Welfare Reform Bill
Tom Clarke Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
When the Minister considers financial implications, does he bear in mind the fact that the Government’s own calculations indicate that 66% of disabled people will bear the burden of an average loss of £13 a week? Is it any wonder that organisations such as Mencap are appalled that it takes the House of Lords to point out to us the unfairness of such proposed legislation?
Chris Grayling
The right hon. Gentleman needs to remember what the amendments are about. Large numbers of people in our community are under-housed and others are in temporary accommodation. We have formed the view that it is neither good value for the taxpayer nor right for those people that we pay for those in social housing to have spare rooms. That is the purpose of our amendments.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I hope that Government Members think long and hard before simply voting down Lords amendments 3B and 26B, but at the outset let me comment on the other amendments, as the Minister did.
I want in particular to welcome the Government’s concession on time-limiting contributory employment and support allowance for people in the work-related activity group. Amendments 17B to 17D and 19B provide in circumstances prescribed in regulations for a longer time limit than one year. That is a very welcome change, and I am grateful to Ministers for permitting it. The Government have made it clear that they have no intention of bringing forward such regulations, but the Bill will now at least allow a future, more fair-minded Government to do so, and I welcome that change very much.
The Minister in the other place also gave some assurances about people being treated for cancer, which has been an important issue in this debate. His assurances were, however, rather vague. They do not help people recovering from strokes or from severe mental health problems, or others who have no chance at all of getting back into work within a year, but the assurances in respect of cancer patients, in so far as they went, were helpful.
Amendment 73BA, which the Government tabled, would allow them to waive charges for the parent with care when accessing the child support system in specified circumstances. Again, we have no idea what those circumstances will be, but the amendment is nevertheless helpful rather than unhelpful.
There also needs to be movement on the policy addressed by amendments 3B and 26B, which the Minister before us still opposes. They have some perfectly reasonable aims, to which attention has been drawn in this debate. Under-occupancy of social housing is a problem; many people are stuck—overcrowded—on housing waiting lists; fewer people under-occupying would help; and a workable penalty for people who refuse an offer of smaller, more suitable accommodation could achieve that aim.
Mr Tom Clarke
I follow absolutely my right hon. Friend’s logic, but in the field of disability does he not recognise that in many cases the so-called extra room is there for a carer or for other physical reasons to help the disabled person? It is therefore pretty unacceptable to change that arrangement.
Stephen Timms
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is why the Lords propose in their amendment an exemption for people in receipt of disability living allowance, thereby addressing exactly that point.
Our original amendment would have penalised under-occupation in a workable way. If a tenant refused a suitable offer of a smaller home, they would suffer the penalty. If, however, no smaller home were available, they would not suffer that penalty. Unfortunately, that amendment was defeated in our previous debate, but I pay tribute to the 12 Liberal Democrat Members and two Conservative Members who supported it. I am glad to see some of them in their places this afternoon.
Legal challenge to the Government’s policy seems inevitable, because it penalises people for a situation that it is impossible for them to change. The amendment could not be reintroduced in the other place because the Government claimed financial privilege, so this afternoon we have in amendments 3B and 26B a much weaker proposal. It does, however, at least protect those, like the people to whom my right hon. Friend has just drawn attention, who will be hardest hit if the Government’s policy goes through.
The proposal would safeguard four tightly defined groups: first, people in the employment and support allowance support group—those who are too ill to be expected to return to work in the near future; secondly, adults and children who receive disability living allowance or its successor, the personal independence payment; thirdly, war widows; and fourthly, foster carers, because for the purposes of housing benefit calculations foster children do not count towards a bedroom need.
Let me underline how modest the proposal now is. Many Members will take the view, for example, that war widows should not be penalised for having a spare bedroom. The proposal, however, would not protect war widows in that way. It simply says that no war widow should be fined for under-occupying her home unless she has been offered appropriate smaller accommodation. If such an offer has been made to her and she has refused it, under the Lords amendments she would be penalised. The amendments would protect her position until such an offer was made. Only tenants in one of the four specific groups would have even that safeguard. Everybody else who was under-occupying their social tenancy would, under the amendments, be penalised even if it was impossible for them to move to somewhere smaller.
The Child Poverty Action Group has highlighted an example of how similar rules currently apply in the private rented sector, which highlights the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke). Let us consider a claimant who has two daughters, one of whom has severe and uncontrollable epilepsy with frequent fits during the night. Her social worker and occupational therapist agree that the two girls need separate bedrooms. The claimant currently rents a three-bedroom house, but housing benefit covers the cost of only a two-bedroom house. The Lords amendments would fix that situation for social housing because the daughter is in receipt of disability living allowance.
I will now consider the hypothetical example of a couple in which one person has terminal cancer, which puts them in the employment and support allowance support group for people who are not expected to work again. That is one of the four specific groups that the Lords amendments would protect. The couple have a spare bedroom in their two-bedroom council house because their child moved out recently. They would be happy to move to a one-bedroom council or housing association flat but none is available. Under the Minister’s policy, that couple will be penalised, on average by £12 a week. Under the amendments, because of the exceptional circumstances, they would not be penalised. That would be the modest and reasonable effect of the amendments that the Lords agreed.
The National Housing Federation tells us that 180,000 social tenants in England are under-occupying two-bedroom homes, but that only 68,000 one-bedroom social homes became available to let in the year 2009-10. The impact assessment from the Department for Work and Pensions, which is well worth reading, states:
“According to estimates from DCLG there is a surplus of 3 bedroom properties, based on the profile of existing working-age tenants in receipt of Housing Benefit, and a lack of 1 bedroom accommodation in the social sector. In many areas this mismatch”—
I am quoting the Department here—
“could mean that there are insufficient properties to enable tenants to move to accommodation of an appropriate size even if tenants wished to move and landlords were able to facilitate this movement.”
That is the reality in many places. There simply will not be a one-bedroom home to move to. That will be the case in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), who intervened earlier, and in my constituency. Of course, the policy will not release a single one-bedroom home, because one cannot under-occupy a home with one bedroom.
The couple in the example, in which one person has terminal cancer, would see a cut of £12 a week or nearly £60 a month in their income. That is the average across the country. They would somehow have to make that up to their landlord from other income. The Department, no doubt trying to be helpful, gives some suggestions in the impact assessment of how they might do that:
“In these circumstances individuals may have to look further afield for appropriately sized accommodation or move to the private sector, otherwise they shall need to meet the shortfall through other means such as employment, using savings or by taking in a lodger or sub-tenant.”
I ask the House to reflect on each of those three suggestions in the case of somebody with terminal cancer. People in the ESA support group are, by definition, not in a position to work. That is why the Government have placed them in the support group. That suggestion therefore does not help. The DWP suggests instead that our terminally ill tenant in a two-bedroom flat should take in a lodger to help pay the rent. One has to ask whether the people promoting these policies have ever met anyone who will be affected by them. Of course, in many cases, the social landlord would not permit somebody to take in a lodger under the terms of their tenancy. The Department’s other suggestion is that they can use their savings. People in receipt of income-related ESA do not have very much saved—if they did, they would not receive income-related ESA.
Another alternative, as the impact assessment suggests, is that the tenant will have to move out of their council home into the private sector. In that case, their housing benefit will rise sharply. Where is the gain in forcing that to happen? The National Housing Federation, whose members are very worried about the change that the Government insist on making, makes the point that
“a couple with one child moving into the private sector from a three bed social flat in Crawley would be entitled to around £66 per week more in benefit to cover their additional housing costs.”
The key point is that it will be impossible for many of those affected to avoid the penalty. If suitable alternative accommodation can be offered to them, then fine, they can move and will no longer be under-occupying, and their benefit will continue to cover their full rent. The Lords amendments specifically allow for that. However, if there is no smaller flat available, our cancer patient will just have to take the £60 a month hit. How can that be justified?
The Minister will tell us, as he has before, that £30 million has been made available to councils in discretionary housing payments to avoid penalising a limited number of households. However, the Minister in the other place made it clear that, as the Minister of State hinted today, that money is to help foster carers and disabled people with adapted homes—so no help there for our terminally ill tenant.
Even for foster carers and disabled people in adapted homes, contrary to the impression that the Minister of State gave to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson) and the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, there will be no certainty. People wanting help will have to go to their local council and ask for it, because it will be discretionary—that is what the word means. It will up to each local council to decide what it does with the money. It could use it for that purpose, or it could use it for a different one. If other people have already taken all the discretionary funding that has been provided, that will be it. No further help will be available.
Mr Tom Clarke
I find myself agreeing with almost everything that the hon. Gentleman has said, apart from his view of those on the Treasury Bench. In addition to his experience in his own constituency, is he influenced by the fact that disability organisations have told us about the example of a man with a learning disability who had to wait for 25 years for appropriate accommodation? It turned out to be a two-bedroom house, which has now become his home.
Andrew Percy
I do not know the circumstances of that case, but in my time as a councillor we had a number of properties that were very difficult to let because people did not want to live in them. That was particularly true of the maisonettes. In Old Goole in my constituency, a two-bedroom maisonette has recently been let to an individual after about 20 years. He will be under-occupying because of the spare bedroom, but we are grateful that he has taken the property off our hands.
Disability Hate Crime
Tom Clarke Excerpts(13 years ago)
Westminster HallRead 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
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, and to follow the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), who always speaks in an informed way. Today was no exception. I join him in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) on obtaining the debate at an important time, and on her excellent speech. I hope that she will forgive me if I re-emphasise some of her points, each of which was well made.
Disability hate crime is a big issue, affecting about 60% of all disabled people in the UK. Within that number, people with learning disabilities are hugely affected: according to Mencap, nine out of 10 say that they have been bullied, harassed or harmed because of their impairment. I should declare that I am the joint chair, with Lord Rix, of the all-party parliamentary group on learning disability.
The recent Equality and Human Rights Commission report “Hidden in plain sight” suggested that disability harassment is so common that many have come to accept it as part of their everyday lives. The report also found that numerous agencies, including the police, the courts, the Crown Prosecution Service and local authorities, have failed to recognise disability hate crime and respond effectively when it happens.
Mencap’s “Stand by me” campaign aims to rectify the issue by encouraging police forces to give greater attention to disability hate crimes and promoting the need for Government to do more to achieve improvement. In June this year, I had the privilege of hosting a reception. I was delighted that the Minister was there, as I am always delighted when she is present. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire), whom I am delighted to see back in a post to which she is eminently suited, feels equally welcome.
The Government committed to publishing a hate crime action plan, but there is no evidence of it yet, although it is essential if we are to achieve strategic direction and a co-ordinated approach to tackling hate crimes, such as those aggravated by disability. Sentencing is a key issue that has been raised. Recently, the Government announced their intention to equalise minimum sentences for murders aggravated by disability as part of schedule 21 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003. I welcome that strongly, of course, but it does not mean the end of the issue. Murder is just one part of a huge spectrum of abuse suffered by disabled people, and provision should be made to safeguard all disabled people who suffer any sort of disability hate crime.
Types of hate crime vary substantially, as we have heard. Murder and physical abuse are the most hard-hitting and widely publicised. However, name-calling and general harassment build up over time and can cause long-lasting psychological damage to the victim, as was seen in the case of Fiona Pilkington, who, sadly, killed her learning-disabled daughter and herself after years of abuse. Another, relatively recent phenomenon, referred to by the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys, is mate crime, in which perpetrators falsely befriend disabled people and exploit them financially, physically or sexually. Sentencing for disability hate crime should be comprehensive enough to safeguard against all those forms of crime.
The Government have also announced that they will reform section 146 of the 2003 Act, which imposes sentence uplifts for crimes aggravated by protected characteristics such as disability. Section 146 is widely unenforced: only 1,200 cases of disability hate crime have been prosecuted, compared with 48,400 racist and religious hate crimes. However, the Ministry of Justice has said that the Act will be updated so that where any offence is shown to be motivated by hostility towards the victim on the grounds of transgender, race, religion, sexual orientation or disability, sentences must be more severe. The implication is that the law will be strengthened so that courts “must” impose a sentence uplift, thus removing their discretionary power. Will the Minister clarify the situation? I would welcome that.
Another issue that must be addressed is the power of the Attorney-General to review sentences deemed unduly lenient. That power does not extend to sentences for disability-motivated offences, which creates an inconsistent picture in the legislation on disability hate crime. There is a possible implication that disability hate crime is not as much of a priority as other strands of hate crime such as race or religion, important though those are. Disability hate crime must be recognised as an equal issue across all forms of sentencing.
Mark Durkan
My right hon. Friend rightly highlights the fact that the Attorney-General can review lenient sentences for racial or religiously aggravated attacks, even where the offence is relatively minor, but the law insists that disability-aggravated crime may be reviewed only if it is most serious. Does that not essentially put the law and the Attorney-General in the Sepp Blatter position of saying, “Yes, it’s wrong, but it’s not really serious; it’s unacceptable, but it’s somehow understandable.”?
Mr Clarke
My hon. Friend’s point is salient and I am sure that we all take it on board. It is essential that the issues under discussion are dealt with as part of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill; otherwise, the opportunity for disability hate crime to achieve the type of parity for which we are calling will pass.
What needs to happen? I acknowledge the Home Office directive on collecting figures on disability hate crime. That could achieve a better understanding of the national picture, taking in every part of the United Kingdom. However, more needs to be done to be proactive, even beyond that.
Police forces need better to understand disability, including learning disability, so that they can effectively support victims of disability hate crime. That includes flagging up repeat cases of disabled people being victims of abuse. Mencap’s police promise initiative, for example, encourages police forces to sign up to a list of pledges to show their commitment to tackling disability hate crime.
Courts and the criminal justice sector should employ special measures, as per the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s recommendations in the “Hidden in plain sight” report, better to accommodate disabled people. That includes effective support for witnesses, which can be crucial in so many cases.
It is also hugely important to tackle wider public attitudes about disabled people, as hon. Members have mentioned. There is a lot in the media about people being “benefit scroungers”, and disabled people are often deemed guilty by association, which breeds contempt among the public, some of whom perceive disabled people to be cheating the system to ensure that they get state handouts. That is wrong and unacceptable.
I again welcome the debate and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston on securing it. I strongly believe that we should face the issues and problems of sentencing and respond accordingly, and her debate today has given us a wonderful opportunity to focus on that.
Pensioners and Winter Fuel Payments
Tom Clarke Excerpts(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Durkan
Yes, of course it is at a time when they need it most, and it is not only the time of year when they need it most but the time in the economic cycle—with all the difficulties that people are facing.
We have heard some duplicitous arguments from Government Members. On the one hand many people talk about the difficulties with means-tested benefits and with supporting pensioners through pension credits, but on the other hand we have heard criticisms of the fuel payment and the fact that it is not means-tested or discriminatory. We have heard contradictory arguments.
Indeed, the Minister earlier argued against the whole scheme, structure and logic of winter fuel payments. He actually argued against the allowance altogether and said that better, more discriminating interventions were available to protect people against fuel poverty and to support more deserving pensioners. In the light of his logic, I wonder whether the Government plan fundamentally to review or redesign the fuel payment.
The previous Government introduced the single annual payment in 1998, but the first time I heard it advocated was in 1988, when my predecessor, John Hume, commended to the then social security Minister, John Major, the introduction of an annual thermal allowance to overcome many of the difficulties with the cold weather payments, their inadequacy and the poor and inconsistent triggering system. Thankfully, we got something similar with the winter fuel payment in 1998.
Over the years, the amount of money committed to the payment has changed and top-ups have been introduced. Pensioners have come to see those top-ups as a given, and considering what the Prime Minister said going into the election, they had every right to expect them to remain a given. The motion tabled by my compatriots in the Democratic Unionist party gives the House the opportunity to signal to the Government that that is what we want and what pensioners expect.
Many valid arguments have been made about how to tackle fuel poverty—improving energy efficiency, for example. Although some of those measures can be introduced in Northern Ireland at the devolved level, others need wider intervention from here. Those could include more up-front investment in energy efficiency retrofit schemes or VAT concessions, not least to stimulate work in the hard-pressed construction sector, which is not building new houses. There is an awful lot of work that people with construction skills could do to retrofit and improve existing houses, and there are many things that young people who want to get construction skills could do on such schemes. The Government need to think more widely about other measures to tackle fuel poverty, but they should not use the existence of other interventions as an excuse to justify this unjustified cut.
I shall not rehearse the statistics on the levels of fuel poverty in Northern Ireland that my colleagues have mentioned because other Members want to speak, and nor shall I rehearse the number of winter deaths from fuel poverty either in the UK at large or in Northern Ireland. I shall only make the point that those deaths are avoidable and that we need to take what steps we can to avoid them. This cut is avoidable.
The Minister asked, “Where else can the money come from?” I do not necessarily agree with some of the suggestions from right hon. and hon. colleagues, although I am glad that the Government moved on from some of the vanity projects—for example, the NHS IT scheme. Money could also be saved on Trident.
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman mentioned mortality. As he knows, I have family in Armagh, where the climate can be pretty tough, but it can be even colder and more difficult in Scandinavia, where the figures for hypothermia are much lower than ours. Is that not a point that we should bear in mind?
Mark Durkan
Yes, it is. That raises questions about investment in quality housing stock and the levels of social support, guarantees and interventions available in Scandinavian countries, and it is why we need to follow the precise focus of the motion, which relates specifically to the winter fuel payment.
I attended the Northern Ireland Pensioners’ Parliament to which hon. Members have referred. It took place in the summer—in June—yet the single strongest issue coming through concerned the winter fuel payment. Yes, people were aware of the changes and the pensions triple lock, but they did not buy it and obviously resented the sleight of hand, with the change in indexation and so on. What they focused on was the direct cut facing them. That is why so many people have campaigned on it, and not just in Northern Ireland.
As the Government look to what they can do to help shelter people from the effects of recession and face the rampant pressures on household costs, I hope that they will reinstate the top-up in winter fuel payments to support pensioners. When pensioners hear the question, “Where will the money come from?”, they say, as some pensioners said at the Pensioners’ Parliament, “When this quantitative easing happens”—supposedly so that money gets out there into the economy—“why is the money given to the banks?” When that money goes into the banks, does it get out there into the economy? Those pensioners make the sensible point—this is one thing we do know—that when we give money to pensioners, it will be spent. It will not stay in those households; it will be spent, in local shops and so on, and go usefully and legitimately into the economy. If there is another phase of quantitative easing and more money is made available to go into the economy, perhaps it should go via pensioners. Then we would all share in the benefits and, in particular, pensioners would be sheltered from the cold.
Welfare Reform Bill
Tom Clarke Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Amendment of the Law
Tom Clarke Excerpts(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend share my astonishment that the Secretary of State can produce savings figures, yet when we put specific questions to him we are told, “This is a matter for review”?
Mr Byrne
Precisely right. Indeed, the Secretary of State presented to the House of Commons a Bill that would abolish DLA before he had even bothered to finish consulting people up and down the country about what the reform of DLA should look like.
One of the greatest failures stemming from the Secretary of State’s inability to extract further money from his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is, of course, the failure to get young people back to work. I met a delegation of young people from my constituency this morning and I asked them what they thought of the Government’s plans. Their thoughts were very simple: it just seems, they said, that the Government are stopping young people being what they could be. I could put it no better myself. Youth unemployment is now approaching 1 million. The Secretary of State likes to pretend—he did it again this afternoon—that this is somehow a problem that he inherited. [Interruption.] What he fails to remind us is that in the final nine months of our term of office, youth unemployment was falling by 67,000.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman is fond of quoting figures that do not include the number of people in higher education, for example. Fine: let us look at what the figures tell us. Since the election this is what has happened: after nine months in which youth unemployment was falling, it is now going up by 60,000—and that when the economy is supposedly growing. All the good work we did is now completely undone.
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
I begin where I ended my speech a few weeks ago on Second Reading of the Welfare Reform Bill—by referring to the Government’s approach to disability living allowance. It is always helpful after a Budget to have a look at the Red Book, and on that subject, as on others, I have done so. I found that the Chancellor of the Exchequer states that the Government intend to recoup about £470 million during this Parliament as a result of removing the mobility component of DLA.
This debate gives us a wonderful opportunity to clarify a subject that has been discussed again and again, but which has led, even today, to sheer confusion. For some 80,000 disabled people, the planned removal of the mobility component of DLA from people living in residential homes is causing great concern, and the issue is clouded by the obfuscation that we have heard from the Government, including from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions today.
Last week the Prime Minister claimed that the Government did not plan to remove the mobility component, even though again and again at the same Dispatch Box, the same Prime Minister had compared the people involved with patients who are in hospital for two or three weeks. Whatever the Government say—I hope we will get some clarity from them tonight—clause 83 of the Welfare Reform Bill, which is being discussed in Committee as we speak, will legislate precisely for the removal of that benefit. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) has pointed out to the House that 2,000 disabled children could lose out.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)
indicated dissent.
Maria Miller
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene. I point out to him that clause 83 of the Bill is about overlaps. He will have heard the Prime Minister make it very clear from the Dispatch Box that we do not intend to remove the mobility component of DLA from residents in care homes from 2012. We will, however, as he would expect, examine all DLA recipients as we move forward with the reform—with which, as we have heard from the Labour spokesman today, the Opposition agree.
Mr Clarke
I heard the Prime Minister, and I have heard the hon. Lady on numerous occasions. I even had a private meeting with her, along with Lord Rix, who co-chairs with me the all-party group on learning disability. She has not once said that there will be a change to the money that the Red Book anticipates will be saved by the removal of the benefit, or that the Government are changing their mind. If the Minister who winds up tonight’s debate says that, there will be joy among thousands of disabled people and their carers, but it has not been said yet.
What we are being told is that the Government inherited a financial crisis. I consider the views of my constituents on that and other matters, but the fact is that they are bored stiff with the blame game. They know about the deficit, but they also know about growth. They know that the Government said precious little about growth in the Budget, as has also been the case today.
Take, for, example, fuel. I argued that the VAT increase should be reversed, but the Chancellor expects drivers to be grateful for a 1p cut in fuel tax when VAT is going up by 3p in the pound. That will not allow the Government to ingratiate themselves with people who can no longer afford to fill up their tanks on the forecourt. If Government Members have some doubt about that, may I refer them to, of all newspapers, yesterday’s Sun? It indicated that one fifth of people had given up driving. If that represents growth, I do not understand the meaning of the word.
A woman in my constituency, a nurse called Sandra, does a round trip of 80 miles a day to do her job. She fears for the future and, like me, regards the energy regulations in the Budget as being too little, too late.
Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman says that the measures are too little, too late. Why did his party set a 10-year target in 2000 and then miss it in 2010, only to set in 2009 a far more ambitious target for 2020 that no one expects any Government to reach?
Mr Clarke
If I had another six minutes I would be very happy to answer the hon. Gentleman, but if he does not mind, I will just make my own speech.
There is profound disappointment with the influence of regulators, particularly in the energy sector, for gas, electricity, oil and the rest. We are seeing the impact of that influence in what people are actually paying day by day, and in the job losses being experienced as a result.
As I said, my constituents are well informed, as the House would expect them to be. Mrs Agnes Baillie, from the lovely little village of Auchinloch, who is 85, knows what the change in the pensions inflation link from retail prices index to consumer prices index means, even if the Secretary of State does not—he skipped over that in his speech. She knows that from 2011 that change will apply to state second pensions, public service pensions and some private occupational pensions, that RPI is not CPI, and that both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats gave firm pledges in their election manifestos that they would not change the existing arrangements—they certainly did not say that they would change things to the disadvantage of current and future pensioners.
The Secretary of State scoffed at the mention of the banks, which is both astonishing and disagreeable. The banks’ behaviour is at the heart of the all the problems that we are dealing with, and we will not get the economy right if we do not address that; instead, we will get stagnation and lack of growth. Firms will be unable to get off the ground and young people will be unable to get on to the housing ladder if the banks are not challenged more profoundly than they have been so far.
The last words of the Chancellor’s Budget statement were:
“We have put fuel into the tank of the British economy.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 966.]
Is that at the expense of 80,000 people, including 2,000 disabled children who live in residential care homes? If so, it tells us a lot about this coalition Government and the values that they hold.
Danny Alexander
I will mention the oil and gas sector in the course of my speech, but it is worth observing at this point that, as a result of the very high oil price, oil and gas companies are expected to make £24 billion in profits over the next 12 months. Even with the tax changes that we have announced in the Budget, it is expected that they will make more profit per barrel of oil over the next five years than they did in the past five years, when the previous Government last changed the supplementary charge regime.
We are also creating a competitive tax system in relation to personal taxation. We have of course confirmed that the national insurance increase that the previous Government announced will have to go ahead at least partially, but because we have increased the threshold we are making it cheaper to employ people on incomes of less than £21,000 a year. Anyone earning less than £35,000 a year will, as of next week, be better off because of our £1,000 increase in the personal allowance that was announced in last year’s Budget, the largest increase in the personal allowance in history. That means that in real terms 23 million taxpayers will be around £160 a year better off—£200 in cash terms.
The coalition agreement also commits the Government to real increases in the personal allowance in each and every year of this Parliament. It also sets us the goal that no one earning less than £10,000 a year will be caught in the income tax net. I am happy to be able to tell the House that the £630 increase in the personal allowance announced for next year puts us on track to meet that goal in this Parliament. This is about rewarding work.
We are also reforming the welfare system, and I know that a number of comments were made in the debate on the disability living allowance regime. The right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) should look at page 55 of the Red Book for the answer to his question.
Mr Tom Clarke
I welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has referred to the important mobility component of disability living allowance. Earlier today I invited the Government to take the time available to tell us whether they intend to continue with their plan to abolish that element, which would mean that many people with disabilities living in residential accommodation —82,000 in all, including children—would lose out. What exactly is the Government’s position?
Danny Alexander
As I was saying, the right hon. Gentleman should look at page 55 of the Red Book, which states:
“As announced by DWP at the introduction of the Welfare Reform Bill 2011, the Government will no longer remove the mobility component of DLA for people in residential care in October 2012. Mobility provision for people in residential care will be reviewed as part of the wider reform of DLA to be introduced from 2013-14.”
That is a clear and sensible position.
Danny Alexander
The hon. Gentleman and I agree about the importance of that point. We have submitted the formal application to the European Commission, and I hope that, European processes willing—as he knows, they are not always entirely predictable—we will have that permission over the next few months.
The help that we are providing to motorists has to be paid for, and it is right that we ask the oil companies to pay a greater share of the extra profits that they are making from the high international oil price. Even with those changes, the profits on a barrel of oil are forecast, as I said, to be higher over the next five years than they were over the past five, so I say to the oil companies, “We do understand your concerns, and there is plenty for us to discuss with you, especially to support”—
Danny Alexander
No, no. I am not going to give way. [Hon. Members: “Give way!”] I am not going to give way. [Hon. Members: “Give way!”] I am not going to give way.
I say to the oil companies, “There is plenty for us to discuss with you, especially to support new gas exploration through the regime of field allowances.” That is the right decision, it is fair—
Mr Tom Clarke
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will have heard the Minister refer me to page 44 of the Red Book, which I have now read. Is it in order for the Minister to refuse to allow me to respond?
Danny Alexander
The right hon. Gentleman misheard me; I referred to page 55.
It is the right decision—
Danny Alexander
Our second ambition is for Britain to become the best place in Europe to start, finance and grow a business, and in that area there is pressing need for reform. A number of hon. Members referred to enterprise zones, including the hon. Members for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) and for Witham (Priti Patel). I say to them that we have learned from the experience of previous enterprise zones, where of course there was some success and some concerns. By working with all the local authorities in the local enterprise partnership areas, we hope to ensure that we learn some of the lessons to which those hon. Members referred.
On the long road to sustainable growth, we cannot ignore the problems that businesses are facing when it comes to accessing finance. Small businesses, in particular, have been the innocent victims—
Mr Tom Clarke
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is patently obvious that the right hon. Gentleman is having trouble finishing his speech. Would he allow me to answer the point that he asked me to—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, but he has been in this House long enough to know that that is not a point of order. I think that it is a point of frustration.
Danny Alexander
I am not going to give way to the right hon. Gentleman. I must press on. I have answered his point.
Small businesses, in particular, have been the innocent victims of the credit crunch. They have seen the flow of affordable credit dry up, which is why we have agreed with the banks a £10 billion increase in the availability of—
Welfare Reform Bill
Tom Clarke Excerpts(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Duncan Smith
I thank the right hon. Gentleman—although I am not sure: is he a right hon. Gentleman? [Interruption.] An hon. Gentleman—okay. That is something that his party should do—it is not for me—given his record of service.
Yes, I accept that there were issues. In fact, when we looked at the decisions taken at the time of the spending review, I reviewed the matter, after discussing it with the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), who is the Minister responsible for these matters. We visited lots of care homes—my hon. Friend went out to see people and talk to them—and we realised that there was a lot of chaos out there about what should be given to people in care homes, what care homes themselves provide, and what local authorities believe it is their statutory responsibility to provide. Some of them say that they do not have any such responsibility to provide mobility services, but others say that they do, and provide access to such services.
We have therefore changed the provisions in the Bill, as the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) has probably noticed. That will be incorporated in the review of disability living allowance. Our objective is to get rid of the overlaps, genuinely to find out what can be provided at local level, and to figure out what the amount should be to support someone in a care home, bearing in mind that mobility needs in a care home are likely to be variable, and different from the needs of someone living in the community completely independently. Adjustments will be necessary, but my hon. Friend and I give the hon. Gentleman and the House an undertaking that we are going to try to figure out what the right answer is. We will work out a set of figures, and how they can be applied. That is the purpose of the review; I guarantee that.
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
Reflecting on what the Secretary of State has just said, does he recall that on several occasions, the Prime Minister has been given the opportunity to say that he has listened to the evidence and accepts that there is virtually no support for withdrawing the mobility component of disability living allowance for people living in residential accommodation? To what extent does the Secretary of State’s position differ from the position taken again and again by the Prime Minister?
Mr Duncan Smith
We are as one. I say that immediately, before I explain the position.
The reality, for the Prime Minister and for me, is that when we understand that certain facts are slightly different from what we thought they might have been, we always modify what we are doing to make sure that the effect of what we are trying to do is reasonable and produces the best results. All I can say to the right hon. Gentleman is that the Bill is not the same as the one that he would have seen some weeks ago. We are not knocking out the mobility component from care homes, and we have included it in the review of what mobility provisions are necessary and required for people in care homes. That is the real principle behind the measure. My previous comments were about finding the overlaps, and how we made sure that they did not cost people money in one area, but found those costs in other areas. That is the main point of the review, and I have asked my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to make sure that that is the case. The Bill covers that, and I hope that most people will see that it is quite reasonable to try to recognise what that figure is.
Mr Duncan Smith
Because it does not apply to everybody; it is very patchy. The honest truth is that no award we make should say to people, as has happened too often in the past: “You are in receipt of a particular benefit and we don’t want ever to see you again.” If the hon. Gentleman is arguing, as I think he is, that it is right to see people, surely we should be arguing that it is right to see them all to ensure that when their condition changes, that is met. That is surely fair both to them and to the taxpayer.
Mr Tom Clarke
Despite the right hon. Gentleman’s assurances, I ask him to look again clause 83(2), which says:
“The condition is that the person is an in-patient of a hospital or similar institution, or a resident of a care home, in circumstances in which any of the costs of any qualifying services provided for the person are borne out of public or local funds by virtue of a specified enactment.”
That is absolutely clear, but, with great respect, it is not what he is telling us.
Mr Duncan Smith
I am afraid that I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman, because that is exactly what I was saying. The provisions gives us the opportunity to do just that; it does not specify what we do, but it tells us that this is what we are going to be doing. We are looking at all this because, in our view, we need to come forward with an amount that is relevant to the mobility that is necessary for people in care homes.
Mr Byrne
Perhaps the Secretary of State can tell the House this afternoon when those proposals will be ready for us to look at. [Interruption.] “In time for Committee,” he says from a sedentary position. We all look forward to seeing that.
It is now clear that for the self-employed, savers and families, this Bill at the very best poses more questions than it answers. The other question that the House has to ask the Secretary of State this afternoon is not about how we foster ambition, but about how we nurture compassion. How do we strengthen and reinforce our obligations to each other? That is something that we will hear a lot more about, when we talk about the reform of disability living allowance. What we know about the detailed reforms is not good. I welcome what the Secretary of State has said about the mobility component of DLA. I think that he has confirmed that he is withdrawing the proposal to cut £135 million from the mobility component of DLA. If that is true, it is welcome, because we are talking about a measure that the chief executive of Scope pronounced as “callous” and an
“assault on the most vulnerable”.
The rationale presented by the Minister of State has this morning been taken apart by 39 charities. I am afraid that I have to agree with the words of those campaigners who have said that
“many of these people”
—those in residential care—
“will be prevented from enjoying the freedom of movement that is taken for granted by people who are not disabled.”
Those are, of course, the words of the motion at the Liberal Democrats’ spring conference this weekend. I hope that together we may be able to prevail and get this measure dead and buried.
Mr Tom Clarke
On the crucial issue of the mobility component for people in residential accommodation, when my right hon. Friend put his question to the Secretary of State, I understood the Minister of State to be indicating dissent. Will my right hon. Friend give the Minister another opportunity to clarify this important issue?
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
I should begin by declaring an interest: I am co-chair, with Lord Rix, of the all-party group on learning disability.
Members will not be surprised to learn that I intend to oppose the Bill and support the reasoned amendment. In the short time available to me, I shall speak in direct opposition to this Welfare Reform Bill, because if it is implemented it will devastate the lives of people who are sick, people with disabilities and many vulnerable people throughout Britain, not least in my constituency.
Since before I was elected to this House, I have firmly held to the principle that people with disabilities should have the same opportunities as everyone else, no less and no more, and I have to say that the election of this new coalition Government does not in the least diminish the need for a principled stand to be taken on behalf of people who require support. That is because of the highly punitive measures that are being proposed, and which have not been denied today, and I hope to have the time to address some of them later.
On Tuesday 30 November I secured a Westminster Hall Adjournment debate on Government plans to remove the mobility component of the disability living allowance for disabled people who live in a residential establishment. At the beginning of that debate, I said:
“To put that into context, it is important to establish which members of our society qualify for that benefit. The first, and by far the most common group, is where the claimant is unable—or virtually unable—to walk. The second group consists of people who are both blind and deaf. The third category comprises people with a severe mental impairment, and/or severe behavioural problems. In truth, we could not be discussing people who are more vulnerable or deserving in our communities.”—[Official Report, 30 November 2010; Vol. 519, c. 197WH.]
I also pointed out that of all the proposals on welfare reform, this is the most brutal and cruel. I have had no assurances on this issue during the course of the debate
Chris Grayling
It might be helpful to put on the record that we have been very clear that we intend mobility provision to continue for people in care homes. There is an overlap between a number of provisions however, and we have formed the view that it is better not to include a stand-alone clause in this Bill, but to include the issue as a whole as part of our review establishing exactly what needs to be done and through which channels.
Mr Clarke
So in place of the clear threats we had from no lesser a person than the Prime Minister and in the face of a lack of clarification today from the Secretary of State, we are expected to wait for a review. I am sorry to have to tell the Minister that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) said in opening for the Opposition, organisations representing disabled people throughout the country are simply not prepared to accept what appear to be assurances at the 13th hour, given what is written in the Bill and given the opposition to my colleagues’ amendment.
I urge the Government to consider the opinions of voluntary organisations and of the independent Social Security Advisory Committee, which obviously took the same view as I did:
“We consider that the proposal to remove the mobility component from people in residential care should not go ahead.”
That remains our determination today. I trust that the Government will take on board the view expressed by such an influential and informed body.
Dame Anne Begg
It is, perhaps, worth putting the record straight on DLA. This afternoon, the impression has been given that there are no checks on people on DLA and that they are just left to languish, but everyone on DLA gets a letter every year saying they must report any changes to their condition.
Mr Clarke
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has considerable knowledge of these important matters.
Even today, we have heard much about the deficit, but the sick, the poor and the vulnerable in our society simply do not deserve to be punished for the financial greed and recklessness of the banking sector. That is what this Bill is proposing, and if anyone doubts that then let them address the planned 20% reduction in DLA. We are cutting a lifeline on the basis not of a necessity, but of a statistic plucked out of thin air.
I work closely with disability organisations that are at the forefront of supporting disabled people and their families at every stage of their lives. Today, I speak up on behalf of the many constituents who have been in touch with me on this subject. Indeed, I have had more representations on this Bill from both constituents and disability organisations than on any other Bill in my entire time in Parliament, and it is a bit too late for the Minister to make the intervention he has just made. Organisations working in this field have long been striving to achieve a balance between providing practical help and listening to those who need support, and that informs me in this debate. Incidentally, almost all the caring organisations, from Mencap to Scope to Enable in Scotland, are united in condemnation of what is on offer.
We are told the Government plan to simplify the benefit system for claimants and to remove financial disincentives to moving into work. I have no problem with those two objectives if that is what is really meant. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) said however, the devil remains in the detail. Where is the commitment to promoting social justice for disabled people? We have rising unemployment on the one hand and spending cuts on the other, with reduced access to social care services as a consequence of reductions in local government funding. The latter is hitting disabled people disproportionately hard all over the United Kingdom, further compounding the poverty and disadvantage they already face. There appears to be a lack of recognition that we are talking here not about people who are fraudulent or feckless or who fear work, but about people who are incapacitated and cannot work and therefore must be supported. While disabled people who live at home are to keep the mobility component of their benefits—which is as it should be—it cannot be right, it cannot be fair and it certainly cannot be equitable for disabled people living in residential homes to be hammered with a 69% cut in overall benefits.
For that reason and many others, I ask the House to consider very carefully the words printed in the Bill, because it is the Bill that we are considering today. We are being asked to give it a Second Reading, and on the basis of its contents and what has been said by Ministers, I cannot support the Government.
Housing Benefit (Scotland)
Tom Clarke Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead 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
Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)
I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber would agree that the provision of decent homes is the mark of a civilised society. Parliament has a role in ensuring that that consensus is reflected in policy. That is why I asked for the debate. I am concerned about the consequences of the Government’s choices on housing benefit and on local housing allowances for my constituents and for the whole of Scotland.
According to the Department’s impact assessment, 55,000 households in Scotland will be worse off this year as a result of the Government’s choices on housing benefit. I have been speaking to community groups, local government, housing associations and charities in my constituency. They are deeply concerned about the impact of the Government’s choices on some of the most vulnerable members of our community. As a result of just some of the changes, £2.2 million will be taken out of the pockets of people claiming housing benefits in north Lanarkshire alone every year, and 75% of social tenants claiming housing benefit will lose out in north Lanarkshire.
Some Ministers have expressed concerns about the impact of the cuts. The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey), has said that they mean that
“some people who are on the breadline will be put below the breadline.”
Therefore, I know that this Minister will treat these genuine concerns with the respect that they deserve.
I hope that the Minister will also accept that choices that the Government have made interact in a way that will make life harder for some people. I want to draw his attention to the problems posed by the interactions between some of the changes. For instance, consider a family in which working-age social tenants claiming housing benefit are living with grown-up children. There are many such families in all our constituencies. The Government have announced their intention substantially to increase non-dependant reductions in housing benefit for both social and private tenants.
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is speaking remarkably well in an excellently chosen debate. Is he aware that, in addition to the vulnerable people whom he has mentioned, many of the organisations of and for people with disabilities are particularly worried about the impact on them? Many of them might be affected out of proportion to their numbers, and they really are the least able to bear it.
Gregg McClymont
My right hon. Friend raises a very good point. He is well known in the House for his expertise in that area. He is right to raise the issue of the impact on disabled individuals and families in particular.
One issue that I want to press with the Minister is the Government’s intention to extend the reduced shared-room rate of housing benefit to all single people under the age of 35. That will make it harder for young people on low incomes to move out of their family home, as the rate is frequently too low to cover the costs of accommodation. Outside major cities, there are very few licences for houses in multiple occupation in Scotland. Even in the major cities, those HMOs are likely to be fully occupied already. Also, some young people, particularly those with mental or physical health problems, would find it very difficult to live in shared accommodation, in many cases with strangers.
Even if young people do move out of the family home, another problem looms. If their parents are, like many people in my constituency, working-age social tenants, they will fall foul of the limit on payments for working-age tenants who are deemed to be “under-occupying”.
Steve Webb
Let me say for the benefit of hon. Members that although I should very much welcome their contributions, this debate was initiated by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, and I will give way to him at any point. It is only fair to him to respond to his points.
The Scottish perspective from COSLA is that the convention expected LHA to drive up rents, and that is what seems to have happened. The question now is what will happen when we try to stop that escalation, which is where the CPI point comes in. In that respect, I should say that the CPI excludes only owner-occupiers’ housing costs, not all housing costs. That, however, is where we are trying to put a cap on the process. As far as I am aware, the national cap does not affect Scotland at all.
The question is what landlords will do in response. The hon. Gentleman’s hypothesis was that there is plenty of demand out there, so they will do nothing. However, a landlord with a potential tenant who is on LHA has a choice between not going with that tenant or telling the local authority, “What would clinch it for me would be direct payment.” We have said that we will extend the scope of direct payment, which the hon. Gentleman asked about at the end of his speech, so that a local authority will be able to agree with a landlord and a tenant to make payments direct to the landlord in return for securing a tenancy that would not otherwise have happened and for getting rents down.
Plenty of landlords rent to people on housing benefit; it is not that landlords will not do so, although I accept that some will not. A large number of landlords will rent to people on housing benefit, who are the people we are talking about. It is not that these things do not happen. A landlord looking at a potential housing benefit or LHA tenant, or thinking about renewing a tenancy, can have uncertainty about whether the tenant will pay or they can have direct payments. Direct payments are like a triple A bond; they are like guaranteed money. That is worth something to the landlord. For an investor, certainty is worth something. If a landlord just shaves a bit off the rent in return for the direct payment, which is the deal we shall try to strike, the shortfalls that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, which look a bit scary when they are multiplied, will be reduced.
The debate is about the impact on Scotland, and the hon. Gentleman will know that the average shortfall in the United Kingdom is £12, while the average figure for Scotland, if I remember correctly, is £10. It does not take much, therefore: let us take the example of a rent of £200. A landlord who reduces that by 2.5%, which is £5, or by 5%, which is £10, has suddenly wiped out the shortfall. Clearly we must ensure that that happens. We cannot just sit back and hope that landlords will cut their rent. I fully accept that. That is why we have made the change. That is important.
The regulations have been improved by the consultation and by the changes that we have made, specifically with respect to transition. We said that from April new tenancies will go straight on to the new rules, because the whole philosophy of the reforms is that the choices made by people on housing benefit—who, I fully accept, may be in work—should mirror the choice that someone would make if they had no subsidy but were just doing a low-paid job. That is the parallel. We are not trying to take a penal approach or to be harsh towards people who happen to be on LHA; we are simply trying to level the playing field. The idea is that they will make the choices in a constrained way, just as people in a low-paid job would have to do. That would, again, mean that they focused on a reduced section of the market; but properties would still be affordable. To take the broad rental market area that serves the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, which I assume is the North Lanarkshire BRMA, we estimate that after the reforms 37% of properties will be affordable. Clearly we are telling people on a relatively low income or benefit, “You have a more constrained choice than you did”; but 37% is still, by definition, more than a third of the market.
The hon. Gentleman asked questions on some more detailed points, including the single room rent. We will publish an impact assessment on that change. He also raised the important issue of people with mental health problems and what would happen if, through a reduction in subsidy, someone were to be coerced inappropriately into shared accommodation. There are already exemptions for vulnerable groups. For example, certain disabled people are not affected by the single room rent regulations; but, clearly, we will always consider the issue of vulnerable people and the impact of changes on them.
Steve Webb
Because this is the debate of the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East it is only fair if I respond to him and the questions he has raised.
Disability Allowance
Tom Clarke Excerpts(14 years ago)
Westminster HallRead 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
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
First, I declare an interest in the debate as the co-chair of the all-party group on learning disability. My main point concerns Government plans to remove the mobility component of the disability living allowance for disabled people who live in a residential establishment. To put that into context, it is important to establish which members of our society qualify for that benefit. The first, and by far the most common group, is where the claimant is unable—or virtually unable—to walk. The second group consists of people who are both blind and deaf. The third category comprises people with a severe mental impairment, and/or severe behavioural problems. In truth, we could not be discussing people who are more vulnerable or deserving in our communities. I understood that that was what the concept of community care was all about.
As far back as 1921, those who required it received help and support with mobility; a decade into the millennium, we are faced with confusion and fear about what the Government advocate. This House, and millions of people with disabilities, are entitled to expect clarity on the issue. Until today, that is exactly what we have not had.
I will give a few examples. On 10 November, my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions,
“what consultation he undertook with (a) charities, (b) third sector organisations and (c) other disability organisations prior to his decision to remove the mobility component of disability living allowance for those who live in residential care homes.”—[Official Report, 10 November 2010; Vol. 518, c. 343W.]
On 16 November, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Miss Begg) stated:
“The comprehensive spending review contained a proposal to cut the mobility element of the disability living allowance for those in residential care. Why did the Government make that decision—because it was fair or to reduce the fiscal deficit?”
The Chancellor replied:
“We sought to identify the savings that we thought were most justified. As far as I understand it—although I am happy to be corrected—the DLA changes have been supported by the Opposition.”—[Official Report, 16 November 2010; Vol. 518, c. 740.]
I will attempt to resist the temptation to make political capital, and I apologise if I seem to be doing so. Point scoring is not what disabled people in my constituency want to hear. They want to know the facts and receive clarification on their position and future.
On 22 November, my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr Roy) said:
“Of all the proposals on welfare reform, this is absolutely the most brutal and cruel…What will the Minister do when she has to meet a disabled person in one of those homes face to face, and how will she explain why she is taking away their much-needed lifeline to the outside world?”—[Official Report, 22 November 2010; Vol. 519, c. 6.]
It is important to remember that that lifeline gives disabled people access to a freedom pass, a blue badge or a disabled person’s railcard, as well as to the Motability scheme and other important items.
Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I declare an interest because my constituency contains one of the good Leonard Cheshire homes, which I visited on Saturday. I tabled six questions yesterday, which the Minister will probably be able to see tomorrow. They cover the same kind of ground. Is it not right—rather, is it not accurate but wrong—that someone who currently receives the higher element of mobility allowance and who goes on two journeys, perhaps with the home’s van at a perfectly reasonable cost of 60p per mile, will have exhausted the lower limit and will not be able to make any further journeys? The Government must find a way to ensure that the mobility allowance is still available to those who need and use it. Through the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) I invite the Minister to visit one of the Leonard Cheshire homes and speak to those who are affected.
Mr Clarke
The hon. Gentleman makes his point well. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw asked how people would react, particularly if faced by the Minister. At the weekend, I took his advice and travelled around as many residential homes in my constituency as the heavy snow permitted. I can reliably inform the Chamber that people in residential homes are terrified about the removal of the mobility component of their DLA, and they have urged me to make the strongest representations on their behalf. I have no doubt that the same is true for other hon. Members from all parties.
Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this enormously important debate. On the point about impact, will this move not hit all the harder because we are talking about some of the most vulnerable people, many of whom are on very low incomes? It will remove a substantial portion of their real disposable income. How can anybody possibly justify that?
Mr Clarke
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right and speaks with the authority of a proactive constituency MP and as a former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.
Further supporting my allegation of a lack of clarity, an interesting question was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South on 22 November. I do not go over these questions just for the sake of repetition. She asked:
“Will the Minister take this opportunity to clarify exactly who will lose the mobility element of their DLA?...Will there be exemptions, or will everyone in residential care lose the mobility element of their DLA?”—[Official Report, 22 November 2010; Vol. 519, c. 6.]
As we would expect, Front-Bench Opposition spokespeople have tried to clear up Government ambiguity. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran) asked whether the Government can guarantee
“that there will be ‘no losers’ as a result of this policy?”—[Official Report, 22 November 2010; Vol. 519, c. 7.]
There has been far too much obfuscation on the issue. It is too important a matter for vulnerable people to be left in the dark about how they will be affected. I genuinely thought that the days of “out of sight, out of mind” were long since past.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this valuable debate. I also declare an interest because there are a number of residential homes in my constituency. Last week I met with some residents, and there is major concern about the loss of the mobility allowance. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if that component is removed, despite what we hear from the coalition Government about giving independence to people who are disabled, such a measure will effectively make people prisoners in their residential homes? The lifeline that they have wanted and have had for a long time will be taken away.
Mr Clarke
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Like other hon. Members, I have received a huge amount of correspondence making the point that he just raised.
In order to seek clarity, I will turn to the question put to the Prime Minister last Wednesday by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain). He asked:
“How can he possibly justify this cruel cut of either £18.95 per week or £49.85 per week to some of the most decent people who have paid their taxes all their lives?”—[Official Report, 24 November 2010; Vol. 519, c. 264-265.]
To my complete dismay, the Prime Minister chose to trivialise his response. I say that because I had expected him to show greater sensitivity towards people with disabilities. In fact, he served as an office-bearer in the all-party group on learning disability and his input then was regarded as positive and welcome. I hope that the Prime Minister will think again.
In any event, the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), put the Opposition’s position beyond doubt when he said following Prime Minister’s questions:
“The Prime Minister, after a word in his ear from his Chancellor, got it flat wrong today.
He was asked about his own government’s plans to cut mobility support for people in care homes but confused it with separate reforms…But when the Chancellor went back in his Spending Review and scrapped mobility support for people in care homes, we are clear that goes too far and is a punitive measure that could leave people in care homes more isolated.”
That clarifies the Opposition’s position on the matter, but my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East may want to add to it; I shall welcome what she has to say later. It is in complete contrast to what the coalition has said. We are calling for clarity.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman is making some good points, but on the issue of clarity, will he help those of us who are perhaps not as learned as him on this topic? Is there an underlying issue that different amounts of the mobility allowance go to people who are disabled based on their route into the care home? Will he provide clarity on that?
Mr Clarke
The hon. Gentleman will know that there are benefits at the moment—we all hope that they will continue—for people who live in care homes, as there are for people who live in their own homes. There are two approaches to the matter. I think that that is the answer that he seeks.
On the question of clarification, the coalition has been unclear and ambiguous, which is one of the reasons why I called for the debate. I genuinely hope that by the end of our discussions today, the Minister will have left us in no doubt that people with disabilities will not be left isolated, as so many fear, because they live in a residential home.
What has caused the current uproar—there is certainly uproar in my constituency—among people with disabilities and disability organisations? Many have been in touch with me as their Member of Parliament, and I am sure that other hon. Members have shared the same experience. I think that the uproar is based on two things. The first is the Government’s proposal as we understand it so far. The Treasury estimates that 58,000 people who live in care homes will be affected by what is an outrageous decision. What would the cuts mean in reality to individual people?
Patricia King drew my attention to the case of Doug Paulley, a 32-year-old wheelchair user and campaigner for disability rights. Doug was diagnosed 14 years ago with a degenerative neurological disorder and now lives in a residential home in Yorkshire with 17 others aged 20 and above. Already they are allowed to keep a personal allowance of only £22.30 from their benefits, or £20 from any earnings, with the rest going to offset the cost of their local authority care. Those sums cannot provide or cover clothes, phone bills, stationery, personal items and so much more. Their only other income is the mobility element of up to nearly £48 a week, which Doug described as a “quality of life-saver”. That is a disabled person speaking for himself and others.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there appears to be a lack of appreciation of the number of people who would be affected by a cut in this budget if that were to come about? In Northern Ireland, it is 10% of the population—about 182,000 people. In my constituency, the proportion is higher—about 12%, or 16,000 people. There appears to be a lack of recognition that this is not about people who are fraudulent or feckless or who fear work, but about people who are incapacitated and cannot work and therefore must be supported.
Mr Clarke
Again, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He will know far better than I do what is happening in Northern Ireland, but one of the persons whom I quoted earlier comes from the Province and I know that there are very severe difficulties there, too.
So what are we saying as we ask these questions, seek more information and express the views that we know disabled people living in residential care and their carers hold? We are simply saying this. While disabled people who live at home are to keep the mobility component of their benefits, and that is as it should be, it cannot be right, it cannot be fair and it certainly cannot be equitable for 58,000 disabled people in residential care to be hammered with a 69% cut in overall benefits.
Let us hear what care homes themselves are saying. The chief executive of Norwood, a fairly large, third sector provider for people with learning disabilities, wrote this to me:
“I am delighted that you are able to draw this matter to the House’s attention as it is certainly an issue that appears to have been so far unclearly presented. We provide residential Care Homes for 250 people whose needs are profound or complex in nature…they therefore require additional support for their daily requirements.
The mobility component of the DLA is given only to those people whose mobility is severely impaired. As such it enables them to access day opportunities, shops, leisure pursuits, holidays (often requiring special transport), all things that more able-bodied people take for granted.
To remove this allowance would be extremely regressive.
Surely the solution is straightforward…the mobility component remains to ensure that the people who need it are not penalised. LAs”—
local authorities—are
“instructed never to include this in their fees and the mobility component remains intact.”
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend rightly highlights the need sometimes for special transport for people who are in receipt of this component. Does he agree that they have very considerable difficulty accessing mainstream transport, which may be ill equipped to meet their needs and which may also mean that they encounter hostile public and staff attitudes, and that therefore it is particularly important that they can fund transport that does adequately meet their requirements?
Mr Clarke
Transport is vital to the quality of life of the vast majority of disabled people, but particularly those living in residential care. My hon. Friend makes her point very well.
I come now to the views of organisations of and for disabled people. It must be well known to right hon. and hon. Members that they have been virtually unanimous in their response. For example, Scope says:
“Disabled people are particularly vulnerable to cuts in services and benefits. They are disproportionately reliant on health, social care, housing and transport services, and also, as a result of low employment rates and the additional costs associated with living with an impairment, more likely to live in poverty and/or rely on benefits for a large proportion of their incomes.”
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
Given the extent and the nature of my right hon. Friend’s campaigning on behalf of disabled people over almost three decades in this House, when he speaks it is always sensible for Governments to listen. On his point about Scope, I remind him of the information it has given to Members on the kinds of activities that will be put at risk by the loss of the mobility component. They include access to work and volunteering; access to friends and family; community activities, health care services and leisure activities, such as swimming, shopping and even going to the cinema; and the ability to maintain relationships with a partner. How does my right hon. Friend imagine that any Government could justify this savage cut?
Mr Clarke
My hon. Friend, who has added substantially to the quality of debate in the House on these matters, asks the kind of question that people are asking, including, I am sure, people in his constituency. I know that he will always tell it like it is.
I was dealing with organisations of and for disabled people, and so I turn to Mencap:
“Mencap believes the government have misunderstood how disabled people use this important benefit. Without this vital lifeline, many disabled people in care will lose much of their independence, be unable to take part in many community activities and have fewer opportunities to meet with friends and family. Mencap is concerned that by removing this benefit many disabled people who live in residential care…will be unable to lead fulfilling and independent lives.”
Sense says:
“The Government’s initial justification for this decision, was that the situation of people in residential care homes is the same as those in hospital. This is a totally incorrect assessment; residential care settings are individuals’ homes and they should expect to be able to access their families and local communities. Yet Sense’s experience as a provider of residential services to deafblind people is that in the vast majority of cases, local authorities will take the DLA mobility component into account when deciding on funding levels.”
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Does the right hon. Gentleman share my concern that, when local authority budgets and the voluntary sector organisations that provide transport services for disabled people are under pressure, this is the worst possible time for the mobility component of the DLA to be withdrawn? Doing so will increase the institutionalisation and isolation of disabled people, instead of promoting their integration and inclusion in communities.
Mr Clarke
If I may say so, that is an excellent point. The plain and simple fact is that we all know in our hearts that our local authorities are under tremendous pressure. We know that they are facing cuts and difficult decisions, and unfortunately, in too many cases the result is that provision of social services and disability care does not always get the priority needed and required. There is not a shred of evidence from the local government organisations in England—or no doubt from Northern Ireland, and certainly none from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities—that local authorities will be in a position to pick up the bill if the Government remove the money from those living in residential care. We are facing a crisis, both for local government and for disabled people.
Finally, there are many relevant organisations to which I could refer, and I apologise to those I have not mentioned this morning due to time constraints. I want to end with Parkinson’s UK:
“The Government compares this decision with the removal of the mobility component from hospital inpatients. But the two situations are very different. Hospital stays tend to be relatively short, and patients are often not in a position to make good use of the benefit. By contrast, many people live long and active lives in residential care homes.”
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the issue is about not only the elderly, but young people who could be facing their whole lives in residential care? In my constituency, 25-year-old Katherine, who lives in the local Leonard Cheshire home, is devastated that she will be unable to go to the cinema or have outings with her parents and so on. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we need to recognise that this is not like hospital short stays at all?
Mr Clarke
The hon. Gentleman makes his point extremely well. All the evidence of which I am aware supports precisely what he has to say.
I am acutely aware that this week marks the 40th anniversary of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970—the first legislation of its kind. I am much more comfortable and at ease with the vision outlined by my then colleague, Labour MP Alf Morris, than with the menu of cuts advocated by this coalition Government. Forty years ago, we reached out to people who were marginalised by their disability. As Alf Morris said:
“I would choose a society in which there is genuine compassion for the very sick and the disabled; where understanding is unostentatious and sincere; where needs come before means; where, if years cannot be added to the lives of the chronically sick, at least life can be added to their years; where the mobility of disabled people is restricted only by the bounds of technical progress and discovery, and where no person has cause to be ill at ease because of their disability.”—[Official Report, 5 December 1969; Vol. 792, c. 1863.]
I agree wholeheartedly with Alf, and I plead with the Government to think again.
Housing Benefit
Tom Clarke Excerpts(14 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
I have to disappoint not only the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) but one or two others on the Government Benches who called for us to be passive and calm. To be perfectly frank, my constituents would be extremely disappointed, and rightly so, if I were anything other than angry as this debate proceeds. The plain and simple fact is that this debate is about cuts to the most vulnerable—and it is not new. We saw it in the ’80s, and in earlier days when the Conservatives had control. This time, we are telling them that enough is enough.
In my constituency, the response to people who talk about fairness is that this has nothing to do with being fair—that it is unbelievably unfair and unjust. There was an air of unreality in the speeches by Government Members, including, I am sorry to say, the Liberal Democrats. I hope to have time to deal with that in a moment or two. In my constituency, as against what we have been hearing, 7,965 households are in receipt of housing benefit, and probably more than 2,000 will lose £9 a week, with many losing more if they are in the private sector. What is beyond doubt is that the overwhelming majority will lose out: how can that be fair?
Neil Carmichael
There is one big unfairness, and that is the level of debt that you have left us to deal with. You are talking about cuts, but we are giving people opportunities as well, and that is what fundamentally underpins the changes to housing benefit. What do you say about that?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
We are not going to use the word “you” in future, are we, because I am not responsible?
Mr Clarke
I was about to deal with the hon. Gentleman’s point, and I will do so with the respect that it deserves—frankly, that is very briefly.
The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) rightly reminded us of the role of Lord Beveridge in dealing with these matters, followed, as he said, by Clement Attlee, who built the welfare state—and whose record on housing was outstanding—and who did so after the war, having dealt with one of the biggest deficits in history. So when it comes to deficits, do not blame it on my people—the people with whom I have grown up.
People have been complaining about the media. I am sick and tired of the media expression “workshy”. We have already been told by the TUC—I prefer its figures to the ones that we have heard from Conservative Members—that only one in eight people who make applications are unemployed. We are not talking about the workshy; we are talking about the work-starved.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
Like you, I am sick and tired of the Tories blaming the need to make cuts on the ordinary working person, when we know that it was the bankers who caused the crisis. What do you think—
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. Members are using the word “you”, but I am not responsible. I call Tom Clarke.
Mr Clarke
I repeat that we are dealing with people, including those with disabilities. They are going to be dragged along for tests, sometimes lasting 10 minutes, and then be told that their payments will be cut off. That happened in my constituency in the 1980s, when person after person told me about such experiences.
The Government tell us that there are hard choices, but there are no harder choices than those that have to be made by people living in high-rise flats who cannot afford electricity or gas given the increased energy charges that we are experiencing. They have to choose whether to eat or have heating, and whether to have any leisure activities at all or to stay at home. On top of that, something that is at the very heart of their income is to be attacked—housing subsidies, as they have been called. Nobody said anything about subsidies given to the bankers.
Ms Bagshawe
The right hon. Gentleman must be massively disappointed that an overwhelming 57% of Labour voters agree with the Government’s changes to housing benefit. How does he explain that to his supporters?
Mr Clarke
I am speaking for my constituents, and I have not found a single person in my constituency who supports what the coalition proposes. We will go into the voting Lobby at the end of the debate, and afterwards my constituents will look at how we voted. In particular, they will look at how the Liberal Democrats voted, because they know that the Liberals are propping up a Government in whom they simply do not believe, particularly in this field. Nor do my constituents. No wonder the Liberal Democrat Benches are practically empty, although I pay due respect to the two Liberal Members who have stayed.
We have not been without advice from other quarters. What Shelter has said is important, as is what Brendan Barber of the TUC has said. He has stated:
“Ministers want us to believe that housing benefit is going to what they would call work-shy scroungers, yet in reality only one claimant in eight is unemployed. The rest are mainly low-income working households, pensioners or the disabled.”
The homeless charity Crisis has said that the Government are “peddling myths” about housing benefit claimants. Its chief executive Leslie Morphy said:
“We are concerned to hear those who are reliant on housing benefit being described as making a ‘lifestyle choice’. Nearly half of those on LHA already face a shortfall between their benefit and their rent of an average of £23 per week, meaning tough choices between rent, food, heating or falling into a vicious spiral of debt.”
I could go on. My local associations, such as the citizens advice bureau and disability organisations, agree. We had an excellent meeting in one of the Committee Rooms of the House of Lords just a few weeks ago, with representatives of organisations of and for disabled people. Lord Rix made an outstanding speech, and the overwhelming view was that those people were representing those who are already disadvantaged and not fully recognised by society, and who are being asked to bear the brunt of what the coalition Government are imposing on them. How can that be fair?
How can it be fair to say that we have an economic problem, so we will ask the poor to pay for it? Are all the people who criticise the coalition—Shelter, landlords who have made it clear that they will not reduce their rents, the TUC, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Church of Scotland and so on—wrong, and coalition Members right? I believe not.
The result of tonight’s Division will be extremely important. We have a choice about priorities and our commitment to people. It is a choice between what is decent, right and reasonable and what I believe is the arrogance of intellect and the exploitation of power.
Jenny Willott
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I should just like to correct the record. Earlier in the debate, the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) quoted my website, suggesting that I had criticised the current Government for hitting the poorest hardest. I am sure it was a simple oversight, but in fact the quote that he referred to was from 2009 and referred to my criticisms of the previous Labour Administration.
Mr Burley
No, I want to make some progress.
I wish to take head-on the accusation made by the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill that this is all about the cuts. Of course, a lot of the changes that we are making to housing benefit, and others matters that we are debating at the moment, are a result of having to make public spending reductions. It is broadly agreed by Members of all parties that we need to reduce public expenditure to pay off the deficit and start paying off the £1.4 trillion debt.
Mr Tom Clarke
Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House of one single television debate in which his leader referred to housing benefit cuts?
Mr Burley
I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that housing benefit expenditure ballooned from £11 billion in 1999 to £20 billion 10 years later, and is forecast to reach £25 billion by 2015. The Prime Minister would agree with me that the country simply can no longer afford that. We cannot go on like this, spending £25 billion a year on housing benefit.
I wish to leave for a moment the necessity argument and the fact that we have to make these changes. Even if we were in the boom years, they would be necessary purely on the grounds of fairness. They are all about fairness, but the problem with the word “fairness” in political debate is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. There is no single agreed definition of what is fair. Everybody in the House defines it in their own way. For Opposition Members—I respect them for it—it is about redistribution of income. It is about taxing the rich more and throwing more money at the poor. For us, it might be about fairer taxes or rewarding hard work and playing by the rules. Fairness is about being able to keep more of what one earns.
What I wish to add to the debate is what we believe is fair when it comes to housing benefit. I will start with a few basic questions of principle. Is it fair that hard-working individuals and families in this country should subsidise people living in properties that they have no realistic chance of ever affording to live in? Is it fair that when the average salary in this country is £22,000 a year, some people, as we have heard, can claim more than £100,000 a year just for their rent? Is it fair that even under the proposed cap of £20,000 a year, a person would still need to earn about £80,000 just to have that disposable income for their rent? Is it fair that the cap is being set so high? If the average salary in this country is £22,000, the cap should actually be about £7,000 a year.