Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme Levy

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 25th January 2022 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chloe Smith)]

The Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme (Levy) Regulations 2014 require active employers’ liability insurers to pay an annual levy, based on their relative market share, for the purpose of meeting the costs of the Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme (DMPS). This is in line with the insurance industry’s commitment to fund a scheme of last resort for persons diagnosed with diffuse mesothelioma who have been unable to trace their employer or their employer’s insurer.

Today I can announce that the total amount of the levy to be charged for 2021-22, the eighth year of the DMPS, is £22.0 million. The amount will be payable by active insurers by the end of March 2022.

Individual active insurers will be notified in writing of their share of the levy, together with how the amount was calculated and the payment arrangements. Insurers should be aware that it is a legal requirement to pay the levy within the set timescales.

I am pleased that the DMPS has seen seven successful years of operation, assisting many hundreds of people who have been diagnosed with diffuse mesothelioma. The seventh annual report for the scheme, along with the annual statistics were published on 29 November 2021 and is available on the www.gov.uk website. I hope that Members of both Houses will welcome this announcement and give the DMPS their continued support.

[HCWS557]

Supporting Terminally Ill Claimants

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Monday 24th January 2022 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chloe Smith)]

Today the Department for Work and Pensions is introducing an amendment to the Universal Credit Regulations 2013 and the Employment and Support Allowance Regulations 2013 to exempt people who are terminally ill from the requirement to accept a claimant commitment to be eligible for benefits.

A claimant commitment sets out what an individual agrees to do in return for benefit, including any work search requirements and a duty to report any changes in their circumstances. Anyone claiming benefits under the special rules for terminal illness would already be exempt from work search requirements. However, there is currently no blanket exemption for terminally ill claimants from the requirement to accept a claimant commitment more generally. This means that the requirement to accept a claimant commitment can only be waived on a case by case basis.

To streamline the process and provide certainty to those approaching the end of their lives, the statutory instrument laid on the 24 January will therefore create a specific exemption from claimant commitments for terminally ill people.

The regulations will apply in Great Britain and will come into force on 15 February 2022. The Northern Ireland Assembly intends to mirror the regulations and is in the process of putting this into place.

We are committed to ensuring the benefit system supports people nearing the end of their lives. Further to the changes we are making today, we will be bringing forward regulations shortly to replace the current six-month rule for determining eligibility for the special rules for terminal illness with a 12-month, end of life approach in universal credit and employment and support allowance with changes to personal independence payment, disability living allowance and attendance allowance being made when parliamentary time allows.

[HCWS554]

Disability Workforce Reporting Consultation

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Thursday 16th December 2021 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chloe Smith)]

Today the Government are publishing their consultation on disability workforce reporting, as announced in the national disability strategy.

Our strategy, published in July 2021, set out over 100 wide-ranging practical actions to improve the everyday lives of disabled people. The strategy focuses on the issues that disabled people have told us matter most to them.

Supportive workplaces, where disabled people feel valued and able to be open about any additional needs, are vital to driving progress. It is also important that employers have the information required to create inclusive workplaces.

Through this consultation we will build an evidence base to better understand:

current reporting practices, and what works well

the case for and against implementing a mandatory approach to reporting

how a mandated approach to reporting, if adopted, might be implemented in practice

if there are alternative approaches that could also be taken to enhance transparency and increase inclusive practices.

I would encourage Members to make constituents and networks aware of the consultation, and to respond before the closing date on 25 March 2022.

I will deposit a copy of the consultation in the Libraries of both Houses and publishing it online at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/disability-workforce-reporting.

[HCWS498]

Personal Independence Payment

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 14th December 2021 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chloe Smith)]

Today the Department will publish the latest update on progress on making backdated payments to personal independence payment claimants who are affected by the MH and RJ decisions of the upper tribunal (UT). The release will be published at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/pip-administrative-exercise-progress-on-cases-cleared.

The MH decision changed how overwhelming psychological distress is considered when assessing someone’s ability to plan and follow a journey. The RJ decision changed how we decide whether someone can carry out an activity safely and if they need supervision.

As at 1 November 2021, we have reviewed around 980,000 cases against the MH decision. This includes cases where claimants have previously been assessed as having “overwhelming psychological distress” or who have a “psychiatric disorder” as one of their main health conditions. We have also reviewed around 1,100,000 cases against the RJ decision. This includes cases where claimants have a “neurological disease” as one of their main health conditions. All reviews will have been carried out by a case manager within the department.

Around 8,200 arrears payments, totalling around £42 million, have been made. We gave a commitment that no one would see their PIP reduced as a result of this exercise.

In addition, we have written to the vast majority of other claimants in scope of the exercise we said we would in our update to the House [Official Report, 11 February 2020; Vol. 671, c. 26WS]. We are continuing to send out letters and carry out reviews for any claimant who asks us to.

This has been a complex and substantial exercise, involving over a million reviews against two UT decisions. Our approach demonstrates that we have prioritised claimants who are most likely to benefit, in order to make backdated payments as quickly as possible. We are now writing to claimants who we do not expect to benefit, so they can request a review if they think they have been affected by these decisions.

We have set out further background to this release in an updated frequently asked questions. I will deposit a copy of this document in the Library of the House.

We will release a final report at the end of 2022, when we know the outcomes of outstanding reviews.

[HCWS478]

Oral Answers to Questions

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Monday 13th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)]

11. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to ensure cross-Government delivery of the national disability strategy.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chloe Smith)]

The entire Government are committed to transforming the everyday lives of disabled people through the national disability strategy because we want to build back better and fairer. A number of commitments have already been delivered. I chair quarterly meetings with the ministerial disability champions to drive progress.

[Mark Fletcher]

Increasing employment opportunities is key to supporting independent living for disabled people and people with health conditions. Will the Minister reaffirm our commitment to supporting 1 million disabled people into work by 2027?

[Chloe Smith]

I certainly will. The Government remain absolutely committed to that. There is more to do but progress has been made since 2017. The number of disabled people in employment has increased by 850,000, and the disability employment gap has closed by about five percentage points since 2013.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

I suppose, looking at it favourably, at least the long-promised strategy is now published, but the failure to co-produce the strategy with disabled people or disabled people’s organisations is unfortunate. What does the Minister say to people with disabilities and their organisations who have been left disappointed at what they call a “tokenistic” strategy?

[Chloe Smith]

The exercise leading up to the publication of that strategy was one of the biggest listening exercises ever undertaken with disabled people by Government. I am proud of it and proud of the result that has been published. It is my personal priority to implement it and to continue listening to disabled people and disabled people’s organisations. Indeed, there is a commitment, and several others through the strategy, to do more of precisely that.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

I commend the Minister for driving forward the national disability strategy with a real zest. My inspirational constituent Becky Maddern of the Benjamin’s Smile charity champions accessible play parks for families up and down the country, which became a key commitment in the national disability strategy. Will the Minister reconfirm that this will remain a key priority for her in her cross-Government work?

[Chloe Smith]

I certainly will. I pay tribute to Becky Maddern, who I too find inspirational. Indeed, I was thinking about her only at the weekend as I visited a playground with my own children and looked at the range of swings and equipment that was available. This is incredibly important because disabled children deserve to play as much as their brothers, sisters and friends. That underlines why our strategy is a very wide-ranging one that goes across the full range of public services and into culture, leisure and play as well, because it all matters greatly.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

One hidden disability often is an acquired brain injury, and 10 days ago, the Government committed to creating a national strategy for acquired brain injury. Will this Department ensure that it fully co-operates with the programme board, which will be set up in the new year, so that we can radically transform the opportunities and chances in life for those who have had an acquired brain injury?

[Chloe Smith]

I am very grateful for that question, and I pay tribute to the history that the hon. Member has and the work that he is doing in this area. Two Ministers in this Department have some personal direct experience of these issues, so yes, the Department for Work and Pensions will be keen to make good progress with that work.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chloe Smith)]

People on legacy benefits with severe disabilities are most likely to get employment and support allowance. Income-related ESA claimants may be entitled to the enhanced disability premium or the severe disability premium. Claimants may also be eligible for personal independence payments to help with the extra costs of living faced by disabled people.

[Judith Cummins]

I am sure the whole House agrees that a good society is one that helps those in great need. I have a constituent in great need. She was in receipt of income support and the severe disability premium, but her child is now aged five so she has been told to claim universal credit, which will cause her severe disability payment to end. What assurances can the Minister give my constituent that we are still in a good society and that, by being forced into this change in her benefits, she will be no worse off?

[Chloe Smith]

It would be difficult for me to comment on the hon. Member’s constituent’s precise circumstances, although I am happy to look at the case if she wants to write to me with details. As a general point, to support claimants previously entitled to the severe disability premium who moved to universal credit after a change of circumstances, there are transitional payments protections in place.

[Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

The DWP commissioned NatCen to undertake research on the uses of health and disability benefits. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) eloquently outlined, that research, which assesses the adequacy of benefits for disabled people, is vital. Several requests have been made for the report to be made public, including by the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, but they have all been refused. Will the Minister release the report? If not, can she explain what the Government are hiding?

[Chloe Smith]

The short answer is no. The longer answer was given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the Work and Pensions Committee only last week.

[Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)]

19. What steps her Department is taking to ensure that new universal credit recipients, who were previously entitled to severe disability premium, do not experience a reduction in benefit payments when they transition to universal credit.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chloe Smith)]

There is a little repetition with the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins). To support claimants previously entitled to the severe disability premium who moved to universal credit following a change of circumstances, we have introduced severe disability premium-related transitional payments. Those eligible, depending on their specific circumstances, will receive a transitional element of up to £405 a month.

[Sarah Green]

I thank the Minister for that answer. One of my constituents was previously in receipt of employment support allowance and housing benefit with a severe disability premium. Earlier this year, she relocated to my constituency to be closer to her daughter for support. That triggered a transition to universal credit and, even with transitional protection payments, she is more than £70 a month worse off, which, in the face of the current cost of living squeeze, is having a significant impact. Will the Minister meet me about this case? What additional steps will the Government take to support people such as my constituent who are being unfairly financially penalised by the move to universal credit?

[Chloe Smith]

I am happy to meet the hon. Lady, who, as a relatively new member of the House, I can see is getting stuck into casework. I welcome her hard work in doing so. The design of universal credit has concentrated support on the most severely disabled. That can be taken in alignment with other points that I have made, including on the support available through the national disability strategy and the ideas put forward in our health and disability Green Paper, as well as the many other things that the Department is doing. I hope that they may be of some support and help to her constituent.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

20. What assessment she has made of the potential effect of her Department’s employment schemes on labour market shortages.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

T3. With the omicron variant spreading rapidly it is more important than ever that we do whatever it takes to minimise transmission but, at £96 a week, our statutory sick pay is among the lowest in Europe and the TUC found last week that 647,000 workers in hospitality, retail, arts and entertainment do not even qualify. The result is either destitution or desperate workers taking risks. Will the Secretary of State commit to extending statutory sick pay to all workers and increasing it to the real living wage?

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chloe Smith)]

Statutory sick pay is just one part of our welfare safety net and the wider Government support offered to people in times of need. We have been able to look closely at statutory sick pay during the pandemic, but more consideration is needed and it certainly should not be looked at in isolation.

[Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)]

T5. I have a constituent on the legacy benefit system for whom it might be beneficial to move to universal credit. What help and advice is there in making that switch, and what further considerations should he take into account going forward?

United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Inquiry 2016: UK Follow-up Repor

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Thursday 9th December 2021 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chloe Smith)]

Today I will place in the Library of the House a copy of the UK’s 2021 follow-up report to the UN Committee on the Rights of Disabled People following the 2016 inquiry.

This Government are more committed than ever to eliminating barriers so that everyone can participate in society. This commitment aligns with the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities (the convention), which protects and promotes the rights of disabled people. The follow-up report demonstrates how we are implementing the convention and showcases the UK’s progress over the past two years in creating more opportunities for disabled people to participate and thrive in society.

The report shows positive action taking place across the UK to support disabled people, through policies and programmes that tackle the barriers faced by disabled people.

As a key element of this, in July 2021 we published the national disability strategy, which sets out steps to improve disabled people’s everyday lives. It offers both a positive vision for long-term societal change and a wide-ranging, practical plan for action now. The strategy includes over 100 practical actions from right across Government to improve the lives of disabled people, across education, employment, housing, transport, shopping, culture, justice, public services, and data and evidence.

In July 2021, we published “Shaping future support: the health and disability green paper”, which explores how the welfare system can better meet the needs of disabled people. We are committed to improving access to crucial support.

We also published our response to “Health is everyone’s business” (HiEB) in July 2021, which sets out measures the Government are taking to provide greater clarity around employer and employee rights and responsibilities: address the need for employers to have access to information and advice that is easy to understand, trustworthy and accessible, and encourage more employers to provide access to expert support services such as occupational health (OH).

Together these publications show the Government’s holistic approach to supporting disabled people and those with long-term health conditions to live full and independent lives.

The report shows that we are continuing to support disabled people in all aspects of everyday life. We are investing more than ever before in disability benefits and providing more personalised and tailored employment support to help more disabled people start, stay and succeed in work. As set out in the national disability strategy, we are committed to improving the accessibility of housing and are investing further in making public spaces accessible to all. We are prioritising funding for adult social care and personalised care reform to ensure everyone receives the right care they need; and we have increased grant funding across the UK for children and adults to support this. We are continuing to put the voices of disabled people first by engaging with disabled people and stakeholders through DPOs, networks and relevant organisations.

Everyone should be able to participate fully in society—whoever you are, wherever you live, and importantly, whether you have a disability or not. That is the vision we have set, accompanied not by rhetoric but with tangible action plans, to create a society that is safer and fairer for all.

[HCWS456]

UN International Day of Persons with Disabilities

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Monday 6th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chloe Smith)]

I am delighted to join you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) in speaking in this debate to celebrate the United Nations International Day of Persons with Disabilities. Can I start by thanking the hon. Lady for all her work leading the APPG on disability and the work of other hon. Members in that group?

The theme for this year’s International Day of Persons with Disabilities is leadership and participation towards an inclusive, accessible and sustainable post-covid-19 world. We have all seen the challenges that covid-19 has brought, especially for disabled people. It is a timely and important theme, and we aim to step up our efforts to build back better and fairer for a society that is truly inclusive of all of our citizens.

We are committed to improving disabled people’s everyday lives. That is why, in July, we published the national disability strategy, and our long-term vision is to transform disabled people’s lives. The strategy aims for both a positive vision for long-term societal change and also a practical plan for action now. I welcome the hon. Lady’s argument, which is quite right, that this needs to be broad. That is why the strategy sets out probably the widest-ranging set of practical actions to improve the lives of disabled people ever to be developed by Government—across jobs, housing, transport, education, shopping, culture, justice, public services and so much more. Commitments come from every part of Government, and will be delivered and held to account by ministerial champions in every part of Government. That is all in the service of opening up opportunities and breaking down barriers. Everybody should be able to participate fully whoever they are, wherever they live and, importantly, whether or not they have a disability.

One of my top priorities, therefore, is to deliver on that plan, and we are making good progress. For example, in September the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy launched a consultation on making flexible working the default in Britain; the Department of Health and Social Care has trials well under way to test new training on autism and learning disability; the Cabinet Office is creating a taskforce of disabled people’s user-led organisations to improve such organisations’ access to Government contracts; and the Department for Education is investing a further £300 million this year to create more school places for children and young people with special educational needs and disability—and there is so much more.

Attitudes towards disabled people and disability are changing, but we know that there is far more to do there as well, so we will develop a UK-wide campaign to increase public awareness and understanding of disability, to dispel stereotypes and to promote the diverse contributions that disabled people have made, and continue to make, to public life. Of course, disabled people fundamentally have the same wants and needs as anyone else: to access public services, to travel, to shop, to enjoy leisure, to meet friends and family, to work, to learn, to develop—to have full and fulfilling lives. I will add at this point that the Government are committed to reforming health and social care, and in a way that works for people with disabilities. Our recently published White Paper is a bold step in delivering our vision for a reformed adult social care system that is fit for the future.

Further advancing the rights of disabled people is as important now as it has ever been. We have heard from disabled people that there is so much more to be done, and we fully agree. The Government are committed to supporting a long-term movement for change on disability inclusion, as reflected in our national disability strategy, in the UK and through our international influencing and programmes around the world. I was glad that the hon. Lady remarked on the great work done by many of her constituents. I thank her for those points, which I endorse.

We remain fully committed to the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, which the UK ratified in 2009. That treaty promotes and protects the full enjoyment of human rights by disabled people. The central elements of our strategy complement those of the UNCRPD and focus on the issues that disabled people say affect them the most in all aspects of life. Indeed, our strategy was informed by the voices of more than 14,000 disabled people and carers who answered the UK disability survey, as well as the many disabled people’s organisations and charities that shared their experiences and issues.

It is an absolute priority for me to listen directly to the voices of disabled people, too. I intend that to include using our regional stakeholder networks across the country, which include disabled people, disabled people’s organisations, parents and carers, and working with disability charities and those businesses that are leading the way on disability issues, such as through Disability Confident.

Last Friday, to mark the International Day of Persons with Disabilities, I had the great privilege of hosting a group of disabled people and others at No. 10 to hear about their challenges and successes. We discussed participation in politics and public life, and I welcome the hon. Lady’s points on that theme. We are fulfilling our promise to review the way in which the UK Government engage with disabled people, again in discussion with disabled people and organisations and charities. I think that will, in turn, continuously make our work better and fairer.

I want to say a word more about the pandemic, on which the hon. Lady raised very important points. Since the start of the pandemic, the Government have worked hard to ensure that disabled people have access to employment support, disability benefits, financial support, food and medicines, as well as accessible communications and guidance, during the outbreak. We continue to monitor the impact of covid-19 to ensure that the needs of disabled people are understood and to help shape the Government’s ongoing response.

[Debbie Abrahams]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chloe Smith]

Briefly.

[Debbie Abrahams]

I am afraid that that was just not reflected in Greater Manchester. I welcome the Minister to her place, but I think she should know that 80% of those disabled people who responded to the survey by Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People—a substantial number responded—were not eligible for support. An algorithm identified those who were eligible for support, and 80% were not, even though they had substantial disability needs.

[Chloe Smith]

I am sorry to hear about the experiences of the hon. Lady’s constituents and am happy to discuss that further. I am conscious of her work on the Work and Pensions Committee and know that she takes a great interest in this area, so I look forward to taking that further with her.

I turn to the points made by the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow about young people with special educational needs and disability. That is at the heart of her work, as is absolutely right. Throughout the pandemic, the Government sought to ensure that parents and carers could continue to access respite care to support them in caring for their disabled children. To support that, councils have been able to draw on more than £6 billion of unringfenced direct Government funding to help them with the immediate and longer-term impacts of covid-19 spending pressures. We have also extended access to assistive technology for that group, with investments in remote education and accessibility features that can reduce or remove barriers to learning. I hope that that will start to address some of the disproportionate impact on their learning from the pandemic. I acknowledge her suggestion about the composition of the covid-19 inquiry.

I turn to employment, on which excellent points were made. I am determined to make further headway in reducing the employment gap for disabled people, building on the progress already made. Too many people who can and want to work do not have the opportunity to do so, so the Government are looking at concrete action to help disabled people into good jobs and to progress, with a commitment to continue to break down barriers and improve support.

We have more work coming out shortly, including a consultation on workforce reporting. We are looking to encourage employers to recruit, retain and progress their disabled employees and to be Disability Confident in doing so. I share the hon. Lady’s call for hon. Members to take part in Disability Confident in any way that they can. I also welcome the recent initiative of the disability employment charter and met just today with some of its signatories.

Coupled with our strategy, the Green Paper on health and disability that my Department published in July sets out our ambition to support and empower disabled people to achieve their full potential. Our response to the “Health is everyone’s business” consultation also ensures that better support is provided to help disabled people to start, stay and succeed in employment.

The UK has been a leading global voice on disability inclusion, having hosted the global disability summit in 2018. We have done much work in follow-up. We support interventions around the world to promote the rights and dignity of disabled people. We recognise that, at home, the Government have a leading role in the further transformation for disabled people that we must achieve. But we must do this together, so this is a call for action across society. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for calling today’s debate and pleased to work with her on this challenge.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Monday 8th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

6. What steps her Department is taking to help ensure that disabled people are supported in work.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chloe Smith)]

The Department delivers national programmes as well as initiatives in partnership with the health system to support disabled people to start, stay and succeed in employment. These include Access to Work and intensive personalised employment support, which continues to provide that support after work has begun.

[Deidre Brock]

It is essential to ensure, particularly as we approach the winter, that all workers have access to a liveable sick pay and do not put themselves and others at risk. However, the current earnings threshold disproportionately affects disabled people and those with long-term health conditions. What concrete actions will the UK Government take to finally fix the wholly inadequate sick pay system?

[Chloe Smith]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising those points, and it is a pleasure to work with her once again; I have done on various topics. The Government previously consulted on reform to statutory sick pay, as she will know, but we did not think that the pandemic was the right time to introduce changes to it, as that would have placed an immediate and direct cost on employers at a very difficult time. Instead, we prioritised changes to the wider welfare system. However, I can assure her that our work on this is ongoing and I look forward to talking to her and others further about this.

[Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

I would like to welcome the Minister to her new role. She will be aware that the disability pay and employment gap remains far too large. The figures might appear to show a narrowing in recent years, but academics believe that this has been offset by an increase in the number of people identifying as disabled. Today, on the 26th anniversary of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, it is clear that urgent action is required. The Government’s strategy for disabled people offers only a consultation on mandatory reporting. Will she be bolder than her predecessor and bring in mandatory reporting now?

[Chloe Smith]

I look forward to working with the hon. Lady on these vital issues. She is right that our national disability strategy demonstrates our intention to consult on workforce reporting. She asked an additional question about pay gap reporting, but those are two slightly different things. Pay gaps are, of course, caused by a range of factors, and to address them we must ensure that everybody has equal access to opportunities. That will be my passion in this role. I hope she welcomed the disability employment statistics out only last week; they show that some progress is being made, but there is a heck of a lot more to do, and I will be there doing it.

[Vicky Foxcroft]

I gave the Minister a straightforward policy ask with no additional financial commitment, so it is regrettable that she cannot do it straight away. However, clearly money is required to deliver a fully inclusive society. Can she confirm that the spending review contained no extra funding linked to the strategy, other than for education and employment? Does she have plans to speak to the Chancellor about further funding, and will she now push for a full debate to show disabled people that her Government are giving the strategy the attention it rightly deserves?

[Chloe Smith]

That strategy and its implementation will be one of my utmost priorities; I look forward to discussing it in a constructive manner with the hon. Lady and everybody else here today, but I think she may have misread the £1.1 billion in targeted support for those with disabilities that was in the Budget and the spending review last week, which covers access to work, more work coaches and the Work and Health programme.

[Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

I have seen at first hand how assistive technology can change the lives of young people with disabilities at Treloar School and College in Alton in Hampshire. Can my hon. Friend update the House with any further details on the national centre for assistive and accessible technology, which could do so much to support adults with a learning disability and other disabilities to get into employment?

[Chloe Smith]

I am really pleased that my right hon. Friend has raised that point, and I agree on the centrality of assistive and accessible technology. That is why our national disability strategy contained a commitment to invest up to £1 million in 2021-22 to develop a new centre for assistive and accessible tech, reporting on progress by next year. I look forward to working with her to do that.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

The Minister will know that many disabled people work and receive their personal independence payments, but when someone is given a telephone appointment, they are told that they can only arrange the appointment once. That is hardly fair; if it is scheduled when they are working and the assessments can take up to an hour, that is not possible. What are the Government doing to make it easier for people to be in work and have that access?

[Chloe Smith]

The hon. Lady raises a good point, which I will be happy to take away and look into. In general terms, I can say that we made commitments in our Green Paper published in July to improve the assessment process overall, across both the work capability assessment and the PIP assessment. She will also know that we have been using telephone methods through the pandemic and are looking to see what will continue to be the best methods. I look forward to discussing that further with her, and I will take away the point she raises and look into it further.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

We can be rightly proud of delivering record disability employment, but to meet our commitment of 1 million more disabled people in work by 2027, we must expand opportunities through disability apprenticeships, a key commitment within the national disability strategy. Will the Minister confirm that she will continue to press our Department for Education colleagues to ensure we deliver that vital commitment?

[Chloe Smith]

I certainly will. It will be my passion to deliver all the commitments in the national disability strategy, to support more disabled people to be in work, stay in work and thrive in work. I also thank my hon. Friend for the foundational work he did on this, which I look forward to continuing.

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

It is good to hear some of the commitments the Government are making, but unfortunately we have heard them before. Many disabled people, particularly those who are trying to get employment and support allowance or PIP, will struggle through their assessment because their disabilities are hidden. What work is the Minister doing on that, including with providers of those assessments, to ensure that those with hidden disabilities are given a fair chance?

[Chloe Smith]

Again, the hon. Lady raises a common-sense point, on something that I will want to make sure is working well in our system. As I said in response to a previous point, we have indicated that we are keen to look at how the assessments in general can be improved. We have that commitment to this House in our Green Paper, published in July, which I will be looking forward to developing further. I can let the House know that we have received more than 4,500 consultation responses to that Green Paper, which gives us a very sound basis for hearing the voices of disabled people and acting on what is needed.

[Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)]

7. What support her Department is providing to young jobseekers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

Motor neurone disease is a cruel and relentless condition. Too many people with MND and other terminal illnesses are struggling to access the benefits that they need. The Northern Ireland Executive have committed to introducing legislation this month to reform the unfair six-month rule. Will the Government follow their lead?

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chloe Smith)]

I share my hon. Friend’s desire to see those changes made as quickly as possible, which is why we are taking a two-stage approach. That will allow us to introduce changes to universal credit and employment and support allowance via secondary legislation in April. Parliament will need to pass primary legislation to amend the special rules in other benefits, which we will introduce as soon as the parliamentary timetable allows.

Supply Chain Finance in Government: Boardman Review

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Thursday 16th September 2021 Written Statements

[The Minister for the Constitution and Devolution (Chloe Smith)]

On 12 April, the Government announced that the Prime Minister had asked Nigel Boardman to investigate the development and use of supply chain finance in Government, especially the role of Lex Greensill and Greensill Capital, including associated companies or companies in its group, and any related issues that Mr Boardman considered were in scope. In accordance with the terms of reference, Mr Boardman provided the Prime Minister with part 1 of his report which sets out Mr Boardman’s findings of fact. This was published on 22 July (paper reference DEP2021-0641).

The purpose of the review was to establish the facts and any lessons to be learned. Mr Boardman has now delivered the second part of his report, including making recommendations. These recommendations and wider suggestions, for institutions in public life to consider, are being published today.

As Mr. Boardman’s report recognises, the Government have already committed, through the declaration on Government reform, to continually reinforce high standards of conduct in public life through proper process and transparency so that the public can have trust and confidence in the operation of Government at all levels.

The Government note the work of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs, Treasury and Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committees, as well as the forthcoming “Standards Matter 2” report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life. We will consider their work alongside Mr Boardman’s recommendations, and set out a substantive Government policy statement to Parliament in due course.

I am depositing a copy of the report in the Libraries of both Houses, and publishing it on gov.uk.

[HCWS293]

Elections Bill (Fourth sitting)

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Thank you. Minister, would you like to open the questioning?

[The Minister for the Constitution and Devolution (Chloe Smith)]

I think it is Cat Smith’s turn to go first.

[The Chair]

It looks like an empty chair.

[Chloe Smith]

Indeed.

[The Chair]

Shall I bring in other members of the Committee? Patrick Grady, would you like to ask a question? [Interruption.] Oh, hang on.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Minister?

[Chloe Smith]

I have no further questions but I am very grateful to Mr Millar for giving his time.

[The Chair]

Thank you. Jerome Mayhew.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We have until 3.30 pm for this panel. Minister, would you like to start with the first question?

[Chloe Smith]

Q Thank you so much for joining us today, Ms Hadi; it is great to have you with us. An important element of the Bill deals with accessibility, which is obviously an area of expertise for your organisation. The Bill introduces a new statutory duty on returning officers to support all voters with disabilities—the widest possible range—and that duty is to be supported by guidance from the Electoral Commission. What would you like to see reflected in that guidance, and what are your biggest concerns about the current process of voting for people with disabilities.

Fazilet Hadi: I will briefly give a bit of context before answering that question. Some 14 million people in the UK are disabled, or one in five of the population, so we are a very big group and very diverse. About 45% of older people and 19% of working-age adults have a disability. As you and colleagues will know, that can range from sensory impairment to learning disability, mental health and mobility issues, so we face a wide set of challenges.

There are some real challenges in voting, so it would be good to see rigorous standards applied and enforced by Government, because voting should not be a postcode lottery; it should be equal wherever we are in the country. A couple of issues in the Bill concern me, particularly photo identification and the provisions on equipment, which seem to be turning the clock back a little, particularly for blind and partially sighted voters.

Coming back to your question on standards, the standards start even before the electoral officers—for example, in the way that local authorities produce information on elections and whether reasonable adjustments need to be considered for electors who have disabilities. Even for those first letters, people should already be thinking, “Can this person read the letter? Do they need an easy-read, audio or electronic version?” I think it starts very early, and it then moves through all the stages of postal voting, through to the actual physical buildings in which elections are held, the devices we are given to enable us to vote independently, the height of the desks where we cast our vote and wheelchair accessibility. It is almost like walking through the customer journey from beginning to end, ensuring that reasonable adjustments are made at every point, because I am sure the Government want to ensure that those 14 million people have a voice in the same way as everyone else.

[Chloe Smith]

Q Absolutely right, Ms Hadi. I am really grateful to you for laying that out, because I could not agree more about the need for that thinking at every stage of registration and onwards through to voting. Indeed, for what it is worth, I am sure that also applies to many other services from local authorities, so I hope there is good working across councils that can be shared.

As you rightly say, we all want to see disabled voters, or voters with any condition or extra accessibility need, able to take part fully. What do you think ought to be focused on in communicating the changes encapsulated in this Bill? How could that be done with your members, for example, or others?

Fazilet Hadi: The provisions on photo ID will need a lot of communication, but they should not be communicated in isolation. Going back to what I said before, if we take something out of context, it presupposes that the electorate get everything else and know all the other things that are in place, and disabled people may not know about the other adjustments that are available. On photo ID, that does pose particular issues, and when there were trials, my recollection from colleagues at Mencap is that it took quite a lot of education, face to face, as well as written information, to communicate to people with learning disabilities what the change meant.

There will be an education imperative for the whole public, of course, but for particular groups of disabled people, some of us maybe do not access information so easily—British Sign Language users, people who access through audio or braille, people who need easy read, and people whose literacy skills are low. There is quite a communication challenge in actually getting across that photo ID is required, and that has to start well in advance of it being required.

[Chloe Smith]

Q I agree, and the plans published alongside the Bill put money and time towards doing that, which we would all agree is the right thing to do.

May I draw on your experience of voting as a blind person—as a person with a visual impairment? I would guess that you have used the tactile voting device. Could you describe to the Committee what it has been like using that device? What are its drawbacks and advantages?

Fazilet Hadi: I have not actually used it. I have voted through the post, and I have voted with the assistance of the electoral staff—

[Chloe Smith]

I apologise for making an assumption.

Fazilet Hadi: Not at all. I should have tried the template. My understanding is that it does not allow completely independent voting. If people can imagine, it is like laying a template over a piece of paper. You would probably have to memorise what was on the paper, which could be tricky. I suppose you would not have complete confidence, because you cannot check back. I think it was a device of its time. As I understand it, a judicial review said that it did not allow a completely secret ballot.

What the device should be is not a straightforward issue, but I worry about the provision in the Bill taking away the wording of the Representation of the People Act 1983, which says that the device should be prescribed by the Government. Whatever the device is, and whatever its limitations—hopefully we can improve on the current device—it should be available without question and without any decision making being needed from local electoral staff. It should just be made available because the Government says that it should be. Under the Bill as it is framed at the moment, there is a danger with that kind of wording being removed and a much looser wording about reasonableness being inserted instead.

[Chloe Smith]

Q When in your experience a thing goes out of date or could be superseded by innovation and new ideas, how do you think that could be accommodated in law? Having listened to your words, I think we have got a really good example here of one of the core issues; as you say, the device was of its time some decades ago now, but it is prescribed in law. We have a problem of it being out of date, yet prescribed. How do you think innovation, which you may have used elsewhere in your life—maybe you can share your insight—can be provided for in law?

Fazilet Hadi: In this particular instance, I am not sure whether the Act envisaged a tactile template, but I think the wording means that the Government can prescribe “it” and update what the “it” is in guidance. The thing is to get to the principle that it is set down and must be provided. That would be the way to do it, not saying exactly what the “it” is. Indeed, the “it” will change as digital technology changes, with things like 3D printing. I am not a great technologist, but I think that the Act can get across the mandatory nature of the equipment that must be used. For people across the country who are registered blind, any sense that you could go to a polling station in one local authority area and get one device, and go to another elsewhere and get another device, would be a retrograde step.

[Chloe Smith]

Q Thank you. This is my last question, just to complete the set, if you like. I understand your point that there could be difference across the country, but clause 8 seeks to make support mandatory. Do you think clause 8 and making it mandatory is sufficient?

Fazilet Hadi: No. I am not an expert on the Elections Bill, but it seems very much to put it down to the individual electoral officer to decide what is reasonable. I accept that we could be talking in a much wider sense about what is reasonable for any disabled person. As I said earlier, some people might need a slightly higher or lower table in the polling station, depending on whether they are standing up or in a wheelchair. Some people might need a fatter pen because they have dexterity issues, and some people might need some sort of tactile device. In that sense, it is good that the Act tries to cover a broader range of equipment. Nevertheless, I still think that the Government need to specify those types of equipment in guidance and standards. As I said, voters would expect that consistency across the piece. At the moment, the language needs hardening. If the Government’s intention is to make this mandatory, I do not think that that comes across.

[Chloe Smith]

It is very helpful that you close with the point that it must be specified through guidance, because that is indeed what the intention is. It is also what one of our witnesses yesterday agreed was where much of the work should be done.

[Cat Smith]

Q Fazilet, welcome to the Committee and thank you very much for the contributions you have made so far. I have a couple of questions.

You opened your remarks by describing how you felt that the legislation is turning back the clock, particularly for voters who are blind or partially sighted. If I understood correctly, that is because the 1983 Act wording would be rescinded and there would be much more flexibility for local authorities to have potentially quite different ways of supporting blind and partially sighted voters. That would create something of a postcode lottery. What would the challenges then be for voters with a disability or impairment who have perhaps moved house to a different local authority area and might then get a different level of service or a different system to facilitate their needs? Would that be an additional barrier to voting for disabled people?

Fazilet Hadi: I like the words in the Representation of the People Act 1983, “prescribed equipment”. Obviously, guidance can say at any point what that prescribed equipment is for. There might be prescribed equipment for people with other impairments. It is not just tactile devices; it could be adjustable tables or pens that people can grip.

The Government signed up to the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, which says that there must be full participation in political and public life for disabled people. It specifies that there must be materials, facilities and procedures that are fully accessible and appropriate. It specifies that there must be a secret ballot. It specifies that there must be assistance from whoever the disabled person chooses. The Human Rights Act 1998 talks about the right to vote and how we all need to have the ability to express our opinion through voting. The Equality Act 2010 puts a public sector equality duty on the Government and local government––any government––to think about what they are doing to promote the interests of, and make reasonable adjustments for, disabled people and others. We have all these laws and a stated intention that this Bill should make things better for participation by disabled people, but it cannot be better for the equipment to be different in different polling stations. For me as an elector, it is about not knowing exactly what I am entitled to, so that I can try to enforce it if I do not get it. Leaving arrangements to the 152 local authorities in England, and I do not know how many in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, is totally unacceptable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cat Smith]

Q You said that the Electoral Commission is also accountable to the Welsh Senedd and the Scottish Parliament; it is also funded by both those Parliaments. Could you say what consideration the Committee should give to any change due to a strategy and policy statement driven by a UK Parliament, and what tensions that could potentially create within the Union?

Dr Renwick: It could potentially create very great tensions. The proposal would clearly require a legislative consent motion in order to be compatible with the Sewel convention. The Counsel General—the Minister in the Welsh Government—has already indicated that he does not recommend that a legislative consent motion be passed on this matter, and I presume the Scottish Parliament will do the same.

This part of the Bill envisages that Ministers in the UK Government, subject to affirmative procedure, would be able to specify guidelines for devolved matters and that Scottish and Welsh Ministers would only be consulted—and, indeed, would only potentially be notified—in the case of amendments to the statement. That seems wholly contrary to the principles of devolution that have been established, and I cannot see any justification for it. The Sewel convention indicates that Westminster will normally not legislate in matters that have been devolved. There is nothing abnormal here, there is nothing unusual and nothing has changed since these matters were devolved to Scotland and Wales—those devolution changes did not take place very long ago—so it seems very problematic.

That also heightens an issue that already exists with the governance of the Electoral Commission: the commissioners themselves are all appointed on the recommendation of the House of Commons, and that on the recommendation of the Speaker’s Committee. The Speaker’s Committee has, in recent appointments of commissioners with responsibility for Scotland and Wales, either consulted the Presiding Officer or the Llywydd, or included a representative of those people in the committee responsible for shortlisting, but that has been entirely at its discretion.

There is a need to review the arrangements for governance of the Electoral Commission in light of the recent devolutions of electoral matters in those areas. The last serious review of this question, conducted by the Committee on Standards in Public Life in 2007, said at that time that the current governance arrangements were appropriate because those matters were not devolved. These matters have been devolved now, and therefore there is a need for a review.

My impression is that this point has not been thought about terribly much. I do not detect that either the Scottish Government or the Welsh Government have done much detailed thinking on this, but some consideration is needed of how to ensure that the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd are properly represented in these processes.

One final point I should make in this area is one that has been made by others: the fact that the Speaker’s Committee has a majority from a single party is simply indefensible against the principle of independence of electoral processes. That has never happened before—it did not happen when there were large majorities for Governments in the early 2000s; at that time there was no majority for that party in the Speaker’s Committee—but it has been allowed to happen now, which suggests that conventional constraints on the improper exercise of power are not working, to be honest. Legislative action is needed to ensure that there is never a single party majority on the Speaker’s Committee.

[Chloe Smith]

Q Thank you very much for joining us, Dr Renwick; it is very good to have your expertise. May I make use of that expertise with a relatively simple starting question? Clause 14 deals with membership of the Speaker’s Committee, and every so often we hear a misrepresentation—I think I just heard the hon. Lady from the Opposition doing this—suggesting that there will be an extra Minister of the Crown added to the Speaker’s Committee. Could you help us to confirm that concurrent powers, which is what clause 14 contains and which, as you will recall, comes in the history of having made a transfer of functions order before, mean that this will be a question of a substitute Minister—essentially a junior when the senior is too busy?

Dr Renwick: I am not a lawyer, so I wondered when I looked at those words exactly what they meant, but if they mean what you have described them as meaning, they do not trouble me. It was always the intent of the PPERA legislation passed in 2000 that the Minister with responsibility for elections and the Minister with responsibility for local government should be members of the Speaker’s Committee, and if the change is simply intended to ensure that the Minister who has responsibility for elections can participate, but there are only two Ministers participating, then that change does not seem to me problematic.

[Chloe Smith]

Q Thank you. It is really helpful to get that on the record. It is worth noting that, as well as Ministers, there are shadow Ministers on the Speaker’s Committee—there is Front-Bench involvement on both sides. Going to the Back-Bench members of the committee, can you confirm that under existing law, which is not changed by this Bill, the Speaker may appoint the five Back-Bench members of the committee—that is his power to do?

Dr Renwick: That is absolutely correct. I do not know what went wrong in this case. I cannot see an argument against the view that something has gone wrong in the current composition of the Speaker’s Committee; it is wrong that it has its current composition. If you look at the 2007 Committee on Standards in Public Life report, there is a quotation from evidence provided by the Speaker’s Committee saying that the convention has been applied and that the Speaker’s appointments will be made such that there is no single party majority. That convention was understood in 2007, and the CSPL at the time recommended that it should be formalised. This has not taken place. Somehow, things went awry at the start of the present Parliament, and I do not know what happened or what went wrong. However, given that it has gone wrong, legislative change is now needed to ensure that it does not go wrong again.

[Chloe Smith]

Q How would you change what is, therefore, extant in legislation: that the Speaker would have the ability to appoint five Back-Bench members?

Dr Renwick: I would suggest simply a stipulation that that power be exercised subject to the constraint that there shall never be a majority of MPs from any one party within the membership of the committee.

[Chloe Smith]

Q Thank you. That has given us some food for thought, and a very helpful historical recap, as well.

Your points about the Sewel convention were interesting. I wanted to have your written evidence in front of us, as well as what you have just said. In your written evidence you say the proposed strategy and policy statement violates the Sewel convention. Your words just now were accurate in saying that the Sewel convention says that this House will not normally legislate for affairs that are devolved without consent. You have clarified in your words here today that it is the existence or otherwise of an LCM that would violate the Sewel convention. For absolute clarity, can you confirm that the strategy and policy statement does not, in its own right, violate the Sewel convention, but instead, the behaviour and procedure around it is where you direct those comments?

Dr Renwick: I intentionally changed my comments because what I wrote in my evidence was somewhat inaccurate. What I should have said was, if there is no legislative consent motion on this aspect of the Bill, then the inclusion of the strategy and policy statement as currently set out would violate the Sewel convention. It seems very likely that there will not be a legislative consent motion; that was the presumption I was making, but it was a presumption that I should not have made without clarification.

[Chloe Smith]

Q It is really helpful to have been able to do that today. From your experience monitoring many of these Bills and exchanges, I am sure you would say that it takes a little time for that position to emerge, both in terms of what the intention of the Executive is in any one of those legislatures, and then what the intention of the legislature is. It takes some time. There is not yet necessarily a moment in this Bill where you could have made a statement saying this violates the Sewel convention.

Dr Renwick: Absolutely. The Welsh Minister in his legislative consent memorandum indicates that he is in conversation with you, which I am very glad to hear, and I hope you will take your normal constructive approach in seeking a solution to this issue.

[Chloe Smith]

Q That is good to have confirmed. My final question is about the strategy and policy statement and its procedure in Parliament. You gave the view that it would be wrong for the Government to produce that statement, and I think I am quoting you, “without the appropriate degree of scrutiny.” Can you explain what is not appropriate about the statement being approved by both Houses of Parliament?

Dr Renwick: It would be subject to much less scrutiny than primary legislation and it would not be amendable. As far as possible in this area, the principle should be applied that the rules are made in a reasonably consensual cross-party manner. I realise that is very difficult and it is not guaranteed by the primary legislative process, but at least there is a process for proper scrutiny and discussion of the proposals in a cross-party forum. The procedures around the strategies, policies and statements that are indicated in the Bill do not enable that degree of scrutiny, which I think is simply not appropriate.

[Chloe Smith]

Q But Parliament—in the Chamber twice—does provide for a debate as you have described.

Dr Renwick: There is the kind of detailed scrutiny that we are having today, for example, in which there is an opportunity for detailed discussion of the proposals to take place. Also, of course, part of what we are doing here today is bringing in the views of a variety of people from beyond Parliament as well. It is essential that the processes of accountability for the Electoral Commission should be both cross-party and non-party. Those two features are essential for ensuring that electoral integrity is maintained for the simple reason that, as a member of the Committee alluded to earlier this afternoon, however wonderful MPs are—I have great respect for MPs; I know some of you on the Committee and I genuinely think you are great people—you have a vested interest in these issues. We are talking about a body that regulates some of the activities of MPs. In that context, it is essential to ensure there is a process that brings in voices from outside Parliament, and the primary legislative process allows that to a much greater degree than does a simple affirmative resolution.

[Chloe Smith]

Q Thank you for that very helpful perspective. Essentially you argue that this measure ought to be subject to the full primary procedure. May I ask one last clarifying question, and then I will get the Executive to shut up and hand over to the Back Benchers, which is, I am sure, a principle you agree with, Alan. Can you confirm that the Bill’s measures leave in place, do not affect, and take nothing away from the governance structure and statutory provisions for the Electoral Commission’s board and commissioners, which include party figures, cross-party figures and non-party figures, as you desire?

Dr Renwick: Yes. The changes introduced in 2009 with the introduction of party members of the Electoral Commission was a desirable step in ensuring that all voices are properly represented in the governance of the Electoral Commission, and those structures are not changed. As I have indicated, in some respects the governance structures need to be changed, particularly regarding the composition of the Speaker’s Committee and the question of how we reflect the devolved arrangements, but yes, I agree that the arrangements you mentioned are not changed.

[Chloe Smith]

Thank you, Alan. As always, it is good to debate with you and really good to have your expertise.

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

Q We have spoken to various witnesses, including a former electoral commissioner, over the last couple of days about the statutory policy statement. No one seems to have been aware that this proposal was coming. Were you aware of it being trailed or discussed privately with either the devolved Administrations or in academic circles, to see whether the changes would enhance and improve the independence and the working of the Electoral Commission?

Dr Renwick: No, I was not. I would not expect to have been aware necessarily of all the consultations that might have taken place, but I do not recall being aware of the proposals before they were announced by the Minister in June. To be honest, that is problematic. I have expressed concerns about the substance of the proposals, but procedurally there is a difficulty here as well because of the point that I have already alluded to. With the best will in the world, and with full respect to you as MPs, the fact that you have a vested interest in this issue means that it is incumbent upon you to proceed with particular care when you are thinking about electoral matters generally, and particularly the governance of the Electoral Commission.

I think the procedure that ought to be followed in such a case is that there is an independent review before any recommendation such as those that have been introduced here are put forward. That was the case in 2000; the introduction of the Electoral Commission stemmed, if I remember correctly, from the Fifth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. The changes in 2009, introducing, among other things, the partisan commissioners, reflected recommendations made in, if I remember correctly, the Eleventh Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. There has been no comparable process in this case. I do not think that that is an appropriate way to introduce significant changes in the governance of the Electoral Commission.