Learning Disabilities (Care in the Community)

Debate between Kate Green and Tom Clarke

Tuesday 8th July 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, Mr Streeter, to serve under your chairmanship, and I am grateful to have been granted this debate. There are 1.4 million people with a learning disability in the UK and many require care and support to live full lives in their communities. Many do so, supported by families, friends, charities and funded social care. However, a small but significant number—just over 3,000—are far from their homes and communities, stuck in assessment and treatment units. They are some of the most vulnerable people in our society. Many display challenging behaviour and require skilled support from a range of professionals, but that is no reason why they should not be cared for and supported in their community.

In 2011, the BBC’s “Panorama” programme exposed truly horrific abuse and neglect of patients with learning disabilities at the Winterbourne View assessment and treatment unit. Many hon. Members will remember the deeply distressing images of people being hit, verbally abused, viciously restrained and thrown into seclusion. Some of the perpetrators were rightly sent to prison, but Winterbourne shone a light on the wider scandal of how the NHS and local authorities throughout the country have failed to give people the right support to enable them to live in the community. They had hidden that failure by sending people with learning disabilities to in-patient settings, in many cases for years and often hundreds of miles from their families and communities, isolated and alone. That was against Government policy and was a scandalous misuse of what assessment and treatment beds should be used for. It was estimated that the cost was around £500 million.

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

I am glad that my right hon. Friend is raising this important matter this afternoon. Does he agree that the situation, far from improving, may be worsened as a result of the closure of the independent living fund if it means that more learning-disabled people who are currently able to live independently are forced into residential care?

[Mr Clarke]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point and was right to do so.

Some £500 million of public money was spent to pay for people to be over-medicated with anti-psychotic drugs and kept in seclusion at risk of assault and self-harm. In December 2012, the Government put in place an action plan with the objective of giving people with learning disabilities support to enable them to move out of places like Winterbourne View and to return to their communities. A joint improvement programme was also put in place, and the NHS and local authorities were given a deadline of 1 June this year to make that happen.

The result is nothing short of a scandal. Not only has the deadline been missed, figures from the NHS show that more people are going into those units than coming out. Not only that, there seems little appetite to move people. Recent NHS data showed 90% had no discharge date. Meanwhile the human suffering continues. The learning disability census showed that 57% had experienced self-harm, an accident, physical assault, hands-on restraint or had been kept in seclusion.

Amendment of the Law

Debate between Kate Green and Tom Clarke

Thursday 22nd March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green]

My hon. Friend does indeed anticipate my first point. Although there is of course an attraction in lifting more people at the bottom of the wage spectrum out of tax, it makes little sense to introduce a measure that still favours more men than women when women have already lost out under previous Budgets and spending announcements.

[Mr Tom Clarke]

On that point, which I dealt with briefly in my speech, is it not a great worry that female unemployment has risen by 22,000 in the past year, adding to the problems that were already there?

[Kate Green]

It is of deep concern to me, as I am sure it is to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that female unemployment is now the highest it has been in a quarter of a century and that it was female unemployment that rose most rapidly in the last quarter, considerably outstripping what is happening to men.

I find it difficult to understand the fairness or logic of introducing a higher tax threshold that lifts some low-paid workers out of tax while at the same time disincentivising many other low-paid workers who are seeing their tax credits frozen or lost altogether if they cannot reach sufficient hours, to the extent that work will become hardly worthwhile for them at all. I cannot see the logic of the Government telling pensioners that on the one hand they will give to them through the triple lock, which I welcome, but with the other hand they will take away from them by raising the threshold and bringing 230,000 of them into tax, while at the same time trying to take people in low-paid work out of tax.

I am struggling to understand how a Government who said that they wanted to be fair and to operate a system that was simple can have arrived at the decision they reached on child benefit, according to which a couple with an income just short of £100,000 will be able to keep all their child benefit but another couple where only one member of the household has an income, but it is in excess of £50,000, will not. How can that be fair? How can a system be simple when it starts to claw back at the rate of 1% for every £100? How will people know where they stand in relation to their child benefit entitlement, and where is the incentive to work more and earn more in such a context?

I am struggling to understand why a Government who want to be progressive, who say that that is their reason for moving away from universal child benefit, which I hugely regret—I want to put on record that I absolutely stand by universal child benefit—and who say that they think there needs to be more progressivity, as they see it, in the way they administer child benefit, then introduce less progressivity in income tax by cutting the top rate from 50p to 45p when, as the OBR has said, there is considerable uncertainty that such a measure will deliver the tax receipts that the Government seem to believe will be brought into the Exchequer. With respect, I think that the Chancellor was a little over-optimistic in his analysis of the OBR’s comments on the likely efficacy of that measure, and it is also unclear to business commentators that the measure will be good for our economy.

Let us be clear that our corporation tax, even before this Government took office, was by no means among the highest in the developed world. I am interested in how a Government who make great play of seeing small businesses as the future of increasing employment, who want to reduce corporation tax, who are on a downward trajectory in relation to it and who want to enable small businesses to employ more workers have failed to notice that the very smallest businesses are completely unaffected by the cut in corporation tax because they already have a tax rate of only 20%. What are the Government doing to support those businesses when what they would really like is effective measures on employers’ national insurance contributions, something that again the Government have managed to address only in a most limited way?

Women’s Aid

Debate between Kate Green and Tom Clarke

Wednesday 14th March 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

I am grateful to have secured this debate on women’s aid and safety and access to benefits, and to speak under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea. I am also pleased to welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), who has a great interest in the subject that we are debating, and of course my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire).

The theme of the debate is, unmistakably, women’s aid and safety and access to benefits, but it is also predicated on an enlightened understanding of the scourge of domestic abuse, which is the root cause of the problem. I believe that there is a moral duty not to just pay lip service to an endemic problem visited on far too many women. Domestic abuse was succinctly articulated by the psychologist and author Susan Forward, PhD, who described it as

“any behaviour that is intended to control and subjugate another human being through the use of fear, humiliation, and verbal or physical assaults…it is the systematic persecution of one partner by another”.

Having assimilated and carefully studied the erudite view expressed by Dr Forward, I wish to proceed. The consequences of domestic abuse are simply horrific and lead women into a very dark place. They live a life in the most sinister, corrosive and destructive environment, which is as near to hell as it is possible to get on earth. Living under a reign of constant fear and terror of mental and physical torture damages the self-esteem of the victims, but what incalculable damage does it inflict on innocent children? We can ponder that. They, too, are often scarred for the rest of their lives.

One of the foremost international diplomats, renowned for resolving conflict around the world, the former UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, once said that domestic abuse

“denies women their most basic human rights, such as the right to health, and undermines the social and economic development of communities and whole countries…Domestic Abuse is widespread and cuts across class, age, religion and ethnic group…it has long been established that there can be no justification for any form of Domestic Abuse.”

He concluded:

“Domestic Abuse is perhaps the most shameful human rights violation, and it is perhaps the most pervasive. It knows no boundaries of geography, culture or wealth.”

Monklands Women’s Aid provides a first-class service to women and children in my constituency. Before institutions such as Women’s Aid existed, many women were forced to suffer in a chilling silence for the sake of their children. When we think back to previous generations, we can only wonder with incredulity at how many women lived in hell. We will never know how many were driven to such a level of despair that they took their own lives.

Clearly, most women did not have a way out of their oppressive environment. I am sure we all agree, irrespective of our political differences, that we do not want a return to those days. We have to understand that many of the partners have not only a physical hold over those women, but a mental hold, an iron grip, which is extremely difficult for many women to break free from. Women’s Aid is now inculcated in our society. Thankfully, women of this generation are not alone and they realise that they have a place of refuge.

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

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this important debate; I know that that sentiment will be echoed across the Chamber. Like him, I pay tribute to my local Women’s Aid and I also pay tribute to Trafford rape crisis centre. There are some excellent organisations, as he says. Does he agree that in addition to the physical and mental abuse that he describes, there is financial abuse? As has been shown, when women are under financial pressure, it is more difficult for them to flee an abusive relationship, so at times of rising female unemployment and reduced access to financial benefits, more women might be trapped in the home in exactly the circumstances that he describes.

[Mr Clarke]

I agree and I hope to deal with some of the issues that my hon. Friend raises. That was an excellent intervention.

As an organisation, Women’s Aid has supported women from all social and financial backgrounds and continues to do so. One in four women will experience domestic abuse at some point in their life. Two women a week are murdered by a partner or ex-partner. Women living with domestic abuse are five times more likely to suffer from depression. In 90% of domestic abuse incidents where children are present in the home, they will be in the same or the next room.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green]

My right hon. Friend is very powerfully evoking the experiences of women and their children who have suffered abuse. Does he agree that one of the things that those women particularly value when they go to a Women’s Aid refuge is that it is a service designed for, run by and informed by an ethos that is led by women’s experiences? If so, does he share my concern that increasingly services are being contracted out to organisations other than Women’s Aid—non-specialist organisations that do not have that necessary empathy with the women, however well-meaning they may be, and, indeed, can sometimes make quite crass decisions? For example, we heard just the other day of a provider that had advertised for new staff to work in its service and had actually put the address of the local refuge in a newspaper.

[Mr Clarke]

Again, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Certainly, the sheer dedication of the women working at the centres, which I have seen at Monklands Women’s Aid and elsewhere, is awesome, and I do not think that it can be replaced by commercial considerations. I therefore welcome what she has said.

Disability Allowance

Debate between Kate Green and Tom Clarke

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mr Clarke]

Again, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He will know far better than I do what is happening in Northern Ireland, but one of the persons whom I quoted earlier comes from the Province and I know that there are very severe difficulties there, too.

So what are we saying as we ask these questions, seek more information and express the views that we know disabled people living in residential care and their carers hold? We are simply saying this. While disabled people who live at home are to keep the mobility component of their benefits, and that is as it should be, it cannot be right, it cannot be fair and it certainly cannot be equitable for 58,000 disabled people in residential care to be hammered with a 69% cut in overall benefits.

Let us hear what care homes themselves are saying. The chief executive of Norwood, a fairly large, third sector provider for people with learning disabilities, wrote this to me:

“I am delighted that you are able to draw this matter to the House’s attention as it is certainly an issue that appears to have been so far unclearly presented. We provide residential Care Homes for 250 people whose needs are profound or complex in nature…they therefore require additional support for their daily requirements.

The mobility component of the DLA is given only to those people whose mobility is severely impaired. As such it enables them to access day opportunities, shops, leisure pursuits, holidays (often requiring special transport), all things that more able-bodied people take for granted.

To remove this allowance would be extremely regressive.

Surely the solution is straightforward…the mobility component remains to ensure that the people who need it are not penalised. LAs”—

local authorities—are

“instructed never to include this in their fees and the mobility component remains intact.”

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

My right hon. Friend rightly highlights the need sometimes for special transport for people who are in receipt of this component. Does he agree that they have very considerable difficulty accessing mainstream transport, which may be ill equipped to meet their needs and which may also mean that they encounter hostile public and staff attitudes, and that therefore it is particularly important that they can fund transport that does adequately meet their requirements?

[Mr Clarke]

Transport is vital to the quality of life of the vast majority of disabled people, but particularly those living in residential care. My hon. Friend makes her point very well.

I come now to the views of organisations of and for disabled people. It must be well known to right hon. and hon. Members that they have been virtually unanimous in their response. For example, Scope says:

“Disabled people are particularly vulnerable to cuts in services and benefits. They are disproportionately reliant on health, social care, housing and transport services, and also, as a result of low employment rates and the additional costs associated with living with an impairment, more likely to live in poverty and/or rely on benefits for a large proportion of their incomes.”