Welfare Reform

Lord Grayling Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend. Any official decisions will be made in the Budget in the usual way. They are matters for the Treasury. To reassure her on the specific point, the Bill says that we are guaranteeing an above-inflation increase to the UC standard allowance in each of the next four years. That means that, if you are a single person aged 25 or over, the allowance will increase to £106 a week by 2029-30. That is unheard of. As the IFS has said, it is the first time in decades that we have increased beyond inflation the rate of universal credit. So I hope she is not only reassured but delighted.

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

My Lords, the work capability assessment was introduced by the last Labour Government. Back in 2010, when I was Employment Minister, I and my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott worked hard to improve it. I believe very strongly, having sat through many assessments, that some kind of challenge is needed in the system to make sure that those who have the potential to work are given the right incentives and push to do so. The abandonment of the work capability assessment leaves a vacuum in the system. How will the Government fill it?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I probably have not explained this as well as I could have—I apologise to the noble Lord. We absolutely regard as the single biggest challenge the fact that the incentives are in the wrong place when it comes to universal credit. So we are doing two different things. First, we are separating support from your capability to work, abolishing the work capability assessment and looking at how a single assessment can be used to make the appropriate judgments, giving support on the basis of need.

Secondly, we are making absolutely sure that we do not put you in the position of there being perverse incentives, so you end up making decisions that would not be good for you in the long run. There are 200,000 disabled people who reckon that they could work now with the right support and would like to. We should start by giving the right support to those who want to work but simply are not able to. The noble Lord is right that we should be challenging everybody, making sure that they are making the right choices and supporting them, but the first thing to do is to get the incentives in the right place, or it will never work.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Grayling Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

I am afraid that, unfortunately, I need to refer my hon. Friend to my previous reply.

[Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)]

16. If he will review the calculation of the housing element of universal credit.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)]

In April 2020, the local housing allowance rate in Epsom and Ewell increased to the 30th percentile of local market rents. The Government further boosted LHA rates by £1 billion.

[Chris Grayling]

I congratulate the new ministerial team on their appointment. The challenge in a constituency such as mine in the south-east and inside the M25 is that, even when the Government are spending a substantial amount of money on housing support, the local housing allowance simply does not enable people to get into private rented accommodation. Will my hon. Friend and his colleagues look again at how local housing allowance is structured and allocated across the country to try to ensure that it works everywhere?

[Guy Opperman]

My right hon. Friend is a doughty campaigner on this issue. He will be aware, though, that it cannot be looked at in isolation and that we must look at the additional support available such as discretionary housing payments through the local authority—they are worth up to £1.5 billion overall across all local authorities—as well as the cost of living support package of £37 billion-plus and the household support fund, which again is administered by local authorities.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Grayling Excerpts

Monday 13th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

The hon. Lady may be aware that more than £400 billion of support has been given more broadly to the UK economy and to people. We are conscious that more than £7 billion was invested in the welfare system to help people during this difficult time. However, as the economy is recovering and employment is growing, we will do more with our work coaches—we have doubled their numbers since a year ago—to ensure that people can get back into work and progress in work.

[Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)]

The Secretary of State and indeed the whole Government should take credit for the amount of support they have provided to people on low incomes in the past year during the pandemic. Will she take a further look at the housing element of universal credit? In my constituency, rising rental costs and high house prices have made the private rental sector difficult for people on low incomes. Will she look at how the universal credit housing element operates in areas such as mine, just outside London, which are particularly affected by property and rental prices, and whether changes are needed?

[Dr Coffey]

I am conscious of my right hon. Friend’s concerns. When we made the uplifts just over a year ago, we put an extra £900 million a year into support for housing costs through the changes we made to the local housing allowance rate. He will know that rental areas go beyond constituency boundaries, but the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince), who is responsible for welfare delivery, will be happy to discuss what is happening in regard to geographic locations.

Covid-19: DWP Update

Lord Grayling Excerpts

Monday 4th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

No, I will not, and I have already set out why I do not think a universal basic income is the right approach. The hon. Gentleman is a Northern Ireland Member and will be aware that responsibility for welfare is devolved, so if he wanted he could lobby the Northern Ireland Executive, and they might be able to devise a scheme that they think is more appropriate locally.

[Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con) [V]]

May I join in thanking all the staff at the DWP, and indeed the Secretary of State and her team, and in particular, the staff at Epsom jobcentre, for dealing with the current crisis as effectively as they have? Will she look again at the issue of LHA for the areas immediately outside London, as there are still anomalies that particularly affect my constituency, and of course there will be a greater need for housing support. Will she look at the level of support to make sure that it really is related to the local rental market?

[Dr Coffey]

LHA is done on the basis of certain housing areas, and the Chancellor announced a significant change in order to bring this up to the 30th percentile. I say to my right hon. Friend that councils across the country have been receiving discretionary housing payments—separate from the hardship fund. That was ongoing, and we added £40 million to it for this financial year prior to this situation. I encourage anyone who is still struggling in his local area to go directly to the council for some support.

Atos Healthcare

Lord Grayling Excerpts

Tuesday 4th September 2012 Westminster Hall

[Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)]

Congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) on securing this important debate. This is my first time speaking after my extended absence and therefore a good subject.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)]

On behalf of everybody in the room and in the House, I welcome the hon. Lady back to the House. We are delighted to see her in such good shape. We were sad to hear of the difficulties in the long period of recovery she has had to go through. She is very welcome.

[Dame Anne Begg]

I thank the Minister for being gracious. He may not be quite so gracious by the time he has heard what I have to say. I do not think that the Government have grasped how disastrous the ESA assessment system is. It is not something that can be fixed by a few tweaks here and there; we tried that with the Harrington review. What we have heard today in the Chamber—and in the “Dispatches” and “Panorama” programmes filmed in June this year—suggests that not much has changed. The people complaining are not just the usual suspects, not just the radical crips, the workshy or those who want money without being assessed. They are ordinary people, most of whom worked hard all their lives until the sky fell in and they lost their job because of an illness or an acquired disability.

It is not enough for Government to say that the genuine claimant has nothing to fear. In too many cases, genuine claimants are not scoring any points in their initial assessment. There is something fundamentally wrong with the system and the contract that Atos is delivering. When the British Medical Association votes at its conference to say that the work capability assessment is not fit for purpose there is something wrong with the system. When GPs are reporting an increased workload, not just as a result of providing reports but as a result of treating patients whose condition has worsened as a result of their WCA experience, there is something wrong with the system.

When my constituent, who has lost his job because he has motor neurone disease, scores zero on his WCA and is found fully fit for work, there is something wrong with the system. When that same constituent appears in front of a tribunal and in less than five minutes is awarded 15 points, there is something wrong with the system. When people with rapidly progressive illnesses are not automatically put in the support group, there is something wrong with the system. When some people would rather do without the money to which they are absolutely entitled rather than submit to the stress of a WCA, there is something wrong with the system. When someone with a severe illness has to fight for a year through an appeal to get the correct benefit, only to be called in almost immediately for another assessment, there is something wrong with the system. When the recall and assessment happen the following year, and the following year, there is something wrong with the system. When people feel so persecuted, there is something wrong with the system. To top it all, they lose their contributory ESA after only a year if they are in the WRAG group.

When up to 40% of appeals are successful and there is no penalty for the company carrying out the assessments, there is something wrong with the contract. When so many appeals result in an award of ESA support group status when the original assessment was no points, there is something wrong with the contract. When there is no penalty for a high percentage of wrong decisions, there is something wrong with the contract. When there is no incentive for assessors to get the assessment correct first time, there is something wrong with the contract.

It is time for the Government to act, because there is something fundamentally wrong with the whole system.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I know that this is an issue of great concern to many Members, as it was always going to be. I totally accept that this is a long and difficult process, and I have always said that, both in this Chamber and in the House. I will not be able to respond to every individual point. One or two hon. Members have raised individual constituency cases, and if they write to the Department, I will ensure that it addresses their specific questions.

Let me make one point in relation to a comment made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). He drove to the absolute heart of what we are trying to achieve, and this is an ambition that was and is shared by both the Opposition and the Government. If people can make a return to work, even if it is a different form of work from the one they did before their health issue arose—[Interruption.]

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Order—[Interruption.] Order. Parliamentary rules state that there should be no noise at all from the Gallery—[Interruption.] Madam, if you persist in carrying on talking and shouting, I will have no choice but to suspend the sitting and clear the Gallery—[Interruption.] This is your last chance. If there is any more noise from the Gallery, I will have no choice but to suspend the sitting, meaning that no one will hear from the Minister.

[Chris Grayling]

If people can make a return to work, even if it is a different form of work from what they were able to do before their health condition arose, that is better for them than spending the rest of their life on benefits. That is the principle that we are working towards.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

rose—

[Chris Grayling]

I will briefly give way once, but that is all.

[Helen Goodman]

If the Minister has read the current descriptors, will he explain what kind of work a person could do when their engaging in social contact with someone unfamiliar is always precluded due to difficulty relating to others? There are those who have reduced awareness of everyday hazards, which means that they face significant risk of injury to themselves or others, and those who are at risk of loss of control leading to extensive evacuation of their bowel and bladder. What work can these people do?

[Chris Grayling]

Let me pick up on that point straight off. It is all well and good for Opposition Members to stand up and rail about the system, but it is a system that was created by Labour four years ago when they were in government, and it is a system that we have consistently tried to improve.

Let me be absolutely clear. I put it on record that this is not a financial exercise. There are no targets attached to the reassessment of people on incapacity benefit—[Interruption.] The assessment that is in place for new claimants for employment and support allowance—

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Order. If there is any more noise from the Public Gallery, I am afraid that, under the rules of Parliament, I have no choice but to suspend the sitting and clear the Gallery. I understand that people are very concerned about this issue—my constituents are concerned about it as well—but under the rules, I will have to clear the Gallery if there is any more noise. This is the last time that I will say it: if there is any more noise, I am afraid that I will have to suspend the sitting.

[Chris Grayling]

It is really important to emphasise that the reassessment of people on incapacity benefit is not a financial exercise and that there are no financial targets attached to it. It is about finding the right number of people who can make a return to work. It is not an exact science—it never was and never could be—but it is all about trying to help people back into the workplace if they can possibly return to it. That was the previous Government’s motivation when they established the work capability assessment. When we took office, we put in place the changes that they themselves had put in the pipeline through the internal review of the work capability assessment.

When we took office, I fully accepted that the process needed to be improved. That was why we brought in Malcolm Harrington and it is why I am absolutely clear that we have implemented his recommendations. I have regularly met and talked to Malcolm Harrington, and at no point has he said to me that the process is not fit for purpose. At no point has our independent adviser, whom I believe has the confidence of most people in the charitable sector who are involved in this work, said to me that this system has to stop or is unfit for purpose. He has made suggestions about improvements, and we have followed his advice in that regard. Our objective is to do the right thing, but of course this is not an exact science. We will never create a system that is perfect, which is why people have a right to appeal.

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

Following the substantial improvements that the Government have made, does my right hon. Friend the Minister agree that the number of people who have been moved into the support set of the ESA has increased by 20%?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

It is a matter of record that since we implemented changes as a result of the Harrington process and the internal review that we inherited from the previous Government, the number of people going into the support group, including the number of people with mental health conditions, has increased. That is a good thing and I am pleased that we made those changes.

The issue of cancer has been raised. It has taken us longer than I expected to address that, because of various issues that arose in our discussions with Macmillan Cancer Support, but I believe that we are now in the right place. We will be making a formal announcement very shortly, but I have said before that I believe that we should extend to those receiving oral chemotherapy the access to the support group that is offered to people receiving intravenous chemotherapy.

[Stephen Timms]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Grayling]

I will give way very briefly, but this is the last intervention that I will take.

[Stephen Timms]

The Minister will acknowledge, however, that the new descriptors that have been proposed for mental health conditions and for fluctuating conditions are nowhere near being implemented. When does he expect that they will be implemented?

[Chris Grayling]

I will make just one more point and then I will answer that question.

It is really important to put it on record that Atos does not take decisions. In no circumstance does Atos take a decision about whether somebody receives a benefit or does not. A claimant will be asked to fill in a form that goes to Atos for consideration of whether they should be put to an assessment, or passported straight through to the benefit. Atos carries out the assessment, but the decision about benefits is taken by a Department for Work and Pensions decision maker in Jobcentre Plus. It is really important that people understand that Atos does not take decisions.

When we talk about Atos, we are talking about a team of perhaps 1,500 health care professionals, many of whom have trained in the NHS. Those professionals are carrying out an assessment that was designed by the DWP under the previous Government and that has been continued under the current Government. Atos does not take the decisions itself.

As a result of the Harrington recommendations, we have gone out of our way to address people much more directly. Rather than letters, they now receive phone calls, in which they are asked to bring forward additional evidence. A question was asked about the mandatory reconsideration phase. Effectively, that phase already happens. Every case in which the person says they are not happy will now involve a reconsideration within Jobcentre Plus. I am keen that we have that second opinion, because we will not always get things right and I want to try to see whether we can bring forward further evidence that would enable us to make the right decision before a case ever reached the tribunal service. Effort is being put in to make that happen.

The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) asked about recordings. Let me be clear that Harrington recommended that we carried out a pilot to test recordings. I was keen that we just did it, but Harrington said to me, “Actually, it may not work, so I really think that you should pilot it. It may prove to have a negative effect.” We therefore tested recording and found that there was little enthusiasm among those being assessed to have their assessment recorded. In the end, the conclusion was that we should make recording available on a voluntary basis, but it should not be something that we do across the board.

I do not rule out recording. If there was overwhelming evidence showing that it was necessary, I would make it available, but let me give some statistics. There are 300 claimants waiting for an audio-recorded assessment, while Atos is conducting 8,000 assessments a week. We are ordering additional audio-recording machines so that people can have their assessment recorded, if they want. They are perfectly entitled to bring their own recording equipment to an assessment as long as it can record two copies of an assessment, because they need to be able to take one copy with them and leave the other behind. That is why we have to buy what is fairly expensive equipment, and we have ordered additional equipment because there has been an increase in demand in the last few weeks.

I am perfectly relaxed about recorded assessments and perfectly happy to make recording facilities available. However, the advice that I received from Malcolm Harrington was that we should test recording. The result of the pilot was not only that there was not a need for recording, but that many people felt uncomfortable being assessed with a tape recorder running.

The right hon. Gentleman also asked about the new descriptors that were brought forward by the charities, but he is out of date. The charities have been working with us for the past few weeks on the assessment project of the package that they brought forward. The work was finished last week. The charities wanted more time to work with us because the process is complicated and we are trying to mesh mental health issues and fluctuating conditions. As I said in Westminster Hall about 12 months ago, the problem that I had with the recommendations that the charities made in the first place was that they came forward not simply with adjustments to the existing descriptors, but instead with a comprehensive reorganisation of the assessment, which would also have involved a redesign of the physical descriptors. Given that the right hon. Gentleman has carried out such projects in the DWP, he will know well that that would be a two or three-year project.

We have tried to take forward some of the suggestions that the charities made and embed them into elements such as the ESA50 form, and we are now working with the charities to road test all this work to see whether it really makes a difference. However, I am not going to embark on a major overhaul of the whole exercise based on recommendations that are not backed by evidence without our having tested them in the way in which the previous Government tested recommendations: by putting real cases against proposed descriptors and making a comparison between the outcomes of the theoretical new descriptors and the old descriptors. Such work is on track. We are pushing the charities to make progress, because I want to get the work done, and we are still on track to complete the gold standard review in the spring.

The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) referred to the National Audit Office report. I have had the benefit of having read that report, although I know that he has not. The reality is that the report highlights a number of what I regard as not particularly major areas of improvement. If he reads the report, he will see that it reflects a big and complicated contract. It makes some suggestions for improvement, but it is not as he portrays it.

When the hon. Gentleman talks about the performance of Atos during the last two years, the key point he must remember is that the recommendations that Malcolm Harrington made, combined with some fluctuation in volumes coming through to Atos, which are certainly beyond its control, have caused significant operational difficulties. I can give him my word that I have sat in meetings with representatives of Atos and put them under intense pressure. Atos has brought in extra capacity at cost. We have made sure that we deliver at every stage. However, it is not possible to change the goalposts totally and then expect the subcontractor to take it on the chin with no consequences.

We have seen some consequences of the introduction of the Harrington recommendations, particularly the personalised statement. However, as I stand here today, we are on track to close the backlog time to where it should be later this autumn. The numbers that the hon. Gentleman gave are already well out of date. We have brought down the backlog in the number of appeals that we inherited two years ago, but it is a big task. We are dealing with a large number of people and this is a big challenge.

Let me be clear that we want to get this process right and we want to do the right thing. I want people who need long-term ongoing support to be in the support group. The Government have no interest in doing anything other than looking after those people who need that, but we will also give encouragement and support—and a bit of a push—to those who can get back into work, because I believe that that is the right thing for them.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

I thank those Members who have attended this important debate for coming along today, and I encourage everyone to leave Westminster Hall quickly and quietly so that we can proceed to the next important debate.

Social Security Schemes (Co-ordination)

Lord Grayling Excerpts

Monday 3rd September 2012 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)]

The European Commission has presented a package of four draft Council decisions amending the provisions for the co-ordination of social security systems with Albania, Montenegro, San Marino and Turkey. The content of the proposals relating to the first three countries is similar and is based on an earlier 2010 package of amendments to the agreements with the six countries of Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Israel. As with the 2010 package, the proposals are based on article 79(2)(b) of the treaty on the functioning of the EU (TFEU), which enables the UK to decide whether to opt-in to such proposals. In line with our approach to the 2010 package, the Government have decided not to opt in to the proposals with Albania, Montenegro and San Marino.

The Government are committed to the free movement of workers within the European Union, and also to protecting the sustainability and affordability of our welfare systems. As such, the Government maintain the position that they do not wish to extend social security rights to third-country nationals.

The proposal to amend the association agreement with Turkey is based on article 48 TFEU, which governs social security co-ordination for migrant workers within the EU and which is subject to qualified majority voting. The UK has consistently contested proposals with an article 48 legal base in relation to third-countries agreements, maintaining that the correct legal base for such proposals is article 79(2)(b) TFEU which allows the EU to adopt measures concerning the free movement rights of third-country nationals.

The Turkey draft decision follows on from similar measures based on article 48 to amend social security provisions in the EU agreements with the European economic area (EEA) and Switzerland. Then, as now, we took the view that these proposals would have the effect of extending social security co-ordination rights to people moving between the EU and a third country and that the article 48 legal base was inappropriate as it related only to free movement within the EU.

The UK is currently seeking to annul in the Court of Justice of the EU the Council decisions based on article 48 in the EEA and Switzerland cases. A ruling is not expected until late in 2013. In the meantime, the Government intend to maintain a consistent approach to the proposals on Turkey, in line with the action taken in the EEA and Switzerland cases. We will continue to press for the correct title V legal base to be applied to the Turkey proposals, and should the draft Council decision on Turkey be adopted on the basis of a qualified majority before the Court has ruled on the EEA and Switzerland cases, we will take appropriate action including a further legal challenge if appropriate.

The Government believe that a consistent approach is necessary in order to underline an important point of principle concerning the interpretation of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union and to affirm the Government’s commitment to protect our rights under the treaty.

Jobseeking (Additional Support)

Lord Grayling Excerpts

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)]

The Government have a strong offer of support to help young people find work: the Work programme, the Youth Contract and measures such as work experience and apprenticeships.

We know that lack of experience in the workplace can be a fundamental stumbling block for young jobseekers. This is compounded in difficult economic times when the labour market is even more challenging for those seeking their first job.

I will test the impact of providing additional support to young people with a limited work history from the very start of their benefit claim. This trial has been jointly developed with the Greater London Authority.

Further information on the details of this scheme will follow in due course.

Work Capability Assessment

Lord Grayling Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2012 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)]

Later today the Government will publish a call for evidence as part of Professor Malcolm Harrington’s third independent review of the work capability assessment (WCA).

Professor Harrington’s first two reviews were published in November 2010 and November 2011. His overall view was that the principle of the WCA was sound but the processes that supported the system were not working as well as they could. The Department have made a number of changes to the WCA process as a result of the recommendations made by Professor Harrington in his reviews. These were noted in his 2011 review when he said:

“The WCA has, in my view, noticeably changed for the better”.

The call for evidence is one of several methods Professor Harrington is using to gather information to support the review and inform its final recommendations. He is particularly interested in views and evidence about any changes that claimants have experienced since the introduction of the first year’s recommendations.

The call for evidence runs until 7 September 2012.

Professor Harrington will make his final recommendations to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions by the end of the year.

I will place a copy of the call for evidence in the Libraries of both Houses it will also be available on the Department’s website later today.

Industrial Injuries Advisory Council

Lord Grayling Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2012 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)]

In accordance with the Cabinet Office’s guidance on public bodies, which took effect from 1 April 2011, a review of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council (IIAC) was undertaken. It examined the council’s functions and whether it should exist at arm’s length from Government and ensured the council’s control and governance arrangements continue to meet the recognised principles of good corporate governance. The review is now complete and I am happy to inform the House that reviewers concluded the IIAC remain as an arm’s length body sponsored by the Department for Work and Pensions and that it continues to meet the recognised principles of good governance. At the same time and in the interests of proportionality and value for money, IIAC was reviewed as a Scientific Advisory Committee. I will place a copy of the combined review in the House Library.

Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council

Lord Grayling Excerpts

Thursday 28th June 2012 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)]

The Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council met on 21 June 2012 in Luxembourg. I represented the United Kingdom.

The main discussion was a policy debate on the Europe 2020 strategy: contribution to the European Council (28 and 29 June 2012)—European semester. The presidency stated that it was vitally important for Europe to take ambitious reform measures and the Commission stressed the greater need for economic integration in Europe. I intervened to state that country specific recommendations (CSRs) were a key tool and needed to be ambitious and challenging but that they needed to be fully supported by evidence and be relevant to individual member states. I further stressed that the process for agreeing CSRs needed improvement and in particular, the Commission should show greater willingness to listen and accept changes where duly justified and supported by evidence.

There were progress reports on four topics; legislative initiatives for posting of workers; minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (electromagnetic fields); the principle of equal treatment of persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation; and the European globalisation adjustment fund (EGF) (2014-20). On EGF, there was support from some member states to continue the fund in the next programming period while other disagreed. I intervened to state that the fund should be discontinued.

In addition, Ministers adopted two sets of Council conclusions, covering responding to the demographic challenges through enhanced participation in labour market and society by all, and gender equality and the environment: enhanced decision making, qualifications and competitiveness in the field of climate change mitigation policy in the EU.

Ministers reached a partial general approach on the programme for social change and innovation (PSCI) excluding the programme budget. I supported this, while tabling a minute statement stressing that, as the Danish presidency has made clear, progress in negotiating individual sectoral regulations should not prejudice the outcome of the overall multiannual financial framework discussion. Ministers also endorsed the main messages from the Social Protection Committee’s report on pensions’ adequacy.

Under any other business, the Commission provided information on national Roma integration strategies and the ratification and implementation of the UN convention on the rights of people with disabilities. The presidency provided information on conferences held during the Danish presidency. The Commission and presidency both reported on the G20 meeting of Labour and Employment Ministers, and finally, the Cypriot delegation outlined the work programme of their forthcoming presidency.