Oral Answers to Questions
Debbie Abrahams Excerpts(6 days, 1 hour ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
A recently published freedom of information request indicates that AI tools used to detect DWP fraud are biased and disproportionately discriminate against people by age, disability, marital status and nationality. Obviously, that has caused considerable concern. What assurances can the Minister give that the procurement and use of such tools will be covered by strict governance standards, including tests for fairness?
Andrew Western
My hon. Friend will know that we face a significant challenge, with fraud and error costing the Department almost £10 billion a year. It is right that we look to utilise all available tools to tackle it. However, I understand her concerns, although I would remind her that the final decision on whether someone receives a welfare payment is always made by a human. That is the most robust safeguard that we can have in place—although of course it sits alongside a broader suite.
International Day of Persons with Disabilities
Debbie Abrahams Excerpts(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Today marks International Day of Persons with Disabilities—or disabled people, as we often refer to that group. Language is important, so I will use both terms. “Persons with disabilities” is understood internationally, but “disabled people” is often the preferred term in the UK.
This year’s theme is “Amplifying the leadership of persons with disabilities for an inclusive and sustainable future,” recognising the important role that disabled people have to play in creating a more inclusive and sustainable world. The refrain “Nothing about me without me” emphasises the importance of disabled people not just passively participating in but actively leading decision-making processes that affect their lives. I implore the Government to commit to that.
Disabled people are defined not by their limitations but by their boundless potential, talents and aspirations. Across the globe, they are leading as innovators, creators, athletes, entrepreneurs, educators and advocates, inspiring us with their stories and showing us that a more inclusive world is not only possible but essential. Yet despite progress, significant barriers remain, and the number of disabled people reaching their full potential is still far too low. Many disabled people—children and adults—still face discrimination, inaccessible environments, unequal access to education, employment and healthcare, and worse.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady. The word “champion” is often used, but she has been a champion for disabled people. More work must be done to allow those with disabilities to live, work and travel independently, including through enhanced public transport with lifts and ramps for wheelchair users to get on to planes and the tube. Although this day rightly focuses on the tremendous impact of disabled people in our society, it also highlights failures in society that must be rectified. Does she agree?
Debbie Abrahams
The hon. Member will not be surprised to hear me say that I absolutely agree with him. I will come to the issues on which we need to provide challenge.
Since 2010, disability hate crime has increased almost sevenfold—that is absolutely shocking. Not only are such challenges obstacles for individuals but they limit society. As leaders, we need to demonstrate that we want an inclusive society in which we all thrive, not just a minority. The social model of disability views it as a result of societal barriers rather than a person’s impairment or difference, whether of mind or body. If we are truly serious about having an inclusive society, we need to address those barriers. Thirty years on from the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, that work is well overdue.
This year’s IDPD theme is particularly significant as it encourages the international community, including the UK, to consider how to remove barriers to enable disabled leaders to develop and thrive.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
I highlight in particular the good work of those at the National Federation of the Blind, who were on the estate today campaigning on floating bus stops. Does the hon. Member agree that the Government need to ban floating bus stops?
Debbie Abrahams
The hon. Member—a fellow member of the Work and Pensions Committee—makes a good point. I am sorry that I was unable to attend that event myself, but I will certainly give that matter some consideration, and I hope that the Government will, too.
More than 16 million people in the UK have a disability—nearly one in four of us—and nearly half of all disabilities are acquired during a person’s lifetime. In recognition of that, in 2009 the UK not only became a signatory to the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, which includes 40 articles ranging from education and work and employment to the right to life, but enshrined disability as a protected characteristic in the Equality Act 2010. We should be proud that we as a country have adopted that, but now it is about how we put it into practice, because we have unfortunately gone backwards in many ways.
Despite the important moves that the then Government had undertaken, the austerity brought in by the coalition Government in 2010, and amplified by the Conservative Government in 2015, not only restricted financial and other state support for disabled people—adding further challenges to their lives—but created a culture of fear, particularly for those reliant on social security support who were unable to work. All too often, disabled people were treated as workshy, with the shirker-scrounger narrative perpetuated in policy and practice and, unfortunately, also in our media.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate on International Day of Persons with Disabilities. Does she agree that a lot of the disabilities that we need to be aware of are hidden disabilities such as autism, depression and other mental conditions? We do not see those disabilities directly, but we need to be aware of them, and to deal with issues such as unconscious bias that we sometimes come across.
Debbie Abrahams
My hon. Friend makes such an important point—I absolutely agree. I talked about societal barriers and a social model of disability; we need to recognise that disabilities can also be hidden, so I thank my hon. Friend for pointing that out.
The reality is that most people, disabled or not, try to do the right thing, but as the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has shown, if you are a disabled adult or a disabled child, your family is more likely to be living in poverty or destitution. Things became so bad that in 2016, the then Conservative Government were investigated for having breached the UN CRPD. Following an investigation, the UK Government were found guilty in 2017 of systemic violations. As a UN committee spokeswoman declared,
“the committee can confirm that some violations were grave, some others were systematic, and some were both: grave and systematic.”
In particular, the investigating committee found that the rights of disabled people to an adequate standard of living and social protection, to work and employment, and to independent living had been breached.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
I recently met with an organisation called Deaf-initely Women, which supports deaf and hard of hearing women in Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire. It became apparent to me that the voices of those women are not being heard in the way that services are designed. I wondered whether my hon. Friend might reflect on that as part of her speech.
Debbie Abrahams
Again, that is a very important point. We have seen the decimation of services—social services, but also those in the charity sector—so my hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that point.
The investigating committee found that the Government had implemented a policy aimed at reforming their welfare system, and that those reforms had been justified in the context of austerity measures to achieve consolidation of fiscal and budgetary policy. However, the impact assessments conducted by the Government prior to the implementation of several of their welfare reform measures expressly foresaw an adverse impact on disabled people, but those assessments were ignored. Evidence gathered nationally by many disabled people’s organisations, charities, academics and many more showed the adverse and disproportionate effects of those welfare reform measures on persons with disabilities.
The impacts on the health of disabled people were also documented in a 2021 report assessing the health effects of the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016. This should have been a wake-up call for the Government of the day, but unfortunately, even after the tragic deaths of dozens if not hundreds of disabled social security claimants over the past five years, the UN committee published a follow-up report in March this year in which it said that
“no significant progress has been made in the state party concerning the situation of persons with disabilities addressed in the inquiry proceedings”.
That report stated that while some measures had been taken to address the committee’s recommendations, there were also
“signs of regression in the standards and principles of the convention”.
As my right hon. Friend the Minister will be aware, the committee has asked for a report by March 2029 to update it on the implementation of those recommendations. I know that he takes this issue very seriously, but despite the introduction of the Disability Discrimination Act 30 years ago, we have seen other areas of discrimination against disabled people. The Office for National Statistics conducted qualitative research that examined the experiences that people with disabilities had with activities, goods and services in the UK. It found barriers including physical access, restrictive building layouts, inaccessible online services, poor information provision and inflexible design of customer services that do not consider accessibility for a broad range of needs.
Our train network does not have level access, about which we heard Dame Tanni Grey-Thompson make a plea in the summer, when what she was put through was outrageous. When I had a presentation on the trans-Pennine route upgrade, I was absolutely shocked to find that the rolling stock, which is yet to be commissioned, is not going to provide level access. It is absolute nonsense that that is not even in the design for that procurement, so we must do better. Given that the new rolling stock will not be out until 2029, I am hoping there will be time for people to think again, because that is just not good enough.
The difference in education outcomes is also shocking. According to the ONS, only a quarter of disabled people aged 21 to 64 have a degree or equivalent as their highest qualification compared with nearly 43% of non-disabled people. In addition, disabled people are almost three times more likely to have no qualifications than non-disabled people. Disabled people are also less likely to have GCSE grades of C and higher in comparison with non-disabled people. We know that disabled people do not have the same experience of UK schools as their non-disabled counterparts, and that barriers exist for these children across the educational system. I remember doing some work on this in my own constituency, and it was quite shocking to see the difficulties that disabled children face.
The cost of living crisis has hit disabled people harder than the wider population. Many disabled people have vital equipment that is expensive to run. The extra costs are estimated at over £975 a month on average. Imagine if that additional cost was one that everybody had to face, because we would really feel the pinch. A survey carried out by Sense found that 85% of people with complex disabilities are worried about this rising cost of living. If we look at employment, we need to remember that the disability employment gap sits at nearly 30%, as it has for many years. According to the ONS, there are 2.2 million disabled people who want to work but need support to get into work. Disabled jobseekers can face barriers on seeking employment, including from employers who believe that it is too difficult, risky or expensive to hire someone with disabilities. All organisations need to understand the challenges faced by disabled jobseekers.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is unacceptable that only 7% of people with a disability in our country are in paid employment when so many more want to work? Does she also agree that it is vital that, as the Government look to get more people into work, we have equal opportunities and equal access to the workplace for disabled people?
Debbie Abrahams
I absolutely agree, and that is the point I am trying to make. There is a 30% gap between non-disabled and disabled people in work, with so many—as I say, 2.2 million—who want to work and are able to work. We must do better on that, and I know my right hon. Friend the Minister is absolutely committed to doing so. On top of that, we also have the disability pay gap, at nearly 14%, which again has increased. This is just not good enough.
I was really reassured by the statement by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the “Get Britain Working” White Paper last week, with the recognition of what we need to do and how we need to change, and I look forward to seeing how this evolves. I am pleased that the Government will, for example, be introducing disability pay gap reporting, which will help lead the way in addressing the lack of disabled people in senior roles. When I was writing this speech, I remembered when I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill on this point back to 2015. Again, let us try and get this going a little bit more quickly.
Shining a light on inequality in pay encourages organisations to examine critically their hiring, promotion and compensation processes. Again, we all know from our own experience how, if we report something that we find is not working correctly, we are more likely to change things. I know my right hon. Friend recognises that not all disabled people can work, and that we must provide appropriate, timely and adequate financial support for disabled claimants, without a punitive and burdensome application and assessment process. I look forward to the Green Paper on that in the spring. I was heartened by the Secretary of State’s commitment to work with disabled people on that. She used the phrase “Nothing about me without me”, which should reassure people.
At its core, the theme of this year’s International Day of Disabled Persons is all about leadership, and as a nation we are introducing legislation and policy to enable a new generation of leaders with lived experience of disabilities. As a Parliament we must continue to lead by example and ensure that we make the right accommodations and adjustments for disabled colleagues. I am proud that nine of my parliamentary colleagues have declared a disability in this House, but we have a long way to go to being proportionately representative of the population as a whole in that sense.
Nearly four years on from another Adjournment debate I secured, I close my remarks by remembering those disabled people who lived in vulnerable circumstances and were let down by the then social security system. As I said earlier, there are dozens if not hundreds of families affected by the death of a vulnerable claimant, and the book “The Department” by John Pring describes some of those tragic deaths. I have got to know the families of Errol Graham, Philippa Day and Jodey Whiting. Errol Graham was a grandfather with a severe mental illness who starved to death alone in his flat, months after having his benefits stopped. He weighed five and a half stone when he was found. Philippa Day was a young mum who was found dead with a letter beside her from Capita, contracted by the Department for Work and Pensions, refusing her a home assessment visit over her benefits. Jodey Whiting also had poor mental health and other complex needs. She took her own life a fortnight after her benefits were wrongly cut off in 2017. They were appallingly let down by the Government of the day who should have been there for them.
Earlier this year the Equality and Human Rights Commission finally launched an investigation into potential discrimination at the Department for Work and Pensions through failure to protect claimants with learning disabilities or severe mental illness. I pay tribute to the families, charities, organisations, and individuals who constantly pushed on that issue to keep pressure on the EHRC to act. As Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, I am pleased that we have re-opened the inquiry into safeguarding vulnerable claimants, which was paused due to the general election. Although the Government have changed, and with them has come a change in attitude, the Department’s failure over the last 14 years must be fully examined to ensure that no more vulnerable claimants die. I urge Members to reflect on the past treatment of disabled people, and look ahead at creating a welfare system that, like our NHS, is there for all of us in our time of need.
“Get Britain Working” White Paper
Debbie Abrahams Excerpts(3 weeks, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, and I look forward to reading the White Paper later. The cross-departmental approach she is taking with colleagues is essential and is a breath of fresh air, particularly in relation to tackling the root causes of economic inactivity, which she has explained predominantly relate to ill health.
In addition to the need to tackle regional inequalities in employment, my right hon. Friend will be aware that there is a 30% disability employment gap, with 2.25 million disabled people wanting and able to work. How will she tackle that real injustice? We know that disabled people are more likely to be living in poverty than other groups. What are her specific plans in that regard?
Liz Kendall
I thank my hon. Friend for that important question. The Minister for Social Security and Disability and I are working hard to tear down the barriers to disabled people being able to get work and get on in work. We are taking action across Government, including reporting on the disability employment gap. We need to tackle the long waits for Access to Work and the adaptations and other support that people need.
We also need brilliant supported employment programmes for people with autism and learning difficulties, such as those that I and my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary recently visited in our own NHS trusts. They really provide a pathway to work, with the right help and support. There is much more that we need to do, and I look forward to discussing these issues with my hon. Friend and other members of the Committee.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debbie Abrahams Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Yesterday, it was reported in the Sunday papers that a blind woman with additional complex needs had her PIP assessment over the phone, which was approved, but was then sent a letter to confirm that. The charity Sense says that over half the people it surveyed feel humiliated by the process. I know my right hon. Friend is very keen to get this right, so will he expand a little more on the type of things the Department is changing?
Mr Speaker
Before the Minister replies, may I ask Members to look at the Chair, as third party, when they are asking or answering questions? I am being cut out. Those are not my rules but those of the House on how we should address each other, so if anybody has a problem, please have a word with the Clerks.
Income Tax (Charge)
Debbie Abrahams Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
May I start by extending a huge congratulations to everybody who has given their maiden speech today? I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Work and Pensions Secretary on her opening speech, and the Chancellor on her Budget.
This was an incredibly progressive Budget. It recognised the real hardship that families on low incomes have faced over the last 14 years and addressed them by extending and uplifting the living wage, and by reducing deductions for those on universal credit and the standard allowance, which are a significant burden on people on the lowest incomes, including those in work. Ultimately, what we will do on increasing the personal tax allowance will be important for increasing people’s incomes.
Getting Britain back to work is an important endeavour, and I entirely support it. We must recognise that we have nearly 3 million people of working age who are not in work, education or training because they are not well. Over the past decade, and particularly over the past seven years, we have seen declines in life expectancy and healthy life expectancy in areas like mine, particularly for women. That means that people who are expected to work are not in a position to work. The investment in the NHS will make a massive difference by addressing our ill health—we are a poorly nation—but it will also mean that we can help to grow our economy.
I want to touch on a report that was produced six years ago but is still relevant today—indeed, the relevance of its analysis has probably increased. The 2018 “Health is Wealth” report by the Northern Health Science Alliance argued that in order to improve our productivity and growth, we must improve our health. Those eminent epidemiologists and public health academics brought the evidence together to enable them to make those estimations, and they calculated that improving the health of the north to the level of the rest of England would increase productivity by £13.2 billion a year, so I urge the Government to consider updating this piece of work, and also to consider how we can ensure that our NHS allocations reflect the health needs in these areas.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debbie Abrahams Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I welcome the work that my right hon. Friend is doing in ensuring that the uptake of pension credit is increased, but there are genuine concerns about people who are just above that threshold who will remain in poverty—just under a quarter of a million in the north-west alone. In addition to the fantastic commitment there has been through the household support fund, will my right hon. Friend be undertaking any other mitigations to ensure that those pensioners living in poverty, particularly disabled pensioners, will not fall foul of this?
Liz Kendall
I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and I welcome her to her position as Chair of the Select Committee. Alongside our work to increase pension credit uptake, the household support fund is available for those just above the pension credit level. My own council has done a lot of work to make sure that pensioners just above that level can get extra help with the costs of heating or energy debt. There is also the warm home discount, which is available not just to those on pension credit, but again to those just above that level if they are on low incomes and have high housing costs.
Social Security
Debbie Abrahams Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I recognise the serious economic context of the debate today. The Institute for Fiscal Studies, for example, has estimated that 320,000 people are being pushed into poverty because of mortgage interest rate rises triggered by the disastrous autumn 2022 mini-Budget, and of course the then Prime Minister made many unfunded policies.
I recognise that the policy measures in the King’s Speech will go a long way to reduce household costs and increase incomes in the medium term, but those tackling the appalling poverty that we are seeing will not come in time for this winter. I am proud that Labour are continuing with the triple lock on pensions, something that will be worth an extra £460, but that will not happen until next spring. The setting up of a new energy production company, Great British Energy, alongside making homes more efficient, is a fantastic initiative that will contribute to our net zero targets and reduce energy bills for millions, but again that will not be in time to offset the 10% increase in energy bills this winter. I support our focus on growing our economy, but again that will not happen overnight.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation estimated in its report earlier this year that there are 2 million pensioners living in poverty—about one in six of all pensioners. In areas such as my constituency, poverty rates are much higher. We have one in two children living in poverty. From the figures, we estimate that will be the same for pensioners. We know that four in 10 older people in Oldham East and Saddleworth have a disability, and almost half have a long-term health condition. We also know that, even before the escalation of energy costs, over one in six households were living in fuel poverty. Although pension credit provides extra financial support for the poorest pensioners, and opens up help such as housing benefit and council tax discounts for those who are eligible for it, only 5,500 of the 9,000 households in Oldham are eligible to claim it. Again, I welcome the automatic linking of pension credit to housing benefit to increase the uptake, but this again will not happen in time—in the next few months.
Debbie Abrahams
I am not going to give way. I thank the right hon. Member, but I cannot because I am under strict guidance from the Deputy Speaker.
One in three pensioners living in poverty are in the private rented sector, so what are we going to do about that? Even if everyone eligible for pension credit were claiming it, according to Age UK, there would still be another 2 million pensioners slightly less badly off who will not be eligible for pension credit and now the winter fuel payment. The cut-off threshold for pension credit is just under £12,000 a year for a single person. These are not wealthy pensioners. Poverty is poverty whoever experiences it, and we know that we have 8 million working people living in poverty, as well as 4.5 million disabled people, 4 million children and 2 million pensioners. As we did in previous Labour Administrations, I know we will tackle this, but again it will not happen overnight.
Could I point out what we know about the health effects of the cold? The Lancet published a very good paper reviewing data from the last 20 years, and it showed the extra deaths—the excess deaths—as a result of cold. I could mention dozens and dozens of cases from my constituents who have written to me and who, again, are just clinging on following the last 14 years. Is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State able to say not just what other options she may have considered for offsetting the loss of the £300, but what alternative ways there are of raising the £1.4 billion we will get from means-testing the winter fuel payment? I know how complex and difficult our economic situation is, but, please, we must protect our most vulnerable citizens.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Carer’s Allowance
Debbie Abrahams Excerpts(8 months 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
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Cummins. I will start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Christina Rees) on bringing this debate to the Chamber, and on her excellent speech. I agree with her that carers are not only the backbone of society, but represent the best of us in the selflessness that they display. We should be championing them, and we know that is not happening.
Last week, many Members will have seen Oxfam’s report on carers, which was called “Valued”—a little bit of a contradiction, because it gives case study after case study where people are not valued, and shows how little people, and society as a whole, value carers. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) shared the costs that carers save society—it would cost £162 billion a year if we were actually able to pay carers. That is the cost they save.
I want to make a few points, many of which have already been made, on the lack of adequacy of carer’s allowance —as we have already heard, a quarter of those caring for loved ones are living in poverty—and on the issue of the rules: the cliff edge, the earnings limit, and the administration of those rules and the lack of common sense and compassion. I find that unforgivable, quite frankly.
I worked very closely with young carers in my public health days. As we have heard, given the Prime Minister’s statement in his speech last week about the mental health impact on so many young people, we might also have expected a message about the impact on young carers. Many of those caring for their parents or siblings are as young as eight or nine. It really is appalling.
I had a glimpse of being a carer: my mother had Alzheimer’s disease for 10 years, and I provided support to my stepfather, who cared for her during that time. We were not reliant on carer’s allowance, but we felt the strain, day in, day out, 24/7. This is a really significant gift that people are giving to their loved ones and society as a whole. We have heard how inadequate carer’s allowance is, at £81.90 a week—its lowest level, even compared with jobseeker’s allowance. Again, I refer Members the Select Committee’s report on benefits in the UK. We have the lowest level of out-of-work support since, I think, 1911, so carer’s allowance is even less than that in real terms. It is just appalling. We have been doing a mini-inquiry, and we have a follow-up session on Wednesday, which the Minister is attending. If she wants to hear about the experience of those caring for loved ones now, she should reflect on the evidence they gave a couple of weeks ago.
We have also heard about the Department for Work and Pensions’ appalling, draconian treatment of people—the utter lack of compassion shown to those who make, often, innocent mistakes and are then criminalised by the DWP. I feel quite ashamed, to be honest, that that is happening. As we have heard, the problem with overpayment is exacerbated by the unfair cliff edge and the administration of these ridiculous rules, which really need to be reformed.
I was contacted by a medical adviser, a retired GP who is providing medical advice to first-tier tribunals for PIP appeals, who also happens to be in receipt of carer’s allowance. This retired GP contacted me because she was concerned by the statement from the Department included in her bundle over the past six months, which said:
“Although (Ms X) has identified a high-level of personal restriction he/she is entitled to Carer’s Allowance. To be entitled to Carer’s Allowance a person must provide at least 35 hours of care to another disabled person each week. The tribunal may wish to explore this further.”
Although that might not look particularly threatening on its own, given the context of the other arguments that the Department is looking to put forward, it is basically saying: “How can you be caring for somebody if you’re also disabled?” That is what it is saying, and unfortunately that was also the gist of the Prime Minister’s speech last week—“If you’re genuinely in receipt of social security, of course we’ll support you. But there’s a question mark over how many and what proportion of people in receipt of social security are genuine.” That really gets to the core of this, and it makes me quite angry. Most people have worked and are doing the right thing. To imply that they are not genuine is an absolute disgrace.
In her response, I hope the Minister or her officials can explain why those sorts of statements would be included in a bundle to a medical adviser on the first-tier tribunal, which are questioning somebody who is caring for somebody else, and who also happens to be in receipt of disability benefits?
Mims Davies
I was just coming on to overpayments and what has been in the press. I am not the Minister leading on the fraud side of the policy, but we will discuss that on Wednesday. I am keenly looking at it in the round and working with the right hon. Gentleman. There is a lot of interest, but there is always more to matters and more to discuss, although we should refrain from discussing individual cases.
Mims Davies
I will try to answer the point of the right hon. Member for East Ham. There is a need to balance the duty to recover overpayments with safeguards to manage repayments suitably. Claimants have a responsibility to ensure that they are entitled to benefits and to inform us about changes. We have improved customer communications to remind them of the importance of telling us about any earnings, including through the annual uprating letter.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford mentioned doing a couple of extra hours here and there. Where it can be balanced out using the process that the right hon. Member for East Ham mentioned, and where we can show a pattern, of course we will always respond to that. The right hon. Gentleman is talking about getting upstream of that, but the issue is the expenses that can be incurred; I am sure we will get into the weeds of that on Wednesday. He is right to say that there is a way of understanding that people may be in that situation, but there may be expenses too. I hope that gives him a partial answer.
Debbie Abrahams
Could the Minister respond to my query about medical advisers to first-tier tribunals, and the statements that are included in their bundles?
Mims Davies
I will take that point away. I am keen to explain more about the National Audit Office and the wider reports on Wednesday; it is quite complicated for this particular arena.
The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) made a point about the overlap of the carer’s allowance and the state pension—they are both paid as an income replacement benefit. The carer’s allowance replaces an income where the carer is not able to work full time due to their caring responsibilities, while the state pension replaces income in retirement. For that reason, they cannot be paid together to avoid duplicating the provision for the same need. However, if a carer’s state pension is less than the carer’s allowance, the state pension is paid and topped up with the carer’s allowance to the basic weekly rate.
Where a carer’s allowance cannot be paid, the person will keep an underlying entitlement to the benefit. That gives access to an additional amount for carers in pension credit of £45.60 a week, which is just under £2,400 a year. Around 100,000 carers receive that as part of their pension credit award. It is paid to recognise the additional contribution and the associated responsibilities, and means that lower-income pensioners with caring responsibilities can receive more than the lower-income receipts of pension credit. If a pensioner’s income is above the limit for pension credit, they may still be entitled to housing benefit. I would point them to the household support fund and the DWP’s help to claim service.
The right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) raised a point about young carers. It is challenging to meet the objectives in this wide-ranging area, particularly for young carers and, as we have discussed, there are many objectives that we are trying to meet in different and individual circumstances. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley also mentioned the support from wonderful organisations such as Carers UK, and indeed our constituency offices, to help people to claim. There is now an easy-to-use online claims service for carer’s allowance. Some 90% of people claim that way, and nine out of 10 people are happy with the claims service.
The hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) spoke about earnings limits. I appreciate that carers are busy and there is a lot going on, but they are told about the earnings limit when they claim. They also get an annual uprating letter reminding them of any changes, and we use a text reminder. I would always ask carers to engage with us if there are any changes in circumstances. We have supported hundreds of thousands of unpaid carers receiving means-tested benefits through the cost of living support, as well as through support for their fuel bills. As I have said, it has been a difficult time.
The hon. Member for Neath rightly raised the 35-hour care threshold and asked how that was decided on. It dates back to 1976, when the carer’s allowance was introduced. At the time, 35 hours was the length of the average working week, and the view was that someone who was caring for 35 hours therefore could not be working full time. That was the basis on which the carer’s allowance support was introduced. She also rightly raised the delivery of carer’s assessments. I will ensure that Ministers in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities are aware of her concerns.
The carers strategy was mentioned. The Government rightly support unpaid carers, and some of that was covered in the social care plan, “People at the Heart of Care”. Hopefully, I have spelt out today that there is a lot to look at.
The Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, the right hon. Member for East Ham, mentioned the research. I have been looking specifically at that research, as well as the wider policy, in preparation for this debate. We are carefully considering the right time to publish that. I found it extremely helpful and enlightening; it is genuinely helping policy thought and development.
Before I close—I am certain I am over my time—I remind Members that for many carers doing work who receive universal credit, the 55% taper rate and any applicable work allowance will help ensure that people are better off in work. Ninety per cent of those receiving the UC carer element who are declaring earnings have a work allowance. Those with a disability or, indeed, a child might be in that situation.
I note the Opposition’s commitment to the reform of carer’s allowance. It is the first time that I had seen that, so it is pretty recent. Prior to that, there had been a focus around earnings rules. I will look at what others are promising, because as I said, some of this dates back to 1976, and some of it back more than 20 years. We have spoken about a mixed and challenging picture.
Disability Benefits
Debbie Abrahams Excerpts(8 months, 3 weeks 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
Mr Dhesi
I thank my hon. Friend for making the case for Elinor in her constituency. Indeed, my hon. Friend is a strong champion of her constituents, and no doubt she and other hon. Members in this place will have helped constituents to regain thousands of pounds in support that they are due. I agree that the assessment process is something that needs to be looked at, and I hope the Minister will give us some good news at the end of this debate.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. We have unfortunately had some tragic cases in recent years, including people who have gone through the transition from the disability living allowance to the personal independence payment. One person in particular sticks in my mind: Philippa Day, who took her own life because of the appalling transition process and all the mistakes that were made. We need to ensure that we have policies and systems in place, for health assessments and elsewhere, that protect vulnerable people and do not make things worse. I am sure he agrees.
Mr Dhesi
My hon. Friend speaks with a great deal of experience, having served previously as a shadow Secretary of State. The word to use is indeed tragedy. There have been countless tragedies. That is why the likes of me have been calling on the Government to deal with issues with compassion and empathy. These are real people that we are talking about and often, unfortunately, they have lost their lives or been put in a state of such despair that they do not know how to get out of their predicament.
My Slough constituent, Monika, told me about her struggles being assessed for PIP. Monika was informed that she was required to have a health assessment to extend her PIP. After appealing against 27 pages of discrepancies and outright untruths in the report from her previous assessment, she was predictably very worried about how she would get through the process again. Her assessment ended up being delayed for a month and taking place when she was suffering particularly ill health. Monika was again left in the lurch by the DWP and faces another appeal, which she is dreading.
Unfortunately stories like Monika’s are, as my hon. Friends have already eloquently explained, not news to any of us. We all have constituents who are failed by the system and by the DWP. Labour has a plan to replace the Government’s current flawed system of work capability assessments with a system that can support people to live with security.
Many benefit claimants are aspirational, but fearful that if they go back into work and find themselves unable to cope, they will be left high and dry—assessed as being able to work, but finding themselves unable to work full-time. Labour’s plan was born out of a desire to deliver for disabled people, helping those who can work back into work.
Too many disabled people say the current system does not work for them. Labour has pledged to introduce the “into work guarantee”, which I hope the shadow Minister will explain at length. That will allow claimants to agree with their benefits adviser that, if they try paid work and it does not work out, within a period of a year, they can go back to the exact benefits that they were on without fresh health assessments. With 288,000 PIP claims outstanding in October 2023, does the Minister agree that Labour’s plan will help to reduce the number of disabled people who want to work, but do not want to risk having their benefits reassessed?
This January, the latest statistics from the House of Commons Library found that the most common main disabling conditions among claimants of PIP were psychiatric disorders. Nationwide, 37.7% of PIP claims were due to those. With mental health waiting lists ballooning under the Conservatives, it is unfortunately not a surprising statistic. When the Government leave suffering people for far too long—people often see their condition worsen before being able to access treatment—it is no wonder that the number is so unacceptably high. I believe that begs a question: will the Minister admit that her party’s policies on mental health over the past 14 years have significantly contributed to the PIP backlog?
The latest numbers from Macmillan Cancer Support show that claimants are still waiting 15 weeks on average for their PIP claim to be processed. Unacceptably, that is higher than it was at the same time last year. Four in five people living with cancer are facing an increased financial impact from their diagnosis, even before the pandemic and the cost of living crisis. It is unacceptable that the Government have failed to fix those issues, which affect our constituents at some of the most difficult periods in their lives. The Government announced extra funding for processing disability claims in the Budget, but can the Minister clarify how exactly that will be used to reduce delays?
Among PIP claimants in my Slough constituency, 16.3% of claims are due to musculoskeletal disorders. MS Society research found that the current disability assessment system is not fit for purpose for those living with multiple sclerosis, a condition that significantly varies in its impact from day to day. A staggering three in five people with MS have reported being unable to explain adequately the effects of their condition on the standard application form. That figure highlights a systemic failure to capture the true extent of disabilities that are not constant, but fluctuate, and underscores the Government’s failure to create a nuanced system that understands the lived realities of those with MS and other conditions.
Furthermore, based on its findings, the MS Society urges the Government to consider the elimination of the 20-metre rule used in mobility assessments, and to seek a more flexible approach that accurately reflects the variable nature of MS. Current criteria fail to accommodate the day-to-day changes in symptoms that people with MS experience. On one day, walking 20 metres is achievable; on others, it is downright impossible. That clearly leads to assessments that do not reflect disabled people’s actual needs.
Incorporating those changes into our approach to disability benefits would not only make the system fairer, but ensure that individuals with MS and similar fluctuating conditions receive the support that they truly need. I am proud that Labour is committed to delivering a system that works for disabled people, ensuring that every person with a disability receives the respect, support and dignity that they deserve.
In conclusion, I thank the constituents who have asked me to share their stories. I am also grateful to various voluntary organisations that make such an enormous impact to help those in dire need. As we conclude this debate on personal independence payments and other disability benefits, let us remember the essence of what we are discussing: the lives and wellbeing of some of the most vulnerable members of our society.
The accounts we have heard serve as a stark reminder of the critical work that lies ahead. It is evident that our current system, in its rigidity and lack of understanding, falls short of providing the necessary support to those living with conditions such as MS. The call to reform, to dismantle barriers such as the 20-metre rule and to embrace a more nuanced approach to disability assessment is more than just policy revision; it is a moral imperative.
We stand at a crossroads where the choices we make can significantly enhance the lives of thousands. By advocating for a system that truly understands the variable and complex nature of disabilities, we advocate for a society that places dignity, empathy and support at its heart. This is not just about adjusting guidelines or streamlining processes; it is about ensuring that every individual feels seen, heard and valued. Our commitment to reforming PIP and other disability benefits is a testament to our dedication to justice and equity for all citizens, regardless of their physical or mental health challenges.
Let us leave this room with a renewed dedication to serving those within our constituencies and beyond, ready to enact the changes necessary for a fairer, more compassionate benefits system. Together we have the power to transform lives. Let that be our guiding principle in the days ahead.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debbie Abrahams Excerpts(9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mims Davies
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting this point. There is the household support fund, help to claim, and opportunities to pop into the local library to get additional support, for example. There is also an extra £500 million out there on top of the £1 billion through to the end of this month. I would say to anybody: “The benefits calculator is out there, and do talk to the CAB and your local council”—perhaps in Swindon.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Today the Government are in Geneva defending their policies to the UN committee that is investigating the UK for breaches of the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, including article 28 on the right of disabled people to social protection. Given that drastically cutting disabled people’s social security support between 2012 and 2019 and austerity were found to be responsible for 148,000 avoidable deaths, how will the new wave of austerity announced in the Budget affect the health and wellbeing of disabled people?
Mims Davies
I am pleased to have this opportunity to make it clear to the House that the Government are committed to the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities and we look forward to outlining the UK’s progress on advancing the rights of disabled people across this country. Our national disability strategy and the disability action plan are delivering tangible progress. This includes ensuring that disabled customers can use the services they are entitled to, as we have spelled out today. Disabled people’s needs are better reflected in planning for emergencies as well. We are making sure that this country is the most accessible and, importantly, equal place to live in the world.