Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Damian Green and Debbie Abrahams

Monday 27th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

I do, and the Government, of course, support that more widely. We are looking all the time at regulations that might hinder the growth of entrepreneurship and self-employment. The actions taken by my Department—for instance, the new enterprise allowance—actively encourage people into self-employment. Some 96,000 new businesses have been set up as a result of the NEA.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

The Government’s proposed increase to national insurance contributions for self-employed workers in this month’s Budget showed a scandalous detachment from the reality of the majority of self-employed workers’ lives, a failure to understand the boom in self-employment and a lack of the will to address the issues self-employed workers face, including the fact that one in three is concerned about becoming sick or being injured during their work. What discussions did the Secretary of State have with the Chancellor on this before the Budget, and is he concerned about the reliability of the minimum income floor calculation, given the Office for Budget Responsibility’s comment?

[Damian Green]

I am confident in the minimum income floor calculation. As the hon. Lady would expect, we have discussions all the time with the Treasury on a wide range of matters. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor said in his letter subsequent to the Budget:

“It is very important…that we are compliant not just with the letter, but also the spirit, of the commitments that were made.”

That is why he decided not to proceed with the class 4 NIC measures set out in the Budget. Also—this is important—all the spending measures set out in the Budget, including on social care, technical education and new schools, will be delivered in full.

--- Later in debate ---

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

We heard earlier about the cuts to PIP support for people with mental health conditions that were brought in 10 days ago. The Government estimate that they will affect 160,000 people. This time next week, half a million sick or disabled people who have been found not fit for work and have been placed in the employment and support allowance work-related activity group will start to see a cut in support of £1,500 a year. Given that disabled people are twice as likely to live in poverty as non-disabled people and the recent analysis showing that that has increased significantly, how does the Secretary of State justify the cumulative cuts to disabled people?

[Damian Green]

First, when the hon. Lady talks about cuts to 160,000 people, she is of course wrong. Nobody’s original DWP award will receive a cut. She also asked me how I justify the changes to ESA, but disabled people and people with health conditions deserve better than the current system, under which only one in 100 ESA WRAG claimants leave benefit each month. I hope that the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), who is cheering from a sedentary position, agrees with me that we need to change the system. That is why we are proposing a huge number of different types of help across the board, including financial help and advice, which will help them into work.

Personal Independence Payments

Debate between Damian Green and Debbie Abrahams

Wednesday 15th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to make a statement regarding the recommendations of the Social Security Advisory Committee on the new Personal Independence Payment (Amendment) Regulations 2017, which are due to come into force tomorrow.

[Damian Green]

(The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions): Recent legal judgments have interpreted the assessment criteria for personal independence payments in ways that are different from what was originally intended. The Department presented regulations, which clarify the original policy intent, to the Social Security Advisory Committee. I welcome the SSAC’s careful consideration and we are looking closely at its suggestions.

Let me be clear. The SSAC decided that it did not require the regulations to be formally referred to it and would therefore not consult publicly on them. I believe it was right to move quickly to clarify the criteria, and it is clear that the SSAC is not challenging that decision.

I want to make it clear again that this is not a policy change and nor is it intended to make new savings. This is about restoring the original intention of the benefit, which has been expanded by the legal judgments, and providing clarity and certainty for claimants. I reiterate my commitment that there will be no further welfare savings beyond those already legislated for. This will not result in any claimants seeing a reduction in the amount of PIP previously awarded by the Department for Work and Pensions.

[Debbie Abrahams]

You will recall, Mr Speaker, that on 23 February the Government issued these new regulations by which disabled people or people with a chronic mental health condition would be assessed for eligibility to personal independence payments. These regulations were laid down without any consultation with the Social Security Advisory Committee and without any debate.

As the Secretary of State said, the Committee examined this issue on 8 March and sent a letter with its recommendations to the Secretary of State, which was published yesterday. The Committee made a number of recommendations, including the need to consult more widely on the proposed changes and to test or pilot them before they come into force, so will the Secretary of State commit to implementing these recommendations in full before the regulations come into force?

Parliament has had no opportunity to debate the regulations fully, or to vote on them. When will it be able to do so? The Committee found that

“it is possible that some claimants may have been awarded the mobility component or a higher rate of mobility component…following earlier decisions by the Upper Tribunal on this issue.”

That directly contradicts statements by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work that no one would see a reduction in their PIP award. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to correct the record? Will he guarantee that that will not be the case when claimants are reassessed?

The Government’s decision to change the law on PIP is a clear demonstration of the fact that people with mental health conditions are not given equal treatment. Does the Secretary of State agree with his Department’s new guidance, issued yesterday, which states that mobility impairments caused by psychological issues are “not relevant”? An analysis published today by Scope shows that 89% of PIP cases resulted in successful decisions for claimants following either mandatory reconsideration or appeal. Will the Secretary of State now review the flawed PIP process as a matter of urgency?

We have argued for some time in favour of parity of esteem for mental and physical health. The Prime Minister famously said that there needed to be more support for people with mental health conditions. Will not the Government finally honour that pledge?

[Damian Green]

Let me deal with the hon. Lady’s questions in turn.

We will of course respond to the letter from the Social Security Advisory Committee. Obviously, we take everything that it has said very seriously. We will also maintain the practice—in which the Government have always engaged—of continuous improvement in the PIP guidance. The assessment guidance is freely available, and can be viewed on gov.uk. We are constantly changing it, and the way to do that is to make parliamentary regulations, which is precisely what we are doing in this case. I am conscious that the hon. Lady has personally prayed against these regulations, which gives Parliament a chance to scrutinise them. That process will go through the normal channels, as it always does.

The hon. Lady asked a number of other detailed questions. I can only repeat what I have said before, and what has been said by my hon. Friend the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work: no claimants will see a reduction in the amount of benefit that they were previously awarded by the DWP. The Committee says that a tribunal may have lifted the awards of some people, and it is indeed possible that that has happened. We will not claim back money that those people have received during the period before the new regulations come into force, and no one will receive less than they were awarded by the DWP. That is what I have said all along. [Interruption.] As the hon. Lady knows, reassessment happens regularly in the case of PIP and other benefits.

Let me now respond to a very serious point made by the hon. Lady. I want to clear up the position and reassure people, because I think that millions would be put into a state of unnecessary distress if they thought that PIP was not fair to those with mental health conditions. The truth is that PIP is a much better benefit for people with such conditions than its predecessor, disability living allowance. Under the regulations, people with a cognitive impairment alone can receive the highest rate of the mobility component of PIP. It is simply not the case that people with mental health conditions will not be able to do so. If the hon. Lady reads the regulations, she will see why that has happened.

Even if the hon. Lady and other Opposition Members are not willing to accept what I have said, may I please ask them to go away and look at the facts? The facts are these: 65% of PIP recipients with a mental health condition received the enhanced-rate daily living component, whereas 22% used to receive it under DLA. As for the specific mobility aspect, to which the hon. Lady referred. 27% of PIP recipients with a mental health condition receive the enhanced-rate mobility component, whereas 9% received it under DLA. It is perfectly clear from the facts that the regulations restore PIP to its original policy intent, and that that policy intent is better for people with mental health conditions than earlier benefits were.

Personal Independence Payments

Debate between Damian Green and Debbie Abrahams

Tuesday 28th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

I completely agree with my right hon. Friend, who obviously has huge expertise in this area, that we need clarity. In particular, the vulnerable people receiving PIP deserve clarity. I reassure them and the House that all the regulations will do is to restore us to the situation that everyone knew they were in late last year, and in which they have been ever since PIP was introduced.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

As we have heard, on Thursday the Government issued the new regulations by which disabled people or people with a chronic condition will be assessed for eligibility for personal independence payments. PIP helps disabled people to fund their living costs and, in particular, the additional costs that they face because of their condition. The regulations will come into force in just over two weeks’ time, but they were issued without any consultation with the Social Security Advisory Committee. The Government have said that this is because of the urgency of the issue.

The Government are in effect overturning two tribunal rulings that allow chronic “psychological distress” to be included in the PIP assessment. However, if the Secretary of State was so unhappy with the tribunal rulings, why did he not use his powers under sections 25 and 26 of the Social Security Act 1998 and regulations 21 and 22 of the Social Security and Child Support (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 1999 to challenge those rulings in the courts?

The Secretary of State’s actions not only undermine the judicial process, but reduce eligibility to PIP support for over 164,000 people with debilitating mental health conditions, including those not able to go outside their own homes. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with disabled people’s organisations ahead of bringing forward these regulations? What is his assessment of the effects on the health and wellbeing of the people affected by the cuts? Given that disabled people are twice as likely to live in poverty as non-disabled people as a result of the extra costs they face, how many disabled people will be driven into debt or face poverty as a result of these cuts? What is the cumulative effect of these cuts along with the employment and support allowance work-related activity group cuts that are due to come into effect in April, which will affect 500,000 disabled people? Finally, why are the Government contradicting their earlier argument in the 2015 upper tribunal case of HL v. the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in which they argued that “psychological distress” should be included in PIP assessments?

We have been arguing for parity of esteem for mental health with physical health for some time now. Indeed, the Prime Minister famously said that people with mental health conditions need more support. Why will the Government not honour that?

[Damian Green]

Let me deal with some of the detailed points raised by the hon. Lady. Incidentally, we are appealing the judgments, but because of the lack of clarity that would be caused by leaving the current regulations in limbo following the upper tribunal’s decisions, it is better to move quickly. I should also say that the tribunal has itself said that the assessment criteria are not clear. If the tribunal believes that, I am more than happy to accept it—indeed, I am grateful to it for telling us that the criteria are not clear—so I am now taking the opportunity to clarify the existing regulations.

The hon. Lady talked about the effect on disabled people. I absolutely agree with her that that is the central core of what we are trying to do. I point out to her that over two thirds of PIP recipients with a mental health condition get the enhanced rate daily living component, compared with just 22% who used to receive the highest rate of DLA care. That is why PIP is a better benefit than DLA. That happened previously under the existing regulations, and I am now restoring that situation.

The hon. Lady’s questions were predicated on this being a cut. It is simply not a cut; it is not entirely honest of her to say that it is a cut. If she looks at the facts of the case, she will recognise that people claiming PIP—specifically those with mental health conditions—have been and are better off with PIP. We are making the benefit clear. We are making the change so that the benefit is paid as it has been since it was first introduced, which is better for people, particularly those with mental health conditions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Damian Green and Debbie Abrahams

Monday 20th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

In April, the Government’s two-child policy will mean that a woman who has a third child after being raped will have to prove that fact if they are to get child tax support. At the same time, the Government are cutting widowed parent’s allowance by an average of £17,000 for each bereaved family. In 2015, that benefited 40,000 children who had lost at least one parent. Will the Secretary of State please think again about these punitive measures?

[Damian Green]

I do not agree with the hon. Lady that the measures are punitive. To take just one of the two that she brought up—bereavement payments—as she knows, this measure is bringing three payments into one. The original system was devised for a world in which women often would not work at all and so needed lifelong support, rather than the extra support that they will be offered after such a tragic event. I think she will find that the new system is much fairer and more effective at providing support when it is most wanted.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Damian Green and Debbie Abrahams

Monday 9th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

If the right hon. Lady is saying that it is disproportionately men who take the allowance up, I would urge more potential women entrepreneurs to take it up. We are improving the new enterprise allowance later this year to make sure that the mentoring and advice goes on for longer so that more people—men and women—will be able to benefit from the freedom of being able to start, set up and run their own business, which millions of people want to do.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

A happy new year to you, Mr Speaker, and to everyone.

Resolution Foundation data show that self-employment accounts for 81% of the net change in employment since 2008. The Government’s plans to abolish class 2 national insurance contributions could leave low-income, self-employed women paying five times as much to access maternity allowance. Given that nearly 2 million self-employed workers earn less than the national living wage, why have the Government decided to make social security support harder to access for so many of Britain’s entrepreneurs?

[Damian Green]

They have not. Let me update the hon. Lady’s figures, which I know she has quoted before. Since 2010, 29% of the increase has been in self-employment, and in the last 12 months—

[Debbie Abrahams]

Since 2008.

[Damian Green]

I know about 2008; I am giving more up-to-date figures, as I said.

Over the past year, 38% of the increase in employment has been in self-employment, so the figures are not as the hon. Lady suggests. As I said in answer to the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), the whole point of universal credit is that people, whether it be through self-employment or employment, are able to keep their income. We have reduced the taper so that less of their income is lost when they go up the earnings scale and get into work. I am afraid that the hon. Lady simply misunderstands what is happening in the welfare system.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Damian Green and Debbie Abrahams

Monday 21st November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

I do think that the changes are fair. I also think that much of the problem with the various pieces of analysis that have been produced by a number of think-tanks is that they do not assess the effects of getting more people into work, or—I mentioned this earlier—ensuring that they make progress when they are in work. Both those actions help people’s family incomes, which is, I think, the way to give them more long-term security and to ensure that they do not just get out of poverty, but stay out of poverty.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

The Government’s flagship universal credit programme has been in trouble almost since day one, which has undermined the important principle of always making work pay more than social security. Two and a half million people in low-paid work will be, on average, more than £2,000 a year worse off as a result of the Government’s cuts in universal credit work allowances. How can the Secretary of State justify his mantra that work is the route out of poverty when, under this Government, there are 7 million working families in poverty and the cut in their support will make the position worse? Why will he not honour his pledge to make work pay and ensure that the cut is reversed in the autumn statement?

[Damian Green]

I do not agree with the hon. Lady’s analysis of universal credit. The great thing about it is precisely that it does make work pay. We all remember the cliff edges that people were faced with: once they started to work more than 16 or 30 hours a week, they had to decide whether they would be better off in work or on benefits. That is a terrible choice to put before someone. The whole point of universal credit, which we are steadily rolling out, is that work always pays. People know that if they go into work, or if they work extra hours, they will always benefit from that. If she does not accept that, I am afraid that she and I fundamentally disagree about the fact that work is the best route out of poverty. She appears to be denying that fact.

Under-occupancy Charge

Debate between Damian Green and Debbie Abrahams

Monday 14th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to make a statement on the Supreme Court’s ruling of 9 November on the under-occupancy charge.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Damian Green)]

The removal of the spare room subsidy was introduced in April 2013 to all working-age claimants in the social rented sector as part of this Government’s plan to create a welfare system that is fair for those who use it and those who pay for it. Under the previous system, the taxpayer had to subsidise benefit claimants to live in houses that were larger than they needed, despite the fact that people renting in the private sector were receiving housing benefit on the basis of the number of people in their household rather than the number of bedrooms that they had, which has been the case since 1996. Since we introduced the policy, it has saved over £1.5 billion, and the number of households affected by it is going down.

We, of course, operate a number of exemptions to the policy, and they include: all pensioners; households with a dependent child receiving the middle or higher rate care component of disability living allowance; households in which an overnight carer is allowed for the claimant or partner; households in which the claimant or partner is a foster carer; and households with an adult child who is in the armed forces and deployed on operations. In addition, we provide local authorities with funding to provide discretionary housing payments to claimants whom they evaluate as needing additional support with housing costs.

Turning to last week’s Supreme Court judgment, it was welcome that the Court found in our favour in five of the seven cases. These cases related to a panic room, a claimant with mental health issues and those requiring an extra room to house medical equipment, as well as cases involving shared care and adapted properties. The Court also agreed with our view that discretionary housing payments are generally an appropriate and lawful way to provide assistance to those who need extra help. In the two cases in which the Court did not find in our favour, we will take steps to ensure that we comply with the judgment. In most cases, local authorities are best placed to understand the needs of their residents, which is why we will have provided them with more than £1 billion to offer that support by the end of this Parliament. This ensures that people in difficult situations and those who are vulnerable do not lose out.

[Debbie Abrahams]

The Supreme Court’s judgment on Wednesday clearly stated that the bedroom tax is discriminatory, as Labour Members have repeatedly highlighted. The Court upheld the claim of Jacqueline Carmichael, who is disabled and cannot share a room with her husband, Jayson; as well as that of Paul and Susan Rutherford, who care for their severely disabled grandson, Warren. I pay tribute to them, as well as to the other families, for their courage, tenacity and determination in pursuing these cases.

The ruling states that housing benefit regulations allowing claimants to have an additional bedroom when children cannot share a bedroom because of a disability should be extended to adults. Likewise, adults who need an extra room for an overnight carer have been exempt from the bedroom tax, but children such as Warren have not. Those anomalies, the judges ruled, were “manifestly without reason”.

The Department’s spokesperson indicated that the Government accept the Supreme Court’s ruling. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether his Department also unequivocally does so? Will he tell the House how much taxpayers’ money has been spent on legal fees in the attempt to defend the Government’s bedroom tax policy? How many families does the Department calculate have been affected by the Government’s unlawful imposition of the bedroom tax on disabled people and their carers? When and how will the Government inform the families affected by the judgment? How quickly will the Government comply with the Supreme Court’s judgment and revoke the bedroom tax for those families? Will such a revocation be backdated and, if so, to when? Will the Government now formally apologise for the pain and suffering inflicted on disabled people and families caring for a disabled child? Finally, will the Government undertake to look again at their policy on safe rooms for victims of domestic violence, which affects a relatively small number of incredibly vulnerable women who live their lives in fear and are being punished by the Government for heeding security advice and being safe in their homes?

[Damian Green]

I am happy to repeat what I said in my statement. We of course accept the Court’s view and, to answer some of the hon. Lady’s subsequent questions, we will take the appropriate action as soon as we practicably can. She said that the removal of the spare room subsidy was unlawful, but it patently is not, because the Supreme Court found in the Government’s favour in five of the seven cases before it. It is interesting that those involved in every one of those cases—all seven—were receiving discretionary housing payments, which are the best way to ensure that those who are affected can be helped if they need it.

Discretionary housing payments are up fivefold since 2011-12 and the Government are committed to a further £870 million over the next five years—[Interruption.] I am surprised that the hon. Lady complains about the payments, because her local authority received the best part of half a million pounds for discretionary housing payments this year, which makes it clear that people in her area find them useful. She might also be interested to know that 63% of those who are affected and unemployed have decided to look for work, which shows one of the policy’s effects.

I hope that the hon. Lady will address the basic issue of fairness. Without these measures, neighbouring households could be treated differently, which many people would regard as unfair.

On the hon. Lady’s point about those receiving disability benefits, all seven cases involved people receiving discretionary housing payments. Four of the five people involved in the cases won by the Government have a disability, so the policy is clearly not unlawful. Her basic analysis is wrong. The Government are spending £50 billion a year on disability benefit, which shows that we want a practical system that cares for people with a disability. This court case does not alter that at all.

Improving Lives: Work, Health and Disability Green Paper

Debate between Damian Green and Debbie Abrahams

Monday 31st October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and advance notice of it. This is again kicking into the long grass the issue of support for disabled people and halving the disability employment gap. He is the third Secretary of State who has promised a plan, yet we have just talk, no action.

During his announcement today, the Secretary of State claimed he was confronting negative “attitudes, prejudices and misunderstandings”. The audacity of the statement is offensive. The Government have been more responsible than anyone for the negative attitude towards disabled people, with their shirkers grand narrative. Only this morning, the Secretary of State himself described disabled people as

“sitting at home living on benefits”.

The consultation itself demonstrates that the Government fail to understand the reality of many disabled people’s lives and the real anxiety those people feel about the coded messages in the consultation, yet further cuts are on the way.

I must challenge the Secretary of State for suggesting that the so-called reforms to social security have helped to make work pay. These claims are derisory. All the evidence shows not only that the introduction of universal credit has been an unmitigated disaster—with seven delays to date, the Major Projects Authority and the National Audit Office expressing concerns regarding the scheme’s governance, and the additional £3 billion the taxpayer is having to pay—but that cuts to work allowances signally fail to make UC help to make work pay. The Resolution Foundation has shown that, on average, 2.5 million working families will be over £2,000 a year worse off, so will the Secretary of State commit to reversing cuts to work allowances and universal credit?

On the Green Paper, if the Secretary of State is committed to helping disabled people into work, why has he cut employment support for disabled people from £700 million to £130 million? Will he commit to providing Access to Work support to more than the 36,500 disabled people who received it last year? Given that 1.3 million disabled people are fit and able to work, that is obviously a tiny proportion.

The Secretary of State referred to a review of statutory sick pay. Can he confirm that it is not a vehicle for further cuts to sick pay? Will he commit to maintaining levels of statutory sick pay, both now and in the future? On the plans to broaden the number of professionals who can provide a fit note—notes currently can be provided only by a general practitioner—will these people be appropriately trained clinicians? Given the Government’s use of so-called healthcare professionals under the work capability assessment, we know that weakening the role of the medical profession in assessment processes is an underhand tactic to force people into work before they are ready.

On changes to the WCA itself, why will the Secretary of State not commit to scrapping this discredited process completely, as I have? As it stands, this dehumanising system does great harm and is nothing more than a vehicle for getting people off flow. Will the Secretary of State explain why only employment and support allowance is included in the statement? What are his intentions for the personal independence payment? How much funding is meant to underpin the health and work programme? Will he commit to reversing the cuts in support for the ESA work-related activity group, as those cuts will do untold harm? Does he accept his own data showing that people on ESA are more likely to die than the population at large, and that some sick and disabled people will never be able to work? As a civilised society, we must ensure that these people are adequately supported and not plunged into poverty, left destitute, or worse.

[Damian Green]

I am disappointed by the hon. Lady’s tone because she seems to be completely out of touch with those who represent disabled people. Let me read her the words of the chief executive of Scope, Mark Atkinson, who said today:

“Disabled people are twice as likely as the general public to be unemployed. It is right that the Government has recognised this is an injustice that needs to be tackled. We welcome

the Green Paper’s

“publication, which recognises the need for real change and sets out some bold ideas for reform.”

Dr Liam O’Toole of Arthritis Research UK said:

“Today’s Green Paper offers a vital opportunity to better understand and then meet the needs of people with arthritis.”

The Work Foundation said:

“We have consistently advocated that good work and the benefits it brings to individuals, employers and society at large should be recognised as a positive outcome from a health perspective.”

I am afraid that her carping is out of touch with the sector comprising those who most represent disabled people.

Let me deal with some of the detail. The hon. Lady repeated her promise to scrap any kind of assessment system at all for people getting benefits. Let me quote one of my predecessors who, when the work capability assessment was introduced, said, “We want to have a system where virtually everyone who is getting benefits is doing something to prepare for a return to work. The benefits system is not there for people to stay on benefits but to help them get back to work.” I completely agree with that. It was said by Labour Work and Pensions Secretary James Purnell in 2008 when introducing the WCA. I am afraid that, again, the hon. Lady is out of touch.

The hon. Lady said a lot about universal credit and described it as a failure. Let me give her the facts about universal credit. Under universal credit, people spend about 50% more time looking for work and move into work faster. For every 100 people who found work under the old jobseeker’s allowance system, 113 universal credit claimants have moved into a job. They are more likely to be looking to increase their hours—86% on universal credit compared with 38% on jobseeker’s allowance. They are more likely to be looking to increase their earnings—77% on universal credit compared with 51% on JSA. [Interruption.] I am afraid that despite all the shouting from a sedentary position, the hon. Lady is simply wrong about the effect of universal credit.

The hon. Lady asked me to make some commitments about Access to Work. Real-terms increases in funding under Access to Work will support an additional 25,000 people each year by 2021. Last year, more than 36,000 people were helped to take up or remain in employment, including 2,800 young people. Access to Work is doing very well for tens of thousands of people with disabilities.

The hon. Lady would also, I hope, welcome our personal support package, which includes the recruitment of about 200 community partners into Jobcentre Plus to bring in expertise from the voluntary sector. One of the key things about this Green Paper is that we will work closely with the voluntary sector and use its expertise to help people with a disability.

The hon. Lady talks about forcing people into work. I hope that underneath some of her rhetoric she recognises the fact—this is now recognised increasingly by medical practitioners and clinicians—that a good job is good for people’s health. Talking about forcing people into work demonstrates the wrong, old-fashioned mindset, and I genuinely hope she has moved on from that.

The hon. Lady asked about statutory sick pay. I assure her that there is nothing in this Green Paper about cutting statutory sick pay. We want to make it easier for people to move back into work, perhaps gradually, meaning that they take a few hours’ work in the early days and months of their getting back into work. The purpose of the useful changes to the fit note, which is given by a properly qualified medical practitioner, is so that the process does not simply write someone off work, but guides them into a system that will help them to get back to work, because in the long run that is the best way to improve their lives, which is what the Green Paper is about.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Damian Green and Debbie Abrahams

Monday 17th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

As I am sure the hon. Lady knows, no one who is already claiming ESA in that group will see a cash loss. What we are seeking to do is to make it as easy as possible for as many people as possible to get into work, because doing a job is, for most people, the best route out of poverty. The various changes announced by my predecessors were all aiming at that end, which is the best one for the vast majority of people receiving these benefits.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

The Government’s climbdown regarding their discredited work capability assessment is welcome, but given that 60% of people who appeal against their WCA decision are successful, that academics estimate that between 2010 and 2013 an additional 590 suicides were associated with WCA and that the Government’s data show that the people who have been found fit for work are four times more likely to die than the general population, why will the Work and Pensions Secretary not scrap the WCA process immediately and completely?

[Damian Green]

Because the work capability assessment, which was, of course, introduced by a Labour Government, has been reviewed five times since 2010, and each time we have improved it. I am glad that the hon. Lady has welcomed the recent improvements that we have introduced. [Interruption.] I would be grateful if she waited for her next question before she asks it. One thing I would particularly take issue with her over is her implied link between suicides and the work capability assessment. I do think that that is an unhelpful use of what is always clearly a deeply tragic situation for political ends. I think she will have known that there is no direct evidence to support that, and I do not think it is a very constructive way to seek to improve the work capability assessment.

[Debbie Abrahams]

Just as a point of fact, these are academic estimates, and the Government’s data show that people have died.

Unlike with the work capability assessment, the Government plan continually to assess all disabled people for the personal independence payment, regardless of their disability or condition, regardless of the fact that 59% of PIP appeals are successful and regardless of the wholly inappropriate process. After the outcry over proposed cuts to PIP in the Budget, and having had to abandon proposals to restrict access to PIP by changing eligibility to the daily living component, the Government are looking for alternative ways to make cuts to PIP—this time by changing the guidance and making it harder for disabled people successfully to appeal PIP decisions. Are the Government not ashamed that they are putting disabled people in such dire circumstances?

[Damian Green]

I am not at all ashamed of the introduction of PIP or the fact that many more people are eligible to receive PIP than were eligible to receive disability living allowance. It is a better benefit, and most of the disability support groups recognise that it is a better benefit, so I simply do not recognise the hon. Lady’s characterisation of PIP.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Damian Green and Debbie Abrahams

Tuesday 17th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

A few weeks ago I attended a public forum on domestic violence, where I was told that specialist domestic violence courts were being closed and that support for domestic violence victims to bring their case to court was being restricted. Why do the Government find it acceptable to deny the most vulnerable access to justice?

[Damian Green]

This Government have done more than any previous Government to give victims of domestic violence access to justice, and we are continuing to improve how such people, normally women, are treated in the operations of both the courts system and the police. As I said earlier, we have backed up that commitment with £40 million of ring-fenced money.