HC Deb 11 January 1999 vol 323 cc13-5
8. Mr. Gareth R. Thomas (Harrow, West)

What representations he has received about his plans to reform benefits for people with disabilities. [63193]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley)

Consultation closed on Friday 8 January. Two hundred and eighty-three responses have been received and are being analysed. Forty-seven of those responses came from Members of Parliament—including the Back-Bench Member for City of York!—but I assure the House that all will receive equal consideration.

Mr. Thomas

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his well-deserved elevation.

My hon. Friend will know from his own constituency experience that what many disabled people want is the opportunity to work. In meetings that I have held with disabled constituents, what has consistently come across is the often unavoidable additional cost that they would incur in obtaining work. I realise that it is early in my hon. Friend's term of office, but will he tell us what he intends to do about the problem?

Mr. Bayley

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind congratulations.

The Government's policy is that work, for those who can work, is the best provider of welfare. We are removing obstacles to work for disabled people by introducing the 12-month linking rule and other measures, such as the disabled persons tax credit, to make it easier for disabled people to obtain employment. We are also working with the Department for Education and Employment on the £195 million new deal, and on creating a single gateway to provide a single point for advice on benefits and employment opportunities.

Sir Teddy Taylor (Rochford and Southend, East)

I wish the Minister every success in his new post. Will he take seriously the real concern, alarm and anger felt by disabled people whose benefits are being cancelled on review? During my weekly surgery on Saturday, I was visited by a woman and her child, who has only one small finger on each hand and one small toe on each foot. The woman had been told that there was no need for any disability living allowance-related provision of any sort.

The Government have announced that they will try to save £750 million on disability benefits. Will the Minister genuinely consider the problem, and recognise that many disabled people are greatly alarmed by the cancellation of benefits for what they see as no good reason?

Mr. Bayley

The Government are addressing the problem, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State made clear a few minutes ago. Replacing the benefit integrity project will create a fairer system for assessing benefits. It will allow benefits to rise in appropriate cases, as well as allowing them to fall, as happened under the benefit integrity project.

Mr. David Lock (Wyre Forest)

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on his promotion.

When my hon. Friend considers benefits for disabled people, will he pay particular attention to the position of medical staff employed by the Department of Social Security? The anger of a number of my constituents whose benefits have been removed is shared by the general practitioner who has treated them year after year and knows their condition in detail, only to find that a doctor who has assessed them for perhaps 15 minutes has decided that they can do far more than they actually can. It may even be that a disabled person was too ashamed to admit the extent of his or her disability, or that the doctor happened to catch that person on a good day. In many instances, people can do a certain amount on one day, but much less on other days. When reforming the benefit integrity project, will my hon. Friend give thought to the key liaison between GPs and those doctors who see claimants on a one-off basis?

Mr. Bayley

I thank my hon. Friend for his congratulations.

The Government are aware of the problem and are considering it. My hon. Friend should be aware, however, that a GP may view his patients' disabilities in a different light from the doctor employed by the Benefits Agency, who has a responsibility to establish, on medical grounds, whether a person is entitled to the benefits that he is claiming. That is the basis on which decisions are made. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State has just pointed out, it is our intention to ensure that the right decision is made as often as possible first time.

Mrs. Theresa May (Maidenhead)

May I congratulate the Minister on his promotion to the Front Bench, although I should perhaps warn him that, at the rate the revelations are appearing in the newspapers, his rise may be even more meteoric than he expects?

One of the key features of the Government's plans to reform disability benefits is a cut in the number of people who receive severe disablement allowance. Today, of those receiving that benefit who qualified after its introduction in 1984, more than two thirds qualified at the age of 20 or over, yet in future, no one aged 20 or over will qualify to receive the benefit because the Government say that, at that age, they will have had the opportunity to see whether work is a realistic option for them.

Does the Minister accept that that would hit those disabled people in their early 20s who are still students or in training? Will he raise the age threshold to 25 to ensure that at least those young disabled people in higher education or training who are preparing themselves for the world of work are not hit or betrayed by that particular cut in disability benefits?

Mr. Bayley

I thank the hon. Lady for the kind remarks at the start of her question. She will be aware that many people have made representations to the Department on the disability reform proposals. Consultation closed on Friday.

The Government's approach is to improve benefits for those who are most severely disabled and for the poorest people. Our proposals for reform of severe disablement allowance will improve the benefit to young people by up to £25 a week. The other representations that have been made will, of course, be considered as we draft the Bill which will come before the House shortly.