Disability Benefits

Justin Tomlinson Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2024 Westminster Hall

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate; I congratulate the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) on securing it. All speakers have made some important points, although, as is often the case, many different strands get mixed up because there is a confusion between WCA, PIP and Access to Work support. That is not a criticism: it is a very complicated system. Before universal credit was rolled out, people—often some of the most vulnerable people in society—typically missed out on £2.7 billion-worth of benefits to which they were entitled, because the system was far too complex. Frankly, someone would have needed a nuclear physics degree to understand it. About 700,000 families were missing out on the support that we all agreed they should get.

I recognise that there are real challenges, which is why this debate is important. That is why the Minister is here and why she was at the Select Committee this morning—a busy day! I welcome the fact that in real terms we have increased by £11.3 billion the support to people with disabilities and long-term health conditions. We must not lose sight of the fact that both PIP and WCA, which are predominantly what we are talking about, were introduced by the former Labour Government.

I pay tribute to all the stakeholders and to all the independent reviews that have taken place. They have delivered hundreds and hundreds of improvements, which have made a difference, but there is still a considerable way to go. Under the old system, just 16% of claimants got the highest level of support; that figure was 32% a couple of years ago, and I imagine it has continued to increase. On mental health in particular, people are now six times more likely to get the highest level of support under PIP than they were under DLA, which often under-recognised the issue. We can also all celebrate record disability employment.

When it comes to making improvements, I have a few asks of the Minister. I apologise, because I asked this at oral questions, but I do not think I was very clear, because I got a different answer. First, when somebody has been assessed for PIP, they get a level of financial support—we can debate whether that is enough—but we do nothing else. If we identify somebody who has a primary health condition, we never signpost them to formal or informal support in their local area. We all know of different groups in our constituencies that support people, but often those who would benefit most are unaware of them.

Secondly, has there been any progress on mandatory reconsiderations? We did a pilot where we proactively reached out to the claimants and asked them to tell us, in their own words, why they were challenging the decision. More often than not, it was because they were unable to get the supportive evidence from their GP or whomever, which we would then assist in securing. Has that progressed? Is it still double? Is it higher? That was certainly an area that we thought would make a significant difference.

Covid fast-tracked our use of telephone and video assessments. We were looking at piloting, testing and introducing them over a decade; instead, we had to introduce them over days. Stakeholders warmly welcomed them, because people did not necessarily have to travel long distances to, in some cases, inappropriate assessment centres. The other advantage is that because the person is no longer tied to a geographical location, they can in theory have their assessment with somebody who has specialist knowledge of their primary condition. Is that what is happening, and are stakeholders involved in training and updating the skillsets of the specialists who would recognise those?

I was delighted when finally we got the special rules for terminal illness over the line; that nearly broke me when I was a Minister. Is there an update on how that is working? By matching the definition in the NHS, we took the period from six months to one year, so we removed the double assessment that was happening. Is there any progress on convincing Scotland that, although it likes to be different—often for the sake of being different—in this area it should have mirrored our view, which was the one shaped by the stakeholders?

I pay tribute to the work the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) has done regarding vulnerable claimants. Have we made any progress on asking the person at the beginning of their application to provide the name of a trusted colleague, so that if they drop out or stop responding for whatever reason, we have a trusted point of contact to whom we can say, “The claimant is no longer responding. Are you aware of an issue?” In most cases, it is because their circumstances have changed, but in the absolute worst cases, it would allow us then to chase up support for them rather than them being left behind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mrs Latham. I thank the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) for bringing forward this important debate.

The rationale for PIP and other disability benefits is to create parity between disabled people and their non-disabled counterparts, but we all know that that is not the case. Sense has called on the UK Government to increase PIP so that it truly reflects the extra costs that disabled people feel and face, and to increase universal credit and the employment and support allowance so that disabled people can reach a minimum living standard.

The hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) referenced the social tariff on energy and I hope he will support my private Member’s Bill to that end, because I am not giving up on that either. The UK Government continue to short change the disabled community. I think he was reading my speech because I was going to use the same quotes from the UN rapporteur, but I will not for the sake of brevity. It is shaming for the UK that the rapporteur thinks that is how disabled people are treated by the Government.

In my casework and my engagement with disabled people and organisations, I hear all the time that disabled people feel disrespected, devalued and demonised by the Government and the UK media, which is utterly shameful. One in five people in the UK have a disability and we could all be disabled tomorrow—a point worth remembering. It is time that disabled people had the recognition and support they deserve. We do not even have a disabilities Minister, as has been raised many times; I mean no disrespect to the Minister, but we need a disabilities Minister to focus on this part of the portfolio.

With good reason, there is little trust between the disabled community and the DWP. According to Z2K, since the introduction of PIP in 2013, 76% of claimants have ended up with a better outcome following an appeal, either via lapse or in an independent tribunal. That compares with just 28% at mandatory reconsideration, where the DWP marks its own homework.

This lack of trust in the DWP is why there is so much worry about the health and disability White Paper proposals. The abolition of the work capability assessment is welcome, but it comes with grave risks; it means that there are much higher stakes for people. Half a million people who are not well enough to work but are not receiving PIP are at risk of losing out altogether. It is imperative that the White Paper proposals are halted until PIP can be trusted to deliver reliably the correct decisions. Since 2018, more than 200,000 people have been awarded no PIP at the initial decision, only to be awarded some at the mandatory reconsideration or tribunal. In more than 70,000 of those cases, the individual subsequently received at least one higher or enhanced element. The system does not work.

This is indicative of a system that is not fit for purpose—it forces disabled people to endure gruelling assessments that have huge mental health impacts. It is about time the Government started treating those with disabilities better. I had a constituent who was diagnosed with terminal cancer and who put herself through gruelling trials. When she was reassessed for PIP, they more or less said to her, “Oh, you are still alive. You are supposed to have died.” The mental health impact on all disabled people undergoing this cannot be underestimated.

The hon. Member for—I am so sorry.

[Justin Tomlinson]

North Swindon.

[Marion Fellows]

The hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) referred to the Scottish Government. This is why they started a system different from the one in Westminster—a system that is based on fairness, dignity and respect. They collect the information from doctors and others about the case of the individual who is claiming the adult disability payment. Is that not a better way of doing things? They have VoiceAbility, which helps people to fill in the forms correctly so that, more often than not, they get the right decision at the first point of contact. It really defies belief. I have said this and I keep repeating it: look at what is happening in Scotland. People who have worked for Social Security Scotland that came from the DWP say the difference in how they have to treat clients, how they have to treat people, and how the system works, is like night and day.

The Scottish Government have made a difference with interventions such as the adult disability payment, the child disability payment and the carer support payment. They ensure that both disabled people and carers get all the financial support they are entitled to, which allows them to live with dignity.

I hold quarterly poverty action network meetings. I held the last one on Friday, at which there was a representative from the Scottish social security system. They come every quarter and they are there to help local organisations who work in Motherwell and Wishaw to improve people’s lives—

Oral Answers to Questions

Justin Tomlinson Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mims Davies]

I thank the hon. Lady for her point about vulnerable customers who have come into our curtilage and purview. The Minister for Employment has reminded me that we will take this very slowly, and will engage with and support customers. Customers can speak to help to claim advisers at Citizens Advice, and we will ensure that we listen to them.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

In addition to the financial support provided to personal independence payment claimants, what progress is being made to refer claimants proactively to the widest support available in their community?

[Mims Davies]

I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting this point. There is the household support fund, help to claim, and opportunities to pop into the local library to get additional support, for example. There is also an extra £500 million out there on top of the £1 billion through to the end of this month. I would say to anybody: “The benefits calculator is out there, and do talk to the CAB and your local council”—perhaps in Swindon.

Disability Action Plan

Justin Tomlinson Excerpts

Monday 5th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mims Davies]

It was remiss of me not to reply just now to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) about the strong voice across Government. That is, of course, the Secretary of State, who sits in the Cabinet and works alongside me to represent disabled people’s voices.

To respond to the Chair of the Select Committee, Access to Work grants, which helping with extra costs beyond standard reasonable adjustments, are important for my Department as we smash the employment goal and try to do more on disability employment. He is right to ask about that and to challenge Disability Confident. It is not just a nice thing that companies put on their website; it needs to deliver change for disabled people in the workplace. We will look at the disability employment goal; I am looking at Access to Work, and I will look at Disability Confident, just as the Select Committee has done. I urge him to watch this space.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

I welcome these proposals, and I thank the fantastic disability unit team, and the stakeholders who have helped to shape them—in particular, the proposals on accessible play parks. I have been working with organisations such as Benjamin’s Smile and Mums on a Mission, both in my constituency. Swindon is leading by example when it comes to making sure that children’s play parks are accessible to all, and hopefully we can make that a given across the whole country. One of the key points of the national disability strategy was that there would be an annual review, so that we could be held to account on what we achieved and where we needed to work harder. It would also allow us to set out the next range of ambitious targets, co-ordinated by the Minister through the departmental disability champions. Can I have assurance that, good as these proposals are, we will review them on an annual basis, as well as having a new, fresh set? I also join the calls to see my hon. Friend made a Minister of State, because if she is to co-ordinate efforts across Government, in areas beyond her direct influence, she needs to have that gravitas in that room, so that she can demand what is needed to remove barriers for disabled people.

[Mims Davies]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his experience and insight. I have met the ministerial disability champions already to ensure: that disability inclusion is a priority and is ultimately delivered in their Departments’ work; that they continue to be accountable for their contribution to the development and delivery of the national disability strategy and the disability action plan; and that they continue to show their commitment to disabled people by creating opportunities, protecting their rights and ensuring action on everything that we have spoken about today, in terms of contributions to society.

On making playgrounds more accessible and my hon. Friend’s impeccable work in his constituency, there is a lot of information on disability inclusion in organised sport, physical activity and exercise, but information on making playgrounds accessible is unfortunately not easily available. We want to make it available, work with the partners he mentioned and achieve best practice among local authorities. That will be part of this plan, and we will measure its delivery in six months and 12 months.

Oral Answers to Questions

Justin Tomlinson Excerpts

Monday 13th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Tom Pursglove]

It is fair to say that I have a collaborative and strong working relationship with Ministers in the Scottish Government, and I would definitely be keen to talk them about the tests and trials that we are introducing, which I hope will help to better capture fluctuating conditions and help people to provide all of the right evidence as early as possible in the claim journey, so that we get people’s awards rights and make the right decisions. We should certainly look to work UK-wide where we can.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

Learning the lessons of our changes to special rules for the terminally ill and the principles of the severe conditions criteria should allow us to look at those who sadly have degenerative conditions such as MS and motor neurone disease. Will the Minister confirm that, as part of the testing and piloting, the Department is looking at the potential for automatic entitlement for those with degenerative conditions, which would lift around a quarter of a million people a year out of unnecessary assessments?

[Tom Pursglove]

My hon. Friend has been a strong advocate for the severe disability group work that we have been taking forward. I am pleased to be able to say that Blackpool Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and the British Society of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine have agreed to work in partnership with the DWP to test the SDG. Reducing the assessment burden where it is inappropriate, and ensuring that people get the right support and help, is the right thing to do.

Work Capability Assessment Consultation

Justin Tomlinson Excerpts

Tuesday 5th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

I listen to the hon. Lady’s remarks with great respect; having appeared before her at the Select Committee, I know how serious she is about the issues she raises and how strongly she promotes her ideas and concerns. She mentioned the lack of support available for the people in the situation we are describing, which is precisely why I want to start providing more support to them by making these reforms. Let me make an important point in an area where I am in agreement with her: we need to do this in the right way. We need to listen carefully to those who will be affected by any changes we may bring forward, which is why we have a full eight-week consultations. My Ministers and I will be engaging closely with the various stakeholders, disabled people and so on. We will of course welcome her comments as part of that process.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

When I was a Minister, whenever I went on a visit I would ask young disabled people what they would do if they were the Minister. They said that they would always want to have the same career opportunities as their friends. I therefore welcome any moves to make more personalised and tailored support available, to build on our record disability employment. However, we lose more than 300,000 people a year from the workplace and the majority of long-term health conditions and disabilities develop during the working age. So during this consultation I urge the Secretary of State to work with employers to see what more support and advice they need to make sure that people do not ever have to even enter the WCA system.

[Mel Stride]

I thank my hon. Friend for that typically sensible and astute intervention. May I personally thank him for the advice and input he has given over the preceding months, particularly in this area? He is right that we should be proud of our record of assisting disabled people into work—2 million more in work since 2013. Equally, he is right about addressing the hundreds of thousands of people with these kinds of difficulties and challenges who are leaving businesses and the workforce every year. I recognise that it is essential to get help to those people as early as possible, before they progress too far along that health journey. That is why we are already consulting on occupational health, so that we can make sure that is rolled out more effectively across large and medium-sized businesses.

Oral Answers to Questions

Justin Tomlinson Excerpts

Monday 4th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Tom Pursglove]

I am very sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman’s point—he has been a passionate and tireless campaigner on the issue of brain injury for a long time. These are exactly the sorts of issues that we want to look at as we take this reform forward. I mentioned our changes around fluctuating conditions, but we also want to look at issues such as expert assessors and having specialists working with individuals to carry out the assessment to ensure a proper understanding and, hopefully, build confidence around decision making.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

Our excellent, proactive Minister is no doubt testing out concepts ahead of the forthcoming White Paper. Does that include extending the severe conditions criteria so that people with conditions such as motor neurone disease can automatically access support without the need of an assessment?

[Tom Pursglove]

I am fortunate that my hon. Friend was one of my predecessors as Minister for Disabled People, as he is a tireless campaigner on these issues and has done much to take the agenda forward. On the severe disability group, we remain committed to this work. We have worked with an expert group of specialist health professionals to draw up a set of draft criteria. We have started initial testing at small scale, and we are looking to scale that up as we move forward, because we want to get this right and we think that this is a significant change.

Disability Benefits: Assessments

Justin Tomlinson Excerpts

Monday 4th September 2023 Westminster Hall

[Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the chance to speak in the debate, to the Petitions Committee for having arranged it, and to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for opening it. He kindly referred to my Select Committee’s report on health assessments for benefits, which was published in April, and my speech will draw on what we said in that report. We also published the Government’s response to the report in June, since when I have been in correspondence with the Minister about some of the key points that arose.

The annex to our report is well worth a look. It is based on a survey of 8,500 people, who told us about their experience of using the system and going through the assessments. They included people with lifelong conditions and people with experience of the use of medical evidence, both of which are topics covered in the petitions.

I will not comment in the debate on the adequacy of the benefits—the Select Committee has an inquiry under way on UK benefit levels that is focused on that—but I must say that over the summer a good deal of concern continued to be raised about the benefits we are talking about not meeting claimants’ extra costs, as they are intended to.

The Government have recognised the need to transform the system, including in their White Paper. I welcome many of the reforms that have been announced—including, to pick up on a point made by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, in respect of the testing of the use of specialist assessors—but the problem is that they are going to take years to implement. We need to take further action, given the gravity of the problems that we have already heard about in the debate.

A very important recommendation in our report was that assessments should be recorded by default. They should always be recorded, unless the claimant chooses to opt out of having their assessment recorded. The Government have said no to that recommendation, presumably because it would cost a little more, but I really think that is a mistake. All the assessment providers that are contracted by the Department support the recommended change, as do many of the respondents to our survey. It is the only way to get to the bottom of why things go wrong so often.

The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington rightly gave the statistics that show that the great majority of appeals against the refusal decisions that come out of assessments are upheld. Surely that shows that something fundamental is wrong. We will get to the bottom of why that is only if assessments are routinely recorded, so that when things go wrong it is possible to look at what actually happened in the assessment and try to learn from the errors to get things right in future.

In his recent letter to me, the Minister said:

“claimants may need to discuss sensitive and personal information at the assessment and may not want this to be recorded”.

Of course, he is quite right about that, which is why we need a proper opt-out for applicants who do not want their assessment to be recorded. Has the Department considered how, if recording by default were introduced, it would be possible to mitigate those risks, which the Minister is right to be concerned about? Has it also looked at what the impact would be on mandatory reconsideration if recording by default were introduced, because I think it would be extremely helpful. If those assessments are not routinely recorded, we will never get the feedback needed to put these serious problems right.

I want to pick up the point about covert assessment, which was raised by both the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington and my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols). This is a serious and real problem. We called in our report for the Government to

“urgently investigate the use of covert surveillance by assessors”.

Unfortunately, in their response, the Government said no—I am afraid I will be using that word quite a lot in what I have to say today. They said:

“all assessment providers strongly refute the suggestion that they undertake”

covert assessment, but reports of this happening are much too widespread to be ignored, and the Government should look at that.

We are concerned as well about the system for claimants aged 16 to 18. On turning 16 in England and Wales, claimants must move from disability living allowance to PIP through a full-claim process requiring—until recently—a face-to-face assessment, but claimants in Scotland can stay on DLA until the age of 18. The Government’s White Paper acknowledged the need to help with the transition from DLA to PIP, but our conclusion was that young people in receipt of DLA should not be required to claim PIP until the age of 18, and where under-18s decide to claim PIP, they should have light-touch, paper-based assessments until the age of 18.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I will gladly give way to the former Minister.

[Justin Tomlinson]

It is a difficult and fine balance, because the counter-argument is that the current approach allows people, before they turn 18 and therefore become fully responsible for their own living costs and housing arrangements, to know exactly where they are. So it is not a black and white issue.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The hon. Member is right: these are often difficult judgments, but I would like to know what discussions the Minister has had with Ministers in Scotland about how things have worked in practice there. I would also like to know what progress the Department has made on plans for 16 to 18-year-olds in work in the severe disability group. I take the point that there are often quite fine judgments to be made, but the unanimous view of the Work and Pensions Committee was that it would be right to move to a system where applicants were not required to move on to PIP until the age of 18.

The Minister will know of concerns that were raised over the summer about pre-application screening questions in the new online PIP application form, which is being developed at the moment, and of the fears being expressed that people will be wrongly put off claiming by those questions, which have not been a feature of the application process before. In winding up, will he say something about those concerns and update us on progress with the online claims system for PIP, which, in principle, is something I very much welcome.

At the moment, claimants have 20 days to return ESA and universal credit forms and a month for PIP forms, and of course they have to send all the supporting evidence in at the same time. Each of those forms runs to tens of pages. The Association of Disabled Professionals told us that this deadline is very difficult to comply with. The deadline starts from the date on the letter, not the date the letter was received. The Association said:

“it is extremely rare for a letter to reach the claimant within five to seven working days of the letter being sent.”

In the pandemic, claimants had three months in which to return the forms. I think there were considerable advantages to that. Mind told us that extending the deadline could

“reduce the need for Mandatory Reconsiderations or Appeals”

by ensuring that the right decision was made first time around. So we recommended a compromise whereby claimants would have two months in which to return forms. Unfortunately, in its response, the Department said no. However, I wonder whether the Minister recognises that the time to return forms is being reduced by delays in getting those forms out to people. We have been hearing that, typically, at least a week—seven of the 20 days—is disappearing before the claimant receives the request.

As we have heard, one of the e-petitions is about considering disability benefit claims on medical advice alone. I am sure the Minister will point out—he will be right to do so—that, as the Work and Pensions Committee heard, GPs and other medical professionals may not know exactly what is needed for a functional assessment. We certainly heard repeatedly that the British Medical Association is absolutely clear that doctors do not want to take on this additional job.

However, the Committee wanted better use of another kind of evidence, which is evidence from family and carers. We heard that the way in which their input is received “is incredibly patchy”, as is whether their input is welcomed or not. The PIP guidance for assessors is explicit that evidence from carers and family should be considered but, anecdotally, it appears quite often that it is not. So we called on the Government to review the guidance, and I am pleased to say that, on this occasion, the Government did respond positively to our recommendation. Will the Minister update us on progress with that review and say when it will be completed?

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell, and to follow the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, who is very proactive and thorough in his work. I know from my time as a Minister that the Department takes his views very seriously and constructively. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for leading the debate, which is of particular interest to many thousands of our constituents, who will be watching it closely, particularly as it comes just ahead of the White Paper.

Before I turn to the assessment process for disabilities, I want to support the point from the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) about supporting the most vulnerable. This is a very complex issue, and there is a huge amount of work to be done. I welcome the fact that the Committee will look in detail at the issue, but there is one very easy fix that would help with all applications. Whether someone is on universal credit or is going through the work capability assessment or PIP process, they should have—if they wish—a named, trusted third party. If, for any reason, they have not returned forms or telephone calls by a certain time, there could be an automatic message to the trusted third party to say, “We haven’t heard back from this person.” In some cases, that may help. There is much more that needs to be done, but I wanted to flag that point.

Turning to the coming White Paper, which this debate is well timed for, there are many lessons that can be learned. We have to be careful about some of the requests we can be tempted to make. If we contrast today’s PIP to DLA—the original legacy benefit—DLA was, in effect, all on the claimants. The forms are still long and complex now, but they were much longer and more complex, and it was all down solely to the claimant. For many people that was fine, but for many others it did not cover all their challenges.

I will come on to the problems with PIP, but there are bits that have worked. For example, the assessment will often tease out things that a claimant may not realise are issues. With PIP, around 32% or 33% of claimants will get the highest rate of support, whereas under DLA it was around 16%. In cash terms, that is around an extra £10 billion a year to support the most vulnerable people in society—a record amount.

We have seen the most marked improvement with people with hidden disabilities. Someone with a mental health condition is now six times more likely to get the highest rate of support than under the old legacy benefits. In many cases, people are aware of their physical health condition and will raise it in their assessment, but the set of questions that are asked then tease out the wider impact in their day-to-day life. That identifies the mental health challenges that people are facing, adding additional points and putting them higher up in the levels of support.

Covid was the trigger for many of our blue sky thinking ideas to become practice very quickly. We had started to engage with stakeholders to talk about the use of telephone and video assessments. There was a nervousness at the time, and we imagined that we would probably have to wait until the White Paper before we could even test the water. However, because of covid, physical assessment centres had to close. We took a decision that we would, in effect, pause those already on benefits, but there were still new people requiring support. We then tested out telephone and video assessments in order to do assessments where there was not sufficient written evidence. They actually proved very popular with stakeholders. I would be interested to know from the Minister how that has progressed since then.

Telephone and video assessments are convenient for people who have issues physically getting to a location. We heard of an example where an assessment centre was not accessible, and there had been a breakdown in communications to warn the claimant in advance of the challenges of getting into the assessment centre. I suspect this point will be echoed by many colleagues today, but these assessments also allow claimants to link up to those with specialist knowledge of their primary health conditions. Pre covid, there were a number of assessors in each assessment centre, and they had to be master of all. They had to have reasonable knowledge of anything that was presented in that geographical location. However, with telephone and video assessments, we could have the motor neurone disease expert based in Dundee doing a video assessment from up there.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

That would be particularly useful for people who have fluctuating conditions that may vary from day to day or manifest differently—somebody with ME, for example, can have very different symptoms, experiences and health from another person with the same condition. I endorse the hon. Member’s point; I suppose if I had to ask him a question, I would ask whether he thinks it would be valuable for those people.

[Justin Tomlinson]

Absolutely. It would be valuable twofold. I talk to a lot of the assessors, and I know we are all going to highlight where there are challenges, but something like 95% of claims go through. Satisfaction is still relatively high for those claimants; as I said, we are spending £10 billion. The vast majority of assessors want to get it right first time and want to have that knowledge and support, so if we can allow some assessors to specialise, they can develop their training with charities and health organisations with specific knowledge of the area. That will increase the chance of getting the decision right the first time.

Not everybody presents with one single health condition, so it may be that people would have a hybrid assessment in two parts. There would be a general assessment, which in many cases would pick up things on the mental health side that people did not realise were having an impact on their day-to-day life; there would also be a specific assessment of the primary health condition. As the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) so clearly articulates, where people have fluctuating health conditions we really need the knowledge to ensure that we are looking not just at one particular day but, as the guidance says, at the typical impact over a one-year period.

During covid, we had a significantly reduced workforce. All our health assessors have a medical background and then have extensive training, and they were the first port of call for secondments to the NHS to provide the covid jab, so we had an incredibly depleted workforce. That really focused our mind on the volume of assessments. At Work and Pensions oral questions earlier today, I raised a point about whether lessons have been learned on extending the severe conditions criteria. When we looked at it, we estimated that about 250,000 to 300,000 assessments, with a change, could be lifted out of the system every single year. That would speed up the process for those who remain and would obviously be beneficial for those 250,000 to 300,000 people.

At the moment, PIP does not look at individual conditions—it is about the menu of health conditions that have an impact on someone’s daily life—but I think that, in some cases, we can do so. We have shown that with the changes to the special rules for the terminally ill, which will look at health conditions. I will give one example, but no doubt there are many organisations that would lobby for a change in respect of particular health conditions.

Motor neurone disease is a horribly degenerative disease, and there is a pretty clear trajectory once someone has been diagnosed, so I have never understood why on earth we assess people who have it. From the moment they have been diagnosed, we should be able to say, “We expect their condition to go like this,” and then provide an automatic level of support. They would start at the lower level immediately after diagnosis and, as their condition, sadly, deteriorated, they would automatically move on to the highest level. If, sadly, their condition deteriorated more quickly, they would be able to contact the PIP assessors, speak to the MND specialist team, have a light-touch conversation—a GP’s note would probably be sufficient—and be automatically upgraded.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I am grateful that the hon. Member has brought up MND. Does he agree that one thing that the current system must do is prevent delays? Not only do people with the condition sometimes deteriorate more quickly, but the adaptations that local authorities are making, and so on, mean that we are making the process much more difficult on every front for people with MND.

[Justin Tomlinson]

Absolutely, and that was one of the drivers behind our changes to the special rules on terminal illness. From the point of diagnosis, PIP is a gateway benefit that will unlock extra help from local authorities, so it will certainly speed up that process.

Before the Minister panics and thinks that he would need an office akin to Fort Knox because every single health group would lobby him and say, “These rules should apply to our particular health challenge,” let me say that the way around that is to look at the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, which already operates within the DWP. In effect, that is a separate, independent body of medical and scientific experts with far greater brains than mine. They are the ones who decide which health conditions qualify for industrial injuries benefits. We could apply the same principle and, as medical care and scientific knowledge evolved, they could update the guidance. That could potentially lift 250,000 to 300,000 people out of the process and help some of the most important people. Since the changes on terminal illness came into force, we have seen all pluses and little else. I hope that the Minister’s commitment to trying to pilot initiatives in this area will continue, ahead of the White Paper.

Many colleagues have mentioned the appeals process. There are different ways of looking at the statistics but, by and large, for the vast majority of people who are successful in the appeals process, either at the mandatory reconsideration stage or at the end, that is because of additional evidence that is presented. We have to look at why that additional evidence is being presented so late in the day. There are many things that could be done. The Department could be more proactive in chasing up sources that have supportive evidence. Getting evidence from a GP is a bit of a postcode lottery. Some GPs will reply to a claimant immediately and give chapter and verse; some are much slower. Some will seek to charge. Some do not necessarily have the right information.

Where someone has already gone through a work capability assessment, which is very similar—I know there is potentially a review of whether we should have two separate assessments, but this is the case as it stands today—there will already be a lot of information on a similar system, and we should at least ask the claimant whether they would like us to look at that information. Remember that it is the claimant’s information and we should not do that automatically, but we should ask to bring that information over.

We should be proactive in encouraging claimants to bring a trusted colleague with them to the assessments. That is within the rules, but how assessors allow it is very inconsistent. Some assessors will encourage the colleague to speak. Some will tell them, “No, you’re not being assessed; you are just there to provide moral support.” We need consistent guidelines. In my opinion, they should be allowed to speak. I have sat in on a lot of assessments; a lot of people are understandably overwhelmed, and arguably do not do themselves justice in what they say. Sometimes, when a person has had a condition for so long, they just take it as the norm that, for example, they no longer sleep at night. Their partner who is woken up by their not sleeping at night would probably be better at articulating that. We should be doing that.

We also started testing phoning claimants at the mandatory reconsideration stage and asking them to tell us, in their own words, why they disagreed with the decision. One speaker mentioned earlier that the mandatory reconsideration success rate is only about 11%. My understanding is that when we piloted proactively speaking to the claimant, that figure went up to about 40%; when I talked to assessors doing that at the time, they felt they could go even further. We would invariably find that a claimant’s GP had told them something but they had not provided us with the information, or had not been able to get it, and we could chase the GP on their behalf and get that information.

We also allowed people to be lifted out of the system. In the past, people had in effect to take their chances. They had to wait for the MR, and once they triggered the independent appeal the Department could not come back and say, “Now you have provided us with this evidence, we agree with you and wish to do that,” because they were stuck waiting for the judge, which can be up to a 12-month wait. We changed the rules so we could lift people out, but if people still did not agree with us they had the right to stay in the process. All those measures that can help lift people out of the process would be very welcome.

I also want to highlight the need for us to start signposting support and help. PIP is geared up to identify people’s challenges and then to identify society’s financial contribution towards the impact on their daily lives, but we stop there; we do not signpost people on PIP to additional support that may exist in their communities. I visited many wonderful and innovative mental health pilots across the country—we will all have done loads of visits in the summer recess, seen something and thought, “Gosh!”—but time and again people said to me, “Our problem is that we can’t find enough people to come and test these things out.” Yet the PIP database has the list of all the people who have been identified as having a mental health issue. I am not saying that they should have to do it, but at the very least we should be writing and saying, “Right, you’re in this particular postcode. These are the local charities and organisations, this is the local authority, and these are the local health pilots to do with your primary condition, or menu of conditions, that may be of interest to you.” I think that would be hugely beneficial to many of the people who go through the system.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Recently, I did a Zoom surgery with a constituent who is in receipt of benefits, and she said that what would help her most would be having extra hours of childcare and being able to send her child to nursery for an extra day a week. It could be argued that she could spend her PIP money on buying those extra childcare hours, but it is an expensive business, and she needs her PIP money for other things. Is that—whether there is the potential for that extra support—something the hon. Gentleman has taken into account in terms of signposting? She has been offered somebody who can come into her home and do her cleaning and everything like that, but what she really needs is a bit of respite.

[Justin Tomlinson]

The hon. Lady highlights the point that every single claimant will have their own individual challenges and opportunities. The better the signposting that we give, the bigger the menu of different avenues that can be explored to look at that. That is an important point.

In conclusion, I will make an appeal to the Scottish Government. I regularly met my Scottish counterparts and the Scottish officials, who I must say were absolutely fantastic. As we sought to devolve more and more of the DWP work, our officials and the Scottish officials worked brilliantly. We had very constructive meetings, particularly where the Scottish Government found it challenging to do things as quickly as they had hoped, because it transpires that anything to do with the DWP is a lot more complicated than it seems.

Without a doubt, Scottish colleagues were full of great enthusiasm and ideas, but they sometimes felt that they had to do things differently for the sake of doing things differently. I understand that that helps to strengthen their argument for being their own independent nation—I get that—but these are some of the most vulnerable people in society. I was so frustrated when we made the changes to the special rules for terminal illness—which were, in effect, what the vast majority of stakeholders and health organisations asked for—but the Scottish Government decided, wrongly, to design an even more complicated system than the one that they were rightly seeking to replace. I therefore make this appeal: please continue to work with us constructively, but please do not always dismiss everything as having to be different. Sometimes even we can get it right—even if by accident.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden]

Absolutely. I totally understand the hon. Lady’s point, and I am sure she will understand that a lot of the civil servants who were working on the design of the Social Security Scotland system were rightly deployed towards the covid pandemic. Ministers in the Scottish Government have acknowledged that the situation with the ADP waiting list is less than helpful. But I come back to the fundamental point on which I challenge the hon. Member for North Swindon, which is that our systems are about taking the view that the claimant is not on the make. That is the nub of the issue. With the UK Government’s system, there is a scepticism about whether the person sitting at the other end of the table is on the make or on the take, so it is about trying to find a way to catch them out. That is why there is an overturn rate of 68%, for example.

[Justin Tomlinson]

indicated dissent.

[David Linden]

The hon. Gentleman is shaking his head. I am sure he has something to say, so I am happy to give way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Tomlinson]

There is absolutely zilcho in the assessor’s contract to try to lower the success rate of a claimant. That is part of the driver behind our spending an extra £10 billion a year—a record amount. I wish the Scottish Government the very best of luck if they can identify changes; if they do, I encourage the British Government to adopt them. My point was that we should not be different for the sake of being different. We should always put the claimant first.

[David Linden]

With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, he has missed the point. The reality is that this contract is being delivered by the private sector—something to which I have a moral and political objection —with a clear brief to try to find people somehow on the make or on the take. If so, why on earth are the Government giving out a contract where the overturn rate is 68%?

[Justin Tomlinson]

The only thing within a contract that changes what an assessor is paid per assessment is that where there is poor quality, there is in effect a fine on the contract. Under the DLA, the success rate for the highest rate of support was 16%. Under PIP, with the assessors, it is 32% to 33%, hence why we are spending £10 billion a year more.

[David Linden]

The hon. Gentleman is saying what would happen if a contract were found somehow not to be working, but I rather suspect that the Minister will look at the fact that the overturn rate is 68%. I am not the Minister, but that would suggest to me, and to officials, that something is clearly going wrong with the assessment process.

Under the Scottish Government’s approach of abolishing the disability health assessments, person-centred consultations are held only when required. That is all in stark contrast to the frankly draconian measures that are being put in place and pursued by the British Government. I am sure that many people across the House share the view that the job of Government is to support vulnerable people, not to subject them to further hardship and scrutiny. However, there is an overall unwillingness, among both the Labour party and the Conservative party, to invest in social security. As it persists, disabled people continue to experience stress as a result of undergoing health assessments.

I can only hope that a leaf is taken out of the Scottish Government’s book for the sake of disabled people who are at the mercy of the British Government’s austerity agenda. As the Scottish Government use their devolved powers to mitigate against such draconian welfare policies, I am sure they will always ensure that the most vulnerable in our society and communities receive the support that they are entitled to while being treated with the dignity, fairness and respect that they deserve. That is the fundamental point of this debate, because that fairness, dignity and respect are not there, and that needs to change.

People with Disabilities: Cost of Living

Justin Tomlinson Excerpts

Tuesday 16th May 2023 Westminster Hall

[Marion Fellows]

I could not agree with the hon. Lady more. This is a scandal, and it is a huge waste of public money with the number and cost of appeals and tribunals.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

To follow on from that point, why would the Scottish Government seek to make it harder for people to access support through the PIP system for when it is fully devolved to the Scottish Government?

[Marion Fellows]

I wish that the hon. Member would take that back. In Scotland, we treat people with dignity, fairness and respect. We help them to fill in their adult disability payment applications, and we make it much easier for them—[Interruption.] The hon. Member is shaking his head, but he is wrong. We make it easier for people with long-term illnesses from which they will not recover. They do not have to go through continuous reassessments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

Thank you, Dr Huq—a double thank you for your late substitution this morning, for which we are all very grateful. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), who clearly demonstrated a real passion for this important subject. I think her constituents would recognise that she is a real champion for those who need a voice in this area, and I pay genuine tribute to her.

I also pay tribute to the Minister, who I know will respond in full. He has immersed himself in the details of his role and has always shown himself willing to engage with stakeholders. I think we would all agree that there is a wealth of knowledge and expertise in local and national organisations, and the Minister is passionate to utilise that wherever possible. That has come through very clearly in his time as a Minister.

I pay tribute to local and national organisations up and down the country that provide people with advice and support in accessing the often complex and daunting layers of support that are potentially available. For example Tim Saint, of the Swindon Carers Centre, does a huge amount of work in our community to help people access support. During my time as a Minister, I was surprised to see how many people miss out on the various forms of support that we have all voted to give them, often because they are faced with a complex and daunting system.

We have made progress. Under PIP, including the legacy benefits of DLA, and attendance allowance, we are now spending £12.5 billion more in real terms on help for those with disabilities or long-term health conditions. Under the old legacy system of DLA, only 16% of claimants would access the highest rate of support. A few years ago, that figure had reached 33%, and for some health conditions, in particular mental health conditions, people are now six times more likely to access the higher rates of benefits. So we are very much heading in the right direction, and there are further opportunities to turbo-speed improvements with the forthcoming White Paper.

There are two key lessons the Government can focus on: speed and specialisation. First, on speed, there are lessons that can be learned from the welcome changes to the special rules for terminal illness. We were able to apply a policy change that was co-designed by stakeholders, their policy teams and end users—people with real-life experience. Using the same principles, we can widen the severe conditions criteria in the PIP system, removing up to 300,000 unnecessary assessments or reassessments each year.

The principle behind that is that we would look at specific conditions. We could then be fairly confident about the trajectory of that condition and set in place a timetable of support. For those people whose condition has perhaps changed more quickly than expected, there would still always be the option to have a light-touch assessment to speed up their access to the increased rate of support.

There is a sort of principle around this, which already exists with universal credit and the industrial injuries disablement benefit. An independent panel could look at these conditions, and one example would be motor neurone disease—I cannot understand what the point would be of putting somebody with MND through an assessment. Where we can be fairly confident of the deterioration of health conditions, we could put in place an automatic right to support, with the backstop that, if somebody’s condition, sadly, deteriorates more quickly, a light-touch assessment could then move them to the higher level of support much more quickly. Removing 300,000 people a year would mean we have more resources available to speed up the process for those who would go through the more standard, traditional route.

During covid, we made sure we kept the gateway open for new entrants, and it is a tribute to staff up and down the country that disability benefits continued. We used video and telephone assessment, a further benefit of which is that it allows for greater specialisation in terms of the assessors. Rather than relying on a fixed number of staff in each geographical location, we can assign someone with a particular health condition via telephone or video to other locations in the country. That also helps with the point about making sure that the assessments are right first time, so that people do not have to go through an appeals process further down the line.

I know that these broad themes are being considered as part of the White Paper, but they are a real win-win and they are probably things that people could rally around, regardless of which political background they are from. I certainly know from my time working with our very knowledgeable stakeholders and policymakers that there would be huge support for them.

A broader point is that not everything is black and white. As much as I admire the passion and drive of the speech by the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw, there was a presumption that everything the Government do is terrible and that everything the Scottish Government do is good. I say that because I have a brother who is a proud Labour party supporter, another brother who is an SNP supporter, a sister who is a sort of Lib Dem/ Conservative and a cousin who is a Green, so we cover all the bases, and I was very much brought in the belief that things are not black and white.

To their credit, the Scottish Government identified that we could and should have made changes to the special rules for terminal illness and to PIP, which is the main disability benefit. The Scottish Government have had challenges; they had hoped to complete both those tasks many years ago, but that has proved a lot more complex, particularly when we start to unravel the complicated machinery behind those benefits.

In my former life, I attended inter-ministerial meetings with Scottish officials and Scottish Ministers, who were always a great pleasure to work with, and I absolutely admired their end goal. However, they also had that presumption that the system was completely broken and had to be completely changed. Therefore, they sometimes would not listen to stakeholders and policy experts in disability and health charities who wanted changes but not necessarily the changes the Scottish Government had settled on.

For example, there is a principle that the Scottish Government do not like assessors. I understand that, given a lot of the media coverage of the earlier years of PIP, in particular. However, there is a reason why, under DLA, only 16% of claimants got the highest rate of support, compared with 33% under PIP. Many of the people who navigate the system are the least well equipped to do so. Therefore, we are relying on a system where, in effect, their evidence—self-supplied—is the only basis for them to get DLA. However, assessors tease out additional things and fill in the gaps, which is why we have gone from 16% to 33%.

[David Linden]

The hon. Gentleman is giving an incredibly thoughtful speech, but I have a fundamental objection to assessments. However, even if I was to follow the former Minister down the assessment route, we would find ourselves in a ridiculous situation where the people carrying out the assessments have no professional qualifications to enable them to adjudicate on the condition. For example, in one recent constituency case, someone was actually asked, “Does your son still have autism?”. That is the level of expertise we are dealing with and that, I am afraid, shows that the system is broken.

[Justin Tomlinson]

That shows the slight misunderstanding here—and I say that in a good spirit. All the health practitioners who carry out assessments have at least two years’ experience and come from health professional backgrounds. However, the point where the hon. Gentleman is right is that they are not necessarily specialists in certain areas. If someone goes to a GP, the fact that they are the initial gatekeeper to the NHS does not mean they are an expert in everything—they refer people on to specialists. There would generally be five or six assessors in each location, so we cannot expect the collective knowledge of those assessors to cover every single health issue. Through the introduction of telephone and video assessments, however, we can refer people, and that is what I am pushing for. The point is: the role of the assessors was not broken, but it needed improving. That is what both the UK and Scottish Governments were looking to do.

I am urging the Scottish Government to be cautious about relying too much on the claimant, because not all claimants are in a position to argue their case and understand the conditions. It is not even just a case of that; it is also about people being unaware of additional health conditions. I made a point earlier about those with mental health conditions now being six times more likely to get access to the highest rate of PIP. Many people do not realise that their mental wellbeing is being impacted by their physical health condition. They would enter the PIP system thinking, “My physical health condition is impacting on me. I’ll fill in all the bits on that and answer the questions.” However, the assessor’s questions on how that impacts mental wellbeing then begin to identify additional challenges that the claimant was either unaware of or had got used to and took for granted. That then gives them the additional points that allow them to enter the higher rate.

It is same around the special rules for terminal illness. We extended that from six months to 12 months, working with hospices, the health and disability charities and GPs. The Scottish Government, with very good intentions, tried to create a system where it was automatic. They then realised that not everyone can be dealt with automatically, because we are all terminally ill in the sense that nobody lives forever. Conditions then have to be put in, but that inadvertently creates a more complex system. It would have just been easier to say, as Northern Ireland did, “Actually, on this occasion, the UK Government—having listened to the stakeholders and health and disability charities—might be on to something. In this case, we ought to do the same.”

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind the former Minister that he has spoken for 10 and a half minutes, and I did want speeches to be kept within nine minutes. If he wishes to give us a concluding sentence, I will allow it, but we do have other Back Benchers.

[Justin Tomlinson]

Understood, Dr Huq. In conclusion, I urge the Minister to keep a laser-eyed focus on disability employment, ensuring that we provide support for not just the individuals seeking work but employers. The majority of people with disabilities develop them during working age, and we need to ensure that employers—particularly small and medium-sized employers—are equipped to support people with changing health conditions.

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

I call Wendy Chamberlain. Keep it within seven minutes, if you can, and then Marion Fellows gets time to wind up.

Social Security and Pensions

Justin Tomlinson Excerpts

Monday 6th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[David Linden]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I understand that political ideology will separate us, but in the five years that I have been a Member of this House I have struggled to get my head around the fact that, while the hon. Gentlemen who do their surgeries on a Friday morning see the same people as we do in our surgeries, who come and say that the social security system is inadequate and has left them in dire straits, there is no conviction to come into this Chamber and say to the Government, perhaps as the hon. Member for Amber Valley has done, that this is wrong.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

rose—

[David Linden]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman is about to tell us what the Government could do better.

[Justin Tomlinson]

In the same spirit of trying to help those most in need, why do the Scottish Government not mirror our proposed changes to the terminal illness rules within disability benefits?

[David Linden]

The hon. Gentleman is missing what is happening, given the limited social security powers that the Scottish Government have. Bearing in mind that 85% of welfare spending is reserved to this place, he will see that we are doing an awful lot to try to help people with social security, but if the Minister wants to back up my calls to devolve all social security to the Scottish Government, that will certainly be welcome.

Research from the Child Poverty Action Group shows that the majority, some 59%, of those affected by the two-child limit are working families. Perversely, some of those families work for the Minister’s own Department, which administers said benefits; that would be funny if it wasn’t so tragic. The fact that a few weeks ago the Lords Minister, Viscount Younger, could not justify to the Work and Pensions Committee how the two-child limit is compatible with the Government’s own family test is a damning indictment of a Minister who is not over his brief and whose policies do not even comply with the family test for which he is responsible.

I turn now to universal credit, which should be topical, given Labour’s significant change in stance. That change provides an opportunity to seek cross-party agreement on reform of universal credit, because all three main parties in this Chamber now agree with the broad principles and the aims of universal credit. The challenge for us now is to make it work and to iron out the creases, which are by no means insurmountable. We know, for example, that the five-week wait for a first payment is needlessly pushing people into hardship. That could be relatively easily fixed by implementing proposals to turn advance payment loans into non-repayable grants after a claimant has been deemed eligible.

On sanctions and conditionality, far too many households face destitution, largely because DWP rules are pushing them into debt through sanctions and deductions. Recent changes to the universal credit administrative earnings threshold mean that even more people will risk having their vital universal credit payments sanctioned. These 600,000 people are already working, and there is clear evidence that sanctions do not work in getting people into work or to increase their hours or earnings. To that end, I have tabled early-day motion 715 to annul the relevant regulations, which I hope the Government will grant us time to debate and vote on, and I certainly hope we can count on Labour support in that.

However, there are other problems with sanctions and conditionality. For example, individuals who have had a sanction applied have also been denied the vital cost of living payments the Minister was rightly trumpeting earlier. That demonstrates a fundamental issue with the DWP’s attitude to those on low incomes, because preventing vulnerable families from receiving the social security they are entitled to when they need it most strikes me as somewhat back to front.

I will turn now to the UC childcare offer. If the Tories actually cared about working people, they would want to improve childcare support for UC claimants by supporting them with childcare costs up front and in full. The SNP continues to call on the Government to increase payments for those aged under 25 in line with increases for older claimants. We also continue to call for local housing allowance to cover the average cost of rents and for the shared accommodation rate for those under 35 to be suspended—that age range has always struck me as somewhat arbitrary.

The SNP has called for the British Government to fix these fundamental flaws in social security and to deliver a system that actively tackles poverty and empowers people. However, it is an inescapable and undeniable fact that the Scottish Government cannot change these policies while 85% of welfare expenditure and income-related benefits remain reserved to this institution here in London, and that includes universal credit, which is of course a reserved benefit. The only way to ensure that Scotland has a decent social security system is for us to take all legislative and fiscal responsibility for these issues by way of independence and to no longer hope that the full-fat Tories, or the diet Tories on the Labour Benches, will one day reform the social security system, which is clearly broken beyond repair.

I turn now to the order on pensions, and I start by genuinely welcoming the Pensions Minister to her place. I respect her enormously, and although we will doubtless disagree on aspects of policy, I have no doubt as to her motivations. Where we have common cause and we can agree—for example, on pension credit—she can be assured of SNP support. However, I am afraid that that is probably where the warm words and cross-party consensus will come to a halt for this evening, because the British Government have a serious job of work to do if they are to rebuild credibility among pensioners. Time and again, we have seen the Tory Government short-change pensioners, who are getting a raw deal from a pension system that they have paid into their entire lives.

Pensioners on low incomes are among those hardest hit by the cost of living crisis, and the British Government must do much more to ensure that they are properly supported, so let us start with the state pension. Westminster already provides a lower state pension relative to average earnings than most other advanced economies. Last year’s breaking of the triple lock will cost each pensioner £520 on average during the course of living crisis. The Government’s own Red Book shows that that will take £30 billion in total from pensioners by the 2026-27 financial year. Retaining the triple lock is the bare minimum I would expect, but I rather fear that that policy pledge will not survive the rigours of manifesto writing when it comes to both main parties in this House. However, I would like to be assured on that issue in the winding-up speeches.

A recent report from the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association found that the annual income required to maintain a basic standard of living in retirement has massively outstripped the rise in the state pension. For a single person, the minimum income now sits at £12,800, while the state pension will rise to only £10,600 in April for those on the full flat rate. Indisputably, the state pension remains an important source of income for pensioners living in, or at risk of moving into, poverty because of the very low take-up of pension credit, which I accept is the Minister’s biggest priority and one I am certainly willing her on to succeed with. However, Independent Age highlights that 5% of pensioner couples and 19% of single pensioners have no source of income other than the state pension and benefits.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s “UK Poverty 2023” report revealed that 1.7 million pensioners were living in poverty in the UK in 2020-21, the poverty rate for single pensioners is almost double that of couple pensioners, and almost one in seven pensioners overall are living in poverty—something I can see in its rawest form in communities such as Sandyhills, Carmyle and Baillieston in my constituency. We know that pension credit is a vital support for many older people, but only around seven in 10 of those who are entitled to it actually claim it, and up to £1.7 billion of available pension credit is, I am afraid, going unclaimed. In crude terms, that amounts to £1,900 a year for each family in the east end of Glasgow entitled to receive pension credit.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) and I pay tribute to his encyclopaedic survey of the landscape of the Department. It is fair to say that no stone was left unturned, and we are grateful to him for that. It is also always a pleasure to come to the Chamber to support the Minister when he does the right thing—indeed, it is perhaps a pleasure to listen to him here when he does the wrong thing.

I speak today to express my satisfaction—indeed, my relief—at the Government’s decision to uplift benefits by CPI. Over the summer, my most disadvantaged constituents faced real fear from the sudden increases in the cost of living and what was coming down the track towards them. They were perturbed, confused and daunted by the confusion in public messaging from both our leadership contest and the “interim” Government, as I should perhaps call it. They were very worried, so the news that we will update benefits by CPI was a great relief for them, not least because we know that inflation always hits the poorest in society worst, so protecting those in receipt of benefits from inflation is the most important duty of Government. Indeed, it was Milton Friedman no less who said inflation is a tax on the poorest in society. So the Government did the right thing. Inflation does matter. It is not an economic sideshow, and we should always remember that.

I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), the shadow Minister. She may not be aware that a shadow Front-Bench reshuffle is due, but I can only assume that that was the reason for some of her comments—she may get a surprise in a few days—because she was praising the previous Labour Government. It was like an exercise in nostalgia. Her opposition to conditionality leapt out at me. My constituents remember the something-for-nothing welfare state that Labour created in that era, and by refusing to accept the role of conditionality in our welfare system, she is committing the Labour party to that agenda once more; I was very surprised to hear it.

I represent an area that sadly still has high levels of pensioner poverty, so I particularly welcome the Government’s decision to extend CPI protection to those who rely on the standard minimum guarantee in pension credit. It will cost some £700 million above the statutory minimum requirement, so I welcome the Government’s commitment to supporting the poorest pensioners at this time of high inflation. However, like any Back Bencher, I will urge them to do more. Despite the best efforts of many, my constituency still saw a slight dip in the number of pension credit claimants last year, so I urge the Pensions Minister, who has done so much to get people claiming pension credit, to continue those efforts; the battle is not yet won.

I also urge the Government to consider the need for flexibility in our pension system. My favourite statistic of the month is that the old age dependency ratio currently shows 28 people over 65 for every 100 of working age, some of whom are probably not in work. The ratio will rise to almost 50:100 by 2050, causing fundamental challenges for any Government. All those who flatly oppose raising the state pension age need to engage with that, not take cheap positions that involve no thought at all—however encyclopaedic their speeches might be. Raising the state pension age clearly makes sense on one level, but many of my poorest pensioners dropped out of the labour market well before the state pension age. Indeed, my constituency has the lowest healthy life expectancy in the country. Given that people can defer the receipt of state pension in return for higher payments, could those claiming early, whether down to ill-health or physically intensive work, not have a slightly reduced payment? That would strike a fair balance.

The Government are doing an immense amount to support those facing sharp increases in energy bills. I welcome the extra £150 for personal independence payment claimants, and the uprated PIP being discussed today. However, will the Minister please take away from this debate the numerous emails I have had from those reliant on electronic beds, electronic wheelchairs, oxygen concentrators, sleep apnoea machines—all manner of electricity-reliant equipment—to keep them alive? They have seen their bills go up by £150 a month, not £150 a year, and they are deeply concerned at the energy price trajectory not coming down sharp enough.

Our benefits system remains generous, but it could go so much further. Too often it is being asked to bear the weight of other structural inadequacies in the system, where other Departments could or should be doing more, or where the private sector is allowed to shirk some of its moral responsibilities as players in what we ought to call responsible capitalism. The consequence is that people continually ask for more money to be spent by the welfare state, when the solution should be to make that money go further by ensuring that we have better value and a fairer system in which people can spend that money.

The cost of energy for those with complex medical equipment is just one example of the purple pound, where the disabled pay hidden costs over and above what PIP could ever meet, despite its being there to meet the extra costs of disability. The poverty premium is another area where the DWP and the wider state can ensure that the benefits system does not allow and reinforce poor practice elsewhere. For example, inflation is at its highest in the food and retail sector, but it is higher still in the smaller neighbourhood supermarket stores in the most deprived parts of my constituency. Residents relying upon a local One Stop, Tesco or whatever may not be able to afford to go to the large out-of-town supermarket for better-value food. The private sector is obliging the benefits system to take up the slack of the dysfunctional market in which my constituents are trapped.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. He highlights the fact that everyone has individual circumstances, which is why the Government brought forward the £2 billion local welfare assistance scheme. Has he had any success in his casework in getting that additional support for people with additional individual challenges?

[Paul Maynard]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. He used the phrase “local welfare assistance scheme” which, sadly, could provoke me to speak for even longer than the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), because it is my specialist topic, but I ought not to go there—[Hon. Members: “More!”] Perhaps Members should wait for me and the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) to finalise our report into emergency food aid, where they will be able to see exactly what I think.

To finish on perhaps a more fundamental point, one strength of our benefits system is that sufficient incentives are built into the structures of in-work benefits, along with conditionality—I am sorry to say that to the shadow Minister—to ensure that, as far as possible, work is seen to pay. However, that has been distorted through the more complex pattern of financial support that has emerged during covid and the wider cost of living crisis. Those living just below a particular threshold that qualifies them for extra state support get large payouts, but those just above the threshold feel greatly aggrieved. They regard it as unfair because they are being punished for being seen to do the right thing. The bedrock of our benefits system is a belief in its fairness, not just to those who need support at any one time, but to those who have to fund the system and may one day, of course, require it. Although I strongly welcome the Government’s decision to uprate benefits, we must bear in mind the needs of, and treat fairly and responsibly, not just those who are in receipt of benefits, but those who fund the system and are in work, day in, day out. They are two sides of the same coin.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

It is a real pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms). I was proud to serve under his chairmanship for a whole three weeks or so on the Committee, and then to reappear as a Minister some weeks later. He has a formidable knowledge of a broad spectrum of issues, and always chairs the Committee’s meetings in the right spirit to tease out what needs to be done to help some of the most vulnerable people in society.

I warmly welcome the various increases being announced by the Minister this evening, in what must be his 20th of these debates: they seem to come round more quickly every year. Having been a Minister for disabled people, I am pleased that we are delivering record amounts in disability benefits to some of the most vulnerable, and that we are getting better at providing support for those most in need. For example, those with mental health conditions who are receiving personal independence payments are six times more likely to receive the highest level of support than they were under the old legacy benefits.

However, welcome though the additional funds have been, we should also—with one eye on the forthcoming White Paper—think about the wraparound support that is provided. For the purpose of disability benefits, people are assessed before being awarded, for a fixed period, a level of financial support, but we do nothing to signpost the additional help that is available. We are all committed to providing additional support for people with mental health conditions, and the Government receive cross-party backing for that, but it is often difficult to target the support provided by either the NHS or associated organisations because we cannot identify the people who need it. However, having now identified them through the personal independence payment system, we should be signposting claimants to the wide range of support—support from charities or the Government, whether formal or informal—so that they know what is available in their postcode areas. My office hosts monthly Parkinson’s coffee mornings, mainly for carers so that they can share their experiences and discuss where they are able to find support, and they are of huge benefit to those people, but we could be using the data we have to share that best practice.

Let me now say something about the support for those who are receiving unemployment benefit, predominantly through universal credit. I welcome the Government’s moves this year to increase that support, but—again, with one eye on the White Paper—we must not lose sight of the need wherever possible to localise and target the support that is available. We spend billions of pounds on work support programmes, but they involve national contracts covering various regions, which means that only generic offerings are available. We need to set aside some of that money to empower the work coaches in jobcentres to commission support in localities where smaller organisations can unlock people’s undoubted potential to put them on the first step of their careers.

We should also bear in mind that we lose about 300,000 people a year from the workplace as a result of changing health conditions. Our Government have a fantastic record of delivering disability employment, having exceeded the target of 1 million more disabled people in work—the figure is about 1.4 million now—but there are misconceptions surrounding it. For instance, the vast majority of people who have either a disability or a long-term health condition will develop it while they are of working age, and we must get better at providing earlier intervention to keep those people out of the benefits system.

There is nothing worse than a deteriorating health condition, with the added pressure and challenges that it causes, for those whose confidence is then shattered because they have crashed out of work and must suddenly present themselves at a jobcentre. A big business should be investing in access to additional support and healthcare. I had the pleasure of visiting some that paid attention to the welfare of their staff, and that was not just because of corporate responsibility. Recruiting and retaining employees, particularly when there are skill shortages, is a win-win situation. Many small and medium-sized enterprises would not necessarily be able to do that, but again, the Government need to get better at signposting advice and support.

Let me give the example of the Health and Safety Executive. We are world leaders when it comes to safety—the HSE is respected across the board, and commands huge fees from international companies to provide best practice from the United Kingdom—but we need to get the health side right as well, so that fewer people have to rely on annual upratings and counting the pennies because being in work will give them the best chance of improving their lot.

Finally, let me pick up a point made by the shadow Minister about pensioner poverty. Twenty-three years ago, at the beginning of my political journey, I was proud to be elected as a councillor in Swindon, and here I am now as the Member of Parliament for North Swindon. My first election was on the back of a 75p rise in pensions, which is a light year away from the triple lock that has delivered some £2,400 more, in cash terms, for pensioners on fixed incomes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew), who made a thoughtful contribution, although obviously there are differences of opinion on some of the things he said.

I am pleased to contribute to this year’s debate. The Minister’s initial contribution was pretty factual and to the point, but these debates are always an opportunity for Members to comment generally on social security and uprating. I am pleased that this year’s debate is slightly less controversial than last year’s. Indeed, I think there has been relief on both sides of the House that the uprating will be in line with inflation. That means we have not seen the triple lock abandoned and benefits will be uprated in line with inflation. However, those conventions have been broken previously, so the challenge is that people are already behind as a result of previous commitments having been reneged on. But I am pleased to welcome this uprating.

In recent years it has become increasingly clear how important the social security safety net is as a public service. As I have said previously, covid has meant that some people who never expected to be supported by the state have had to access that support. That is the reality: we never know when we might need support. We might become injured or ill; the company that we work for might go under, maybe because it cannot get enough staff and cannot open its full hours, and therefore does not have the productivity it needs to keep going; or indeed, we might need to care for loved ones. Social security is, and should be, there to make sure that no one is left behind.

The hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), who is no longer in his place, mentioned the all-party parliamentary group on ending the need for food banks. I co-chair that APPG, and have been very pleased to have the hon. Gentleman as part of our inquiry team. The final evidence session of our “Cash or Food?” inquiry is tomorrow, and I would be delighted if the Minister could attend our report launch on 22 March—I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), for her written response to our inquiry. We are looking at that issue because, as I said in my intervention on the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), the only time during the covid pandemic when we saw a decrease in food bank use was when universal credit had its £20 uplift. That suggests to me that people were using those additional moneys for the purpose of putting food on the table.

As I said, this debate is quite factual, but it gives us an opportunity to comment on Government policy and practice. I want to touch on something that the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) mentioned, which is universal credit for the under-25s. It may have been uprated by 10%, but it remains lower than for the over-25s, and I would argue that there is simply no good reason for that. Indeed, about 18 months ago I wrote to the Department for Work and Pensions on this topic in support of a campaign by One Parent Families Scotland. I was told, in terms that, frankly, I found quite patronising, that the reason for the policy is that the DWP believes young people are more likely to live at home—that was assumed even if they themselves are parents—and generally have lower earnings expectations.

That response totally ignores the experience of the majority of under-25s who claim universal credit. Of course, as parents we would hope to support our children as they take their first steps in the world, and to provide a safe haven to which they could return if necessary. However, that does not help the young people who need to leave home because they are looking for work and there are no jobs in their area; the young people who do not come from stable homes and need to support themselves; or the young parents who cannot stay in their family homes with their own children. I hardly want to deign to give a response to the statement about having lower earnings expectations, but I will say that no one who is out of work and receiving universal credit, or who, as has been pointed out, is in work and receiving universal credit, even at the full amount, is sitting idly by, wondering what to do with that excess income.

As many Members have said today, we are in a cost of living crisis. Universal credit is a safety net, and this Government policy assumes that young people deserve less safety than older people. That is the wrong message. Given the ministerial churn within the DWP and, indeed, elsewhere, I hope that we can review that misguided position. At the very least, I ask the Minister to review one aspect in his closing remarks: reinstating the higher rate for young parents, as it was under legacy benefits. Young parents are most likely to be struggling, and surely they and their children deserve the same support as a family where the parents are just a year or two older.

I will highlight a few other issues, starting with PIP. All of us in this place will have a caseworker who spends a lot of time providing support for PIP appeals, the vast majority of which are successful. It is a long, stressful application process, and we have assessors who simply do not understand the process or what applicants are experiencing, resulting in widespread mistakes that we as MPs end up dealing with. It costs the taxpayer more money to reverse those decisions than to get them right in the first place. The stress makes people who are already struggling even more ill, and as we know, very sadly, some people give up as a result. The system does not work. This issue is so important when the Government are currently looking at measures to deal with the economically inactive—I look forward to hearing their proposals. They want to get people back into work. Now is the time to bring those specialist assessors and the assessment process for PIP back in-house, and to stop lining the pockets of private providers with taxpayer money when they simply do not get the job right.

[Justin Tomlinson]

The hon. Lady raises a very important point about getting the job right. Thankfully, the vast majority of the millions of claims are right first time round, and for those where it sadly goes wrong, on the vast majority of occasions, that is because of missing additional supportive evidence. As such, will the hon. Lady join me in welcoming the Government’s move to a system where, at the mandatory reconsideration stage, rather than waiting for claimants, the assessors have now started proactively contacting them to identify the missing evidence and help them find it? That has seen the number of those able to be sorted quickly more than double.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I am happy to support any improvements to the process, but what the hon. Member has done is to point out just how complex these processes are and how difficult they can be for people to navigate. It is only when there is a proactive approach that we start to get things right.

Oral Answers to Questions

Justin Tomlinson Excerpts

Monday 5th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

My right hon. Friend has raised an extremely important matter. Unfortunately, fraud does not happen just at the level of the individual, but involves organised crime as well. Since July 2019, the Department has secured the removal of 1,500 social media accounts, many of which were related to organised crime, and since May 2020 it has suspended 170,000 claims.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

16. What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of processing times for personal independence payments.

[The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Tom Pursglove)]

We are committed to ensuring that people can access financial support through PIP in a timely manner. By prioritising new claims, increasing resources and using different assessment channels, we reduced the average new claim process from 26 weeks in August 2021 to 18 weeks in October 2022.

[Justin Tomlinson]

Capacity is key to assessment. What progress is being made to extend the severe conditions criteria in the PIP system, learning the lessons of the changes we have made to the special rules for the terminally ill, which would potentially allow us to remove 300,000 unnecessary assessments from the system, benefiting claimants and the taxpayer?

[Tom Pursglove]

I am hugely grateful to my hon. Friend, who is of course a distinguished former Minister for disabled people and whose views on these matters I listen to incredibly carefully. We announced in “Shaping future support: the health and disability green paper” that we will test a new severe disability group, so that those with severe and lifelong conditions can benefit from a simplified process to access PIP, employment and support allowance and universal credit without needing to go through a face-to-face assessment or frequent reassessments. We will consider the test results, once they are complete, to influence thinking on the next stages of this work.