Working-Age Disabled People

Anne Marie Morris Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2012 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Lloyd]

That is a moot point, because I know some people, even in my constituency, who have not been reviewed for many, many years, and who, in normal and sensible circumstances, would be going through a review process. The DWP has come up with the statistic and I think it is reasonably robust, but I take the hon. Lady’s criticism. Perhaps the Minister will clarify the matter.

Media coverage is one of the most challenging issues. The Department says that it recognises the need to work together and to do more to challenge and change negative attitudes towards disabled people. That is why, according to the Department, it is in the process of developing a new cross-Government disability strategy to give renewed impetus to the Government’s commitment to disability equality. Frankly, I do not think it is doing a very good job. I am disappointed with some of the media coverage in the past year or so, and, on occasion, with some of the responses, or even some of the stories that have been set running by either Ministers or the DWP.

The Committee recommended that the Government take on as a priority the fact that public opinion towards disabled people and disability benefits can be and is influenced by the media. We felt that the Government should take more stringent steps to ensure that their own contribution to media stories is accurate and contextualised by actively encouraging robust reporting of their own statistics on benefits.

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree—I think this emerged from the Select Committee report—that no Government and no political party can control the byline in a newspaper? I suspect that one of the challenges we have is that while we clearly need accuracy, we need to be mindful that we cannot control what the media write.

[Stephen Lloyd]

I agree to a great extent. The way that some of the media, particularly some of the tabloids, have been reporting the issue has been disgraceful. I have said that more times than anyone can possibly imagine. However, the DWP and the Government have an enormous responsibility when they are introducing such a seismic change to a benefit. Some of the time, the Government and Ministers have been good and positive, pushing strongly and actively the social model and what they are trying to achieve; at other times, they have been guilty of pandering to people who are more focused on what I might term the tabloid agenda.

The Government have an enormous responsibility, and I would like them to be aggressive. If one of the papers—I do not even need to mention them; we all know the ones I am talking about—comes out with a particularly inaccurate story, I would like to see the Minister and the Secretary of State dealing with it aggressively on the airwaves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd). I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), as Chair of the Select Committee, for her prescient, direct analysis of what we have found in our deliberations to be the areas that the Government must address with no small haste, because if they mess this one up, hundreds and thousands of people will suffer grievously for the inadequacies.

Concerns have already been expressed, which all hon. Members must have heard from our constituents, about the whole assessment process. We all have horror stories to tell about the previous Atos regime. It does not seem to have got any better, because the number of appeals against existing assessments, although not necessarily with regard to DLA, are rising exponentially and being upheld almost exponentially.

One of the most glaring holes in the Government’s approach to the assessment process is in the area of illnesses and disabilities that fluctuate, the most obvious to me, having had representation from my constituents, being Parkinson’s disease. I have also had representations on multiple sclerosis and myalgic encephalomyelitis, and that is long before we get into the variabilities of people who are lifelong sufferers of mental health problems, not least those who are bipolar. My hon. Friend gave an example of someone who may be perfectly capable of getting out of bed one day, but the next day is completely incapable of moving, but under the present structure they would possibly be deemed to be perfectly capable of moving every day. That is simply not the case.

Aside from the Government’s black propaganda agenda for people who claim the whole range of benefits, which we touched on earlier, the great irony of what is being proposed is that no one in Parliament or in the country would argue with the concept of assisting disabled people into work. That seems to be fundamental—why else do we have Equality Acts or laws against discrimination? We want people to work, and people with disabilities are themselves desperate to work, but the great paradox of the Government proposals is that they are actively working against the possibility of people with disabilities being able to get into work because the process is so cloudy and unclear, as is the other issue of what passported benefits—to use that good old cliché—they will still be able to claim.

[Anne Marie Morris]

Throughout the House there is acceptance that we want to do everything we can to enable people with disabilities to take a full part in life, whether working or not. If I may correct or add to what the hon. Lady said, I think it is true that more appeals have been unsuccessful than successful. My second point is the result of an interesting conversation that I had with our new Minister, who is dedicated to helping disabled people get into work. My constituents have said, “Well, that’s a lovely idea, but how can we do that when many of the jobs are nine-to-five?” I am pleased that the Minister is now looking carefully at what is happening in other jurisdictions to ensure that flexibility is available in the work on offer, so that those who have good days and bad days may still participate in the world of work.

[Glenda Jackson]

On the hon. Lady’s point about appeals not being upheld, the length of time taken to hear an appeal is growing exponentially—my favourite word—so we do not know. People are having to wait months before their appeal is heard, because of the increase in the number presented.

On the changes with regard to nine-to-five, with all due respect that applies to every woman who works—that situation already exists for women. The only job that they might be able to obtain is nine-to-five, although they have children who go to school and the times are completely outside their range. That is not something new that the Government have to address in particular for people with disabilities. If we are looking at the accessibility of existing jobs for people with disabilities, I give the example of one of my constituents who is profoundly deaf. One of the Government’s arguments on accessing the work capability assessment for DLA is that if people do not get the letter they can phone, but that is of absolutely no use to anyone who is profoundly deaf. It certainly does not help my constituent: if he goes along to the jobcentre because he has read about a job he could do, there is no one there to translate for him, so there are holes in the existing system, and I am concerned that they will become crevasses if the Government do not get their timing right and their assessment of people with DLA done within a reasonable period.

The assessments also need to take on board what we were told when the Government initially introduced their changes to the whole of the benefits system: the assessment process, which they accepted in the past had not been up to snuff, would be infinitely more flexible and sensitive. I see absolutely no signs, given the time scale for assessment of people with DLA, of greater flexibility and more sensitivity, which are absolute givens when talking about people whose lives will be fundamentally overturned if they fail to meet the precepts set down by the Government. With all due respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South, who as I said gave a remarkable oversight of the evidence and the concerns expressed, the organisations that work in concert with and on behalf of people with disabilities remain seriously concerned because such questions are not being answered now. We had evidence before us in Committee last week of a coroner in Leicestershire, I think, who attributed a suicide to the individual’s concerns about having to go through the DLA assessment. From our constituents we all know of the anxiety already out there, which is actively having an effect on people now.

That was my introductory rant, but what I am most concerned about is the linkage between services for people with disabilities and local authorities providing such services. Owing to the massive cuts imposed on local authorities, we are already seeing a major downturn in, or removal of, services that many people with disabilities have been or still are dependent on, my favourite example being day centres. They can be a major part of enabling someone who, for example, cares for a person with disabilities to work and to maintain their families. Those day centres are being closed, without there being any idea how support will be provided in the area and made accessible to all those who need it. That is another major issue, as is the accessibility of affordable transport, which is seemingly being taken away every five minutes. The argument that has always been made is that the kinds of services required by people with disabilities should be in their local communities, where they can be reached. An example given to me was of a six-year-old boy who needs a hydrotherapy pool. There is such a pool at the end of his street, but although it is in a state school, he does not attend it, so he is precluded from using it and his family have to drive 23 miles there and back to take their child to a hydrotherapy pool.

The overarching argument that I am attempting to put forward is that local authorities have a vital part to play in ensuring that people with disabilities can work, and that they can make a contribution not only in the workplace but in their local communities so that their quality of life and that of their whole family is improved. As we all know, in many instances if one or possibly two people in a family are disabled, the entire family is focused on supporting those people. The needs of the family can often be as great, if not greater, than those of the one family member.

I have probably exhausted the points that I wished to make. I am grateful for everyone’s patience. I stress to the Minister, however, that this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity not only for her Government but for the people in this country who have disabilities and for the much wider community—namely, the whole country. In future, do we really wish to be presented as a people who rejected the most vulnerable in society and who believed the black propaganda and accepted that the vulnerable were all workshy, when we all know that that is the antithesis of the truth? We have a duty to ensure that our best might possibly be demonstrated by the care we take of our weakest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Amess. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I look forward to welcoming the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) when she becomes a full member of the Work and Pensions Committee.

This is not a partisan point, but for clarification I should say that the Opposition support genuine reform when there are clear issues. We have never said that we do not. The issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), the Chair of the Committee, is that the reforms are cuts. That is an important point to have made. There are practical issues that we need to address, but fundamentally, the evidence supplied to us independently indicates that the reforms are cuts.

[Anne Marie Morris]

rose—

[Sheila Gilmore]

rose—

[Debbie Abrahams]

I give way to the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris).

[Anne Marie Morris]

The hon. Lady is very generous. As I understand it, when we look at the figures in terms of the reduced amount available in future—the 20% cut, as she would describe it—and the assessment for the old DLA, which took account of expected changes, there is no difference. I am not sure, therefore, that the talk about cuts is correct. It is more about recognising that the current system does not work, because people who need the support do not get it, and the people who do not need it, do. The cuts are really about trying to rebalance that.

[Debbie Abrahams]

I should also have said that I have to leave soon. I apologise because I will not be taking any more interventions, but I am happy to answer that question. What the Chancellor said in the emergency Budget in June 2010 was clear:

“It is right that people who are disabled are helped to lead a life of dignity. We will continue to support them, and we will not reduce the rate at which this benefit is paid. However, three times as many people claim it today than when it was introduced 18 years ago, and the costs have quadrupled in real terms to more than £11 billion a year, making it one of the largest items of Government spending.”—[Official Report, 22 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 173.]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South said, there will be a 20% reduction in the number of people who are able to have a disability-related benefit awarded to them, and significant savings, again, can be identified within the Government’s impact assessment.

I want to unpick what the Chancellor said in that statement. He was, and is, saying that even if the prevalence of people with disabilities has grown by three times—there was a very unpleasant undertone implying that it had not—sorry, folks, it is just not sustainable. That is the key message that has been coming through, as my hon. Friend made clear. The impact assessment on the personal independence payment was, again, telling. It said:

“The new benefit will help to ensure that expenditure on DLA is sustainable and resources focused on those most in need of additional support.”

It goes on to assert that although there is an association between low income and poor health, there is limited evidence that providing money will improve health, which is correct. However, it continued:

“It is possible that the policy could have positive impacts on health if it leads to more disabled people moving into work.”

That, too, is very telling. First, the evidence was deflated or inflated, depending on what it said, to support the policy to get rid of DLA and replace it with PIP. The evidence was clearly manipulated and the lack of a comprehensive evidence base is shameful; my hon. Friend referred to that. There is real concern that the policy is being railroaded through. As we have discussed, there are a number of independent disabled people who are able to work. That is absolutely fantastic, but there are also some very vulnerable disabled people. The benefit should take them into account as much as it does those who are independent.

Secondly, the impact assessment makes an association with the positive impacts of work on health—which again, there are—when DLA has always been about helping contribute to the extra costs of being disabled. It is not an out-of-work benefit, so that relates to shifting the mindset of what the change is about. That is so important. The allowance has always been about supporting people with disabilities to lead as normal a life as possible.

For the record, the evidence on the trends in disability reflects our industrial heritage. The regions with heavy industries and occupations that did people’s health no favours have the highest rates of disability and ill health. There are diseases such as coal miners’ pneumoconiosis, asbestosis and silicosis. Of course, many of those diseases have long latencies, and there are industrial accidents that Members will be familiar with. Most work is good for people’s health, but not all, and there is strong evidence about that.

As I have said, we can agree—there is consensus across the House—that the DLA system, as it stands, is flawed. For example, a clear system for reviewing some awards is needed, but we should not restrict the access to support to overcome the barriers to day-to-day living that a person with a disability faces. That is what we need to address.

As I said before, the Government’s own estimates predict that more than 500,000 people will not receive this support. As many expert witnesses in the Select Committee’s inquiry concluded, cutting DLA is nothing more than a cost-cutting exercise. It is part of the wider erosion of the welfare state. As has been said, public buy-in is achieved by changing our view of what welfare is about. Unfortunately, the Government have a willing accomplice in the media to help them to do that.

I am really disappointed. We have talked about the role of the media. We have done a number of reports highlighting the importance of the media’s role and of responsible press releases and statements. However, this morning on the “Today” programme, the Secretary of State was talking as though people who are claiming benefits are a drain on society. It was a very inaccurate portrayal of benefit recipients. It was an attempt once again to suggest that the majority are workshy scroungers when the facts are that most people on benefits are in work and most are net contributors to the Treasury. That was not being reported; it was as though people were really abusing the system. There have been a number of such reports, and that has to change.

In addition to the reporting and the way in which attitudes to welfare are being changed, a system is being created in which people on higher incomes see themselves as separate to or outside the welfare state. We are not in post-war Britain. At that time, there was buy-in to the welfare state by everyone. Everyone saw themselves as contributing to and gaining from it. We were literally all in it together.

The final issue—this happened in the US under Reagan—is the putting in place of policies whose implications are unclear. Little has been done to assess the impact on the people they will affect. We have talked about the shameful impact assessment. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South talked about the lack of information available on the implications of this benefit change.

Despite a detailed, evidence-based inquiry by the Select Committee, the Government have rejected our recommendations out of hand. They seem determined to press on with what they are doing. I really have concerns about that. My hon. Friend mentioned the case in which a coroner reported that a suicide could be directly attributed to the pressure that was felt by someone with mental illness as a result of having to go through the work capability assessment. Is this really the type of society that we want to live in? I ask that question because I have—