Employment and Support Allowance Underpayments

Debate between Stephen Doughty and Sarah Newton

Thursday 18th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Newton]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that these are some of the most vulnerable people in society. That is why we have put in place everything that we can to reach out to them and make sure that they get the benefits they absolutely deserve to have, and where people, tragically, have passed away, that their families receive those benefits. I have apologised, the Secretary of State has apologised and the permanent secretary has apologised. This mistake should not have happened, and we are absolutely determined to sort it out as swiftly as we possibly can.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am afraid that the Minister coming to the Chamber and praising the Department for good housekeeping is extremely ill-judged and inappropriate in such a serious situation. Of course, this is just the top of the hill. I have had vulnerable constituents waiting for up to a year, and receiving reduced payments or nothing at all. Before this scandal even came out, one of my constituents had to be paid £2,000 backdated, but only—like my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire)—after my and my team’s intervention. Will the Minister tell us how many claims are allowed following an appeal, and how long is the current waiting time for those appeals?

[Sarah Newton]

The hon. Gentleman is now bringing up cases of people who applied for ESA more recently—I think that is what he is talking about—which is different from the people who were migrated across from incapacity benefit to ESA. Clearly, it is really important that we get the decision right first time for everyone. That is what we absolutely want to do: make sure that people applying for ESA are treated with respect and dignity, and get the right result.

I always look at the claimant experience, because behind every statistic is a real live person. The independent data shows that, when asked how they experienced the work capability assessment, over 90% of ESA claimants are satisfied. Obviously, some people, about 9% of people who apply for ESA, take their cases to appeal because they are not satisfied with the results. About 4% of those cases are upheld. Often, that is a case of more medical information being brought forward. I do not want there to be any appeals; I want to make sure we make the decisions right first time. That is why we put in place independent reviews and put in a huge amount of work to improve the work capability assessment and improve the benefit. [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, people are shouting out, “How long is the waiting time for appeals?” [Interruption.] I think the custom in the House is that Members rise to their feet to ask a question. [Interruption.]

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Stephen Doughty and Sarah Newton

Monday 2nd July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

18. How many appeals have been granted against initial personal independence payment assessment decisions in the last 12 months.

[The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Sarah Newton)]

Data published by the Ministry of Justice last month shows that 57,000 decisions on personal independence payment claims were overturned on appeal in the last year. Of the 3.3 million decisions made since PIP was introduced, 9% have been appealed and 4% have been overturned. The average clearance time for PIP appeals in the last available quarter is 25 weeks.

[Sarah Newton]

It is not necessarily the case that the decision made was the wrong decision; mostly what happens is that more information comes forward at the appeal. Hon. Members should look at the data I have already given. One wrong decision is one too many, however, which is why we have done a great deal of work to improve our decision-making process.

[Stephen Doughty]

Far too many of my constituents face exactly the same situation, and far too many have found they get no points in their assessment despite being severely disabled and having previously been awarded for conditions such as multiple sclerosis, post-traumatic stress disorder and severe anxiety. Does the Minister agree with a constituent of mine who wrote to me last week and described the Department for Work and Pensions and Capita as

“so robotic, intransigent and hard-nosed, it’s hard to comprehend why they were constructed that way given the purpose for which they were intended”?

[Sarah Newton]

I respectfully point out to the hon. Gentleman that more people are receiving higher awards on PIP than did on the legacy benefit, disability living allowance, and people moving from DLA to PIP remain in payment while going through the process. I utterly refute what he said.

[Stephen Doughty]

What about my constituent?

[Sarah Newton]

The hon. Gentleman wants to talk about constituents. I was on “You and Yours” last week and, during the phone-in, a whole series of people called in about their PIP experiences. As he has made his point, let us hear what Jennifer from Lancashire said:

“As it happens, it has worked very well for me.”

She contacted the Royal National Institute of Blind People, which helped her fill in the form, and the

“result was I now get the top rate for both things…. I get £140 whereas I used to get £112.”

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Stephen Doughty and Sarah Newton

Monday 26th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

8. What progress has been made on the Government’s review of personal independence payment claims; and if she will make a statement.

[The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Sarah Newton)]

The exercise to identify claimants affected by the MH judgment will start as soon as we have made the changes to the guidance needed to implement the judgment. We are currently engaging with stakeholders to design these changes. Of course, I will continue to regularly update the House.

[Stephen Doughty]

Earlier on, the Minister said that the personal independence payment was working. Well, of course, if it was working, the Government would not have lost the High Court case in the first place. These delays are simply unacceptable. Why are so many of my constituents still telling me that they are being biased against when they have mental conditions or the degenerative conditions mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell)? Why are veterans coming to me to express serious concerns about their own employment and support allowance and PIP assessments, and what will she do about that?

[Sarah Newton]

We will implement the judgment in full, but it is really important that we continue our work with stakeholders to get this right. We are working at pace to make those changes. On the general points that the hon. Gentleman makes, we are utterly committed to making sure that, with PIP and ESA, people have a good claimant experience, and we are regularly implementing changes.

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Temporary Class Drug) (No. 2) Order 2016

Debate between Stephen Doughty and Sarah Newton

Monday 9th January 2017 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sarah Newton)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Temporary Class Drug) (No. 2) Order 2016 (S.I. 2016, No. 1126).

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Gillan. The order was first laid before the House on 23 November 2016; it is the first of what I am sure will be many statutory instruments laid before the House by the Home Office. Action to address the harms of drug misuse would not be possible without expert guidance, and I am grateful to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs for its advice, which informed the order. I also take this chance to place on the record my congratulations to the new chair of the ACMD, Dr Owen Bowden-Jones, who began his important work on 1 January. I look forward to working with him to continue the effective relationship between the ACMD and the Government.

The order subjects methiopropamine—a stimulant drug—to a temporary control order under section 2A of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Methiopropamine, colloquially known as MPA, was controlled under a previous temporary class drug order that expired on 26 November 2016. If the order is made today, the temporary control will continue for a further 12 months. Those further months will allow the ACMD to gather and consider more evidence, in order to make a substantiated recommendation for permanent control under the 1971 Act. That replicates the ACMD’s recommended approach to renew the TCDO covering seven Ritalin-related substances in June 2016.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister mentioned that the drug is known colloquially as MPA; like many other drugs, I am sure it is included in many other products, as with other legal highs previously. Will she tell the Committee what other names it is commonly known by on the street?

[Sarah Newton]

The hon. Gentleman is right: this drug would commonly have been known as a legal high in the past. However, as far as I am aware, MPA is its colloquial name; I know that other drugs often have a multitude of names, but in this case, the street name—if that is the right term—is MPA. [Interruption.] My helpful colleagues sitting to my left have just pointed out that, while MPA is its most common name, it can also go by the names “Ivory Dove”, “China White”, “Walter White”, “Quicksilver”, “Ultra 3”, “Bullet”, “Mind Melt”, “Pink Panthers”, “Poke”, “Rush”, “Snow White” and “Charlie Sheen”. I hope the hon. Gentleman finds that illuminating. MPA has been compared to cocaine, and some of those names indicate some of the features of that drug.

A number of harms have been evidenced as a result of MPA consumption, including abnormally fast heart rate—perhaps that is related to the nickname “Rush”—anxiety, panic attacks, perspiration, headaches, nausea, difficulty breathing, vomiting, difficulty urinating and sexual dysfunction. A particular concern, as the ACMD noted, is that MPA came to its attention as a replacement for methylphenidate-based compounds, which were controlled under a previous TCDO. Given that the drug is commonly administered by injection, there is a high risk of harm caused by bacterial infection and local tissue damage.

The ACMD notes that the initial TCDO

“has been effective in halting the problematic proliferation of MPA”

since it was first introduced in November 2015. Evidence indicates that the prevalence of the substance prior to the TCDO, most notably in Scotland, appears to have abated. Sources note fewer instances of users injecting MPA, a reduction in phone calls and database inquiries to TOXBASE and a reported decrease in the availability of MPA online.

Parliament’s approval of the order will enable UK law enforcement to continue, under the strict offences and robust penalties of the 1971 Act, to take consistent action against traffickers and suppliers of temporary class drugs while the ACMD gathers further evidence. The order sends out a clear message to the public that the drug carries serious health risks and, in addition to our legislative response, we continue to take action to reduce the damage of drugs and to ensure that those who become dependent have access to the support they need.

We really want to carry on our vital work in updating the public, promoting health messages and informing the public about the harms of these dreadful psychoactive substances. We are utterly determined to continue our work with the ACMD, to do everything we can to prevent these harmful psychoactive substances being used by people in our country.