Disability Living Allowance

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2011 Westminster Hall

[John Robertson]

I thank my right hon. Friend, who has more than a little reputation of looking after these people, both as a Minister and as a member of the previous Government. I congratulate him on the work that he has done. I have been contacted by so many groups that I could not possibly name them all in my speech today. If I miss any of them out, it is not because I want to do so, but because my speech is time-limited, but yes, I have received correspondence from the National Autistic Society and I thank my right hon. Friend for his input.

Any reduction in disability-related benefits simply because of someone’s access to equipment could significantly inhibit their efforts to lead a more independent life. Disability-related benefits enable people not only to live independently, but to participate in community activities. Such community engagement could include volunteering, which is a core component of the big society and could help someone to gain skills and experience that could enable them to go on to seek and obtain work.

Several wrong assumptions could be made about the effectiveness of aids and adaptations. They might work for some individuals, but others might struggle with them. Issuing someone with a cane or a low-vision aid such as a monocular, does not necessarily mean that that person will continue to use it, or use it correctly. Even if the aids and adaptations are used appropriately, they are likely to have only limited uses. For example, a liquid level indicator might help someone safely to make a hot drink, but it will not make it any easier for them to make a meal to go with that drink. How will the Government help these people?

I know of another gentleman, David Griffith from Walthamstow in London, who receives the mobility component of DLA because he is deafblind, like Alan. He uses his DLA to pay for taxis, and for other support in getting out and about. He also tries to walk in his local area, and has recently applied for a guide dog because he has had a few near misses with cars of late. However, having heard a feature on the BBC Radio 4 programme “In Touch,” he is now worried that becoming a guide dog owner might result in the removal of his DLA. Under the proposals, a guide dog would enhance his life and make him safer in one element of his mobility, but he would never have the independence that sighted people have. He would not be able to jump out of the way of the car that was about to hit him, and he might travel on a bus that he did not mean to get on in the first place.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that something else that is hitting people is the proposed extension of the waiting period for DLA from three to six months? A constituent came to me who had been blinded in a road accident and was considering adaptations. He faced the cost of those straight away, and under the proposal he would have to wait even longer for the money.

[John Robertson]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. She is absolutely right, and perhaps the Minister could reflect on the impact of that increased period on people who do not have the extra time to wait. They need the money now, not in six months’ time. There is a danger that people like David will turn down help such as that provided through mobility training with a guide dog or a cane for fear of losing a benefit that they would still need, with or without the mobility aid. What does the Minister propose to do for Alan and David and people like them?

In conclusion, the Government state that 3 million people receive DLA and that the budget will reach £12 billion, and they draw the conclusion that the benefit is not fit for purpose. I wonder whether a better conclusion would be that the benefit rightly reaches the millions of people it is supposed to help. Reform might be necessary, and disabled people have expressed themselves on the changes they would like, not least shorter application forms in line with their disability and, of course, quicker receipt of the money. Are we not in danger, however, of going so far with the reforms that we lose sight of what DLA was originally set up for? DLA is there to assist people with disabilities that make life more expensive. It is there to help people stretch their incomes that little bit further, so that they can achieve the levels of independence and enjoy the opportunities that their non-disabled peers take for granted. Are we really saying that a fifth of today’s case load is no longer in need of that support? Have we really examined how the reforms will exacerbate disability poverty? Those questions are, in my view, central to this debate on the Government’s plans for DLA.

I hope that the Minister listens to and answers my questions. Let me reiterate some of them. Will the Government confirm that their intention is to revise this policy, which has been hard fought for and pursued over a number of years by parliamentarians on every side? Will the higher rate mobility component for individuals with severe visual impairments be awarded for just two years? Have the Government modelled the net loss of household income when individuals lose entitlement to DLA, and does their equality impact assessment acknowledge the lack of social care and other support for people with less complex needs? How much will that cost? What steps will the Government take to ensure that the assessment for PIP is not just a cost-cutting exercise but is fair and accurate, especially with regard to its suitability for people with fluctuating or mental health conditions, and those with lower-incidence conditions? At a time when the Government wish to tackle bureaucracy and simplify the benefits system, how can it make sense to insist that all disabled people, including individuals who evidently have severe needs, undergo regular reassessment?

I am calling for greater clarification on what impact the 20% cuts will have on determining who will be eligible for the new PIP and at what level. Will people who qualify for the lowest rate of DLA qualify for PIP under the new system? Will the Government ensure that those who qualify for the higher rate mobility component because they are deemed to have severe blindness can continue to receive PIP via that route? Finally, will a comprehensive training programme on blindness be made available for assessors for PIP? I look forward to the Minister’s answers.

Welfare Reform Bill

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

Like many other Members, I welcome the concept of simplicity in the welfare system—of which I have experience, having worked in it. I also welcome the aim of ensuring that work is a route out of poverty. However, I do not believe that the Bill demonstrates fully how that will be achieved. Among two groups in particular, it could actually increase the number of people falling into poverty and debt. Like others, I am seriously concerned that people who are ill or have an accident, and have to take prolonged time off work, will suddenly be negatively affected by the plans to replace disability living allowance with the personal independence payment and by the changes to employment and support allowance, and will get less help from the universal credit, particularly during the first six months of their illness or disability.

People in that situation are coping with significant stress and coming to terms with a fundamental change in circumstances, as well as a sudden and dramatic drop in income. I had worked out some examples, but I shall not have time to give them. Suffice it to say that in months three to six, a single person who has worked all their life but has had a stroke and can no longer work is likely to be more than £130 a week worse off unless the qualifying period for the personal independence payment is brought forward to three months.

The importance of the severe disability premium cannot be overstated. It is a source of extra help for people who do not have a carer and have higher costs because of that. If it is not included in the Bill, the drop in income for hard-working people who suffer a life-changing illness or disability will be catastrophic. If they have a mortgage, the position will be even worse. Almost 20% of the people who attended an advice desk run by the citizens advice bureau at the county court said that an illness was the major factor in their falling into mortgage arrears, putting them at risk of losing their home. No fewer than three measures in the Bill will substantially reduce the amount of financial support available to people in that situation.

I now turn to families, particularly those paying for formal child care. If, as has been suggested, only 70% of child care costs are covered, many second earners on a low income will not have a realistic option of returning to work until their children are older and need less care. In some cases it could cost people money to return to work, which was not the intention behind the Bill at all. In fact, somebody’s problems might start not when their baby is born, as is usual, but when statutory maternity pay or maternity allowance is paid, because it is unclear in the Bill whether that will be treated as “income other than earnings” and lost pound for pound.

Clarification is also needed on other issues, such as whether benefit will be paid to the household rather than to the main carer. That is a big issue for many families.

[Ian Paisley]

Does the hon. Lady accept that there is a huge policy contradiction? The Government claim that they want to eliminate child poverty, yet at the same time they want to cut the social security payments that go right to the heart of benefiting children from low-income households.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I have evidence that some lone parents will not be able to work their way out of poverty.

To return to the question of to whom benefits are paid, I have seen mothers whose only source of stable, reliable income is child benefit, and many more mothers who do not know what their partners earn and who are given an allowance every week. That problem will be exacerbated if benefit is paid to main wage earner, which is usually the man.

Finally, if there is a query about one element of a claim there is often a delay, particularly when housing benefit and private landlords are involved. I can only hope that the other elements of the universal credit will be paid while such matters are investigated, and that the benefit is not so universal as to be “all or nothing” in such cases.

On sanctions, it is quite right that people refusing reasonable work should be penalised, as indeed they are under the current system. However, I urge the Government to ensure that great care is taken when sanctioning vulnerable claimants. For example, I dealt with a client who was sanctioned for not turning up for an interview to discuss his claim. Hon. Members might think that that is perfectly reasonable, but that client was in a secure institution—a secure mental health unit—and the letter requiring him to turn up for interview was sent there.

The £50 civil penalty for claimant error should be withdrawn. I am sure that, like me, many hon. Members deal almost daily with constituents who have been the victims of official error. The focus on claimant error is out of proportion. People who claim those benefits include the most vulnerable people in our society. They are the most likely to make errors, particularly with official forms, and the least likely to be able to afford the penalties. We should not simplify the benefit alone; the claiming process should also be simplified.

I hope that the amendment will be supported, because the Bill lacks clarity and detail. In fact, it will have the opposite effect of what is intended in terms of the Government’s stated broader goals and obligations, such as making work pay, reducing child poverty and protecting vulnerable groups.

Oral Answers to Questions

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Monday 14th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

We are pressing ahead in the Pensions Bill with measures to make the process of automatically enrolling people into workplace pensions a reality, so from 2012 over a four or five year period, getting on for 10 million people will be enrolled into workplace pensions for the first time with an employer contribution. We believe that that will transform the savings landscape, and we need to make sure it pays to save.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

T9. Recently, a constituent contacted me regarding his Atos Healthcare assessment. Three specialists had considered him to be unfit for work, yet it was suggested that he could be a bingo caller or a car park attendant. My local citizens advice bureau has identified many such cases which are resolved in favour of the claimant after an expensive review or appeal. Are there any plans to review Atos Healthcare’s delivery of medical assessments?

[Chris Grayling]

As the hon. Lady will know, soon after taking office we commissioned Professor Harrington to conduct a full review of the work capability assessment and the process around it. He has recommended a number of changes, which we are implementing as quickly as possible. I stand by the view that the assessment is the right way of helping people who have got the potential to get back into work. It is much better for those who can be in work to be so, rather than sitting at home on benefits, but we obviously have to make sure that the process is fair, just and proper and that we get the most accurate results possible.

Oral Answers to Questions

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Monday 18th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

It is always very difficult to know what keeps auditors happy—or if they are among that breed of people who are never happy—but the reality is that we are in discussions with them about the need to be a little more realistic between the two groups to make sure that the accounts are signed off in future. After all, this Department has made huge strides—both under the last Government and this one—to be more efficient. That has been acknowledged by the auditors, so perhaps it is time for us to come to a conclusion.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

The Government have said that the June Budget will have no impact on child poverty up to 2012. Will the Minister confirm that the new benefits cap will not change that fact? Will he publish the figures to demonstrate the effect of the cap on all categories?

[Maria Miller]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. As she knows, we will produce our child poverty strategy in full by March next year. We will shortly go into consultation on it and I hope that she will contribute. On the effect of the cap on families living in poverty, as the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), said earlier, this is about people earning the equivalent of a gross income of £35,000 a year; the majority of families earning that would not fall into poverty.

Tackling Poverty in the UK

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Thursday 10th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

Thank you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker, and congratulations on your election.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Corby (Ms Bagshawe) on her confident, interesting and passionate maiden speech. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) on his maiden speech, and I wish every success to his rugby team, except when they play Wigan.

I should like to begin by stating that although I follow the well-respected and esteemed Ian McCartney, about whom I am going to say more later, there are a couple of obvious differences between us—I am female, and I do not have a Scottish accent. I think there might be a slight height difference as well. I wish also to express my pride in being the first female MP for Makerfield.

Makerfield has a proud tradition of electing Labour MPs going back to 1906 and the election of Stephen Walsh, who incidentally was 4 foot 10 inches tall—perhaps another precedent there. The people of Makerfield were so determined to send a Labour MP to this place that they raised the funds themselves to pay his salary and ensure that he could represent the constituency in Parliament. That determination in the face of adversity still characterises the people of Makerfield today.

Makerfield is not one particular, easily identified area but a collection of pit villages that grew up around the collieries, each with its own proud history and identity. Heaven forbid that one confuses Bamfurlong with Platt Bridge and Stubshaw Cross with Bryn. Each area has its own sense of community and history, and many of their people lived through—and, despite the wonderful efforts of the past 13 years and the excellent Labour council, are still living with—the devastation caused in the 1980s. However, there is a lot of grit and determination in Makerfield. It is unequalled, as is the people’s warmth and friendliness. During the cold weather spell in January, I came across an 86-year-old woman, Theresa, shovelling snow and clearing paths outside not only her house but her neighbour’s. When the council workmen offered to do it for her, she said, “Nay, I’ve been shovelling coal as a pit brow woman since I was 14, and I can handle a shovel better than you two.” Grit, determination and a sense of community with the people all helping each other—that is what sums up Makerfield to me.

I turn to my predecessor, Ian McCartney. The words that I speak about Ian are spoken not by convention but with conviction and affection—an affection that is felt throughout Makerfield and the labour movement. Ian represented Makerfield for 23 years, and his love for the area and its people is nearly as great as the affection and respect that they have for him. His career in opposition and in government was both varied and influential. In opposition he spoke on health, employment, education and social services, and in government he was Minister of State in the Department of Trade and Industry. It was during that period that he introduced a major new package of employment rights, including the national minimum wage. I do not believe it would be an exaggeration to say that millions of people throughout the country have benefited from those measures and have reasons to be grateful to him.

As chair of the national executive committee and the national policy forum, Ian was trusted by both the leadership and the membership—not an easy to balance to hold. That is just one demonstration of his integrity and the high regard in which he is held. Despite his senior positions, he never forgot his roots. His first aim, which he undoubtedly achieved, was to be a good constituency MP. Indeed, he once said to me that all the best legislation, including his campaign that led to the banning of foam furniture that emitted toxic fumes when alight, which has saved thousands of lives across the country, came from constituency casework. Of course, with Makerfield being part of Wigan borough, I cannot leave out the fact that he was the founder member of the all-party rugby league group. Wigan has a proud rugby league heritage and amateur clubs continue to produce world-class players who represent Wigan and their country.

Ian was also president of the Money Advice Trust, and it is credit and financial capability that I now wish to discuss. I have been chief executive of a citizens advice bureau for 23 years, and during that time people have come to me with an incredibly diverse range of problems. However, credit and debt consistently make up the highest percentage of our work, and it has an impact on people’s ability to continue in their work, on their health and on their relationships. I have long believed that there are three strands to tackling the problem, each of which is important and requires funding and, in some cases, further exploration and legislation.

Financial capability is the preventive area—teaching children, families and community groups the skills that they need to manage their money and choose their financial products wisely. I am heartened by the partnerships developing between citizens advice bureaux, the Personal Finance Education Group, credit unions and the Money Advice Trust. Indeed, locally my own bureau worked in partnership with Welcome credit union to provide financial education to low-income groups.

The second strand is the availability of credit, especially to low-income borrowers, and encouragements for non-traditional savers to save. I therefore deeply regret the Government’s removal of the child trust fund, which was the first time some families had a lump sum to put into a savings account for a child. It has been a practical demonstration to that child and the family of how savings work.

I hope that credit unions will be supported and allowed to expand. My constituency has two excellent and progressive credit unions, Unify and Welcome. Encouraging credit unions, mainstreaming their services and making them a real alternative to iniquitous rates of interest—2,760% in some cases—for people who want to take out a short-term loan are all really important. I firmly believe that we need to explore a range of policy initiatives with mainstream lenders, credit unions and the social fund to end the cycle of credit dependency.

Thirdly, for people already trapped in the spiral of unaffordable borrowing, access to debt advice services is crucial. Funding for that should not be solely for legally aided people, but should be available to all. I have seen for myself the effect of the face-to-face funding for debt advice provided by the previous Government and I have been able to more than match that funding from a PCT-funded project to reduce lower level mental health problems. Indeed, a report has come out this week showing that in two cases professionals have downgraded people previously at risk of suicide to no longer needing medical intervention as a result of that project. I urge the Government to continue the face-to-face funding and to explore other funding to help to support people in work to stay in work, maintain their health and their relationships and not let debt destroy families and individuals.

I began by referring to my predecessor and commented on our differences. However, I would now like to finish by stating that I hope that we also have similarities and that the most striking similarity will be that we have both been, and will be, a strong voice for Makerfield.