Personal Independence Payments (Wales)

Mark Tami Excerpts

Wednesday 9th April 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Mr Owen. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) made a powerful case about some of the problems that people are facing. I am sure that all of us in this Chamber want to see people getting back to work if they are able to do so, but none of us wants to see whatever ill or disabled people suffer from being made worse because of all the stress and anguish of the process that we are discussing.

We have all heard of vital paperwork not being sent out, delays of up to six months and longer, medical assessments being cancelled at the drop of a hat and even people not being told that their assessment will not take place. Then, when the process has been gone through, some people are being told that they should never have gone through the process in the first place, because of what they suffer from.

My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), who unfortunately has had to leave the Chamber, touched on mental health. That is a particular area of concern. We are talking about people whose lives are already difficult enough without some of the problems that the Government are now forcing on them. We see people who are literally in tears. They do not understand what is happening to them and are worried at every stage of the process. People are even saying to me, “Mr Tami, if I attend the interview, will that be held against me?” I say no, but they are worried; they are scared. They do not understand why their money is being stopped, why this is happening to them. We are making people ill by doing this; there is no point in pretending otherwise. I have been seeing people who were not great the first time I saw them, but each time I see them they are in a worse state. They are in more debt. They are worried; they are scared, because of what is happening to them.

I saw one guy who was in a wheelchair most of the time. He had had two strokes recently. Clearly, that person will not enter the realm of work very easily. Why do we have to put through this process people who are suffering? Equally, another man, who was 64 years of age, had a long history of heart illness. With the best will in the world, how will he enter the realm of work? Who will employ him? [Interruption.] I know, but that is how people view it; they feel that they are being forced out to work.

This is a very difficult situation. I accept that. Colleagues have mentioned the meeting with Capita. It has helpfully sent us a note about that and some of the questions that were asked. I notice that it is entitled “Health and wellbeing”, which is a somewhat strange situation, but there we are. Let me go through some of the points that it raises in the note. The first question is:

“Why are claimants facing delays in the assessment process?”

The Minister will not be surprised to hear that it is probably the Minister’s fault:

“Referral volumes from the Department are higher than forecast.”

One of my hon. Friends mentioned this:

“More health professionals are needed. The planning assumption was 141. We have now trained over 250 and will have nearly 450 by July 2014.”

Why was the original figure so wrong? It was not just slightly out. There is a massive difference between those figures.

This is one of my favourites:

“Why was the reality of delivery different to the original assumptions?”

Capita states:

“The complexity of producing the new and detailed reports means that there are a number of interrelated factors that add to the assessment timescales. Critically, the assumptions we originally built our operating plan to have not proved to be accurate in live running.”

I presume that in English that means that they have cocked it up.

[Nia Griffith]

Would my hon. Friend, like me, like the Minister to explain exactly what specifications there were in the service level agreement between the DWP and Capita for time scales after the PIP2 form and the medical assessments have been received for Capita to produce its assessment? What were those specifications?

[Mark Tami]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, because something has gone very badly wrong. As I said, some of these things are not just slightly out; there is a massive problem.

I will quote just one more paragraph from Capita’s note:

“What are the current timescales from applying for PIP to a decision being made?

The Department for Work and Pensions estimate that in total it may take around 21-26 weeks from the time a claimant first calls to initiate a claim to when they write to them with their decision. For most people this will include a face-to-face appointment which could take…12-16 weeks to arrange.”

I find that staggering. Then there is this very helpful comment:

“It may take less time than this or longer”.

There we are; there is our answer. Now we know that things are going very well!

As my hon. Friends have made clear, we have all dealt with such cases. I have details of one here. The person applied for PIP last November. They were chasing and chasing and finally got an assessment date for April, but they are still waiting to go through that process. Someone else applied for PIP in June. They had the assessment. However, they got an answer from the DWP only in March, and again that was after they had chased it. Someone else applied in September 2013. Three medical assessments were cancelled by Capita. Some were cancelled without the person being told. They chased for an appointment and finally got one in January. Again, they were having to chase all the time. My favourite is this one. Someone received a letter on 4 February this year informing them that a consultation would take place at their home sometime between 20 January and 25 January. They go back in time to have the assessment, back to the future, or perhaps it involves the use of a Tardis or there is some other new thing that the Department can use.

[Kevin Brennan]

I do not think that this has been mentioned so far in the debate, but Capita did not only meet us last week; it met many of us before the introduction of PIPs and it made certain commitments and promises, based on the assumptions that it had been given by the DWP that none of these things would happen. We were given assurances that there would not be these kinds of delays, that it had the right plans in place, that it knew what it was doing and that there would be no repetition of the mistakes made by other private contractors such as Atos. It failed miserably on that, and ultimate responsibility does come to the Minister. I am sure he accepts that, and we respect his willingness to take it on board, so as the Minister responding to the debate today, he does not need to go through the history of the benefit. We know that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

Order. Mark Tami.

[Mark Tami]

My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) makes a powerful point. The situation is a mess. Whatever promises are given, it just seems to get worse, even to the point, as hon. Friends have said, that the Department is now having to send in civil servants to try to stem the tide of chaos that is overwhelming the whole system.

On the day on which the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has decided to go, I am not calling for this Minister to go, but his Department needs to look at this situation. It is affecting, and destroying, real people’s lives. It is causing great suffering out there. I ask the Minister just to look at the Government Benches. There is not a single Tory or Liberal Democrat MP from Wales here today. Why is that? It is because they also know what a mess it is and they have run for the hills.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mike Penning)]

Thank you very much indeed for calling me to speak, Mr Owen. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in this very important debate.

Let me say at the outset that it is very important that this type of debate takes place, not least because we can get better information on the record. I know that some hon. Members have not raised individual constituency cases during this debate; some have, but some have not. If they have not done so, please would they give us that information? We will be in contact with Members during the course of today and tomorrow, so that we can pick up on those cases.

I will start today by touching on the point that was raised in the debate about colleagues coming to me and getting responses. I think that it was raised by the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) and I thank her for her kind comments about how we have responded to colleagues, not only in Westminster Hall today but at other times. Actually, it is very useful for me as the Minister to see what goes through, because if individual MPs write to me then I—as Members probably know—write them an individual reply, and while I cannot deal with every individual case, it does give me a better feel for what is going on.

With that in mind, I will go back from Westminster Hall today and act; my officials have heard what hon. Members have said and they will now hear what I am about to say. The hotline will happen. It is not acceptable that there is not a hotline in place. We will get on and do that.

I will touch, quite rightly, on what was probably the most sensitive issue raised in the debate, which is that of the cases concerning the terminally ill. I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), for her kind comments about the actions that I have taken on such cases in the short time that I have been the Minister. I was appalled—I have said that before publicly as well as privately—at the length of time that it was taking for cases concerning the terminally ill to be assessed and for payments to be made. I think that when I arrived in this post, the period was around 28 days. Under the previous disability living allowance system, which was not strictly comparable, the period would have been about 10 days. I want it to come down; I have anecdotal evidence that it is around three to eight days now. As I said to the Work and Pensions Committee, an average of five days is perhaps where we need to be. We need to ensure that these people who so desperately need help get it quickly.

I have worked particularly closely with Macmillan Cancer Support to develop some new methodologies. For instance, it is very difficult for someone visiting a terminally ill person to be on the phone to someone else while they are talking to the person they are looking after; that is particularly difficult with Macmillan cases. So we are going to set up a pilot whereby we give Macmillan the forms there and then, so that they have them on file and we can get them back and through the system more quickly. Macmillan said that it did not like the call system; it kept their nurses and other health professionals waiting for too long. So we are going to work with Macmillan and pilot that new scheme. And we will move from that scheme to secure portable document format, or PDF. That is what most of our GPs use when they deal with insurance companies or anybody else. Hopefully we will continue to review matters and we can continue to reduce the time that it takes to deal with these cases.

In an intervention, the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) said that he hoped I would not just read out the speech that had been prepared for me. He knows me better than that; I have never read a speech in this House that has been prepared for me. I will continue to respond to Members as best I can and, of course, if I am unable to answer the questions in the time that I am allowed, we will write to individual colleagues and ensure that they have the information they need for their constituents.

Do I, as the Minister of State responsible for this portfolio, take responsibility for it? Yes, I do. That is the way that Ministers should act. There was a former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in Westminster Hall earlier, the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain). He is not in Westminster Hall at the moment, but I went to him when I was a Back-Bench MP and said to him, “You are the Secretary of State. You’ve got to take responsibility.” That is exactly what he did.

Whether I make the right decision or the wrong decision will be for others to decide. However, one of the reasons that I wanted this portfolio was to make a difference. The old DLA system was broken; that was alluded to by the hon. Member for Cardiff West. Under that system, less than 6% of claimants had face-to-face interviews; most people were given a paper-based assessment for life. In the case of some people, that was absolutely right and proper, but for an awful lot of people it was not. For instance, it was particularly bad for people with mental health issues, because they could not get the upper rate on the old DLA, really. With PIP, they will be able to.

The hon. Member for Newport East asked me about the roll-out of this system. It has been rolled out in Wales; it is out, in its entirety, for reconsiderations as well as for new claims. So, the one area that I can see the new system in its entirety is Wales. We will break down the data and ensure that it is available to Welsh MPs, so that we can provide feedback. It is too early to give the full basis of the data, and the Audit Commission has also said that.

[Mark Tami]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mike Penning]

I will just finish this point on the Audit Commission, because the Audit Commission was quoted several times. As I was saying, the commission also said that it was too early to see whether the new system would be value for money, because the information is not here yet. I just wanted to balance that argument a bit.

[Mark Tami]

Before the Minister moves off the subject of mental health, one of the other important issues is that, depending on what is wrong with them, people have good days and bad days. It is important to get an all-round picture of their issues, rather than just an on-the-spot assessment—“Yes, they’re OK. Fine.”

[Mike Penning]

I completely taken on board what the hon. Gentleman says. Indeed, what is just as important is that people with mental disabilities often have other disabilities as well and they need to be treated as an individual case, with all their disabilities considered in their entirety.

We are working very closely with Capita. The Capita model is different from the Atos model. As was alluded to by the shadow Minister, Capita is doing 60% of its work within the home and 40% in other assessments. It is completely unacceptable if someone is being asked to travel the distances that we have heard about today. The maximum time someone should travel is 90 minutes. In rural communities, which were referred to in the debate, even that length of time is really difficult, because travelling for 90 minutes in a big capital city is completely different from travelling for the same time in a rural community. I have asked my officials to begin a review today about the access issues that people are having. They will review not only the time that it takes for people to go to an assessment centre but the time it takes for Capita to come to a person’s home, because travelling time is not considered as part of the time for the assessment. I will come on to that in a moment.

amendment of the law

Mark Tami Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[David Wright]

I want to develop my argument before I give way again.

Telford has a particularly good and proactive Labour council, which is driving forward investment projects that will have a very positive effect on our local community. Hundreds of millions of pounds have been invested in the Southwater scheme in the town centre as a result of a partnership between the public and private sectors. That is what a proactive Labour council can do to deliver jobs and investment in the community.

Let me now say a little about what was in the Budget, what was not in it, and what could have been in it. I think that we can give a cautious welcome to what the Government have said about pensions reform, but I also think that the devil will be in the detail. A number of Members have referred to the mis-selling scandals that have taken place over the past few decades. There are significant problems involving fees, and we shall need to look at the regulatory regime more broadly in relation to the pensions market and the pensions sector. I assume that a Bill will be announced in the Queen’s Speech.

There are serious issues to consider in respect of how the pensions sector sits alongside social care, and how we should fund social care in the long term. I am not making a party point. If we are to reform the pensions structure and change the way in which people receive resources and assets, there are serious questions to be asked about the echoes of that when it comes to how we should pay for longer-term care for the people who will need it as our population ages.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend not think that it would have been better for the Government to explore some of those issues before announcing a policy that had clearly had not been fully thought through?

[David Wright]

I agree. I think that the Government could have made an announcement much earlier. They could have conducted a consultation exercise across the pensions sector, and we could then have reached a consensus in the House. The Chancellor is clearly attempting to use this issue as a political tool. We need to have a long-term debate, because these matters will affect our constituents in the very long term. I do trust people with their pension pots; I do trust people to make the right decisions. The people I do not particularly trust are those in the financial sector who will be coming up with new products to sell to people as the pension environment changes. That worries me, and we must think very carefully about how we regulate that sector.

The welfare cap is another issue that came up in the Budget. I do not have a problem with the welfare cap in principle as long as it acknowledges the prevailing economic circumstances that people face in local communities. A blanket cap that does not acknowledge changes in the economy or what is happening in the wider economy just will not work.

I also welcome the development on ISAs. The raising of the threshold to £15,000 is a good thing and gives a positive message about savings, but I have to say that the Conservative party seems to be living in a different world from me. Not many people in Telford can afford to invest £15,000 a year in an ISA, and I cannot think of many couples who can invest double the amount.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Tami Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

As I am sure my hon. Friend knows, the Government are already investing more than £7 million in superfast broadband in Derbyshire, and the additional money that we have pledged—£250 million—will give further coverage in his area, but it will be up to the local authority to ensure that it is targeted in the right way. I am sure he will work with the local authority to ensure that that is done well.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

More than a third of all new properties benefiting from superfast broadband are in Wales. Will the Secretary of State applaud the Welsh Assembly Government for their success in that area, and what does she think she can learn from Wales for England?

[Maria Miller]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing up the situation in Wales. Of course, the coalition Government are proud to have ensured that that funding was in place to make that happen for the people of Wales. As he will know, if it was up to the Labour party, all that the people of Wales would be receiving by now is 2 megabits, which would absolutely not have been right for businesses in his area.

Jobs and Business

Mark Tami Excerpts

Friday 10th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)]

I am delighted to be able to introduce the section of the debate on the Queen’s Speech that relates to economic matters, particularly jobs and business. We will be talking primarily about Bills dealing with national insurance reductions for companies, consumer protection, and the protection of intellectual property, particularly design, as well as some of the carry-over Bills that will have significant implications in relation to banking, workplace change and reform, and shared parental leave and flexible working, which still have to be legislated for. We will also discuss some of the important social measures that have major economic implications, particularly the reforms of pensions and social care, about which my colleague the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will speak. Of course, these are social changes, but they will have major economic consequences, notably incentivising saving and thereby contributing to long-term economic growth.

It is perhaps useful to focus on some of the comments that business groups made about this agenda. The Federation of Small Businesses responded by saying that it welcomes

“the focus on a stronger economy and measures to help small businesses to create jobs.”

The British Chambers of Commerce said:

“On balance, businesses will welcome the limited package of legislation announced in the Queen’s Speech.”

The CBI was more critical, but made this perfectly valid point, which will be at the heart of the debate:

“You cannot legislate your way to economic growth”.

Indeed, and that is why, in essence, this debate will be about economic policy rather than legislation.

We need to start with the basic economic context in which we operate. When we are writing the economic history of the past two decades, the story will be one of a spectacular boom and a spectacular bust—15 years of remarkable continued economic growth followed by the worst crash since after the first world war, the two things being intimately connected. The first requirement in approaching this subject is a certain degree of humility. We are in unprecedented conditions, and it is important to acknowledge that there is no simple or easy answer to many of the difficult issues that we have to grapple with. Risks are associated with fiscal consolidation that is too fast and risks are associated with fiscal consolidation that is too slow. There are genuine debates about the best mix of monetary and fiscal policy. There are also serious debates on how we deal with the banks in such a way that they rediscover their appetite for risk but do not do so in a way that destabilises the banking system as before. I hope that everybody in this debate, particularly the Opposition, will approach these very tricky issues recognising the very difficult context in which we operate.

Let me address a few of the questions that the Leader of the Opposition asked in his response to the Queen’s Speech. He asked about jobs, the link between jobs and wages, the very emotive but important issue of migration, and the banking system, which is at the heart of the problems we are dealing with. I will start with jobs.

We have unemployment of about 7.8% or 7.9%. That is about a third of what it was in the great depression of the 1930s, a rather comparable period in our history, but none the less worryingly high. It is useful, however, to make some apt comparisons. In the United States, which has recovered from the crisis much better than any other western country, except possibly Australia, the unemployment rate is slightly less, at about 7.6%. In France, which has had the benefit, if such it is, of a socialist Government, the unemployment rate is 10.6%. In Sweden, which is an interesting case—it is not in any sense shackled by the eurozone and it has had probably the most enlightened welfare and labour market policies of any European country—unemployment is significantly higher than in the UK, at about 8.8%.

Under this Government—perhaps even in the rather partisan atmosphere in which we debate things in this House, we should get a little credit for this—we have seen the creation of 1.2 million private sector jobs; the expansion of manufacturing employment, now at 82,000 after a period of Labour Government in which it collapsed from 4 million to 2.5 million; and private sector employment increasing six times as fast as public sector employment declined.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

The Government talk a lot about the growth in private sector jobs. If jobs are being created, why is the economy showing no signs of growth and just bumping along the bottom? Surely we should be producing more and the economy should be growing.

[Vince Cable]

That is an extraordinarily naive question in the wake of the phenomenal financial crash that we have had. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is familiar with the economic literature, but the econometric data suggest that after the banking crash that Britain experienced we should have lost about 50% of our GDP. We have done well to avert that. We face a difficult set of circumstances. It is a remarkable success story that in an economy that is still recovering from such a long economic heart attack, we are generating significant private sector employment growth. That is positive. Alongside that, we have seen the growth of about 250,000 new businesses, which will be the source of employment growth.

Disability Benefits and Social Care

Mark Tami Excerpts

Wednesday 20th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Byrne]

My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point. For many Remploy workers, their place of work is more than simply a job; it is a community and it is vital to their life and well-being. In a community like my hon. Friend’s, where nine people are chasing every job, these people deserve real answers about a sustainable future.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that Remploy gives disabled people the dignity of work. It has been shown that, without that, both their mental and physical health suffers, with all the problems that result from it.

[Mr Byrne]

Of course. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have seen reports today, debated in the media and in the House, about the pressure that the national health service is now coming under. When we drag and cut away support such as work and other vital benefits, people will, frankly, be thrown on the mercies of the health service—a health service that we know is terribly overstretched.

Disabled Young People (Support)

Mark Tami Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2011 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I am delighted to have secured this debate on support for disabled young people. I have called for this debate today because I have had serious concerns for some time about the inadequate transitional arrangements for many disabled children, particularly those with learning disabilities in the key period from childhood to adulthood. Having spoken to a number of disability charities such as Mencap and the National Autistic Society, as well as others, it is clear that problems with transition, as many of us in the Chamber know, have been going on for many years. I wished to secure the debate so that the Minister could reassure me that the coalition Government understand that there is a problem with transition and can outline how they propose to tackle that problem.

I should like to outline the common challenges that many parents of disabled children, and the young men and women themselves, experience once they are over the age of 17 or, in some cases, 16. Preparation for adulthood is a time of challenge and celebration for all young people, but for disabled young people, more often than not, it is a time of particular challenges. The Transition Support Programme and the wider Aiming High for Disabled Children programme, 2008-2011, resulted in improved consistency of support to young people and families across the country, including greater expectations that disabled young people would achieve their goals for adult life, so I am disappointed that those programmes are no longer running and would welcome the Minister’s comments on what will replace them.

As many hon. Members know from their postbags, parents of disabled people have to deal with numerous statutory services, from local councils in relation to disability access and provision in the home, to social services with regard to helping them to manage and providing respite care. Parents often have a great deal of contact with the local hospital or NHS to help the family with whatever the disability may be, particularly if it is a profound disability. For each disabled child, there is supposed to be a social worker who helps to co-ordinate all the different services. However, that key worker service ceases once the child reaches adulthood—if they were fortunate enough to have had a key worker.

Tussie Myerson, who contacted my office to share her daughter’s story, told me about one such case. Her daughter Emmy is 20 and profoundly disabled. Incidentally, Emmy’s story was first told in Parliament eight years ago, when the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) was her MP. Since then, regretfully, her story has not much improved. Emmy, and her mother and father, have not had contact with a social worker for six years and have never had any contact with a key worker or benefited from any transition arrangements.

In 2006, the National Autistic Society surveyed its members on their experience of transition. It found that only 53% of young people with statements received transition plans during the course of their education, with the figure falling to 34% of students in mainstream schools—and that is a legal obligation. Unsurprisingly, 45% of those who participated in transition planning were dissatisfied with the whole process. One issue has crept up again and again as I have delved into the provision of support for young disabled people: the lack of—forgive the cliché—joined up, co-ordinated provision and a failure to share best practice between different authorities, leaving many parents to feel that the transition is something of a postcode lottery.

Emmy also had the misfortune of moving from one local authority to another, which her mother deemed to be a fiasco, to put it mildly. Emmy is now in her eighth year of legal wrangling with the local authority. She receives legal aid. I dread to think what the total cost of her legal fees might be, not to mention those of the local authority, but I am certain that without legal aid Emmy and her parents would not have been able to fight her case.

That is just one example. There are plenty more like it. When we get it wrong, disabled people suffer, their families suffer and, sadly, it can and does often lead up to the break-up of families.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

I, too, have had parents of disabled children come to see me. It puts a terrible stress on them. Parents worry very much about the future. They do not know what the future holds for their child, particularly when they are no longer with us.

[Stephen Lloyd]

I agree. Sometimes the parents split due to the sheer strain—and not just of looking after a severely disabled child, which is a challenge, no matter how much the parents love them. The situation often leads to irrevocable strain between parents, which is one of the saddest things that I have seen. Like all hon. Members, I have seen a lot of desperate cases. Often, the reason why parents split up is because statutory authorities, though they often try to be helpful, are clunky, and lack consideration and co-ordination. That, as I will go on to explain, makes it much worse. It also costs a great deal of money for the family, local authorities and all the agencies. It is therefore imperative, particularly for disabled children going into transition, that we get it right first time. I am sure that the Minister and hon. Members can appreciate how complex and challenging such a scenario must be for both the disabled young adult and the parents.

I have been liaising for the debate with Mencap, which has been very helpful and supportive. It has put together a document that defines what a good transition must look like. In its view, which I share, it is defined by three stages: planning, process and destination. To be a successful transition, each stage must be followed effectively and, most importantly, tailored to the individual, but there are general principles that can be applied to each stage. It is recognised that all young people should be at the centre of their transition planning—that is incredibly obvious. That is important for parents, uncles and aunts, and children without disability, but is doubly important when working with a disabled young adult. For young people with a learning disability, a plan will be achieved only if it is timely, accessible and diverse. To be ready for the start of their transition, young people should be encouraged to think about their options in year 8, so that they are adequately prepared for their review in year 9. In the run-up to and following their review, young people should have access to appropriate information about their rights and their options regarding their future. Ideally, the options presented to young disabled adults should be limitless. For all of us and for all disabled children, transition should be an exciting time for exploration, not a restricted choice of a predefined future.

No particular Governments or Government are at fault here; this has been a challenge for a long time. Even well before I was elected, I had people in my constituency come to see me who were absolutely petrified because their child was getting to the end of teenagedom and going into young adulthood. They knew that the key worker was going and that the services that supposedly, and often do, come automatically with young disabled children would disappear. It is no exaggeration to say that they were petrified.

If choice is to be at the heart of young people’s transition, it is crucial that they be given the opportunity to explore their aspirations with the aim of reaching their potential. For young disabled people to have such aspirations, those around them must be aiming to achieve the highest quality of life for them. None of that is complicated or different—it is exactly the same for non-disabled young adults as for those who are disabled.

Throughout a young person’s transition, the process should be co-ordinated and resourced. Although young disabled adults must be the director of their transition journey, it is crucial that the services supporting them be aware of each other’s role in the process. The position of key worker for a young disabled adult is therefore vital, to keep all the professionals in the loop. Obviously, within that, it is about working very closely with the parents of someone who has a profound learning disability, because as well as the work done with the young disabled adult, the parents are best suited to help and guide the child to decide what is best. Often, profound learning disability is accompanied by communication challenges.

For each service to play its part, adequate resources must be provided, mainly that of time. Each professional involved must be prepared to work alongside the young person regularly, to offer support and advice. The transition process should, however, be as unobtrusive as possible, to allow the young disabled person to enjoy as best as possible an ordinary teenhood.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Lloyd]

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

[Mark Tami]

The hon. Gentleman makes a crucial point. Many employees make assumptions that disabled young people are capable of doing only certain jobs. That is wrong, and is a particular problem when dealing with mental health issues. Many employers make assumptions and do not want to employ such people.

[Stephen Lloyd]

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to participate in the debate under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I am also pleased that the Minister responsible for disabled people will respond to it because, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd)—I have called him my hon. Friend because we are colleagues on the Select Committee on Work and Pensions and have discussed these matters in that Committee on many occasions—we are covering a very wide ambit of departmental responsibilities in the debate. It is good that the Minister who can draw all those together for us in government will respond to the debate. We are pleased that she is here this morning.

Like the hon. Member for Eastbourne, I want to focus on some of the transition issues. Of course, for disabled young people, transition is quite a protracted process. It begins when they are in their mid-teens and can stretch right through until they are in their mid-20s as they transfer from children’s services to adult services in terms of how the social care package and social support are provided. Like all young people, they may move on from school to a college or higher education setting and, in due course, to employment. During that period, they may also seek to leave the family home and set up on their own. It is important that we consider how we support young people through those transitions economically, as well as through the care packages that they receive.

I am fortunate to have had some extremely helpful briefing from Every Disabled Child Matters, as other hon. Members have, and from the transition support co-ordinator at my local authority. One message that comes through clearly is the need for a planned approach to the transition; it cannot be left to chance. In addition, it is important that that planning begins early and is done with the young person and his or her family. Underlying what I want to get across today is the need to support disabled young people in achieving their aspirations. Too often, our aspirations for those young people, employers’ aspirations for them or even the aspirations of colleges, schools and social services for them are too low.

First, however, I will talk about some of the financial issues and I would be grateful if the Minister addressed them. The hon. Member for Eastbourne has already alluded to the implications of the introduction of the personal independence payment in due course. The Minister was good enough to write to me before the summer recess about the arrangements that will be consulted on in relation to children and young people, who are not currently to migrate immediately on to PIP. I think that at that stage she was saying that no firm plans were in place and there would be wide consultation as plans were developed. I certainly welcome that, but she must understand that there is an awful lot of uncertainty and concern as a result of the process still not being firmly available to people so that they can understand what the Government might be contemplating, and for some young people—for example, a young man I met in my constituency who is on the autistic spectrum—uncertainty is a particular worry. We were told that he already, at the age of 17, was beginning to worry about what the transition would mean for him. I therefore hope that the Minister can give us more information about the process today.

If young people aged 16 to 18 are placed on a benefit, as I accept they are now with DLA, that is identical to what adults receive, how will that be designed appropriately to meet their needs? We are particularly concerned about that. We are also concerned—other hon. Members alluded to this—about the assessment process for young people. In his comments to me, the transition support co-ordinator in Trafford highlighted the fact that young people already go through multiple assessments for different packages of support and benefits. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) has highlighted one way in which we might ease the assessment process, by going to the individual rather than setting up a series of assessment hurdles that they have to come to and cross. It is a very imaginative idea, which I hope the Minister will explore.

I am concerned about another issue. The Minister has indicated in the past that it is not necessarily the case that young people as they turn 16 in 2013 will automatically be migrated on to PIP, but I would like to know what further thinking she has developed in relation to the transition period. Does she envisage a phased transfer of young people on to PIP from DLA? If so, what will the time scale be and who might go first?

The Minister will know that real concerns remain about the situation of children and young people if the extended qualifying period for PIP that is proposed for adults is also applied to them. Children’s conditions develop and change incredibly quickly in some cases. CLIC Sargent has estimated that, if the extended qualifying period for PIP were applied to children and young people, that could lead to nine out of 10 families, and 60% of all its clients, suffering financially.

[Mark Tami]

It is an important point that CLIC Sargent raises, because the onset of a cancer is very sudden and, although some children react very well to the treatment, some children do not and there is an up-and-down pattern, so it cannot be said that there is a consistent level of requirement for those children. It is therefore very important that the support is in place straight away and particularly when the parents have received that devastating news.

[Kate Green]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I say, many children’s conditions vary, progress and retreat much more suddenly and rapidly than those of adults. Crucially, children’s educational and social development is also taking place as they grow into young adulthood. If there are concerns about the financial support for children with medical conditions, that will also have wider developmental implications for them.

There is continuing uncertainty about children and young people in residential settings. I am particularly interested in young adults, some of whom are quite likely to want to look at residential colleges for their further education. The Minister wants to remove any duplication in funding in relation to the mobility component that people receive as part of DLA. I would be grateful if she could tell us how she expects to assess whether there is actually any duplication, because I have so far been unable to uncover much evidence of it. What assessment has she made of the implications for young people over the age of 16 in residential colleges, and particularly for their ability to participate as fully as possible in not only educational life but wider social life?

I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Eastbourne on housing benefit. I also want to highlight the concern that constituents have raised with me about the substantial costs of adapting housing and about the implications for them if the housing benefit changes and the housing benefit cap force them to move. It seems quite ridiculous that, as a result of other policies, we should disrupt families who might have had to make substantial investments to adapt their home accommodation. I hope that the Minister will indicate that there will be flexibility in the system to ensure that families of young disabled people, in particular, are not subject to great instability and do not have to move as a result of housing benefit changes. That is particularly important for the young people we are talking about, because such instability disrupts not only their social and educational networks but their medical and care networks in many cases.

Welfare Reform Bill

Mark Tami Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Margaret Curran]

I am afraid that I do not have specific numbers to hand, but I will make it my business to get that information because it would be very interesting. I am sure that some organisations could help us estimate those numbers and the different categories that my hon. Friend highlighted. He outlined a common-sense approach. It makes no sense to put these people through this stress, or to add to the bureaucratic costs of administering the process, when that money should be going to the disabled people themselves.

In a time of economic restraint, I am sure that everyone on both sides of the House agrees that this is a huge amount of money to spend on administration, so we should consider opportunities to reduce the costs. It is absurd to propose reassessing conditions that will clearly be eligible for the new PIPs. I have asked how much it will cost, and I will try to get answers—perhaps the Minister can give them in her reply. If the argument for retaining automatic entitlement is rooted in the avoidance of needless assessment, it is also grounded in the goal of appeasing the anxiety of many disabled people about having to undergo reassessment for PIP eligibility. As I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) knows, one of the biggest concerns disabled people tell us about is the constant reassessments they have to undergo, despite it being obvious to everybody that they have a disability. They are needless assessments.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that problems are also created by the period disabled people have to wait before an assessment and the consequent stress and worry? They read newspapers that convince them they are not going to get the benefit, and their overall state worsens as a result of this whole exercise.

[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.

Welfare Reform Bill

Mark Tami Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

I recognise that a lot of Members want to take part in the debate, and I want to make just a few points about the possible effects of changing the disability living allowance and the impact on young people with cancer and their families.

Receiving a diagnosis of cancer for your child is devastating. Each day, 10 families get that terrible news. For my family, that news came on 31 July 2007, when what we thought was a viral issue with our son was in fact leukaemia. Your life and that of your family changes at that moment: you are scared, frightened, terrified—you do not know what is going to happen next—and when the treatment starts, it is quite an aggressive process. It is a long, helter-skelter journey; there is no quick fix. For girls the protocol is two years, and for boys it is three. Children will respond very differently to chemotherapy. Some will respond relatively well, whereas others will get quite ill, but few get through it without any side effects. There will be times when things will be fairly stable, with periods at home and out of hospital, but there will be other times when you are back in and out of the hospital with an infection or some other problem, which affects the family as a whole.

The financial impact of this illness on your family is probably the last thing you think about when you are told the devastating news, but it must be taken into account because, like the treatment period, it goes on for years, rather than days, weeks or months. We were fortunate because I have a well-paid job and an understanding employer. In my case, two parents can share the care, we have the use of a car, and we have a supportive family and friends. Many people I have met and know were not in that position, which is why disability living allowance is a very important, if limited, support, on which many people rely.

I ask the House to consider what it is like being in a hospital almost full time, day and night, perhaps with another child at home who cannot really grasp what is going on. Some people in this position are single parents. Some cannot drive or do not own a car, so the very task of getting to and from hospital becomes a nightmare. Some do not have any family network or friends on whom they can rely. Perhaps their employer, who at first was very understanding, later requires them to come back to work, but as they are not sure what the next day will bring they are not sure whether they can commit to doing that. They start to use up their paid leave, then start to take unpaid leave, and then perhaps they give up their job altogether.

A 2007 survey found that 83% of families incur significant extra costs associated with their child’s cancer and 68% get into actual financial difficulties. I think that the survey is wrong, because I believe that about 100% of people in this position find themselves incurring extra costs—I do not see how they can fail to do so. The current qualifying period for DLA already creates problems, as it takes no account of the sudden onset of many cancers—that point was made earlier. Families need help at the earliest possible time, and doubling the qualifying period will only make matters far worse. I ask the Government to look at that again, and I hope they do so.

I also ask the Government to recognise that cancer treatment is not a nice, smooth process; there are ups and downs, and a failure of the treatment or a relapse will result in a different protocol being used, which again can cause a number of problems. My son went down the transplant route, and a lot of issues arise there. Families may need just as much support a year or two years down the line as they did when they received the first news. There is no one-size-fits-all solution and any assessment criteria must take account of that. The Government need to rethink and to listen to charities such as CLIC Sargent, which deal with the families day in, day out and provide a very high level of care. They are the experts. Please listen to the experts and take their views on board.

Tackling Poverty in the UK

Mark Tami Excerpts

Thursday 10th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Gentleman makes his point very well and I commend him for the work that he has done to highlight the subject. One of the most disappointing things about the last Administration is that, despite talking as much as they did about child poverty, they missed their 2010 target. In their later years in office, child poverty was rising, and not simply as a result of the recession.

The reality is that being in poverty shapes those children’s lives and too often ends the lives of too many people. On average, people living in the poorest neighbourhoods in England will die seven years earlier than those living in wealthier neighbourhoods. Health inequalities today are worse than they were in the 1970s and the gap in educational attainment between children from rich and poor backgrounds remains persistently great.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that one form of poverty that is little mentioned is poverty of aspiration for young people who come from very deprived backgrounds? They do not see further or higher education as something that is for them. That is why it is important that we continue to put money into education: if we do not, that gap will worsen.

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Gentleman is right. What he says about higher education is one reason why I am proud that the present Administration will provide more university places this year than were planned by the previous Administration. He makes a valid point. I remember the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) saying in the House some years ago that in his constituency, a person was seen to be weird if he or she stayed on in education past the age of 16. That underlines the challenge in communities where there is too little experience of educational achievement. I absolutely agree with the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami): there is a need to break down the barriers and to raise aspirations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

Of course, we have not been in office since 1997. One of the tragedies of the past 13 years is seeing the amount of money spent leading to so little in the way of results. The point made by the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside about poverty of aspiration is a crucial one. I shall come on to discuss worklessness, but a lack of experience of work or educational achievement in a household, and other factors, can make such a difference. The divides are enormous. If one goes to a city such as Liverpool, one only has to walk for 20 minutes from one of the smartest, newest shopping centres in the country to streets where almost no one is working. Worklessness is central to the challenges faced by many of our communities.

[Mark Tami]

What are the right hon. Gentleman’s views on the comments made earlier by the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), who said that local authority cuts will fall hardest on the poorest areas?

[Chris Grayling]

We have to look at this in a far more three-dimensional way. It is about changing educational achievement, which is why we have said that it is important to focus on a pupil premium for the most deprived areas. It is also why we have said that it is important to ensure, as the economy recovers and as the employment market picks up, that we do not make the mistakes of the past 10 years. Too many of the jobs that were created went to people coming into the country from overseas, as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead has identified on more than one occasion. We have to make sure that we break down the culture of worklessness and educational failure, which is as essential to dealing with poverty as any other factor.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Goodman]

No, I do not suggest that at all. I suggest that those statistics are selective and that, if we take the decade as a whole, we see an extremely positive record on poverty across the board.

[Mark Tami]

Will my hon. Friend express a view on the comments of the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill)? I asked about them earlier and did not receive an answer, but the Under-Secretary said that the poorest would bear the brunt of the cuts.

[Helen Goodman]

That is the big worry, and if even Government Back Benchers can see it, I hope that Government Front Benchers will take that concern very seriously. As my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) said earlier, the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies also stated that Labour’s tax and benefit reforms have reduced income inequality. If we had maintained the policies that we inherited in 1997, there would have been a much greater degree of income inequality.

The Minister before us this afternoon also overstated his case on worklessness. In fact, the number of people on inactive benefits is now 350,000 lower than the number that we inherited, and the number of lone parents in work has increased substantially from 46 to 58%, because of the positive measures that we took. I hope he does not mind my saying that he will find the problems rather more intractable than he implied in his speech.

We welcome the commitment to restoring the earnings link to pensions, and we are extremely pleased that the Government have decided to maintain the winter fuel allowance and free bus passes, which we introduced. As the Minister said, encouraging a savings culture is obviously important, but Labour Members cannot quite marry that with the halt that seems to have been put on the auto-enrolment programme.

[Helen Goodman]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention.

The Minister talked about the importance of the problem of debt facing the very poorest people, and the Secretary of State mentioned credit unions in his speech on Tuesday night. The Labour Government introduced a growth fund for credit unions, and we put £86 million into credit unions across the country. I very much hope that the new Government will maintain that level of support in the public spending round that they are going to undertake.

[Mark Tami]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is very important that we keep that support for credit unions, because if they are not there, such people will, yet again, have to turn to loan sharks and others who demand very high interest rates, often with menaces?

[Helen Goodman]

That is absolutely right. It is vital that we prevent the poorest people from being exploited in the way they have been. There is a lot of work to be done on this subject.