Benefit Sanctioning

David Simpson Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Paul Blomfield]

I didn’t catch it from you, Minister.

Some of the project’s clients, in their first home, will suddenly receive a letter that they either cannot read or do not understand, and they will therefore miss an appointment and find themselves sanctioned, out of their home and back on the streets. They go to the jobcentre and are told, “Go along to the Cathedral Archer Project. They will feed you.” That transforms the role of an important local charity from making a strategic intervention to help people off the streets, into homes and into work to just being a crisis centre.

I am pleased to have secured this debate to raise such concerns directly and to make some practical proposals on how the Government can address the issue. Much of what I have to say is based on the work of Sheffield Citizens Advice, which is a great organisation that provides vital support to people across our city, finds solutions and supports people in complex situations. In doing so, it saves public money by averting crisis further down the line. In May, the organisation’s social policy group produced a report on the experience of jobseeker’s allowance sanctions based on the previous 12 months. I am pleased that the report’s author is in Westminster for today’s debate. The Department for Work and Pensions received a copy of the report when it was published, and it has been in correspondence with Sheffield Citizens Advice. I sent a further copy to the Minister before today’s debate so that we can properly consider its recommendations.

I must stress how helpful it is for such evidence to be gathered and presented so clearly by those working directly with the people affected by Government policy, with concrete recommendations about what can be done to improve the system. I hope the Minister will treat that work by people on the front line as seriously as it deserves to be treated. I make it absolutely clear at the outset that neither the report nor my contribution opposes the principle of sanctioning within the benefit system. Applying sanctions to those who are deliberately not seeking work, who are unavailable for work or who have no intention of working can disincentivise such behaviour and, in combination with the right support and training, can help people on the road to getting a job that provides not only an income but self-esteem, purpose, socialisation and accomplishment, but—and it is a very big but—any sanctioning regime has to be humane. The Sheffield Citizens Advice report clearly shows that there is an increasing number of incidents where the system is neither humane nor—this is important—serving its stated purpose of getting more people into work. In fact, the system is having the opposite effect in many cases.

Some of the stories outlined in the report will be all too familiar to hon. Members. I will briefly share the experiences of a couple of my constituents that are not detailed in the report. One constituent prefers to remain anonymous, so I will call her Mary. She was made redundant from a job as a cleaner, so she had to sign on for the first time in her life. She was told by an officer at the jobcentre that her next appointment with a job adviser would be on her signing-on day. She was told that there was no need to come in and sign on in the morning because she could do it when she came in for her 3 pm appointment. That information was wrong: the job adviser appointment was two days before Mary’s signing-on day. We all make mistakes, but it is simply and clearly not right that Mary, who had gone to the jobcentre for help to find a job, was punished for the officer’s mistake. It was an honest mistake, but it was a mistake, and she faced the consequences. Mary had to borrow money to get by, and I am pleased to say that she is now back in work with a cleaning job, but she got there despite the system, not because of it.

Mary understood what she needed to do, but she was wrongly advised. There are plenty of examples in the Sheffield Citizens Advice report of people who are not clear about what is expected of them:

“Alan was given a 4 week sanction for not actively seeking work. Because of his limited literacy/numeracy skills he had been enrolled for an 8 week course in English and Maths. He thought that as he was taking this course he did not need to complete his work search book for that period.”

That was an honest mistake. The report continues:

“Tony is in his mid 50s and is vulnerable because of his learning disabilities and dyslexia. He can’t read or write. Despite the fact that he gets significant support with looking for work from a local Job Club, he was sanctioned for not doing ‘enough’ jobseeking.”

Another constituent, coincidentally also called Tony, thinks he was sanctioned because the activity on his Universal Jobmatch account was considered too low by the jobcentre. I say that he thinks that was the reason for his being sanctioned because he has not yet been notified of the reasons for the sanctioning. Tony is eager to find employment and has completed an IT course through the jobcentre to help him find work online. He does not have access to a computer at home, so he spends much of the day at the central library waiting for his turn on the computer to show activity on Universal Jobmatch. That is in addition to going to workplaces in Sheffield looking for work, but he has been sanctioned. As a result of that sanctioning, he has been referred to the Salvation Army food bank in my constituency.

The question is whether sanctions are the right response to such situations, and not only because of their impact on people. Will they actually bring about the behavioural change that they purport to seek? Might the sanctions hinder, rather than help, the people who are affected?

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on obtaining this debate. The emphasis should be on how we root out those who are abusing the system. If the sanctions are harder on some people than on others, how do we get a mechanism that will root out those who are abusing the system by not turning up for appointments? When I speak to benefits centres in Northern Ireland, they tell me that a large number of people are abusing the system. How do we get a system that provides a level playing field for all?

[Paul Blomfield]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. There are people who take advantage of any system, there are people who avoid their tax obligations, and so on. The point I am seeking to make is that if we design a system with the stated objective that he describes—supporting people back into work and taking sanctions against those who deliberately avoid it—we have to measure the effectiveness of the system against its stated objectives. My contention is that the operation of the system is failing that objective, so I ask myself why these seemingly illogical sanctioning decisions are being made.

Coincidentally, last Thursday I was out knocking on doors and meeting constituents, and I knocked on the door of a jobcentre worker. She described to me a range of issues that she faced in her daily work. I happened to mention that we were having this debate this morning, and she immediately responded by talking about the pressure that she and her colleagues felt they were being put under to impose sanctions.

That is a serious point. Indeed, in a survey of staff within the Department for Work and Pensions that was conducted by the Public and Commercial Services Union, 23% of union members surveyed said they had been given explicit targets for referring claimants for sanctions; 36% stated that they had been placed on a performance improvement plan for not making enough sanctions referrals; and 10% said that they had gone through poor performance procedures for not making enough sanctions referrals.

I know that the Government will say that there is no pressure to sanction, but the DWP acknowledges that statistics on sanctions are collated centrally and that local jobcentre managers will be contacted if their performance is out of line with that of other jobcentres. If this is a matter of good management, and no league tables are being compiled and no targets are being set, why is a lower level of sanctions seen as a sign of poor performance by a jobcentre manager?

Turning to how the situation can be improved, I start on a positive note. The Government’s independent review of jobseeker’s allowance sanctions carried out by Matthew Oakley was certainly a welcome step. Although its remit was limited—I will come on to that point shortly— it made some important suggestions about how communications and processes within the JSA sanctioning system can be improved.

I will not go into details, but a key point to take from that review is the lack of understanding between the claimant and the jobcentre. That chimes exactly with what Sheffield Citizens Advice is saying: too many claimants are not being adequately or appropriately informed of what is expected from them in the first place. They are not being informed about what they have done wrong when they have been sanctioned, and how to avoid the situation happening again.

The Sheffield Citizens Advice report chimes with the points that Matthew Oakley made. It says:

“A common experience is that they realise that no money has been paid into the bank first and then later get a letter stating that their benefits have been stopped.”

Will the Minister say what school of behavioural economics that sort of approach comes from? If a jobseeker does not understand the agreement that they have entered into, how does sanctioning achieve its aim, and how can sanctioning serve as a disincentive if a jobseeker does not know what behaviour triggers a sanction?

Perhaps Tony, whom I mentioned earlier and is mentioned in the report, was told that he needed to do more jobsearching, or perhaps he was sent a letter to that effect. That might be the case; I am not clear on that point. However, I know from talking to other constituents that such letters have led to sanctioning when they have not been responded to properly. The problem is that Tony cannot read; he has learning disabilities. He wants to work, but in that context the letter is meaningless, so what is the Minister doing to ensure that jobcentre staff are sensitive to such barriers—the barriers that claimants face in engaging with them? As I have said, it is positive that the DWP has responded to the Oakley review by setting up a specialist team to look at communications, but I would be grateful if the Minister updated us on the work of that team and outlined exactly what has changed as a result of its work. Will she also address some of the other recommendations in the report when she responds to the debate?

Many claimants tell Citizens Advice that they were not aware that they had been sanctioned until they contacted the jobcentre after finding out that they had no money in their bank account. Subsequent decision letters are often poorly worded, and without a clear explanation as to the misconduct that led to the imposition of sanctions. I urge the Minister to respond to the following proposals to address this issue: the wording of decision letters should be reviewed, so as to provide more detailed information about what led to the sanction, and to give information about the possible knock-on consequences of not responding to the decision letter; a sanction should not be put into effect until the decision letter notifying the claimant has been sent and a reasonable time for it to be delivered has passed; and notification letters should clearly inform the claimant of their right to challenge the sanction, explaining how to do so and, where appropriate, how to access hardship payments.

I say that because the Sheffield Citizens Advice report details how sanctions are often imposed because claimants failed to carry out agreed steps or activities even though many of them face barriers—through language, caring responsibilities or health problems—that mean they could not reasonably have carried out the agreed steps. That is an important point: they could not reasonably have been expected to respond. Other claimants do not understand what has been agreed and, according to the report, jobcentre staff are not aware of the genuine barriers that some claimants face.

I urge the Minister to respond to the following proposals to address this situation. First, jobcentres should make claimants aware that they have a say in the content of jobseekers’ agreements, and that this is a two-way process that should have claimants’ full engagement. It is supposed to be a partnership leading people into work. Claimants should be made aware that they have a right to have the agreement reviewed if they are not happy with the content.

Secondly, jobcentres should take whatever steps are necessary to be certain that all relevant factors that could possibly act as a barrier to work have been taken fully into account when deciding on the content of a jobseeker’s agreement. I have already cited some of the barriers that exist. Thirdly, jobcentre staff should be invited to awareness training about the practical and specific difficulties faced by some claimants; those difficulties may be learning disabilities, mental health issues or language barriers. I make this proposal because the Minister will agree that without workable, reasonable and well-understood agreements between jobcentres and claimants, the process is bound to fail, and if it fails it will clearly cause extraordinary hardship. I visited a food bank that I helped to establish in the heart of my constituency. The increase in the demand for its services is in significant part due to the increase in benefits sanctioning—the same is reported by other food banks across the city.

amendment of the law

David Simpson Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend and colleague for that intervention. He outlines the fact that although we have seen a lot of movement, we need to see more. It is always good to see such movement happening.

I also applaud the introduction of the married couples transferable tax allowance, which was in the Conservative manifesto and which the Democratic Unionist party has supported. I suspect that we may be the only party on the Opposition Benches that has done so, but we have, and we put that on record. The perplexing thing about it is that there is to be no child care element for those in the middle band, while a child care element is in place for the lower and higher bands. My party will continue to push for that, and I hope that we get some concessions. Having liaised with various bodies about the Budget, I would like to highlight a few issues, most of which are important health issues. On tobacco and alcohol duty, Professor Sheila Hollins, chair of the British Medical Association board of science, has said:

“The Government is giving with one hand and taking with another, with a step forward on measures to reduce smoking but backward on tackling alcohol related harm.”

I understand her viewpoint. The extension of the tobacco tax escalator is certainly welcome from a health perspective, as it will reduce the affordability of cigarettes, which is an essential component in deterring children from taking up smoking. That is the greatest concern. However, while Cancer Research UK welcomes the extension of the 2% above inflation annual tobacco tax rise for the whole of the next Parliament, it has been suggested to me that a one-off increase of 5% above inflation in this Budget would lead to a fall in the number of smokers by 334,000, or 0.7 percentage points. How can we go against those figures supplied by Cancer Research? That is a measure that should have been introduced.

Furthermore, Cancer Research suggests that considerable benefits would accrue to the public finances from a reduction in smoking—a total of £199 million in the first year and more than £1 billion over the next five years —never mind the direct health and disease reduction benefits. Perhaps a way of achieving that would have been to narrow the price gap between manufactured cigarettes and hand-rolling tobacco. I am aware that a submission to the Treasury in advance of the Budget by Action on Smoking and Health and the UK Centre for Tobacco Control Studies, endorsed by 80 health organisations including Cancer Research UK, urged the Chancellor to increase the tobacco tax escalator to 5% above inflation in order to reduce smoking, while at the same time raising much-needed revenue, and I again press the Government to consider that for the future. Perhaps the Minister can tell us when that might happen or what the Government’s intentions are.

I use this opportunity to ask the Government to continue to prioritise tackling tobacco and urge that we press ahead with standardised packaging once the independent review of the public health evidence has concluded.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

It has been advocated for some time that we should consider a minimum price for alcohol, which in the long term will have an effect on liver disease or whatever. Surely a lot of money could be saved if that was introduced.

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend must have read my notes. I slipped out for a while so I suspect that he had a look at them.

Unemployment (Halifax)

David Simpson Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Riordan]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and as I will show later in my speech, I do not intend to talk down Halifax—quite the reverse. I saw the Halifax Courier on Saturday night and read about the new jobs that have been created in Calder Valley. The Halifax Courier is a great source of local knowledge. It talks up Halifax and I have worked with it on many local campaigns, including that to get a direct train service to London, which we accomplished a couple of years ago.

Why have I called this debate today? It is not to make overt party political points, but rather to set out the background and put on the record the current unemployment figures in Halifax which, I am afraid, speak for themselves. I find such figures alarming and wish to seek answers and assurances from the Minister about what can be done. What can be changed, and what initiatives is he planning to ensure that levels of unemployment start to reduce in my constituency?

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate; the difficulties that she has expressed are mirrored in many of our constituencies. Does she believe that the onus should be put on apprenticeships and further education colleges to provide proper courses for what industry needs, together with a closer working relationship with organisations such as the CBI and the Federation of Small Businesses?

[Mrs Riordan]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I agree with his point about apprenticeship schemes. In fact, just last Friday, I visited Goodall Transport in Sowerby Bridge in Halifax. It has been there for quite a few years. It would like more money coming up north, because it sees money directed more to the south of England. Also, it struggles with paying VAT before it gets that VAT into the company. It might invoice someone today and have to pay the VAT at the end of February, but not get the VAT by then. Perhaps the Minister will reply to that.

I hope that the Minister agrees that the current levels of unemployment in the town that I represent are unacceptably high, that the current upward trend in the number of people out of work is alarming and that a worryingly large number of those people are in the key 18 to 24 and 25 to 50 age groups. For example, the number of people out of work aged 24 and under has gone up by more than 25% in the last year, and in the 25 to 49 age group, it is up by more than 15%. The overall employment rate is only 66%. That is an alarmingly low level. I hope that the Minister shares my concerns about those rates. Does he agree that under one in four of the active adult population out of work in Halifax is a damning statistic? Will he outline what initiatives can be taken to improve that situation and put in place job creation measures as a matter of urgency, not just at macro-economic level, but at a micro-economic level that benefits my constituents?

Earlier today, I was looking at the statistics from five years ago. The unemployment level in Halifax has nearly doubled in that period. Despite the stereotyping last week of benefit claimants, they are people who want to work and need to work. The whole social fabric of a town can collapse if unemployment levels get too high. Let me be clear: I think that one person out of work is one too many. Does the Minister share my concerns about the figures that I have mentioned? What policies can he introduce to help to stem the flow of job losses, which is rapidly becoming a torrent?

The current situation is fragile, and the campaign to save jobs in the town’s two biggest employers—Lloyds HBOS and Calderdale council—goes on. The knock-on effects for the town of more job losses at those two big employers would be devastating. As Roger Harvey of Harveys department store regularly says to me, “Many town centre businesses need and rely on these jobs.” The fabric of the town is held together by them, and we need both a strong public sector and a private sector in Halifax to ensure that the town’s economic and social base is held together. With the greatest politeness and respect, I say to the Minister that the Government might be misunderstanding towns such as Halifax if they think that a reliance on private sector jobs will create new jobs or replace the ones that are being lost and being lost at a rapid rate.

In that sense, every effort should be being made to protect all jobs at Lloyds HBOS. The Government own more than 40% of that company. Will the Minister tell me what input he has into the board of Lloyds and what he is doing to protect jobs in Halifax and other constituencies? Will he also tell me how shedding public sector jobs helps towns such as Halifax? Will he do all that he can to compensate for those losses and outline what measures he is taking to ensure that new jobs will be created?

Calderdale council is at the heart of the Halifax and Calderdale economy. The reductions in council budgets are hurting the town. Again, may I gently mention that towns in the home counties and other parts of the country can better absorb public sector job losses? When there is a private sector, or towns have grown up with more service-based industries, new jobs can be created much more easily. In northern towns such as Halifax, which have always had a strong and important public sector, that is much harder to do. I hope that the Government fully realise what makes the economy in places such as my constituency tick and how cutting the public sector, but not giving the private sector the means to create new jobs, leads to a damaging and shocking increase in unemployment.

I do not want to knock everything. There are success stories, such as those that I mentioned at the beginning of my speech. I recently visited the Iplas recycling company. The managing director, Howard Waghorn, has visionary and innovative ideas for his company. Likewise, the order book of J&C Joel in Sowerby Bridge continues to expand. However, those are well-run, long-established companies. The new industries and entrepreneurs with innovative ideas needed for the 21st century will not appear in towns such as Halifax simply through the waving of a magic wand and hoping that new jobs are created. I do not want to pretend that everything in Halifax is gloomy. It is not. We need to keep our self-confidence and hope. There are success stories. I am sure, or rather I hope, that the Minister will quote them back to me when he replies.

In essence, I would like the Minister and the Government to recognise the underlying problem that exists in towns such as Halifax, not hide away from it. I hope that the figures that I have cited alarm the Minister as much as they have alarmed me. I would like to hear some answers about what can be done, not excuses for what has not been done. I would like the Minister to assure me that job creation and regeneration schemes will be targeted on Halifax. The initiatives from the Department for Communities and Local Government will help Calderdale council. However, we want not short-term fixes, but long-term solutions. Therefore, I would be grateful if the Minister outlined what his short and long-term plan is for reducing unemployment in Halifax today, before the terrible consequences of further unemployment become a crisis, with people out of work and the whole social fabric of the town ripped apart.

Inflammatory Bowel Disease

David Simpson Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2012 Westminster Hall

[Chris Evans]

Yes, absolutely, and that is really the crux of the issue. IBD is not a condition that causes symptoms all the time; there are flare-ups, and then the condition goes back down and people go back to normal life. If there is a problem in the civil service, I hope that the Minister will address it when he responds to the debate.

In today’s economic climate, with youth unemployment at the level that it is, we cannot allow someone with IBD to believe that their condition bars them from the job market. I heard another story of a young person, James, who was diagnosed with IBD in his early teens. James is currently studying for a degree at the university of Sheffield, but he is worried about managing his symptoms in the workplace when he graduates and begins to look for work in what is already a challenging job market. James has said:

“I think the use of the toilet without restrictions has to be paramount. I also think employers should give employees the opportunity to confidentially declare any illnesses which may affect the efficiency of their work. I think employees, regardless of what illness they have, should be allowed to use the facilities, so people who are ill do not feel isolated. Also, I think there should be no stigma attached to having the sudden urge to use the toilet. This is often the case, I would have thought, if you work/live with the same people for a long time. I am concerned that, after having worked so hard to get my first job after I graduate, if I have to have time off for illness or procedures I will be under more pressure in my job. The job market is so competitive and if someone is less ill than me, I will be placed under more pressure due to a situation beyond my control. It is pretty inevitable that I may need time off while working, but due to the competitiveness of the job market there will always someone who will be able to take my place.”

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I congratulate him on securing this debate. In my own company, which I have registered in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, we have experienced this problem, as it affected one of our management team. As a company, we decided that we would facilitate that individual because they were a good worker; they were enthusiastic in what they did. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has raised the issue of the civil service, surely the private sector needs to take a grip of this issue and a company ought to overlook the difficulties that a person—old or young—may have and see the potential benefits they can offer.

[Chris Evans]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for putting that policy in place in his company. As I have said, when I have spoken to people about IBD there is a real fear of being embarrassed about it and not being able to tell someone about it. If a company creates a culture or an environment where an employee can go to their boss and say, “I’ve got this condition,” in many cases the problem can be overcome and resolved. As the hon. Gentleman has this example of something that has worked, I hope that it can be passed on to the Minister, perhaps to solve the problem that the hon. Member for Strangford raised about the civil service.

Disability Hate Crime

David Simpson Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd November 2011 Westminster Hall

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

It is, as always, a privilege to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Gray. I am pleased to have the chance to open this debate.

Writer and journalist Katherine Quarmby, who addressed a joint meeting of the all-party groups on disability and learning disability in Parliament a couple of months ago, told us that in the course of her research into the subject she had been unable to find much evidence that disability hate crime had been debated in either House in Parliament. I am glad that we are able to put that right today.

The issue concerns many hon. Members from across the House. I am particularly pleased to see the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), who has done a great deal of work on this subject, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire), who will be responding to the debate from the Labour Front Bench.

I acknowledge the Lord Chancellor’s commitment to align the tariff for murder where disability is a motivating or aggravating feature with that for race, religion and sexuality, which he made in response to my amendment to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill last month. That amendment enjoyed the support of a number of hon. Members from across the House.

That commitment was a useful step in the right direction and one that organisations such as Mencap, the National Autistic Society, the Equality and Human Rights Commission and others have been calling for. I welcome the Lord Chancellor’s undertaking and look forward to hearing in more detail how the Government will progress his commitment.

The reality is that sentencing for murder is just the tip of a deeply disturbing and significant problem. As the recent EHRC report “Hidden in plain sight” has shown, attitudes, behaviours and practices, both institutional and individual, are contributing to a growing climate of hostility towards disabled people and fall well short of being a satisfactory response to the harassment of those people and the commission of crimes against them. I hope that today’s debate will give the Minister the opportunity to tell us specifically what actions the Government are taking to address so-called disability hate crime and to tackle one of the nastiest, most disgraceful forms of crime in our society. The coalition Government have promised a hate crime action plan, but we are still waiting for it. Disabled people, their families and campaigners are rightly anxious for action now.

The EHRC reports that around 1.9 million disabled people were victims of crime in 2009-10. We do not know how many were victims of harassment, but we do know that disabled people face a greater risk of being a victim of crime than people who are not disabled. There is also evidence that disabled people are more likely to experience antisocial behaviour, although more research is needed on that to confirm the scale of the problem. That is clearly unacceptable. What is worse, we also know that too often disabled people will feel forced to put up with a pattern of harassment, humiliation, antisocial behaviour and low-level criminal behaviour and come to accept it as an inevitable part of their lives.

What may start as relatively low-level harassment all too often escalates, becoming intolerable for the victim. In the worst cases, it can spiral to the point of violence, even murder, or to a situation in which victims and their families are simply unable to carry on with their lives. Hon. Members will be all too aware of the shocking case of Fiona Pilkington and her daughter Francecca, whose suffering of persistent harassment and abuse ultimately led to their deaths.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on obtaining this important debate. She has mentioned the issue of attacks on people with disabilities. Does she not agree that there needs to be a campaign to increase awareness of that? We congratulate Mencap on its excellent “Stand by Me” campaign, but does she not agree that such awareness needs to start back at primary school? Schools need to have a role and to teach our young people to have respect for people with disabilities.

[Kate Green]

Indeed, and I will say a little more about that. It is an important point that highlights that some of the perpetrators of really shocking instances of abuse and criminal behaviour are very young. Intervening early to demonstrate to them the absolute unacceptability of such behaviour is clearly the right thing to do.

Cases such as that of Fiona and Francecca Pilkington are of course the extreme, but they exist in a context of rising hostility to disabled people, which fuels abusive behaviour and leads to an increase in the harassment of them. Recent research for Scope by ComRes has shown that 47 % of disabled people feel that attitudes towards them had got worse over the past year, with 66% of disabled people reporting experiencing aggression, hostility or name calling.

A study published last month by the Glasgow Media Group, which analyses how the media are reporting disability in the context of Government spending cuts, reveals a major shift in how disabled people are portrayed, and the negative impact that that is having, both on public attitudes and on disabled people themselves. The research found a fall in media coverage that described disabled people in sympathetic and deserving terms, and an increase in the number of articles focusing on disability benefit fraud. Researchers observed an increase in articles portraying disabled people as a “burden” on the economy, with some articles even blaming the recession on incapacity benefits claimants.

Harassment and attacks exist and flourish in that context of hostility—a context, it has to be said, to which politicians are helping to contribute. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge the derogatory and damaging language that has surrounded too much of the debate about welfare reform, and will give her commitment that there is a determination across Government to stamp out any negative portrayal of disabled people.

Although attitudes and language are important, campaigners have rightly identified the need for a much wider, whole-system change. That requires that public bodies and the professionals who work in them treat all manifestations of disability-related harassment and hate crime with the utmost seriousness. Too often, victims fail to report harassment and attacks, because they are unsure to whom they should report them, or because they feel that they will not be believed. Too often, when attacks are reported, the response of the professionals is to focus on the behaviour of the victim and how that should change. In other words, they focus on how victims should curtail their lives to avoid finding themselves in a situation in which they continue to experience harassment. That cannot be right. The priority must be to focus on the behaviour of the perpetrators, to challenge behaviour that is unacceptable, to deal appropriately with criminal behaviour and to take all necessary steps to prevent it occurring.

Pensioners and Winter Fuel Payments

David Simpson Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

It is important to say at the start that DUP Members support the measures that coalition Members have talked about, including insulating walls and new windows, but we need to talk about now. We are coming into the winter, and we need to talk about winter fuel payments. Those other measures are good in their place, and eventually—hopefully—they will be implemented in many of our older buildings in the UK, but that is not happening now. We need to talk about the here and now of winter fuel payments.

I begin by quoting a Government Minister speaking in this Chamber a little earlier this year:

“I am sorry, we got this one wrong—but we have listened to people’s concerns. I thank colleagues for their support through what has been a very difficult issue. I now want to move forward in step with the public. I hope that the measures that I have announced today, signalling a fresh approach, demonstrate my intention to do the right thing”.—[Official Report, 17 February 2011; Vol. 523, c. 1155-1156.]

That was the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs speaking about forestry. Would it not be an extraordinary state of affairs if a member of Her Majesty’s Government could come to the House to offer an apology, concede that the Government have got it wrong, say that they had listened to the people and announce a change of direction on forests, but another member of the Government says that there could be no such apology, announcement or about-turn when it comes to our elderly, who are some of the weakest and most vulnerable members of our society?

That is the distasteful core of the debate, and it is why the DUP moved this motion today. Some hon. Members might feel that using words such as “distasteful” is taking things a bit far, but let me quote from the independent financial advice website, moneysavingexpert.com. On 24 March 2011, it reported that the Chancellor had “secretly” cut the allowance. In an article published on 19 October 2011, fullfact.org considered the conflicting arguments between the political parties and referenced a recent piece jointly written by the Prime Minister on moneysavingexpert.com on 17 October. The fullfact.org article concluded by saying that despite questions on how long the payment was intended for,

“there seems to be no question that the payments are being reduced.”

My colleagues mentioned this earlier, but it perhaps needs to be mentioned again. The Minister asked, “Where does this extra money come from?” In that respect, we need to emphasise the hundreds of millions of pounds that have been poured into Europe—in Northern Ireland, we would say that it is disappearing like snow off a ditch. We see no benefit from the money, but our old and other members of society in the UK are suffering greatly for it. The Government need to re-look at the money that they are pouring into Europe while our old and infirm are suffering at home.

According to uSwitch.com, the price comparison website, the position for many in the UK is that since November last year, energy suppliers have increased their prices by £224, or 21%, on average. As a result, the average household energy bill has rocketed from £1,069 to £1,293 a year. In just over five years, household energy bills have rocketed by £633, or 96%, from £660 a year in 2006 to £1,293 a year today, following recent increases.

The number of those in fuel poverty has spiralled, with 6.9 million, or 27%, of households now affected. The worst affected groups are single working parents, pensioners or couples living off one income. Almost nine in 10 households—89%—will ration their energy use this winter to save on bills. As a result, potentially 23 million households will be switching off or turning down this winter, 4 million—or 16%—more than last year.

Eighty-seven per cent. of people are worried about the cost of their energy bills as they head towards the winter months, 26% more than last year. Fifty-five per cent. of people went without heating at some point last winter to keep energy costs down. That looks set to rise. The hefty 21%, or £224, hike in the last year means that energy costs are the top household worry for consumers—90% of households are worried about energy costs, whereas 42% of households are worried about mortgage payments and 77% are worried about the rising cost of food.

The disposable income of more than nine in 10 households —93%—has been hit by the rising cost of energy. Thirty-seven per cent. have seen a dramatic reduction in their disposable income, while 19% no longer have disposable income. More than one in three households—37%—are in bill debt and are using credit to cover their day-to-day household bills. Thirty-six per cent. owe more than £1,000 and more than one in 10 households—14%—owe more than £3,000.

If ever a year were exactly the worst time to introduce such a cut, it is this one. If ever there were a year when introducing such a cut was precisely the last thing that the Government ought to do, it is this one.

This debate was introduced by the DUP, but it is not simply about Northern Ireland; it is rightly about the entire UK. However, alongside the issues that I raised previously, I should like to focus on Northern Ireland. According to Age Sector Platform—other right hon. and hon. Members have stated this, but it needs to be stated again—last winter, Northern Ireland faced the coldest December for more than 100 years. It was a horrific time for the elderly. According to figures that I have been given, during the winter of 2009-10, 756 people aged 65-plus died of cold-related illnesses in Northern Ireland.

With the additional costs, the price hikes, the increased bill debt, the reduced disposable income and the increased rationing of warmth, does any right hon. or hon. Member really suppose that we will not witness more vulnerable people dying needlessly this year? Does anyone suppose that the planned cut will reduce the number of deaths? If the Government can come to the Chamber, offer an apology, claim to have listened to the views of the public and announce a U-turn on forests, why can they not do likewise for the old, the frail and the most vulnerable in our society?

There are many men and women fighting for this country in Afghanistan, or who fought in Iraq and Libya, who have parents at home who are vulnerable and getting it hard. They are fighting for their country while this coalition has taken away the very money that could help to heat their parents’ homes. That decision is unacceptable and needs to be reversed. If the Government can do it for forests, surely to goodness they can do it for the most vulnerable in our society.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Disabled Young People (Support)

David Simpson Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2011 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Lloyd]

Yes, I agree. I will touch on what the Green Paper says about SEN, but the problem that the hon. Lady raises is clearly of long standing.

The learning difficulty assessments were found to be not always timely or adequately completed, and did not form a reliable basis on which to plan support or an appropriate programme of learning. The transition at age 19 from children’s to adult services, and from the Young People’s Learning Agency to the Skills Funding Agency, created barriers for learners when they encountered different criteria for funding. Learners and their parents or carers identified that they would have welcomed more advice and careers guidance when they received a personal budget for purchasing a learning programme, care and support.

I am conscious, as I am sure the Minister is, that I am covering a range of responsibilities which is perhaps broader than her remit, but that is the reality of disability, in particular in the transition for disabled children or young adults, because so many different areas of Government and statutory services are touched. As I was drafting my speech, I half envisaged five different Ministers from the different Departments attending today because the subject covers such a wide area, but somehow I knew, even with my delusions of grandeur, that that would be unlikely.

Too little is known about the destinations of learners once they leave post-16 provision. A more systematic national approach to the collection and analysis of data about learners’ destinations would help to ensure that limited public resources were deployed effectively to support learners in making a successful transition to adult life.

Finally, I come to the Government’s proposed welfare changes, such as the transfer from the disability living allowance to the personal independence payment and the reforms to housing benefit. I am a member of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions—I am delighted to see some colleagues are present—and I support the direction of travel of many of the changes being proposed by the Department for Work and Pensions, in particular the Work programme. We are discussing young adults and children, but about 2 million children today are growing up in households in which no one works. That is a national scandal which I hope that the Work programme will address rationally and productively—I think that it is doing so.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on obtaining the debate. Many of us in the Chamber have in our constituencies special needs schools and schools dealing with children who have disabilities and learning difficulties, and I agree entirely with what he said about the dearth of activity for young people with special needs post-16 and post-19. He mentioned multi-agency work to help those young people, but does he agree that the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses and their like should be encouraging their members to employ young people who might have learning difficulties or some form of disability?

[Stephen Lloyd]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that important point, which I will discuss when I talk about the Work programme and the black box principle, which I am excited about. Having been in business for many years before coming into politics, I passionately support more businesses employing and recruiting disabled people, because more often than not they are very good employees, but I am conscious that because many small businesses lack understanding of disability, they often will not let disabled people through the door, irrespective of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

[Stephen Lloyd]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Again, he makes a good point about mental health, which still causes fear in people. As vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on mental health and having grown up with a mother who had bipolar disorder, I have experience of and am familiar with mental health issues. I know that they may be a real challenge, but I also know that anxiety, fear and lack of understanding on the part of many people stop many of their fellow citizens contributing very effectively in jobs. Most people with mental health incapacity manage their incapacity.

The challenge of persuading the Federation of Small Businesses, the CBI and so on to take on more disabled people needs a push, and it will be underpinned by the Work programme. Some specialist small charities and training companies understand mental health and learning disability, and part of the opportunity of the black box principle and the Work programme is that there should be enough money for those smaller organisations to engage with local employers to help to break down that barrier. I would like the major trade associations to take more responsibility and to step up to the plate. I would like them to make a commitment. I am a parliamentary champion of the FSB, and I have a meeting with it tomorrow when I shall remind it of that. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.

I have specific concerns about the welfare changes involving young adults and children, and the change from disability living allowance to personal independence payment. I shall be grateful if the Minister puts them to rest. The Government have stated clearly that they intend initially to migrate working-age people to the new PIP, which means that until all age groups are migrated on to PIP, there will be two very different benefit systems for disabled people. The Every Disabled Child Matters campaign group, with which I have worked closely, is calling for under-16s not to be brought on to the PIP system before full public consultation and analysis of how the new system works for over-16s has taken place.

Although I welcome the Government’s decision to have a different commencement date for children and working-age adults on PIP, I share with the Every Disabled Child Matters campaign group its concern about the impact that the two systems may have on disabled young people who turn 16 in 2013. We are both concerned that the migration to PIP may result in those disabled young people testing out the new system. The Minister has responded to such inquiries in the House, but to my knowledge she has yet to give a firm acknowledgement that young people turning 16 in 2013 will not be the first to go through the new assessment. I shall be grateful if she provides an update.

That brings me to the proposed benefit cap and changes to housing benefit. We all want an end to taxpayers having to foot the bill for some of the absurd and astronomical rents for some families living on housing benefit. I do not have a problem with the broad thrust of that narrative, but we must be careful about unintended, disproportionate and unfair changes to the circumstances of disabled people and their families. The changes to the shared-room rate and the implementation of an overall cap on housing benefit cause me concern in relation to young disabled adults. Let me explain why.

The Government propose to increase the age limit for the shared-room rate from 25 to 35, so single people without children aged up to 35 and claiming housing benefit will be restricted to the rate for a single room in a shared house, instead of the rate for a self-contained, one-bedroom property. I shall give an example of why that causes me concern from the disability perspective. The disability of someone with high-functioning Asperger's syndrome—autism—more often than not makes it very difficult for them to share with strangers. A constituent who is a tremendous volunteer, and who helped me during the election by delivering Lord knows how many leaflets, has high-functioning Asperger’s syndrome and finds it difficult to go into a room where there are people he does not know—let alone to share a house with people he does not know, which the benefit changes may lead to. He struggles to go into a room where there are people he does not know, and frankly he will not unless I am right next to him. The Government’s proposal is a real problem for those with some disabilities, and I ask the Minister to take that on board.

[David Simpson]

The hon. Gentleman said that there will be two systems for disabled young people or people with disabilities, but my understanding is that by 2013 there will be one universal benefit. Will he please clarify that?

[Stephen Lloyd]

I am seeking clarification from the Minister on that point, which I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising. On the one hand, we have been told that there will be one universal system from 2013, but on the other, the Minister has said in the House that she understands that there may be a problem, and my understanding is that she will return with clarification. I too am a little confused, but I am cunningly fleshing it out—at least, that is the plan.

I emphasise that the equality impact assessment of a benefit cap shows that approximately 50,000 households, approximately half of which have a disabled member, stand to receive lower benefit payments. The Minister knows that I have general concerns about some of the housing benefit changes, but today I am focusing on the disability perspective, because I believe that if the changes are handled incorrectly, they could be catastrophic for some young disabled adults and their families. Some 52% of families with a disabled child are at risk of experiencing poverty. With more than 40% of disabled people aged 16 to 24 already living in accommodation that does not meet their needs—there is a long history to the problem—we must be careful of any resettlement as a result of a cap on housing benefit and an overall cap on benefits that disproportionately affect young disabled adults.

The SEN and disability Green Paper has been heralded by many who are hopeful of developing a more transparent, less conflict-ridden and more family-friendly system of support that gives parents a greater say in decision-making processes. I am hopeful that the White Paper will set out detailed proposals for radical legislative and policy changes. I mention the Green Paper because I think it contains some good and progressive potential protocols. I urge the Minister to continue to work closely with my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Education (Sarah Teather), who is leading on that Green Paper. Disability never affects one Department, but involves a range of statutory bodies.

The Government have taken some positive steps, which I applaud. I have already mentioned the Work programme and emphasise that I am keen on the funding model, with its inherent black box principle. Over the years, I have worked with many disabled people. I know that too many large companies do not really understand disability and that the best people to work with young disabled people and help them to get into jobs are often specific groups and organisations, such as the Prince’s Trust, that not only understand disability but have a passion to make things better. The principle behind the Work programme and its funding is that much of the money and many of the resources should be downstreamed from prime providers to subcontractors which have a greater understanding of disability. I am hopeful that that approach will work.

I remind the Minister of what I said at the start of my speech about the main thrust of my anxieties. The system for the transition from childhood to the cusp of young adulthood is inadequate and has been for many years; support for young people on that cusp is poor, lacks joined-up thinking and provision for teenagers. I am also concerned about possible unintended consequence of changes to the welfare programme disproportionately affecting young disabled people. I am grateful to the Minister for listening to my remarks. I am aware that her Department has to cover a wide range of issues, and I look forward to her response.

Youth Unemployment

David Simpson Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd June 2011 Westminster Hall

[Steve McCabe]

The education and skills base of young people is very important. Increasingly, however, employers talk about work experience and preparedness for work, which are slightly different from academic achievement or results at school. Nevertheless, I take the hon. Gentleman’s point.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. On work experience, does he agree that we need more work experience for young people? Education is good—there is no doubt about that—but it is no guarantee that young people will get a job. If we can get more work experience for young people, it will help them to make up their minds about what they want to do. Does he also agree that the further education colleges and universities need to supply courses that are relevant to the needs of industry today?

[Steve McCabe]

Yes. I welcome any initiative that is designed to help people to be better prepared for work and to help young people to get that first foot on the work ladder. I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) for securing this important debate. I come from Northern Ireland and represent a Northern Ireland constituency. Along with my colleagues from the Democratic Unionist party, we want to bring to the debate the perspective from Northern Ireland, where devolution has given us the prime responsibility for apprenticeships and for tackling youth unemployment. However, social security and jobseeker’s allowance are issues of parity, because the funding comes directly from the Treasury here in London. We are keen and anxious that the levels of youth unemployment are gravely reduced.

Some of the issues go back to educational attainment. For example, one in every five children leaves primary school in Northern Ireland without proper literacy and numeracy skills, which can be directly correlated to levels of economic inactivity later on, because such people are not properly equipped to undertake skills and training. That is an issue throughout the United Kingdom. Although we come from different political perspectives, we are anxious for youth to be geared and invested with the skills and training necessary to ensure that they do not get involved in violence and terrorism, such as we have witnessed for the second night running in east Belfast. That road leads only to a different way of life, and we want youth to be channelled into positive activity, so that deprivation and social disadvantage do not mean no active work or engagement.

To emphasise the scale of the problem, we need to look at the stark figures. The annual increase in JSA claimants in Northern Ireland is the largest among the UK regions. Over the past year, 3,900 people have joined the dole queue, and that is an increase of 7%, compared with a rise of 0.3% in the UK as a whole. Critically, the trend of increasing, long-term youth unemployment is most alarming, with Northern Ireland experiencing a sevenfold increase in long-term unemployment among 18 to 24-year-olds since the recession.

I do not want to indulge in ostrich economics. We must rebalance our economy in Northern Ireland, and that is why we are seeking the assistance of the Treasury. Some of us might have different views about the degree to which corporation tax should be lowered to attract foreign direct investment—I think it should be lowered—but I agree with my colleagues that small indigenous businesses must be encouraged as well to provide the opportunities for young people to be skilled.

[David Simpson]

The hon. Lady made a point about small indigenous businesses, but surely small businesses can be encouraged to take on more apprentices and young people by reducing the red tape and bureaucracy, as well as by the accessibility of bank credit. Currently, small businesses are experiencing such difficulties, which have a domino effect.

[Ms Ritchie]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention. I agree that the Government, with the British Bankers Association, need to tackle directly the lack of availability of credit facilities for young people who have the skills to set up in business. Also, a prevailing view is that the Government’s failure to act with the necessary urgency and immediate action casts doubt on the coalition’s ability to deal with this crisis before it becomes a structural liability that will weigh down on our economy in years to come. Over the past 20 years, successive Governments have instilled in young people, quite rightly, the sense that by investing in their education, they are investing in their future career. To have them leave university during a stagnant job market is a fundamental failing, and another failing is in the whole area of welfare reform. We are encouraging people to go into work rather than to apply for benefits, which is all very well if the job and skills opportunities are available but, sadly, in many instances, that is not the case.

We must be aware of the economic cost that goes hand in hand with the social cost of youth unemployment. The London School of Economics found that each young person in long-term unemployment costs the Exchequer up to £16,000 a year. The Prince’s Trust has stated that youth unemployment in Northern Ireland costs up to £4.5 million a week, which is almost £250 million a year. The economic cost of the failure to tackle the problem could not be more evident.

In conclusion, while the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive must not shirk their responsibilities, there is no doubt that central Government have a profound role in influencing devolved Administrations. Youth unemployment lies at the centre of a constellation of other problems, including local economic performance, education, welfare dependency and the state of local infrastructure. It is most important that the Minister responds positively on how we can collectively tackle this pernicious issue, because we must ensure a future for our young people, that the issues of educational disadvantage and skills deprivation are properly dealt with and that a university degree is seen as on a par with skills training, and vice versa, because as soon as the public sees that equality of advantage, we will really be tackling youth unemployment.

Disability Living Allowance

David Simpson Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2011 Westminster Hall

[Hywel Williams]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. The fundamental question is who will pay if cuts are made. The people squeezed out of the system will be genuine claimants who are disincentivised, or people with lower-level needs.

I am concerned by the Government’s conflation of the arguments about promoting the take-up of work and the need for reform. DLA literally helps some people get to work, but it is not a work-related benefit; it exists to assist with the additional costs of living with impairments or long-term health conditions. There is a coincidence between receiving DLA and experiencing difficulty finding work, but that means only that work for people with a disability is scarce. DLA is a marker rather than a cause, as the consultation paper seems to suggest. The work problems that I see confronting people with a disability involve ignorance among employers about the value of disabled workers. But perhaps, Mr Davies, I am straying into a subject beyond the strict bounds of the mobility element.

I am concerned about mobility and people in residential care. When I first thought of applying for this debate, that was the main issue that I wanted to address, as it is of concern to a great number of people. I certainly welcome the Government’s decision to delay the provision and to review it until 2013. That is unsurprising, given the view of the Social Security Advisory Committee, which said:

“This measure will substantially reduce the independence of disabled people who are being cared for in residential accommodation, which goes against the stated aim of the reform of DLA to support ‘disabled people to lead independent and active lives’.”

I very much welcome the postponement, but it is only a postponement and people are concerned.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. A Library research paper notes:

“The DLA mobility component is however not affected if a person is in a care home. In a written answer in 2005, the then DWP Minister Malcolm Wicks said that this was because ‘care homes do not cover mobility needs’.”

It is now 2011. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that nothing has changed and that more than 90% still do not provide that?

[Hywel Williams]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point on a subject to which I shall refer later. Another concern is that the loss of the mobility component and of the Motability scheme in particular would have an effect on families with children in residential schools and their participation in family life.

The possibility of direct payment of money to claimants to fund their self-assessed mobility needs would be relatively simple compared with the complexity of ensuring that a residential setting provided similar, individually tailored mobility provision. We hardly need to think about the comparison. Many disability organisations have pointed out that current contracts do not provide an element of mobility. If the move is towards tackling duplication, as the Government see it, will we merely require the renegotiation of contracts as opposed to any other cost-saving change? Will such a renegotiation be at a further cost to the public purse?

I do not want to dwell on this issue—time is short—but I draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that health and social services in Wales are devolved. Changing the benefit system run from London does not necessarily mean that local authorities in Wales and the Welsh Government will follow what happens in England. I should perhaps point out the complications of a general welfare system that is run by two Governments—one concerned with care, the other with benefits—with possibly different priorities. I will not go down that route today, but it is a further complication that the Government need to consider between now and 2013.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tony Baldry]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly good point. I—and I suspect many hon. Members—would like and welcome a route map from the DWP. I sometimes feel that policy relating to that Department is a bit of a secret garden. I am always a bit reticent about entering into the garden, because I usually use the wrong words—the mobility component of disability living allowance for those in residential care, is in itself quite a mouthful.

What is it—I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan)—that we, or those in residential care settings, can expect to be provided? After all, let us remember that what we have here are a very wide range of human beings who are individuals and constituents. Stephen Argyll, the person to whom I just referred, is intellectually very bright, but almost blind and has difficulty getting around. Some are in Agnes Court because they have learning difficulties, and some are there because they are suffering distressingly from degenerative illnesses, such as Parkinson’s disease. There is not just one group of people, but a large number of individual human beings who have different histories. For example, many are married and still wish to maintain their relationship with their husbands or wives, go shopping, and so on. I also understand, however, that Ministers are concerned that this can be an expensive provision, if what is being provided are individual, tailored mobility vehicles that are not being used much each week by individual people. If there is an overlap with other funding that is supposed to go to care homes from the local authority, that is also a concern.

[David Simpson]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tony Baldry]

I am conscious that lots of other hon. Members, including, I am sure, many from Northern Ireland, wish to take part in the debate.

I suspect that all of us want to engage constructively with constituents who have concerns about this matter, but we want to do so positively and be conscious of the legitimate concerns of Ministers that the system is not working. The Minister has stated:

“We will not remove the mobility of disabled people but we will remove the overlaps and gaps inherent in the current system.”

I want to understand where the Minister sees the overlaps. Where does she see the gaps? Please can we have a lay person’s guide that we, as colleagues, can take when we talk to constituents in this situation, so that they understand the issues and that we understand the examination question that we have been set. I know that there is an exam, but I am not confident yet that I fully understand the examination question.

I appreciate that the decision has been delayed until 2013, but Ministers will at some point have to be clear, and send a clear signal about post-2013, for the following reason. The Minister will have met, when she was at Agnes Court, large numbers of people who have entered into leases and other contractual arrangements for mobility vehicles. There need to be transitional arrangements so that if there is a change in the regime and the rules in 2013, people do not suddenly find themselves with a period of time to pay a contract without the wherewithal to do so. If Ministers are coming to the view that at some point they will change the rules, it would probably be helpful to give a clear signal of their intentions so that people have a clear understanding of that and make dispositions accordingly.

Disability Allowance

David Simpson Excerpts

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mr Clarke]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right and speaks with the authority of a proactive constituency MP and as a former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.

Further supporting my allegation of a lack of clarity, an interesting question was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South on 22 November. I do not go over these questions just for the sake of repetition. She asked:

“Will the Minister take this opportunity to clarify exactly who will lose the mobility element of their DLA?...Will there be exemptions, or will everyone in residential care lose the mobility element of their DLA?”—[Official Report, 22 November 2010; Vol. 519, c. 6.]

As we would expect, Front-Bench Opposition spokespeople have tried to clear up Government ambiguity. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran) asked whether the Government can guarantee

“that there will be ‘no losers’ as a result of this policy?”—[Official Report, 22 November 2010; Vol. 519, c. 7.]

There has been far too much obfuscation on the issue. It is too important a matter for vulnerable people to be left in the dark about how they will be affected. I genuinely thought that the days of “out of sight, out of mind” were long since past.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this valuable debate. I also declare an interest because there are a number of residential homes in my constituency. Last week I met with some residents, and there is major concern about the loss of the mobility allowance. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if that component is removed, despite what we hear from the coalition Government about giving independence to people who are disabled, such a measure will effectively make people prisoners in their residential homes? The lifeline that they have wanted and have had for a long time will be taken away.

[Mr Clarke]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Like other hon. Members, I have received a huge amount of correspondence making the point that he just raised.

In order to seek clarity, I will turn to the question put to the Prime Minister last Wednesday by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain). He asked:

“How can he possibly justify this cruel cut of either £18.95 per week or £49.85 per week to some of the most decent people who have paid their taxes all their lives?”—[Official Report, 24 November 2010; Vol. 519, c. 264-265.]

To my complete dismay, the Prime Minister chose to trivialise his response. I say that because I had expected him to show greater sensitivity towards people with disabilities. In fact, he served as an office-bearer in the all-party group on learning disability and his input then was regarded as positive and welcome. I hope that the Prime Minister will think again.

In any event, the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), put the Opposition’s position beyond doubt when he said following Prime Minister’s questions:

“The Prime Minister, after a word in his ear from his Chancellor, got it flat wrong today.

He was asked about his own government’s plans to cut mobility support for people in care homes but confused it with separate reforms…But when the Chancellor went back in his Spending Review and scrapped mobility support for people in care homes, we are clear that goes too far and is a punitive measure that could leave people in care homes more isolated.”

That clarifies the Opposition’s position on the matter, but my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East may want to add to it; I shall welcome what she has to say later. It is in complete contrast to what the coalition has said. We are calling for clarity.