Paul
Rowen: I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow,
North-West and the RNIB on the new clause. We can all support it,
because as he says, it would right a
wrong. The
key point about the proposal is that people will become eligible for,
rather than have an automatic entitlement to, higher rate DLA. The
discrimination at the moment is that people are ineligible for the
higher rate and can qualify only for the lower rate. It should be left
to the normal processes of medical assessment to decide. Why should
someone who is physically handicapped be eligible for an award when
someone with a sight impairment is
not? The
sums of money that the DWP spends on this annually are quite
small—£45 million for 22,000 people. That was the figure
that was given to the RNIB. It is a comparatively small amount of money
in global terms, even if all 22,000 people automatically qualify. The
caveat is that people will not automatically qualify. They will have to
demonstrate that their disability means that they qualify. That that
does not apply is the injustice that blind people feel at the
moment. I
have been given an example by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham
(Dr. Cable). A 14-year-old boy in his constituency had had an accident
when he was nine and had ended up being severely disabled, with poor
eyesight. He was initially given the higher rate, which meant that his
mother qualified for a Motability vehicle, which she has used to take
him around. He is now able to walk but his sight has not improved, and
following a reassessment he now gets the lower rate. His mother will
therefore lose eligibility for the Motability
vehicle. In
our view, these decisions should not depend on which rate a person is
on; they should be based on a proper assessment. The fact that the boy
became ineligible for the higher rate caused the mother to lose
eligibility. The key point is that blind people should be
eligible—we are not saying that they would all automatically
qualify. A number of hon. Members back such a change—as the hon.
Member for Glasgow, North-West said, more than 200 Members signed
various early-day motions in the past two years—and there is a
very strong feeling across the House that this is the right time for a
change. The Bill would be considerably strengthened in a number
of ways if the Government accepted the new clause. I am sure that people
would be very pleased if the Government accepted such a positive
measure. Mr.
Harper: I simply want to flesh out what the hon. Member
for Glasgow, North-West said about the definitions. He referred to the
phrase, “no useful sight for orientation purposes”, which
the RNIB used. For the benefit of the Committee, in a written answer,
the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for
Chatham and Aylesford, said
that “during
helpful discussions with the RNIB they have suggested that...no
useful sight for orientation purposes...could be interpreted as
meaning that a visually impaired person would have: no perception of
light; perception of light only; perception of hand movement;
or...‘total’ or ‘extensive’ loss of
visual field. Using these definitions of visual impairment we estimate
that, if implemented in 2010-11, we would require additional annual
benefit expenditure of around £45 million to extend the higher
rate”.—[Official Report, 23 February 2009; Vol.
488, c.
57W.] I
await the Minister’s
response. 12.30
pm
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Jonathan
Shaw): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for
Glasgow, North-West on the new clause. All members of the Committee
will agree that he put forward a compelling and passionate argument for
such an important change. He has a track record of campaigning for
blind and visually impaired people, both in his constituency and
further afield.
I thank the
hon. Member for Rochdale for bringing forward a case on behalf of the
hon. Member for Twickenham, and the hon. Member for Forest of Dean for
setting out the information that I was able to supply. His lack of
comment about whether he supported the proposal was deafening. Perhaps
we will hear at a later stage whether he and the Conservative party
have an opinion on
this.
Mr.
Harper: I am listening to you.
Jonathan
Shaw: And we listened to the hon. Gentleman’s very
succinct remarks, which offered no opinion. I invite him to intervene
to give me an opinion. There we are, we have heard the opinion of the
Conservative party.
Perhaps I can
bring some context to this. Some 65,000 people who receive disability
living allowance are recorded as having a sight impairment as their
primary disability. Of those, around 58,000 receive the lower rate
mobility component and around 4,600 the higher rate. The DLA is clearly
working for a great number of visually impaired people. Having said
that, the Government are sympathetic to the call for change,
specifically regarding the rules on entitlement to the higher rate
mobility allowance.
I have a
personal commitment to this. One of the first things that I did on
becoming Minister for disabled people was to review some of the
correspondence that the Department had received. I found a letter to
the Secretary of State dated 22 August last year that told my right
hon. Friend that he should read the enclosed letter from Ms Karen
Osborn, the chief executive of KAB Sight Centre, and that asked for
comments on the issues raised in that letter. It also said that
reassurances would be welcomed that the Department was determined to
end the exclusion of blind people from this important
extra cost benefit when they face some of the greatest barriers to
independent mobility. The letter was signed “Jonathan Shaw
MP”, the Member of Parliament for Chatham and Aylesford. That
puts my activity as a constituency Member of Parliament on record. My
right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire)
subsequently wrote back because there were some discussions about
costs. Hon. Members will remember that the original cost put forward by
the RNIB was about £30 million per year. As we have heard, since
work has been undertaken, there has been agreement that the cost would
be about £45 million. My right hon.
Friend the Secretary of State has also confirmed his support by
saying: “The
Government do not have any objection to it in principle. They totally
understand the case that is being made.”
I am pleased to say
that, in recent weeks and months, we have been able to work with the
RNIB in the way mentioned by the hon. Member for Forest of Dean. I am
enormously grateful for its work in engaging with us positively to find
a workable solution. Although we have made huge progress in developing
this measure, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North-West
knows, the issue is about finding funds within limited resources. Our
priority at this time is to stabilise the economy and help people
remain in or return to work. Any spending decisions in this context
must be focused on a stable economy, businesses, supporting families
and helping people to remain in or return to the labour market.
Spending decisions at this time will clearly be difficult and must be
taken in the context of continued pressure to deliver efficiency across
the Government. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has alluded
to these pressures.
Paul
Rowen: I have been listening carefully to the Minister.
Given that there is a process of people migrating from incapacity
benefit to employment and support allowance, and that a lot of work is
going on to get people who may have been on incapacity benefit back
into work, does he not accept that some savings are going to be made?
They could be passported over to this particular group, thus enabling
this wrong to be
righted.
Jonathan
Shaw: There are always competing demands for the DWP
budget and I shall set out carefully the context on which we need to
focus. My
right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said on Second
Reading: “If
we move forward with this, we will have to find the investment not only
for now, but for the medium term, because a continuing commitment would
be involved.”—[Official Report, 27 January 2009; Vol.
487, c.
186-87.] As
has been said, we now estimate that the additional benefit expenditure
would be about £45 million per year, with a £12 million
administrative spend in the first year alone. However, we estimate that
the ongoing costs of administrating the change would quickly fall to
around £2 million per year, although we would still need to find
resources to cover at least £45 million a year and rising in the
years going forward. Funding on such a scale could not be found from
this Bill’s measures. While the Government fully recognise the
intentions behind the new clause, accepting it without having the
funding to support it would require us to withdraw funding from
elsewhere in the benefit system.
Nevertheless,
as the hon. Member for Rochdale suggested in terms of incapacity
benefit, hon. Members will know that we are increasing Access to Work
over the next few years. That is assisting many people—blind
people, in particular—by enabling them to get into work. We want
to continue to work with RNIB and the partner organisations to ensure
we do all that we can for blind and visually impaired people. I
anticipate that some of my comments will disappoint my hon. Friend the
Member for Glasgow, North-West and, indeed, other members of the
Committee. We cannot, at this stage, provide substantive support for
the new clause. However, I assure him and the Committee that we will
continue to look at the
matter. John
Mason (Glasgow, East) (SNP): Will the Minister give us an
indication of what time scales we are talking
about?
Jonathan
Shaw: I am not in a position to be able to give the
Committee a time scale. When we are in a position to finance a change
to the rules, we are firmly committed to make that change an urgent
priority and to do so at the earliest possible time. Given that
assurance, I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North-West
will withdraw his new clause.
John
Robertson: My hon. Friend started by saying that I gave a
compelling and passionate argument, although it was obviously not
compelling and passionate enough. He is absolutely right that I was
disappointed by what he had to say. My head says I should press the new
clause to a Division because I know right is on my side. However, I am
going to overrule my head in this case and think about going away to
fight another day. I want to ensure—and I say this to the
Minister as a promise, not a threat—that such a measure goes
through in this House, not the other place. I believe that if the other
place considers such a measure, it will go through there. However, it
is important that elected representatives make this decision. I want
our House to agree to such an amendment, so with the promise that I
will return to this on Report, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
motion.
Clause, by
leave,
withdrawn.
New
Clause
6Minimum
income level for persons subject to
sanctions ‘Regulations made
by the Secretary of State shall set minimum income figures per week
which no individual or family in receipt of benefits, and subject to
any sanction under this Act, is permitted to fall below following the
imposition of any sanctions.’.—(John
Mason.) Brought
up, and read the First
time.
John
Mason: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second
time.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: new clause 7— Implementation of sanctions in
relation to
income— ‘External
providers and jobcentres shall not apply sanctions under this Act when
the job offered to a claimant provides a lower income than that
provided by unemployment
benefits.’.
New
clause 8—Means inquiry before sanctions
imposed— ‘(1) In
any case where regulations made by the Secretary of State under this
Act or other powers contain provisions for the imposition of sanctions
resulting in the loss or reduction of any sum in benefit, the
regulations shall contain a duty that before any sanction is
imposed— (a) a means
inquiry is conducted as to the means of the person on the
day; (b) regard shall be had to
the welfare of any person residing with
him; (c) regard shall be had to
a medical report as to his/her physical and mental well-being and any
person residing with
him/her; (d) any sanction
resulting in loss or reduction of benefit will be reasonable in the
circumstances; (e) regard shall
be had to the impact of any deduction on the ability of the person to
pay costs in respect of the accommodation which he/she may
occupy. (2) Following
consideration of the matters prescribed in paragraph (1) the decision
maker shall then determine whether the income remaining to the person
who will be subject to the sanction falls below the minimum figure for
income in one week which is set by the Secretary of
State. (3) If any sanction is
imposed following the inquiries in (1) above of any sanction, the
decision-maker shall ensure that no person will be left either with a
total income which is either below the minimum figure for income set by
the Secretary of State or in any other case is no more than two thirds
of the amount in benefit payable to the person in any one week during
which it is proposed that the sanction shall operate, unless the
relevant amount of benefit payable in any one week is £5.00 or
below. (4) Where the means
inquiry establishes that a person is already subject to deductions from
benefit which but for the effect of this subsection would result in the
amount of benefit available to the person in any one week falling below
the amount set by the Secretary of State, the imposition of any
deduction shall be
suspended. (5) Any regulations
made by the Secretary of State permitting or allowing any sanction
resulting in loss or reduction of benefit to any person shall be
subject to a right of
appeal. (6) Any person affected
by a sanction imposed may appeal to the Secretary of State for a
variation of the amount, provided that no variation however occasioned
shall as a result leave the person with less than the sum prescribed in
regulations under paragraph
2.’.
John
Mason: I would like to challenge the Committee with a
question: what is our starting point as we look at this Bill? Is it
that the state is so generously funding people who do not really
deserve it that we must cap all our expenditure and, if possible,
reduce it? Some might say that is the traditional view of the main
Opposition party. Alternatively, are we approaching the Bill from the
point of view that every adult, family and child needs to have enough
to live on so that they are able to eat, have a proper home, and be
properly clothed? Anything that we do under the Bill must take account
of those points, and some would say that that is the traditional view
of the party in government.
One of my
fundamental problems with the idea of sanctions is that some people are
already living on a minimal income. If we cut that income further,
where will that leave those people? In particular, where will it leave
families, and especially children?
The Committee
has discussed loans at some length. There has been mention of social
fund loans, but people take other loans as well, and they eat into
their ability to pay bills. In fact, on Friday, a constituent came to
me who had got seriously into debt because of his mother’s
funeral. He was unwise to pay as much as he did on the funeral,
but—[Interruption.]
| 
