Welfare Reform Bill

My Lords, I am not replying on behalf of the Front Bench at this stage. My noble friend Lord McKenzie will no doubt do that after the Minister has spoken to his amendment. I am particularly pleased to rise after my noble friend Lady Gibson and want to comment on what the Lord, Lord German, said, although he is unfortunately not in his place at the moment. No doubt he can read my comments at a future moment. Like my noble friend Lady Hollis, I very much support the amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord German, spoke. However, I should think he finds it rather easier to speak to it here today, in the Committee, than at the Lib Dem conference. I do not think it would answer the party’s desire to get rid of arbitrary time limits. It will, to some extent, help the very poorest but it does not address the fundamental issue that has been raised. As my noble friend Lord McKenzie said in opening the debate, this will affect some 700,000 people. I should like to talk about just a few of these, particularly older women with breast cancer who have paid into the insurance system for their whole working lives. I quote in particular Dawn Sheldon, who wrote to me. She said: "““I am terminally ill with breast cancer which has spread to the lung. I am in receipt of benefits, without which, I would have no income whatsoever. Under the proposed reforms, I would have to find employment. My concerns are that although reasonably qualified, I’d be applying for jobs against other applicants with a clean bill of health and a long life expectancy who would be more attractive than my own CV””." As has already been mentioned, in addition to being ill with the cancer itself, breast cancer sufferers take very strong medication, sometimes for up to five years, with very unpleasant side-effects. Dawn says that without benefits she probably would not be able to pay her mortgage and fears that she would become homeless. Other breast cancer sufferers have also written to me. Similarly, having been on strong medication for 18 months, one woman feels that she would be a cripple if she carried on using it. Therefore, she asks what benefits she should have, and she might come off the medication. That is some indication of how dreadful some of the side-effects are for some people. Another woman writes that she has a lot of pain in her joints at night. She has an eight year-old, so she is taking whatever she can to be here for him. The consultant said that it is a balance—quality of live versus length of life. She says that when she takes her painkillers her boss can tell that she is not able to work as well as she does normally. However, she wants to be there to see her son grow up. These women have asked me to plead with the Government not to reduce their benefits. They are pleased that their tumours have been removed but they are not fit and well; they are struggling to keep going. While they have not yet been diagnosed as being terminally ill, it would be wrong to think that they are able to return to work. They have a choice to make about whether to take drugs to live longer and see their children grow up but, with that medication, perhaps be even less fit for work. The question that they pose is: if you were a prospective employer, would you want to employ someone with a history of cancer or someone who had to take medication to the point that they could be ineffective in their work—at least, at certain times? These women feel that the new medical assessment is a ““ploy””—their word—so that they can simply be told what the Government want to hear: that they are fit for work, disregarding the reports of qualified medical staff. Along with the Lib Dem conference, this group opposes an arbitrary time limit on how long claimants can claim their contributory ESA. A 59 year-old man who is currently on contributory ESA has written that it is the only benefit that he can claim because his wife is working. He has worked and paid into the system since he was 15 years of age—that is, for 44 years. Now, when his health is failing, he will be left on the poverty line. He writes: "““It would be better if my wife stopped working then perhaps I could claim income-related ESA—just like any person who has never worked””." I return to Dawn Sheldon, whom I quoted at the beginning. She says: "““I have paid tax and National Insurance since 1976, and always told people I did not mind paying it as it would be there for me if I ever needed it. As I was on a low income, it would provide a pension for me in my old age. I will not now be drawing that pension, as I will not be reaching 65. So the Government have saved money there””," as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, mentioned earlier. She continued: "““But to deny myself and other terminally ill patients welfare benefits? I can only conclude tax and National Insurance is a scam””." She is a brave lady because she goes on to write: "““I truly have to say that I am glad to be leaving this world. I do not want to live in a country that will stand by and watch its own sick people suffer; that is not a country I can be proud of””." I should add that, despite being quite ill, this woman has a sense of humour. After I had exchanged a few e-mails with her, she sent me an additional little note: "““I am reassured there are people out there fighting our cause. In return, when it is time for me to go, I promise you I will be doing quite a bit of haunting at certain residences in Downing Street””." I do not think that there are many people like Dawn. The other people who have written all say much the same. They make comments such as: "““I’ve worked all my life … paid for decades .. expected support when I needed it … now an ARBITRARY time limit””." Another writes: "““I’ve worked all my life and paid into the system but this doesn’t seem to mean anything””." Similarly, MS sufferers in the WRAG will lose contributory benefit after a year, even if they have paid NI for years. Therefore, can the Minister tell the Committee, first, whether he thinks that this is fair and, secondly, whether the Government have given due regard to this group, whose members have contributed throughout their working lives—perhaps for 30 or 40 years—yet now find that the help they had anticipated, as an earned right, is not there when they need it? Have the Government considered other options, such as a longer period of ESA for those who have, via what they thought was a national insurance system, paid their premiums for years and now find that an arbitrary 12-month limit is imposed? The Government have said that they want a ““something for something”” approach and that they want people to take responsibility for their future. That is what these women thought they were doing by paying national insurance and PAYE. There are other quotations and some have already been mentioned, particularly those from people who suffer from multiple sclerosis. These people have worked all their lives and one says that he has reduced his working hours only to be made redundant. He was moved to the support group when his condition deteriorated but is now back in the WRAG only to be told that his benefit will stop next year. He is 51 years of age and has a degenerative condition. Having worked and paid contributions for so long, he considers that he is being penalised. He simply cannot understand why he paid those contributions if it means nothing. There are many others in that age group who have worked in the same job for many years, particularly manual workers, and who now feel, partly because of their age, they will find it really hard to get new employment. As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said earlier, the large majority of people who will be affected by this will be in the lowest three deciles. This is not the time for humour in this debate. When I was young, I used to sing a song, ““It’s the rich what gets the pleasure, it’s the poor what gets the blame””. And it was the bankers and others who did very well out of the good times. But it is the poor and the infirm who are now being asked to pay.