I know from my own personal experience that disabled people often pay more than others for the same goods and services. That’s why I agreed to lead an independent panel of business people – the Extra Costs Commission – on a year-long inquiry into how we can bring down the premium that disabled people and their families pay.

We are taking a close look at which markets could be better at supplying goods and services to disabled people.   We’ve reached the half way stage and today our interim report sets out a blueprint for business to value and serve the so-called ‘purple pound’.

But, first to get an idea of what we are grappling with, let’s take a look at the impact of extra costs on one family.   Thirty nine year old Emily lives in Eastbourne with her husband and four children – Lucy, 16, William, 12, Oscar, six, and Reuben, who’s four. Both the younger boys have autism, and Emily has had Myalgic Encephalopathy (ME) for many years, which means her energy and movement have been limited. She is recovering now, and has recently returned to work, but she still uses a wheelchair for long distances. In every aspect of life her family is trying to meet the extra costs of disability.

Government action to address these extra costs has focused on raising the income of disabled people through the welfare system, through extra costs payments (Disability Living Allowance, Attendance Allowance and the Personal Independence Payment). Until now, very little has been done by anyone to tackle the root causes of the problem – by looking at how to reduce disabled people’s outgoings in the first place.

This is a missed opportunity.

Today’s report makes the economic case for addressing the issue. Disabled people are loyal consumers, but our research shows that they aren’t afraid to take their custom elsewhere when they receive poor customer service. We’ve highlighted that where shops and businesses don’t meet the needs of disabled consumers, they are losing out on £1.8 billion a month that is being passed over to companies who have recognised the potential of delivering to this group.

According to the Department for Work and Pensions, the ‘purple pound’ in total is worth £212 billion a year. In our report, we’ve set out ways businesses can capitalise on this market, by finding out more about disabled people’s preferences and needs, responding to incentives such as accreditation and awards schemes, and creating an affiliate scheme like a Nectar card to help them serve this group more effectively.   The challenge for disability organisations is to increase awareness of the ‘purple pound’ with businesses, provide more information and advice to disabled people to help them make the best value purchasing decisions, and work with disabled people to drive down the extra costs that they face.

It works for everyone. Companies can improve their financial returns, and disabled consumers and their families will get better deals   Our interim report should be seen as invitation to a conversation with all those who might play a role in delivering change.

Welfare reform, the ‘bedroom tax’, tougher sanctions for those receiving Jobseeker’s Allowance, reductions in council tax benefits, reductions in benefits; all happening at once with reduced funding to administer and/or advise those affected – for many the nightmare has just begun; and we haven’t even hit universal credit yet.

What seems to have been overlooked is that many people on benefits already live hand-to-mouth and change at this level is enough to upset the balance and literally send families and individuals lives into chaos; so a whole raft of changes introduced at once with more to come has been nothing short of catastrophic for many.

I’m not saying things shouldn’t change but change on this scale needs to be properly thought through and resourced; implemented at a realistic pace and most importantly, it must be fair.

The number of new food banks opening up and the caps being placed on the number of food parcels people can have shows the reality of the situation – I was on the High Street at the weekend and without moving could see four shops advertising loans or offering cash for goods – to me it’s the payday loan companies benefitting most from these changes and not the taxpayer.

Some statistics from Birmingham Settlement to demonstrate the point: last year for our biggest single advice contract we had 1200 contacts; in April and May alone this year we’ve seen 660 – that’s more than 50% of last years’ total in just two months. At the same time our funding has reduced and we have had to cut our delivery team from 12 to 8.

There has also been a significant increase in the number of people being referred from other agencies who are also struggling to cope – in the last six weeks two advice agencies near us have closed due to lack of funding.

Money advisers at Birmingham Settlement. Their time and resources are increasingly stretched.

We are advising people that they may have to wait up to three hours, sometimes more, and the fact that most people are prepared to wait says it all; some days we have to simply close the doors because we cannot see any more people.

There is also a real danger to staff struggling to maintain the service. I was in the corridor outside our offices with an adviser last week and he was stopped by an existing client seeking advice, once outside the building he was stopped again by another client – the pressure being placed on small responsive agencies (and their staff) like the Settlement is immense, and is not sustainable.

It’s interesting that Birmingham City Council recently said they had seen a 91% increase in rent arrears since the inception of welfare reform; and a couple of Housing Associations in the North East reported a 300% increase in arrears – and they have empty properties because people aren’t prepared to move into family accommodation – clearly there is a problem.

At Birmingham Settlement we see hundreds of people and it seems to me we’re penalising those who are least able to deal with the situation – it’s out of their hands.

I propose that a much fairer solution would be to send the bill to the housing provider or local authority. If this was the case, pressure would be taken off the people who literally cannot pay; whilst you could be assured the provider would work quicker to find an alternative solution or accommodation – and perhaps even plan for future needs? Obviously, there could be problems as the tenant could, in theory, be offered something totally unsuitable (think of an elderly or disabled lady with mobility needs on the top floor of a tower block), so there would need to be some safeguards. However, at least the problem would be addressed by those who have a voice or ability to influence – and it’s good to see some providers are beginning to stand up and use their position. The reality is that unfortunately our clients don’t have a voice. Who is fighting for them?

Government has said there is flexibility in the system, but the reality doesn’t seem to reflect this – and welfare changes are being applied across the board with little apparent discretion. Even if there was discretion – what allowances would be made and how would they be implemented? That’s another reason why we need to shift responsibility to the provider.

We often talk about inequality and the need to close the gap between the haves and have nots. Indeed, an independent inquiry by MPs recently concluded that the poorest and most deprived parts of the country are the worst affected by public spending cuts. Here in Birmingham we can certainly agree on that.