between Alison Thewliss and Angela Crawley(5 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Angela Crawley
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. As the Minister knows, I have highlighted that issue time and again during Westminster Hall debates in relation to ME, fibromyalgia, arthritis and other lesser-known illnesses. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) gave his own personal account, speaking passionately, on behalf of his wife, about fibromyalgia.
What has not been covered so far today, although I assumed that we might hear about it at some point, is the fact that conditions such as anxiety and depression are also deeply misunderstood, although they are often as disabling as a physical illness. Those invisible illnesses exemplify the way in which conditions without obvious symptoms can escape the untrained eye while wreaking havoc on people’s lives, but that, too, has not been recognised by the Department for Work and Pensions.
Anxiety and depression are not easy conditions to talk about, and many men suffer quietly with symptoms because they are too afraid to speak up. I think it incumbent on everyone in the House to speak up themselves, and to ensure that people know that it is okay to ask for help. That is because, sadly, the stigma that still exists around too many illnesses can make it very distressing to have to explain and justify the additional needs to loved ones or family members, never mind employers. I know from personal experience of losing a loved one to mental ill health that it is essential that these people have the recognition and support that they deserve, because I would hate to see more people lose their lives unnecessarily.
I have also recently tried to highlight how the cuts to disability benefits by this Government are making it more difficult for disabled people to live independently and with dignity. I see the Minister roll his eyes and I appreciate that he is just one of many Ministers who have taken on this departmental responsibility and I have every sympathy as he has a large ship to steer in the right direction, but the fact of the matter is that the DWP has failed to recognise many of the disabilities today, and if we are going to sit in this House and debate the subject it is only right that we address concerns about things that reside in Government Departments.
Many diagnosed with disability and a persistent long-term health condition can be empowered and enabled to seek the support they require to live a fulfilling and long life, but the reality is that there are higher costs to living with a disability. Many are unable to work, and the difficulties they face in navigating the welfare system can be seen in all our casework. Whether the Minister is willing to acknowledge that is another matter, but it is a simple fact that if we went to any case officer in any constituency we would hear the same problems. Disabled people face overall higher costs than non-disabled people, and the cuts to their income can be devastating because they often do not have savings; they do not have a fall-back. Many do not have a support system, so what does the Minister propose they do if the last people they can turn to are this state and this Government and they are not getting the support they need? The bottom line is that shaking our head and saying it is not the case is simply not good enough. We perhaps only hear the worst of cases, but if we are just hearing some of the worst cases I dread to think how many other people do not come to us, do not know how to be advocates for themselves, and do not know how to get the support they need. I dread to think how they experience the DWP service.
Where there is a gap that is supposed to be plugged by benefits such as the personal independence payment, people instead face the blatant discrimination of a disability assessment. Is it really right that someone should face a panel of people and a medical practitioner to prove an already diagnosed medical condition? Is it really necessary when they have a diagnosed medical condition to then further prove that medical condition to other health practitioners who are often not as qualified as those who made the original diagnosis?
The system is not working for people who need help, and that is because of the ideology of this austerity-driven Government. They are ultimately cutting on the backs of the poor. In 2016 the Government introduced regulations which specifically excluded people with psychological conditions from receiving higher points in PIP assessments. I appreciate that that was not under the Minister’s stewardship, but consecutive Ministers who have had responsibility for this area have failed to address these systemic issues.
It took a defeat in the courts for the DWP to overturn this practice. Is it right that public money should be spent trying to defend the indefensible? That demonstrates the direction of the Government, their perspective on disabled people, and their contempt for their additional needs. The DWP looks at the needs of disabled people at arms’ length, with assessments contracted to a private company.
While I appreciate that some of the assessors are highly skilled medical professionals who have the empathy required to work in a clinical setting, this is not always the case. Numerous constituents have complained to me of assessors who did not understand their illness and who could not imagine how difficult life is on a bad day with fibromyalgia or depression. They were simply not listened to, and the report they received simply did not reflect their experience of the assessment. Assessors are simply not trained in spotting these illnesses, and that is reflected in the points awarded in their assessment reports. The result is that people in genuine need either have to put up and shut up or they challenge the outcome through a gruelling mandatory reconsideration and appeals process. The very fact that the outcomes are often overturned at that stage implies that there is a systemic problem with the system. This is a flawed system that needs to be reviewed urgently, and I urge the Minister to take that action.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point about PIP assessments. Epilepsy Scotland says that 77% of those who appealed when they lost out on their PIP won on appeal. The DWP denied PIP to over 53% of people living with epilepsy who had previously had DLA, so this absolutely bears out my hon. Friend’s point that those with particular conditions such as epilepsy are not being well served by the system.
Angela Crawley
I wholeheartedly agree. Fundamentally, this is all I want the Minister to take home today. I genuinely want us to be able to work cross-party across the House to get this right, because this is not simply about levelling this at the Government. We all have a responsibility to make the system work better.
As the Minister knows, I am a member of the Women and Equalities Committee, and we have consistently argued that more can be done to support disabled people. I think he would agree that there is always more that we could do within the built environment to support those with a disability. It is often not the disability itself that disabling; it is the built environment and the structures within society that disable the individual.
Universal Credit and Child Tax Credit: Two-child Limit
Debate between Alison Thewliss and Angela Crawley(6 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alison Thewliss
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. The Womens Budget Group has found that 86% of welfare cuts have come out of women’s pockets. The Government are taking a gendered and targeted approach, and they should be wary of that.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
The charity Refuge found that the two-child limit is forcing domestic abuse survivors and their children into poverty as a result of an increased financial dependence on their perpetrators. Does my hon. Friend agree that women are ultimately fearful to leave abusive relationships because they cannot support themselves, and that that is another example of where the policy has gone wrong?
Alison Thewliss
My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I will talk about some of Refuge’s evidence later, because it is stark and the Government should take heed of it.
A social security safety net ought to be there for everybody—each one of us—when they need it, but by April 2018, the two-child limit had already affected 73,530 households. Well over half of those households—43,420 of them—were in work, so I will not have it if the Minister, or anybody else on the Tory Benches, which I note are remarkably empty, gives us the old Tory trope that the policy is about people on benefits making the same choices as those supporting themselves solely through work. The benefit is designed to give people in the lowest-paid work a top-up, to help support them and to make sure that their children are fed and clothed.
Of those 73,530 households, 2,900 were able to keep their entitlement for a third child by claiming an exemption to the policy. There are largely three exemptions to the two-child limit. None of them is entirely logical, and I would recommend that hon. Members check out the Child Poverty Action Group’s page on the exemptions to see how mind-bendingly arcane they are.
The first exemption is the rape clause. I put on record again my absolute disgust at a policy that forces women to fill out a form to say that they have conceived their third child as a result of rape. It is absolutely inexcusable as a policy. For someone to have to put their child’s name on a form and say that they were conceived as a result of rape is beyond contempt, and the Government should know better than to treat women in that way. We know from the figures that, up until April, 190 women across the UK claimed under that exemption. That is 190 women who have had to replay the most traumatic experience of their life to put food on the table. The Government should hang their head in shame.
The second exemption is for twins, but it is not as simple as it ought to be. It applies if twins are born after a single birth, but not before. If someone has twins after two previous children, only one twin is eligible for payment, but both those twins need to eat. There may be two almost identical families with three children—one that had twins and then a single birth, and one that had a single birth and then twins—but only one is worthy of support from the Government, which is completely illogical.
The third exemption is for adoption, but not if someone has adopted from abroad or if they were a step-parent before they adopted the third child, so that is not simple either. An additional exemption has been made for kinship care. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn), who successfully campaigned for that on behalf of her constituent Alyssa Vessey, who lost an entitlement for her own child after taking on caring responsibilities for her three younger siblings. The clear result of the policy and the exemptions is discrimination. Families may have similar circumstances and needs, but some will lose out simply due to the order in which their children were born—something that those children certainly have no control over.
I understand that CPAG will be back in court on the issue before Christmas, and I wish it the very best with its case. It believes, and I agree, that the two-child limit breaches articles 8 and 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998. It is also beyond me how the limit could possibly be compliant with the UK Government’s obligations under the UN convention on the rights of the child.
There will also be an impact on blended families and families who may be encouraged to separate to avoid being hit by the limit. A friend also pointed out that women who have children from previous relationships will be caught should they wish to have a child with a new partner, which is very common, whereas the male partner may be able to go off and start a new family more easily without having the children with him.