All 2 Debates between Stephen Timms and Clive Jones

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Stephen Timms and Clive Jones
Wednesday 9th September 2026

(1 week, 5 days ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Clive Jones Portrait Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

3. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to make it easier for people with accessibility needs to contact Government Departments.

Stephen Timms Portrait The Minister for Equalities (Sir Stephen Timms)
- View Speech - Hansard - -

The Equality Act 2010 places a duty on public bodies to make reasonable adjustments, so that disabled people are not put at a disadvantage by accessibility challenges. Public service providers have to test provision regularly against the service standards, and Departments have to publish accessibility standards and provide feedback routes for users.

Clive Jones Portrait Clive Jones
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

I have a constituent whose agreed adjustments have been removed and who has had appointments arranged by telephone despite a hearing impediment, and some assessment sites lack disabled parking. Does the Minister agree that adjustments must be applied consistently by Departments and contractors? What action will be taken when they are not?

Stephen Timms Portrait Sir Stephen Timms
- View Speech - Hansard - -

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. If he would like to send me details of that particular case, I will happily look into it. On the subject of people with hearing impairments, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equalities and I will be meeting the British Sign Language Advisory Board this afternoon. On broader accessibility challenges, it is important that we meet and deliver on the communication needs and the reasonable adjustments that people have. When people apply to the Department for Work and Pensions, they can notify the Department of those adjustments at any stage of the claim and they will be noted on the claimant’s record, so they should be consistently addressed when that individual gets in touch.

Children and Young People with Cancer

Debate between Stephen Timms and Clive Jones
Wednesday 8th January 2025

(1 year, 8 months ago)

Westminster Hall
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts

Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.

Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.

This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record

Stephen Timms Portrait The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
- Hansard - -

Like everybody else, I am delighted to find you in the Chair this afternoon, Mrs Lewell-Buck

I welcome this debate, as well as the speech that the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) made and the consistent attention he has paid to this issue since he was elected last year. I also welcome what all the others who have spoken in this debate have said. There is a lot that I would like to say in response, but unfortunately I have only four or five minutes in which to say it. I will have to cut my remarks rather short, so I might need to write to the hon. Gentleman with some of my responses, rather than putting them on the record now. However, I am glad that he has drawn attention to the fact that the Secretary of State has said he is reinstating that taskforce in our 10-year plan for the NHS, within which he has made it clear that he wants a separate cancer plan. It will be very helpful for the children and young people cancer taskforce to focus on identifying ways to include outcomes for this particular group of patients.

The debate has focused on the contribution of the social security system in supporting families of children and young people with cancer through the disability living allowance for children aged under 16 and the personal independence payment for those who are 16 or above. Those benefits are available if a child or young person’s condition or illness is long term and gives rise to care, daily living or mobility needs. The benefits contribute to the extra costs arising as a result of a disability or health condition. I will not claim that the support meets all the costs, as that would be incorrect, but they are a contribution—that is intention behind them.

The assessment for those benefits is based on the needs of the individual rather than on the condition, and many with cancer are eligible. The highest level of benefits can mean an extra £9,500 a year tax-free—the order of magnitude that the hon. Gentleman refers to. The benefit is usually paid to the parent of the child, and so can help with overall family finances, as they see fit. We are currently supporting about 3,000 children under 16 and 2,000 young people between 16 and 24 with cancer, with an average award of around £155 per week.

Clive Jones Portrait Clive Jones
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Will the Minister give way?

Stephen Timms Portrait Sir Stephen Timms
- Hansard - -

I will give way, but I will not have very much time.

Clive Jones Portrait Clive Jones
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I apologise for leaving the Minister with only a few minutes. I have no idea what he is going to say, but I would like him to make some comment about Hugh’s law, and whether or not he supports it, because it would make a huge difference to every single family.

Stephen Timms Portrait Sir Stephen Timms
- Hansard - -

I am not able to announce a big change this afternoon along the lines that the hon. Gentleman has suggested, but I do want to comment—and would have done, if I had had a little longer—on the qualifying period. I have met the campaigners with their MP, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff). They make a compelling and vivid case about their own experience, as well as the financial and emotional difficulties that they suffered as a result.

The qualifying period is there to distinguish between a short-term and long-term condition. It is not about fraud, as the hon. Member for Wokingham suggested might be the case; it is there to make that distinction, and it is quite an important part of the eligibility process for benefits. I am not able to announce a big change in that. Of course, we will keep these things under review. I have met the campaigners, and we will certainly listen to representations that come forward—

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).