Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Welfare Reform (Disabled People)

Siobhain McDonagh Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

I shall take this opportunity to give three examples from my constituency of brave women who are directly affected by the Government’s changes and welfare reforms, and also to identify the things that I think we need to do if we are to take a bipartisan and House-wide view of the issue of getting people with disabilities back to work. First, we need to provide access to basic facilities in public buildings, especially jobcentres. Secondly, we need flexibility, because that is what enables us to get disabled people back to work, and we need to make those people less risk-averse. Thirdly, we need to understand the law of unintended consequences. That applies particularly to regional differences relating to the bedroom tax.

My first example involves Becky Weston, who has cerebral palsy. She also has a hole in her bladder, and she needs access to a toilet. She was invited to visit Mitcham jobcentre for a benefits review. She phoned the jobcentre to explain that when she arrived there, having taken the bus, she would need to get to the toilet. When she arrived, she was angry, upset and distressed: she needed the toilet. Many of us will know that feeling. She asked to use the toilet, and she was refused. She was asked, “Are you threatening me that you will pee on the floor if I do not let you use the toilet?” Of course, that is exactly what happened.

I do not tell this story to embarrass anyone—myself, other Members, or the people at Mitcham jobcentre who do a hard job in difficult circumstances—but how do we expect people with disabilities to turn up to a jobcentre where they cannot use a toilet? We would not allow that of an employer, so why do we allow it in our own services? Becky was greatly distressed that she was allowed to go home on the bus in such a condition. Even a modicum of compassion was not exercised in that instance. I suggest that Ministers consider what facilities are available if we want people to turn up at our jobcentres.

Let me now deal with the issue of flexibility. People who are disabled and on benefits often become risk-averse, but once they are on benefits and in the system, they can keep going. Life is not easy, but to risk losing benefits threatens huge distress. Only last night, Merton Centre for Independent Living gave me the example of a woman with mental health problems and physical disabilities who had arrived at the centre. She was in the employment and support allowance support group. She had been an art teacher in better days, and she wanted to volunteer: she wanted to give something back to the community. She felt that if she could manage that, perhaps she could then get into work. The centre’s staff helped her, gratefully and thankfully. They realised that she had no computer skills, and was unlikely ever to get a job without them in this day and age, so they sent her on a course.

When the woman phoned the jobcentre, she was immediately taken off ESA, and told that she was doing voluntary work without permission. Her benefit has been suspended, and she will have to appeal. Her housing benefit has been stopped, so her rent arrears have increased. She has now decided that she will never try to help herself again, because by doing so she has only brought distress and misery on herself.

The final case that I shall cite involves unintended consequences. I have known Jeanette Townley for more than 30 years. She is an extraordinary woman, whom most female Members would love to have as their friend. She has two sons. The first was in the Army, and the second, Philip, has Down’s syndrome. She has cared for him brilliantly. As happens in many cases, when she had a disabled son, her marriage broke down. She moved into a three-bedroom house on St Helier avenue over 22 years ago. Her eldest son has now left and joined the Army. She is in a three-bedroom house with her son Philip, who is 29 years of age. She receives carers allowance and maintenance from her ex-husband, and this is topped up with income support. Her income is £106 a week. Philip gets DLA middle rate care and ESA. Their household has to contribute £72 a month to keep and stay in their house—not that they have any alternative, because, as every London Member knows, there are no two-bedroom homes to be had, as that is the number of bedrooms that is most in demand.

Jeanette would move. She does not want to move because she has great neighbours who care for Philip if she is not there; she has a brilliant GP who knows how to handle Philip; and, God help us, when Philip is in distress the movement of the traffic up and down the main road she lives on gives him comfort. However, she would move to save that £72 per month.

How can it be right that we undermine Jeanette in her caring role, a bright clever woman who would have had a better life and more opportunities if she did not have Philip as her son? She does not wish him not to be her son. She spends every day caring for him. Do we want to undermine the limited financial means of such women? I do not believe anybody in this House wants that, and we need to do something about it.