Work Capability Assessment

Lord Grayling Excerpts

Tuesday 13th March 2012 Westminster Hall

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

I have a sense of déjà-vu because the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) and I are continuing a debate, albeit on a different subject, from an hour ago.

Let me start by saying that it is of paramount importance to get right issues of mental health in the work capability assessment process. That is the most difficult challenge, because in many respects mental health can be the most intangible of the various areas that we need to assess when we seek to understand what people can and cannot do, and there are clearly many people with mental health problems who cannot possibly be expected to work. I do not have detailed knowledge of the case highlighted by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero), but people will appear in our surgeries saying that something is not fair or right, or that they are in the wrong group. Some people will genuinely believe that they cannot return to work, but that will not always be the case.

A few weeks ago, I sat with a woman in one of our Work programme centres. She had arrived having been mandated to the Work programme after 14 years off work with chronic depression, and she said that on the first day she was in tears, did not believe that she should be there and that she was protesting bitterly. I met her about eight weeks later, by which time she had started doing voluntary work in a charity shop and had begun to apply for jobs, and she said that that was the right thing to do after all. We will not always get it right, but we are taking some people down a path that can be right for them, even if they are reluctant to follow it at first.

[Gloria De Piero]

I accept what the Minister says, but does he agree that to decide whether someone is in the right group and has the right of appeal—which in itself acknowledges trial and error—56 weeks is too long?

[Chris Grayling]

I completely accept that, and we have started to reduce the backlog of cases. It is a big challenge, and we have put extra resources into the tribunal service for that. We have also tried to strengthen the reconsideration process in Jobcentre Plus, so that new medical evidence seldom appears at appeal stage. In his first report, Professor Harrington stated that one key reason why so many decisions were being overturned on appeal was that new evidence was appearing at appeal stage. We have tried hard, both at the start of the assessment process and the reconsideration stage, to ensure that such evidence is in place.

I ask the hon. Member for Edinburgh East to step back for a moment because it is tempting to take what the charities say at face value. Charities do good work and have long experience, but they do not always get it right and the internal review was the clearest example of that. I sat through meeting after meeting with the charities at which they said that we should not proceed with the internal review because it would lead to more people with mental health problems being found fit for work and that all the evidence suggested that it was the wrong thing to do.

Work had been done by the previous Government using the approach that the Department always takes to such matters, which is to take a batch of cases, put them through a new methodology and see what difference that makes. Our team of officials advised that, although there were fewer descriptors, the changes would lead to an increased number of mental health claimants in the support group. The charities protested and said, “That won’t happen; you’re wrong. That is not the case and you shouldn’t do it.” A few months later, however, that internal review led to an increased number of mental health patients in the support group. Indeed, the support group as a whole has got bigger. It is easy for groups that advocate change to existing systems to say, “We’ve got the experience; we’re right and you must do this,” but that is not always the case. It was certainly not the case for the internal review.

[Dr Whiteford]

I should like to bring the Minister back to the first Harrington review, particularly recommendation 7. He has previously told Members, including myself, that those recommendations have been taken on board and implemented, but why has recommendation 7 not been implemented in Scotland?

[Chris Grayling]

In relation to mental health champions, let me explain some of the things that we have done for mental health patients. We have a pool of about 60 specialists who provide advice within the Atos network, and their skills are available to every centre, either in person or by phone. Professor Harrington has looked at how we implemented that change, and he praised it because he thinks that it was done well and effectively. We think that we have delivered that expertise, as does Professor Harrington who is an independent assessor and can say whether or not his recommendation has been implemented properly, which in his view it has been.

If I find evidence that we are not getting things right, we are open to change. As I have said from the start, this programme does not have a financial target and is about saving lives, not saving money. If we are successful in moving people back into work it will, of course, reduce the cost to the welfare state, but it will do so in a right and positive way that will help people such as the woman whom I described, who I hope will return, step by step, to the workplace. The alternative is for her to spend the rest of her life on benefits suffering from depression at home, and no one benefits from that.

That is the spirit in which we have approached all this. We tried very hard to ensure that we got it right with the internal review. There was no particular reason for me to implement the internal review. It was set up by the previous Government. The findings were put together by the previous Government. It would have been easy just to say no, but the advice was that it would increase the size of the support group, and that is what has happened. I regard that as a positive step. I always said, and said on a number of occasions in the House, that I was happy to see the dividing line between the work-related activity group and the support group move a bit in the direction of caution, because we are trying to get this right and I do not want people in the wrong place. There will never be a perfect system—I wish there would be—but we shall try to get this right.

I will move on to the recommendations of the work carried out by the charities. I commissioned that myself. I asked the charities to come back with recommended changes to the descriptors. I very much wanted, and do want, to get this right. The problem is straightforward: they did not actually do what they were asked to do. They were asked to make recommendations about further ways to improve the descriptors that would allow us further to ensure that the assessment process for people with mental health challenges was accurate, effective and reflected their needs and potential. That is not what happened.

The charities came back with a recommended system that would have involved tearing up the whole work capability assessment for mental, fluctuating and physical conditions and starting again from scratch, redoing all our computer systems and all the training for every member of staff in the entire network. That was not just a tweak; it was a comprehensive change to the whole thing, based on no actual evidence. The charities did not come forward with tangible evidence. They simply said, “We think it would work better this way.” They may or may not be right, but that is quite a big step to take just on the basis of a set of recommendations from a group of charities that had been proved wrong in the internal review process.

[Sheila Gilmore]

The recommendations from the charities were put to an independent scrutiny panel that had a large number of people with considerable expertise, so will the Minister agree that it is not true to say that they were simply the recommendations of a group of charities?

[Chris Grayling]

That is the case, but what we lack and what we intend now to get is hard evidence to determine whether this is right. Given that the charities were wrong the first time round, I am very reluctant to tear up the whole thing and redo all the computer systems—a vast amount of change; probably a two or three-year project—only to discover that that does not make a difference.

Alongside this, we have been doing work on fluctuating conditions. These are the two particularly challenging areas. Fluctuating conditions can represent a real challenge in the assessment process, because someone who is fine one day may not be fine the next. There are a range of fluctuating conditions and, again, I want to be careful to ensure that we get this as right as we can. In a moment, I will touch on some of the changes that we have made. I just want to explain first where the issue arises with the new set of recommendations.

The working group on fluctuating conditions reported at the end of last year. We intend this year to do that gold standard work, which in effect involves applying the new systems recommended by both groups to a set group of cases to understand what the difference would have been. If we discover that there is very little variation between what they are recommending and the existing system, there will be no point in changing it. If we discover big changes, we will want to understand why. I am perfectly open to making changes in the future if I think that that will make a significant difference. I will state again that we are not trying to force into work people who should not be there. We are not trying to get this wrong, but at the same time this is not about a simple change. It is not about introducing mental health champions throughout the network, improving the quality of the telephony process, ensuring that our staff are better trained or strengthening the reconsideration process. It is about tearing the whole thing up and starting again. That is quite a big step and a very long step to take.

We shall do the gold standard work. We have already done the initial scoping work. It is very important that that is completed. I am very open to making changes, but I will not make changes on the hoof without clear evidence that they will make a difference. The hard evidence that was there for the internal review, which I based my judgment on, proved to be right, whereas the external advice, based on what the charities thought, proved to be wrong, so we have to be very careful.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I thank the Minister for taking another intervention. Obviously, there have been many changes in the system and changes initiated after Harrington 1 as well. Is there a reason why the Minister thinks that the change in the descriptors has resulted in more people being put into the support group?

[Chris Grayling]

The general view of the team who worked on the internal review was that the assessors were better placed with a broader base and less specific descriptors in relation to mental health. People should bear in mind that both the assessors and the subsequent tribunals and decision makers have to operate to a pretty tight template around the descriptors as set in law. By creating additional flexibility within the descriptors, we end up with more people being put into the support group than was previously the case, and that is indeed what happened.

I thought that there was good and sensible thinking in the way that the charities brought forward their ideas. We made some pretty rapid changes. We have continued to adapt the ESA50. We have adapted our training, so that some of the issues that they have highlighted are built more clearly into it. We have also invited all the charities—some have taken this up—to work with decision makers, to contribute to the training process for decision makers.

Probably the biggest change that we made to the whole process was to de-emphasise slightly the role of the assessment itself. One of the criticisms levelled at the whole WCA process before we took over was that it was much too formulaic, with far too little flexibility. Of course, one of the reasons for the appeals issue was that a vast amount of new evidence came forward only at the appeal stage. As a result of Professor Harrington’s report, we tried to create a more holistic process, so we actively ask people for evidence from their specialists up front.

Our decision makers have the discretion to look for additional evidence at the point at which they reach their view, based on the evidence that has been submitted by the individual themselves, the ESA50 and the outcome of the work capability assessment. Likewise, we now actively encourage people to supply new evidence at the reconsideration stage. It is now almost universally the case that we see most if not all of the evidence before it leaves Jobcentre Plus. That has to be the right thing to do.

We have tried to build the learning from the work done by the mental health group and by the fluctuating conditions group into the decision making that is already happening. We have not parked this on the sidelines and said that we will come back to it at a later date. I can explain my problem using the analogy that I used in the Select Committee. It is rather like taking one’s car in for a service. When we come back at the end of the day, it looks great. The people who did the service have done a brilliant job, but they have turned it into a boat. That is not a lot of use if we have to drive it on the road. That, in a nutshell, is the position that I am in. The charities made a recommendation. If they had recommended some tweaks to the descriptors, we would have done that by now, but they did not; they recommended a total transformation of the whole process, including redoing everything for physical health conditions as well—all the descriptors for them—a new scoring system and a new computer system. It would be and will be, if we do it, a monumental task.

We are therefore putting together the mental health work and the fluctuating conditions work. We are looking at the consequences of the approach, through the gold standard review, in a way that the previous Government did, and rightly so. It involves taking a selection of cases, applying the new methodology and understanding what the difference would be. However, we are not sitting on our hands in the meantime. We are not just saying, “Well, that work has been done. Maybe we’ll get round to it at some point in the future.” We have used that as the basis for changes across the way that we interact with people through the assessment process, because we genuinely want to get it right.

I have said on many occasions that this is about helping people who are potentially able to return to work to do so. That is the right thing to do. We will not always get the decision making right, whatever we do. Even if we implement everything that the charities are recommending, we still will not have a system that is perfect in all circumstances. That is why we have the appeal process. We are not talking about putting people into a position whereby they are doing an activity that is damaging to them. We are, step by step, helping people to get back into a process whereby they can apply for jobs and get into work—sometimes quite gently.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Will the Minister clarify, if the gold standard review has now started, whether he has any anticipated time scale for its concluding?

[Chris Grayling]

I have not instantly, but it is certainly my intention that we will complete it within the next few months, as we said that we would. I think that it is necessary to understand the impact. Above all, I want to get this right. Our objective has only ever been to find the right number of people we can help back to work, not any number of people. That is a human goal, not a financial one.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Grayling Excerpts

Monday 5th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

16. What effect he expects the Government’s youth contract to have on the number of unemployed young people.

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

We are in the final stages of preparing for the launch of the youth contract in April. We believe that it will have a positive impact on youth unemployment, providing nearly half a million support opportunities for young people. We and employers are working together to give young people the support they need to gain employment.

[Mr Jones]

At a meeting with business people in my constituency some months ago, there were calls for a small tax break, or some other form of support from the Government, to help them take on young people. I am therefore delighted that 160,000 job subsidies worth up to £2,275 will now be available for each business that employs an 18 to 24-year-old through the Work programme. Can the Minister comment on the level of interest in the scheme so far?

[Chris Grayling]

There is already considerable interest in what is planned, and I hope that it will give unemployed young people a leg-up in the workplace. We hope that the challenge that they face owing to a lack of previous experience—which we were talking about earlier—will be ameliorated, at least to some degree, by the incentive payment that we will provide, and that the result will be far more young people getting their first opportunity to get into work.

[Mark Menzies]

I thank the Minister for his original answer, but can he tell me what Jobcentre Plus will be doing differently as a result of the youth contract?

[Chris Grayling]

We are also stepping up the support that we provide to young unemployed people through Jobcentre Plus, which will include more frequent work-focused interviews. We are also recruiting more youth advisers in Jobcentre Plus to provide help to the young unemployed. We are determined to deal with the problem of youth unemployment, which in all parts of the House we agree is a massive challenge for the nation.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

If the scheme is to cover 5% of those in the NEET category—those not in education, employment or training—what plans does the Minister have for the other 95%?

[Chris Grayling]

I assume that the hon. Lady is referring to the programme that we have just announced for 16 to 17-year-olds. Of course, the big challenge with that age group is not the total number of NEETs, because most young people move quickly back into education. However, there is a hard core of young people who spend long periods not in education or employment, and they are not in the benefits system either, so we have no direct means of engaging with them. I hope and believe that the new approach—founded on payment by results, with charitable and private sector groups working together to try to reach that audience—will make a big difference to engaging with them and getting them back into either employment or education.

[Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)]

How will the scheme help people in my constituency, where youth unemployment has increased by 88% in the past 12 months? Is not this too little, too late?

[Chris Grayling]

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is continuing to cite figures that are statistically inaccurate. The figures to which he refers were distorted by the previous Government’s propensity to bury young people in the statistics where they would not be visible. Now that we do not put people on to a training allowance, which counts as being off jobseeker’s allowance, we are telling the truth about the scale of youth unemployment and seeing the real picture. Our statisticians have made the calculations and found that, when those statistical adjustments are taken into account, there has been no increase in youth unemployment of more than six months over the past two years.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

Rather than falling since the general election, youth unemployment in my constituency has risen by five people; it is still too high, however, and I certainly welcome the youth contract. Clearly, it has also risen in other parts of the country at a rate that the west of England has not experienced, so will there be a way of ensuring that the take-up of the youth contract will be high in the parts of the country where it is most needed?

[Chris Grayling]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that this is a huge challenge for us. The truth is that, since the general election, youth unemployment has risen by approximately 100,000, with about half that increase coming from full-time students looking for part-time jobs. I regard any level of youth unemployment as too high, and I hope that the subsidies that we provide for employers who hire young people, together with the extra work experience and apprenticeship places being created through the youth contract, will help those in precisely the parts of the country to which he is referring.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

6. What recent progress he has made on reassessing the incapacity benefit case load.

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

Incapacity benefit reassessment has been successfully implemented and the reassessment exercise remains on track to be completed by spring 2014. We are reassessing around 11,000 claimants on incapacity benefits each week. Those who are ready and fit for work are able to receive support via the Work programme. Those who are not fit for work will continue to receive ongoing support for as long as they need it.

[John Woodcock]

I thank the Minister for his answer, but is it not true that growing delays in the process are increasing the uncertainty for vulnerable people? Does he accept the evidence provided by groups such as the Barrow & District Disability Association that the call-back time for the advisers’ helpline has increased from three hours to often more than 24 hours? Does he acknowledge that if this process runs aground due to incompetence, the most vulnerable people and the taxpayer will lose out?

[Chris Grayling]

Let me repeat that the incapacity benefit reassessment process, which is just coming up to one year old, is running on time. We have some delays in the claims process for new claimants of employment and support allowance, which is resulting in people having to wait an average of five days longer to be assessed than was previously the case. That is too long. They are having to wait five days longer as a result of the changes implemented following Professor Harrington’s review, but we have a programme in place to enable us to catch up by the summer.

[Teresa Pearce (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)]

8. What estimate he has made of the cost to a typical small business of introducing real-time reporting of PAYE information.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)]

19. What steps he is taking to tackle youth unemployment.

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

The youth contract, to which I referred earlier, is worth nearly £1 billion. It builds on the substantial support already available to help unemployed young people to enter work. It includes more intensive support for all 18 to 24-year-olds, additional funded work experience places and a new wage incentive scheme delivered through the Work programme.

[Alex Cunningham]

The number of young people in my constituency who are not in education, employment or training is double the national average, and it has been suggested that the area should be treated as a hot spot for action. Stockton borough council is doing its bit as a local employer, but its powers are limited in the wake of spending cuts. Will the Minister take specific action to help the hardest hit areas, such as mine, and will he make proper resources available so that real things can happen, rather than tinkering around the edges?

[Chris Grayling]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I regard the labour market in the north-east as one of our big priorities. That is why we have targeted the area with support through the regional growth fund and established an enterprise zone in the Tees valley, and that is why we are doing all that we can—through the Work programme, the different aspects of the youth contract, and our work in the skills arena in providing more apprenticeships—to bring about both private sector growth and an increase in the skills of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents to help them get into work.

[Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)]

The Minister has form with respect to inner-city Manchester: he once compared Moss Side to the film “The Wire”. Will he tell me whether he takes the question of youth unemployment seriously? We know that, if left unchecked, it will have an impact on all the malaises that lead to exactly the sort of thing that we see in north American cities, and we do not want to see it once again in inner-city Britain.

[Chris Grayling]

Let me say first that the hon. Gentleman clearly never read the speech that I made, and secondly that I defend my comments in relation to the country as a whole in the wake of the terrible scenes that we saw last summer. That issue is one reason why we must focus on youth unemployment, why we are investing so much money in tackling it, and why it is at the top of the Government’s list of priorities. It is just a shame that the last Government failed to deal with the problem in good times, when it started to become an issue after 2004.

[Mr David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)]

Youth unemployment is far too high. I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s youth contract proposals, but does he agree that basic skills and qualifications are also vital to ensuring that young unemployed people obtain jobs?

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have introduced skills conditionality in Jobcentre Plus, and have also increased the flexibilities available to our skills providers to ensure that when a young person who is out of work has a skills gap, we can refer him or her to a training course immediately to ensure that that gap is filled.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the number of apprenticeships in Harlow has increased by 76% in the past year? Is that not a better way of getting rid of the problem of youth unemployment than the dependency culture loved by Opposition Members?

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend is right—and that statistic is no coincidence, because he, as the local Member of Parliament, has put a huge amount of effort into trying to ensure that more apprenticeship places are provided in Harlow. He deserves a lot of credit for that, as do all Members who are looking for extra apprenticeship opportunities, holding job fairs, setting up job clubs, and making a real difference to their constituents.

[Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con)]

12. What recent progress he has made on the implementation of universal credit.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

14. What assessment he has made of the effect of employment trends on the operation of the Work programme.

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

We published adjusted projections of attachments to the Work programme in December. Those revised projections have been communicated to providers and published in the House of Commons Library. The revised projections take account of the latest Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts, observed trends in referrals since June, and policy changes.

[George Eustice]

I am grateful for that answer. The Work programme is a crucial element in helping the long-term unemployed back into work, and I particularly welcome the emphasis on payment by results. However, as our economy emerges from its current problems, there will be some regional variations in the job market. What is the Minister doing to monitor the situation? If necessary, might he consider a regional element to the pay structure?

[Chris Grayling]

I am pleased to be able to reassure my hon. Friend on this. I was in his county of Cornwall last week to meet Work programme providers in both the private and voluntary sectors, and what I saw was very encouraging. The progress they are making is similar to that being made elsewhere in the country, and there is no obvious sign of the regional variation he describes. I wish to pay tribute to the voluntary sector organisations I met, which are very involved in the Work programme. I pay particular tribute to Groundwork, which is running one of the most innovative motivational programmes for some of the hardest to help I have yet seen in the Work programme. That is, of course, helping his constituents and will do the right thing to help them into work.

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

18. What progress has been made on the implementation of the recommendations in Professor Harrington’s review of work capability assessments.

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

We are continuing to implement the reforms recommended to us by Professor Malcolm Harrington. He argued for a number of changes in his first report, all of which have been implemented, and we are in the process of implementing the changes recommended in his second report.

[Alun Cairns]

I thank the Minister for his response. One third of employment and support allowance claimants have mental health conditions and a significant number of initial work capability assessment decisions are overturned on appeal when further evidence becomes available about their condition. What action is the Minister taking to ensure that medical evidence is taken on board at a very early stage in order to prevent a number of appeals?

[Chris Grayling]

This is one area where we have worked very hard to secure a change. A large amount of new evidence was indeed appearing only at the appeal stage and that was one of the key things that Professor Harrington suggested we address. We are now bringing in medical evidence much earlier—at the start of the process, when the decisions are taken or when a reconsideration is taking place in Jobcentre Plus. There are now few circumstances in which new evidence appears at the appeal stage, and that is really important.

[Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am sure that the Minister will be aware of the research undertaken by Citizens Advice Scotland for its report “From pillar to post”, which highlighted some issues that Professor Harrington should be considering in his further reports. Will the Minister meet me and representatives of Citizens Advice Scotland to discuss those concerns so that he can discuss them with Professor Harrington before he undertakes his third review?

[Chris Grayling]

I have many meetings with people involved in these matters. I suggest that it is better for the hon. Gentleman and Citizens Advice Scotland to meet Professor Harrington directly to raise those concerns, rather than for me to be a middleman. We listen carefully to the recommendations he makes, and I would be happy to arrange that meeting for the hon. Gentleman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

T5. My constituent Gillian Reeves is actively looking for work and is expanding her skills, knowledge and experience by volunteering for local voluntary organisations and charities in Somerset. Will the Secretary of State give some clarity to those who are keen to be out of the house and busy doing something useful but are advised by their jobcentre that they must limit their volunteering to 16 hours a week or lose their jobseeker’s allowance?

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

We now actively encourage people to volunteer. I prefer to see people out of the house and doing things. They have an obligation to keep up their job search while they do so, but I shall happily discuss this specific case because it certainly is not our intention that people’s volunteering opportunities should be limited.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

One of my constituents recently had his adoption allowance cut because his child received disability living allowance. We managed to get that overturned but can the Minister make sure that guidelines are issued so that adoption allowance is not cut when DLA, which is intended to meet essential needs, is received?

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

T7. The Work programme is proving to be much needed and effective, but may I seek reassurance from the Secretary of State that there will be downstream activity from contracts so that small businesses and local community projects can also participate in delivering outcomes?

[Chris Grayling]

That is indeed happening. We now have several hundred voluntary sector organisations providing support to the Work programme in various ways, some on a localised level in local communities. They are an important part of the team delivering the project. It is a partnership between the public, private and voluntary sectors and it is making a difference to unemployed people, despite the attempts of the Opposition to put about negative stories which are completely without foundation.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

I have a constituent with a degenerative, very painful condition who is due to lose his employment support allowance in two weeks. He feels a long way from the labour market. He also does not think he will be attractive to employers because of the degenerative nature of his illness, but to date he has had no advice or support from anyone about how he might go about getting the kind of job that he might be able to do. What advice would the Minister give my constituent?

[Chris Grayling]

We clearly have had to take a difficult decision on time-limiting, which we have debated extensively in the House. It will apply only to people who have another form of household income or who have savings in the bank. Everyone on ESA is entitled to volunteer for participation in the Work programme, so my advice to the hon. Lady’s constituent would be to discuss his situation with the jobcentre. There is specialist support available for people with health conditions and disabilities.

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

T9. What progress is being made to encourage people to get the best value for money when buying an annuity?

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

What are the Government’s plans for the future, if any, of the Department’s contract with Atos?

[Chris Grayling]

The Department’s contract with Atos runs until 2015. We have taken no decisions about how the contracting structure will work beyond that point. Consistency of provision was necessary through the incapacity benefit reassessment process, but we will not take decisions on the detailed structure of the renewal of that contract for some while to come.

[Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that rather than let the Socialist Workers party and their protest groups continue to confuse a good programme such as work experience with others, we should congratulate not only the companies that are doing so much for young people, but the young people who are taking up the scheme and have the motivation to build their CVs?

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

People diagnosed with mesothelioma—141 former railway carriage builders in York have now died—can often claim compensation from their employer. The earlier they get compensation, the less they and their dependants need in benefits, so will the Secretary of State talk to the Secretary of State for Justice about fast-tracking these cases through the courts, as is currently done in the royal courts of justice in London, and making that a nationwide approach?

[Chris Grayling]

I am happy to have that conversation. We are also working hard with the insurance industry to make sure that we match employees who have suffered from the illness with employers who may have disappeared some years ago, to ensure that we find the employers liability insurance policies that can pay those employees the compensation that they so desperately need.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

My constituent Andrew Taylor relies on the Motability scheme in order that he can work and live independently. His concern is that the personal independence payment thresholds will interfere with that. What assurance can the Minister give him, please?

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Beverley Herbert in my constituency was one of six people recently employed on a work experience basis by a major pub chain. Within four weeks, four of the others had gone, and the two people who were there for eight weeks collecting glasses were given permanent jobs, but were sacked within two weeks. Does the Secretary of State agree that for the work experience programme to enjoy widespread confidence, safeguards are needed to ensure that it does not end up exploiting people and providing free labour?

[Chris Grayling]

If Labour Members really want to answer the questions about the work experience scheme, they need to talk to some of the young people who have been through it, got jobs in their thousands and are delighted by the support they have received. That is what a responsible Government do: try to tackle a real challenge, find the right way to solve it and do so in a cost-effective way for the taxpayer. It is just a shame that the Labour party is not more vociferous in its support for what we are doing.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a great shame that the Labour party seems unable to get behind the work experience programme and condemn the protests out of hand, and will he tell the House why he thinks that might be the case?

[Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

The Welsh Assembly’s Labour Government have an initiative to help unemployed young people called Jobs Growth Wales. Do the central Government support it?

[Chris Grayling]

We support any sensible measures to tackle youth unemployment, because it is a challenge for all of us. The hon. Gentleman needs to answer this question: why is his hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) chairing a protest movement that is designed to stop young people getting the work experience opportunities that would get them into work and do the right thing for them?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) will not be answering anything now in the Chamber and is under no obligation to do so, but I know that the Prime Minister looks forward to doing so after his statement.

Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council

Lord Grayling Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 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 17 February 2012 in Brussels. The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who is responsible for Employment Relations, Consumer and Postal Affairs, represented the United Kingdom.

There were two discussions at this Council. The first was a debate on women on company boards. The Commission presented the economic case for greater diversity on company boards and stated that progress to date was poor. It outlined its intention to take stock and consider possible measures including the need for quotas. My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk intervened to stress that the UK did not favour quotas. Instead the UK preferred positive measures such as putting pressure on companies to set their own targets; requiring companies to disclose information on gender balance; and making changes to training and mentoring. He further highlighted that the significant recent increase in women on UK company boards proved that such measures work.

The second debate was on the implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy in the field of employment and social policy. It centred on a set of Council conclusions on the joint employment report priorities for action. Member states acknowledged the challenging economic and social climate and emphasised the importance of tackling youth unemployment. My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk intervened to set out details of the UK youth contract, which would provide nearly half a million work places for young people. He also emphasised the importance of removing barriers to participation in the labour market through welfare reform, generating skills through apprenticeships and reducing burden on business through smart regulation.

The Council also adopted conclusions on priorities for action in the areas of employment and social policies and the joint employment report. My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk abstained on behalf of the UK on parliamentary scrutiny grounds.

Under any other business the Commission stated that it had taken due note of the intention of nine member states including the UK to retain transitional arrangements for Bulgarian and Romanian workers. The presidency provided information on the preparation of the tripartite social summit. The Commission and presidency provided information on preparation for the G20 meeting of Labour and Employment Ministers; and on the Euro-Mediterranean employment and labour high level working group. Finally, the Employment Committee and Social Protection Committee chairs provided information on their work programmes for 2012.

My statement of 9 February 2012 ahead of the Employment and Social Affairs Council referred to a discussion about proposals related to posting of workers. That discussion was removed from the final Council agenda.

Welfare Reform Bill

Lord Grayling Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 3B, and Lords amendment 26B.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

That this House does not insist on its amendment 19A, and agrees with Lords amendments 17B to 17D and 19B.

That this House agrees with Lords amendment 73BA.

[Chris Grayling]

If I may, I shall deal first with amendments 17B to 17D and 19B, on employment and support allowance time-limiting, and amendment 73BA, on child maintenance. The Government wish to accept these amendments.

Amendments 17B to 17D and 19B do not change the Government’s existing policy on the time-limiting of contributory ESA. The limit will remain at 365 days for those in the work-related activity group and will take effect from April 2012. I believe that the limit strikes an appropriate balance between the needs of sick and disabled people and the interests of taxpayers who contribute towards the cost. It will make a significant contribution to reducing the fiscal deficit, which I remind hon. Members once again is the most pressing priority facing the coalition Government. We estimate that the one-year time limit will reduce expenditure by £1 billion a year by 2014-15.

We have listened carefully over the course of the debate, however. The amendments would allow a future Government, if they could identify an appropriate funding source, to increase the length of the time limit by order rather than further primary legislation. We have considered that and decided that it is a sensible and appropriate use of an order-making power and we are happy to accept the amendments.

Amendment 73BA clarifies some of the powers introduced by the previous Government under the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008 and gives examples of the provisions that may be made under regulations. I should stress again that it does not imply any change to our proposed policies on charging. Specifically, I highlight the fact that we maintain our commitment to a maximum application charge of £20 and to collection charges within the ranges set out in the January 2011 Green Paper.

On Report in the Lords, we committed to undertake a review of the charging policy 30 months after the implementation of the powers, to understand their effect and impact. The amendment clarifies that if changes to our approach are required following that review, we will have the ability to make them. Although our core proposals on charging remain the same, the amendment ensures that in future—particularly following our review—we will be able to change the charging regime, with specific reference to apportionment and waivers, if we deem such changes to be necessary.

I shall deal now with housing, where I am afraid we do not agree with Lords amendments 3B and 26B. As you indicated, Mr Speaker, the amendments infringe the financial privileges of this House, and if they are rejected that will be the reason given to the House of Lords.

Let me first ensure that the House is clear about the financial implications of the amendments. We know about the big financial challenges we face. Since we last debated the Bill, Moody’s has placed the UK’s triple A credit rating on negative outlook and made it clear that the Government’s strategy is necessary to retain the credibility of our nation in the international financial arena. That is not a context in which we can relax public spending. We made it perfectly clear on 1 February, when we last considered Lords amendments, that the earlier amendments, which could cost around £300 million a year, were unaffordable. The Government’s response to amendments costing £100 million, as these new amendments would, is no different.

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

When the Minister considers financial implications, does he bear in mind the fact that the Government’s own calculations indicate that 66% of disabled people will bear the burden of an average loss of £13 a week? Is it any wonder that organisations such as Mencap are appalled that it takes the House of Lords to point out to us the unfairness of such proposed legislation?

[Chris Grayling]

The right hon. Gentleman needs to remember what the amendments are about. Large numbers of people in our community are under-housed and others are in temporary accommodation. We have formed the view that it is neither good value for the taxpayer nor right for those people that we pay for those in social housing to have spare rooms. That is the purpose of our amendments.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

If the Minister is successful and people move from homes that they under-occupy and other people move in, and assuming that the same proportion of people are on housing benefit, there will be no financial saving. Which is his real argument?

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Lady simply has not thought things through properly. At the moment, we are paying expensive temporary accommodation costs, partly because the previous Government—her own party—had such a lamentable record in office in building social housing. When Opposition Members make those claims, they should remember how poorly they performed in that regard.

[Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)]

I seek clarification from the Minister. The new under-occupancy rule will only apply to working-age housing benefit claimants. To be of working age, claimants have to be under the qualifying age for pension credit, which will be 61 and a half in April 2013. Will the Minister clarify whether, on the introduction of the change to occupancy in 2013, a couple claiming housing benefit are protected from the change if one of them has reached pension credit qualifying age, or will both need to do so?

[Chris Grayling]

The approach we are taking across all our reforms is that if somebody in a household is of working age, we expect them to work. All our efforts and the support we are putting in place are designed to ensure that people work and that households benefit from an income from employment rather than otherwise.

As I said, the amendments would cost £100 million. They are not modest amendments, as suggested in the other place. In fact, Lord Best, who proposed them, believed that they might cost even more—£150 million a year. Either way, it would significantly reduce the estimated annual savings of £500 million. We simply do not have a blank cheque that will cover the costs of the amendments.

To give their lordships credit, there was at least some acknowledgement in the other place that £100 million is “serious money.” I am glad we can agree on that point; the amendments are certainly not modest. It is incumbent on us to do what we can to drive down the spiralling cost of housing benefit. Left unchecked, expenditure on housing benefit would reach £26 billion by 2014-15. The shadow Secretary of State is always complaining about the cost of housing benefit, yet he and his party have been consistently hostile to measures that bring the cost under control.

[Mr Edward Timpson (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that foster carers will not be included in the new under-occupation rules because of the specific discretionary housing payment that will be made available to local authorities to compensate foster carers to ensure that they do not end up unable to continue their great work in our community?

[Chris Grayling]

I give my hon. Friend that assurance and pay tribute to him. I know that he has a deep knowledge of the sector. It is very important, but the approach that we have sought to take is that there should not be a one-size-fits-all solution. Where we can, we should localise and give discretion. There may be circumstances in which somebody is still a foster carer and has a property that is much too large even for those needs, but we want to make sure that we provide proper protection for those who carry out such a vital role in our society. We are making substantial amounts of money available to local authorities so that they have the discretion to protect the people who are performing that important role.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

One concern that I have in my constituency is that many people live in overcrowded accommodation and have been waiting to get accommodation with the space that they need. Across the country there are 250,000 people in that position. Meanwhile there are empty-nesters rattling round in houses with spare rooms. Surely we should have an incentive for people with excess housing space to move out and enable overcrowded families to have the space that they need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before the Minister of State responds, may I remind the House that we have only an hour for Lords amendments? After the Minister, there is another Front-Bench speech. There are Back Benchers who wish to speak, so I exhort colleagues who are intervening to remember that they should do so briefly.

[Chris Grayling]

Indeed, Mr Speaker, and I shall try to be as rapid as I can for that reason.

It would be all too easy to bow to pressure to backtrack on these reforms, but we will not do that for precisely the reasons set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke). There is a real problem of people in temporary accommodation, and we also have about a million spare rooms being funded by housing benefit. We must sort out the situation and solve the problem to which he rightly refers. These reforms are designed to do that.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

I am grateful to Ministers for their engagement on this difficult but important issue. With reference to families who cannot find suitable alternative smaller accommodation but are in the categories that the Government have wisely exempted from the benefit cap, will the Minister explain to me why they should be penalised and where they will find the money to meet the extra bill—potentially £750 a year?

[Chris Grayling]

I know my right hon. Friend has expressed concerns about the policy. Let me say to him that we will carry out detailed reviews of it, as I know he wishes us to do. We will look at the impact of the policy. We have a year to work with the families involved, and we are providing substantial sums. An additional £30 million was announced as part of the debate on these measures, as well as the substantial amounts available for discretionary housing payments. It is our expectation that in most cases what we will see over the next 12 months is a change of circumstances that addresses many of his concerns, but there will be discretionary funds available to local authorities so that in his constituency and others they can deal with the kind of situation that he has described.

[Simon Hughes]

If the Bill goes through, but before regulations are laid, will the Minister work with colleagues and local government to make sure that the people affected have certainty? The problem with discretionary payments is the uncertainty, and people who cannot work have enough uncertainty already.

[Chris Grayling]

Let me give my right hon. Friend an assurance that we will work closely with him on the process of reviewing the impacts and over the coming months we will continue our dialogue with him, which has been very helpful and constructive, to make sure that we make him aware of the approach that we are taking and that we seek his input in that approach. I give him that assurance.

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

I am pleased to hear my right hon. Friend say that there will be discretionary housing payments to take into account particular circumstances. I draw his attention to the particular circumstances of islands and very remote communities where, because of the nature of the housing stock, there may be no alternative for people to move to. When funds are allocated to local authorities, will the position of islands and remote communities be taken into account?

[Chris Grayling]

We will certainly look very carefully at that. I give the hon. Gentleman that assurance, and again we will talk to him in detail about those issues.

This latest amendment looks to protect certain groups from the size criteria measure where they have one spare bedroom and no suitable offer of alternative accommodation has been made. However, I remind hon. Members that we have already committed to providing extra help—£30 million—to some of those groups, particularly foster carers and disabled people living in adapted accommodation. That money can help around 40,000 claimants. We are not ignoring the fact that some people will find it hard and have sought to put safeguards in place. Our aspiration is to protect the most vulnerable in society while also dealing with the broader challenge of under-occupation. There are a number of responses that individual households can choose to make to this measure.

[Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

The Minister has sketched out for the House a number of important concessions for groups that will be adversely affected by this policy. When does he expect guidance on how discretionary housing payments will actually work to be available for review by Members of this House?

[Chris Grayling]

Of course, many of the local decisions will be taken by local authorities, but we will provide information to the House as quickly as we can. We are aware that we have 12 months before the measure is in place and so will work quickly. Indeed, we are already working with local authorities to plan ahead and will be happy to make information available to the House in a timely way as it becomes available.

It is all too easy to criticise this measure and propose costly amendments, but I think that that serves to highlight the real challenges we face. What we propose is fair for the taxpayer and for tenants in the private sector who receive housing benefit based on the same size criteria. There is no plausible fairer or affordable alternative.

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

Will the Minister help me to put this in context? Is he aware that there are high earners living in social housing with excess bedrooms who really should make way for other people who need the space?

[Chris Grayling]

As we know, there are even people close to this place who still occupy social housing. It is our view that, where possible, social housing should be targeted at those on the lowest incomes, those who face the greatest challenges and those who are perhaps struggling in temporary accommodation. I think that those who are living in accommodation that is out of kilter with their financial circumstances might think about their personal circumstances, as was discussed when this matter was before the House previously.

The average weekly reduction will be £14. Nearly 80% of those affected are under-occupying their accommodation by just one bedroom and so are likely to see an average weekly reduction of £12. By comparison, for private sector tenants the average cost of an extra room is about £20 a week, based on local housing allowance rates. What we are doing is introducing fairness and consistency of treatment for social sector and private sector tenants alike.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

Can the Minister assure me that he and his Department are working closely with the devolved Administrations, especially the Minister for Social Development in Northern Ireland, on his proposed reforms?

[Chris Grayling]

I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. My noble Friend Lord Freud, who has direct responsibility for housing benefit matters in the Department, is also responsible for liaising with the devolved Assemblies and so is having those kinds of discussions all the time.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

In his discussions, will the Minister make it clear that the Scottish Government have pointed out that some 70,000 families will be affected by this proposal? There was a huge imbalance between the 95,000 properties that are under-occupied and the 26,000 that are over-occupied, and the cost to people in Scotland and the Scottish economy will be around £54 billion a year. That does not seem to make sense, particularly when he could not answer the point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), which is that if his policy works there will be no under-occupancy to penalise.

[Chris Grayling]

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman check his facts. The total cost of housing benefit is £26 billion a year, so this cannot cost the Scottish economy £54 billion a year.

Our Department and local authorities have a good track record of delivering housing benefit reform. I am confident that these changes will be communicated and delivered successfully in the same way the local housing allowance reforms were delivered last year. We will work hard to ensure that there is a smooth transition in order to address the challenges and protect the most vulnerable through discretionary payments.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Slaughter]

As always, the hon. Gentleman is right on this issue.

The point has been made by those on my Front Bench many times that we are talking about people’s homes. This proposal is cynical not only because it runs completely in the face of Government policy in every other area, which is to reduce affordability and the quantum of available social housing, but because it is about persecuting people in social tenancies and making them feel that their home is no longer their own. For that reason above all, I urge the House to support the Labour Front Bench in supporting the Lords amendment.

[Chris Grayling]

I will probably not be able to cover all the questions that have been raised, but I shall pick out some of the key points.

The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) made a passionate defence of the spare room, referring back to the days of Macmillan and to the principles of the welfare state. I know that he is often a champion of welfare reform, and I listen carefully to what he says, but I find it difficult to justify maintaining 1 million spare rooms in the social rented sector when large numbers of families are living in temporary accommodation and in accommodation that is too small for them. I do not believe that the spare room is a luxury that the social rented sector can afford at the expense of children living in temporary rented accommodation. Fundamentally, that is what this change is about.

[Mr Field]

But it is not about that, is it? If the Government are going to deliver to the Treasury the moneys that they say they are going to save, that will depend on people not being able to react in the way that the Minister is describing.

[Chris Grayling]

As I keep saying, that is not the case. At the moment, local authorities up and down the country are paying out large amounts of money; the right hon. Gentleman should talk to his own local authority about the challenges and costs of providing temporary accommodation. We depend so heavily on temporary accommodation partly because of the failings of the previous Government, going back 10 or 15 years, in the construction of social rented housing. I remember looking at the figures in the early part of the last decade. Had the Blair Government continued to build social housing at the same rate as the Major Government, we would have seen something like 300,000 more families in social rented accommodation. The fact is, however, that they did not. This was not a priority for them when they took office in 1997, and they cut back on construction. Today, we are living in extraordinarily difficult times, financially, and we are dealing with the consequences of the decisions that were made 15 years ago.

[Mr Field]

We are not interested in the Blair Government or the Brown Government; the electorate decided that they should come to an end. We are interested in what this Government are doing. Does the Minister not accept that if people followed his advice and moved into the private sector, far from saving the amount spent on housing benefit, such a move would actually increase it?

[Chris Grayling]

I simply do not accept that. The right hon. Gentleman is making assumptions about people’s behaviour and about the cost of temporary accommodation. We as a nation are housing in extremely expensive temporary accommodation large numbers of people who can and should be housed properly. At the same time, we are supporting 1 million empty bedrooms in the social rented sector. My colleagues and I believe that we simply cannot afford to do that at this moment in time. This is not the world of 15 years ago. We have come into government with empty coffers, as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) always reminds us. We are having to take tough decisions, some of which we might wish that we did not have to take, and we are trying to take them in as fair a way as possible.

My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) asked about foster carers. The foster carers of this nation are to be enormously admired for the work that they do, and I appreciate that this is a sensitive issue. In putting in place discretionary funding, we have focused specifically on those people. On the status of a foster child, the approach that we are taking is not to treat foster children as members of the foster carer’s household in the calculation of the appropriate amount of housing benefit. That is because we are treating them in a different way. It is consistent with the current treatment of foster children in housing benefit assessments for those living in the private rented sector, but we disregard the whole of the foster carer allowance that is given to the foster parents when assessing eligibility for all income-related benefits. That leaves the majority of households who foster substantially better off, so the payment is made through the foster care support system in order to ensure that the family has sufficient resource to make money available for support to cover the costs of those children.

The whole point of making discretionary money available is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson) said, that there are of course situations where there is a gap in a foster child’s presence in a household. When the money is not coming in, we need to use discretionary funding to ensure that the family is appropriately and properly supported. We do not want to see foster carers forced out for the very good work they do; it is really important that we provide them with support.

In the last few seconds available to me, let me say again that a spare bedroom is a valuable asset. Taxpayers’ money is already being used to provide accommodation at social sector rents, averaging £79 a week in England compared with £160 in the private rented sector. Asking the taxpayer to find a further half a billion pounds to enable—

Pension Industry

Lord Grayling Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) on securing this important debate. He made some thoughtful comments about an issue that affects a large number of not only his constituents, but those of all hon. Members. He has raised issues that are central in tackling the challenges of increasing longevity and an ageing society, and are crucial to the success of our strategy to increase pensions savings. He has raised many issues and we have taken careful note of what he has said tonight. I will try to address as many of them as I can in the time available to me, but we will also be very open to an ongoing dialogue with him about his concerns.

My hon. Friend rightly says that automatic enrolment in workplace pensions begins this year, and it represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to transform our savings culture. Millions of new savers will enter the pensions market, and that market will have to evolve to accommodate them with a new generation of pensions products that will come into being. There are already signs that competition in the industry is strong, is driving higher standards and, importantly, is keeping downward pressure on charges. That is welcome but, as he rightly says, it is essential that the Government ensure that all schemes, particularly those that target unengaged and financially unsophisticated savers, are fit for purpose. As he rightly set out, that is especially important when it comes to charges, costs and annuities.

On the costs and charges, individuals who perceive their charges to be excessively high or unfair will be less inclined to save. For those who do save, as my hon. Friend has highlighted, even relatively small differences in charge levels can have a dramatic effect on retirement income. So excessive charges cannot be allowed to become an obstacle to achieving the levels of pension saving that individuals, and we collectively as a nation, need in order to ensure security and dignity in retirement for future generations of pensioners. We as a nation invest about £33 billion a year in the pensions industry, but we really do need individuals to be putting aside money for their retirement as well.

We should acknowledge the positive impact of NEST. Evidence presented last month to the Select Committee on Work and Pensions recognised that NEST is helping to lead best practice in promoting high standards of governance, responsible investment and effective communications. My hon. Friend is right to say that low charges are important. They matter most for the many people newly enrolled into pension savings. Encouragingly, departmental research suggests that charges for default funds are already unlikely to be excessive, with the average annual management charge in default funds between 0.4% and 0.6%. That is a really important element in what is happening, but he is right to express concern about charging and its impact.

The truth is that pensions charges have been decreasing for several years. The introduction of stakeholder pensions, with their 1% charge cap, continued a trend away from the high initial costs of personal pensions in the 1980s and 1990s. Today, a 1% charge is perceived as more of a maximum than a benchmark for basic schemes, and the pensions market is responding rapidly to the challenges of automatic enrolment and the presence of NEST. New schemes, such as NOW: Pensions, with its £18 administration charge and 0.3% annual management charge, and B&CE’s proposed scheme with a basic 0.5% AMC, show that automatic enrolment and NEST are helping to continue downward pressure on charges and maintaining price competition.

We understand that automatic enrolment means that many more individuals who are not engaged with saving or who might be daunted by pensions information will be enrolled, so we need to ensure that providers are properly disciplined by the market and consumers can hold them to account.

The Pensions Act 2011 extended the Government’s powers to set a cap on pensions charges and there are certainly arguments to say that charge capping is the right approach, but it is easier said than done. Should we decide to introduce a cap, we must identify an appropriate level and consider different charging structures in a way that compares them and ensures that there is no room for non-compliance. Those are all issues of some complexity; it is not a straightforward exercise in which we simply say that there will be a one-size-fits-all cap. I can assure hon. Members, however, that the Government will not hesitate to deploy a charge cap if it proves necessary to ensure that individuals’ pensions saving are not at risk from excessive charging.

To help build public confidence in saving, we must also help people to understand how much they are paying for their pensions, by which I mean both the employer who is choosing a workplace scheme for his or her employees and the scheme members themselves. There is still a long way to go in opening up real transparency about how much a member pays and for what and about how their pension is managed. Transparency, as my hon. Friend rightly says, is of fundamental importance.

My hon. Friend raises the question of whether the contribution and transfer restrictions put in place to focus NEST on its target market should remain. That question is being looked into by the Select Committee’s current inquiry. There are arguments both ways, but I assure my hon. Friend that the Government will be considering the Select Committee’s evidence and recommendations very carefully when it reports next month.

In the time I have left, I shall touch on the question of annuities because, as my hon. Friend rightly says, they are at the heart of the debate about how we will make good provision through private schemes. For the majority of people, annuitisation is still the most effective way to provide an income in retirement, but as he points out annuity rates have been falling for several reasons. Increased longevity and people spending longer in retirement are significant issues, and there are wider policy areas, such as the state pension age and extending working lives, that mean that we cannot simply see annuitisation in isolation.

I want to focus on two critical points that my hon. Friend has raised: the importance of consumers understanding their options and their shopping around to compare offers when they come to make decisions about annuitisation. On those two points, he has the full support of both the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), who is the Minister responsible for pensions.

That is why the DWP and the Treasury have been working with consumer groups, industry representatives and other Government bodies to bolster the current right to the open market option by developing a default option. The intention is to ensure that consumers are not pushed through the transition from saver to annuitant in such a way that they end up with unsuitable products and to make certain that the consumer does not simply sign an application form without fully exploring their options.

The Association of British Insurers has recently consulted on a new draft code of conduct that sets out new requirements on all its members. As we announced in September, we believe the code is an important step in changing the dynamics in the annuitisation process. The draft proposals are a condition of ABI membership and state that consumers must be directed to the open market option and that packs issued by providers must not include an application form. They also propose a clear three-step customer journey to help consumers with the decision-making process and is a key step in addressing the asymmetry of information. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will make an announcement on the work of the open market option review group in the near future, so I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South will understand it if I do not go into more detail at this time and that he will be present in the Chamber for that statement when it comes.

These initiatives represent a wholesale improvement across the pensions landscape, but that landscape is ever fluid; we need to make sure that we take advantage of the potential opportunities presented by auto-enrolment. We should therefore consider the role Government can play in determining scale, and ask ourselves whether the high fragmentation of the UK pensions market offers good value, or whether a smaller number of larger schemes could offer lower charges and better governance, to the advantage of members.

My hon. Friend has made a series of points that I regard as a valuable contribution to the debate. We shall read his remarks carefully and think about the implications of his suggestions. I feel confident that the impact of NEST, the downward trend of charge levels across the market and the steps we and the industry are taking to increase transparency all serve to advance member engagement and improve the annuitisation process. They all point to a world where consumers can feel more informed and more secure about how much they are paying and what they receive in return.

I assure all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate that the Government will be watching closely as the pensions landscape, under automatic enrolment, continues to evolve.

Question put and agreed to.

Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council

Lord Grayling Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2012 Written Statements

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

The Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council will be held on 17 February 2012 in Brussels. The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who is the Minister with responsibility for employment relations, consumer and postal affairs, will represent the United Kingdom.

There will be three roundtable discussions at this meeting. The first will be a policy debate on women on company boards. My hon. Friend will stress that the UK is committed to seeing more women on company boards. He will further highlight the merits of industry-led measures that achieve real culture change as opposed to the setting of legally binding quotas.

The second discussion is scheduled to be an initial exchange of views on new European Commission proposals related to the posting of workers. The proposals are yet to be published. When responding to these proposals, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will make clear that in considering the proposals the UK will take account of their likely impact on growth, competitiveness and jobs.

The third discussion will be a policy debate on the implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy in the field of employment and social policy. The debate will centre on a set of Council conclusions on the joint employment report priorities for action. My hon. Friend will stress the need for deeper structural reforms to get European economies moving and people back into work. He will acknowledge that the conclusions fully reflect the mandate given to Council by heads of state and Government in December 2010 and at last month’s informal European Council for EU Employment Ministers to exchange views on the effective functioning of labour markets.

Under any other business the Commission will provide information on transitional arrangements on the free movement of workers from Bulgaria and Romania. The presidency will provide information on the preparation of the tripartite social summit. The Commission and presidency will provide information on preparation for the G20 Meeting of Labour and Employment Ministers; and on the Euro-Mediterranean employment and labour high-level working group. Finally, the Employment Committee and Social Protection Committee chairs will provide information on their work programmes for 2012.

Welfare Reform Bill

Lord Grayling Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 15.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

Lords amendment 17, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 18, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 19, and Government amendment (a) thereto.

Lords amendment 23, and Government motion to disagree.

[Chris Grayling]

Throughout the process of the Bill in both this House and the other place, we have listened carefully to the concerns that have been raised. We have taken them on board wherever possible and provided important clarifications on the Government’s position and responses to technical concerns. However, let us be clear that we stand firmly behind the aims and detail of our reforms.

As you indicated, Mr Speaker, Lords amendments 15, 17, 18 and 23 impinge on the financial privileges of this House. I ask the House to disagree to those amendments, and I will ask the Reasons Committee to ascribe financial privilege as the reason for doing so. It cannot be denied that we are in extremely difficult financial times, and that the Government have no choice but to take measures to address the situation. Tackling the unsustainable rise in spending on benefits and tax credits, as part of the Government’s overall deficit reduction strategy, is undeniably important. However, I emphasise that the affordability of the welfare system is just one objective of the reforms being introduced in the Bill.

We are making principled reforms that will finally tackle the trap of welfare dependency. Universal credit will ensure that work always pays, lifting 900,000 individuals out of poverty, including more than 350,000 children and about 550,000 working-age adults. The Bill will also deliver fairness for claimants and for the taxpayers who fund the system. We will discuss the benefit cap in the next group of Lords amendments, but it is clearly not fair, for example, that households on out-of-work benefits should receive a greater income from benefits than the average earnings of working households. Finally, our reforms will radically simplify the system, ensuring that it is easier for claimants to understand and for staff to administer. Hon. Members should be clear that those are vital principles, of which financial considerations are only one part.

I turn specifically to the provisions on employment and support allowance that are dealt with by this group of amendments. I shall set out the Government’s full rationale for rejecting the Lords amendments. First, Lords amendment 15 was simply a paving amendment that had no effect. Lords amendment 17 would increase the time limit for claimants receiving contributory ESA in the work-related activity group from the proposed 365 days to a minimum of 730 days, which would have to be prescribed in regulations.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

On contributory benefit, does the Minister accept that giving a person who has made a recovery after suffering from cancer only 365 days to get back into work is a little prescriptive? Does he accept that the Lords amendment would allow them additional time—up to two years—to get back into work? The amendment is about fairness for those people alone.

[Chris Grayling]

I will talk in more detail about cancer, which is one of the measures we are addressing. I accept that there are anxieties in respect of cancer, but the approach that we are taking to all our reforms, and particularly those relating to sickness and disability, is that we should not write off automatically any individual with a particular condition. Applying a one-size-fits-all measure to any one condition is the wrong thing to do.

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

The Minister initially said that the Government are introducing their measures because they need to save money on the welfare Bill, but he also said—I hope there is great support in the House for this—that their measures will shape behaviour. Are the national insurance measures designed to shape and change behaviour, and in what way will they do so, or are they merely just to save money? In other words, is the Minister doing what the Treasury has required him to do on national insurance?

[Chris Grayling]

The important thing about that measure is that we must have a welfare system in which people have confidence. The principle of our proposal reflects the principle used in the jobseeker’s allowance system—people should get something back for what they have contributed, but not indefinitely. The Government’s measures simply seek to extend that principle to the group on ESA.

[Mr Field]

I do not think there is any agreement on that. Is it not possible to honour national insurance contributions and attach “seeking work” requirements?

[Chris Grayling]

The principle I described is a long-standing one that has been applied to other benefits, such as jobseeker’s allowance. It is important to state that the Government are not taking benefits away from people who have no other form of income, or from people in the support group who need long-term, unconditional help. The measure simply affects those in the work-related activity group. It applies to them the same principle that exists in jobseeker’s allowance.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Does not the Government’s proposal conflict with what they are trying to do? The Minister says that benefits will not be taken away from those who have nothing, but their measure will take away benefits from, for example, a couple in which one partner is in part-time work. They could be asked to dig into what they have saved for retirement.

[Chris Grayling]

The principle of the welfare state that I described—that it is there to provide a safety net for those who have no other form of income—has operated for a very long time, including under the previous Government. The welfare state provides a degree of support to those who have another form of income, but it is a long-standing principle of the jobseeker’s allowance system that such support is not unlimited. We are simply applying that same principle to ESA for people who are deemed to have the potential, in due course, to return to work.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Is the Minister aware that many of us are grateful for what the House of Lords has done? It has acted as the conscience of Parliament. It is extremely unfortunate that the Government are today determined to reverse its decision. What is so obnoxious about the Government’s measures is that the most vulnerable are being hit, meaning not only cancer patients, but others with life-threatening diseases. It seems that the Government are totally indifferent to the group of people who will be harmed as a result of their proposals.

[Chris Grayling]

I do not doubt the hon. Gentleman’s views, but he is a member of a party whose leader and shadow Secretary of State made speeches a fortnight ago on the need to take tough decisions on welfare. I am afraid that what the hon. Gentleman says is another example of the disconnect that exists within the Opposition.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

What taxpayers in my constituency find obnoxious is people who use the welfare state as an alternative lifestyle choice rather than as a safety net, for which it was first intended. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government, through this measure and their other changes, are trying to go back to what the welfare state was initially intended for, namely a safety net rather than an alternative lifestyle choice?

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we have to have a system that is fair both to the taxpayer who pays for it and to the recipients. As a result of these reforms, we will have a system that is fairer to those receiving support and also fairer to those who are paying for that support.

Support to find work, for those people who will be affected, will be available for all ESA claimants from the outset of their claim, through Jobcentre Plus on a voluntary basis until the outcome of the work capability assessment and, following the WCA, for those claimants placed in the work-related activity group, through Jobcentre Plus or through the Work programme. Every single person who is on ESA, including those on a contributory basis, has access to the Work programme.

Some have said that the limit is arbitrary. I do not accept that. As the Minister with responsibility for welfare reform explained in the other place, it is similar to that applied by several countries around the world, including France, Ireland and Spain, and strikes an appropriate balance between the needs of sick and disabled people claiming benefit and those who have to contribute towards the cost.

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

Can the Minister clarify, for the avoidance of doubt, that someone who has been in the work-related activity group on contributory ESA for two years who subsequently gets reassessed as belonging to the support group will have their ESA reinstated even though they do not have the national insurance contributions that would allow that to happen?

[Chris Grayling]

I can indeed confirm that that is the case. We have listened very carefully on this issue, and it was a point well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott) in Committee. We have listened and we have taken appropriate action. It is important that we look at such details to ensure that we get them right, but that does not detract from the overall principle of what we are trying to achieve.

I believe that a time limit of one year is the correct approach. It applies the right balance between restricting access to contributory benefits and allowing those with longer term illnesses to adjust to their health condition and surrounding circumstances. There is also a very strong financial argument. If accepted, this amendment would reduce the total savings in the spending review period by around a third by 2016-17, which is £1.6 billion. Given the current fiscal climate, we cannot afford to forgo these savings and this is one of a number of very difficult decisions the Government have had to make because, as the shadow Secretary of State pointed out at the time, there was no money left.

Lords amendment 18 would mean that no time limit would be applied to contributory ESA for those claimants receiving treatment for cancer if they have or are treated as having limited capability for work, or they have or are treated as having limited capability for work as a consequence of a cancer diagnosis. The whole point of our approach on these matters is that we have always looked at the effects of a condition on an individual, rather than at the condition itself. We can all think of other cases which could equally be regarded as special cases. We are trying to be sensitive to the very real concerns of individuals suffering from cancer, and since we took office we have made significant changes to improve the protection and support that we provide to them.

Most individuals with cancer are placed in the support group at the outset of their treatment. We have increased the scope of the support group for cancer patients. We have been working closely with Macmillan Cancer Relief to improve how the WCA assesses individuals being treated for cancer. We are now consulting on our proposals, following work by Macmillan and Professor Harrington, our independent assessor of the work capability assessment.

We are clear that our proposals, which are now out to consultation, include a presumption that someone with cancer will be in the support group. What we simply do not accept is that in all circumstances, regardless of the impact of cancer on an individual’s ability to work or otherwise, they should be guaranteed a position in the support group. We have not taken that approach with any other condition and we do not believe that we should take it with cancer.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I know that there has been some discussion in the last few days about whether, if a doctor or nurse were able to provide confirmation that a person with cancer was not able to work, that person would be automatically passported into the support group. Is that something that the Government intend to introduce?

[Chris Grayling]

It is very much our intention—especially for those who have finished their treatment but are not yet prepared to return to work—to have a simple system that enables a medical professional to indicate to us that that person is not yet sufficiently recovered to make a return to work. Our proposals are out to consultation at the moment, but our overall clear goal is that, in the vast majority of cases, someone who is undergoing treatment for cancer or is recovering from the aftermath of that treatment should be in the support group. What we cannot accept is a principle for absolutely all cases and regardless of circumstance, and some people with cancer do work—

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

The Minister mentioned Macmillan, which is a well respected organisation. It estimates that some 7,000 cancer patients could lose up to £94 a month. Is that right?

[Chris Grayling]

The issue comes back to the core principle of why we are imposing the time limit. We are not taking benefits away from people who do not have other financial means. The people who will be affected by the 12-month time limit—not just cancer patients, but generally—are those who either have another household income or who have many thousands of pounds of savings in the bank. They are the ones affected. We are not taking contributory support away from those people in the support group. Most cancer patients, as I have just described, will be in that support group. We are not taking benefits away from them, just from those with other financial means.

[Mr Winnick]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Grayling]

No, I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.

If amendment 18 were accepted, it is estimated that it would cost around £90 million cumulatively by 2016-17 based on a two-year time limit, or around £140 million cumulatively based on a one-year time limit. That would be a significant additional cost for the taxpayer, and would fly in the face of a principle that we have tried to bring to this whole process, which is that we do not bracket any condition into one absolute position. We look at each individual case to understand the impact of the condition on the ability to work.

The third area of focus this afternoon is our proposed changes to the condition relating to entitlement to ESA on grounds of limited capability during youth. These changes are part of our principled approach to reform. We want to modernise and simplify the current welfare system, focus support, avoid duplication of provision and redefine the contract between the state and individuals, in advance of the introduction of universal credit. It cannot be right that, for example, where a claimant has qualified for contributory ESA under the youth provisions and some years later they receive a substantial inheritance, they should be able to continue to receive unlimited contributory ESA without the need to have paid any contributions and without any condition from the state.

These proposals will not affect those in receipt of income-related ESA. We expect that around 90% of those who presently receive ESA on youth grounds will be eligible for income-related ESA. It will be a simple transition from their point of view. Only some 10% will not qualify because they have other means available to them—and I emphasise that that means a partner in full-time work or capital of more than £16,000. We are merely targeting the support the Government can provide to where it is needed most. I do not think it is right that someone with independent income or capital should be able to access state support on a long-term, ongoing and unconditional basis.

[Dame Anne Begg]

Can the Minister clarify absolutely that a 20-year-old who will never work and who lives at home with their parents will be able to get income-related ESA? Obviously it cannot be contributory as they have made no national insurance contributions. Even if they live in a household above income support levels, will they continue to get income-related ESA in their own right?

[Chris Grayling]

I cannot give an undertaking in all circumstances, because every circumstance will be different. But 90% of those who presently receive ESA on youth grounds will be eligible for income-related ESA. It will depend on the circumstances of each individual case.

We have already mentioned the fact that the Government amendments allow claimants to re-qualify for a further award of contributory ESA after their ESA has ceased as a result of time limiting, and they are later placed in the support group because of a deterioration in their health. That applies equally to ESA youth claimants.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms]

Will the Minister confirm that the case in question relates to a disabled young woman who is living with her British parents—in Spain, I think—but who was born and brought up in the UK?

[Chris Grayling]

It relates to someone who has not lived in the UK for most of the past 15 years, although she is a British national and has a link to the UK. The implication of the court case is that somebody who has a link to the UK but who has had no recent contact with it is none the less entitled to receive benefits. That is where we disagree with the European Court and why we think that its decision was wrong.

We think that the best way to close this door is to abolish the ESA youth provision, but it is not the only reason we are abolishing the youth provision. It is by no means the sole rationale for doing so, but as a matter of principle it is our view that we should make every effort to ensure that our benefits are paid only to those whom we think should be paid UK benefits—those who have recent connections to, or have lived in, the United Kingdom.

[Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

I want to try to follow the Minister’s logic a step further. Is he going on to propose that British citizens who have retired abroad—for example, to Spain—will not be able to receive their pensions in the years to come? Is that the logical extension of his argument?

[Chris Grayling]

Of course it is not. We are saying that somebody should not be able to claim a benefit for the first time having not lived in the United Kingdom for many years. That is the argument that we put to the European Court, and it is a principle that we stand by. I emphasise that that is one of the reasons, but by no means the only reason, why we are taking this measure.

[Mr Frank Field]

Has the Minister talked to the Secretary of State about this? Would a more logical position not be that we get exemptions from the European Court ruling, and not distort our social security system to fit the European Court’s decisions?

[Chris Grayling]

I would love to secure a more pragmatic and sensible approach to the regulation of social security in Europe. I have been working on it for the past 18 months with my counterparts in other member states, and I hope that we will make progress as soon as possible. Right now, however, we must obey European case law as delivered to us by the European Court—much as it sometimes might be frustrating to do so.

I have a couple of technical points to make before I finish. As a result of providing for the new category of entitlement, in respect of claimants whose health has deteriorated to such a degree that they are placed in the support group—I referred to this earlier in response to the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg)—it has been necessary to remove the substance of the ESA youth time-limiting measure from the original clause 52 and to insert it in clause 51 via a new subsection in section 1 of the Welfare Reform Act 2007. The Opposition amended that new subsection by changing the period of the time limit from 365 days to a period to be prescribed of at least 730 days. That is Lords amendment 19. As a result, the House will need to agree to amendment 19 but with an amendment consequential upon the rejection of the other amendments providing for entitlement to ESA to be for 730 days rather than 365 days. This will restore the Government’s intention.

A similar complexity surrounds amendment 22, which was voted for in the other place and which ensures that no new claims can be made under the youth provisions in the future—in effect, from whenever that provision is commenced by order. This amendment would amend clause 52 by removing the substance of ESA youth time limiting, which is now included in clause 51, but would retain the key provision in clause 52 preventing new ESA youth claims from being made.

I am afraid that this position is further complicated by the fact that also in the other place amendment 23 was not pushed to a vote and therefore also stands part of the Bill. Amendment 23 effectively allows claims to be made to contributory ESA under the youth provisions for those that are placed in the support group. We therefore now have two conflicting clauses for conditions relating to youth. Finally, if amendment 23 were to be accepted, it would reduce the expected cumulative benefit savings by around £17 million by 2016-17—savings that would need to be found elsewhere in the benefits system.

In the light of these arguments—the urgent need to address the fiscal deficit we have inherited and the need to deliver principled reform to our welfare state—I hope that hon. Members will feel able to support the Government.

[Stephen Timms]

The Government are determined to insert some terrible things in the Bill, and none of them is worse than the indefensible one-year time limit on contributory employment and support allowance for people in the work-related activity group. Amendment 17 removes that one-year limit. The Government are trying to put it back. Now, with the blanket appeal that we have heard for financial privilege, they are trying to prevent the other place from daring to disagree with them once again.

The measure is literally indefensible: the Government have been unable to defend it. The Minister made no effort to defend it in his speech, other than to point out that it would save a great deal of money. He referred to what happens in other European countries, but there, of course, the support that people fall back on is much more generous than here. There is no defence for the one-year time limit, and the House needs to be aware that this change will start to impact in two months’ time, at the beginning of April. According to the Government, 100,000 people will lose contributory benefits at the beginning of April this year, having already been in receipt of contributory ESA for more than one year, and another 100,000 will lose it as they reach the one-year stage of their claim over the following 12 months.

Some people argue that ESA should not be limited at all—for example, the Liberal Democrats. At their party conference, they opposed any arbitrary time limit on how long claimants can claim contributory ESA, and the Liberal Democrat peer Baroness Thomas of Winchester told Members of the other place that what troubled the conference last year was

“the arbitrary nature of the one-year cut-off.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 January 2012; Vol. 734, c. 158.]

Liberal Democrat party policy is clear on this, but we understand that today its elected representatives will take no notice of it.

The Lords amendments that the Government want to overturn are much more modest. They argue that the time limit should be not less than two years and, crucially, that the limit should be set down in regulations rather than in primary legislation. If the Government get their way, absurdly it would require a new Act of Parliament to change the limit. Throughout debates on the Bill—many Members have been present in Committee and other stages of the Bill—the Minister has told us that the purpose of the Bill is to provide the structure and that the details would be in regulations. On this measure, however, with no explanation, the opposite approach has been applied. These debates provide a clear indication of whether Ministers mean what they say when they tell us these things, or whether they are simply reading the script put in front of them.

We do not quarrel with time limiting. As the Minister said, contributory jobseeker’s allowance has been time-limited to six months for many years. The rationale has always been that within six months more than 90% of jobseekers are back in work. If it is to be fair, however, a time limit for ESA must also give people a reasonable chance to get back into work. A year is not enough. The Government’s own figures suggest that 94% of those who qualify for ESA are still on it a year later, so fewer than 6% are managing to get into a job within a year.

[Chris Grayling]

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how he has factored into his considerations the typical six-month period that somebody in that position would have spent on statutory sick pay before they started on contributory ESA?

[Stephen Timms]

The question is: how long do people need to be on ESA before they get back into work? According to the Minister’s figures, only 6% are off the benefit within a year, whereas 90% are off contributory jobseeker’s allowance within the period that is being allowed for that benefit.

[Chris Grayling]

I would be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman answered my question. I asked him to what extent he had factored in the additional six months that most people would have had on statutory sick pay before starting 12 months on contributory ESA.

[Stephen Timms]

I answered the Minister’s question. What his figures show is that only 6% of those who go on to ESA—no doubt many of them will have been on statutory sick pay before that—are in a position to come off the benefit within one year. That is not a reasonable chance to get back to work, as I think the Minister will recognise if he reflects on the matter.

As the Minister said, Lords amendment 18 specifically addresses cancer. I do not think that anyone in this House will be surprised to learn that, for many cancer patients, 12 months is not long enough to become well enough to get back into work. At 12 months, many people are still experiencing debilitating physical and psychological effects from the cancer and from its treatment. People cannot go back to work in those circumstances, and that is why Macmillan Cancer Relief, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) referred to, says that

“proposals that ESA claimants who are expected to carry out work-focused activities will only receive the benefit for one year, without being means-tested, will hit cancer patients particularly hard”.

Macmillan also says:

“Three quarters…of people with cancer placed in the ESA Work-Related Activity Group are still claiming ESA 12 months later.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am afraid that the message that this measure is sending to people in that situation is, “You’ve wasted your time.” Indeed, that is the case not only if they have a partner with an income, but if they have any savings. If they have more than £16,000 saved, there will be no means-tested support at all.

Members need to be clear about what the Government will be doing if they get their way. Under this measure, people who are in the middle of a health crisis will be plunged into a financial catastrophe. People who have worked and paid into the system all their lives—people who have, as my right hon. Friend says, done the right thing—will find that the system is not there to help them when they need it.

[Chris Grayling]

The shadow Minister has just talked about the position of somebody who has a spouse who is earning £7,500 a year. Will he confirm to the House that as a result of a diminution of household income, they would also be entitled to working tax credit, housing benefit, council tax benefit and possibly to child tax credit, and that therefore the amount of support that they will receive is substantially more than he is suggesting?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The young person will be robbed of their independence.

[Chris Grayling]

If someone is living independently, they will be entitled to income-based ESA.

[Stephen Timms]

The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) was talking about young people who are living with their parents, who might have a little bit of income or savings. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South was seeking an assurance on that point, and if the Minister were able to give her that assurance, it would be most welcome.

[Chris Grayling]

Once someone becomes an adult, they count as living independently.

[Stephen Timms]

Can the Minister tell us at what age a person becomes an adult?

[Chris Grayling]

When their child benefit stops.

[Mr Frank Field]

It is at 19.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms]

To be fair to the Ministers, I think that there is some confusion on the Front Bench over the position on this. The Minister was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South, who chairs the Select Committee, to give the House a straightforward assurance. He failed to do so—

[Chris Grayling]

rose—

[Stephen Timms]

Perhaps he is going to have another go.

[Chris Grayling]

Let us be absolutely clear: when someone leaves child benefit—which can be at the age of 18 or 19, depending on their circumstances—they are deemed to be an independent adult. The only issue around the savings rule comes in if they actually hold and own the money themselves. So, if someone gets a £1 million inheritance, they will not carry on getting benefits. Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not disagree with that principle.

[Stephen Timms]

The Minister talks about people getting £1 million, but people who have £16,000 will get absolutely nothing. That is the system that he is putting in place, and I am not surprised that he is ashamed of it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

I am pleased to welcome the vast bulk of what the Government are doing. It is a pleasure to hear that people are not being defined by their condition and are not being forced to have decisions taken about them on the basis of a label or a particular condition. That is why, as I say, I strongly welcome much of what the Government are doing.

I would, however, like to reflect briefly on amendment 23, which relates to the youth passport. It is not that I particularly disagree with what the Government are doing, but I wish to focus on a few questions, which I hope the Minister will answer, about how we intend to ensure that these young people are given, as it says in the impact assessment, the “equal footing” that the Government rightly want them to have.

My primary concern is that these young people have not been able to acquire national insurance contributions because they are severely disabled. I would welcome some clarity about the expectation that they will accrue these contributions and be protected in the welfare system at the point at which they become an adult. Despite reading the impact assessment and all the debates in the House of Lords and listening carefully to what has been said today, I am still not entirely clear how that will be achieved.

[Chris Grayling]

Before my hon. Friend moves on and in case I do not have a chance to respond at the end of the debate, I would like to draw his and the House’s attention to the fact that people who leave contributory ESA will still be able to accrue national insurance credits in the same way as happens today for those who are not on contributory JSA. Ultimately, they will still have the same pension entitlement they would have done had they been in work.

[Paul Maynard]

I thank the Minister for that helpful clarification.

Secondly, I want to reflect on the comments pre-empted by what was said by the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) and perhaps go beyond the implementation of this system to look at the wider impact on the ability of individuals to form independent relationships.

As the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) has recognised, we are talking largely about the impact on human behaviour. I am concerned—it is possibly a mistaken fear—that if people were to enter into a relationship and cease to be an independent household, they might become dependent on their partner’s income. That could be a deterrent to forming a meaningful relationship. I may be a simple Member of Parliament who fails to understand this complex issue, but the all-party parliamentary group for young disabled people, which I chair, has asked me expressly to raise this issue, which is at the heart of its concerns about this amendment. I would welcome some clarification of how the Government think people will behave in real life as opposed to in the benefit system.

I shall not detain the House any longer. The Government have my full support on these amendments, but I would like more clarity about how they view their implementation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jenny Willott]

I understand the hon. Lady’s concern, and the issue has been raised over a number of years by those on both sides of the House.

[Chris Grayling]

It is important that we put it on record for the House once again that, possibly with a tiny number of exceptions, no appeals have yet been completed following the introduction of the Harrington reforms. Every appeal that has been discussed up to now took place under the system that we inherited, rather than since we changed the system last summer.

[Jenny Willott]

I am grateful to the Minister, and I hope that when the figures flow through on appeals that have taken place under the new system, we see a reduction in the number of decisions overturned, and in the number of people who go to appeal. That would suggest that the assessment was working properly.

If we make sure that the assessment works properly, it will reduce the arbitrariness of the timetable, but as the Minister mentioned in an intervention on the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for East Ham, it is important that we recognise that many people will receive six months’ statutory sick pay before they go on to the ESA, so they will be receiving benefits for 18 months. It is important that the Government continue the work that is being done to look at ensuring that employers work with staff when they become disabled or fall sick, and do not immediately push them on to ESA. Instead, employees should get the support that they need, possibly to stay in work over an extended period, and get their full entitlement to statutory sick pay and ESA, so that they get the full 18 months’ support to which many of them will be entitled.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

If I understand correctly, the hon. Gentleman has just described the very sad case of someone who will not be able to work again and would therefore certainly be placed in the support group and would not be affected by the measures. I am not sure that I understand the point being made.

[Mr Winnick]

He may well work again, but not at this moment. He writes that when the Welfare Reform Bill becomes law in April he, and others, such as cancer sufferers, people with psychiatric problems and those with other life-threatening illnesses will have their benefits “stripped” from them once 12 months is up. If his partner earns the sum I have mentioned of as little as £149 a week and if they have modest savings, he will receive nothing at all once he is means-tested. If that case is an illustration of the Government’s intentions, there is all the more reason for a reluctance to support the measures and a recognition of what the House of Lords has tried to do.

As I listened to the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott) and to the Liberal Democrat Minister of State, who intervened on my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), I asked myself whether, if they were in opposition, they would have the slightest hesitation in upholding the decision of the Lords by majority vote. The answer is pretty obvious. To their credit, a number of Liberal Democrats in the Lords decided to vote against the Government, and Liberal Democrat MPs would, in opposition, have voted in the same Lobby as us at half-past 2. It is unfortunate that they are willing to sacrifice their principles so flagrantly as a result of being in the coalition.

Let me end on a quote:

“People who are sick, who are vulnerable…I want you to know we will always look after you. That’s the sign of a civilized society and it’s what I believe.”

That was the Prime Minister at his party conference. What he is now doing with his colleagues and with the support of the Liberal Democrats is hitting out at the most vulnerable people in our society—cancer patients and the rest, including the man I mentioned. Those are the people who will be penalised financially and harmed in so many ways as a result of what the Government are doing. That is a direct contradiction of what the Prime Minister said about protecting the most vulnerable in our society.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery]

That is certainly the intention of the Government’s proposal, and it is absolutely outrageous.

To conclude, bearing in mind the time, I want to say that it is about time that we gave some dignity to the people we have mentioned—

[Chris Grayling]

It is important that the House understands the facts. Somebody who is diagnosed with cancer who goes through chemotherapy will spend an extended period in the support group, so they will not lose benefits after 12 months. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, today, there are more cancer patients receiving unconditional ongoing support in the support group than under the previous Government?

[Ian Lavery]

What I will not accept is that everyone suffering from cancer will be in the work group. That is not the case. They might be in for a short time or a prolonged period, but they are not guaranteed to be in there all the time. That means their benefits will be cut.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I have received a report from the Tellers in the Division at 10.14 pm yesterday on the Question that new clause 11 be added to the Local Government Finance Bill. The hon. Members for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) and for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) have informed me that the number of No votes was erroneously reported as 309 instead of 299. I will direct the Clerk to correct the numbers in the Journal accordingly. The Ayes were 225 and the Noes were 299, so the verdict is not altered.

Clause 93

Benefit cap

[Chris Grayling]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 47.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to consider new clause 1 and amendments (a) to (j) in lieu of Lords amendment 47.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

As Mr Speaker has indicated, Lords amendment 47 impinges on the financial privilege of this House. I ask the House to disagree to it, and I will ask the Reasons Committee to ascribe financial privilege as the reason for doing so. Notwithstanding that, the House has an opportunity to debate the substance of the Lords amendment and I intend to provide the Government’s full rationale for rejecting it. I will also deal with the matters raised in the amendments tabled by the Opposition and explain why they should be rejected as well.

I should like to start by stressing that this debate is not simply about the financial aspects of what we are doing. The fact is that the arguments in favour of a cap are about fairness and about ending a situation in which, for some people, benefit rates are so high that it is not worth working. It is worth my saying that on this issue, the public of this country are overwhelmingly behind us.

[Philip Davies]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on disagreeing with the Lords on this point. He is absolutely right that the public are right behind us, but does he agree with many of my constituents who think that the cap is still being set too high? They find it incredible that anybody could possibly think that it was too low.

[Chris Grayling]

Indeed, and what my hon. Friend says makes all the more extraordinary the flip-flopping position that we have seen from the Opposition in the past few weeks.

A recent YouGov poll showed 76% support for the cap, confirming what all of us will know from our mailbags—that the vast majority of the general public agree with the Government. It is not just the general public as a whole who agree with us, it is Labour voters as well. More than two thirds of them support the principle of a benefit cap. They agree with us that it is wrong to pay people who do not work more in benefits than people earn on average when they do work.

The cap will set a firm upper limit on total benefit entitlement, which for families and lone parents will be equivalent to the average wage for working households. We estimate that to be about £500 a week or £26,000 a year, which is equivalent to gross earnings of £35,000 a year.

[Dame Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

I would support entirely what the Minister says but for the fact that in my constituency, rents are so high and housing shortages so great that people do not have a choice. They are obliged to rent properties that entitle them to higher housing benefit, which costs more than the cap. That is the fault of landlords for the rents that they charge, not of the poor people who have no choice and will become homeless under the cap provision.

[Chris Grayling]

The right hon. Lady uses the evocative word “homeless”, but what happens to people in her constituency who are bringing up a family and earning a salary of £35,000 a year? Should they pay for those who are not working to have a home at the taxpayer’s expense?

[Dame Joan Ruddock]

As the Minister will know perfectly well, families in work are entitled to housing benefit, and approximately half of housing benefit recipients in my constituency are working families.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

Of course people on lower incomes can receive housing benefit, but I am not aware that it is paid to families earning £35,000 a year. Surely that is the point. We are setting a dividing line.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I am sure that my right hon. Friend has seen that, in recent years, a large number of new jobs in this country have gone to people who have recently arrived. They have not seemed to be attractive to people who have been settled here longer and are unemployed. Does he think that is because it is not worth their while, as benefits are too high relative to pay?

[Chris Grayling]

That is exactly the problem. Many people are taking a hard look at the financial situation and asking, “Why would I return to work?” Surely that has to end.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

Although most of us agree that there should be a cap, does the Minister not accept that the situation is different for people living in different parts of the United Kingdom? Costs are different, so common sense says that the cap should be different.

[Chris Grayling]

I was going to come on to the Opposition amendments, but I should make the point that, although this debate is not simply about money, there is no getting away from the fact that their amendments would be costly. They would cut the savings that will be generated by £120 million in 2013-14 and £130 million in subsequent years.

I have great respect for the hon. Lady, and she makes an important point, but it would be altogether more credible if it had not been made at the very last minute. I do not ascribe the blame to her personally, but what we have heard from the Labour party has been quite extraordinary. Its latest effort, in today’s amendments, is to propose a regional benefit cap set by an independent body. The Opposition have tabled that idea and want to discuss it. However, did they table it on Second Reading? No. We had an extensive debate in Committee, which included many of the right hon. and hon. Members who are currently in their places, and I have no recollection of any mention of a regional benefit cap. We then had Report, and again I have no recollection of its being mentioned. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State led on Third Reading. I have asked him, and he cannot remember mention of a regional benefit cap. There were then the debates in the House of Lords, in which there was no mention of it. I believe that the first time we heard about it was on the “Today” programme about 10 days ago. Frankly, it is a proposal designed to get the Opposition off the hook.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

Can I assume that if the Government accepted the Opposition’s proposal, the £26,000 cap would apply to London and the south-east and my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) might get the smaller cap that he wants in his constituency?

[Chris Grayling]

That may well be the case, but of course it is not clear. We do not quite know what is in the mind of the Labour party. Is it suggesting—this is not in its amendments—that the cap should still be set at £26,000, in which case there is no reason why Labour Members should not back our measures? Or do they plan a higher cap in some parts of the country and a lower cap in others, accepting that our benefit system should be regionally based? Frankly, I am completely confused, and the House has every reason to be the same.

[Philip Davies]

I, too, have a great deal of respect for the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), but does my right hon. Friend agree that the logical conclusion of a regional cap is regional benefits? She cannot call for a regional cap unless she is also prepared to argue for regional benefits.

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but that is not a conversation that the shadow Secretary of State will wish to have with his close friends in the trade union movement, who would not approve at all of the idea of beginning to regionalise how the public sector operates.

[Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

The Minister expressed surprise at the concept of variable caps and benefits. Is he not aware that that concept has applied since the time of Beveridge, in the form of local reference rents, which have existed up to now? Why does he not recognise that regional or area variations in the cap are appropriate, because rents vary enormously from area to area?

[Chris Grayling]

We need to be clear about what has happened. We have been through months of debate. The Labour party has got itself on to an almighty hook on the issue of the benefit cap—it is on the wrong side of the argument—and is desperately trying to wriggle free. The Government are having none of it. We are standing by our proposal. The benefit cap that we propose is the right thing and we will press ahead.

[Harriett Baldwin]

My right hon. Friend is right that in the 26 sittings of the Welfare Reform Bill Committee, which I had the pleasure of attending, we did not hear once about the regional benefit cap. Fifty-seven per cent. of those affected live in London. Does the timing of the Opposition proposal have anything to do with the London mayoral elections?

[Chris Grayling]

There might be an element of that—it is difficult to escape that conclusion. The Opposition proposal would have more credence had it not been made at the 59th minute of the 11th hour. We should not take them seriously when they make such ill-thought out, last-minute proposals.

The Government are clear that average earnings are the right way to determine the level of the cap. We do not need the Opposition’s proposed independent body—another quango, I hasten to say—to tell us otherwise. The cap needs to be a single, national one for the policy to make sense. The Government will lay before the House a report on the policy’s impact evaluation after a year of operation.

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

rose—

[Chris Grayling]

I will give way one more time as the hon. Lady was on the Committee.

[Ms Buck]

The Minister knows that the Committee extensively discussed the impact of housing costs and their interaction with the cap. If a household loses income through the benefits system through no fault of its own, can it claim legitimately to a local authority to be statutorily homeless, in line with existing homelessness legislation?

[Chris Grayling]

I am sorry, but I simply do not buy the homelessness argument that Labour Members keep making. We are talking about a cap equivalent to a salary of £35,000 a year. Labour Members were vociferous 12 months ago when the housing benefit cap was introduced, but we have not seen the consequences of which they warned in the terms they used. I simply do not accept that somebody receiving the equivalent of £35,000 a year should be categorised as homeless and unable to find anywhere to live.

Much was said in the other place on the importance of child benefit. Let me make it clear that the introduction of a benefit cap will not result in a single household losing its entitlement to child benefit, which will continue—rightly—to be paid to the current recipient. That important principle will not change.

We are, however, changing another important principle: households on out-of-work benefits should not in future expect to receive unlimited financial support from the state. Like other welfare benefits, child benefit is funded by taxpayers. We therefore believe that it is right for its value to be taken into account along with other state benefits when applying the cap.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I agree with where the Minister is coming from, but he should not doubt the sincerity of many London Members, particularly those of us who represent inner-London seats. We have deep concerns that some of our local residents will have to move. They will not be made homeless—I agree with him that we should not exaggerate—but they will have to move to other parts of London or the UK.

However, all London Members have constituents who might be forced to move out of central London if they have a second or a third child because of the requirement for more space. Does my right hon. Friend think it perverse that the one category of people who are exempt from that is those on housing benefit?

[Chris Grayling]

That is important. I said at the beginning of the debate that our amendments are not simply about money, but about points of principle. What we are trying to achieve with our reforms is to replicate in our benefits system the realities of the world of work so that people can move quickly from one to the other—we need to do that as closely as we can. Fundamentally, that is what the our proposals are about.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Chris Grayling]

I shall make some progress because we do not have that much time and other hon. Members will want to contribute.

The Government have said that there will and should be some exemptions from the cap, but we believe that work should be the primary way in which households can avoid it. We will therefore exempt households that are entitled to working tax credit. There will be a similar exemption after 2013 for working households on universal credit. Excluding child benefit will only dilute our aim. Being in work—even part-time work—must always pay better than relying on benefits alone.

We have always acknowledged that there will and should be exemptions from the cap among benefit recipients. Those will be households where someone is in receipt of disability living allowance. We will also exempt war widows and widowers. I can announce today that we intend to exempt the small number of households where someone is in receipt of the support component of employment and support allowance but not in receipt of DLA.

We have been clear that we are looking at ways in which to ease the transition for families and to provide assistance in hard cases. That is no different from what we did when we introduced the housing benefit cap a year ago. We used the time before the measure came in to work with those affected; we had flexibilities around the start; and we ensured discretionary funding for local authorities to support hard cases. It is our intention to take the same approach with the Bill.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

I support the principle of the cap and appreciate the Government’s efforts to understand the difficulties of those hon. Members who represent high-cost housing areas. The house price in my constituency is roughly double the national average.

Can the Minister confirm what our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told me in the House on 9 November 2010—that it is “the Government’s policy that” people should not be forced to move

“to a far-off community with which they have no links, and that the intention will always be that”,

if they have to move,

“they should ideally stay in the community or council area where they come from and where they have lived”?—[Official Report, 9 November 2010; Vol. 518, c. 166.]

The Secretary of State gave me that assurance. Will the Minister repeat it?

[Chris Grayling]

My understanding is that those were not the words used by the Secretary of State, but I want to reassure my right hon. Friend.

Let me set out in a little more detail how the transitional measures will work. First, those who are affected by the cap will receive and have access to immediate support from Jobcentre Plus and the Work programme, starting from April this year. We know who the families are. We need them to understand how the cap will work and how it will apply to them, because people in receipt of working tax credit will be exempt from the cap. So we have a 12-month period to work intensively with the families concerned to explain what steps they need to take, to provide support through the Work programme and to look for employment opportunities for them, which will address the issue and move them back into work.

We also always expected that we would provide a grace period—a degree of transition—for people who simply lose their jobs and find that their circumstances have changed dramatically through no fault of their own. We will not penalise those who are in work and doing the right thing. We will put in place a nine-month grace period for those who have been in work for the previous 12 months and lose their job through no fault of their own. We have always intended to make this measure, and I am happy to make that clear to the House today.

In addition, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have made it clear that we will provide transitional support to help manage families into more appropriate accommodation—as we did when we introduced the housing benefit cap. So we will follow the same model of additional money for discretionary housing payments that we adopted for the introduction of the housing benefit cap last year. We will ensure that resources are available in the right areas, such as London, where a larger proportion will be affected. We will provide short-term, temporary relief to families who may face a variety of challenges, such as not being able to move immediately for reasons of education or child protection, supporting minimum levels of access to the housing market.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I have said, we have to seek to replicate the realities of working life as closely as possible in the benefits system. If we are paying for people to live in a part of town that they could not afford to live in if they were in work, we are trapping them in a way that will prevent them from getting back to work.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

More than 1,000 households in my borough will be affected, as in that of the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field). Does the Minister realise the implications of what he is saying? It is easy to score political points, but more than 1,000 children will be taken out of their communities and sent not necessarily to other parts of London but to other parts of the country. That is happening now, and the Minister is complacent about it. Is he prepared to see the dislocation of whole communities in order to make a political point?

[Chris Grayling]

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is simply out of touch with the reality of what is happening in our country. He talks about the impact of the cap on children. But children are already having their life chances and opportunities damaged by growing up in households and communities in which no one is working. That is what we are seeking to change. The former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, said last week:

“If we cannot make the rewards of hard work more appealing than a life spent on the dole then we will have failed a generation of children.”

That is the reality that we face today and it is why we seek to change the way in which our welfare state operates. The Government clearly have the support of the British people on the cap. If we do not reject the Lords amendment, the public will not understand why. This is a reform that is long overdue and the Government are determined to deliver it.

[Mr Byrne]

I rise to speak in favour of the amendment in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I shall state at the outset that we wish to seek a Division on that amendment, and I am disappointed that the Government have tried to invoke financial privilege to defend against a vote on our amendment in the House of Lords, where they know very well that they will once again be defeated. I am, however, grateful that the Minister has incorporated half of our amendment, by ensuring that there will be a grace period of nine months, but I want to set out the dangerous flaws that have now been exposed in the “one cap fits all” approach and also set out what I think would be a better approach.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Byrne]

My hon. Friend did an extraordinary job of deconstructing the Bill as it went through Committee, and she is an acknowledged expert on this subject. Her point is absolutely right. The Minister was not able to confirm that somebody on £35,000 could receive, for example, housing benefit. I am reliably informed that that is, in fact, the case. Because the Government have not thought this measure through, we are now confronted with the extraordinary spectacle of a cap that appears to cost more than it saves. As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who is not in his place now, in some parts of the country that will not send the signal that people are better off in work than on benefits. Only the Government could have introduced a proposal that is, frankly, that much of a dog’s breakfast.

Let us take the cost side first. In this debate, we are in the happy position of not simply having to rely on costing an assertion made by Opposition Members. We are very grateful that we have got the analysis that was presented by our good friend, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. In a blunt warning—not to just anybody, but to the Prime Minister’s Office—the principal private secretary in the Department for Communities and Local Government said:

“we think it is likely that the policy as it stands will generate a net cost”,

and that was before the Government burnt all the money that they have sent up in smoke just this afternoon.

A cursory glance at some of the scenarios that we will see in, for example, the constituency of the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) confirms exactly what is going on.

[Chris Grayling]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Byrne]

In a moment.

We are grateful to the Children’s Society for telling us that about half the families who will be affected by the current “one cap fits all” proposal will be families with five children, and on the basis of the first impact assessment—I think—the Children’s Society calculated that about 21,000 families would be affected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Byrne]

The hon. Gentleman is making the point that we tried to make in our amendment—namely, that a “one cap fits all” proposal does not look as though it is going to work. We have heard the Minister’s reassurances this afternoon that certain families will be referred into the Work programme, but I am afraid that the Work programme is failing. The off-flow rate—the rate at which people flow off benefits and into work—in the last quarter of last year was the lowest since 1998. People are not getting back into work, because the Government’s back-to-work programmes are failing. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what he is going to do about that problem.

[Chris Grayling]

I have two questions for the right hon. Gentleman, to which I would appreciate simple answers. First, as there are not yet any statistics to demonstrate how the Work programme is working, how can he make assertions about it? He does not know, one way or the other. Secondly, as he is skating round this issue in a big way this afternoon, will he tell us whether he supports the principle of a £26,000 a year benefit cap in London? Yes or no?

[Mr Byrne]

As I have rehearsed this afternoon, we simply think that a “one cap fits all” approach is not going to work. The Minister has had to put his hand in his pocket and spend a fortune to fix the problem. He tells us that the Work programme is working well, but the rate at which people are flowing off benefits and into work speaks for itself. It is at its lowest point since 1998. That tells us, I am afraid, that the back-to-work programmes are simply not going to work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jenny Willott]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. I give way to the Minister.

[Chris Grayling]

I referred to this earlier, but I would like to put it on the record that we certainly intend to carry out a review, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) said. We would automatically do so with a major policy innovation of this kind. We will carry that out in a transparent way. I also confirm that we are carrying out the other work that he talked about. I want that to be on the record for him.

[Jenny Willott]

I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying those points.

Finally, the Harrington process that has been put in place to review the work capability assessment has been an extremely effective way of getting outsiders to take an independent look at how Government policy is working. It has made significant improvements. I hope that we can learn from that process for the review of this policy to ensure that we are doing what is in the best interests of those who are affected by the cap and of taxpayers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green]

I need only a couple of minutes to ask three questions, particularly in relation to the Lords amendment on leaving child benefit out of the cap.

As has been pointed out many times, families earning £35,000 or £40,000 and families on benefits both receive child benefit—it is a universal benefit. First, then, how can it be right to have the same cap for a single, childless adult as for a family with children? Secondly, why are this Government, of all Governments, importing a new couples penalty into the benefits system? It might make more sense for a couple, each of whom might separately be below the cap, to separate than to stay together and incur it. I have never understood why this Secretary of State, of all Secretaries of State, wants to introduce such a policy.

Thirdly, how will the cap be uprated—if, indeed, it is to be uprated? What will happen if a family is forced to move to cheaper accommodation because its costs exceed the cap, and then rents rise in the new area and it is forced to move again and again and again? Until we know how the cap is to be uprated, children’s well-being and family stability will be put at risk, but I have yet to hear Ministers address that issue.

[Chris Grayling]

In the past hour and 45 minutes, we have listened to a debate that sums up the difference between the Labour party and the parties in government. With the leave of the House, I will respond briefly to the remarks that we have heard.

It is my view—and, I believe, the view of the public listening to this debate—that we have to change the nature of our welfare state. We have to move away from the world that existed under the previous Government, where children grew up, generation after generation, in houses where no one worked, and where entire communities had people with no experience of work in their family and who knew nothing about how to improve their lot in life. In the Bill, we have introduced a package of measures that will do nothing short of transforming our welfare state.

The great tragedy of this afternoon’s debate is that Labour just does not get it. We have seen an extraordinary attempt by Labour to get itself off a highly visible public hook over a policy that commands overwhelming public support in every constituency in the country. If we walked out on to the streets this afternoon and asked the public what they thought about a benefit cap, we would discover that virtually everyone was 100% behind this policy. Yet what we have heard from the Opposition over the weeks has been an exercise in dancing around the issue. There have been moments when they have said that they favour the benefits cap, but there have been moments when they have said that they oppose it.

[Sheila Gilmore]

rose—

[Chris Grayling]

Let us ask one of them who was on the Committee. Does the hon. Lady support the benefit cap?

[Sheila Gilmore]

I stood up to say that we cannot simply go to the population in the way suggested. When I was out on Sunday, one of my constituents said to me, “Yes, £26,000 seems a lot of money”, but when I asked her what she thought about so much money going in rents to landlords, she immediately changed her mind. We cannot create policy by giving people insufficient information.

[Chris Grayling]

You’d think they hadn’t been in government for a generation!

As we stand here, we still do not know exactly where Labour stands. I cannot, hand on heart, say, when the House divides in a minute’s time, whether Labour Members will vote for the benefit cap or against it. We asked the question again and again but they would not answer. They dance around the issue and come up with lame last-ditch excuses and new ideas that they did not discuss in Committee. At the end of the day, they do not want to give an answer to the public. In a moment, they will have to give that answer, because out there are millions of people watching us this afternoon, asking, “Will the House of Commons back something we passionately believe in?” We on this side of the House will be walking through the Division Lobby tonight in support of a benefit cap. We will be backing the views of our constituents; the question is: will the Opposition? Will the shadow Secretary of State, will the shadow Minister, will all the people who we have listened to in debates in Committee and in this Chamber—

Work Capability Assessments

Lord Grayling Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Williams. I am following a very powerful speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson). In securing this debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) has done a great service not just to the House but to the many thousands of people in the country who are affected by the issues. I had a number of points that I wanted to make, but as others still want to contribute, I will restrict my comments to two specific problems with the work capability assessment that arise from my constituency.

My first concern relates to people with sensory impairments. In particular, I want to raise an issue that was brought to my attention by a constituent with a visual impairment. In fact, I raised this case in a parliamentary question with a Minister a few months ago because my constituent was having problems filling in the ESA50 form through the audio systems available to people with visual impairment. After months of difficulties, which I do not have time to go into today, it turns out that my constituent may not have actually needed to go through this process because in November, the DWP changed the criteria by which people are allocated to an ESA support group. I am told that the new rules mean that someone with a hearing or a visual impairment could qualify for a place in a support group, whereas between April and November, the position was that someone had to have both a hearing and a visual impairment to qualify for the support group. That has certainly caused my constituent a great deal of concern. By giving her the wrong guidance, she felt that the DWP had sent her down the wrong road for months.

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

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene. I will respond to all the detailed questions in my remarks. On this specific point, there have been no changes to the rules around referrals. There were no changes in November. We have updated our guidance, which we do as a matter of routine, but there have been no changes to the formal rules.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

I understand what the Minister is saying, but the guidance was updated to reflect some of the difficulties that had been raised. The view of the Royal National Institute of Blind People is that Atos may well have been wrongly assessing people between April and November. That may have been the fault not of Atos, but of the incorrect guidance. Will the Minister tell us how many people were wrongly assessed and why there was a need to issue new guidance? Why was my constituent required to go along a road which she did not need to, given the fact that new guidance was issued?

My second point covers the position of people with mental illness, which has been raised by a number of colleagues in this debate. I refer to a report produced by the Consultation and Advocacy Promotion Service, which is an independent advocacy organisation that operates from Edinburgh, Midlothian and East Lothian. The report describes the experience of people with mental health problems going through the work capability assessment process. Again, if time had been available, I would have gone into great detail. Instead, I will simply report its main conclusions.

The work capability assessment for employment and ESA is not designed to assess accurately the needs of people with mental health conditions. It causes a high level of stress and anxiety in people with mental health conditions and, in some cases, it may even make their condition worse. It does not cater for fluctuating conditions, nor does it accurately record how those conditions affect people’s ability to work. That is an experience that many Members will have heard about in their surgeries. I hope, following the Harrington review, that we will see some improvements in that area.

Finally, we are all experiencing these difficulties because of the way in which the process was hurriedly rolled out across the country. We will face, over the next few months and years, even more dramatic changes to the whole welfare system. If we do not learn from the mistakes that we have made so far, we will find that the problems relating to the work capability assessment process are repeated many times throughout the country. Many more people will suffer. Many more people who could get into work might not be able to because they will not be given the support. Many people who will not be able to get into work will be driven to desperation because of the difficulties that they will face. At the end of day, it will also cost the public purse much more money, which none of us wants to see happening.

I hope that the Minister will recognise that we are not trying to make political points. It is not a political issue; we raise it because we hear from our constituents in our surgeries throughout the country every week and we want action. Opposition Members would certainly be beating down the door of a Labour Minister if we were in government and there were the same kind of problems. We need action and assurance. We certainly do not need complacency from the Minister and I sincerely hope that we do not get it in his reply today.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Let me be absolutely clear—particularly in relation to the comments made by the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex), who proposed the debate, and the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies)—that we are trying to do the right thing. We are trying to identify people with the potential to go back to work and provide them with the help to do so. Sometimes, those people will have a health condition—in the United Kingdom, 7 million people with a health condition are in work—so the number of points that people receive in the work capability assessment does not automatically mean that they do or do not have a health condition. The judgment is all about helping people return to work, perhaps in different roles. Their health condition might prevent them doing what they did before, but that does not mean that there is nothing they can do.

I approach this debate in a non-partisan spirit, but I want to explain the time lines to hon. Members, so that they understand exactly where we are in the process. In June 2010, 18 months ago, prompted partly by a report from Citizens Advice but also by concerns such as those raised by hon. Members, I asked Professor Harrington to take a careful look at a process that was already well under way. Employment and support allowance and the work capability assessment were established in 2008. The work capability assessment had been working since 2008. Statistics on the growth of appeals matched the flow of new claimants into ESA and worked down to some change 18 months ago, but I was unhappy that the process did not seem to be right, so Professor Harrington went away, reported in November 2010—interestingly, the date at the end of the period that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) mentioned when she quoted the Parkinson’s statistics—and made several recommendations to us.

The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) made a point about pilots and roll-outs. Crucially, we did not simply pilot the work capability assessment and then start it. At that time, the questions that we were addressing were whether we could sort out the process and whether we should go ahead and roll out incapacity benefits, which would increase the number of people going through the work capability assessment.

Professor Harrington went away and made his recommendations to us, which we accepted in full and have implemented. He told me, “I believe the system is in sufficient shape for you to proceed with incapacity benefit reassessment.” We set ourselves a goal to put his recommendations in place, improve the quality of the process and address many of the issues to which hon. Members have referred today by the end of last May, when the assessments in the incapacity benefit reassessment were to start alongside the existing process of assessing ESA new claimants. We did that, and we started.

I have heard a lot today about the number of people who have sat through appeals and the number of cases overturned. It is crucial for hon. Members to understand this. I am almost certainly right in saying—I could not swear to being absolutely, 100% right, because there may be a small number of exceptions—that since the Harrington changes were introduced last summer, not a single appeal has been completed. Therefore, all the examples cited today that relate to the appeals process refer to what took place before the Harrington changes to the system that we inherited, which I accept was not doing the job as it should have done. I want everyone to understand that.

As a result of the Harrington changes, we tried to create a more humane, careful and thoughtful system. We have sought to change systems to provide greater protection to those with long-term problems. The right hon. Member for East Ham referred to the internal review that his Government carried out and that we implemented in the belief that it would increase the size of the support group—those who receive long-term unconditional support—and that is what has happened. We believe that the changes that we have introduced will lead to more people receiving long-term support.

[Dr Whiteford]

One issue that I raised with the Minister was that of people turning up for appointments and being turned away because they were double-booked. My constituents who were part of the pilot scheme travel, on average, three or four hours to get to and from an assessment. To be turned away when they have had to rely to get there on family and friends who have taken time off work is a real problem. The Minister has apologised to one of my constituents, but has the policy of triple-booking appointments been changed?

[Chris Grayling]

A situation in which people are treated like that can never be acceptable. Of course, we have an issue with some people not turning up to appointments, and because it is an intensive programme, we do not want a health care professional sitting there without anything to do. Sometimes, we will get it wrong. We will try hard not to, but there is no such thing as a perfect system. That is true of all parts of the system. I openly accept that we will sometimes get it wrong, but we have done everything that we can to create a system that gets it right as often as possible. We have changed the nature of the work capability assessment in the process.

We make a much greater effort to ensure that we have proper medical evidence at each stage of the process from the consultants and specialists working with the people concerned. One reason why so many appeals were successful was that new evidence was emerging only at the appeal stage. We have worked hard to ensure that such evidence comes in much earlier in the process, so if we get it wrong in Jobcentre Plus, we will get new evidence there at a point of reconsideration. That is a crucial change. We are now ensuring that we seek out additional information in Jobcentre Plus before we take the first decision, but we have bolstered the reconsideration process to make it much quicker and more straightforward, so that if we get it wrong the first time, people can get a quick second opinion in Jobcentre Plus. That is crucial to getting the process right.

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Grayling]

I will not take interventions, because I have only five minutes and must get through a lot.

We have also tried to make the process more humane. People now get phone calls instead of the generated, standard letters that I regard as impersonal and inhuman. All our measures are part of a process of change that I hope will make a real difference to individuals’ experiences—and it is. Indeed, in his second report, Professor Harrington praises those involved in the process for creating a system that he, as an independent figure, regards as much improved.

As constituency MPs, we will always have people coming to our doors saying, “I am being done wrong by,” because sometimes, in an imperfect system, we will not have got it right. Equally, however, some people will still think that we have done wrong by them, but three years later, when they are back in work, they will say that it was the best thing that ever happened to them.

About a month ago, I sat with a woman in a Work programme centre who said that she had been off work with chronic depression for 13 years. She told me that she had arrived on her first day in the Work programme and said, “I can’t possibly work. This is ridiculous. I don’t know why I am here. I am being traduced.” A month later, she was doing voluntary work in a charity shop, applying for jobs and beginning to say, “Actually, this is good.” We are taking people through a difficult period in their lives.

I said “rubbish” to the final comment made by the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West not because he is not raising genuine issues—although I hope that I have explained their context—but because the system is not about forcing people into work. It is about finding the right number of people whom we can help into work. The alternative is to leave them on benefits for the rest of their lives, doing nothing. I do not believe that they benefit from that.

[Tom Greatrex]

I was making the point that, given the lack of confidence in the system, many people feel as though they are being hounded rather than helped. That is the crucial matter that must be addressed in the coming period.

[Chris Grayling]

I accept that, but I genuinely hope that hon. Members will take note of what I said about the time lines and the changes that we have introduced. Professor Harrington said of the concerns highlighted in the Citizens Advice report to which hon. Members referred, “This happened before my changes.” I hope that we can send the message that the system is changing and improving and that we are making genuine efforts and will continue to do so. That is why we changed the guidance in November. It is a process of continuous improvement. We want to get it right as far as we possibly can.

I shall try to answer one or two specific questions before I finish. On audio recording, we will offer everyone who wants it the opportunity to have their session recorded. We decided not to implement universal recording because, based on the trial experience, people did not want it. Few people wanted their sessions recorded, and some said that they definitely did not. We decided therefore to offer recording as an option to those who want it. That seems entirely sensible.

Contact between Atos health care professionals and decision makers will be done by telephone. What matters is not the contact between a single person and a block of decision makers, but trying to phone up the decision maker themselves. On capacity issues, as we stand here today, the incapacity benefit reassessment is on time. New claims for ESA have fallen a bit behind, mostly because of the introduction of the personalised statement following Professor Harrington’s report. We discovered in the first few weeks that it took health care professionals much longer to complete the statement than expected, so the number of completed assessments dropped. That has changed. They have caught up again, and we are chasing through to clear the backlog, as we are doing with the appeals backlog that we inherited.

Finally, the right hon. Member for East Ham asked about the Work programme. Incapacity benefit reassessments are progressing according to time. The biggest impact on numbers in the programme has been created by the different mix of people coming through and the bigger support group. I am quite relaxed about having a bigger support group, because if we need to provide long-term unconditional support to a larger group of people than we had expected, it shows that we are making a genuine effort to get it right and are being sensitive to the needs of people with disabilities. We want to help them into work, but we want to do it in the right way.

Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Lord Grayling Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2012 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Leigh. I congratulate the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) on securing the debate. What we have heard in the past 15 minutes is an example of this House at its best, where we all seek in as positive a way as possible to have an influence on the lives of people who are struggling with very challenging circumstances. There is no doubt that that applies to those who suffer from the two main conditions we are discussing in this debate, Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, both known as inflammatory bowel disease. We understand that they are serious conditions. In severe cases they require hospital treatment and surgery, as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), and they make life extremely difficult for those who suffer from them.

I would like to deal with the hon. Gentleman’s questions in two parts. In the latter part of his remarks he referred to how we treat people with the conditions in the benefit system. I would like to touch on that first, and then on employment and universal credit, which I believe will help people with fluctuating conditions.

I start with the question of ensuring that we provide appropriate support through the benefit system for those unable to work because of the scale of their condition. We seek through the work capability assessment to take sensible decisions about those with fluctuating conditions. I hope and believe that the work we have put in place over the past 18 months will improve the way the WCA works and responds to fluctuating conditions. We are continuing to look at how to improve the process in relation to fluctuating conditions.

Where the effects of the condition are such that an individual is unable to work, they will and should receive appropriate support by way of employment and support allowance. Individuals with IBD are most likely to score under the incontinence descriptor of the WCA, which recognises that in the workplace an important consideration is personal dignity. It looks at continence in relation to the ability to maintain continence of bladder or bowel or prevent leakage from a collecting device. Additionally, individuals who are either moderately or severely affected by the disease may also have restrictions in a number of other work capability assessment areas, for example, where there is low body weight, malnutrition, persistent pain and fatigue.

As a result of the hon. Gentleman initiating the debate and a number of other people raising concerns with my office recently about these particular fluctuating conditions, we have looked again at how we are handling people with the conditions who are going through the work capability assessment, because I want to ensure that we get it right. In fact, all we have identified is that people with a primary diagnosis of the two different IBDs we are talking about are more likely than other groups to be allowed employment and support allowance, to reflect the high level of debilitation experienced by many individuals with such conditions.

The majority of people with IBD who have completed their work capability assessment are allowed employment and support allowance. The statistics show that they are more likely by around a third to be placed in the support group or the work-related activity group than the employment and support allowance client group as a whole. I think we see a picture of a system that is reflective of the nature of the challenges that these people face. We will not always get it right; I never pretend that that will be the case. From what I can establish, we are already reflecting, in the way we handle people with IBD, a recognition of the severe and significant issues it can pose for sufferers.

The work capability assessment considers each case on its merits. Alongside that, it is important to state that, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, many people can and should continue to work. There is a duty to ensure that employers understand, help, and work with people to make sure that they stay in the workplace, and I praise him for his comments on that. We have therefore ensured that the work capability assessment recognises that some people can manage their conditions successfully and return to work. In some cases, symptoms might be less severe, or might fluctuate so that they are unable to work for only short periods. Others might respond well to medication and be unlikely to have any long-term functional restrictions. For those people, it is important that we provide them either with appropriate support to stay in the workplace or with help to get back to work.

We can all play a role, as the hon. Gentleman is doing today. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) for his comments. One great strength of the House is that we can take a lead. Sometimes we might be frustrated that individually, as Members of Parliament, we cannot wave a wand and change something overnight, but we have the ability to access, influence, create platforms and shape the way people think. Within our constituencies and beyond, we have the ability to influence the way employers think, as the hon. Gentleman is undoubtedly seeking to do today. I commend the message that he is sending out. It is one that I hope Members will continue to send in relation not only to IBD but to the many fluctuating conditions that make people’s lives more difficult, although they should not and need not make it impossible for people to stay in the workplace. A bit of understanding from an employer can go a long way in preserving skills important to the organisation while giving employees the flexibility to deal with the challenges that they face.

However, for those who are struggling and finding that their employers are less supportive, which is bound to happen, we seek to personalise support for each individual through the work done by Jobcentre Plus and the Work programme. Along with both sets of organisations delivering support for the unemployed— our Jobcentre Plus offices up and down the country, and the different organisations working with the Work programme—we seek to individualise support as much as possible and ensure that we match individuals to employers.

One great way to overcome the challenges that people with different disabilities and health problems face in the workplace is by matching individuals to employers who understand, respect and support them. We encourage our Work programme providers and Jobcentre Plus offices to work closely with charitable groups for people who face different health challenges in order to ensure that organisations have the best possible understanding of the support that they need, so that we can do job-matching work to the best of our abilities.

In addition, where mainstay provision is not appropriate, we provide specialist support through Access to Work and Work Choice, which are available to the individuals with the most complex support needs. Each year, Work Choice aims to help about 9,000 people with disability and health problems into work, and Access to Work provides support to about 35,000 individuals.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole that it is essential for employers to make reasonable adjustments, which might include unrestricted access to toilets for people with IBD. It is common decency, and there is no earthly reason not to. I know we have not always moved beyond the world in which we have lived, but one would hope that in today’s world, not many employers would deny someone access to a toilet. I believe that in most of our economy—ideally, in all of it—that should be a management practice of the past. Employers now have a duty under the Equality Act 2010, and they are putting themselves at risk if they do not pay attention to an individual’s needs, if those needs are reasonable and sensible. I certainly regard unrestricted access to a toilet as being entirely that.

We are also trying to ensure that all those who work with us in the Department for Work and Pensions networks and who have a responsibility for health care—particularly health care professionals working with people undergoing the WCA and, in due course and Parliament permitting, the assessment for the new personal independence payment—have an understanding of the nature of the health conditions that they will confront in their work. The doctors and nurses working with us and Atos Healthcare on the assessments, for example, already have a knowledge of IBD from their professional training. However, those who are not from such a background—physiotherapists, for example—undertake a training module on inflammatory bowel disease as part of their work capability assessment induction. A learning set on continence, including a focus on IBD, is offered to health care professionals as part of the Atos Healthcare continuing medical education programme. To assist them in their knowledge of such conditions, health care professionals also have access to an evidence-based repository.

We try hard to ensure that we provide the people who work for us with access to information about fluctuating conditions, mental health problems and other issues that they will come across in their duties, so that they are as well placed as possible to be responsive in their decision-making and to get those decisions right. We have no interest whatever in getting such decisions about people wrong. This is about taking the right decisions and providing support for people who have the potential or are perfectly able to continue to work, and then finding the right employers for them. However, it is also about understanding the limits of an individual’s ability to work and ensuring that we do not end up making someone work who cannot realistically do so.

We are continuing to work to improve our knowledge, understanding and processes, and the responsiveness of those processes, for people with fluctuating conditions. In the past few months, our adviser on the work capability assessment, Professor Malcolm Harrington, has carried out a project in partnership with organisations that represent people with Crohn’s disease, IBD and other fluctuating conditions to enable us to understand better how we can improve our processes to ensure that we take well-informed, appropriate decisions. The group has made a number of recommendations to us through Professor Harrington. We are considering our response, but I have given a clear commitment that the Government will do everything that we realistically and reasonably can to improve the way we work and ensure that we take the right decisions.

It is important, too, to find the dividing line. That will always be a difficult challenge for any Government, because, as the hon. Gentleman has said, there are two sets of points. The first is about employment and the need to get things right for those in work, and the second is about the need to get things right in our benefits system for those who cannot work. Finding a dividing line between the two is very difficult. There is no simple black-and-white answer to the two sides of that problem. The Government must do everything we can in our assessments and judgments to make our decision-making as accurate as possible. There is no exact science, of course. When we come to that grey area, no individual on the borderline is definitely able or unable to work.

I give the hon. Gentleman every commitment that our goal is to get right what we do. In all our reforms, including the reforms coming through Parliament this week to which he referred, it is not our wish or intention to do the wrong thing by people who find themselves in a difficult position in their lives. We have to find the correct approach in one of two different routes. It might involve finding the right support to get them into work; it might involve getting them into the benefit system. However, what we are trying to avoid is sending people down the wrong route: for example, somebody with the potential to work who is not asked to do so, or somebody who has the potential to work but is not encouraged to do so.

All of our reforms are about taking the right decisions, as far as we possibly can, by those individuals, and providing support, knowledge, and understanding for people with such conditions. We will not always get it right, but we will do our best to do so, and to deepen knowledge and understanding right across the workings of the DWP about IBD and other fluctuating conditions suffered by the people whom we seek to help.

Industrial Injuries Advisory Council

Lord Grayling Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2012 Written Statements

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

In accordance with the Cabinet Office’s recent guidance on public bodies, which took effect from 1 April 2011, I have launched a review of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council (IIAC). This review will examine the council’s functions and whether it should exist at arm’s length from Government. If it does, the review will go on to examine whether the council’s control and governance arrangements continue to meet the recognised principles of good corporate governance. I will inform the House of the outcome of the review when it is completed. IIAC is also due to be reviewed as a Scientific Advisory Committee, and so, in the interests of proportionality and value for money, these reviews are being combined.