Social Fund Funeral Payments

Andrew Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 14th September 2016 Westminster Hall

[Gavin Robinson]

Absolutely right. I am grateful for that intervention. It is also important, when someone makes that choice, that they tell their family or loved ones that they have done so; if they do not, it is perfectly plausible that a family member, doing their best for their loved one, will go off and engage someone else, not knowing that that financial provision had been made. The period of three days makes that a more likely proposition in Northern Ireland than in the rest of the United Kingdom.

We are talking about simple funeral costs and simple funerals. The Select Committee report considers what a simple funeral is. I believe—I hope that the Government will listen to this earnestly—that the £700 at which the amount was capped in 2003 not only needs to be increased to reflect the cost today, but should be index-linked. It should rise with inflation so that we are today taking a decision that will not just change the situation for people in this financial year, but have a long-lasting positive impact for anyone who finds themselves in the position that we are discussing.

The Minister will know that one consideration was about the SF200 application form. Having had a chance to consider the matter following the Government response in May, can the Government say whether they will accept the recommendation and ensure that the form indicates clearly the conditions associated with who pays and who applies? That is very simple, but it means that when someone gets to the end of the process, either before or after the funeral, they do not find that Government support is not there for them and they are left with a debt.

The Government said that they were conducting their own direct research with users. I am keen to know where that is at and what it has uncovered. Additionally—I am sure that Scottish colleagues will raise this—there was a proposal that we should follow the Scottish model of indexing funeral payments with inflation. There was some criticism of that model in the Government response, but I would be keen to hear about that.

A particular issue that arose during the Committee’s consideration was the situation in Northern Ireland with bereavement benefits. The Government have considered bereavement benefits and decided that it is inappropriate for cohabiting couples with children to be eligible. That is the Government’s position. They have considered the Committee’s report and decided to stick with that position, but in Northern Ireland we cannot, because the High Court found against the Northern Ireland Executive, so in Northern Ireland there is eligibility for cohabiting couples with dependent children.

Given that we administer what is a Government scheme in Northern Ireland—it is not a Northern Ireland Executive scheme, but the wider social fund of this country—I am keen to find out from the Minister, who may need to write to me, whether the money required to meet the additional burden in relation to bereavement benefit comes out of the Northern Ireland Executive’s money or whether the Government are making up that shortfall even though they are unprepared to do so in the rest of the United Kingdom. We have found ourselves in this position because of the judiciary, and the courts may well step in in England as well.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on initiating the debate and on the very effective way in which he is putting across his case. Does he agree that in the interest of compassion at a time of bereavement, that judgment is actually right and the Government ought to look at the matter again in England and throughout the United Kingdom?

[Gavin Robinson]

I do agree, although the Government flag up what I think are important associated considerations. Could we see two individuals, one a married spouse out of the home and one a cohabiting spouse in the home, applying and have the difficulty of deciding who is entitled and who is not? The Government have flagged that up. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the matter needs further consideration. There is the particular issue for Northern Ireland, and I think that the wider impacts are worth further reflection.

There are a number of issues on which the Government hold no information, and I will go through them quickly. The Minister may or may not get a chance to take them down, but I know that many hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate. The Government hold no data on the number of people unable to afford a funeral, on the average cost of a funeral or on the types of funeral chosen. The Government have no idea of the number of people plunged into debt. The Government hold no data on the number of local authority or public health funerals and have no proportional breakdown in their accounts as to how the £40 million paid out of the social fund breaks down into discretionary and non-discretionary payments.

I refer to all that because those are the answers that hon. Members who have doggedly pursued this issue over many years have received. Having highlighted all that has been highlighted in this opening part of the debate, and in expectation of what is to come from colleagues, I think that answers to those questions must be the starting point for a Government who wish to deal appropriately with the disparity that people face and the debt that people are plunged into.

I am grateful to have had the opportunity to introduce the debate and, as I said at the start, I commend all those who have done much more work on this issue than I have. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) said, with a new Government, a new Minister and the stated ideal of standing for those who need it most, this is one good opportunity for the Government to deliver.

Personal Independence Payments

Andrew Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 13th April 2016 Westminster Hall

[Ian C. Lucas]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The Motability issue is important and is causing concern on both sides of the House.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his speech and on securing this debate. Are not the shortcomings that he rightly describes underlined by the success rate at first-tier tribunal appeals? The Barton advice centre in my constituency has an 82% record in overturning such wrong decisions.

[Ian C. Lucas]

That is absolutely the case, and it is important to realise the impact of determinations, such as the withdrawal of Motability cars, which are taken back within days pending an appeal.

Young Jobseekers

Andrew Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I join others in congratulating the hon. Lady on securing the debate. Does she agree that the quality of information and advice available to young people still leaves a great deal to be desired? Indeed, schools having the prime responsibility to provide careers advice has not been an unqualified success. The statutory guidance to schools says that they should work with Jobcentre Plus to provide a smooth pathway from school into employment. In the hon. Lady’s experience of working with Jobcentre Plus, is that happening?

[Chloe Smith]

It is happening in parts of the country. One of the points I want to make today is that we see good practice in some parts of the country. I hold up the jobcentre with which I work in Norwich as an example of that. I also note forthcoming initiatives, which I am sure the Minister will cover in his response, whereby jobcentres will be asked to work more closely with young people in schools. That is to be welcomed.

Crisis Loan Funding

Andrew Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 19th June 2012 Westminster Hall

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

I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate crisis loans and the changes to the social fund ushered in in the Welfare Reform Act 2012. My primary purpose in requesting today’s debate was not to rehearse arguments we have already had on the substance of those changes, although a number of issues remain unresolved and undoubtedly inform today’s debate, but to seek clarity from the Government about the implementation of the new system and assurances about the funding allocations accompanying the policy changes.

Although social fund crisis loans and community care grants will disappear from April next year, the need for emergency and one-off support for people on low incomes will not. We know that funding will be made available to local authorities in England and the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales to provide discretionary social assistance, but we do not yet know how that will work in practice or how local authorities and devolved administrations are expected to deal with the shortfalls. Questions raised throughout the process on the merits of ring-fencing the social fund allocations remain acute. We need to know what guidance the Government will issue to support implementation and whether resources will be allocated to establish a replacement system.

In terms of contextualising our discussion this afternoon, it is worth drawing attention to the important role that social fund crisis loans and community care grants play in our welfare system. They act as a safety net for people on low incomes who face unexpected or unplanned costs and help people to acquire essential furniture or equipment if they are setting up home in very straitened circumstances.

As the debate about crisis loans progressed last year, the Government repeatedly relied on the argument that the cost of crisis loans was spiralling and needed to be brought under control. Back in March last year, I suggested to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions that the rise in the uptake of such loans was largely attributable to the recession. Given the ongoing economic turbulence, financial insecurity and high unemployment of the past few years, that might seem to most of us to be a no-brainer, but the Secretary of State insisted that the cost of crisis loans was rising prior to the recession.

I am glad to have the opportunity this afternoon to scrutinise that claim in more depth. It is clear that there is a link between the rise in demand for crisis loans and the onset of the financial crisis. We should be honest enough to face up to that. Members who have followed the issue will be aware that the Department for Work and Pensions annual reports on the social fund have been published from 2006-07 onwards only. If we use 2006 as our pre-recession baseline, as the Government appear to have done, there is clearly a dramatic year-on-year increase in both the number of claimants and the amount spent on crisis loans as the recession began to bite.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate on a very important subject. Underlining the point she makes, does not the DWP’s own research, “Local Support to Replace Community Care Grants and Crisis Loans for Living Expenses in England”, show that there is indeed a close correspondence between flows on to jobseeker’s allowance and the number of crisis loan applications?

[Dr Whiteford]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a salient point, which backs up the point I am making.

I want to look back a little further, using information that had to be obtained from the Government under a freedom of information request by a non-profit company called Full Fact. Looking at that, we can see that, in reality, prior to 2006-07 and the start of the banking crisis, the amount spent on crisis loans was remarkably stable between 2000 and 2005-06. During that period, the gross amount spent on crisis loans did not fluctuate—up or down—by more than 5%, and spending dropped in 2003-04 and the following year. Although overall there was a slight upward trend prior to 2007, it would be misleading to compare that with the dramatic increase in applications and expenditure once people started to experience hardship, as work dried up and costs for basic foods and heating started to rise. I am concerned that we are still in that position and that we can expect demand to continue to rise for as long as the economic turmoil continues.

I am struck by briefings from Citizens Advice Scotland and others that outline the wide range of circumstances in which people try to access the social fund. Those seeking crisis loans and community care grants include people moving into independent living and those who need basic furniture to set up home after a family breakdown or a period of homelessness. They also include people with employment problems, those with complex benefits claims, who are caught in the quagmire of the system with no immediate source of money for food or heating until their claim is resolved, and those who incur unexpected travel costs due to the illness or hospitalisation of a close relative.

Those eligible for crisis loans face a wide range of circumstances, but what they all have in common are cash flow problems, compounded by an underlying low income. That is a temporary state of affairs for some, but some others, such as those who are disabled or have long-term health problems, have little financial resilience to deal with unexpected costs. They have limited means to absorb financial shocks, such as the cooker or fridge breaking down or the aftermath of exceptional events such as burst pipes or a break-in. Burst pipe problems came home to me in the past couple of very severe winters. People living in homes that are not well heated are often those who would particularly struggle if faced with having to redecorate or get a new carpet. Such events are not only a burden on those on very low incomes, but on anybody living on a modest income who has to count the pennies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Lady needs to accept that if we open up the benefit gateway in such a way as to make it difficult to manage or police, it is entirely unsurprising if we see a significant increase in the level of demand. I take her back to one of my earlier comments about the nature of that increase. It is among a very distinct and particular set of people. It is not at all representative of any increase or changes in the nature of those claiming benefits in total.

In 2011, some 17,000 people received 10 or more crisis loans in a 12-month period. Crisis loans are about preventing serious risks to health or safety or about an emergency. Is it entirely possible that an individual could be in such serious risk and danger over such a prolonged period of time? The hon. Lady must agree that some urgent change is required here. As this is cash limited, any shortfall that is created would have had to be met from the budgeting loan scheme, which would have meant less money for those people who were trying to regulate their borrowing in a responsible way.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

In the time that remains, will the Minister address another important point that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) raised about what safeguards there will be to ensure that vulnerable people who need this support actually get it from local authorities and that other local pressures do not absorb the money?

[Maria Miller]

The right hon. Gentleman neatly brings me on to my next point. Although there is no need for any new statutory duties on local authorities and the money will not be ring-fenced, the money will be sent out via a specific identifiable grant and it will be accompanied by a settlement letter that will set out what the funding will be used for and the underlying principles, and it will describe the outcomes that must be achieved. The funding will concentrate on providing resources for those facing the greatest difficulty in managing their income and it will enable more flexible responses at a local level. The letter will be explicit that the funding is to provide a replacement provision for community care grants and general living expense crisis loans. It will set out the sort of detail that the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady are looking for to ensure that the most vulnerable people in our society get the support that they need.

Credit Unions

Andrew Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd November 2011 Westminster Hall

[Damian Hinds]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. There is a great opportunity to expand the work between credit unions and housing associations. I hope that the number of those partnerships will increase greatly.

Some credit unions have been involved in payroll deduction savings accounts for many years. I had the privilege of visiting the Voyager Alliance credit union in Manchester. Based at the Stagecoach bus depot in Moss Side, the credit union runs a slick operation. When bus drivers and transport workers join the organisation, they frequently open a savings account from day one. Very small amounts go into the account from their wages. It is a bit like pay-as-you-earn in that they almost do not notice the deduction—well, they do notice it, but hon. Members know what I mean. Before they know it, a small nest egg has been built up, which is important for their financial stability.

The Police credit union does great work with a number of different forces. The Glasgow credit union, which is one of the most successful in the country, has 71 partnerships with different organisations to facilitate building up exactly this kind of savings account. The book on the power of nudge is required reading for all political anoraks these days, and we have talked about that mostly in the context of auto-enrolment pensions, but there is great potential for savings products as well.

Those are some of the things that credit unions themselves are doing, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) mentioned, deregulation of the sector and Government support are about to unleash a set of new and exciting opportunities.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I too congratulate the hon. Gentleman on this debate and on his wider work in this area. My intervention gives me the opportunity to praise Blackbird Leys credit union and Oxford credit union in my own area. Does he not agree that there is scope to do more through the Post Office to reach out more widely to communities across the country?

[Damian Hinds]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. That is the single most exciting potential opportunity for the sector, and I will come to it shortly.

The key piece of deregulation, and what makes this debate particularly timely, is the passing of what in the credit union movement is known as the LRO. Politicos, however, prefer the longer title of Legislative Reform (Industrial and Providence Societies and Credit Unions) Order 2011, which is an awfully long phrase to get one’s head around. It is very important to the sector and has been an awful long time in the making. When speaking to credit union groups, we always get a groan when we say, “Soon, the LRO will be with us.” I am pleased to say that the order has now been passed and will be with us in the new year.

There are three critical elements to the LRO. First, there is the liberalisation of the common bond requirements. Traditionally, there has to be something in common between the members of a credit union. Although that has some advantages, it is also restrictive of growth. In future, credit unions will be able to open up membership to residents of a local housing association, which may have tenants outside the common bond area, or to employers who may have different branches and operations elsewhere. It will also help to facilitate the growth of the strongest credit unions, thus helping to serve more people.

The second key element is the capacity to pay interest on savings rather than the traditional dividend. The divvy, as it is known, has many advantages. However, it is rather difficult to explain, especially if someone is trying to persuade people to put their savings into a particular product. They may say, “Well, it depends how much money is left at the end of the year and then we will divide it all up and you will get whatever you get.” When a credit union is trying to compete in the market against individual savings accounts, it needs to be able to demonstrate a competitive rate. In future, it will be possible for credit unions to do that.

The third important change is in the type of members. It will be possible for credit unions to engage with not only individuals but organisations for a portion of their business. I do not think that we will see many large plcs suddenly starting to bank with their credit union, but it will work for local community groups, not-for-profit groups, small traders and so on that keep relatively small, but not totally insubstantial, positive balances in their account.

On a wider basis, we could say that credit unions have the potential to be the banker to the big society. Importantly, these changes are enabling; they are not compulsory. Three-quarters of credit unions intend to extend their membership base as a result of the changes.

What are the critical success factors for credit unions to be able to promote financial inclusion? We have to look at that on two levels: individual credit union and system-wide. For an individual credit union, scale is needed. It then needs a proportionate cost base so that it can run a surplus. It needs a good mix of savers and borrowers and income groups. To be successful, credit unions cannot just be for the most disadvantaged; they need a good mix. MPs and our local media can play an important part by encouraging more people to put a proportion of their savings—it does not have to be all—into credit unions in the knowledge that they are totally safe and that they will be doing some good in the local community.

On the system-wide level, scale is again at the top of the list of success factors. Alongside that are awareness, visibility and accessibility. Credit unions suffer on that count at the moment. Not as many people are aware of credit unions as they are of the sort of organisations that can afford to advertise constantly on daytime television. Credit unions need attractive, competitive products and substantial, robust back-office processes and interfaces.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

I pay tribute to all those involved. This is the essence of the credit union movement, and indeed the essence of the co-operative movement as a whole. If I have one regret politically, looking back over history, it is that the co-operative movement found itself on the left of politics rather than the right. The co-operative spirit has much in common with the spirit that we on the Government side of the House represent. Many of the changes that we are putting in place are designed to try and encourage people to work together. Within the credit union movement, we find that writ large.

As a result of the changes in the review, credit unions will be able to pay a guaranteed rate of interest on members’ savings. We hope that will help them to attract more savings, and so make more affordable credit available in the community. We also want them to do more. We want them to look to the future, reach out to offer new products to many more potential members, and work to provide the services that landlords and their other partners want. We need them to become more efficient, better known and more attractive—effectively, to move to the next level of potential for the credit union movement.

Credit unions need to reduce their costs, increase their capacity, and operate more efficiently by sharing back-office activity. The right hon. Member for East Ham asked a question about that. The creation of a central financial wholesale organisation for credit unions is being examined by the feasibility study, which is looking at a wide range of different options. It is being led by a project steering committee, supported by the Department for Work and Pensions. I am pleased that the issue of Jam Jar accounts was raised. Financial products such as Jam Jar accounts are very much part of the study.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. He mentioned the feasibility study and the welcome agenda of work it is addressing. Can he give us any indication of when the study is likely to report?

Benefits (EU Nationals)

Andrew Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

It is delightful to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mrs Riordan. This is an important debate. I have a brief time in which to speak—I wish that it were longer—but I will allow my colleagues to make brief interventions, if they need to make a particular point.

Can British taxpayers, with a massive budget deficit of £143.2 billion, afford to be so generous with their benefits payment system to everyone who tries to claim? Are we the benefit pot for the EU or the UK? Do we, through our lax approach, encourage benefit tourism?

Under EU rules governing non-discrimination against other EU member citizens, many of our benefits are ultimately available to many of the citizens who have decided to join us from other EU member states with only a few exceptions for some accession countries. The amount of benefits being paid has risen enormously, and our own Chancellor, in his spending review, is looking at ways in which to bring down the welfare bill. I suggest that we start with EU benefit tourists and by closing some of the loopholes that have been exploited by the canny.

My colleagues will not be surprised to hear that I am no fan of the bloated, greedy, meddling Euro-state. I did not vote for it, and the power-creep that has gone on over the years is abhorrent to many older citizens who voted for a common market based on trade. In 2004, 10 countries joined the EU, and their citizens are afforded the same rights as those of other EU member states. Transitional measures for up to seven years restricted the right of freedom of movement for labour for eight of the 10 new accession states. Often called the A8 countries, they are the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia. Ireland, Sweden and the UK were the only EU member states to grant full labour market access to the A8 nationals. Other member states maintained their existing work permit arrangements or implemented a modified work permit regime.

At that time, we foolishly implemented a transitional set of arrangements covering a workers’ registration scheme. These arrangements have lapsed for the A8 group as of this year. That category of EU migrant worker will be able to claim jobseekers’ allowance, council tax benefit and housing benefit on top of other benefits such as child benefit. If the Migration Advisory Committee’s report of 2009 is anything to go by, we can expect an even greater call on our benefits now that the transitional arrangements have lapsed. The MAC report looked into extending the transitional arrangements for EU migrant workers until April 2011.

In 2008, the MAC reviewed the evidence on drivers for migration. Relative income levels—GDP per capita expressed in purchasing power standard—in A8 countries demonstrated the strongest relationship to immigration rates. We must learn from history. If there is a direct link, as outlined by the MAC in 2009, that people from poorer countries are more likely to come to work and claim benefits in Britain, then we must expect that when the current transitional arrangements for Bulgaria and Romania lapse this year, or in 2013 if we achieve an extension, many thousands of them will come over, too. We cannot walk into a potentially burgeoning welfare commitment with our eyes closed, and we must act to protect our public finances. We cannot castigate the previous Labour Government for massively underestimating the number of Polish migrant workers who would come to the UK and then put the blinkers on our own eyes when it comes to the A2 countries.

The MAC report showed that, relative to other A8 countries, Poland had a much lower GDP per capita than Britain, and so many Poles came to the UK to seek work. As the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), in his capacity as poverty tsar, has been advising the Government, it is no secret that nearly 90% of the newly created jobs have been filled by migrant workers, many of whom have dependent families back home. With an even worse GDP per capita for both Bulgaria and Romania, we must expect them to react to their circumstances in the same way and to seek a more affluent lifestyle on our doorstep.

We should have learned a lot from the failure of the previous Government to protect the coffers of the UK from EU migrants seeking, very understandably, to better their economic lot and that of their families, many of whom will have stayed behind in their mother country. I do not blame them; they are simply working within a set of rules that we have stupidly put in place.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

This is an important subject, and I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. Does she not accept that in judging this in the round, we also have to take into account the benefits to our economy and to other economies of freedom of movement? Should we also not take account of the benefits that accrue to British citizens through having rights of movement to other EU countries?

[Mrs Main]

There are undoubtedly benefits, but we are talking about countries with different levels of affluence. Although we benefit from some hardworking migrants, we also have to open up our benefit pot. It is no good expecting our country to withstand massive cuts in benefits and services to try to tackle a budget deficit while, at the same time, handing out largesse elsewhere. I want to examine those failures and learn from them, especially as Romania and Bulgaria will soon enjoy full accession rights.

There is no point in any of us wringing our hands, berating the shortcomings of the previous Government and moaning that our hard-earned taxes are being sent abroad if we are not prepared to tackle this. I urge the Minister to take note and, hopefully, take action.

Child benefit is a notable example that has caught the eye of hon. Members in all parts of the House. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) for her sterling work in uncovering recent data that show how our child benefit is being transferred by EU migrants and their families.

In 2007, the Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), who was then shadow Treasury spokesperson, said:

“There are 200,000 more British children living in poverty than a year ago. Child benefit is a vital weapon in the fight against child poverty. So why is Gordon Brown sending thousands of pounds of benefits every week to children who do not live here and who may never have even visited the UK.”

I totally agree, so why are we still doing it and why will we keep on doing it in ever greater amounts when the new A2 countries will equally want a slice of our benefit pie? We cannot just hope that other countries may not know about the apparent advantages of seeking benefits in our country.

At the time my right hon. Friend made his comments, the biggest Polish newspaper in Britain, The Polish Express, ran a story headlined “Benefit Hunters”, which claimed:

“The longer we are in Britain, the more rights to social security we are given and the better we are taking advantage of them.”

It gave advice on how to claim and described the case of one Polish migrant who was given a two-bedroom house shortly after applying to a housing association without any need to join a waiting list. The paper said:

“The formalities concerning an application for social security are extremely simple. Do not delay in submitting an application.”

Disability Living Allowance

Andrew Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2011 Westminster Hall

[John Robertson]

My hon. Friend makes a good point and I will use a couple of cases as examples as I go through my speech.

On page 37 of the DWP consultation document, there is a list of automatic entitlements that the Government propose to remove, including one for blind people—the “severely visually impaired”. That entitlement was brought in as result of my amendment to the 2009 Act. The DWP consultation posed many more questions than it answered. We learned that the assessment for the new personal independence payment, which I will call “PIP”, will

“prioritise support on those individuals who face the greatest day-to-day challenges and who are therefore likely to experience higher costs.”

However, that wording was sufficiently vague that it could be overshadowed and interpreted in the light of other developments. Rules on eligibility would be restricted in such a way as to question the ongoing entitlement of disabled people in receipt of the lowest rates of the care and mobility components. PIP would consist of a mobility and daily living component, but unlike the existing care component, the new daily living component would comprise two rates, not three. An individual’s adaptation to their impairment would be taken into account in determining entitlement to PIP, presumably as a cost-cutting exercise.

I will not deal now with the plans to remove DLA mobility from individuals in residential care, as those plans were the subject of another Westminster Hall debate that was secured by the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams). I will simply add that it is reassuring that the Government will review mobility provisions for people living in care settings, but I still note the intention to remove DLA mobility for people in residential care in 2013, albeit one year later than originally proposed.

One of my most serious concerns relates to the Government’s plans to end automatic entitlement to DLA for people who clearly ought to have it, including the higher mobility component for people who have severe mental health problems, who are deafblind or are severely visually impaired. Individuals with those disabilities, along with people who are double amputees, automatically qualify for the higher rate, because they meet the strict criteria on the severity of their impairment.

That automatic entitlement is a clear and administratively efficient way of identifying disabled people with the highest level of mobility needs. In future, each case will be looked at individually, except the cases of people who are living with a terminal illness. Organisations for disabled people tell me that they do not believe that that is a sensible approach, as it will increase the costs of assessment while leading to the same outcome as the original system, and people with the most severe impairments will still receive the higher rate of benefit.

As I have mentioned, in three weeks’ time, more than 20,000 people in the UK with severe sight loss will be entitled, for the first time, to the higher rate mobility component of DLA and they will receive the extra £30 a week that they need in their pockets to maintain a decent quality of life. I tabled my amendment to the 2009 Act in the first place because of my strongly held belief that there is no good reason for discriminating between someone who faces physical barriers to mobility and someone who is unable to move around safely and independently as a result of blindness.

I want to tell the Minister about one of my constituents, as his case was the one that spurred me on to table the amendment to the 2009 Act in the first place. Alan McDonald has been blind from birth, has orientation problems and faces huge hurdles in getting around. He is unable to use public transport because of his difficulties in getting on and off buses and trains. Either he has to spend his other benefits on taxis, although they are meant to provide other support, or he is forced to rely on his sister to give him a lift to wherever he needs to go; otherwise, he has to stay at home.

Alan’s blindness is not the only barrier to his mobility. For example, when I tabled the amendment to the 2009 Act he was awaiting a second kidney transplant and was due to undergo surgery for hardening of the arteries. Despite all those difficulties, however, he was told on several occasions that he simply did not qualify for the higher-rate mobility component of DLA, because he was physically able to walk. Yes, he could walk—he could walk into wheelie bins, or into a set of traffic lights, or even into the middle of the road where he would be knocked down; but he could walk, so he did not get the money.

The barriers that Alan faces are just as great as those faced by someone who cannot walk, and the current situation is nonsensical. I believe that the Minister has to consider such things. It is unbelievable that somebody with such disabilities might not receive the higher rate of disability allowance in two years’ time, having finally received it after all these years.

Blind people such as Alan are justifiably angry about the discriminatory and unfair treatment that they receive, but they will feel even angrier and let down when the DLA mobility component, which comes into being in April, is taken away from them in just two years’ time. That will put them back to square one.

Many charities have contacted me because they are alarmed about the Government’s proposals. For example, the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association is concerned about the proposal that PIP should replace DLA. In particular, the association is concerned about the proposal in the DWP report on DLA reform proposals to

“take greater account of aids and adaptations”.

Taking into account the use of aids and adaptations when assessing eligibility could inadvertently penalise an individual who uses such equipment to try to reduce some of the difficulties that they face as a disabled person.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I commend my hon. Friend’s campaign and the passion with which he is putting a very powerful case. Has he been contacted by the National Autistic Society? I ask that because there is enormous concern on the part of those who care for autistic people and those with family members who are autistic, as DLA is crucial for communication, travel and services for autistic people. It is crucial that access to DLA be retained for autistic people as well as for the other people whom my hon. Friend has mentioned.

[John Robertson]

I thank my right hon. Friend, who has more than a little reputation of looking after these people, both as a Minister and as a member of the previous Government. I congratulate him on the work that he has done. I have been contacted by so many groups that I could not possibly name them all in my speech today. If I miss any of them out, it is not because I want to do so, but because my speech is time-limited, but yes, I have received correspondence from the National Autistic Society and I thank my right hon. Friend for his input.

Any reduction in disability-related benefits simply because of someone’s access to equipment could significantly inhibit their efforts to lead a more independent life. Disability-related benefits enable people not only to live independently, but to participate in community activities. Such community engagement could include volunteering, which is a core component of the big society and could help someone to gain skills and experience that could enable them to go on to seek and obtain work.

Several wrong assumptions could be made about the effectiveness of aids and adaptations. They might work for some individuals, but others might struggle with them. Issuing someone with a cane or a low-vision aid such as a monocular, does not necessarily mean that that person will continue to use it, or use it correctly. Even if the aids and adaptations are used appropriately, they are likely to have only limited uses. For example, a liquid level indicator might help someone safely to make a hot drink, but it will not make it any easier for them to make a meal to go with that drink. How will the Government help these people?

I know of another gentleman, David Griffith from Walthamstow in London, who receives the mobility component of DLA because he is deafblind, like Alan. He uses his DLA to pay for taxis, and for other support in getting out and about. He also tries to walk in his local area, and has recently applied for a guide dog because he has had a few near misses with cars of late. However, having heard a feature on the BBC Radio 4 programme “In Touch,” he is now worried that becoming a guide dog owner might result in the removal of his DLA. Under the proposals, a guide dog would enhance his life and make him safer in one element of his mobility, but he would never have the independence that sighted people have. He would not be able to jump out of the way of the car that was about to hit him, and he might travel on a bus that he did not mean to get on in the first place.

Health and Safety (Construction Industry)

Andrew Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2011 Westminster Hall

[Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, Mr Amess, to serve under your chairmanship. May I express my sincere appreciation for being given time to debate this important subject?

I wish first to express my thanks and appreciation for the helpful information and advice given to me while researching for the debate by a number of organisations—none more so than the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians, the National House-Building Council, the National Federation of Roofing Contractors and the TUC.

As the construction industry hopefully recovers, the number of fatalities and serious injuries is likely to increase—an increase in fatalities followed previous recoveries in the construction industry. The rise was the result of good practices being lost when companies were forced to lay off staff. Due to inadequate training as the industry recovers, new inexperienced companies and workers will enter the industry, and their lack of safety knowledge will often prove fatal.

The cutting of corners to get one job finished quickly in order to start the next is a major killer. Another is workers working excessive hours. Working long hours leads to tiredness, which leads to mistakes. Indeed, the Prime Minister recently said on television that he does not work long hours, because it leads to bad decisions, so we have at least one supporter.

The most common cause of death is falls. In 2009-10, 25 workers were killed through falls, a 19% increase in deaths over the previous year. The number of people being killed as a result of being hit by a moving vehicle slightly increased in 2009-10.

As part of the comprehensive spending review, the Health and Safety Executive’s budget will be cut by at least 35% by 2015. It is impossible to make such large cuts without affecting front-line services. It has already been announced that the contracts of the 20-plus temporary construction inspectors, whose contracts run out later this year, will not be replaced.

As well as the loss of temporary inspectors, there will be a reduction in the number of front-line inspectors. That is directly contrary to the Donaghy report, which recommended an increase in the number of inspectors. Cuts in the number of inspectors will inevitably lead to a reduction in inspections, enforcement activity, prohibition notices, prosecutions and convictions.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I congratulate him on securing this tremendously important debate and on the research that he has done for it. On the theme of the impact of the cut in the HSE grant, has he heard of the letter that was leaked to the BBC yesterday, which said that the Health and Safety Executive was proposing to reduce unannounced workplace inspections by a third? That would be disastrous if it affected the construction industry, as workers there are six times more likely to lose their lives than those in other industries.

[Jim Sheridan]

I have not seen the letter, but I have heard of it. My right hon. Friend is correct that it would be disastrous, not only for the HSE but for workers in the construction industry. We should watch this space and see what happens.

Recent research shows that the level of enforcement activity and the number of prosecutions being undertaken by the HSE is at a record low. Due to a lack of resources, the HSE can investigate only one in every 10 accidents. Cuts to the HSE’s budget are likely to increase the under-reporting of accidents under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995, which are otherwise known as RIDDOR.

Research by the university of Liverpool shows that only 32% of injuries involving employees were reported under RIDDOR—for the self-employed, the percentage was only 12%. The proposals under consultation will weaken those regulations, which were originally proposed by the Young review. That will increase under-reporting, and, as a result, poor health and safety practices will not be picked up early, which could result in further fatalities.

There have been several notable deaths recently. The circumstances are indicative of the industry. On Friday 21 January, four construction workers were killed in Great Yarmouth. The men were working on foundations when adjacent steelwork fell on them. It was the worst accident for more than a decade, given how many workers were killed. Despite that, there was little or no mention of the accident in the national papers. In October 2010, immediately following the announcement that the HSE could lose 35% of its budget, seven construction workers were killed. The deaths occurred all around the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Webb]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue for a moment. As I was saying, the HSE will continue to concentrate its work on the highest-risk sectors, such as construction.

I also want to respond to the specific point made by the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr Hepburn) in his intervention. He suggested that there might be an end to unannounced inspections in the construction sector. I am happy to confirm on the record that there is no intention to stop unannounced inspections in construction and indeed the HSE will be paying greater attention to smaller sites, where we fully recognise that there are still poorer standards. Indeed, it is on those sites that the majority of fatal accidents happen.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

Will the Minister give way?

[Steve Webb]

If the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North is happy for me to give way, I will give way, but I have only eight minutes left to respond to his speech. I am in his hands. If he is happy for me to give way, I will give way.

[Steve Webb]

I will give way.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

I am grateful. I welcome the assurance from the Minister. Can he assure us that there will not be a reduction in the number of unannounced inspections?

[Steve Webb]

Obviously, the HSE will introduce its proposals for responding to the budget changes. Indeed, the Government will announce our health and safety strategy relatively shortly, in response to the Young review and other changes. Details about all those things will be made clear to the House in due course. However, the key thing is that I have no doubt—in preparation for this debate, I have obviously had helpful discussions with the HSE—about the HSE’s commitment to an ongoing and high level of effective intervention in the construction industry.

One feature of the construction industry is that it is clearly different from other industries. At its best, it is capable of great things and great successes, and it has a great deal of expertise in controlling health and safety risks to workers. Of course, even many of those temporary inspectors I mentioned, who soon will not be working for the HSE, will go back into the industry and take their expertise with them.

I said that there were just over 100 fatalities a decade ago. Two decades ago, 154 construction workers were killed. Progress, therefore, has been made—fairly considerable progress over a period of 20 years or more. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North mentioned the Donaghy inquiry and the issue of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority. I know that he has been involved with previous private Member’s legislation on the GLA and I also know that there is a private Member’s Bill on the matter before the House at the moment.

Disability Allowance

Andrew Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mr Clarke]

The hon. Gentleman makes his point well. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw asked how people would react, particularly if faced by the Minister. At the weekend, I took his advice and travelled around as many residential homes in my constituency as the heavy snow permitted. I can reliably inform the Chamber that people in residential homes are terrified about the removal of the mobility component of their DLA, and they have urged me to make the strongest representations on their behalf. I have no doubt that the same is true for other hon. Members from all parties.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this enormously important debate. On the point about impact, will this move not hit all the harder because we are talking about some of the most vulnerable people, many of whom are on very low incomes? It will remove a substantial portion of their real disposable income. How can anybody possibly justify that?

[Mr Clarke]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right and speaks with the authority of a proactive constituency MP and as a former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.

Further supporting my allegation of a lack of clarity, an interesting question was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South on 22 November. I do not go over these questions just for the sake of repetition. She asked:

“Will the Minister take this opportunity to clarify exactly who will lose the mobility element of their DLA?...Will there be exemptions, or will everyone in residential care lose the mobility element of their DLA?”—[Official Report, 22 November 2010; Vol. 519, c. 6.]

As we would expect, Front-Bench Opposition spokespeople have tried to clear up Government ambiguity. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran) asked whether the Government can guarantee

“that there will be ‘no losers’ as a result of this policy?”—[Official Report, 22 November 2010; Vol. 519, c. 7.]

There has been far too much obfuscation on the issue. It is too important a matter for vulnerable people to be left in the dark about how they will be affected. I genuinely thought that the days of “out of sight, out of mind” were long since past.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) on securing the debate, because there is clearly considerable interest and concern right across the House.

I know that several Members would like to speak, and my right hon. Friend has eloquently presented many of the points that I would have raised, so I will highlight just three issues. First, I remind right hon. and hon. Members that disability living allowance is intended to meet social and participation needs, not to provide support for medical needs. That underpins the reason why so many of us in the debate are so concerned about its removal from people in residential care. To some degree, such people are already isolated from the community because they are in special and slightly artificial circumstances, and many of them are acutely aware of that special isolation. The mobility component of disability living allowance enables people to leave that residential setting from time to time for leisure or social purposes, to be with their families and, in some cases, for employment and educational purposes, so it is a precious aspect of their social participation rights.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

My hon. Friend brings enormous expertise to the debate. One point that has not been mentioned so far is that entitlement to DLA is a trigger for accessing the Motability scheme. As she says, contact with the community is enormously important, and some of the people we are talking about have jobs. Will people not risk losing the cars that they get through the Motability scheme? Is that not awful?

[Kate Green]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising that. I am also grateful to a number of disability organisations, including RADAR, the Royal National Institute of Blind People and Leonard Cheshire Disability, for highlighting the fact that individuals need to be in receipt of DLA for three years to access the Motability scheme. As my right hon. Friend says, there is a very real risk.

Fundamentally, we are talking about a threat to the independence of people in residential care settings. That threat arises because the costs and inconvenience of leaving those settings are greater for such people than they are for those who do not need the mobility component of DLA. The mobility component helps those in a residential setting to go beyond the basic level of transportation—for instance, when attending medical appointments. It enables full participation.

I hope that a full impact analysis of the proposals will be directed specifically to social and participation needs. I would welcome such an undertaking from the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

I start my short contribution by making a confession. This is the first time in nearly 28 years as a Member of the House that I have made a speech in a debate on disability. That was not because of a lack of interest—far from it. However, this entire area of policy has always struck me as something of a secret garden—moreover, one with its own jargon and terminology. My experience is that if we use the wrong phrases or the wrong words, others, including people from NGOs and concerned charities, are likely to shout at us. As a result, I am never quite sure whether I am meant to refer to disabled people or people with a disability.

Listening to oral questions to the Department for Work and Pensions in the House last week, I again felt somewhat lost in this secret garden. I am genuinely interested in the matter, not only as a constituency Member but as the co-chair of the all-party group on carers. I was reassured to hear that even the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Miss Begg), whom I believe chairs the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, was not sure exactly who would be affected by the Government’s proposals. She observed that there was quite a lot on the blogosphere about who might or might not be affected by the changes.

My first request is that Ministers should set out clearly what is being proposed and who is likely to be affected. I am not confident that I am right, but after listening to the answers given by my hon. Friend the Minister at oral questions last week, I understand that it is primarily about people being supported and funded in residential care homes by local authorities. It is a consequence of the move towards personalisation of care—enabling people to have a much greater say over their own care packages, which by common consent is wanted by almost every disabled person. My hon. Friend highlighted the fact that the Department of Health has put £2 billion into social care. Am I right in assuming that a proportion of that money is intended to be used by local authorities, to ensure that residents in care homes continue to have a measure of mobility?

As the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) observed, the Treasury spending review of 20 October mentions on page 28 the intention to save £135 million, but I am unclear from whom that money has been taken or from where. Is it intended that the money should be replaced by the funding that the Department of Health has put into social care?

My hon. Friend the Minister said in the House that

“Local authorities, working with care homes, have a clear duty to promote, where practical, independence, participation and community involvement for every single disabled person living in such care homes.”—[Official Report, 22 November 2010; Vol. 519, c. 6.]

Is that a statutory right? How do disabled people ensure that it is delivered? If it is not being delivered by the local authority, is the matter subject to judicial review? I am unclear as to whether something is actually being taken away, or whether the activities are expected to be funded through a different and separate funding route.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Peter Bottomley), I have an excellent Leonard Cheshire care home in my constituency. Agnes Court in Banbury is home for a number of seriously disabled residents. Many of them, like those mentioned by the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales), have been there for many years. Indeed, I have known some of them as constituents for practically the whole of my time as a Member of Parliament, as they have lived almost all of their adult lives at Agnes Court. The mobility component of the DLA has enabled the residents of Agnes Court and other constituents to access such things as electric wheelchairs; it has funded visits to local GPs or doctors; and, most important, it has funded visits and activities away from Agnes Court.

These constituents, like us, clearly want to live their lives to the full. Is this money now being taken away from them? If so, how will such activities be funded in the future? My hon. Friend the Minister asserts that local authority contracts with care homes should cover services to meet all residents’ assessed needs, including any assessed mobility needs, and that an individual’s care, support and mobility needs should be met by residential care providers from social care funding. If that is what she is saying, I hope she will write to the chief executive of every local authority setting out exactly what the Government expect them to do.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

I thank my fellow Oxfordshire MP for giving way; I know that he cares about these issues. I urge him and his colleagues to reflect on the perversity of these proposals. Even if local authorities, under instruction from the Minister, are able to put together some package of support for transport for people in residential care homes, which seems rather doubtful given all the financial pressures that they face, does it not go completely in the opposite direction from the whole philosophy of personalised care, which is that a person has a package appropriate to their needs and they can choose how to exercise it? They may choose to spend the mobility component of DLA on special transport—electric wheelchairs or access to Motability and so on. Will they not have less independence and choice, even if this money is replaced through the local authority route?

[Tony Baldry]

The right hon. Gentleman and I are both Members for Oxford constituencies. Having been a Chief Secretary to the Treasury and a Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions, he is a more frequent visitor to this policy secret garden than I am. I am trying to understand whether something is being taken away here. If it is, is it being replaced by something else? If it is, and if the expectation is that local government should be funding it, then that needs to be set out very clearly. The test for all of this is that when each one of us, as a constituency Member of Parliament, meets a constituent who is affected by these changes, we need to be confident that we can explain what is being proposed. I make no criticism of anyone at the moment—the Chairman of the Select Committee cannot even work it out. I am not confident at the moment that I know the answers. If the Government are proposing changes, it does not seem unreasonable to expect those to be set out clearly and unambiguously in terms that everyone can fully understand.

Work Capability Assessments

Andrew Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 27th October 2010 Westminster Hall

[Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I am delighted to have secured this Adjournment debate on the work capability assessment, and even more delighted that it takes place under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. It is the first time that I have served under your chairmanship, so I am looking forward to the next half hour.

Before we launch into a massive programme of moving people from incapacity benefit on to employment and support allowance or jobseeker’s allowance, with the launch of the pilots in Burnley and Aberdeen, it is a good time to take stock of where we are, what has happened in the past and where we will go in the future. One of the things that most alarms me is the speed at which we are making the reforms. They were of course introduced by the Labour Government. The change from incapacity benefit and income support to employment and support allowance, with the support group and the work-related group, was introduced in October 2009 by Labour. We fully support all those welfare reforms. However, I would like the Minister to respond on a question of nuance and of how quickly and in what context the reforms are being made.

It is also important to highlight the reason why we moved from incapacity benefit and income support to employment and support allowance in the first place. It was because a large number of people were languishing on passive benefits and had little contact with anyone in their area who could help and support them to move from passive benefits into work. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have always agreed that work is still absolutely the best way out of poverty.

The headlines in the newspapers about individuals who get up to £10,000 of benefits a week are headlines because such cases are extremely rare. Most people on benefits, whether passive or active, are poor. We call them vulnerable; we mean poor. Those people are not rich. They are not wealthy. Their poverty is a different kind of poverty, especially in the case of someone on a passive benefit that does not require them to go to a jobcentre every week to sign on and have a face-to-face conversation with a personal adviser. It is a poverty not just of resource, but of experience and aspiration.

People in such poverty do not have access to the things that people with jobs take for granted. Their social networks dry up, and their personal development stops. What I am talking about is not just amounts of money and moving people off benefits and into work; it is about lifestyles. It is about the people whom we have spoken to who have moved from incapacity benefit into work and who talk about getting their lives back. It is fundamental and goes to the heart of what I want to say about the motivation behind moving people from incapacity benefit into work.

One of the things that most worries me is that the motivation now seems to be to get the welfare bill down, and nothing else. I agree that the welfare bill is very high and must be an important consideration—it is taxpayers’ money—but we must prioritise individuals. We must see the person, not the benefit. The group of people in question is a very large one, but they are all individuals, with different issues and problems, and different barriers and reasons for being on incapacity benefit rather than going to work.

The reason that the pathways to work project, in which I was quite heavily involved in Derbyshire—it was one of the first English pilots—was so successful was that personal and financial advisers in jobcentres looked at claimants as individuals; they did not think only about what benefit they were claiming. The project was not just about getting those people into work and off the joblessness figures. It was about considering what kind of support people needed, including what financial assistance they needed to get them the retraining that they wanted. It involved considering the local work force and the jobs available locally and working with local colleges. That is why it was so successful.

The problem is that that approach is extremely expensive. There is no doubt about that, but we always tried to argue that that was an up-front cost to bring about a saving way down the line. When we see what it does for individuals, it is stuff that money cannot buy. I would like some reassurance from the Minister that he is continuing with that motivation and not just the motivation of getting people off benefits and into work to make a big saving on the welfare bill.

Beyond the correctness of the principle of getting people back into work, there are serious issues about Atos Healthcare. It has always been a problem, and I am the first to admit that, even under the Labour Government, it was an issue. Atos is the only provider of medical assessments that is big enough to provide the sort of support that the Department for Work and Pensions needs in contracting out the work. However, in the massive change from incapacity benefit to employment and support allowance, which involves moving on from medical assessments to work capability assessments, we are asking Atos, which is already struggling with the amount of work that it has, to take on a huge amount of extra work. How will the Minister fill that capacity? Will he take more doctors out of the NHS, or is he thinking of supplementing the existing work force with a migrant work force? Both approaches are and always have been problematic, but given the massive increase in the amount of work that Atos is being asked to do, how will the Minister provide for it?

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate and endorse all that she is saying with such passion. Will she take account of the fact that an advice centre in my constituency is winning 96% of its appeals against the work capability assessment? Does not that underline the fragility of the Atos process, which she has highlighted, and does not it show the need for the DWP to apply much closer quality assurance to the assessments?

[Natascha Engel]

That was exactly what I was going to come on to. Changing the description of the process from a medical assessment to a work capability assessment was welcome; it refers to what people can do and not what they cannot do. However, Atos has not moved away from an on-screen tick-box exercise. The number of people who come to my constituency surgery saying that they have been to a work capability assessment where the doctor has not even made eye contact with them is disgraceful. However, I am very worried about the issue that my right hon. Friend has raised. Up to 75% of cases taken up on appeal by the Derbyshire unemployed workers centre are successful, and the figure is 40% nationally. I recently asked the Secretary of State at DWP questions how many people that involves.

The errors that are already occurring will merely migrate to the new system. There has been no demonstration that there will be any underlying robustness. The numbers and the traffic involved will make things very difficult. I seek an assurance from the Minister about what people are saying anecdotally—I have no evidence for it—which is that there must be some kind of incentive: Atos is being told that it must get people off benefits. I want an assurance that Atos is not being told or incentivised to move people off incapacity benefit or employment and support allowance and on to the jobseeker’s allowance.