Pensioners and Winter Fuel Payments

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The Minister told us that by maintaining the cold weather payment of the previous year this Government had given an additional £10 million to pensioners in Northern Ireland. Will he tell us how much money he is denying to pensioners in Northern Ireland by refusing to maintain the level of the winter fuel allowance? Has he done the same calculation?

[Steve Webb]

What we have done is preserve the amount that was scheduled to be spent in Northern Ireland exactly as planned. Clearly, £50 a head in Northern Ireland is probably slightly more than the figure for the cold weather payment. I did some mental arithmetic while the right hon. Member for Belfast North was speaking and I suspect that that figure is slightly larger. The key choice was between doing nothing—taking our baseline and taking £70 billion or £80 billion out—and trying to reverse at least one of the cuts. I think that the right thing to do was address the cold weather payment.

Let me give a slightly cheeky example of why that was our priority. I checked the dates of birth of the hon. Members from Northern Ireland and found that at least one of them would, in principle, qualify for a winter fuel payment—I am not going to name names. [Hon. Members: “Go on.”] I am not even going to look in the direction of the person I am talking about.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson). I commend him and his colleagues on bringing the motion to the House. In particular, I commend the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) on the cogent and assertive way in which he moved the motion and anticipated many of the Government’s arguments.

The motion is timely and focused. Contrary to much of the debate, which has ranged far and wide along the full dimensions of fuel poverty, the structural condition of the housing stock, fuel prices and all those vagaries, the motion is focused on something under the control of the House and the Government: the decision on the winter fuel payments. We are clear that all those issues need to be addressed, and the measures taken by the previous and present Governments are to be encouraged, as too are other more far-reaching measures, but given the rampant rise in energy costs for older people and all the other pressures on their incomes, we cannot countenance complacency about the cut to winter fuel payments.

The decision on winter fuel payments represents a clear and present cut imposed by this Government. The Minister tried to argue first that it was not a cut, then that it was a Labour planned cut, but the fact is this: it is a clear and present cut for pensioner households already facing other pressures and difficulties. It is a sleight of hand for people to suggest, “Well, the Government were committed to doing what the previous Government did”, because really they said, “No, we’re only committed to doing what we think the previous Government planned, not what they did.”

The hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) said that we have to talk to and listen to our pensioners. I have, and every single one has told me that the cut is an issue for them, and every single one is clear that for three years they received payments at a certain level, but that this year they will not get them at that level. That is a cut, and it is a cut from this Government.

[Jim Shannon]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is at a time when they need it most?

[Mark Durkan]

Yes, of course it is at a time when they need it most, and it is not only the time of year when they need it most but the time in the economic cycle—with all the difficulties that people are facing.

We have heard some duplicitous arguments from Government Members. On the one hand many people talk about the difficulties with means-tested benefits and with supporting pensioners through pension credits, but on the other hand we have heard criticisms of the fuel payment and the fact that it is not means-tested or discriminatory. We have heard contradictory arguments.

Indeed, the Minister earlier argued against the whole scheme, structure and logic of winter fuel payments. He actually argued against the allowance altogether and said that better, more discriminating interventions were available to protect people against fuel poverty and to support more deserving pensioners. In the light of his logic, I wonder whether the Government plan fundamentally to review or redesign the fuel payment.

The previous Government introduced the single annual payment in 1998, but the first time I heard it advocated was in 1988, when my predecessor, John Hume, commended to the then social security Minister, John Major, the introduction of an annual thermal allowance to overcome many of the difficulties with the cold weather payments, their inadequacy and the poor and inconsistent triggering system. Thankfully, we got something similar with the winter fuel payment in 1998.

Over the years, the amount of money committed to the payment has changed and top-ups have been introduced. Pensioners have come to see those top-ups as a given, and considering what the Prime Minister said going into the election, they had every right to expect them to remain a given. The motion tabled by my compatriots in the Democratic Unionist party gives the House the opportunity to signal to the Government that that is what we want and what pensioners expect.

Many valid arguments have been made about how to tackle fuel poverty—improving energy efficiency, for example. Although some of those measures can be introduced in Northern Ireland at the devolved level, others need wider intervention from here. Those could include more up-front investment in energy efficiency retrofit schemes or VAT concessions, not least to stimulate work in the hard-pressed construction sector, which is not building new houses. There is an awful lot of work that people with construction skills could do to retrofit and improve existing houses, and there are many things that young people who want to get construction skills could do on such schemes. The Government need to think more widely about other measures to tackle fuel poverty, but they should not use the existence of other interventions as an excuse to justify this unjustified cut.

I shall not rehearse the statistics on the levels of fuel poverty in Northern Ireland that my colleagues have mentioned because other Members want to speak, and nor shall I rehearse the number of winter deaths from fuel poverty either in the UK at large or in Northern Ireland. I shall only make the point that those deaths are avoidable and that we need to take what steps we can to avoid them. This cut is avoidable.

The Minister asked, “Where else can the money come from?” I do not necessarily agree with some of the suggestions from right hon. and hon. colleagues, although I am glad that the Government moved on from some of the vanity projects—for example, the NHS IT scheme. Money could also be saved on Trident.

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

The hon. Gentleman mentioned mortality. As he knows, I have family in Armagh, where the climate can be pretty tough, but it can be even colder and more difficult in Scandinavia, where the figures for hypothermia are much lower than ours. Is that not a point that we should bear in mind?

[Mark Durkan]

Yes, it is. That raises questions about investment in quality housing stock and the levels of social support, guarantees and interventions available in Scandinavian countries, and it is why we need to follow the precise focus of the motion, which relates specifically to the winter fuel payment.

I attended the Northern Ireland Pensioners’ Parliament to which hon. Members have referred. It took place in the summer—in June—yet the single strongest issue coming through concerned the winter fuel payment. Yes, people were aware of the changes and the pensions triple lock, but they did not buy it and obviously resented the sleight of hand, with the change in indexation and so on. What they focused on was the direct cut facing them. That is why so many people have campaigned on it, and not just in Northern Ireland.

As the Government look to what they can do to help shelter people from the effects of recession and face the rampant pressures on household costs, I hope that they will reinstate the top-up in winter fuel payments to support pensioners. When pensioners hear the question, “Where will the money come from?”, they say, as some pensioners said at the Pensioners’ Parliament, “When this quantitative easing happens”—supposedly so that money gets out there into the economy—“why is the money given to the banks?” When that money goes into the banks, does it get out there into the economy? Those pensioners make the sensible point—this is one thing we do know—that when we give money to pensioners, it will be spent. It will not stay in those households; it will be spent, in local shops and so on, and go usefully and legitimately into the economy. If there is another phase of quantitative easing and more money is made available to go into the economy, perhaps it should go via pensioners. Then we would all share in the benefits and, in particular, pensioners would be sheltered from the cold.

Pensions Bill [Lords]

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that Government Members, in trying to defend the Bill as it now stands—with the Government’s changes—are trying to pass off an improvement as a solution? They are trying to present a mitigation of the scale of an injustice as justice itself. Those of us who will be voting against the Bill on Third Reading do not believe that we have an acceptable casualty level among the women he is talking about, or that they were selected fairly or necessarily.

[Nic Dakin]

My hon. Friend makes the point clearly and soundly. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) made it absolutely clear this evening how unfair this Bill still is, and why anyone with any sense of justice and fairness should vote against it. It is outrageous for the Government to come here this evening with a mealy-mouthed effort to satisfy the women up and down this country. I urge all Members of this House to vote against the Bill.

Welfare Reform Bill

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. She clearly has cause to represent people in relation to social fund issues and has a good understanding of the financial crisis they face.

Many of the people who come to me in my office have health problems. If they are unable to work, possibly because of an injury at work or an accident at home, they are left facing a financial crisis. Intimidation is not rife in Northern Ireland and nowhere else; it happens in other parts of the United Kingdom as well, and there are occasions when someone has to leave home quickly, and they face financial crisis. Most of those who come to me are single people, maybe a single parent with a young child, or sometimes they are people coming out of care or out of prison, or people who have experienced family break-ups.

The hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) described the situation well, and I share her experiences as a representative. Those people are under great financial pressure and are worried about where they are going to go. They look for alternatives to borrowing money. Sometimes, as a result of their inability to pay back their loans on time, they end up in hospital. Loan sharks are probably the only people willing to lend them money but at an extortionate rate, which puts them under great pressure. I am sure other hon. Members have seen that.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Is my colleague, like me, at a loss to understand how some hon. Members who are prepared to commend the social fund measures are the same people who, in relation to parliamentary expenses, argue for the operational principles of clarity, predictability, responsiveness, consistency and the right to query or appeal? They demand those operational principles where it affects themselves, but they are prepared to mangle them where they affect their most marginal constituents when it comes to the social fund.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his passion and his commitment. I would find it difficult to argue against those points. I should like to hear from the Minister what measures the Government intend to put in place to ensure that the people whom I have described—the single people facing financial problems or those experiencing health problems, marital break-ups or intimidation, who clearly have problems at home—will fit into the system. I do not see that they will. I see extreme difficulties for them in future.

The hon. Lady spoke about those managing debt. Not everybody has the ability to manage their financial circumstances. We meet people in my office who unfortunately fit into that category. We try to advise them or send them to someone who can give them advice and help, but in many cases they are unable to manage their financial circumstances. The crisis loan enables them to borrow and get out of the crisis that they face, and agreeing a direct debit helps them to manage their money.

For those who come to me in financial crisis, the crisis loan is their only way out. I would love to be the Northern bank or the Ulster bank and be able to lend all those people money personally, but unfortunately my resources do not go that far and it is not my responsibility to do that singly and individually. That is the responsibility of Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan]

Does the hon. Lady agree that many people will be perturbed and confused by the fact that the Government are derelict on the real crisis affecting care homes in funding, ownership and stability, but are diligent in trying to claw back the pittance that some people in those care homes receive, based on the myth that there is some financial West Lothian question whereby people are being paid out of one fund and also getting money out of another?

[Margaret Curran]

The hon. Gentleman makes his point with great passion. We must bear in mind the context in which this decision is being taken and the scale of resource that is involved. I have to say to him that we have found no evidence of great concerns about the practice of care homes and local authorities on the matter. The Minister has not presented any such evidence to us or to charities, and we cannot see where the great worry or cause for concern is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margaret Curran]

Yes, absolutely, and we have an opportunity here to minimise that stress and to address the problems. I strongly believe that we should take that opportunity.

[Mark Durkan]

Does the hon. Lady recognise that many people are concerned that as the costs of administering the assessments emerge and escalate, they will be met not by scaling back the arrangements, but by tightening the criteria and reducing the benefits awarded?

[Margaret Curran]

I acknowledge that many disabled people and disability organisations are extremely concerned about that, given the Government’s track record on this. We cannot underestimate or brush aside the level of anxiety of many people in this country about the reform of DLA. Many people find incredibly stressful and worrying the prospect of having to go through a new face-to-face assessment to prove their disability, despite it being abundantly clear, in order to receive help.

It is the Government’s job to assure disabled people that the introduction of PIPs—I know that the Minister tries to do this—will not mean the end of financial support for disabled people. Given the Minister’s efforts on that, I plead with the Government to go that extra mile to assure disabled people that the process is about meaningful reform of an important benefit, rather than an attempt to remove it from those whom they can get away with removing it from. One way the Government can do that is by ensuring that the most severely disabled members of our society do not face needless upheaval and uncertainty over the future of support following the introduction of PIPs.

--- Later in debate ---

Given what we know, these proposals are in all candour absolutely cruel and stand to the disadvantage of tens of thousands of vulnerable people. No further clarity has emerged today to suggest otherwise and one reason I shall support amendments 41 and 42 is that the Government have been given so many opportunities—from the debate in November to the Budget debate and from questions in the House to this debate today—to make their position clear, but they have failed abysmally to do so. I am therefore obliged to reach the conclusion that these welfare reforms are not meant to take us forward, they are not part of a progressive society and they are not addressing the real problems of the millennium. They are taking us back to the ’20s and the ’30s. The expression “Out of sight, out of mind” came into my head again and again during today’s debate.

[Mark Durkan]

rose—

[Mr Clarke]

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, because he has shown an interest in these matters.

[Mark Durkan]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way and commend him for his contribution. Is not the situation he describes not even more grotesquely surreal when one considers that, whatever form the review takes, people in local government and those running care homes are being questioned by the Government not about the funding crisis undermining the financial certainty for those care homes, which has people suffocating with worry and dread about what will happen to them, to their relatives and to the staff, but in pursuit of a mythical notion that duplicate payments are being made in respect of the mobility component and contracts with care homes? Should not the Government be addressing the real crisis that is facing care homes and not the nonsense with which they have obsessed themselves?

[Mr Clarke]

As always, the hon. Gentleman has put his case beautifully.

As we head for the Division Lobby tonight, we are asked to choose between the interests of people with disabilities, many of whom have been in residential care for more than 20 years, the concerns of their families and the support of their communities, and the Government’s wish to rush through legislation that in all candour is completely indefensible. Tonight is a real test for the House, and by that I also mean Members of the Liberal Democrat party. I understand that they did not take part in the vote on this in Committee, but they are free to do so tonight. If the Government do what they seek to do and interfere with the lives of the most vulnerable of our fellow citizens in the way that the Bill intends, they do not deserve support and, frankly, people outwith the House, including disability organisations, will be asking about the standing of this Parliament if we allow such a monstrosity to be endorsed in the Lobby. It does not deserve support and I hope that the House will support my hon. Friends’ amendment. I hope also that the Government will think again. I hope that they will think of the shame with which they have burdened themselves and try to redeem themselves from the situation in which they alone have placed themselves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona O'Donnell]

I absolutely will not withdraw my comment. This is not scaremongering. I am setting out exactly the kind of concern that has been raised in a report commissioned by two of Scotland’s leading disability charities. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that those charities would be as irresponsible as to carry out scaremongering and to frighten the people who form part of their organisations—the people for whom they stand up—it is he who has something to answer for.

[Mark Durkan]

Does my hon. Friend agree that if people should be scared by anything, it should be not her question but the lack of the right answer from Ministers?

[Fiona O'Donnell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support.

Let me talk about a few of the other people who lived at Upper Springland. David had no voluntary movement of his arms and legs, and a little movement of his head. He had no verbal communication. He was completely dependent but he had an incredibly active mind. He was able to communicate through an auxiliary voice and communication system. When he asked to have some swear words programmed into his computer, it caused some discomfort for the rather old-fashioned manager of the residential home as David wandered around the corridors telling everyone to “Eff off!”

David had come from Edinburgh to Upper Springland because of its excellent reputation. He would love to return home on visits to see his family. I personally accompanied David on his last visit to his father before his father died and also to the funeral. I have genuine concerns about that. The Secretary of State shakes his head, but unless we get a definition of what the overlap means, how can we have any confidence? The organisations out there representing people with disabilities do not have confidence in the proposal, so the Secretary of State has no reason to shake his head.

There was another young woman called Joyce who was not only active—she played a sport called boccia and travelled around the world—but had a job for a few hours a week so that she did not lose her benefits, and volunteered in various organisations. To support her to do that, she needed the flexibility to be able to book her own taxi to go to work and to participate in the other activities. There was Maggie, who refused to travel in the transport available at the centre because there was a great big sign up the side of the vehicle which said “Capability Scotland” and she did not see why she should be branded, but going to church every Sunday was very important to Maggie.

These are people I cared about and people I cared for. I fear greatly for what will happen to them and what their future lives will be like if the House does not support the amendments.

I have been critical of the Minister and other Members on the Government Benches, saying that they do not understand what disability and residential care mean. I heard the Prime Minister in one session of Prime Minister’s questions talk about people in residential homes. Then, it was an anomaly between them and people in hospital. Now the Prime Minister seems to acknowledge that residential care is a social model, not a medical model. He has said that the DLA mobility component is not being removed, but the evidence in the Red Book is that it will disappear, so I am not reassured even by a six-month stay of execution.

We must ensure that people continue to have the same choices as people living outside residential care homes. I do not like to talk about people living in the community, because people who live in residential care homes are also part of our community. What evidence is there of an overlap there? Charitable organisations provide access to vehicles, so is the Minister going to assess whether there is an overlap there as well?

People in residential care make the same choices as we do. How many of us do not need a car? We could use public transport, but for those people to buy an outdoor electric wheelchair, which they would not be entitled to under the NHS assessment, makes all the difference to their lives. Why should they not have that choice? It is not just about Motability cars. It is also about people who have entered into contracts and loans to pay for those electric wheelchairs. All these months on from the Westminster Hall debate, we still do not have an answer from the Minister about what will happen to those people.

A further topic that the Minister has not addressed—the hon. Member for Cardiff Central had great hopes that she would talk about it today—is the situation in respect of the devolved Governments of the United Kingdom. If the Minister has any expectation that there will be regulation of residential care homes or a duty placed on them to provide a service to people with disabilities, if she thinks she can compel the NHS to start providing more mobility adaptations to people with disabilities, and if she believes in the universality of the benefit, how can she ensure that people in Scotland will always retain the same benefits as people in the rest of the United Kingdom? She did not clarify that, so I would like to give her the opportunity now to intervene and answer that question. [Interruption.] No?

State Pension Age (Women)

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Wednesday 11th May 2011 Westminster Hall

[Rachel Reeves]

Yes. That is another point that my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead made earlier. Many of the women who will be affected by this change have written to us, but even more women have not done so. The reason they have not written to us is not because they are happy and fine with these changes. By and large, it is because they are not aware of them. They are aware that they will have to work for longer than they had previously thought, because of the changes made in 1995 that will equalise the state pension age for men and women by 2020, but they do not know that those additional changes are coming down the line. So they are making changes now—as I said before, many of them are moving to part-time work so that they can care for elderly parents or young grandchildren—unaware that these additional changes are coming down the line. I think that people will be particularly worried or scared about what the future holds for them.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Does she agree that, if those women do not hear the Minister say that he is revising these proposals because they represent an unintended anomaly, they can only conclude that they are being selected as the victims of an intentional injustice and that they are to suffer a drive-by hit on their pension rights?

[Rachel Reeves]

Yes. The hon. Gentleman’s intervention also touches on a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) made earlier when she talked about the importance of people having trust in the pensions system. Unless we trust the pensions system and can have some certainty about what the future holds for us, it is very difficult for people—both men and women—to prepare for the future.

I want to quote something else that the Minister has said. In October 2009, he said:

“The Tories still seem to think that as long as women have husbands they don’t need to worry about their pensions.”

I wonder whether he has changed his views now that he is in government with the Conservatives. As the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole said earlier, women have been consistently badly served by the pensions system, both occupational and state. In opposition, the Minister campaigned for women pensioners, but now that he is in government he is hurting them hard. I wonder why he is doing that, when he is under no obligation to do so. I repeat that these changes were not in the coalition agreement, so he has no reason to support them.

Of course, the Minister has claimed that these women have jobseeker’s allowance to fall back on. But as hon. Members have already said, that does not seem to be the point. Talking about JSA is an insult to those who have worked their entire lives, especially because JSA only provides about half the income that the pension credit provides and about two thirds of the income that the basic state pension provides. These women do not want a handout. They legitimately want to receive the pension that they have contributed to on the date that they were promised it. Again, that brings us back to the issue of trust. It is so important that people have trust in the pensions system.

We have heard a lot of stories today about how these changes will affect great numbers of women, because every one of those 500,000 women who will have to wait an additional year before they receive their state pension has a personal story. We have heard some of those stories already. I want to tell Members two stories that I have heard that I think are particularly powerful. The first is from Barbara Bates, who says:

“From the age of 15, I have worked every day of my life, apart from a few years when I stayed at home to care for my disabled husband until his death in 2003. Since 1995, I have thought that I would retire in 2018, when I will be 64. I have based all my plans for the future on this. I now have to wait an extra two years to retire—in April 2020, when I will be 66. I feel robbed—robbed of two years of freedom, and robbed of more than £10,000 that I would have received as my state pension. The basic state pension will be my only retirement income, and I have no extra means of coping financially. I will have no option but to try and carry on working. I have osteoarthritis in my thumbs and wrists now, which makes the lifting and cleaning work in my job harder: I’m not sure how I’ll manage to the age of 66.”

I will read out another story, from Linda Murray:

“I started working at 16 and have worked full-time ever since, apart from a brief period of part-time work when I was caring for my mother. I work in a very physically demanding job, at a dry cleaners, for 46 hours each week just to make ends meet. I have never had the means to save for a private pension. When I started work, private pensions were not readily available for ordinary workers. We paid our contributions and assumed that we would draw a state pension and that it would be sufficient. Due to my circumstances, I know that full retirement is no longer an option. My plan was to greatly reduce my hours when I received my pension and return to part-time work. Now I estimate that I would need to save at least £12,000 just to be able to work part-time from the age of 64. Saving anything is impossible. I will not be able to continue working these demanding hours until the age of 66 and I am deeply worried about my future.”

It is people such as Linda and Barbara who I think most of us went into politics to serve, yet the Minister, who in opposition campaigned so much for women, is now hitting them hard, as I said earlier. These are stories, not numbers, and they hit home hard. It is wrong to hurt a group of women disproportionately, by giving them such little notice of a change when they have such little chance of making up the difference in income that they will lose.

Labour accepts and celebrates increasing longevity and therefore we accept that there is a need to increase the state pension age, as we did when we implemented the recommendations of the Turner report. However, making changes to pensions must be done in a fair way, giving people enough time to prepare for them.

What Labour now proposes is no more changes before 2020 and, if the Government accept the amendment to the Pensions Bill that they rejected in the House of Lords, we will support the state pension age increasing from 65 to 66 between 2020 and 2022. That would achieve a £20 billion reduction in expenditure, would affect equal numbers of men and women and, crucially, would affect 1.2 million fewer people than the Government’s current plans. It would give people nine years—not just five—to adjust to the changes, and no one would have to wait more than a year longer than expected to claim their state pension, to which they had contributed throughout their lives.

We will not let this matter go and nor, do not think, will the women affected. We must hold the coalition to account on its agreement.

State Pension Reform

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Monday 4th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

We are not changing the system for current pensioners at all. It will continue as previously budgeted. As for new pensioners, we need to think what paying a pension above the guarantee credit implies for passported benefits, and what sort of system we need. I should be interested to hear people’s ideas, because the issue is important. Hitherto, we have simply assumed that pension credit means poverty and that we must therefore make all the extra payments. We may need a more sophisticated system now, but the role of passported benefits is important, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising it.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I thank the Minister for his statement and for providing us with the rationale behind it. As he will know, people will want to establish whether the single tier really does offer the platform for fairness and adequacy that he has described. They will want clarity and confidence.

The Minister mentioned the need for people to save money for their pensions. What consideration have he and Treasury Ministers given to their ability to afford that, given the hits that they are taking as a result of the withdrawal of some child benefit, the entry of more people into the 40% tax bracket, and the huge challenge posed by tuition fees?

[Steve Webb]

The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point about people’s ability to afford to save. One of the key aspects of automatic enrolment is the fact that an employee’s contribution will trigger an employer contribution of nearly as much, plus tax relief. If an employee contributes 4% of his salary, the employer’s contribution will raise that to 8%, so this is a very affordable form of saving. Of course we want to ensure that people who make such sacrifices in order to save will be better off as a result, and our reforms will make that outcome far more likely than it is at present.

Disability Living Allowance

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Like the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller), I was present for the previous debate, which was specifically about the mobility component for those in residential care homes. There is a danger in this wider debate today that we will focus too much on that issue. My concerns about that issue are no less than they were before, but I do not want to concentrate on it today, as other hon. Members have adequately done so.

The Government paper that heralded these changes, “Welfare reform: Disability Living Allowance for the 21st century”, discusses focusing on those with the greatest need. We also know that the target is to achieve a 20% cut. I was struck by the comments of the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) about the different people he knows at Agnes Court and the range of conditions that they have. Would any MP be able to say who of such a group of constituents is in greatest need, or where we could make a 20% cut? If we are not prepared to do that or to envisage others doing that, we should not support the Government in this measure and proposal.

Several issues arise. The first is assessment and, of course, reassessment in the future, which will come with it. The fact that particular conditions will not be screened out from assessment and reassessment—everyone will have to go through the process—raises fundamental concerns for those who are currently on benefits and their carers. We need to remember carers as well. They all think that they are facing a grand national, where everyone needs to try to get over and on to the benefit. As we have heard, that will cause great problems for citizens advice bureaux and the many others to whom people are turning for advice on what is likely to happen and the implications for them.

If the Government will not allow any specific conditions to be screened automatically from having to go through the assessment test now, or in the future, we need more clarity about what forms of evidence will be considered particularly telling in the context of the assessment test. What evidence from experts in neuromuscular conditions and so on will tell in that setting, or will the interview setting count more? On the cost of administering the assessment and reassessment process, many of us know that some people will pass every time, because of their circumstances. Should they have to go through the ordeal of assessment and reassessment every time, and should the Government carry the cost of that?

On moving to a six-month qualifying period, the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) referred to cancer patients. We must question whether it is enough to tell people that if their illness is terminal, they will automatically qualify. Many cancer patients do not want to think of themselves or present themselves as terminal cases, and we might send out a dangerous message. If the Government are determined to remove the mobility component as was and to introduce a six-month qualifying period for the personal independence payment, perhaps there should be a distinct allowance for those who have been diagnosed with cancer and have been referred for chemotherapy or radiotherapy. Perhaps there should be a cancer care and support allowance that takes care of such circumstances, instead of cancer patients finding themselves caught up in the pursuit of personal independence payments, particularly as the system will become congested when the changes are introduced.

How will people with variable conditions be measured in the context of assessment and reassessment? Will they be unlucky if they are interviewed on a good day, or lucky to be seen and reported on on a bad day? The Government must tell us more about that.

There will be an impact on other entitlements. For example, currently the mobility allowance is a passport to the blue badge, road tax exemption and disability premium. What thought has been given to the implications of the move to personal independence payments? Will people who lose out in the change also lose out on those other benefits and entitlements? Will the conditionality link between the new benefit and the old benefit remain? If so, have the Government factored into their impact assessment the effect on other entitlements?

As the hon. Member for Arfon has said, there will be an impact on carers. We need to know, for example, whether eligibility for carers allowance will come from both levels of the personal independence payment daily living component, or only from one level. Those who are entitled to carers allowance will see the circumstances not only of the person they care for being jeopardised by the change, but their own. Entitlement to carers allowance may be affected, and we must consider that.

We have not heard enough from the Government about some age-related issues. For example, pensioners who received the mobility component of the disabled living allowance before pension age continue to receive it when they reach pension age. Will that continue to be the case with the personal independence payment?

[Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we also need clarity on how the changes will impact on children, especially those with sudden impact conditions such as acute myeloid leukaemia? Will they have to wait six months, by which time their treatment will be well and truly finished?

[Mark Durkan]

I thank the hon. Lady for making that point. I introduced my comments about pensioners by referring to age-related considerations, and I was coming to children, including children in residential care, residential schools, and on holidays. What periods will qualify? Again, there is not enough in the Government’s papers and subsequent answers about those issues. The hon. Lady has rightly pointed to circumstances in which children may suddenly be affected by a condition. Will they have to wait for six months? Will families who receive a disability premium receive the universal credit when their child is in residential care? We do not know what is happening.

We must remember that families must cope with the concerns, needs and often the emotional upset not only of the child who is affected by a condition, but of the other children. Families must not be mired in new difficulties and complexities by the change. We must ensure that people of all ages are supported, not least children and families. The Government must provide more clarification, and I hope that the debate will present the opportunity for the Minister to do so.

[Philip Davies (in the Chair)]

Two more colleagues are seeking to catch my eye, and I intend to call the Front-Bench speakers at 10.40 am at the latest, so co-operation would be much appreciated.

Welfare Reform Bill

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Byrne]

There is a strong case for reform of DLA. The lobby groups agree with that, as do we, but we do not agree with the way the Government have approached the issue. First, we had an announcement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that DLA would be cut £1 billion, then we got a consultation, which has only just finished, and while all that was happening a Bill was published with no detail or safeguards dealing with how that reform would be conducted. The Secretary of State must realise that that is a serious concern for millions of people up and down this country.

That alarm is simply magnified by the proposals to set a one-year limit for those who can receive contributory employment and support allowance. I, too, think that there is a case for time limits—there is a good case for considering two years, for example—but this morning 30 cancer charities have written to the Secretary of State urging him to think again on that measure. His own Department’s statistics, they say, show that 75% of cancer patients still need ESA after a year. Their message is blunt:

“this proposal, rather than creating an incentive to work, will lead to many cancer patients losing their ESA simply because they have not recovered quickly enough.”

If this indifference is not addressed in Committee, the Secretary of State will have single-handedly dismantled any notion that compassionate conservatism is truly a reality. This simply cannot be right, and it needs to be looked at again.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I support the crucial points that my right hon. Friend is making, but has he noted that the impact assessment on the proposed changes to DLA makes no mention of the impact on carers? There clearly will be a consequential impact on carers, depending on what benefits the people for whom they care receive and which rates of the daily living component or the mobility component will entitle carers to claim carers allowances. There is no mention of that whatever. Is my right hon. Friend aware of whether the Government have even made an estimate of the number of carers affected, and if so, why it has not been published?

[Mr Byrne]

I am not aware of those estimates, and I hope that we will have a long and important debate about carers this afternoon and in Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Unfortunately, unlike the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), I am not in a position to applaud the Bill, simply because there are not enough provisions in it to tell us whether it will provide a working model for a benefit system that will achieve what the Government say they want to achieve—namely, a simplified benefit system with improved incentives to work. We could all agree with those principles, but our problem on Second Reading is that the Bill lacks significant content to show how many of the detailed provisions will work in practice. We are told that the details of various schemes and measures will be provided later—as the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) said, it will be by way of regulation. That makes it unreasonable, on the basis of so little detail, to expect Members lightly to endorse such a Bill, which is so pregnant with implications for so many people in our society.

If Governments are to be encouraged to support evidence-based policy, this House should deal only with substance-based legislation. I often hear the Government saying that they agree with the principle and stated objectives of a private Member’s Bill, but because they see serious difficulties in how it might work in practice and because many of the details have not been worked out, they do not accept it and vote the Bill down. Frankly, that is exactly how I feel about this Government Bill. Although many of us endorse the objectives and recognise the problems in the existing system, we are worried about the direction in which the Government will end up travelling.

Members have already referred to the change from disability living allowance to the personal independence payment. Some of us participated in a Westminster Hall debate about that this morning. One important point is that we do not yet know from the Government what the implications of those provisions will be for carers. They have told us that they want to create a new deal for carers, but they have not given us any estimate of how many carers will be affected as a result of the changeover to personal independence payments. The Government have a lot more to tell us; only after they have told us would some of us be in a position to accept their assurances.

The universal credit is proposed to replace quite a number of existing benefits: working tax credit, child tax credit, housing benefit, council tax benefit, income-based jobseeker’s allowance and income-related employment and support allowance. We know about the existing complexities and difficulties with many of those benefits, so we cannot just take it on assumption that there will be no problems bringing them all together. We cannot take it on assumption that there will not be any serious transitional difficulties; neither, on the basis of past experience, can we take it for granted that the administration system, the infrastructure for delivery and the information technology used for the new system will not have any problems.

We know the stated intentions for tax credits, but we also know about all the problems that resulted. We know the stated intentions for employment and support allowance, but we also know about the many difficulties surrounding its delivery. It would therefore be naive if the House simply said to the Government, “Carry on regardless; we like your stated intentions; we are not going to frisk you for any further details or caution you against any possible risks to our constituents.”

Issues in the Bill might have complicated effects in the context of Northern Ireland. When it comes to universal credit, the Bill makes presumptions about child care provision, but Northern Ireland, of course, is not covered by the Childcare Act 2006 and it does not have the same infrastructure for child care as elsewhere. That poses serious challenges about how the scenario painted by the Government will work out for Northern Ireland.

Further issues stem from the fact that Northern Ireland does not have council tax, which affects rate relief. We will have to see how that will be administered from Whitehall and what degree of discretion the Whitehall Government will allow the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive to have in respect of delivering locally for Northern Ireland the framework created by the Bill.

As I have pointed out before, many people in Northern Ireland live and work on a cross-border basis. Many people on benefit who want to get jobs might find one across the border. The issue of providing tax credits for cross-border workers is fraught with all sorts of difficulties and frustrations. We do not yet know how the replacement scheme is going to work. There is a danger that cross-border workers—those who live and work on either side of the border—could find themselves in serious difficulties.

That is why many of us are not just suspicious about some of the Government’s intentions, which we fear may result in punitive measures for many people on benefits, but sceptical about whether enough work has been done in terms of the detail of the Bill and how it will affect our constituents. That is why many of us do not feel able to support the Bill’s Second Reading, and if others are prepared to oppose it, I am prepared to join them.

Benefits Uprating

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I regularly meet pensioners groups throughout the country, and he will be reassured to know that the restoration of the earnings link has been universally well received.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The Minister will be aware that some of us who now sit on the Opposition Benches never believed that CPI was a better measure because of the fact that it tended to give a lesser increase. However, we do not deny the worth of the triple guarantee. If his concern is to protect the basic state pension, will he address the needs of those people who do not receive its full value because of the high rate of contracted-out deductions? Many people suspect that the rate of deductions is excessive and punitive, and some say that it represents a marginal tax rate of 80% or 90% on their basic state pension.

Disability Allowance

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Like other Members, I will keep my remarks short, given the time pressure.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) on securing this important debate on an issue that affects many people and that worries many more people. The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) referred to the observation of the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Miss Begg), the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, that a lot of concerns were being expressed in the blogosphere about this issue. However, I do not think that the hon. Lady was reflecting any confusion on her part; she was reflecting the scale of the fear and concern among many people who will be affected by the change.

People are worried about who is affected by these cuts and where the cuts will extend. The proposal is currently that the cut will affect people who are local authority-funded, or who are deemed to be local authority-funded, in residential care, but not self-funders. However, people will inevitably then say, “How does the logic of that stack up? Will self-funders be targeted too, because how can you justify some people in a residential care setting getting this benefit just because they are self-funded when other people do not get it?”

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that this cut—nasty and horrible as it is—affects about 60,000 people, but that the mobility allowance goes much wider than that? Is this the start of something much bigger, whereby the mobility allowance is removed altogether?

[Mark Durkan]

I think that many people have that concern, precisely because of the confused arguments that are now coming from the Government to justify the cut. Even in this debate, several hon. Members have suggested that this is just switching from one channel of support to another. Some hon. Members seemed to be suggesting that it might not even be a cut at all. We were told that the change was justified on the basis of the need to cut the deficit and because there had to be a cut in the welfare bill, but now we are being told that it might not be a cut at all and that the money might reach people by different means. However, does anyone seriously believe that the money that already reaches people in a highly personal and highly effective way, and that is well justified by the needs of those people, will be replaced or replicated by personalised budgets coming through hard-pressed local authorities? No, it will not.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) asked what consultation there had been with the devolved authorities. I know that Alex Attwood, the Social Development Minister in Northern Ireland, who runs the Department that covers the social security agency, has made it very clear that he cannot pretend—to himself or anybody else—that if this cut is imposed, it will be made good by the health and social care trusts in Northern Ireland and the sort of packages of personalised budgeting that they would be able to deliver, because those trusts are already under severe pressure after going through years of efficiency saving and because they face yet more again.

There is no point in people trying to delude themselves, or anybody else, by pretending that this is not really a cut at all. Some of the arguments almost amount to a sort of “let them eat cake” answer, Some suggest that there might be something better for people than what is in place already, but people know what they use the allowance for. They use it to ensure that they are able to get accessible taxis, to continue to run their Motability car, or so they can fund powered wheelchairs to get them about in their life and to keep them connected with their family, neighbourhood, and the voluntary groups and support efforts in which they are involved. Many people in residential care homes who receive the allowance use it not just for themselves. Many of them deliver messages, collect library books or do other things for those who are in the care settings with them.

I ask the Government to think again about this cut. In the minds of the people who are making this cut, I am at a loss to understand whether it is justified by context, because of the urgency of tackling the deficit, as we are told; whether it is a convenience cut, simply because the people affected seem to be a handy group of people to get and those who are making the cut have made the mistake of thinking that they are the equivalent of people who are in hospital; or whether it is a conviction cut. Are people somehow genuinely scandalised that people in residential care settings are able to have a modicum of decency, independence and choice for themselves by virtue of this allowance? We are still getting confused and inconsistent answers from the Government, so I hope that the Minister will clarify the situation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Lady must understand, as her hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East has said, that the measure has to be seen in the context of the wider reform of DLA, so I will outline a little more on that. The reform of DLA will allow us to ensure that we accurately and consistently assess people’s support needs and reassess those receiving the allowance as their needs change over time, which is also currently lacking. We believe that that is crucial. As a result of the reforms, we believe that we can focus resources where they are most needed.

I will now address the specific measure on the mobility element of DLA. We believe that the mobility element plays an important part in helping disabled people lead more independent and autonomous lives, an ambition with which I am sure all Members agree. However, that element also includes duplication and overlap, which is why we have set out to tackle the disparity as part of the spending review. At present, some people in residential care receive DLA cash directly for their mobility needs, and at the same time they receive varying levels of mobility support at local level from care services, funded by their local authority. That issue was raised by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) in her contribution. In some cases care homes provide excellent mobility support, but in others there is only basic provision, which means that some people receive cash support for services and others do not.

[Mark Durkan]

The Minister referred to the confusion and overlap that the measure is intended to remedy, but what representations have been received about that? Who has made the case that there are chronic difficulties and that all sorts of confusion are seizing people with worry and bewilderment?

[Maria Miller]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that it is the role of the Government to ensure that systems are clear and straightforward, and he will also know from his constituents who are disabled that the push towards personalisation is something that disabled people feel strongly about. Unless we have clear budgets and budget lines, it is difficult for that to happen. I hope that he will understand that it is incumbent on the Government to be able to deal with that.

Welfare Reform

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Thursday 11th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the mandatory work placement. May I explain to him that there has been some over-excited commentary on this proposal? It will be available to jobcentre staff who will be able to use it for two categories of people. First, if someone has been out of work for a long time and comes in, clearly demoralised and with very little self worth, and does not feel that they can get up in the morning—as normal people do when they go to work—they can be put on one of these placements, which will give them a start time and a place of work to go to. All the interviews we have done with people on this scheme have said that they benefited hugely from it because it got them up and out. They will still be brought back in to the jobcentre to look for jobs.

The second group is those people who, we suspect, may actually be already working. Placing them on such a programme does something quite neat: it means that they cannot go off and do the work that they are doing and claim benefit. Instead, they have to make a choice.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I am sure that we all want to be assured by the Secretary of State’s best attempts at a “Somewhere Over the Rainbow” version of his reforms, but we have to test them for the people in the places we know where low employment is an enduring problem. Do the projections for the universal credit include Northern Ireland? In answer to the Chair of the Select Committee, the Secretary of State mentioned bringing the tax credit systems and the DWP systems together. Has he factored in the Social Security Agency in Northern Ireland and discussed the implications with the Minister responsible?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have been over there and discussed these matters with my opposite number. I want the reforms to apply to Northern Ireland, and they will. The area has particular problems, as he knows, and we need other devices to overcome those. However, people are unemployed and without work for much the same reason as over here, and I therefore look forward to being able to implement these reforms in Northern Ireland.