Atos Work Capability Assessments

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Thursday 17th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of Atos work capability assessments.

I warmly thank the Backbench Business Committee for enabling me and cross-party colleagues to introduce this debate on Atos work capability assessments. There is enormous concern about the issue both in the country and in this House, as witnessed by the fact that more than 30 Members wish to speak on a Thursday. To try to ensure that they can all do so, I propose to speak for no more than 10 to 15 minutes. I hope that colleagues will accept that, for reasons of pressure on time, I do not propose to take interventions.

As knowledge of the debate has spread, I have been sent nearly 300 case histories, many of which make heart-rending reading. I cannot begin to do justice to their feelings of distress, indignation, fear, helplessness and, indeed, widespread anger at the way they have been treated. Nor can I easily contain my own feelings at the slowness, rigidity and insensitivity with which Atos and the Department for Work and Pensions have responded—or very often not responded—to the cries of pain that they have heard repeatedly. I have time to cite briefly only three examples which show how extreme is the dysfunction and malfunctioning of the Atos assessments.

The first example concerns a constituent of mine who was epileptic almost from birth and was subject to grand mal seizures. At the age of 24, he was called in by Atos, classified as fit for work and had his benefit cut by £70 a week. He appealed, but became agitated and depressed and lost weight, fearing that he could not pay his rent or buy food. Three months later, he had a major seizure that killed him. A month after he died, the DWP rang his parents to say that it had made a mistake and his benefit was being restored.

The second example, also from the Oldham area, concerns a middle-aged woman who was registered blind and in an advanced stage of retinitis pigmentosa. She was assessed at 9 points—well short of the 15 that are needed—and her incapacity benefit was withdrawn. On review by a tribunal, the Atos rating of 9 points was increased to 24.

The third case—I could have chosen from hundreds of others—also comes from the north-west and concerns an insulin-dependent diabetic with squamous cell cancer, Hughes syndrome, which involves a failed immune system, peripheral neuropathy, which meant that he had no feeling in his feet or legs, heart disease, depression and anxiety. Despite his life-threatening condition, he was placed in the work-related activity group.

Those and myriad other examples illustrate incontrovertibly that Atos’s current work capability assessment system is drastically flawed, and for several reasons. First, Atos is an IT firm and it uses the so-called Logic Integrated Medical Assessment, which is often described as “rigid” and “tick-box” because computer-based systems make it difficult for health professionals to exercise their professional judgment. Because such a mechanistic system has little or no regard for the complexity of the needs of severely disabled or sick persons, the British Medical Association and others have condemned the current WCA as “not fit for purpose”.

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

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Meacher]

Despite my hon. Friend being my colleague in Oldham, I really must keep strictly to what I said, but I very much hope that she will be called.

Secondly, assessed persons regularly felt that the opinion of their own doctor or of other specialist medical personnel who were treating them was either ignored or overridden. That is all the more serious when Atos’s practices simply do not adhere to the guidance for doctors set down by the General Medical Council.

Thirdly, because of the failure of so many initial assessments, the appeal procedure is grossly overloaded and hugely expensive. No less than 41% of decisions are appealed, of which 38% are won. At £60 million in a single year, the appeals have cost the taxpayer more than half of the £110 million that was spent on the original assessments. Moreover, the National Audit Office has castigated the Department for failing to penalise Atos for what it politely calls its “underperformance” and for not setting “sufficiently challenging” targets.

Fourthly, there are concerns about the responsibility for work capability assessments, in particular that of the Atos chief medical officer. Professor Michael O’Donnell joined Atos from the American company, Unum, formerly UnumProvident, which had a very poor reputation in the US, where it was described as an “outlaw company” by the US authorities, partly because it was regarded as a “disability denial factory”. In that situation, the responsibilities of the Minister and the Secretary of State need to be established clearly.

Against that background, it is frankly not good enough for the Minister to respond to the debate by saying that there have been three Harrington reviews, and that the Department is doing the best it can to improve procedures. The fundamental issue is this: how can pursuing with such insensitive rigour 1.6 million claimants on incapacity benefit, at a rate of 11,000 assessments every week, be justified when it has led, according to the Government’s own figures, to 1,300 persons dying after being put into the work-related activity group, 2,200 people dying before their assessment is complete, and 7,100 people dying after being put into the support group? Is it reasonable to pressurise seriously disabled persons into work so ruthlessly when there are 2.5 million unemployed, and when on average eight persons chase every vacancy, unless they are provided with the active and extensive support they obviously need to get and hold down work, which is certainly not the case currently?

I therefore want to conclude by asking the Minister five specific questions to which I want a specific answer before the end of the debate. First, it is true that Harrington has produced minor adjustments—implemented at a glacial place—but the underlying system remains largely undisturbed. The BMA and the NAO have therefore called for a thorough, rigorous and transparently independent assessment of the suitability of the work capability assessment. Will the Minister now implement that?

Secondly, will the Minister accept that the current criteria and descriptors do not sufficiently—or even at all—take into account fluctuating conditions, especially episodic mental health problems? How will he rectify that?

Thirdly, will the Minister provide full and transparent details of the Atos contract? They should not be hidden by specious claims of commercial confidentiality when Atos is the sole provider of what is clearly a public service. Better still, given that Atos has failed so dramatically, why does he not in-source the work back into the NHS?

Fourthly, how will the Minister ensure that the medical expertise of disabled persons’ doctors and related professionals is fully taken into account before assessments are completed?

Lastly, I want to provide a full dossier to the Secretary of State so that he fully understands what is being done today in his name, and to bring a small delegation to see him from some of the excellent organisations of disabled people who have heroically battled to highlight and tackle the distress and pain caused by Atos. Can I please be assured that the Secretary of State will see such a delegation?

I repeat that I am sincerely grateful for this debate, for the co-operation of colleagues from all parties, and for the detailed responses I have received from so many hundreds of victims of Atos, but I assure the Minister of this: the debate is important, but it will certainly not be the end of the matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

I supported the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) at the Backbench Business Committee and I congratulate him on securing this debate.

Briefly, I want to make three points. Britain is rightly generous to its disabled people. That is a good thing and something that unites the whole House. That said, there have always been problems with Atos. As a major contractor, it has repeatedly failed to inspire confidence and needs shaking up. Thirdly, whatever the party politics, we must clear our minds of hyperbole and focus on the evidence and the facts. People are always fearful of change. Whatever our differences on this issue, we must focus on the politics of fairness, not the politics of fear. It was suggested in the other place that disabled people were facing “ghettoisation”. I think that is a trivialisation of the real evil of the holocaust, which is why I say that how we use our language and the facts that we set out are so important.

[Debbie Abrahams]

Like many Members here today, I feel very strongly about this issue on behalf of the hundreds of constituents who have come to see me with heart-rending cases and told me about the dehumanising process that they have been put through. Why does the hon. Gentleman think the Department for Work and Pensions and Atos have been unable to accept the recommendations of the British Medical Association and the Royal Colleges for more specific diagnostic tests that would make the assessments more appropriate?

[Robert Halfon]

I am here today because I care about this issue as much as the hon. Lady does. The fact remains, however, that it was the previous Government who signed the contract with Atos that led to all the problems and started the work capability assessment. This Government have accepted in full the recommendations of the Harrington review.

The disability living allowance was first introduced by John Major’s Conservative Government in 1992 as a way of helping people with the cost of their care and mobility needs. It is partly because of that reform that we now spend £50 billion a year on support for disabled people, which is one fifth higher than the EU average. I am glad that the coalition has rapidly expanded the access to work budgets, helping more than 30,000 people to retain and enter work. By this April, the disabled worker element of the working tax credit will have risen by £285 a year since the Secretary of State started in his job in 2010. The element for the severely disabled will have risen by an extra £125 a year on top of that. The Minister has said before that Britain is acknowledged as a world leader in its support and care for disabled people, and that that is something we should all be proud of.

I have initiated and signed early-day motions on these matters, and hon. Members will know that I have been an outspoken critic of the French multinational Atos in this House since November 2010, because of its treatment of a number of my constituents in Harlow, and I will go on to talk about that in a moment. I want to emphasise that this Government are expanding on what subsequent Labour Governments did after 1997.

Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Tuesday 8th January 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I rise to speak on behalf of the many constituents who come to see me every week in my constituency office because they have been affected by the Government’s attacks on our welfare system. I have said this before and I will continue to say it: at every point we must challenge the ideology underpinning these so-called reforms, including the Bill, and the divide-and-rule narrative that the coalition Government have developed.

I know I was not alone in being deeply offended by the Chancellor’s autumn statement, not only because the cuts he put forward will affect the poorest 10% in our society, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, but because of the way in which he attempted to justify his actions by deliberately vilifying people who receive benefits as the new undeserving poor. By using pejorative language, such as “shirkers”—he has used the terms “work-shy” and “scroungers” in the past—he sunk to a new low, with a disgraceful misrepresentation of the facts, a few of which I would like to put straight.

Myth No. 1 is that most people on benefits are out of work. In fact, 68%—more than two thirds—of benefit recipients are in work. The majority of welfare beneficiaries are net contributors to the Exchequer. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) has said, there is no evidence of a culture of worklessness in this country—[Interruption.] I will repeat that: independent research has shown that there is no evidence of a culture of worklessness. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the New Policy Institute, 6.1 million people are in poverty but are working. That compares with 5 million people in out-of-work households.

As we have heard, the Children’s Society’s statistics show that the proposed cap on welfare benefits will affect 500,000 key workers—nurses, midwives, nursery school teachers, primary school teachers, administrative workers, secretaries, shop workers, electricians, fitters and members of the armed forces.

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

Can the hon. Lady say what proportion of primary school teachers are covered by those statistics?

[Debbie Abrahams]

I cannot because I do not have the figures to hand, but I am happy to provide them later. The evidence is there. Scenario modelling has been done—[Interruption.] If I could finish the point. Scenario modelling is available showing exactly how many have been assessed.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Debbie Abrahams]

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

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

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

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

[Debbie Abrahams]

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

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

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

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

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Debbie Abrahams]

No, I am not going to give way any more.

That ideology is to demonise people receiving benefits, creating antipathy and resentment and an “us and them” culture. Through the withdrawal of universal benefit such as child benefit, the Government show an irrelevance of the welfare system to non-welfare-recipients; meanwhile, they are dismantling the welfare state.

I am proud of our model of social welfare, born of the second world war, when we were literally all in it together. I want to retain that model, with its principles of inclusion, support and security for all, protecting any one of us who should fall on hard times and ensuring our dignity and the basics of life to help us get back on our feet.

Fortunately, the British public are seeing through the Government. As British social attitudes surveys have consistently shown, they want not a divided society but a fairer, more equal one. That has been reflected in recent opinion polls on benefits. When the Government’s myths are exposed to people, most do not support them.

I do not want ours to be a country where we impoverish children and rob them of their futures. We need to get the economy moving again and I hope that the Chancellor and Secretary of State will listen to my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State’s proposals about how we do that. If they do not, we are in danger of losing a generation, storing up health and social problems for the future—and seeing a divided Britain, not a one nation Britain.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Welfare Reform (Disabled People and Carers)

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Tuesday 18th December 2012 Westminster Hall

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

I rise to speak on behalf of the many constituents coming into my office every week who are affected by this Government’s welfare reforms. At every opportunity, we need to challenge the ideology underpinning those reforms and the disastrous economic policies that are wreaking devastation and havoc on ordinary people’s lives. That ideology is about dividing and ruling—pitting the public sector versus the private sector, so-called shirkers versus workers and the able-bodied versus the disabled.

I am not alone in being deeply offended by not only the content of the Chancellor’s autumn statement and its further hit on welfare recipients, but the characterisation of people receiving benefits. Terms such as “scrounger”, “shirker” and “workshy” are used deliberately to vilify people on benefits as the new undeserving poor. The issue for this Government, as in relation to so much of what they are doing, is that that is just not true. Most people on benefits are in work and are net contributors to the Exchequer.

The recent study by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the New Policy Institute on research monitoring poverty has shown that 6.1 million people are in poverty in working households, which is 1 million fewer than the number of workless households in poverty. There is no evidence of a culture of worklessness. Evidence from the Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown that the autumn statement will affect the 10% poorest in our country, who will have the biggest percentage drop in their income. I am relatively new to politics, but I think that that is an absolutely disgraceful misrepresentation of the facts—not only on welfare, as we have seen in the past, but on the economy and the NHS too. This country deserves better.

I am proud of our model of social welfare and its historical roots. It was borne out of world war two, during which we were all in it together. I want to retain that model, which is underpinned by inclusion, support and security for all, so protecting us in case the worlds of any of us fall through and assuring the dignity and basics of life. Those basic securities are going, and the dignity and respect that all people should be afforded is often sadly lacking.

I want to highlight the effects of welfare reforms on disabled people and their families and carers. The context of those reforms has already been mentioned, but I want to emphasise the effects of the proposed cuts—the 1%—in out-of-work benefits and the change from DLA to PIP. The economy is already depressed, with 6.4 million people lacking the paid work that they want, and 1.4 million people in part-time work who want full-time work, which is the highest figure in 20 years. We have already heard about the increase in living costs, with people having to choose between eating and heating, and cuts to local services—more than half my local council’s budget is being attacked—and social care. Those will have short-term effects on disabled people, but we must also bear in mind evidence about the impacts on life expectancy and the exacerbation of existing health inequalities. The cuts in motability allowance are just one example of how disabled people are being affected. I will finish now, Mr Chope, but you can see the scale of the issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Esther McVey)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. I thank the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) for securing this debate on such an important issue, and I welcome all contributions to the debate about how our welfare reforms will better support disabled people, their carers and their families.

The UK has a proud history of furthering the rights of disabled people and I am pleased to say that, even in these very tough economic times, the Government continue to spend around £50 billion a year on disabled people and their services, to enable those who face the greatest barriers to participate fully in society. That compares well internationally. We spend almost double the OECD average, as a percentage of our gross domestic product, with only Norway and Iceland out of the 34 OECD countries spending more, and we spend a fifth more than the European average. More money will be spent on disability living allowance and the personal independence payment in every year up to 2015-16 than was spent in 2009-10.

We are world leaders in dealing with people with disabilities, but we should not be complacent, because disabled people are not a static group and we have to support them every which way we can. Some 3.2 million disabled people are on DLA and, over a year, the impairments of a third of them will change. Some people might get worse, and some will stay the same, but some will improve and get better and will no longer get the benefit as they will not be entitled to it. We will, however, support those who need support, or more support. The Government are committed to enabling disabled people to fulfil their potential and play a full part in society, but money needs to be targeted more effectively to ensure that support continues to be available to those who need it most, that there is a lasting impact, and that interventions provide a fair deal for the taxpayer.

Nearly half of disabled people are in work. Only 9% of working-age disabled people, and only 5% of those over the age of 25, have never worked. If we want to make a sustainable difference, we must do all we can to help more disabled people who can work to get into mainstream employment, and support them to stay in work. We know that many disabled people want to work but feel that the risk of losing their benefits is too great. By simplifying the benefits system and ensuring that work pays, universal credit will remove the financial risks involved in taking the first steps back into employment, and will increase the incentives of working, even if that work is for just a few hours a week. Universal credit will provide unconditional support to disabled people who are not expected to do any work.

Disability living allowance is an outdated benefit that has not been fundamentally reformed since it was introduced in 1992, and both sides of the House agreed that a change was needed. The reforms present an opportunity to start afresh, keeping the best elements of DLA that disabled people value, but bringing the benefit up to date and making it fit for the 21st century.

[Debbie Abrahams]

Does the Minister think that articles 19 and 20 of the United Nations convention on the rights of persons with disabilities are compromised by what the Government are doing in, for example, removing the Motability allowance from about 500,000 people?

[Esther McVey]

Of course we do not believe that the rights of disabled people are compromised. As I said at the start of my speech, we aim to strengthen and support them in every way we can.

The personal independence payment will be easier to understand and administer, and will be financially sustainable and more objective—the payment has not been so to date. It will be better targeted at those in most need. Throughout the development of the payment, we have consulted widely with disabled people and have used their views to inform policy design. It has taken more than two years of intense consultation, of listening and of working to adjust the criteria and the assessment, to get it right. We listened to people’s concerns about the speed of reassessments and, as I announced last week, we will now carry out a slower reassessment timetable to ensure that we get it right. The peak period of reassessments will not start until October 2015. Furthermore, the Government confirmed in last week’s autumn statement that disability benefits will continue to be uprated in line with inflation.

Carers provide an invaluable service to some of the most vulnerable people in our communities, and we want to ensure that they continue to get the support they need. We have committed to linking carer’s allowance to receipt of either rate of the daily living component of PIP, which is an important safeguard for carers. Our earlier analysis indicated that the link to PIP would result in broadly the same number of carers being entitled to carer’s allowance, even though there would be some churn between those who are newly entitled and others losing entitlement. Now that we have finalised the PIP assessment criteria we are, of course, considering that, and our objective remains to ensure that people caring for those with the greatest need get the right level of support.

Working-Age Disabled People

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2012 Westminster Hall

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

Thank you, Mr Amess. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I look forward to welcoming the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) when she becomes a full member of the Work and Pensions Committee.

This is not a partisan point, but for clarification I should say that the Opposition support genuine reform when there are clear issues. We have never said that we do not. The issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), the Chair of the Committee, is that the reforms are cuts. That is an important point to have made. There are practical issues that we need to address, but fundamentally, the evidence supplied to us independently indicates that the reforms are cuts.

[Anne Marie Morris]

rose—

[Jane Ellison]

rose—

[Debbie Abrahams]

I give way to the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris).

[Anne Marie Morris]

The hon. Lady is very generous. As I understand it, when we look at the figures in terms of the reduced amount available in future—the 20% cut, as she would describe it—and the assessment for the old DLA, which took account of expected changes, there is no difference. I am not sure, therefore, that the talk about cuts is correct. It is more about recognising that the current system does not work, because people who need the support do not get it, and the people who do not need it, do. The cuts are really about trying to rebalance that.

[Debbie Abrahams]

I should also have said that I have to leave soon. I apologise because I will not be taking any more interventions, but I am happy to answer that question. What the Chancellor said in the emergency Budget in June 2010 was clear:

“It is right that people who are disabled are helped to lead a life of dignity. We will continue to support them, and we will not reduce the rate at which this benefit is paid. However, three times as many people claim it today than when it was introduced 18 years ago, and the costs have quadrupled in real terms to more than £11 billion a year, making it one of the largest items of Government spending.”—[Official Report, 22 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 173.]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South said, there will be a 20% reduction in the number of people who are able to have a disability-related benefit awarded to them, and significant savings, again, can be identified within the Government’s impact assessment.

I want to unpick what the Chancellor said in that statement. He was, and is, saying that even if the prevalence of people with disabilities has grown by three times—there was a very unpleasant undertone implying that it had not—sorry, folks, it is just not sustainable. That is the key message that has been coming through, as my hon. Friend made clear. The impact assessment on the personal independence payment was, again, telling. It said:

“The new benefit will help to ensure that expenditure on DLA is sustainable and resources focused on those most in need of additional support.”

It goes on to assert that although there is an association between low income and poor health, there is limited evidence that providing money will improve health, which is correct. However, it continued:

“It is possible that the policy could have positive impacts on health if it leads to more disabled people moving into work.”

That, too, is very telling. First, the evidence was deflated or inflated, depending on what it said, to support the policy to get rid of DLA and replace it with PIP. The evidence was clearly manipulated and the lack of a comprehensive evidence base is shameful; my hon. Friend referred to that. There is real concern that the policy is being railroaded through. As we have discussed, there are a number of independent disabled people who are able to work. That is absolutely fantastic, but there are also some very vulnerable disabled people. The benefit should take them into account as much as it does those who are independent.

Secondly, the impact assessment makes an association with the positive impacts of work on health—which again, there are—when DLA has always been about helping contribute to the extra costs of being disabled. It is not an out-of-work benefit, so that relates to shifting the mindset of what the change is about. That is so important. The allowance has always been about supporting people with disabilities to lead as normal a life as possible.

For the record, the evidence on the trends in disability reflects our industrial heritage. The regions with heavy industries and occupations that did people’s health no favours have the highest rates of disability and ill health. There are diseases such as coal miners’ pneumoconiosis, asbestosis and silicosis. Of course, many of those diseases have long latencies, and there are industrial accidents that Members will be familiar with. Most work is good for people’s health, but not all, and there is strong evidence about that.

As I have said, we can agree—there is consensus across the House—that the DLA system, as it stands, is flawed. For example, a clear system for reviewing some awards is needed, but we should not restrict the access to support to overcome the barriers to day-to-day living that a person with a disability faces. That is what we need to address.

As I said before, the Government’s own estimates predict that more than 500,000 people will not receive this support. As many expert witnesses in the Select Committee’s inquiry concluded, cutting DLA is nothing more than a cost-cutting exercise. It is part of the wider erosion of the welfare state. As has been said, public buy-in is achieved by changing our view of what welfare is about. Unfortunately, the Government have a willing accomplice in the media to help them to do that.

I am really disappointed. We have talked about the role of the media. We have done a number of reports highlighting the importance of the media’s role and of responsible press releases and statements. However, this morning on the “Today” programme, the Secretary of State was talking as though people who are claiming benefits are a drain on society. It was a very inaccurate portrayal of benefit recipients. It was an attempt once again to suggest that the majority are workshy scroungers when the facts are that most people on benefits are in work and most are net contributors to the Treasury. That was not being reported; it was as though people were really abusing the system. There have been a number of such reports, and that has to change.

In addition to the reporting and the way in which attitudes to welfare are being changed, a system is being created in which people on higher incomes see themselves as separate to or outside the welfare state. We are not in post-war Britain. At that time, there was buy-in to the welfare state by everyone. Everyone saw themselves as contributing to and gaining from it. We were literally all in it together.

The final issue—this happened in the US under Reagan—is the putting in place of policies whose implications are unclear. Little has been done to assess the impact on the people they will affect. We have talked about the shameful impact assessment. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South talked about the lack of information available on the implications of this benefit change.

Despite a detailed, evidence-based inquiry by the Select Committee, the Government have rejected our recommendations out of hand. They seem determined to press on with what they are doing. I really have concerns about that. My hon. Friend mentioned the case in which a coroner reported that a suicide could be directly attributed to the pressure that was felt by someone with mental illness as a result of having to go through the work capability assessment. Is this really the type of society that we want to live in? I ask that question because I have—

[Jane Ellison]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Debbie Abrahams]

I will not. I am sorry, but I have only a few minutes and then I have to make a school visit.

I appreciate that I am talking about work capability assessments, but we have seen from the evidence that there is a link with the process that is to be adopted.

I want to touch briefly on the issues that have been mentioned in depth by colleagues. I have already talked about access to benefits being restricted. The application process is made as complicated and bureaucratic as possible, so that people already on DLA have to opt in rather than migrate across—the so-called “brown envelope syndrome”.

The assessment process is another issue because of the criteria used. They have little clinical relevance. It is a case of trying to set a very high minimum bar. I know, because I have met their representatives, that the royal colleges and the British Medical Association are really concerned that the criteria have not been developed in conjunction with them; they are often punitive and meaningless.

Similarly, there is an issue about assessors not being qualified in the conditions that they are assessing. That is an absolute nonsense. In addition, little attention is paid to the medical reports submitted in the assessment process. As an aside, I think that it is rather bizarre that Atos was contracted to undertake PIP assessments after such a poor performance on the WCA, but in Scotland it is sub-contracting the undertaking of the assessments to the NHS. What is going on? If this is about saving money, surely that is not the way to do it. In addition, there is little reassurance that someone will not be subjected to myriad assessments, potentially exacerbating their existing condition.

[Jim Sheridan in the Chair]

On the point about evidence, I have said this already but it is inexcusable that we do not have a comprehensive impact assessment that is able to predict—there are methods by which this can be done; I have used them myself—what the impacts will be, not just on claimants but on other services and on society as a whole. We should be doing that. I welcome the new Minister, but I hope that she will reflect on the recommendations that we have made and reconsider this change, in light of the huge concerns about its implementation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Monday 28th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

My hon. Friend is right that we do not want to see a levelling down in pension provision. We want quality pensions for our public servants, but we want to make sure that many more people in the private sector get quality pension provision as well, and auto-enrolment will help to achieve that.

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

11. If he will amend his proposed welfare reforms to minimise the risk of children entering poverty.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)]

The overhaul of the benefits system through the Welfare Reform Bill will hugely improve the incentives to work. Universal credit will bring in an improvement for children, in that 350,000 children will be lifted out of relative poverty. As the hon. Lady may be aware, we have also made available an extra £300 million for the poorest people who are caring for children.

[Debbie Abrahams]

The Children’s Society’s analysis of the impact of the welfare reforms says that they will push more children into severe poverty and homelessness. Currently, one in four children in my constituency is in severe poverty. Eighteen bishops have called for the Secretary of State to reconsider his position on the reforms—will he listen to them?

Pensions Bill [Lords]

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)]

I rise to speak on behalf of the hundreds and possibly thousands of women who have contacted me on this matter. I also speak as a woman who is directly and personally affected by the Government’s changes, so I am in a position to tell the Government what is happening to women of a certain age when it comes to pensions.

The women who have contacted me have told me that they expected changes in the pension age. They know that we are all living longer—or rather, that some of us are—that we need to plan for our retirement better and over a longer period, that we need to pay more for our pensions and that there needs to be some equalisation between when men and women access their pensions. They understand and recognise all that. However, it is the speed at which the changes are being implemented that is causing anxiety and fear among women who no longer have time to plan and save for their future.

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

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I, too, have been contacted by hundreds of concerned women in my constituency. Although we acknowledge the Government’s concessions, which they probably made because of the pressure that those women have put on them, they will not meet everybody’s needs. Hundreds of my constituents will still be up to £11,000 worse off, with not enough time to plan for a reasonable pension in their old age.

[Pat Glass]

I absolutely agree. This is just one more Government policy, on top of others that directly affect women and young people more than any other group, that will impoverish women. Whatever last-minute fixes the Government come up with, it remains wrong to penalise disproportionately women who happen to be between the ages of 56 and 58, many of whom have worked all their working lives. Many of them will have held several jobs in order to keep their families. They have paid their taxes and their bills, and, quite frankly, they deserve better than this.

Pensions Bill [Lords]

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Monday 20th June 2011 Commons Chamber

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

Like other Members, I am encouraged by the agreement across the Chamber, particularly on issues related to fairness that mostly affect women. We agree, for instance, that we are all living longer and therefore need to extend our working lives. Contrary to what the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) said, the last Labour Government took that into account in the Pensions Act 2007, following the recommendations of the Turner commission.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Malcolm Wicks) made a relevant point about variations in life expectancy connected with socio-economic inequalities, and about the time for which people in a healthy condition can expect to live. I agree that more research should be done on that.

[Harriett Baldwin]

The hon. Lady mentioned the steps that the last Government took to deal with increasing longevity. Does she agree that the figures produced by the original Turner commission suggest that things are moving much faster than was anticipated even in 2004, and that since then longevity has increased by at least a year?

[Debbie Abrahams]

I think that the hon. Lady is referring to the average. It is important for us to consider not just the average, but how the figure is spread across different socio-economic groups. It does not explain or excuse the Government’s failure to protect the women who are being detrimentally affected by the acceleration of the equalisation of the pension age.

As many people have pointed out, this is about fairness. We must focus on what is right, and the Bill fails the fairness test. Many figures have been cited in relation to what the Bill means nationally. Half a million women will have to wait more than a year longer to receive their state pensions, 300,000 will have to wait an additional 18 months, and an unfortunate 33,000 will have to wait a further two years. Moreover, the Government will increase the state pension age for both men and women to 66 in 2018.

I asked the House of Commons Library to conduct an analysis of the impact in my constituency. I discovered that 4,300 women and 3,800 men would be affected, and that approximately 200 women would experience a notional loss of income from their state pensions of up to £10,700. I have been contacted by dozens of women in my constituency who have been working since the age of 14 or 15, including one called Linda Murray. She gave me permission to use her name. She was born in 1954, and left school at 16 to start work. She wrote:

“I have never had a job that provided a pension or had the means to provide one for myself. I have worked full-time apart from a few years when I worked part-time while helping to look after my mother who needed 24-hour care. For most of my working life I expected to receive my pension at the age of 60. However when the age started to rise I accepted this, as did everyone else. My retirement date was set at 64. I now work 47 hours a week in a dry cleaners and it is hard manual work. Due to my personal circumstances, full retirement is not an option for me, at least for a few years, but I was planning to greatly reduce my hours. I know that I won’t be able to continue working as I am now until I’m 66.”

Many Members have mentioned that that is hard to do because of the physical wearing out of the body.

Linda continues:

“But my take-home pay is £267 a week—how am I going to be able to save enough from this to be able to work part-time when I’m 64?...This proposal is ill thought-out and cruel. It’s unfair to move the goalposts for a second time. Women of my age have worked hard and honestly and don’t deserve to be discriminated against in this way. We accept the need to equalise the retirement ages but it should be done in a fair way. I feel that this Act will create an underclass of women unable to continue in their present employment, unable to find another job and denied the pension to which they are entitled. In an interview in The Daily Telegraph…David Cameron said that a sudden rise in women’s retirement age was out of the question.”

So that is another broken promise. There are hundreds of women with similar stories, and there is considerable cross-party agreement that we need to do something about this. I therefore hope that Ministers are listening.

Another fairness issue is the switch from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index. The Department for Work and Pensions impact assessment produced figures that again suggest that the burden will shift from the Government and employers to the individual. Some £500 million will be taken from the Pension Protection Fund.

My final point is about the increase in income thresholds for automatic enrolment into occupational pensions and the delay in that regard. The former Labour Government introduced that measure in the Pensions Act 2008, but the current Government are restricting access to it by both increasing the threshold from £5,000 to almost £7,500 and introducing a three-month waiting period. Again, women and people in low-income jobs will be particularly affected. Indeed, the impact assessment suggests that those who will be most detrimentally affected will be women, people on low incomes, ethnic minority groups and people with disabilities.

We must not allow our pension system to be reformed in a way that pushes pensioners deeper into poverty. Labour did a lot to reduce inequalities—although I would have liked us to have done a lot more—but these reforms will make them worse.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and he is absolutely right: the contrast is stark and is not flattering to the Opposition. Indeed, I would go so far as to claim that the curious thing about the Labour Government is that they demonstrated the quality we would normally associate with Oppositions: total opportunism—the total failure to grapple with any difficult long-term issues, and instead doing just the easy things that win votes at the next election.

[Debbie Abrahams]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Pensions Acts 2007 and 2008.

[Nick Boles]

I thank the hon. Lady—and remind her that her Government had been in power for 10 and a half years by the time they introduced those Acts, even though it was clear long before they took office that such problems existed. However, I do not want to be too ungracious and I do accept that some things were done—but not enough and too late.

So why are the Opposition taking this approach of opposing everything under the general charge that it just is not fair? Is it really fair to tell people that a budget deficit on the scale that we face can be dealt with without pain; without some people being asked to sacrifice things that are important to them; and without everyone in the country experiencing a real material loss? Is it fair to tell young people that, actually, there is no reason to pull back on EMA; that there is no reason to restrict their income when they stay on in education; that there is no reason to change the basis of funding for universities?

Welfare Reform Bill

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2011 Commons Chamber

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

I shall be brief, as I know that other Members still wish to speak. We have heard useful contributions from Members on both sides of the House. There is cross-party consensus that the welfare system needs to be reformed, and there is even common ground on the reasons for the reforms, such as making work pay, and on what we need to do about the problem, such as simplifying the benefits system.

I want to put on the record the fact that there have been some unhelpful and unhealthy remarks, particularly statements that equate the reforms on making work pay with, if not a kick up the backside for people who are deemed to be workshy, then its equivalent. I found that particularly objectionable. I began to make a list of the Members concerned, but I ran out of space.

I want to dispel some of the myths perpetrated about worklessness, which includes unemployment and incapacity, whether the result of illness or of disability, and to explain why the Bill not only fails to address key issues such as the taper of the universal credit but, in conjunction with the disasters of the Government’s economic and employment policies, risks increasing both child and pensioner poverty and inequalities, as well as creating a new underclass. We also know that there will be consequences for the health outcomes of the population as a whole.

On unemployment, constituents are coming to my surgeries having either had their jobs threatened or just lost their jobs, and it is insulting that we should consider some of them to be making lifestyle choices. Unemployment is not a lifestyle choice. There is clear evidence that unemployment has profound negative effects on the physical and mental health of not only the people who are directly affected, but their families. Studies suggest that there will be an increase in all-cause mortality as a result of unemployment, so we need to be very mindful of that.

Indeed, if we compare the level of incapacity benefits with health data, we find that it is a good indicator of population health. It is reliable, legitimate and not an indicator of malingering. There is overwhelming evidence that the driver that brings down worklessness is a high level of sustained economic growth, but the current fitful recovery will not help to get people back into work. Given the Government’s cuts, nothing will help those people.

In addition to the Bill’s appalling timing, it lacks an understanding of the importance of appropriate welfare to work programmes and fails to distinguish between job-ready and long-term claimants. That will again hinder people from getting back into work.

My final general point is about the Bill’s direction of travel. When we compare different international systems, we find that those with highly decommodifying state support packages—where state support ensures that a basic standard of living is maintained—have fewer income inequalities, a host of social benefits and no negative impact on health outcomes, as measured in particular by infant mortality.

Welfare systems also have an intergenerational effect. In the US we have seen that evidence, and I see patterns associated with what we have been introducing, and that effect also occurring here. Children inherit their parents’ poverty, and we cannot allow that, so I recommend that we look again at the detail of the Bill.

On the Bill’s specific measures, I have already mentioned concerns about the taper, and I hope that the Government will commit to an annual review of the rate and introduce it at 55% rather than at 65%. In addition, the payment of the universal credit needs to be more flexible, as many of my hon. Friends have said, so that we do not exacerbate child poverty any further.

I would also welcome some clarity about the earnings disregard—the amount a household can earn before they lose their entitlement—to ensure that work pays for all. Members have already mentioned the reduction in the child care costs that the working tax credit covers, and I hope that we can look again at that. Save the Children estimates that some families could lose more than £1,500.

Free school meals are another important source of support to low-income families, and I am concerned that the Bill does not describe how they will be maintained under the universal credit.

The withdrawal of employment support allowance after a year is absolutely disgraceful, and again we should learn from other countries. We have seen what has happened in the States, and the effect on families has been absolutely appalling.

Finally, the conditions, sanctions and penalties associated with the universal credit must be reasonable, take account of specific barriers to work and ensure that work does pay.

So, I will not be supporting the Bill—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady.