Welfare

Angela Smith Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Crabb]

My hon. Friend raises an important point about communications with people who are disabled, and she will be pleased to know that within the Department, we recently set up a taskforce of stakeholders and interested parties to look at this very issue. This included organisations such as the Royal National Institute of Blind People, the British Deaf Association, Action on Hearing Loss, Sense and Mencap.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Secretary of State on his appointment. I hope his commitment to a more inclusive listening approach will deliver a more positive set of outcomes for disabled people, unlike the missionary zeal of his predecessor. Given that we now have a £4.4 billion gap—a big hole in the Red Book—will he say, as a member of the Cabinet, where the Government will find that money from? If it is from the welfare budget, which part of the welfare budget will be targeted?

[Stephen Crabb]

That “missionary zeal” that the hon. Lady mentions in relation to my predecessor is a really important quality when one is trying to achieve big changes across Whitehall. As I have repeatedly said this afternoon, we have much to be proud of when it comes to the achievements of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green. On the question of savings, we have another debate on the Budget tomorrow, in which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will be speaking on that very issue. For the sake of absolute clarity, let me reiterate this: the Government have no plans to make further reductions in welfare expenditure.

Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill

Angela Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 8th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Debbie Abrahams]

I will not give way at the moment. I will finish my point and then make some progress.

The Children’s Society’s analysis shows that between £500 and £400 will be lost per annum by key workers such as a second lieutenant in the armed forces or a primary school teacher.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

In addition to the scenario my hon. Friend is outlining, these cuts come on top of the fact that the move from RPI to CPI for benefits will push a further 4 million children into poverty by 2020.

[Debbie Abrahams]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown that nearly half a million more children will be living in poverty by the end of this Parliament, and that is without taking into account the 1% drop. Families up and down the country are struggling. Food prices have increased by 26% over the past three years, almost as much as energy prices. That is a real cut for ordinary families.

The second myth I would like to expose is the claim that welfare benefits have increased more than average earnings. In fact, since 2002 average earnings rose by 36% while jobseeker’s allowance, for example, increased by 32%. Between 2007 and 2010, to ensure that work pays, benefits for people in work rose by 53.1%, compared with 46.9% for out-of-work benefits. The Government have also claimed that the 1% cap will offset increases in tax thresholds. We know that at least 682,000 working families receiving child tax credit earn less than £6,420, so they will not benefit from those changes in tax credits.

I was going to refer to the myth that we need to do this to reduce the deficit, but that myth has already been blown out of the water in other contributions, so I will not go on about the fact that growth has been downgraded yet again, we are borrowing more than anticipated and our economy is one of the worst performing in the G7.

The Government’s response to their failing economic policies is what? It is to give tax breaks to the wealthiest in society. Some £3 billion is being given to 300,000 people earning more than £150,000 a year, with an average gain of £10,000, and the Government are making people on low incomes pay for it. According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, £500 million will be saved as a result of the 1% cut in 2013 and just over £2 billion in 2014, but that money could also be saved if the Government made different choices. It is clear where the Government’s priorities really are. The choices that the Government have made are underpinned by their ideology.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

The Bill represents an unprecedented break with the principles underpinning the social contract that has characterised British society in the post-war period. No other Government—not even the Thatcher Government—have broken with the uprating principle to the degree that this Government have done so, and for very good reasons, because the loss of income incurred over time merely stores up problems for the future.

Earlier today my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (David Miliband) outlined the case for genuine welfare reform, on the basis that economic and demographic changes make such reform vital. I argue that at the heart of the debate is the need to look again at how we get people back into work. Labour’s job guarantee for the young and the long-term unemployed would be a good start on the road to proper, meaningful welfare reform, whereas the Government’s proposals, as laid out in the Bill, do not represent reform. Rather, they represent an old-fashioned attack on the victims of the Government’s double-dip recession: the low-paid and their children.

The attack on the jobless and the low-paid is simple to explain. In the context of the welfare changes already announced, which will take £18 billion out of the welfare budget for the working-age population, the 1% freeze represents an appalling but audacious decision on the part of the Con-Dem coalition to force those on the lowest incomes to pay the cost of the Government’s failure to inject demand into the economy, with borrowing going up and austerity measures being extended well beyond 2015. While £3.4 billion is given away as a tax cut to millionaires, the very lowest paid in society are being asked to pay for the Government’s economic failures. Even worse, it is those in work who will bear the greatest impact of the freeze inscribed in the Bill. According to the IFS, as we have heard many times today, 68% of those affected by the decision will be in work.

Yesterday we heard the Deputy Prime Minister—a Liberal MP—excuse his support for what is clearly an unfair and vicious attack on those who are least able to pay the price for economic incompetence by claiming that there is no alternative. The truth is that these savings, which amount to £3.7 billion, must be seen in the context of the £3.4 billion give-away to the very richest in society. On top of that, we all know that there is only one sure way of getting the deficit down in the long term: getting the economy growing again and getting people back into work.

The real victims of today’s measure are, of course, children—blameless children who will feel the impact of squeezed budgets. Many already know what it is like to see their parents fall back on food banks to keep them fed. Children are primarily the responsibility of those who bring them into the world, their parents, but we understand that society, too, has a responsibility towards them. After all, the young are our future. Society needs to nurture that future, invest in it and give it the best possible chance of delivering the prosperity we all need.

I will draw my remarks to a conclusion with one further point. The Government think that they are clever in the way they are shaping their savings profile. They think that they will escape the consequences of what they are doing because the jobless, the low-paid and the young vote in lower numbers than we all wish to see. The Government should think again, because that will not necessarily prove to be the case in 2015.

Oral Answers to Questions

Angela Smith Excerpts

Monday 5th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

In fact, many more people access the internet daily than a lot of people think. Some 78% of all benefit recipients access the internet, and about 48% do so on a daily basis. Obviously it is our job to try to get that figure up, because if people cannot access the internet that affects their employment prospects given that 92% of all jobs require some computer skills. This is an opportunity and, yes, we are looking at that passported benefit to make sure that those who need the money get the money directly.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

Universal credit is due to be up and running in less than a year. Surely by now the Secretary of State should be able to give us some detail about who will be eligible for free school meals.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

We are talking to the Departments involved about how best they want to make this work. They will make it work, and we will come forward very soon with some very clear indication of how it is going to work. The hon. Lady should rest assured that the purpose of this is to make sure that those who need and deserve the money get the money, and I can guarantee that that will be the case.

State Pension Age (Women)

Angela Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 11th May 2011 Westminster Hall

[Steve Webb]

On how the proposed single-tier pension will work, it is a Green Paper with options, so the sort of detailed figures for which the hon. Lady asks will be produced when we have identified which of the two options we will go for and refined the proposition. That information will be made available when the proposition is refined further.

To clarify, at the moment, many women in the age cohort that we have been discussing will have spent time at home with their children before the state second pension was introduced. Whereas the state second pension offers protection for time at home with children, the state earnings-related pension scheme did not. That set of women is approaching pension age. People have accused me of moving the goalposts. I am indeed moving the goalposts for those women, but in their direction. They will draw a state pension—yes, later, but for an average of more than 20 years. Compared with when we first started debating the changes in state pension age last summer, that is a significant difference.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

If the Minister is so confident that the changes that he is introducing will be so beneficial, have not the Government failed to communicate that fact? Throughout the election campaign, I met women on the doorstep who were angry about what he describes as the changing of the goalposts, because they felt that it was against their interests, not in favour of them.

[Steve Webb]

I accept entirely that although what we propose is a lot simpler in a sense than what came before, that is not massively well understood because pensions are so complex. As we refine the proposition, we will have a lot of communicating to do. However, it stands to reason, for example, that paying a flat-rate state pension rather than an earnings-related one will, on average, benefit women. It must, because women earn less on average. Crediting years at home with kids towards the full pension, not just the basic pension, will and must benefit women on average. There can be no doubt that the options presented in the Green Paper would substantially benefit women, on average, out of the overall pensions budget. I look forward to the hon. Lady’s help in communicating that to her constituents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Webb]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point, and for his self-restraint in making a brief and thoughtful contribution in order to allow others to speak. He is right that we need to make people aware of the changes. Our dilemma is that none of this is law yet. We must tell people that it may happen, but we cannot say on Government websites, “These are the new rules,” because Parliament has not approved them yet. The current website describes the current legislative position, as we are required to do, and then it says, “However, important changes are being discussed in Parliament. Click here if you want to find out what is being proposed.” As soon as the changes go through—this summer, or whenever—we will, of course, publicise them. We routinely write to people before they reach state pension age, and in a time of change we do it more.

I agree entirely that we need to communicate. One frustration of mine is that I get letters saying, “You’ve put my pension age up by six years.” Anyone who is going from 64 to 66 had their state pension age raised from 60 to 64 some 15 years ago, but they did not notice, because when they were 42 or so, they were not interested in pensions. That is our challenge. People close to pension age are interested in pensions and follow such matters; younger people turn off as soon as they hear “pensions”. Communicating to people further ahead is a challenge.

[Angela Smith]

I thank the Minister for giving way again; he is being generous. Surely the fact is that if the pension generally will improve, as he says, it will improve for everybody. I was born in 1961—I am not afraid to admit it—and my retirement age is still 66 under the proposals, as it was before the election. I will benefit from the more generous pension that he plans to offer, but women born between 1953 and 1960 are still being singled out, in that they will have to wait longer than they planned before getting that more generous pension. They will still lose out, and they are still being discriminated against.

[Steve Webb]

I suspect that the hon. Lady will not benefit from our proposals, as I imagine that she would have received a full basic state pension anyway, whereas the proposals will help some women who would not have received it. By being employed here, she is also contracted out of SERPS, resulting in a deduction from the £140. I do not actually think that she would benefit.

I do not dispute for a second that that set of women will be affected by the changes, but the pension that they will get under our proposals will be significantly better on average than that received, for example, by women who retired a few years earlier. We can do all sorts of comparisons between this group and that group. Some things will be better for some and some will be worse. What I am saying is that several hon. Members have said, “You used to campaign for women’s pensions, but you don’t care any more,” but I have spent all my time as a Minister working on proposals that will benefit women pensioners specifically.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Webb]

That does not apply to the figures I quoted, which relate to the difference between 1993 and 2010. All of the women in 1993 had a state pension age of 60, but all of the women whom I was talking about are under 60—they are currently in their late 50s. A diminishing proportion of the women about whom we have been talking have caring responsibilities, although that may change.

The issue of moving the goalposts has been mentioned and I think that one Member said that we are happy to change the pension age at the last minute. We have set out in our Green Paper a consultation on how we should do this beyond 66 in the longer term. In other words, what is the right balance between notice, keeping up with longevity, and fairness for those who have to pay national insurance for the increased longevity? There is a dilemma. Ideally, we would give people huge amounts of notice.

[Angela Smith]

That is what we did.

[Steve Webb]

That is not what the previous Government did. We would love to be able to say to people who are 40 or 45 years old, “This will be your pension age.” However, if we said that to 45-year-olds, who have another 20 years or more before they retire, and another 20 to 25 years of life in retirement, we would be locking in what we know about longevity now for pensions that we will still be paying in 50 years’ time. That is just not viable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Webb]

We have made it clear that the age-66 changes are in the present Pensions Bill, which will be legislated for long before the end of this Parliament. We are also consulting in the Green Paper on a systematic mechanism for going beyond 66 that takes account of all the factors that we have talked about. That will try to strike a balance between notice, which is important, and fairness for those who bear the cost of increased longevity. The intention—this is something that no previous Government have done—is for the further changes to do it in a more systematic way. The 60 to 65 equalisation was a response to a legal case. The previous Government’s plans for 66, 67 and 68 were not ad hoc exactly, but there was no mechanism in place to respond to subsequent improvement in longevity. What we are trying to do as part of our reforms, which we are consulting on at the moment, is give people the certainty that future Governments will not just pass a law and change things, but that there will be a structure in place and that they will know how it is going to be.

[Angela Smith]

I was on the Committee for the Bill that became the Pensions Act 2008, which, as the Minister has said, set out the changes recommended by the Turner report. He says that the approach that he wants to introduce is systematic, but does it not mean a constant shifting of the goalposts that will leave most people, however much notice they are given, with a constantly changing picture of when they should expect to retire?

[Steve Webb]

I hope that the hon. Lady will respond to our consultation on the right process. She raises the important issue of how we strike a balance. The fact is that one in six of us alive today will live to be not 88, but 100, and that figure is increasing all the time. How do we strike a balance between that and giving people notice? We could have a principle of always giving people x years’ notice, which would mean that it would not matter if longevity improved dramatically after that point. That is part of what we are consulting on and there are trade-offs. I hope that the hon. Lady will respond to that.

We are moving into a world in which pension ages will not be the rock-solid certainty that they have been in the past, because they cannot be. The hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), who has left the Chamber, said that this is like someone starting a job but having their contract changed halfway through. On that basis, people start paying national insurance at 16, have a guaranteed pension age for the next 50-odd years, and have another 20-odd years after they start drawing a pension. Therefore, the second that they are in the system at 16, nothing can change until 70. That is economic madness. There has to be some adjustment, but I accept that it has to be done in a measured way, which is why we are consulting on an appropriate mechanism.

Employment and Support Allowance

Angela Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 10th May 2011 Westminster Hall

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to have secured this debate and to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Leigh. This is an important matter for many of my constituents. Employment and support allowance was introduced by the last Government to replace incapacity benefit. As we are all aware, it is designed to support people who are too sick or disabled to work full-time or at all, or who need significant retraining, and who meet certain conditions. The benefit is funded by the Department for Work and Pensions.

There are two types of ESA. Claimants may be able to get either or both, depending on their circumstances. The two types are contributory ESA, which is available to those who have paid enough in national insurance contributions, and income-related ESA, which is available to those whose income and capital are low enough. ESA claimants must be over 16 and under state pension age, unable to work due to sickness or disability and not entitled to statutory sick pay. Most importantly for this debate, they must satisfy certain tests. Between October 2010 and March 2014, all current incapacity benefit claimants will be reassessed under the new work capability assessment, rather than under the personal capability assessment used under the old regime. Work capability assessments are causing much concern among many of my most vulnerable constituents.

I think that all parties agree that our benefits system should screen out those who try to access disability benefits despite being entirely fit to work. However, disability benefits should not be used, as incapacity benefit was by the Tory Government in the 1980s, to manage unemployment numbers artificially. The work capability assessment has been in use for some time, and I am confident that I am not the only Member of the House being approached regularly by constituents who are angered by how it works, or whose disability benefits have been withdrawn after an assessment. Work capability assessments have been contracted out to a private organisation, Atos Healthcare, in a £300 million deal by the Government. Atos Healthcare is part of the Atos Origin group of companies, most noted for its IT outsourcing operations. It has Government contracts in the Home Office and elsewhere.

The assessments carried out by Atos Healthcare no longer take into account GPs’ assessments of an individual’s impairment or long-term condition, ignoring them in favour of a set of questions, which take an average of 15 to 45 minutes to answer, administered through software developed by Atos. The software requires assessors to ask a set of questions on which the applicant can score up to 15 points, putting him or her into the ESA support group. GPs, who in many cases might have known applicants all their lives, and who in any case have a good understanding of applicants’ medical, social and emotional status, are ignored by the new system.

Instead, a new set of individuals called health care professionals come into play. They are trained by Atos for an average of four to 16 weeks in understanding targets—that is most worrying—and the all-powerful LiMA, or logic integrated medical assessment, software. They are given time limits for each assessment and told that the more people they can see in a given period, the better it is for the targets. Health care professionals consist of physiotherapists, nurses and doctors. I am not saying that those professionals do not know what they are doing. However, they are bound by the software that they are operating.

Work capability assessments mean that under the new system, blind claimants who can get around safely with a guide dog can be forced on to jobseeker’s allowance, as can deaf claimants who demonstrate that they can read and write. Claimants who cannot walk but who can use a manual wheelchair will no longer score points. In addition, references to hands have been removed from the picking-up activity, specifically to make it harder for amputees to score points.

Some activities have simply been cut altogether. For example, the activity “bending and kneeling”, which I would have thought critical to determining whether an individual is fit for any kind of work, has been completely abolished for health and safety reasons, as people apparently should not bend forward when lifting. Perhaps most worryingly, half of all the scoring descriptors for mental health and learning difficulties have been removed from the procedure, making it much harder for people with depression, anxiety and many other forms of mental illness to get ESA.

A constituent recently visited my surgery who was assessed and passed as completely fit for work of any kind, despite the fact that she could not walk without crutches and could not stand or sit for long periods because the discs in her back had completely disintegrated. Because she could both stand and sit, she was classed as fit for work. Another constituent visited my surgery to tell me that the examiner told him that he had no problems moving, despite the fact that he suffered from rheumatoid arthritis. Good days and bad days are a feature of rheumatoid arthritis. On bad days, movement can be much more severely restricted. It is difficult to understand how such a bland, all-encompassing assessment can be made of an individual’s health needs. My constituent’s condition highlights a great concern about the tests, which is that they assess claimants only on a particular day and not over a period of time. That is important, because claimants with rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis and Parkinson’s disease all fall into a similar category.

In 2010, an independent review of the tests by Professor Harrington concluded:

“There is strong evidence that the system can be impersonal and mechanistic, that the process lacks transparency and that a lack of communication between the various parties involved contributes to poor decision making and a high rate of appeals…evidence has consistently and regularly highlighted problems with each stage of the WCA process, which limit both the assessment’s fairness and effectiveness.”

Atos’s own staff have said that the assessments are too harsh. Prospect, the trade union representing 135 Atos doctors, has stated that the target of seeing 10 or more people a day is unrealistic and will lead to inaccurate assessments, especially in complex cases. It should come as no surprise, then, that ESA appeals have increased by 56%. Figures rose from 25,700 in the second quarter of 2009-10 to 52,000 in the same quarter of 2010-11. Almost half of cases were overturned on appeal. Such a degree of failure is staggering and makes a powerful case for change.

Furthermore, the assessments do not consider the context of the claims or the claimants. A representative survey by Ipsos MORI compiled from a face-to-face survey commissioned by DWP found that nearly a third of those going through the ESA process were described as having literacy problems. A further 6% had problems speaking English, 11% had numeracy problems and 22% were described as being in one or more disadvantaged groups, including those with mental health issues, ex-offenders, and those with perceived learning difficulties. An overwhelming 69% of those going through the WCA had multiple health conditions. That is greatly similar to other assessments, such as for special educational needs, which are often made more difficult by multiple health conditions. I acknowledge that that makes it hard for assessments to be as accurate as they should be. It underlines the case for changing the procedure, which is too simplistic and inaccurate.

Those in the support group and in the fit-for-work group had the same number of health conditions, namely 31. In all groups, 81% of people were receiving medical treatment for their condition, with 38% waiting for hospital or additional treatment. Those statistics do not suggest to me that we are dealing with a set of fraudsters pretending to be sick or disabled, or a set of individuals who have been languishing on incapacity benefits for years. In fact, 71% of applicants for ESA were new claimants making their first claim.

Evidence is mounting that the entire process is likely to cost the taxpayer more than the original benefits bill that it is designed to cut. The cost of Atos contracts, tribunals and additional health care caused by the misery and failure of the work capability assessment adds up to higher long-term costs, yet it is all being done under the guise of state efficiency. Despite the overwhelming evidence that WCAs are not working as they should, Atos was awarded a further contract by the Department for Work and Pensions in 2010.

I do not want to be tribal about this. I am perfectly aware that it was the Labour Government who introduced the new system. I am not interested in blame, but in seeing what is wrong put right. I am not saying that people should just be left to rot on ESA. I know all too well, from my own family history, what incapacity benefit did to people’s mental health when they were thrown on to it after losing employment in the 1980s. Nor am I saying that it is not right for the state to make sure that only those eligible for the benefit should get it. There is no doubt—the evidence is indisputable—that people who are on ESA, or who were on incapacity benefit before that, for a period of time are more than likely to spend the rest of their days on it, and that is wrong. It always has been and always will be wrong. What I am saying is that the system that has been put in place is not only unfair in how it assesses disability, but too rigid and inflexible. It does not take into account the needs of individuals, and it is more about saving the Treasury money, ironically, than helping the individual.

Another constituent came to see me recently, because he had also been refused ESA. He was a manual worker—a printer—and that was all he knew, in terms of work. He had been in printing all his life. He had emphysema and had suffered a heart attack, which, as I think most of us would agree, would make it very difficult for him to do manual work again. Anyone who knows anything about emphysema will say that it is a disease that kills and that tends to kill slowly, disabling the individual suffering from it in the process. Those of us who live in the old coalfield areas and in steel communities know all too well what the disease can do. It is terrible. I know, because I have seen members of my family suffer from it. It is a shocking, awful disease.

My constituent needed help to train to do something else. He may only ever be able to work part time, and certainly not in the job that he had been used to all his life. It also has to be said that my constituent desperately wants to go back to work. However, because of the way in which the current system is set up, he was refused ESA and forced to go on to the jobseeker’s allowance, and he is now being chased to take any job that comes along, regardless of the potential long-term impact on his health condition, emphysema. There is no support for retraining, which is what ESA should offer, and no recognition of the fact that he, a manual worker, is no longer fit to engage in that type of work. That is not acceptable. We need a much more flexible view of how we help people who often have multiple health conditions and who need help, not punishment. Significant investment would be required, but in the long term I am sure it would pay dividends by way of increased numbers of disabled people back in work and reduced health costs. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on that point.

I also seek a response on several other points. I would like confirmation of when each of the 25 recommendations in Professor Harrington’s report will be implemented, including a change to the form for claimants that would allow them to describe in detail how their symptoms and why their condition make it difficult or impossible for them to work, and allowing them to receive a summary of the report on them that Atos submits.

Will the Minister give us details of what the implementation will mean? How will DWP ensure that the assessment is carried out in accordance with the recommendations and, in particular, is improved to be fairer and more accurate for people with fluctuating conditions? That includes what happens to disabled claimants and those with long-term conditions who drop out of the process. Finally, why has the migration of the 1.5 million people on incapacity benefit already begun without the implementation of the recommendations to which I have referred?

This is a debate of immense importance for disabled people throughout the country and for workers who, for one reason or another—usually because of the form of work in which they have been engaged—have ended up with lung or heart conditions and so on. The issue is important and is causing a great deal of distress. I await the Minister’s response, particularly on when Professor Harrington’s recommendations will be implemented.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

In terms of the mental health champions, there are I think about 50 in the network. The number will rise further and is rising; they are being recruited all the time. By the time the process is finished, there will be one champion for about every two to two-and-a-half assessment centres. Someone will be constantly on call. In some cases, those champions will be present and, in other cases, they will be at the end of a phone line. The hon. Lady made reference to the Harrington recommendation on the individualised statement—the summary of the assessment. We want the champions to be involved when the individual concerned picks the phone up and says, “I’m not quite sure about this.” That view can be reflected in that statement, which will be introduced later this month. So that recommendation will have been dealt with as well.

[Angela Smith]

I am very pleased with the fullness of the Minister’s response, but will he comment on the situation that threatens individuals with long-term and sometimes terminal conditions, such as emphysema, who may be fit for some form of work, albeit only for a few hours a week? Those people are currently failed by the system.

[Chris Grayling]

I will come on to that because I want to make another point in response to the hon. Lady’s question about fluctuating conditions. Professor Harrington is currently working on that to see if there is anything else we need to do. However, we are trying to ensure that there is expertise within the Atos network of individuals and that training is provided to both decision makers and Atos professionals about fluctuating conditions.

On the hon. Lady’s other point, a crucial part of this jigsaw puzzle is the Work programme that will start in about three or four weeks’ time. That programme is designed to provide specialist support for precisely the kind of person she has mentioned. She said that the person concerned wants to work, but that he clearly cannot work in the job he had before. If we put him into the sickness benefits environment and leave him there, he will probably never work again. We can offer him the opportunity to have specialist support through the Work programme, with providers who are contracted on a payment-by-results basis and in a system where we pay different amounts for different levels of challenge. For example, somebody who is coming off sickness benefits will command a higher tariff than somebody who is a conventional job seeker without sickness challenges. The aim is to encourage the providers to work with somebody in that position to find a job that he can fulfil.

I do not regard it as acceptable—I am sure that the hon. Lady and I share this view—to have a situation whereby anyone who has the potential to work is parked on the sidelines and is unable to get the support that they need to get into work. From our point of view, the most fundamental part of the change is not to try to find people who cannot work fit for work. Indeed, those who end up in the support group—the group that needs ongoing unconditional support—will get more money as a result of the change.

The key goal is to identify those people who have the potential to return to work so that, through the Work programme and other support provided by Jobcentre Plus, we can give them the help they need to get into the workplace. That is what this is all about. We will do our best to get it right, but I am sure that we will make some mistakes along the way. We have introduced a reconsideration stage at Jobcentre Plus to try to ensure that we catch our mistakes early. However, it is important to realise that this is all about helping people who could work to do so. Otherwise, the only alternative is for them to spend the rest of their life on benefits, and I do not believe that that is in their interests or in any of our interests.