Oral Answers to Questions

Marsha De Cordova Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)]

I am very pleased that I am wearing my Help for Heroes band today. I am delighted to hear about the work of the charity that my hon. Friend mentions. We are working with our champions in jobcentres to get people who have been service leaders into work, and we have work coaches who are dedicated to that. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to find out more about the charity and tell him more about what we do in jobcentres.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

It appears that the Government’s plan to clear up the economic disaster that they created is to implement austerity 2.0. Nearly 1.5 million people, including many of my constituents, have now been pushed into poverty as a result of their policies: the cuts to the social security net, the benefit cap and the cuts to support for disabled people, as well as the cruel and inhumane conditionality and sanctions regime. What discussions is the new Secretary of State having with the Chancellor to ensure that those in low-income households will not have to face any further cuts to social security to help to clear up this mess created by his Government?

[Mims Davies]

The benefit cap is important because it restores fairness to the balance between those on working-age benefits and taxpayers in employment. Along with changes in the taper rate, this means that moving people into work wherever possible is the best way out of poverty.

Social Security (Additional Payments) Bill

Marsha De Cordova Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 22nd June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

The hon. Gentleman is incorrect in saying that money is denied to people. The whole point of receiving an advance is that there is phasing and, instead of receiving 12 payments in a typical calendar year, 13 payments are made. We extended that recently so that people can choose whether to have 25 payments over 24 months. It is not a case of people being denied.

The Social Security (Additional Payments) Bill before the House is a short Bill of 11 clauses that gives us the powers necessary to administer payments to families on means-tested and disability benefits. As one-off new benefit payments, they will be delivered by the UK Government to eligible households right across the United Kingdom in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The timing of such payments will vary, starting with the first payment of £326 for DWP means-tested benefit claimants from 14 July. The second payment will arrive in the autumn for those eligible. Those on tax credits who do not receive DWP means-tested benefits will get each instalment later to avoid duplicate payments.

People not eligible in time for the first £326 payment because they were not getting a qualifying benefit in the month before the announcement may get the second £324 payment if they have a qualifying entitlement to a benefit in the month before the next eligibility date. We have deliberately not included the next eligibility date in the Bill to try not to change claimant behaviour. Instead, there is the power to set a date through regulations.

Those on qualifying disability benefits will get their £150 as a single payment from September. Where eligibility for any of these cost of living payments is found retrospectively—for example, someone who had applied for personal independence payment but not yet been awarded it—people will still receive that disability cost of living payment; it will just be at a later date.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

In opening, the Secretary of State alluded to the fact that 6 million disabled people would qualify for the additional disability support payment of £150. Does she acknowledge that some disabled people—particularly those in receipt of disability living allowance, PIP or attendance allowance—who no longer qualify for the warm home discount since her Government changed the rules, will lose out? In effect, they have taken away £150 through the warm home discount, and the additional £150 really does not do anything to meet the extra costs for people who have already lost out.

[Dr Coffey]

The warm home discount is not relevant to the Bill, but I understand the point. It is the policy of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, but I do not know that the intention was—[Interruption.] I am trying to answer the hon. Lady’s question. My understanding of the policy rationale is that because PIP is not means-tested—it is not income-based—a decision on warm home discount eligibility was made to include many more households on the basis of income rather than PIP eligibility. I am sure that she will welcome the fact that we have included £150 in this legislation.

These one-off tax repayments do not count towards the benefit cap and will not affect existing benefit awards. They will provide a budget boost for millions of the lowest-income households right across the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Ashworth]

The hon. Gentleman anticipates a point I am going to make, which is why now is a good moment to turn to the specifics of the Bill. I want to raise a number of points that I hope Treasury Benchers will address throughout proceedings this afternoon, particularly regarding how the Bill impacts on four groups: the self-employed on universal credit; disabled people and carers; pensioners; and larger families.

First, on the self-employed who claim universal credit, the minimum income floor will reduce universal credit payments for some self-employed people to zero. Could the Minister clarify, in responding to the debate, whether self-employed universal credit claimants whose UC payments are zero purely because of the minimum income floor will be entitled to these cost of living payments?

Secondly, on how this impacts on disabled people, the disability charity Sense has warned today of the increasing numbers of disabled people pushed into debt as a result of the rising cost of living. Those on the Treasury Bench must surely understand that many disabled people have needs that make heating and electricity to power equipment particularly central to their wellbeing, so that economising on energy can bring severe hardship.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) raised a few moments ago, disabled people on non-means-tested benefits will get £150 as a minimum, and indeed those on means-tested benefits will get the £650. I appreciate that the Secretary of State says this is a responsibility of the Business Secretary, but Ministers did recently change the rules on the warm home discount scheme so that 290,000 people on disability living allowance, PIP and attendance allowance are no longer eligible.

For people on PIP, that means that the Government are giving £150 to them after it was taken off them through the changes to the warm home discount scheme. This is robbing Peter to pay Paul, and it suggests that one hand of Government does not know what the other hand of Government is doing. How can that be justified?

[Marsha De Cordova]

My right hon. Friend is making an excellent point, and he probably articulated it even better than I did. Does he also agree with me that the whole premise of DLA, PIP and attendance allowance is to help meet some of the extra costs faced by disabled people? The Secretary of State has stated that this is a different Department—it is BEIS—but she must none the less acknowledge the purpose of these benefits, and taking away one payment and giving some money back with another is actually going to leave nearly 300,000 disabled people worse off.

[Jonathan Ashworth]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I can assure her that she speaks with an eloquence on these matters that I rarely muster, and I thought she put her points powerfully.

Even though many disabled people have been given an additional £150, for many of them that will not cover the additional cost of inflation when applied to disability-related benefits. For example, for those on universal credit, the supplement for someone unable to work or engage in work-related activity rose by about £240 a year less than if it had been uprated in line with the consumer prices index. In addition, someone receiving the daily living component of PIP is worse off by £185 on the standard rate and by £274 on the enhanced rate as a result of the sub-inflation upratings later this year.

That is one of the reasons why many people out there are particularly concerned that the Secretary of State—I understand that, in legislation, she has to review these matters—and the Government may well resile from their commitment to inflation-increase benefits and pensions this September.

Equally, the hon. Gentleman who sits for a Welsh constituency that I cannot remember, and I am not sure I can pronounce it either—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) raised carer’s allowance, and people claiming carer’s allowance will not get any extra support. Carers often have higher energy bills because of their caring responsibilities, yet people in receipt of carer’s allowance—remember that they provide care for at least 35 hours a week and earn less than £132 a week—are likely to be hit hard without additional support. Why were carers left out of this package?

Thirdly, I want to talk about pensioners. We have 2 million pensioners in poverty, and the number is rising. The Prime Minister promised that pensions would keep pace with wages and prices, but, without any thought as to how hard pensioners are finding it to make ends meet, Ministers broke that promise by removing the so-called triple lock. That meant a real-terms cut of about £500 in the basic state pension—the biggest real-terms cut, I believe, for about 50 years. I was pleased to see Ministers commit to honouring the triple lock for next year, but we can see the pressure Ministers are coming under and we hope the Secretary of State does not break that promise for the next financial year.

We also need clarity from Ministers on whether the standard minimum guarantee of pension credit will be uprated in line with the consumer prices index in September. Pensioners on pension credit will receive the £650, as the Secretary of State knows, but pension credit uptake is not what it should be. If we could drive up the uptake of pension credit, Loughborough University estimates than an extra 440,000 retirees could be lifted out of poverty. With approximately 850,000 pensioners not claiming pension credit, a huge number are set to miss out. Failing to do more to increase pension credit uptake could mean that two thirds of the poorest pensioners will not get the extra £650.

I recognise that the Minister for Pensions and Financial Inclusion—the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), who is not in his place—has been leading a campaign to drive up the uptake and has even been ballroom dancing with Len Goodman. However, the Bill’s impact assessment, which the Government have published today, shows that 1.4 million pensioners are benefiting, but in the second round it is estimated that 26,000 fewer payments will be made to pension credit recipients. Can the Secretary of State or the Minister responding to the debate—the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley)—explain why that is and what it says about the success, or otherwise, of the Government’s pension credit take-up campaign?

Families with children are poorly served by flat rate payments. Families in the bottom half of the income distribution with two or more children spend twice as much on food, essential household goods and services, clothing, footwear and transport. Families with three or more children are likely to spend an additional £500 on energy, but the support on offer is not adjusted for size of family.

We recognise that the cost of living payment, combined with the £150 council tax rate, will provide £1,200 for working-age households in receipt of means-tested benefits. However, that will not cover the whole increase in energy bills, especially as further large increases in the price cap, perhaps of £1,000, are expected in October. Nor will it provide much mitigation of the wider price food rises.

Let me spell it out. We know that there will be another rise in gas and electricity prices, possibly of £800 to £1,000, for a family who have already faced an increase of £850. That family will therefore need to find at least £1,650. They will get the council tax deduction of £150; they will get the energy bill loan, turned into a grant, of £400; and they will get £650, paid in two instalments, supposedly to cover the year ahead. That is £1,200 in total, which will still leave them £450 worse off because of the energy price rises this year. As that comes on top of last October’s £20-a-week cut in universal credit, that family’s standard of living will be down by £1,450 on last year—£28 a week. That is even before we take into account the food shopping bill, which Kantar has today predicted will go up by at least £380. The Governor of the Bank of England has warned of “apocalyptic” increases in food prices.

Surely more Government action is needed. Ministers will retort that they are helping families to find employment; employment should indeed be the best defence against the rising cost of living, but under this Government, 8 million people in work are in poverty and are picking up food parcels for their families because of low pay and family circumstances. Some 2 million working families are on universal credit and have suffered similar losses to those who are out of work: they have lost the £20 uplift, they faced a real-terms cut in universal credit in April, and their wages are being outpaced by inflation, even after the national living wage increase.

I recognise that the Minister will respond that the Chancellor has reduced the UC taper rate and increased the work allowance, and that those with the highest earnings who qualify for universal credit gain the most from the reduced taper. However, for those with very low earnings, the gains are much less than the losses elsewhere. A lone parent with two children would lose £1,200 if they were not working, but would lose £1,300 if they were working 10 hours, nearly £700 if they were working 20 hours and £400 if they were working 30 hours. These families have already lost substantial amounts, and the package that the Chancellor has announced does not make up for it. Those examples are not exceptional. They will have a familiarity to every Member who speaks to their local food bank or citizens advice bureau. The problem is that the flat payment system takes no account of family size or special needs.

I hope the Minister addresses those points this afternoon, because we need more than quick fixes to protect the living standards of our constituents and tackle the chronic injustices of poverty. We entered the living standards crisis not just on the back of years of underwhelming economic growth, but after years of cutting, freezing and restricting access to social security, which left us with a threadbare system and an explosion in food bank, baby bank, bedding bank and fuel bank usage. The real-terms value of out-of-work benefits is the lowest for years. We have seen the pernicious two-child policy, caps on support, inadequate help with housing and council tax, and real-terms cuts to universal credit—real-terms deductions to the amount that people on universal credit are forced to grapple with.

That is why child poverty is rising on its way to 5 million, with half a million more children destitute and 500,000 children going without a decent bed at night. The outcry from our communities forced the Government to take short-term action, but we need a long-term plan to rebuild social security, grow the economy, raise living standards, and defeat child and pensioner poverty, so that the victims of poverty can participate fully in society. That is what I am determined to build.

United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Marsha De Cordova Excerpts

Thursday 24th February 2022 Westminster Hall

[Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for the opportunity to raise these matters. Around the world, 1 billion people live with a disability. According to World Vision 20% of the world’s poorest live with a disability, and according to the UN around 80% of disabled people live in developing countries. Here in the UK, nearly half of disabled people—49%—live in poverty, according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. In spite of that, disabled people’s rights at home and abroad have been consistently ignored and deprioritised by the UK Government.

The UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, or the UNCRPD, was adopted by the UN General Assembly in December 2006 and ratified in the UK in 2009. It introduced obligations to

“ensure and promote the full realisation of all human rights and fundamental freedoms”

for all disabled people, including taking into account

“the protection and promotion of the human rights of persons with disabilities”

when making and assessing policy. Following a parliamentary inquiry on disability and development in 2014, the UK committed to become a global leader on this neglected and under-prioritised area in its bilateral development review. However, eight years and a global pandemic later, we have seen glacial progress in the policy area of disability rights in the UK.

Last week, the second global disability summit was hosted by the International Disability Alliance, the Government of Norway and the Government of Ghana. The aim of the summit was to mobilise efforts for the implementation of the United Nations convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, the principles of “leave no one behind” and building back better, and more inclusive programming with regards to covid-19. Although I was glad to see the UK Government making 18 commitments at last week’s summit, they will not meet the real needs of disabled people or allow us to do our duty as global citizens to protect the human rights of disabled people at home and abroad. Sadly, this was a missed opportunity once again, and the UK Government’s commitment fell way short of what is needed. Ahead of last week’s summit, the Scottish National party called on the UK Government to enshrine the UNCRPD in law. That was another missed opportunity to protect disabled people’s rights at home and abroad and to advance the rights of everyone.

The UN committee overseeing the UNCRPD not only called on the UK to incorporate the convention into legislation and allow domestic remedies for breaches in 2017, but has investigated the UK over “grave and systematic violations” of the convention in 2016. Although the UK Government recently published their progress in response to the recommendations late last year, the socioeconomic landscape for disabled people has changed beyond recognition since 2016, when the recommendations were made. Examples include coercion of disabled people or their carers to sign “do not resuscitate” orders, and failure to include disabled people in Government plans for financial and social support during the pandemic. Thus, disabled people’s rights remain a great cause for concern.

The Oxford University disability law and policy project and the Bonavero Institute of Human Rights report, “An Affront to Dignity, Inclusion and Equality”, published on 2 July 2020, referred to a

“failure of the government to implement properly its legal duties with respect to the rights of people with disabilities.”

The report stated:

“The government’s policymaking in response to the pandemic has failed to fulfil its own Public Sector Equality Duty under the Equality Act 2010 with respect to disabled people and its obligations under the United Nations Convention”.

Despite the progress that the UK Government claim to have made, disability organisations have expressed concerns to me and others that disabled people’s rights as set out in the convention are not being protected by the Government. One carer working with the Disabled Children’s Partnership shared her story:

“My name is Sarah, and I live in Devon with my daughter, who has an acquired brain injury...There is horrendous resentment towards disabled people in our society, and carers are massively undervalued. As one of the richest countries in the world with an apparent commitment to human rights, you would have thought the UK could respect disabled children and their families—but we are treated horrifically. We need to change attitudes, change services, and fight the injustices that affect disabled children and families”.

Another carer, Joanna, told me:

“The system is broken....It doesn’t get us the services we have a right to to live a good quality of life, and makes us spend a fortune. It needs reform”.

The national disability strategy, published last summer, committed to being “mindful” of the UNCRPD in its implementation—but being mindful of disabled people’s rights is just not enough. In Scotland, as part of taking forward the 30 progressive, bold and ambitious recommendations of the national taskforce for human rights leadership for a new human rights framework for Scotland, a new human rights Bill will be introduced to the Scottish Parliament during this parliamentary Session. The Bill will incorporate four international human rights treaties, including the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. It will be a significant and historical milestone in the Scottish human rights journey. It will give effect to a wide range of internationally recognised human rights—belonging to everyone in Scotland—as far as possible within devolved competence, and it will strengthen domestic legal protections by making them enforceable in Scots law. It will also demonstrate global human rights leadership, placing Scotland at the forefront of human rights legislation and, most importantly, practice. The inclusion of those rights will empower people, enabling them to claim and enforce their rights in multiple ways domestically, including in a Scottish court. Incorporation of the CRPD will give greater impetus to public bodies to remove barriers and support disabled people to participate fully in society, such as by being able to access information and services and living independently with dignity.

The Scottish Government have created a comprehensive delivery plan to help Scotland meet the requirements of the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. “A Fairer Scotland for Disabled People” was the Scottish Government’s delivery plan for that. It covered 2016 to 2021 and aimed to make equality of opportunity, access to services and independent living a reality for all disabled people in Scotland. Flowery phrases are all well and good, but setting challenging targets is the correct way to push forward on the rights of disabled people. That sometimes leads to not achieving all targets, but overall it leads to improvements in the lives of disabled people. The Scottish Government have committed to publishing a new disability equality plan, which will be published this year. Will the Minister follow the Scottish Government’s lead, commit to enshrining the UNCRPD in law and champion disability rights at home and on the global stage?

The UK Government have exhibited a continual pattern of deprioritising disability inclusion in their policy and decision-making processes. One of the key recommendations following the 2017 investigation by the UN committee into the UK’s implementation of the convention was to involve disabled people and disabled people’s organisations in planning and implementing all laws and policies affecting disabled people. The UK Government said that because the convention was ratified, all UK Government Departments “need” to consider it when developing policies that affect disabled people. However, UKIM, the UK independent mechanism for monitoring progress on the UNCRPD report, said in October 2018 that it

“remains seriously concerned about the continued failure of the UK Government to conduct an assessment of the cumulative impact on disabled people of multiple policy and law reforms in relation to living standards and social security.”

That was exemplified by the national disability strategy published in summer last year, which beyond being, frankly, a lot of bluff and bluster with no meaningful action, failed to consult disabled people in an adequate manner. Disabled people need more than warm words and a surface-level appearance of engagement with the disabled community. Will the Minister commit to properly engaging with disabled people and disabled people’s organisations in planning and implementing all laws and policies that affect disabled people at home and abroad?

Just last month, the High Court ruled that the UK Government’s attempt to involve disabled people and disabled people’s organisations in the consultation that shaped the strategy was both unlawful and inadequate. The chief executive officer of Disability Rights UK, speaking about the strategy, said that it was

“disappointingly thin on immediate actions, medium-term plans and the details of longer term investment”

and that there were

“scant plans and timescales on how to bring about vastly needed improvements to benefits, housing, social care, jobs, education, transport, and equitable access to wider society.”

Some of those issues are devolved, but I am not just talking about people in Scotland: I want people across the UK, especially those with disabilities, to have what is their right. I refer to what I said earlier about challenging targets and how the Scottish Government try to improve the lives of disabled people. On 3 February 2022, the Department for Work and Pensions was refused an opportunity to appeal against the High Court’s ruling. Notwithstanding what you have already said, Mr Stringer, will the Minister confirm whether the Department intends to apply for permission to appeal that decision to the Court of Appeal?

The organisation Sightsavers has raised concerns about the vagueness of the commitments made at the global disability summit last week and about a continual lack of transparency on the implementation of disability inclusion policy by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. For example, it has expressed concern about the UK Government’s commitments to move from equality awareness to equality transformation, which encourages collaborative work to empower women and girls, people with disabilities, and other socially marginalised people. The commitments made at that summit risk being little more than aspirational language with no measurable objectives and few or no financial commitments or plans to report results. While the Scottish Government welcome the UK Government’s commitment to fund the Global Action on Disability network, the FCDO has not made any other financial pledges in its commitments. Without tangible reporting on the results, they hold very little weight in upholding the UNCRPD and protecting disability rights on the global stage, so will the Minister join me in asking the FCDO to make the monitoring framework and action plan that will accompany the disability, inclusion and rights strategy available publicly?

Globally, disabled people are disproportionately impacted by poverty, natural disasters, healthcare barriers and covid-19, but they are still excluded from many aid programmes, which do not take disabled people’s needs into account. Unfortunately, we do not compare completely favourably in a global context, as here in the UK, poverty is consistently higher for disabled people. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, there is a gap of around 12 percentage points in poverty rates between disabled and non-disabled people.

The UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Professor Philip Alston, highlighted in a 2018 statement concerns about changes to legal aid since 2012, which he said had

“overwhelmingly affected the poor and people with disabilities”,

meaning that they were

“effectively deprived of their human right to a remedy.”

In November 2020, the UK Government announced that they intended to spend 0.5% of gross national income on official development assistance in 2021, down from 0.7% in the seven years from 2013. An unpublished impact assessment of the reductions, written in March 2021, reportedly concluded that this would result in a significant reduction in the number and size of programmes targeted at women, girls and disabled people.

World Vision found that less than 0.5% of all international aid targets disability inclusion. Aid was equivalent to less than $1 per person with disabilities in developing economies. The five most disability inclusion-focused donors target just 3% of their aid to this purpose. The SNP was front and centre of the attacks on the Government’s shameful decision to cut aid by over £4 billion this year and by £2.2 billion last year. The unpublished impact assessment I referred to found that this would result in a significant reduction in the number and size of programmes targeted at disabled people. Only six of the 1,161 aid programmes funded by the UK Government had disability inclusion as their primary objective in 2018.

The new disability inclusion strategy launched by the FCDO last week said that it will work to

“accelerate implementation of the UNCRPD”

globally by supporting Governments to fulfil their responsibilities under the convention through legislation and development and through improving local accountability mechanisms.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for obtaining this debate; she is making an excellent opening speech. Would she agree that the UK Government must lead by example by implementing the convention here in the UK before they can preach to anybody on the world stage?

[Marion Fellows]

I totally agree with the hon. Member. That is one of the reasons I wanted this debate. I want the Government to commit. The FCDO’s new disability inclusion strategy said that it will work to accelerate the implementation of the UNCRPD globally. Well, as the hon. Member said, the Government cannot preach to others about what they have not done themselves. The strategy lacks any solid financial or measurable commitments to protect disability rights on the global stage.

Will the Minister join me in asking the FCDO to commit to tripling the number of aid projects that have disability inclusion as their primary objective by 2023, prioritising grassroots disability aid projects and ensuring that disabled people are not further excluded from global aid? Further, will she join me in asking the FCDO to commit to including disability in the eligibility criteria for applying for refugee status in the UK, in recognition of the disproportionate disadvantages disabled people face globally?

The UNCRPD seeks to ensure and promote the full realisation of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all disabled people. Being “mindful” of human rights is not enough; the incorporation of the convention into domestic law will provide the legal enforcement and protection required. It is time for the UK Government to follow the UN committee’s recommendations, match Scotland’s ambition and enshrine the UNCRPD in law, to champion disability rights on the global stage and here in the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your stewardship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) on securing this important debate and on her continued campaigning and championing of such an important issue.

The UN convention on the rights of disabled people—I will say disabled people because I subscribe to the social model of disability, so I will refer to it in that context going forward—is timely because it follows the global disability summit, which was the second of its kind. Many of us will remember that the first summit was hosted by the UK, and I made a number of comments back then about the Government leading by example. Disappointingly, we have progressed in years but there is still no change from the Government.

The convention was established in 2006, and it was the last Labour Government who ratified it. Twelve years on, there has been no implementation of it by this Government. As other hon. Members have asked: why is that?

The pillars of the convention are to ensure health, education, employment, access to justice and information, personal security and, most importantly, independent living for disabled people. It is the benchmark, the blueprint, the gold standard of all policy making to ensure that disabled people can live independently and that we have equal rights: it is about equality. If we say that we are serious about equality, the convention must absolutely be the blueprint for it.

Unfortunately, during more than a decade of austerity we have seen cuts to social security, to social care and to every public service. As I continue to say, that has created a hostile environment for disabled people. Almost half of people in poverty in this country are disabled or live with a person who is disabled. I think we all know, as we proceed further through a cost of living crisis, that that is only going to get worse. The convention is clear on support for disabled children, but there is a gaping funding gap of more than £2 billion in support for those disabled children. Their families report that they are struggling to support them without adequate support.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) mentioned, the independent living fund—the clue is in the title—was cut and scrapped, and was not replaced with a proper independent living fund or support to enable disabled people to live independently. What is the Minister doing to support people in social care? Although the funding that was announced last year is welcome, we all know that it certainly is not enough, because more than 18,000 people’s access to care and support has been affected by the cut.

We all know about the social security cuts; we were all here for the debate about them that I led a few weeks ago. The cuts to employment and support allowance, which remove the work-related activity component, and the changes to PIP have made things incredibly difficult for ill and disabled people. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth highlighted, we need an independent public inquiry into the deaths caused by the cuts. As we all know, far too many people have lost their lives—let that sink in—as a result of cuts to their social security, which is the very thing that is supposed to be a safety net enabling us to live. Sadly, that is happening on this Government’s watch.

I appreciate that the Minister is not the Minister for Disabled People, but ultimately, she is the one who is here and she is responsible, so I really hope that when she responds, she will address some of these issues.

As a result of the cuts to all those services and support, the UK became the first nation state to be investigated for human rights violations against disabled people. That highlights that everything we had been lobbying and campaigning for before I even entered this place was true. I commend the thousands of disabled people who really fought for that investigation to take place. What did the UN committee conclude? Members have already said it, but we cannot say it enough: in 2016, the UK Government were guilty of “grave or systematic violations” of the rights of disabled people. I want the Minister and everyone here to let that sink in. They are some of the most vulnerable people in our society. How can that be right?

What is more worrying is that since the UN commissioner looked at independent living, social security, the right to work and so on, the Government have been required to provide annual updates to the UN committee, but in last year’s update they failed yet again to address the main challenges. Why? Why will the Government not carry out a cumulative impact assessment on all those areas, including independent living, poverty and inclusion in our communities and in employment? I and many other Members from across the House have called for that, but there has been no progress. The years of inaction raise the question: are the Government taking that UN inquiry seriously?

We know the impact that the pandemic has had on disabled people; the numbers do not lie. Six out of 10 covid-related deaths were of people who had underlying health conditions or were disabled. That is a scandal. At the start of the pandemic the Government failed to provide proper signed interpretation; they were found to be liable for that in the courts—we know that happened. We also know that the £20 uplift to universal credit was not applied to those on legacy social security, 2 million of whom were ill and disabled people.

The pandemic has really shone a light on how badly this Government are treating disabled people. This week, when the Prime Minister declared the end of all restrictions, there was still no plan on how we are going to protect the most vulnerable, some of who are disabled. Where is this plan and where is the equality impact assessment? Ultimately the Government do have an obligation to do that.

Other Members have spoken about the issues around consulting disabled people and their organisations. I will not go into detail on the national disability strategy, because the Government are planning to appeal the High Court decision ruling it unlawful. Let us be clear: that is just another decision in a long line of court rulings where the Government were found to be acting unlawfully against disabled people. The Labour party has been clear in its support for disabled people, and we will continue to hold this Government to account for their treatment of disabled people. As I said at the start, we ratified the UN convention; it is time for the Government to implement it. I ask the Minister to tell us why the Government are still choosing not to, and when they will implement it. Does she agree with all of us that the convention should be implemented? That would be a good start.

We disabled people make up a large proportion of the UK population. We face a cost of living crisis. There are so many challenges confronting all of us in society, but we must give a thought to those who are so vulnerable, many of whom are disabled. I ask the Minister, please, to consider that when she responds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mims Davies]

Thank you, Mr Stringer, and I thank the hon. Lady for her kind words. It was quite ironic that during his working life, my father was the first person to put in supported disabled crossings for people with blindness, and became blind later in life due to his acquired injury. It is very important for all of us in policy making to understand that people are not necessarily born with a disability or a health condition.

The hon. Lady mentioned her train station. We have similar access issues in East Grinstead in my constituency, and we are trying to improve them. The Department for Transport also has an access programme under way, so she may want to look at that.

[Marsha De Cordova]

I echo the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), and commend the Minister for sharing her father’s story. Is the Minister aware, however, that we were supposed to meet our obligation to deliver an accessible transport service by 2020, but we failed to meet that target? The Access for All fund was very welcome, but we are not doing very well when it comes to making our stations more accessible.

[Mims Davies]

The hon. Lady makes an important point: I have not even mentioned my Wivelsfield station, so the reality is that we still have work to do. I know that my hon. Friend the Rail Minister, the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), is very committed to that.

The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw, who opened the debate so eloquently, asked about committing to spending on aid projects, and I will address that later in my speech. I am trying to cover various points, so I hope hon. Members will bear with me while I make progress.

Alongside the Government’s national disability strategy, we have published the health and disability Green Paper and the Government’s response to the “Health is everyone’s business” consultation on minimising the risk of ill health and related job loss. Those publications demonstrate that we are taking a holistic approach to improving the lives of individuals living with disability. I think it is important for anybody listening and engaging with this debate to notice and to know that progress is being made. Of course, there is always more to do.

Significant progress has been outlined in the national disability strategy. At the DWP, we have piloted the adjustments passport, which supports disabled people’s transition into employment. The passport is personalised to the individual and captures in-work support needs, enabling the employer to have an informed conversation with the passport holder—we have just heard about flexible working. In addition, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has launched an online advice hub offering accessible information and advice on employment rights for disabled people.

BEIS has also completed a consultation on making flexible working—we have seen hybrid working too—the default in Great Britain unless employers have good reasons not to offer it, and it is reviewing the responses. I think that consultation is crucial and necessary. The pandemic has given us an opportunity to bust the myth of presenteeism and show that, moving forward, many sectors can be flexible and work in a hybrid way and can absolutely be inclusive of people who are disabled or living with a health condition. That will make opportunities so much more accessible for our constituents, which is what we all want.

I want to turn to the comments made by the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth on the pandemic. Since the start of the pandemic, the Government have worked hard to ensure that disabled people have access to employment support, disability benefits, financial support, food, medicines and vaccines, as well as accessible communications and guidance. I, like other Members, had constituents asking for all of that and more, and I am glad that we have been able to respond.

Of course, the NHS is offering new antibody and antiviral treatments for people with covid-19 who are at greater risk of becoming seriously ill, such as those who are immunosuppressed or face other risks. There is separate guidance and there will be additional boosters coming forward as well, which many of our constituents may be eligible for. It is important that we let people know, whoever they are and whatever is going on in their lives, that when it comes to the challenges of living well out of the covid-19 pandemic, we recognise that we must understand the impact on those with a disability or health condition. We are absolutely committed to that.

The Prime Minister made clear in launching the national strategy that we fully recognise the need not only to deliver on our near-term commitments but to go further. I can assure the House that we are doing so. As an example, in the autumn 2021 spending review, we provided an extra £1 billion via the Department for Education to support children and young people with more complex needs, including those with a disability. That will bring the total high-needs budget next year to over £9 billion.

It has been mentioned that work is an important part of disabled people’s lives. It is absolutely right that we in the DWP place the emphasis on supporting people into work where possible. Of course, we know how valuable that is. It is more than just a pay packet; it is camaraderie, friendship, and a reason to get up and get going. It makes such a difference to be part of a team and to achieve what we are able to achieve. I am passionate that, whoever someone is, wherever they are and whatever barriers to progression they may face, if they are able to work, they should be well supported to fulfil their potential by the Government, the community and jobcentres.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mims Davies]

I thank the hon. Lady. If the Bill fell in my portfolio and that of my Department, I could shed many lights on it, but I am afraid it sits with BEIS. I am sure that it will take note of the hon. Lady’s query.

On levelling up opportunities, the work and health programme offers intensive personalised employment support, and we are working with the NHS to improve access to psychological therapy services across England. There are also measures under the access to work scheme, which provides employees with grants of up to £62,900 a year for workplace adaptations, such as special equipment, support workers and help to get to and from work. Last financial year, almost 36,000 people with disabilities and health conditions received tailored and flexible support to do their job under access to work. Not enough people know that that is out there, and I am pleased to make the point today.

Disability Confident is another really important part of the package. We talked about employers seeing the value of having a mixed group of people in their workplace. It is a voluntary, business-led scheme, designed to give employers the knowledge, skills and free resources they need to recruit and retain disabled people, and to help them to develop their skills. As of 30 September, over 20,000 employers were actively engaged with the scheme, which covers more than 11 million employees. It is right that we push harder on this, and we will do that through our national employer partnership.

[Marsha De Cordova]

The Minister talks about the Disability Confident scheme. More than 4 million disabled people of working age want to work. While she may applaud the 35,000 figure, it is not enough. An employer can be a Disability Confident employer and not employ a single disabled person. What quality assurance and monitoring is there to ensure that the scheme will provide for disabled people? At the moment, I am not confident in it.

[Mims Davies]

I thank the hon. Lady for making that point. If I may, I will let the Minister for disabled people, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), pick up on that issue and write to her.

I turn to international engagement—the hon. Lady who introduced the debate, the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw, would be upset if I did not. It is right to emphasise that the UK has a proud record of furthering the rights of disabled people. We have not got it all right, but we are using our overseas development work to go further, and we always have to do more. The UK is a leading global voice on disability inclusion; it hosted the first ever global disability summit, which was mentioned.

[Marsha De Cordova]

Will the Minister give way again on that point?

[Mims Davies]

I need to make progress. I may try to come back to the hon. Lady.

In the same year, we also launched the disability inclusion strategy, setting out our priorities for social protection, economic development, education and humanitarian action. On our commitments to progress on disability inclusion in the FCDO’s diplomacy, policy and programming—

[Marsha De Cordova]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mims Davies]

I am speaking, if I may. The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw will be pleased to know that we are publishing on gov.uk all the details of the ways in which we absolutely are being more inclusive in our aid programme. I hope that is something she will ask for. On our support for global disability rights, we have committed to spending £10 billion in 2021-22, making the UK’s official development assistance, as I mentioned, disability-inclusive. I am very pleased to see that coming forward. We are absolutely committed to implementing the convention through our strong policies. [Hon. Members: “Will the Minister give way?”] I have given way enough, thank you.

On the treaties that were mentioned, the Government are absolutely sure that the substantive provisions are already largely reflected in our existing domestic policies and legislation right across the UK. We note the recommendations, but the Government’s approach is to put in place a combination of policies and legislation to give effect to the UN human rights treaties that we have already ratified.

I need to give the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw some time to respond, so I will try to do that, after making a final point. I would like to underline fully this Government’s commitment to the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, and to transforming the lives and opportunities of disabled people, both in the UK and internationally. We are unwavering, and I hope that the announcements last week will sit right with those listening today. We will continue with the wide-ranging commitments made in the national disability strategy. We will consider how we can build on that and go further, making sure that disabled people’s lives are better every day, and we will do that in the context of a central goal: to level up, and to create a society that is more positive, more engaging, and fairer for all, where everybody can get on and progress.

Oral Answers to Questions

Marsha De Cordova Excerpts

Monday 7th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Chloe Smith]

I certainly can. My hon. Friend is correct: we need to be able to listen to disabled people and disabled people’s organisations of all shapes and sizes. That is what will help us to come to the right conclusions; for example, in the White Paper that we will be bringing forward in the summer.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

The NatCen report is a shocking read that again highlights the hostile environment created by the Department. Disabled people are having to undergo cruel and unfit-for- purpose assessments for their employment and support allowance and personal independence payment; face long delays before a decision is made; and, in most instances, must appeal to a tribunal where they have to wait even longer for vital support. Can the Minister understand why, given those experiences, thousands of disabled people feel let down by the Department? What action will she take to reduce long delays and unfair waiting times?

[Chloe Smith]

We are working to ensure that that benefit gets to the people who need it most as quickly as possible. I must take issue, however, with the hon. Lady’s assertion that most claims go to tribunal or reconsideration. They simply do not. I set out the facts on that last week in Westminster Hall.

Disability Benefits Assessments

Marsha De Cordova Excerpts

Tuesday 1st February 2022 Westminster Hall

[Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

I remind Members to observe social distancing. Before I call the Member to move the motion, I will make a short statement about the sub judice resolution.

I have been advised that the Government have applied to appeal the findings of the High Court on the lawfulness of the UK disability survey. Those proceedings are therefore live before the courts, under the terms of the House’s sub judice resolution. However, Mr Speaker has exercised discretion to allow reference to the issues concerned, given their national importance. Nevertheless, Members should remember that those matters are still before the courts, and they are encouraged not to discuss those legal proceedings in any detail.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered disability benefits assessments and the Government’s health and disability green paper.

It is a pleasure to be here under your stewardship, Sir Gary.

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have come along today to debate this important issue, which affects many of our constituents. I thank all organisations that have supported disabled people and provided briefings for this important debate, including Z2K, Sense, Marie Curie, Mencap, the Royal National Institute of Blind People, the Multiple Sclerosis Society, the Cystic Fibrosis Trust, Rethink Mental Illness, the Young Women’s Trust, Scope and the Charities Aid Foundation.

I also say a special thanks to Citizens Advice Wandsworth, the South West London Law Centres and the Wandsworth food bank, which have supported people in my constituency. I pay tribute to the tens of thousands of disabled people who have been victims of the cruel and callous assessments for the employment and support allowance and the personal independence payment.

In the short time I have been an MP, I have raised the question of social security for disabled people on many occasions. The system should act as a safety net that is there to support each and every citizen in need, as envisaged by the Beveridge report of 1942, which was about strengthening the social contract for those facing hardship in our society by removing the five social ills. However, there is an ever-growing link between poverty and disability, and social security is no longer seen as a basic right.

Disabled people are usually in receipt of employment and support allowance, universal credit, disability living allowance or PIP. As is the case for ESA, disabled people claiming universal credit must undergo the work capability assessment in order to be found to have limited capability for work. PIP is designed to meet some of the extra costs of living with a disability. Since its introduction, however, almost half of those who were previously on DLA and were reassessed for PIP have either completely lost their award, or had it reduced.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Order. Marsha, before you respond, I remind everyone that interventions should be brief.

[Marsha De Cordova]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. He is absolutely spot on; it is so important that these decisions are got right first time around. I will come on to that issue later in my speech.

The overwhelming body of evidence shows that the assessment frameworks for both ESA and PIP are not fit for purpose. They use a series of points-based, functional descriptors and a tick-box approach. PIP looks at an individual’s ability to carry out a series of everyday activities relating to daily living and mobility, and the WCA is supposed to test someone’s capability for work, based on various activities. Its main flaw is its failure to include real-world factors, and it takes no consideration of how carrying out work could affect a particular person’s health. For example, I heard from one person who was asked to touch their toes, no matter how much pain they were in or how such an activity relates to their doing work.

For more than a decade, there has been a growing mistrust of assessors as a result of the errors in reports, and many people do not feel that they are being treated fairly. Research by Demos revealed that WCA assessors assume that people are not telling the truth or are exaggerating their condition, and many people report being treated as if they are making a fraudulent application.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for bringing this important issue to the House. Like other Members, for years I have been receiving heartbreaking stories from constituents in Hampstead and Kilburn about the degrading tribunal process that they are forced to sit through just to access the disability benefits that they desperately need. One constituent told me that she had been to a tribunal on four occasions. She won each time, but while she was waiting for each decision she lost all her other benefits. That included her specially adapted car, leaving her trapped at home. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Green Paper lacks ambition on this issue, and that it is fundamentally unfair that anyone in that situation should lose their social security benefits?

[Marsha De Cordova]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She is absolutely spot on. The knock-on effect of someone being turned down for the support they are entitled to leads to their losing other forms of support, as was the case with her constituent who lost their Motability vehicle.

Assessors often do not have an adequate understanding of the specific disability, impairment or health condition that is being assessed. Although it is accepted that no one can be an expert in all these conditions, it is essential that all assessors receive appropriate disability awareness training and have access to condition or impairment-specific expertise and tools. The charity Scope has rightly called for the categorisation of assessors into groups for specialisms such as mental health, learning difficulties and so on.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way; she is making a powerful case, as she often does on issues relating to disability. I wonder whether she could comment on another aspect of the system that is broken, namely the backlog on work capability assessments. I challenged Ministers—not the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), who will be responding to the debate—about that in November, and I was told that they were working flat out to resolve the problem. In December, there were still 335,500 cases, which are waiting an average of 150 days to be dealt with. I have constituents who are £128 to £340 a month short because of this, and that is having a crippling impact on their family budgets. Does she agree?

[Marsha De Cordova]

I absolutely and wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend’s comments. I really hope that when the Minister responds to the debate, she will set out how the Government intend to tackle this backlog so that disabled people receive the vital support they need at the right time and do not experience such severe delays.

As I was saying, how can it be right that someone who had been assessed by a physiotherapist for their mental health condition was awarded zero points, despite providing evidence from their psychiatrist and their doctor about their condition? At an appeal tribunal, they won and were awarded 45 points, but it should never have got to that stage. I know that many of my hon. Friends who are here today have constituents who have experienced exactly the same thing.

Evidence is an essential part of the assessment process, and it is vital that assessors engage with it. They should make best use of all pre-existing evidence from experts, including healthcare professionals. At present, anyone who undergoes an assessment is not provided with a copy of their assessment report, and that should be an automatic part of the assessment process. Who knows? That could lead to better decisions being made.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend not just on securing the debate, but on everything that she has done on disability issues since she came to the House. Does she agree that we need to support calls for an independent public inquiry into the deaths of claimants, including those who have gone through the work capability and PIP assessment process? We do not know the causes or the scale of those deaths. Surely that work needs to be undertaken as quickly as possible.

[Marsha De Cordova]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I commend her for her impeccable work on the rights of disabled people and tackling inequality. I will come on to the point that she raises, because she is absolutely right. We have long supported the call for an independent public inquiry into these deaths, because it is a scandal that that has not been addressed to date.

People should have a choice about how assessments are carried out, be it face to face or by audio. The process has to be accessible and inclusive. The Disability Benefits Consortium rightly calls for the establishment of an independent regulator of social security assessment, with the power to compel evidence from the Department for Work and Pensions and properly hold the Government to account.

Assessments are carried out by private contractors including Atos, Capita and Maximus. Last November, DWP announced that it would spend £2 billion on disability assessment contracts with private profit-making companies over the next five years. Given the millions already spent, it is clear that these private companies are not providing the best value for money. Labour has long called for all assessments to be brought back in house. That would provide for better scrutiny, accountability and value for money for the taxpayer. Does the Minister agree, and will she take action to address that?

Post assessment, the aim must be to get the decision right first time, but time and again, that has not happened. By the end of 2020 in Battersea, one in five disabled people in receipt of PIP had had their awards reduced, and one in three had their awards completely stopped. Citizens Advice Wandsworth shared the experience of someone who was assessed for both ESA and PIP within three days of each other. In their WCA, they were found to have limited capability for work as they could not walk 50 metres. However, they were awarded zero points for mobility in their PIP assessment, which concluded that they could walk 200 metres. This resulted in them losing their Motability car, so they could no longer drive to work, and they now have to claim universal credit. Surely that is not how the system should work.

With the introduction of mandatory reconsiderations, there has been a marginal improvement, but in 62% of MRs in 2021, the result was to go ahead with the initial decision. Many disabled people feel that the MR process is yet another barrier to their right to pursue an appeal to the independent tribunal. Since 2010, some 587,816 disabled people have been forced to appeal to a tribunal for their ESA. In 2020-21, 76% of PIP appeals and 74% of ESA appeals were successful and decisions were overturned at tribunal.

In the past, disabled people have had to wait long periods of time before their cases have been heard at tribunal. Given the impact of the pandemic on backlogs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) mentioned, can the Minister update us on the current waiting time and tell us the plan for addressing the backlog?

Poor decisions have come at a huge cost to the taxpayer. Between 2017 and 2019, the Government spent £120 million fighting PIP and ESA claims, and the consequences of this failing system are devastating. We all remember the case from 2017 involving Stephen Smith. He was 63 when he was found fit for work, despite having been diagnosed with numerous health conditions. After he failed his WCA, he was forced to live on just £67 a week. He died soon after, weighing just six stone. Only last month, we heard of a disabled man who was in hospital in 2019, as he was severely ill and very vulnerable to infection. The DWP refused to allow him to submit an electronic claim, forcing him to attend a jobcentre in person. He died in April 2020.

In 2019, the Government revealed that 5,690 people had died within six months of being found fit for work under the WCA in the last decade. There is no stronger indictment of a failing system than more than 5,000 people dying just months after being denied vital social security. Labour has been proud to support calls for an independent public inquiry into these deaths, because we need justice for each and every one of them.

The Department’s treatment of disabled treatment has resulted in unimaginable suffering for tens of thousands of disabled people and their loved ones. Rather than enabling disabled people to live more independently, successive Tory Governments have created a hostile environment. The long-awaited Green Paper was a missed opportunity to reshape social security and support for disabled people. I am sure there is agreement across the House that the current system is complex and simplification is needed, but the merger of payments and assessments for PIP and ESA is not the answer. They are two fundamentally different assessments requiring different information. One is means-tested income replacement, and the other is not. There is no doubt that any move towards that could lead to absurd decisions and have catastrophic consequences.

Worryingly, the Green Paper did not address the levels of social security. Cuts to universal credit, with the removal of disability premiums worth £180 a month and the removal of the work related activity component in 2017, have left some severely disabled people destitute. Last month, two severely disabled men won a legal challenge over the DWP’s failure to protect them from the cliff-edge loss of income of £60 a month following their move from legacy benefits to universal credit.

Since 2010, more than 1 million disabled people have faced sanctions. As a result, many have had to go without, skip meals, miss appointments and so forth. It has had a devastating impact. All the evidence points to the fact that sanctions against disabled people do not work, and there needs to be a permanent end to all sanctions. The Government must move towards a more holistic employment model for disabled people.

We need the right kind of social security system—one that respects the values of the Beveridge report. We need a system that we are proud of, as we are all proud of our NHS. In the past 12 years, we have watched the system diminish and demonise disabled people; that is a fact. Changing the narrative is vital to dismantling the hostile environment that has been created for them. We need to rebuild a social security system that is fair, compassionate and there for us all in our time of need. To do so, we need to ensure that the system provides people with an adequate level of income and a change of culture in the Department.

Will the Minister confirm that before she introduces her White Paper, she will engage with and consult disabled people and disabled people’s organisations? We must avoid what happened with the national disability strategy, which was ruled unlawful last month because it failed to carry out such engagement. Will she also commit to creating an inclusive, accessible application process and assessment framework that is built on compassion and genuinely co-produced with disabled people and their organisations? Finally, will the White Paper address the inadequate levels of social security and commit to considering minimum income levels for disabled people? We need urgent action to transform the social security system from one that penalises and sanctions ill and disabled people to one that supports and empowers them to live independently.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Chloe Smith]

We certainly do have confidence in our consultation and our listening. I will not go into further detail on the strategy because there is so much else that I want to respond to today.

We have made progress, including significant progress towards our commitment to see an additional 1 million more disabled people in work by 2027. As my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell) explained, supported employment is very significant within that, but there is much more still to do, and I welcome the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that employers also need to rise and play their part in supporting disabled people or people with ill health in the workplace.

There is also more to do to improve people’s experiences of our services and to build their trust in the system. I have heard the comments made today, and that is why our aim in the Green Paper was to improve the experience of disabled people and people with health conditions by listening, learning and improving. We want to make our services easier to access and our processes simpler where we can. We want to make improvements that will help build people’s trust and explore ways to offer more and better support for the people who need it most.

Turning to the economy, which is important for the context of this debate, the last two years have been really tough. However, because of our focus on getting people into work, we had the highest level of employment that this country had ever seen when covid hit, and we have succeeded in supporting jobs and livelihoods throughout the pandemic. The economy continues to rebound. With around 1.2 million vacancies currently available, including in many sectors vital for our recovery, we want to get people into jobs that they can do right now. The jobs market presents huge opportunities for all jobseekers. I want to ensure that those opportunities and the world of work are accessible and inclusive for disabled people and those with health conditions.

The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) mentioned the Way to Work campaign. I can reassure her that for those who are unable to take up employment due to their health conditions or personal circumstances, we tailor their requirements to their capability and situation to ensure that all that we ask of them is realistic and achievable.

We understand the pressures that people are facing with the cost of living, and we will continue to listen to people’s concerns, as we have done throughout the pandemic. That is why we are providing support of around £12 billion this year and next to help families with the cost of living.

Many important points were made during the debate about the assessment system and the benefits system. The benefits system considers the impact that a health condition or disability has on an individual’s ability to work and carry out day-to-day activities. As all hon. Members know, decisions are based on an assessment of an individual’s functional ability, not their diagnosed health conditions. Claimants are of course encouraged at the outset of their claim to provide all evidence that is relevant to their case, including medical evidence supplied by their GP or other professionals such as support workers, carers or community mental health nurses. We recognise that attending a health assessment can be a stressful experience, which is why, whenever we are able to assess somebody solely on the available paper evidence, we do so.

It is of course important that the benefits system is fair to both benefit recipients and taxpayers. We think that our health assessments are a fair and robust approach to managing the gateway to benefits, with our decisions based on evidence and objective criteria.

[Marsha De Cordova]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chloe Smith]

I want to acknowledge a point that has been made by a number of hon. Members before I give way to the hon. Lady who secured the debate. That is the point about transparency, which was raised by the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) and others today. Transparency is a key principle in our Green Paper, and will be very important going forward.

[Marsha De Cordova]

I thank the Minister for giving way. She has spoken a lot about the assessment process. Given the overwhelming evidence that everybody has shared, surely she must agree with all of us that the system is flawed, is broken and needs overhauling.

[Chloe Smith]

We are talking about a Green Paper. The point of a Green Paper is to improve the system, so we should continue the debate that we are having.

We are committed to ensuring that people get a good service from our assessment providers. On training, all assessors are of course subject to ongoing quality checks and an audit process, so they all have access to specific training and guidance on a wide range of clinical conditions. To the Labour Members who want us to end the use of private providers, I simply confirm that we intend to continue to use providers.

I now turn to some of the statistics that have been used in the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Marsha De Cordova]

I express my warm thanks and appreciation to the hon. Members who have contributed to what I believe is a very important debate. This has to be an ongoing dialogue because, sadly, I feel slightly disappointed in the Minister’s response. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi), the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), for Newport West (Ruth Jones), for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), and for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), along with incredibly powerful interventions from my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and my hon. Friends the Members for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) and for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams).

The Minister did not truly address the issue around private contractors. We have spent billions in funding private companies making profit out of poor, sad and distressing experiences for ill and disabled people and really putting profit before health. That is unacceptable and, frankly, quite disgraceful. The Minister did not address whether she would agree to an independent inquiry into the deaths of so many ill and disabled people. This is a national scandal and in any other environment an inquiry would happen, so it should be happening now for ill and disabled people, because for far too long we have been treated as an afterthought. It must end now. Finally, when the Minister brings forward her White Paper, I hope for her and her Government’s sake that they finally begin to take the lives of disabled people seriously.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered disability benefits assessments and the Government’s health and disability green paper.

Oral Answers to Questions

Marsha De Cordova Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Justin Tomlinson]

My hon. Friend has worked hard in this area for a number of years. As part of the forthcoming Green Paper, we will be looking at how we can better use evidence, how we can continue to improve the claimant’s experience, and how we can reduce the need for unnecessary face-to-face assessments through the integrated assessment principle.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

The Government’s national disability strategy finally recognises that the assessment process for PIP and ESA is burdensome for disabled people. Given that the Government now admit to the failures of these assessments, given the mental distress that they have caused, and given that more than 70% of decisions brought to an appeal tribunal are overturned and thousands of disabled people have died after being found fit for work, will the Minister now do more than simply lessen the number of reassessments? Will he scrap these unfit-for-purpose assessment frameworks for ESA and PIP once and for all?

[Justin Tomlinson]

The hon. Lady calls for something to be scrapped while not setting out what the alternative would be. We recognise that when Labour introduced the work capability assessment it needed significant improvement. That is why we had five independent reviews and implemented more than 100 recommendations. We are now exceeding 92% claimant satisfaction with the work capability assessment, and 82% of PIP claimants are satisfied with the service they get. That is why, as a Government, we are now proud to spend an additional £10 billion a year supporting those with disabilities and long-term health conditions.