Mental Health Act 1983

Debate between Neil Coyle and Debbie Abrahams

Thursday 25th July 2019 Westminster Hall

[Neil Coyle]

I completely agree. Sadly, the figure for people with schizophrenia in work remains at about 5%. It is just 5%, because the support simply is not there and the medication and treatment are not there on a routine basis to ensure that they are able to work.

Figures suggest that one in four of us will experience mental ill health at some point in life, often because of bereavement or a relationship breakdown. I pay tribute to all the organisations involved in the Time To Change campaign, which has done brilliant work to challenge the stigma and discrimination that affect people with mental health conditions in employment and elsewhere.

The change in language and awareness of conditions is one reason to seek reform now. For example, the Mental Health Act 1983 is defined as:

“An Act to consolidate the law relating to mentally disordered persons.”

The language around mental health has changed much since the current law was enacted. We also need to consider its far reaching powers.

The independent review of the Mental Health Act, published seven months ago concluded:

“The Mental Health Act gives the state what are amongst the most significant powers that it has; the power to take away someone’s liberty without the commission of a criminal offence and the power to treat that person even in the face of their refusal. Because of that, we think that is important that the purpose of the powers is clear, as should be the basis on which they should be used.”

It is hard to disagree with that conclusion, especially given the number of people who are affected by those extensive powers.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, and on his personal and emotional contribution—I believe that adds everything. People living with dementia also fall under the Mental Health Act. There are concerns around section 117 and the right for aftercare support once someone is detained under the Mental Health Act, particularly those living with dementia. Does my hon. Friend share my concerns on that?

[Neil Coyle]

Certainly, there is insufficient support for a whole range of people. We have sadly seen a roll-back of support, independence of choice and control in a number of areas, including social care support, health services and direct benefits for some disabled people, particularly in the past nine years.

The extensive powers, which I described, were used to detain 50,000 people last year—a 47% increase in the past decade. The only other people detained in this country are those in criminal custody. Those citizens have safeguards to protect them from going to jail, but we do not have the same safe standards of support and safeguards for mental health care. Those who commit a criminal offence have a police investigation, the CPS evidence threshold, a trial, the right of appeal and advocacy throughout, but for the 50,000 detained under the Mental Health Act few such safeguards exist, despite the deprivation of liberty, choice and control.

We can turn this situation around. The independent review of the Mental Health Act, chaired by Professor Sir Simon Wessely, recommended that four principles be written into a revised Act. First, it recommended that choice and autonomy, even for someone detained under the Act, must be respected, enabled and enhanced wherever possible. Secondly, it recommended that the compulsory powers contained within the Act should be exercised in the least restrictive way possible. Thirdly, it recommended that services and treatments should be of therapeutic benefit and delivered with a view to minimising the need for Mental Health Act powers to be used. Fourthly, it recommended that the individual must be respected, and that care and treatment must be provided in a manner that treats them accordingly.

I seek the Minister’s views on those principles being incorporated in forthcoming plans. If those four principles had existed when my mum was detained—she has been sectioned more times in my lifetime than I can remember—I would have had more reassurance that her needs, rights and wishes would have been the starting point for the care and treatment she received. Sadly, that was not the case.

This is the first debate to be held on the Mental Health Act since that review was published, which is astonishing, given the level of use of the powers in the Act and the level of support for reform. The review made 154 recommendations. The Government accepted two immediately and agreed to publish a White Paper by the end of this year to bring forward full legislation. I welcome that; there is no one who does not want to see that. However, given the paralysis caused by Brexit, and the new Prime Minister and Cabinet, can the Minister confirm that that timetable has not slipped?

Work Capability Assessments

Debate between Neil Coyle and Debbie Abrahams

Tuesday 9th February 2016 Westminster Hall

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

May I reiterate what other people have commented—that it is lovely to see you in the Chair today, Mrs Moon? I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) not only on securing this debate but on an excellent speech; it really was very informative.

We have already heard a number of Members say that the current work capability assessment, which was introduced under the coalition Government, is failing on a number of counts and needs to be overhauled. I share the view of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) that the fact no Government Members have spoken, and the imminent White Paper, suggest that the Government are finally getting it. I really hope that is the case. However, I need to reiterate some of the points that have been made about why the Government need to think again.

The WCA needs a complete overhaul. It is not fit for purpose, and we have heard that it is failing to assess a person’s fitness for work, or work-related activity, accurately or reliably. We have heard the figures about appeals. More than half of people—54%—who appeal against a decision that they are fit to work have the decision overturned. We have also heard about how the costs of the WCA have spiralled out of control, which reflects the woeful performance. Obviously, the National Audit Office report last month was very damning indeed, although I have to say that it came several weeks after it was clear what was going to happen.

Fundamentally, the WCA fails the most important requirement of any Government policy—that it will not knowingly harm citizens. For almost a year now, the Government have obfuscated and tried to evade revealing the toll that the WCA process is having on the people being subjected to it, even after stark warnings from the Select Committee on Work and Pensions. The mounting evidence against the WCA cannot be ignored any longer; hopefully the Government are listening to it.

There have been five independent reviews of the WCA since 2010. The Work and Pensions Committee undertook two of them in the last Parliament; I was pleased to be serving on the Committee when it undertook the review in 2014. The most recent report from that Committee included evidence taken from the reviewers, who warned the Government that in spite of all the reviews that had happened before—Professor Harrington and Dr Litchfield have produced reviews—the process was still flawed. They said that people with progressive and fluctuating conditions, such as Parkinson’s, were particularly likely to fall foul of the process. I will never forget taking evidence from people in Newcastle as part of that Select Committee inquiry in 2014 and hearing their personal testimonies. The evident pain and humiliation that they had experienced as part of the process was quite shocking.

Like other hon. Members we have heard from today, I have had evidence from my own constituents. A man who came to see me had a serious heart condition. In a WCA, he was told by the nurse undertaking it that he was in the process of having a heart attack; that was how stressful the WCA was. He was told to go to hospital, but two weeks later he received a letter telling him that he had been sanctioned because he had left the WCA. There are similar examples up and down the country.

The former chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, Dame Anne Begg, spoke on the issue and said:

“When my constituent, who has lost his job because he has motor neurone disease, scores zero on his WCA and is found fully fit for work, there is something wrong with the system. When that same constituent appears in front of a tribunal and in less than five minutes is awarded 15 points”—

that is the maximum score, which means the person is completely unfit for work—

“there is something wrong”.

I hope that we are seeing a different view from the Government now, but in their response to the Work and Pensions Committee at the end of 2014 they were having none of its report; there was the usual rhetoric. I would be interested to know what the Minister would say today if Dame Anne’s former constituent was standing here in Parliament now.

The Committee said that simply rebranding the WCA by taking on a new provider would not work, and it recommended a complete overhaul of the system. We still believe that that is needed, and such an overhaul is Labour party policy; I have said that consistently since my appointment to the Front Bench. What is required is not just a process to determine eligibility for employment and support allowance but an examination of health-related barriers to work. I agree with the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan that we need to look at the international data. I know that work has already been done to compare different processes, and adopting a more personalised and holistic approach is important. I remember producing such a piece of work before I came to the House, and there are lessons to be learned from elsewhere. However, as I have said, at the time of the Select Committee inquiry, the Department for Work and Pensions was not particularly inclined to consider those lessons.

When the Minister responds to the debate today, I am sure she will talk about the new work and health unit. However, I would also like her to describe, if she can, the discussions that the Government have had with the royal colleges, because I have some concerns. For example, the Royal College of Psychiatrists has raised the issues of medical ethics, treatments and interventions, the principle of consent, and the qualifications of the staff involved in WCAs. I would be grateful if she referred to those points in her wind-up.

My next point is about poor performance. We know that last month’s National Audit Office report reiterated that the WCA is not only unfit for purpose but poor value for money, as many of my hon. Friends have already mentioned. The Government have failed in their fiduciary responsibility to ensure that taxpayers’ money is spent wisely. They have failed to monitor and performance-manage work capability assessment contracts and hold the providers to account.

The NAO report stated that under contract with the Centre for Health and Disability Assessments, which is a subsidiary of Maximus, the cost of each assessment has risen to approximately £190, compared with £115 under the previous contract with Atos. If that was an investment in greater efficiency and a smoother process, one might possibly say that it was value for money, but the NAO described the performance output issues, with a backlog of 280,000 assessments and the contractor not being expected to meet its performance targets for last year.

The NAO went on to describe how the Department for Work and Pensions was struggling with target setting and had failed to test bidders’ assumptions during the tender process—for example, on staff recruitment and training. Will the Minister describes how that is being addressed? After six years, it is a real problem if we are trying to ensure that we live within our means.

The biggest indictment of the Government’s work capability assessment process is the potential harm it does to people who are put through it. As we have heard, last November the University of Liverpool and the University of Oxford published a study in the Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health. It is a peer-reviewed journal, and papers with Mickey Mouse statistics are not published in such journals—they would not be tolerated. It is a robust—[Interruption.] I hear some chuntering from the Government Benches. These are robust data; papers would not be allowed if the data were not robust—[Interruption.] There is still chuntering, but I will carry on. That study showed that between 2010 and 2013 the Government’s work capability assessment regime was independently associated with an additional 590 suicides, 280,000 cases of self-reported mental health issues and 725,000 antidepressant prescriptions.

The Royal College of Psychiatrists has raised the concern that, for people with mental health conditions, the work capability assessment process can cause a relapse, thus hindering rather than helping in their recovery. Just before I came to the debate I was provided with a list of coroners’ reports containing concerns that the deaths, including suicides, were associated with the work capability assessment. I am particularly concerned about the case of Stephen Carre, which has already been mentioned, in which the coroner wrote to Ministers and the Department and apparently did not receive a response, as required by law. I would be grateful for the Minister’s response to that point.

The findings reported in the paper in the Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health—in a paper entitled “First, do no harm”—came on top of published data relating to the deaths of incapacity benefit and ESA claimants between November 2011 and May 2014. The Government were compelled by the Information Commissioner to publish those figures. At the end of April, an appeal went to that body, which ruled in favour of the appellant and required the Government to produce the figures. But when did they produce them? Just before the end-of-August bank holiday.

The figures showed that the overall death rate for people on IB or ESA was 4.3 times higher than in the general population—an increase from 3.6 times higher in 2003. People in the support group are 6.3 times more likely to die than the general population, and people in the work-related activity group, from whom the Government want to take £30 more a week via the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, which is going through the House, are 2.2 times more likely to die.

The Government’s innuendo that people with a disability or illness might be “faking it” or are “feckless” or, as the Prime Minister said shockingly last week, are “making a lifestyle choice”, is grotesque and belies the epidemiological data. IB and ESA are recognised as good population health indicators, in that they reflect areas with an industrial backgrounds and areas of poor health.

[Neil Coyle]

My hon. Friend describes the impact on people. One of my constituents has referred to it as the Secretary of State adopting a pterodactyl style of management, flapping around high above, making a lot of noise and—pardon the expression—dumping on the little people down below. Does my hon. Friend share that view?

[Debbie Abrahams]

I would not put it in quite those words, perhaps, but I know exactly what my hon. Friend is getting at.

The Government’s own data show that the people involved are sick and disabled. They need support; they do not need vilification. Unfortunately, that is too often what happens, as at last week’s Prime Minister’s questions.

Being disabled or being ill is not a lifestyle choice. Alarmingly, we now hear reports of people in the ESA support group—people who have been found not fit for work, including people who are terminally ill—being required to go to work-focused interviews. The Minister might be aware of that. We have evidence only from England so far, but I would be grateful if she gave us an explanation.

For me, that latest revelation says it all. It is about cuts for disabled people and the seriously ill. The Government are not content with having cut £23.8 billion from 3.7 million disabled people since 2013 under the Welfare Reform Act 2012; they are going for more cuts, and the work capability assessment and the Welfare Reform and Work Bill are another way of achieving them.

The Government have tried to regenerate the economy on the backs of the poor and disabled. Their modus operandi is division and blame, deserving and undeserving. Like the NHS, our social security system is based on principles of inclusion, support and security for all, assuring us all our dignity and the basics of life should any one of us become ill and disabled. The Government need to remember that and stop their attacks on disabled people.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Debate between Neil Coyle and Debbie Abrahams

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Debbie Abrahams]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but his question belies the facts. Some £640 million is being withdrawn from people in the ESA WRAG, while £100 million is meant, in some undisclosed manner, to provide support. There is no information from the Government on how that will support disabled people back into work.

As I was saying, there is no analysis of the impact that this will have on the disabled people who will be pushed into poverty. Disabled people are twice as likely as non-disabled people to live in persistent poverty, and 80% of disability-related poverty is caused by their extra costs. Last year, there was a 2% increase in the number of disabled people who were pushed into poverty. That is equivalent to 300,000 people. The Minister’s recent reply to me did not address this particular point, so I would be very grateful if that could be explained. Half a million disabled people will be affected and lose £30 a week—nearly a third of their weekly income. What is the Government’s estimate of the increase in the number of disabled people who will be living in poverty?

[Neil Coyle]

I welcome my hon. Friend to her rightful place on the Labour Front Bench. Is she aware that in the other place Lord Low is going to carry out an independent review of poverty, in the absence of a Government study? Will she encourage the Government to interact with that independent review, in particular on poverty and the impact on higher health and local authority costs as a result of the reduction in ESA?

[Debbie Abrahams]

My hon. Friend makes some excellent points. The Equality and Human Rights Commission is able to undertake that analysis. Other bodies and organisations are doing it, so why are the Government not able to do it? Surely this is what we should expect from the Government in their implementation of policy. There are real concerns from disabled charities, disabled groups and Lord Holmes, the chair of the EHRC’s disability committee, about the extent to which the assessment of the impact on disabled people is understood.

On incentivising work, on Second Reading the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions stated:

“the current system discourages claimants from making the transition into work.”—[Official Report, 20 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 1259.]

What about people with progressive conditions, such as Parkinson’s, multiple sclerosis and motor neurone disease, who have no prospect of recovery but have undergone a work capability assessment? They have been found not fit for work and placed in the WRAG group. Are the Government seriously saying that the measure will incentivise this group of disabled people into work? They have already been found not able to work through the Government’s own assessment process. Their progressive conditions are not going to change. This is a real concern.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Debate between Neil Coyle and Debbie Abrahams

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

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

Will the Minister give way?

[Debbie Abrahams]

Will the Minister give way?

Welfare Reform and Work Bill (Tenth sitting)

Debate between Neil Coyle and Debbie Abrahams

Thursday 15th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Debbie Abrahams]

I hope everyone has had a good lunch. The amendments are in my name and those of my hon. Friends.

Clause 19 requires registered social housing providers to reduce the amount of rent payable by a tenant in social housing in England by 1% a year for four years from 1 April 2016. The Government argue that the measure will save money paid on housing benefits. They estimate in the impact assessment that the saving will be approximately £1.995 billion, which, on the surface, seems like a good deal for social tenants. However, there are significant implications for current and future renters.

The Local Government Association has estimated that councils in England will lose more than £2.6 billion, and that 19,000 fewer affordable homes will be built by 2019-20 as a result of the measure. I will come to what that will mean in terms of fewer homes in my area of Oldham, but for housing associations in general, the situation is even worse. The National Housing Federation calculation is that housing association income, collectively, will reduce by £3.85 billion over the next four years, resulting in 27,000 fewer homes being built. That contrasts markedly with the Office for Budget Responsibility assessment in the Budget, which predicts 14,000 fewer affordable homes being built.

Will the Minister confirm how that discrepancy has arisen? Is there a calculation that we are not aware of? Exactly how has that difference come up between the OBR’s 14,000 and the figures of the LGA and the NHF? May I also ask why that was not included in the impact assessment process? At the same time, will he confirm the actual figure for loss of income to be suffered by housing associations by 2020? My colleagues will want to comment about their own areas, but in my area the estimate for loss of income is £15 million. In places such as Oldham, that has significant implications for affordable homes.

In May 2014, following the 2013 spending review, the Government committed to a 10-year rent settlement, which was meant to introduce the necessary long-term certainty needed to attract private investment into building new affordable homes. What has changed? As a result of the longer-term planning with assumptions about what rental incomes they would be receiving, housing associations have been able to borrow for house building at reasonable rates, attracting £6 from the private sector for every £1 of public money, as the Minister said this morning. Moody’s, the rating agency for the social landlords, commented that the change to the 10-year rent settlement and long-term planning came out of the blue, without any consultation, and is making things incredibly difficult, threatening the viability of many housing associations. We will debate that under a subsequent clause. The OBR acknowledged the difficulty caused by such a sudden change—it is due to be implemented next year. It also said—this is absolutely key—that:

“We do not expect private sector house-builders to offset this effect to any material degree.”

That is in paragraph 3.84 of the OBR publication accompanying the July Budget.

The ability of housing associations to borrow and the effect of the measure on their ability to build more affordable homes are key concerns not only of housing commentators, but of the 1.38 million or so people who are on local authority housing lists—that is a 2014 figure, the latest produced by the Government—71% of whom are in receipt of housing benefit. I will be grateful if the Minister confirms what assessment has been undertaken. How will the provision affect social housing waiting lists? We know from last year’s Work and Pensions Committee report on affordable housing that there are considerable issues for people in receipt of housing benefit in being taken on by private sector landlords. What will be the impact of the measure on social housing waiting lists and people’s ability to move into the private rented sector?

It is important that we look at what the Government are proposing in the context of the housing market as a whole. Most people recognise—possibly the Government do not—that there is a housing crisis in this country, and this measure will make it worse. The Government’s own figures show that from 2012 onwards there has been a huge decline in affordable homes being built, from 37,680 in 2012 to 10,840 in 2014. That brings it to a 20-year low.

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

My hon. Friend may be aware that my local authority, Southwark, is the largest landlord in London. In the previous Parliament, it was able to build more affordable homes than any other local authority, and it has a commitment to 11,000 new council homes in a welcome house building programme. However, the measures in the Bill would leave Southwark Council’s housing revenue account with a loss of £62.5 million by 2019-20, and in that year it would lose £28.2 million, with a knock-on effect on its ability to provide sufficient accommodation. I hope the Minister will commit to meeting my council to address those concerns, and I would welcome my hon. Friend encouraging him to do so.

[Debbie Abrahams]

As my hon. Friend rightly says, Southwark is the largest housing provider in London, and London faces particular issues.

Policy measures that have already been implemented have exacerbated the problems that we face on affordable homes. For example, the Government waived the mandatory quota for building affordable homes in new developments, which has further contributed to the poor quantity of affordable homes. The coalition Government allow developers to build more properties for rent in the private rented market, and by deregulating what was already the least regulated private rental sector in Europe, they open the door to rogue landlords.

The Government used £12 billion of taxpayers’ money to guarantee £130 billion of new mortgage lending in the form of the Help to Buy scheme. That has done little to help renters become buyers and homeowners. Instead, it has fuelled increases in new house prices and private sector rents, as many owners either sell or rent their properties as soon as the subsidies run out, and the increase in private sector rents has fuelled the increase in the housing benefit bill over the past five years. It has gone up from £4.4 billion in 2009-10 to £24 billion in 2014-15.

[Neil Coyle]

To further demonstrate the Government’s inability to understand the housing crisis in London in particular, is my hon. Friend aware that the Help to Buy scheme helped a very round number of people in the run-up to May 2015—an incredibly round number of zero—and that I have written to the Government to ask for improvements to the scheme? Unfortunately, no sufficient response was forthcoming.

[Debbie Abrahams]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. To be honest, I am not surprised. The Minister this morning was unclear about the rise in the housing benefit bill. As I was saying, it is up from £4.4 billion in 2009-10 to £24 billion in 2014-15—those are the actual figures. I know my hon. Friends will want to raise this point, but I will bring it up first: the number of people in work and claiming housing benefit has doubled to 1.1 million since May 2010.

[Neil Coyle]

Those people in work are also paying taxes. There seems to be some misunderstanding on the Government Benches about who pays taxes in this country.

[Debbie Abrahams]

Absolutely. The language used is sometimes unfortunate; it leads to a misconception that is commonly put out to the public arena. We all have an obligation to not mislead the public.

Extending the right to buy, which was mooted in the Tory party manifesto and set out this week in the Housing and Planning Bill, may increase homeownership —we all want to encourage homeownership—but without building more social housing, the extension will just reduce the supply of affordable homes for people on low income to rent. What will happen then? The average house price in the UK is more than £180,000. In London, it is more than £460,000. It has been estimated that it would take 22 years for people on low and middle incomes to save for a deposit.

I remind the Government of all the warm words from last week’s Tory party conference about helping people in poverty and with low incomes. There is a practical measure that the Government can take to do something about that, and I challenge them to do so. Housing is one of the biggest costs families face, and the Government’s plan will make the situation worse. Many young people, but not exclusively young people, are living with their parents or renting—the so-called “generation rent”. Inequalities are unfortunately increasing, not only in income but in wealth and assets, such as housing and land. Those inequalities, including the cost and availability of land, are key to addressing the housing crisis.

In addition to the effects of the plans on the building of affordable homes, there will undoubtedly be an impact on housing repair and regeneration programmes. The Local Government Association estimates that the loss in income from rent is equivalent to 60% of all local authorities’ total housing maintenance budget. That is significant. Ultimately, there will be an impact on both the integrity and the condition of the stock, and on maintaining decent home standards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Debbie Abrahams]

Again, my hon. Friend makes a valid point. Yes, there will be a small reduction in rent, which will be reflected in a reduction in housing benefit, but the cumulative impacts on individual families and in other spending areas will be considerable.

My point is that the measures will particularly affect the very young, the very old and people with existing health conditions and disabilities. As we anticipate, that is a logical consequence of reducing the maintenance budget, because the quality of housing will be affected. What assessment has been made? It is clear that the provision will push more households into the private rented sector, where there are currently 1.5 million families with insecure tenancies who could be evicted with as little as two months’ notice. Homelessness and rough sleeping have risen over the past five years, with 54,000 accepted as homeless, up 36% since 2010, and 920 families with children being illegally housed in bed and breakfasts for longer than six weeks because there is no affordable housing. That figure has risen by 820%. Again, how is it anticipated the measures will affect the homelessness figures?

[Neil Coyle]

On the point about homelessness, is my hon. Friend aware that in London since 2010, the number of former armed forces members sleeping rough has risen elevenfold, and does she agree that that heaps shame on the Government’s attitude towards those who have served in our country’s armed forces?

[Debbie Abrahams]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. People whom we should be supporting after their service to our country are unfortunately finding themselves without a roof over their head. I say “unfortunately”; there are means to prevent it. The measure will stop the roll-out of the affordable homes programme and have an impact on armed forces personnel and people leaving care, who are more likely to need affordable homes. A whole host of people will be impacted.

What assessment has been undertaken of the viability of registered social landlords? I know that we will debate that when we come to a later clause, but given the risks that people already face, for example from the introduction of universal credit and the lowering of the benefit cap, housing associations have a genuine concern about how they will measure it in practice. I refer to one of my own local housing associations. I mentioned the £15 million reduction in income from rent; it will have to deal with that, including through redundancies and by rowing back on some of the programmes by which it hoped to upgrade accommodation. What assessment has been made of the risks being shifted to housing associations?

Amendment 21 would compel the Secretary of State to produce a plan within 12 months of the provision coming into force to offset the impact of the reduction in rent, so that the building of affordable homes is not affected. We are asking the Government to say within 12 months how they will stop the building of affordable homes being pared back, as the LGA and the NHF anticipate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Debbie Abrahams]

Amendment 21 reflects the concern about the affordable homes building programme, which is why we have asked for a plan. We are not convinced that the Government will follow through, which is why I have moved the amendment.

On the other, more general points, I gently refer the Minister to the Government’s own data on house building performance, which were published this summer. Unfortunately, since 2010 the Government have presided over the lowest level of house building in peacetime since the ’20s—those are the Government’s own figures. I will not press the amendment but, again, I refer the Minister to the figures on affordable homes. We are really concerned about what is happening. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Neil Coyle]

On a point of order, Mr Owen. I raised a point of order on Tuesday about a letter promised by the Minister for Employment. I now have a copy of the letter, for which I am grateful. There was clearly a mix-up, because it was sent some time ago. However, the letter does not answer the specific point about how the Government will assess the impact on disabled people in different areas.

On 17 September we discussed the impact on disabled people and carers and how to assess that impact more effectively. The Minister committed to providing an explanation of how that will be done. The letter I received talks about how Dr Simon Duffy has not responded to something for which the Department has asked—that is the block. I expected that the Department would outline what it is doing, not what it is not doing. I am keen to get more information on how the Government will address that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Debbie Abrahams]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is a valid point, and I hope the Minister can do so. On that note, I will stop there.

[Neil Coyle]

In rising to speak to the amendment, I just want to say that I welcome the Minister’s commitment this morning to write to me so I can find out a bit more information. He suggested that I was trying to make a name for myself—I believe that was the term he used. I certainly do not intend to upset him in any way, not least because I understand he has a black belt in martial arts.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill (Seventh sitting)

Debate between Neil Coyle and Debbie Abrahams

Tuesday 13th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Debbie Abrahams]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. This is the first opportunity I have had to speak as the shadow Minister for Disabled People, so if you will allow me, I would like to start by paying tribute to my predecessor and friend, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). She did a fantastic job, not just in this Bill Committee but in the past in this role and her mantle is going to be hard to take up.

I want to add my voice to what my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury has said. The tax credit provisions in the Bill are pernicious, and these elements are particularly callous and unjust. We are seeking to try to exempt families with disabled children from their impact.

Those who have spoken to parents and carers with disabled children will know that there are additional costs associated with raising disabled children. Contact A Family’s “Counting the Costs” report found that families with disabled children are more likely to be living in poverty than other families and that it costs three times as much to raise a disabled child. Families with disabled children face considerable additional expenditure on heating, housing, clothing, equipment and other items compared with other families. My youngest daughter was diagnosed with asthma when she was very little. One of the triggers for her was the cold and we had to have our heating on all day and all night when she was little to try and avoid what often happened, which was that she stopped breathing. I have that personal experience and, fortunately, we were able to cope with the financial costs of additional heating, but that is not the case for many families.

Research over many years demonstrates a strong relationship between low income, social exclusion and disability among families who have a disabled child. As the “Every Disabled Child Matters” campaign has said, childhood disability is frequently a trigger event for poverty, as a result of additional costs, family break-up and unemployment following the birth or diagnosis of a disabled child. As I said, disabled children are also at a high risk of poverty as a result of low household incomes. Many parents of disabled children are unable to work because of care responsibilities and the lack of, or the cost of, appropriate childcare. I would be interested in the Minister’s response to the issue of providing appropriate childcare for disabled people because, within the proposed provisions, the Government have not been particularly explicit about how that relates to disabled children.

[Neil Coyle]

I welcome my hon. Friend to her new role. The Minister has already mentioned a commitment to providing 30 hours of childcare, but at no point have the Government provided any information on how it will be assessed and whether parents can genuinely access that level of childcare, in particular the parents of disabled children. Would my hon. Friend welcome the Government clarifying whether childcare is genuinely accessible, particularly for parents of disabled children?

[Debbie Abrahams]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point and I would be grateful if the Minister could address it in his response.

Barriers to work are created by the stress of caring, often with no support. I am thinking again in the context of the £3.6 billion of cuts in social care, which also affect disabled people. When people do not have that support enabling them to work, it can build difficulties into family relationship. It is not clear in the impact assessment whether an assessment has been done on the likely increase in poverty of families with disabled children.

For example, what is the increase in NHS admissions predicted to be? I have mentioned my daughter who has asthma. The implication is that there will be other families in similar circumstances. Is there any prediction of an increase in family breakdown? We cannot be in a situation where, potentially, the Government are arguing that the measure will balance the books when it is really about cost-shunting from one Department to another. What assessment has been done on that?

We do not believe that disabled people, their families and their carers should be subject to further cuts and therefore seek to exempt households with one or more disabled children from the provisions on both child tax credit and universal credit. The Government and the social security system rightly recognise the additional costs of raising disabled children but the provisions in clauses 11 and 12 seem to be at odds with that. I oppose them absolutely and in their entirety. At the very least, the effect of the provisions should be mitigated for households with a disabled child and I urge all members of the Committee to do the right thing and support the amendments.