Social Security (Equality)

Debate between Neil Coyle and Christian Matheson

Tuesday 26th April 2016 Westminster Hall

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the effect of social security changes on equality.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. When the benefits system was established, it had a couple of main aims: to provide a safety net for people in work if they lost their jobs, and to provide a springboard back into employment. Surely no one could argue with those aims; they both remain relevant today. To listen to Government rhetoric, hon. Members would be forgiven for thinking that all was fine and well, but there are two other principal aims of the system that I believe should also be considered. One is surely to give comfort and dignity to those who are unable to work for themselves, and the second is to use the levers of government to reduce inequality and make ours a more equal society.

I start by asking the Minister this: is it this Government’s view that it is their role to use the tax and benefits system to achieve a more equal and less extremely divided society? Taxation can be used to raise revenue and to nudge citizens’ behaviour—through, say, taxes on alcohol, tobacco or even sugary drinks—but also to level off the harshest divides by supporting those who cannot support themselves. For all this Government’s rhetoric, the UK is at best as unequal now as it was at the start of this decade, and according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, it is likely to become more unequal towards the end of the decade. Perhaps that is acceptable to the Government. If the Minister concedes that equality is not a top priority, that is fine; we can accept his honesty and have a difference of opinion.

We have heard that the recent Budget will impact women most harshly, and there is still no fair transitional pension settlement for the 1950s women affected by pension changes. Young people are excluded from housing benefit and from the so-called national living wage—although, to be fair, as it is not actually a living wage, that is not much of an omission. Scandalously, state support for those affected by contaminated blood transfusions is being slashed. However, with your permission, Mr Hollobone, I will focus on the combined impact of changes to the benefits system on people with disabilities.

The Government have sought from the outset to justify cuts to benefits by demonising claimants, introducing a them-and-us atmosphere and creating a stark but false division between—in the Prime Minister’s words—shirkers and strivers. Or was it skivers and strivers? I cannot remember the exact words, but the sentiment is the same. Let me make it clear that I have absolutely no time for those who can work but do not, relying on everyone else’s work but not contributing themselves. They should be dealt with individually. However, those people are a tiny minority. Around 0.3% of the total benefits bill is spent on out-of-work benefits to those who could be working—the real shirkers or skivers—yet the Government have tarred all claimants with the same brush. I believe that they have done so deliberately, to make cuts to support for disabled people more palatable to the general public.

Nobody chooses to have a disability. Nobody chooses to have a long-term debilitating illness. I can guarantee that every single one of the people whom we are talking about would rather not be in the situation that they are in. People have disabilities for a variety of reasons, including genetic defects, pre-natal or ante-natal complications, serious illness and accidents. However, one common factor runs through all of those situations: blameless misfortune, or bad luck. It is surely the duty of the modern, compassionate state not to compound that bad luck, but to compensate for it.

Scope’s extra costs commission estimates that disabled people face average extra costs of £550 a month due to their disability. The personal independence payments system introduced to address those additional needs is failing. The extra costs are not being met, claimants are routinely being turned down, and 60% are being reinstated on appeal, but in the meantime, their worry and debt are growing exponentially.

This week I spoke to a constituent of mine, Kevin, whose wife has kidney failure and is on dialysis, as she has been for several years. It is unclear why she has kidney failure, though it could be linked to complications at the birth of her children. She receives dialysis in the morning, has something to eat and then goes to bed and sleeps until the next day. There is no possibility that she could hold down a job, and the support that she receives from the state is essential, yet when she applied for PIP after moving over from disability living allowance, she was turned down. My constituent is appealing the decision, which of course takes months. In the meantime, she and her family are being driven further into poverty, and probably into debt.

That brings me to my next main point. When PIP was introduced in the Welfare Reform Act 2012 to replace disability living allowance, we were told that it was to ensure that benefits were focused on those who needed them most. Indeed, the impact assessment for the 2012 Act said that under PIP, the number of claimants would fall by 500,000. I understand that it was designed to deliver a 20% cut to the total cost.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister expressed surprise and disappointment when the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), resigned this year. Does my hon. Friend not think that if the former Secretary of State believed in what he was saying about disabled people being affected, it would have been more appropriate for him to have resigned when he introduced PIP to begin with?

[Christian Matheson]

That certainly would have prevented a lot of heartache and difficulties for those who have been affected. My hon. Friend, who sits on the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, is an expert in this area, so I will take his word for it.

On his recent appointment, the new Secretary of State immediately used the justification of focusing benefits on those who need them the most. I admit that even previous Labour Governments have used that as an excuse. However, I believe that it is a bogus argument, and a sham to give cover to further cuts. Why should a disabled person placed in the group of greatest need when PIP was first introduced suddenly be deemed not to be in the greatest need, just a couple of years later? Are the Government seriously suggesting that someone with a lifelong disability or chronic illness can be cured of that disability? Why is my constituent who is on dialysis with double kidney failure suddenly considered not to require PIP, when there has been no change in her condition and she has not yet received a transplant?

The situation does not only economic harm by forcing the vulnerable into even greater poverty, but psychological harm by increasing their stress, and their worry that their lives will be further impoverished by reductions. My constituent Lynda Hesketh, who is wheelchair-bound and who runs the Chester People Have Abilities group, describes to me her terror—that is her word—whenever a brown envelope drops through her letterbox; she worries that it is announcing a further cut to her support.

Of course, many people with disabilities want to work and are capable of doing so, but they face cultural or physical barriers. The Government have made some progress in helping disabled people into work, but the disability employment gap has nevertheless widened slightly in recent years.