Welfare Reform Bill

Tom Clarke Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

It is absolutely right that we have a serious, considered and detailed debate on the reform of one of the most important benefits that we have, not only in relation to disabled people but within the whole array of benefits. It also represents £12 billion of taxpayers’ money, so they would expect us to have a good and detailed debate.

I do not like to take issue with the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), not least because she is Chairman of the Select Committee—I had the pleasure of appearing before her this morning—but if it was easy to change the current system of DLA by simplifying the claim form, making it easier to understand and streamlining its administration, then I am rather surprised that the previous Government did not address those issues before. In fact, perhaps it is not I who take issue with the hon. Lady but Opposition Front Benchers, given their stated position. The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) has said:

“we recognise that it is right to reform the DLA and accept that it is perfectly sensible to use a medical test as the basis for assessment”.––[Official Report, Welfare Reform Public Bill Committee, 10 May 2011; c. 825.]

I have to take issue with the idea of a medical test, but the right hon. Gentleman obviously has his own reasons for saying that. The hon. Member for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran) has said:

“There is no doubt, and it has been plainly stated, that there is a case for reform. The Opposition and I are clear about that.”––[Official Report, Welfare Reform Public Bill Committee, 10 May 2011; c. 767.]

I think she said that when she was in the Scottish Parliament. [Interruption.] She said it recently as well. There is clearly a growing consensus on the need for reform.

When DLA is not getting the right support to the right people and £600 million is being paid in overpayments, and there are £190 million of underpayments—hon. Members will be equally concerned about that—there is a clear need for some fundamental changes. I hope that Labour Members who are feeling shaky on the need for reform can remind themselves that their party has also called for it in the past. Perhaps the position has changed, but those on the Front Bench have certainly not indicated that today.

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Maria Miller]

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not take many interventions, because I am very conscious of the time and of the desire of Opposition Front Benchers to get through the selection list. Many questions have already been asked and I will deal with them as I go through my remarks.

Before I respond to the issues that have been raised, I will set out the three basic principles that are central to our reform. The personal independence payment will provide support for long-term needs. It is one of a wide range of benefits that are on offer. It will be based on an assessment of the impact of a health condition on an individual and their ability to lead an independent life, rather than just on the condition. Above all, it will be fair.

Amendment 43 seeks to exclude individuals from the face-to-face consultations in the new assessment process for PIP. DLA relies on a self-assessment form and I will not go through the details of why that does not work. One of my constituents had to take a four-hour course to learn how to fill out the DLA form, which shows its ineffectiveness. One of our key proposals to ensure that the benefit has a more consistent and transparent assessment is that most people will have a face-to-face consultation with a trained independent assessor. The consultation will allow the individual to play an active part in the process, rather than passively filling in a form, and put across their views on how their health condition or impairment affects their everyday life.

We recognise the importance of ensuring that the assessment process is sensitive and proportionate. The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), has a great deal of expertise in that area from his work on the work capability assessment. Let me be absolutely clear that when it comes to PIP, some people will not be required to attend a face-to-face consultation. I was clear about that in Committee and I reiterate it now. For such people, the assessment will be carried out on the basis of evidence that has already been gathered. Such decisions will be at the discretion of the individual triaging the assessment as it goes through.

Amendment 43 would undermine one of the key principles of PIP. It would effectively label people by health condition or impairment, rather than treat them as individuals. The disability organisations with which I am working day in, day out on the development of the assessment and the overall benefit would feel that to be a step back, not a step forward. The impact of a condition can vary greatly. Under the amendment, somebody with a severe mental impairment would not have to have a face-to-face assessment. That is a broad category, which covers a wide range of conditions that affect people in many ways. Although we accept that not everybody who has a severe mental impairment will have to undergo a face-to-face consultation, for others it will make a great deal of sense. For that reason, I cannot accept the amendment.

I deal now with amendments 44 to 47, 76 and 77. I am grateful to the Opposition for agreeing that PIP is a long-term disability benefit, and that there should be an expectation that there will be limitations for a period of not less than 12 months. The proposed qualifying period will allow us carefully to assess someone’s ability to carry out a range of activities once their condition has settled down and potentially once the effects of treatment and rehabilitation have begun. PIP will be a valuable, universal, tax-free benefit—that is carried forward from DLA—and it will be paid irrespective of whether a person is in or out of work. I emphasise that point for the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who conflated it with an out-of-work benefit. It is our view that the additional financial support that it brings should start only once other support mechanisms have played their part and once the financial burden becomes onerous for an individual over the long term, regardless of their income.

I can reassure Members that the Government have been listening to the arguments regarding the return to a three-month qualifying period, and we will continue to listen and talk regularly to disabled people and their representative organisations. We recognise that for some people there may be additional financial burdens at the outset, but we have to consider the matter within the ambit of the wide range of other support that is already available during the early months.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

Whether or not amendment 43 is needed, I am quite sure that the officials and others who do the assessments would not expect people with those conditions to be able to go to work. I do not think that this would be a great problem in practice; however, there is always a problem at the boundary.

When I was getting on the Jubilee line this lunchtime I met a young man in a wheelchair—in fact, he turned out not to be that young, because 20 years ago he was helping to build the Jubilee line. He said, “What do you do?” “I work at the House of Commons”, I replied. “Are there any jobs there?” he asked. “650”, I said. “They come up every five years.” He said, “I’m a cook.” “There’s no reason why a cook can’t be a Member of Parliament as well”, I said. I did not ask him whether he lived at home, in a hospital or in a residential care home, or whether his residence was in a home with others.

Earlier this afternoon, I spoke indirectly—I will now speak directly—about St Bridget’s in Rustington, the place mentioned in the first line of the second verse of “The Gnu Song” by Michael Flanders. For those with long memories, “The Gnu Song” comes when he is talking about someone parking a car across his dropped kurb with “GNU” on the registration plate. There are people in Rustington who live in their own homes, and others who also live in their own homes, but who share it with others. The definitional problem is just as great as it might be at the Princess Marina home—again in Rustington—which is a Royal Air Force benevolent fund home that is dual registered. Part of it counts as a hospital, part of it counts as a home and part of it counts as a residence. Incidentally, “residential homes” are not defined in the legislation; rather, it talks about “care homes”.

In Worthing, in the other part of my constituency, there is Gifford house—the Queen Alexandra hospital home—which is not just for former service personnel, but for many others. Although I have not had representations from them, I do not want to exclude them from consideration. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for kindly coming to St Bridget’s—the Leonard Cheshire home—among her many visits. I pay tribute to the people who live there, their families and my hon. Friend the Minister, because it was one of the best meetings that I have seen for a long time.

I trust my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Minister and those working with them to come up with the right answer. My preference is for amendment 42 to be agreed to, and then for the Government to come forward with their solution to the problem after they have received the result of the review. They can then come back, either here or in another place, and make an adjustment if they choose to do so. At the moment, however, the way I read the Bill is that someone whose residence happens to be in, say, St Bridget’s—this is not exclusive to St Bridget’s or Leonard Cheshire homes generally—could easily be excluded.

I shall not make the sort of speech that I might make in opposition, about how the Henry VIII clause in clause 83(4)(e) allows

“such other services as may be prescribed”

to be covered, nor shall I go on about subsections (5) or (6), which would allow almost anybody to be divorced under their provisions. However, I believe that we can trust the Government and that they are setting about this in a way that is rational. However, unless the legislation is amended or we receive other assurances, this is not a Bill that this House ought to pass.

Dorothy Sayers, in her book “Unpopular Opinions”, distinguishes between the English—by which she meant the British—and, say, the French by saying that whereas they believe in equality, we believe in fairness. There are currently three issues where fairness concerns me, and this is one of them. Another is the question of those women born in the mid-1950s losing more than a year’s pension, and another is overseas pensioners in the old dominions or elsewhere who cannot get pension increases. We have to take those issues one by one. I believe that the Government will solve the problem of the extra unfairness for those women born in the 1950s. I want the Government to find the solution to the problem that we are discussing in this debate, and later we can come to the overseas pensioners.

On the subject of this debate, why should we necessarily risk solving the so-called overlap by taking away the higher-level mobility component, rather than taking away what the county council might otherwise provide, which is a far smaller amount? I met a woman in a wheelchair, like the man I met on the underground—he said that he was interested in politics, so I gave him yesterday’s Hansard to cheer him up—who wanted to go to her father’s birthday party and then attend a college course. Those two journeys by themselves, at the subsidised rate of the St Bridget’s minibus, would have exhausted her money if she had not had the mobility allowance.

Obviously people’s circumstances vary, but rather than make a long speech—we have heard rather too many of those this afternoon—let me end by saying that if amendment 42 comes to a vote, I shall vote for it. I trust that the Government will come back and make things plain in the Bill, rather than our having to rely on positive resolutions on statutory instruments or the results of the consultation or assessment that they are currently undertaking.

[Mr Tom Clarke]

I very much regret that the Minister did not give way to me on the one occasion that I asked her to do so, particularly because I had planned to ask her to make an apology. I also invite the Secretary of State—if he would just listen to the debate for a moment—to join in making that apology to the 80,000 people living in residential homes who have been threatened since the comprehensive spending review with the removal of the mobility element of their disability living allowance.

I first raised this matter in a debate in Westminster Hall on 30 November. The Minister responded to that debate, so she cannot claim that she did not know what the issues were. In a moment, I shall talk about the remarkable review that very few people know anything about. People living in residential homes, and their Members of Parliament, can tell her exactly what the situation is, even in the absence of a review. We do not like the idea that 80,000 people have been led up to the top of the hill and marched down again as a result of the various approaches of the coalition Government.

[Jim Shannon]

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that this review has a pre-determined conclusion? Is he as concerned as the majority of Members are that it is only paying lip service to the issues and that it will therefore not deliver what we want to see happening?

[Mr Clarke]

I hope to come to that point later. I welcome the fact that hon. Members from Northern Ireland have played such an excellent part in these debates, both on 30 November and since. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) made an intervention on that occasion, and his arguments were as sound then as they are today. The Minister has virtually no support for her position. In a moment, I shall discuss the disability organisations.

[Naomi Long]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the huge disappointments of the process is that, despite the fact that hon. Members as well as people outside the House and local charities initially supported the principle of welfare reform, they are still unable to support the Bill, even at this late stage, because of the lack of detail and assurance that it offers?

[Mr Clarke]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point.

The people who know the most about DLA know that it is very difficult to secure. Claims have been made, if not by Members on the Government Benches then certainly by newspapers that support the Government, that the system is being abused, but the people who know about abuse are those who experience DLA for themselves. It is not a question of not dealing with that. As a result of the Government’s proposals, people who live in residential homes have experienced uncertainty, inconsistency and pledges being reneged on. Today, when we are being asked to make a specific decision on a Bill that will impact on those people, we have yet again heard a series of vague statements from the Minister that mean absolutely nothing.

To be fair to the Minister, she is not alone. The Secretary of State is equally culpable, as is the Prime Minister.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Clarke]

No, I will not. I should like to carry on.

The Prime Minister has given contradictory statements to the House on this issue. In January, he said that

“our intention is very clear: there should be a similar approach for people who are in hospital and for people who are in residential care homes. That is what we intend to do, and I will make sure that it happens.”—[Official Report, 12 January 2011; Vol. 521, c. 282.]

He has been questioned on the issue at Prime Minister’s Question Time on four or five times. On 23 March, when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked him whether there were plans to push through this proposal, he said:

“The short answer is that we are not.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 944.]

Despite that, and despite what we have heard again today—I repeat that I found it completely unconvincing—the intention remains in clause 83 of the Bill that we are being asked to support.

There is also the Red Book. Towards the end of the Budget debate—this has been going on for a long time, as I said earlier—I tried to intervene on the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Why did he not give way? He did not, but there is at least consistency from Ministers in that respect when it comes to me. He did not give way.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Clarke]

I am talking about Ministers. The Chief Secretary did not give way, because I was going to ask him whether in the Budget vote we were being asked to support the page in the Red Book that took more than £470 million away from the people we are discussing today or a section that said we were going to have a review. Answer came there none. We have had statements; we have had a Budget; we have had the Prime Minister’s comments; and we have had the Bill that is being thrown at us today—yet 80,000 people still do not know what the future holds for them. That is wholly unacceptable.

As a result of the measures, 80,000 people will suffer. People on higher rate DLA mobility stand to lose out by £51.40 a week, which will impact on their ability to exercise independence and choice—things that we are told again and again by the Government they support when it comes to community care.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clarke]

No, I am not giving way, so the hon. Gentleman might just as well relax. If he had spoken to as many people in residential care as I have, he might not be so willing to defend the indefensible.

The denial of independence in this proposal means that people will not be able to pay for buses; they will not be able to go to bingo or to football matches. In my constituency, a couple will not even be able to meet each other, yet the Minister had the effrontery to use the word “fairness” in presenting her reply.

Despite what the Minister had to say, we know that disability organisations continue to express grave concerns about the proposals. Indeed, 40 organisations collaborated to compile the “Don’t limit mobility” and the “DLA mobility: sorting the facts from the fiction” reports, which not only outlined the negative impact of the measures on disabled people, but explained why the Government’s rationale behind them is simply incorrect.

On Monday, we heard the Minister refer again to organisations dealing with disability. Let us go through them: Mencap, RADAR, Scope, the United Kingdom Disabled People’s Council and People First. Again and again, those organisations have sought to highlight the failings of DLA—yes, they have said that. However, if the Minister is going to quote them to justify the Government’s actions—she is entitled to use these organisations’ views—she must also be willing to accept their view that they are utterly opposed to the proposals.

I wonder what the Government think of the Social Security Advisory Committee, which is an equally important organisation. Its view was known to the Minister at an early stage. We should remember that this is a very important, heavyweight viewpoint:

“We consider the proposal to remove the mobility component from people in residential care should not go ahead. This measure will substantially reduce the independence of disabled people who are being cared for in residential accommodation, which goes against the stated aim of the reform of DLA to support disabled people to lead independent and active lives.”

Why are the Government rejecting that crucial view?

What do we know about the Government’s plans? We are entitled to ask that question when we are being asked to support this Bill at what is virtually the twelfth hour. We know that they claim that there are overlaps in funding for mobility support for people in residential care, but we do not have the evidence to back up that claim. By seeking to remove the payment of the DLA mobility component to such individuals in order to avoid any possible overlap, the Government are shifting the burden of funding those mobility needs on to local authorities. As we have heard—some of us from Scotland heard it yesterday from representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities—local government simply does not have the resources. It is quite absurd to say that the Government will cut away this funding and that local councils will make up the gap, when they are telling us again and again that they simply do not have the resources.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan]

rose—

[Mr Clarke]

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, because he has shown an interest in these matters.

[Mark Durkan]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way and commend him for his contribution. Is not the situation he describes not even more grotesquely surreal when one considers that, whatever form the review takes, people in local government and those running care homes are being questioned by the Government not about the funding crisis undermining the financial certainty for those care homes, which has people suffocating with worry and dread about what will happen to them, to their relatives and to the staff, but in pursuit of a mythical notion that duplicate payments are being made in respect of the mobility component and contracts with care homes? Should not the Government be addressing the real crisis that is facing care homes and not the nonsense with which they have obsessed themselves?

[Mr Clarke]

As always, the hon. Gentleman has put his case beautifully.

As we head for the Division Lobby tonight, we are asked to choose between the interests of people with disabilities, many of whom have been in residential care for more than 20 years, the concerns of their families and the support of their communities, and the Government’s wish to rush through legislation that in all candour is completely indefensible. Tonight is a real test for the House, and by that I also mean Members of the Liberal Democrat party. I understand that they did not take part in the vote on this in Committee, but they are free to do so tonight. If the Government do what they seek to do and interfere with the lives of the most vulnerable of our fellow citizens in the way that the Bill intends, they do not deserve support and, frankly, people outwith the House, including disability organisations, will be asking about the standing of this Parliament if we allow such a monstrosity to be endorsed in the Lobby. It does not deserve support and I hope that the House will support my hon. Friends’ amendment. I hope also that the Government will think again. I hope that they will think of the shame with which they have burdened themselves and try to redeem themselves from the situation in which they alone have placed themselves.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

I will be brief, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I know that others wish to catch your eye, and so I shall not take interventions. I am reassured by what the Minister said about the mobility component, but I should emphasise that its proposed withdrawal has caused a lot of worry and anxiety in my constituency. Residents of Shaftesbury Court residential home in Lowestoft are heavily reliant on the mobility component and if it had been simply withdrawn a number of disabled and vulnerable people would effectively have been confined to Shaftesbury Court. Visits to day centres and journeys to colleges would have been a thing of the past for them, and social outings to the cinema, bingo and local sports centres would no longer have been possible.

In addition, visits to the family home would have been increasingly difficult. Not all the residents of Shaftesbury Court come from the Lowestoft area. Some come from further afield, including Ipswich, which is 45 miles away, Canvey island, which is 103 miles away, and even Kent. Such home visits invariably take place only once or twice a year and are very important to the residents and their families, and the removal of the mobility component would have made it very difficult for them to continue. I have heard it said that the local authority or the care home operator would have stepped into the gap and taken on those responsibilities, but under the existing contract at Shaftesbury Court, there is no obligation on either party to do so. Suffolk county council does not have the funds to provide those services and Sanctuary Care, which runs the home, does not have the staff, resources or vehicles to take on the role.

A further issue that needs to be considered, which the Minister touched on, is how Motability would deal with any change for people who currently use their mobility component to purchase a vehicle. This is a complex area and I do not believe that the Government intend to penalise a particularly vulnerable group of people. I am reassured by what the Minister said and I look forward to learning the results of the review, but I urge her not to let down the residents, families and carers of those at Shaftesbury Court.