debates/debates2025-02-03e conversation_8
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-02-03)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-02-03e conversation_8

Adam Thompson:What steps she is taking to support people with disabilities and long-term health conditions into work. \p Stephen Timms: We will champion disabled people and those with long-term health conditions. Our “Get Britain Working” plan will support many more who were failed by the last Government to enter and stay in work. We will devolve power to local areas for a joined-up work, health and skills offer. \p Katrina Murray: I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; prior to my election, I represented disabled members on the national executive of Unison. There are many barriers that prevent disabled people and those with long-term health conditions from not only entering but staying in the workplace, from a strict and punitive approach to attendance and sickness to a failure even to consider adaptations that make work possible. It is clear that employers have to be supported to make high-quality work accessible to disabled people. What work is my right hon. Friend therefore doing to engage employers in making work a positive and constructive experience for disabled people? \p Stephen Timms: I commend my hon. Friend for her previous work. She raises a very important point. We have launched the “Keep Britain Working” review, which is being led by Sir Charlie Mayfield, the ex-chair of the John Lewis Partnership. It will look at exactly the point that my hon. Friend raises: how to make workplaces and the wider labour market more inclusive, because we know, and employers know, that that is good for businesses and good for disabled people. \p Alex Ballinger: As we all know, the last Government were far too quick to write off people who wanted to work but who had health conditions or were suffering with disabilities. Many people in Halesowen tell me that they  want to work, and with the right help and support, they can. This will also bring huge physical and mental health benefits. How will the Government reset our relationship with people with disabilities, who for far too long have not been given the support that they need, but have instead been demonised by the Conservative party? \p Stephen Timms: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The manifesto on which he and I fought the election committed us to putting the views and voices of disabled people at the heart of what we do. In the “Get Britain Working” White Paper, we announced the establishment of a disability employment panel to enable us to work with disabled people, ensure that we provide the necessary support and give them the chances that my hon. Friend rightly calls for. \p Adam Thompson: In 2019, my close friend and constituent Jim was at his desk, working as a web developer, when out of the blue he felt a sudden pain. Jim was having a spinal stroke. He has never since been able to walk. The pain medication that Jim must take to manage his condition limits his ability to work, but sometimes he has unpredictable bursts of productivity. However, Jim’s benefit arrangements mean that the work that he could occasionally be able to do might result in sanctions to his benefits. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that Jim can get back into work? \p Stephen Timms: My hon. Friend’s important point, which to some extent has already been raised, shows how the health and disability benefits system needs to be reformed. Disabled people should have the same right to work and the same opportunities and chances as everybody else. Many disabled people like Jim want the chance to work, but they face barriers, including in the benefits system, that make it very difficult for them to do so. We are determined to change the system to get over those barriers. \p Julian Lewis: I am sure that the Minister appreciates the important role of learning disability nurses in maximising the potential of people with learning disabilities. Will he therefore have a word with his Treasury colleagues about the differential effect of the rise in national insurance contributions? Learning disability nurses who work directly for the NHS are exempt; those who work for agencies contracted by the NHS are not exempt. That is an anomaly, and I would be grateful if the Minister considered talking to his colleagues about it. \p Stephen Timms: I am sure that the right hon. Member will raise that concern with the appropriate colleagues of mine. He is absolutely right to draw attention to the value of the work of learning disability nurses, whoever their employer is. We are determined that they should have better support to enable people with learning disabilities who want to work to do so. \p Lisa Smart: The experience of my constituent Julie from Heaviley highlights the unfairness of the employment and support allowance application process for those with progressive conditions such as multiple sclerosis. She was assessed by a physiotherapist who lacked any expertise in neurological disorders; she thereby received inaccurate reports that denied her vital  financial support. What steps are Ministers taking to ensure fair and timely support for those with progressive conditions that do not necessarily fit neatly into a box, as other disabilities or conditions may? \p Stephen Timms: We want to improve the assessment process, and there will be proposals in the Green Paper on how to do that. If the hon. Lady would like to drop me a line about this particular case, I will be happy to have a look and comment further. \p Josh Babarinde: For 23 years, my constituent Timothy has attended Eastbourne’s Linden Court day centre for people with learning disabilities. Timothy’s mum, who is his sole carer, has spoken about how damaging it would be if Conservative-run East Sussex county council decided later this month to close the centre. Will the Minister join me in urging the county council to ditch this short-sighted cut, which would leave many Eastbournians and their families without the local provision they deserve? \p Stephen Timms: I very much hope that people in Eastbourne will continue to get the support that, by the sound of it, has done a very good job for a very long time. I obviously do not know the details of this case, but it is important that we not only maintain but improve support for disabled people. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee. \p Debbie Abrahams: I welcome the “Keep Britain Working” review but, according to last year’s DWP accounts, £4.2 billion of benefits were underpaid to claimants, and the claimants most affected were disabled people. What will the Government do to ensure that disabled people who may not be able to work get the money to which they are entitled? \p Stephen Timms: It is very important that disabled people get the money to which they are entitled. There will always be people who are not working, and we need to make sure there is good support for them. As I said a moment ago, we will set out our proposals on improving the assessment process in the upcoming Green Paper, but we are also very interested in hearing about the Select Committee’s proposals. \p Sarah Dyke: People living with disabilities in rural areas such as Glastonbury and Somerton face many barriers to finding work, including lack of opportunities, poor transport and high childcare costs. How will the Minister support individuals living in rural areas to overcome the barriers to employment and help them to improve their overall quality of life? \p Stephen Timms: We will be doing a lot to support disabled people into work and to remove the barriers that are too often in their way, as the hon. Lady rightly says. I have already referred to the disability employment panel we are setting up. We want to work alongside disabled people to make sure that we get this right and remove the barriers. The Connect to Work programme, which is being rolled out over this year, will do a lot to help. However, if there are particular problems in the hon. Lady’s area that she would like to draw to my attention, I will be very interested to hear about them. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister. \p Danny Kruger: The media report that people in No. 10 are tearing their hair out in frustration at the DWP taking so long to come up with welfare reforms. We have already been waiting seven months, and now we are told it will be March before there is a Green Paper, and presumably there will be no actual legislation until the end of the year at the earliest—they will be totally bald in No. 10 by then! Given the constant rise in the welfare bill, what is the financial cost so far of Labour’s inactivity? \p Stephen Timms: The inactivity bequeathed to us by the previous Government had a huge cost. The shadow Minister may not have noticed that, the week before last, a judicial review was lost on the previous Government’s handling of the work capability assessment changes. The judge found that the consultation was, frankly, dishonest—it did not tell people what the changes entailed—and was too rushed. People did not have a chance to give their views.

We will do this exercise properly. This spring, in the Green Paper, we will set out the full details of what we propose, and there will be a very full consultation so that everyone has a chance to have their say. \p Danny Kruger: The answer to my question is £1.8 billion. That is the cost of Labour’s economic inactivity and its failure to reform welfare since the election. The sum is the same as the saving from cutting the winter fuel payment plus the income from taxing family farms. In opposition, Labour opposed imposing conditions on people claiming incapacity benefits. Does the Minister still rule that out, or will the Green Paper face reality and require people to take action, where they can, to address the health needs that mean they are signed off work? \p Stephen Timms: The Green Paper will face reality square on. It will set out a very full set of clear policies, it will be frank about what they entail and we will listen to people’s views in response. The money that the hon. Gentleman refers to as having been forgone, will probably have been forgone as a result of the judicial review the week before last, which was because of the previous Government’s failures in consultation.