Social Security Claimant Deaths

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Thursday 4th July 2019 Commons Chamber

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

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if she will make a statement to clarify what documents concerning the peer reviews and coroners’ reports into social security claimant deaths since 2010 are held by her Department, and whether all of these were supplied to Professor Harrington and Dr Litchfield, the independent reviewers of the work capability assessment.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)]

The Department holds the original commission and final report for all peer reviews of disability benefit claimants’ deaths up to 2015. All these documents are kept for six years from the date of the final report. In October 2015, we moved from conducting peer reviews to internal process reviews. That change means we now hold more information, including the original commission, all emails relating to the case, the final report and any recommendations resulting from the internal review process.

As the House may be aware, the Welfare Reform Act 2007 committed the Secretary of State to publish an independent report on the work capability assessment each year for the first five years of its operation. In 2013 and 2014, Dr Litchfield led the fourth and fifth independent reviews of the WCA. The Department fully co-operated with the reviews and shared all relevant information as requested. To assist the WCA independent reviews and in response to a freedom of information request, we carried out a robust search to supply all necessary information to the reviewers. The record of the documents requested by or shared with the independent reviewers no longer exists, in line with the Department’s document retention policy.

We take the death of any disability benefits claimant very seriously indeed and always conduct an investigation into the circumstances where we are informed that the claimant committed suicide. As the review contains extremely personal information, it would not be appropriate to declare which individual cases were shared with the reviewers on this occasion.

[Debbie Abrahams]

Thank you so much, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question.

Let me refresh everybody’s memories following the point of order I raised about this yesterday. I have received a response to my letter of 10 May to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in which I expressed my concerns regarding the investigation and the information provided to the independent reviewers. I also asked for information on claimant deaths after being found fit for work following a work capability assessment, as well as on deaths in relation to the personal independence payment, and I still have not received any information on that.

In the reply from the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, nearly two months later, he said that although a

“robust and thorough search was carried out of information held by the Department…the outcome is that the Department does not hold any information”

in relation to what peer review reports were supplied to the independent reviewers. He also said that this was due to

“the length of time since the reviews were carried out, factors such as document retention policies, organisational changes and staff turnover”.

These documents relate to the circumstances of people’s deaths as little as five years ago. The independent reviewers were investigating the work capability assessment process, including the impact of assessments. It is deeply troubling that the Department appears to have no record of what was supplied to the reviews, especially as both Professor Harrington and Dr Litchfield say that they did not receive such documents. In the same response, the Minister tried to suggest that the reviewers did not request these reports. It prompts the question whether the Department’s record keeping systems are fit for purpose or whether these documents were deliberately withheld.

Can the Minister confirm that these documents were not sent to Dr Litchfield in 2013? Why does his Department not hold records on what information was supplied to Dr Litchfield and to his predecessor, Professor Harrington? The Minister said in his response that the retention policy is that the Department does not keep these records. I find that deeply concerning, considering other Departments’ requirements under the law to keep these data.

What steps will the Minister take to ensure any departmental reorganisation or staff turnover does not lead to the loss of such important and sensitive information in the future? Will he commit to an investigation into what happened to these documents, and will he report back to the House on the outcomes of this investigation? The Information Commissioner’s Office spoke to members of staff who were in the Department at the time of the Litchfield review. How many members of staff who were in the Department at that time still remain?

Has the Department approached Dr Litchfield and Professor Harrington about the information they received, and if not, why not? The letter I received yesterday from the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work stated that the Department shared

“all relevant information which was requested by Prof Harrington and Dr Litchfield”.

However, if they were unaware of the existence of these documents, how could they request them? Given that their remit was to examine the work capability assessment and that many of these reviews and coroners’ letters contained grave concerns about the assessment process, why did the Department not provide them?

Since 2015, the Department has undertaken 84 internal process reviews, and six more have been received. The Minister will be aware of the ruling in John Pring v. the Information Commissioner and the Department for Work and Pensions, which led to the redacted publication of peer reviews in 2016. Will he commit to publishing redacted reports of these internal process reviews?

We are talking about the circumstances of people’s deaths, as I have said. A Government’s first duty is to protect their people—all their people—but they are failing the sick and disabled, and this reveals the enormity of that failure.

[Will Quince]

The Department takes the death of any claimant extremely seriously and always conducts an investigation into the circumstances. The Department is continually working to improve its safeguarding practices, working with partner agencies and local government. The Department is presently undertaking a review of the departmental safeguarding policy and guidance available to staff, which will report in the autumn of 2019. The scope of the review is considering what more we at the Department can do to support vulnerable claimants, with an emphasis both on ensuring safety and on working with partners to provide the necessary support when and where necessary. The review covers all areas of DWP delivery activities.

The last independent review was in 2014. As I said in my opening response, we do not hold emails going back over 12 months, under our document retention policy. My understanding, however, is that the documentation was not requested by the independent reviewers, but we hold such information on the peer review process for six years. I should stress that we would share outcomes and lessons learned. As the hon. Lady rightly pointed out, we have about 20 to 25 internal process reviews a year —they do not all relate to suicides—but I would stress that we are fully compliant with the law when it comes to data.

Department for Work and Pensions

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Commons Chamber

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

Will the hon. Lady kindly cite the evidence to support her statement that welfare reforms have actually led to the increase in employment, because I have evidence to show that employment has increased in spite of the welfare reforms?

[Trudy Harrison]

I explained earlier in my speech that previously women in particular were restricting their working hours to 16 hours a week because of the benefit system, and in terms of the evidence the hon. Lady is surely not doubting that the unemployment record is at its lowest since 1971.

Universal Credit is one of the most important reforms the Government are making. I want to see high quality, affordable, flexible childcare in every town and village, and I would like to hear from the Minister what steps he and his Department are taking to make that possible. Certainly the welfare reforms are making it a more achievable goal in my community, and I welcome the Government’s efforts.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) on her absolutely excellent speech. She set out what social security should be about. It is about the type of society that we want. The key thrust of her message was to ask whether it is acceptable that so many children are living in poverty—one in four currently grow up in poverty, and one in five are in persistent poverty—when we are the fifth richest country in the world. Is this the sort of society we want them to grow up in, when, despite being the fifth richest country in the world, we also have the highest child mortality in western Europe?

We know the causal relationship between poverty and early childhood death. Is this acceptable? To my mind, it is not, and I am sure that many people across the Chamber agree with me. That is why I asked the hon. Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) for her evidence. We have to look at the evidence. There will also be issues with addiction, but are we seriously saying that all poverty issues relate to addiction? There is no evidence to support that. I shall get back to the point of whether this poverty is acceptable. If it is not, we need to look at mechanisms that will ensure that in the civilised society that we aspire to lead we have the policy measures to ensure that this does not happen.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

Is it acceptable to be in a party that has always left office with unemployment higher than when it entered office, or is it acceptable to be in a party that has delivered record numbers of jobs?

[Debbie Abrahams]

I respond to the hon. Gentleman by asking whether it is acceptable that we have the highest level of in-work poverty and that two thirds of the children living in poverty are from those working families. I throw that back at the Government.

[Christine Jardine]

The hon. Lady makes the point that I was about to make, which is that we are in the completely unacceptable situation in which two thirds of the children living in poverty in this country live in households where at least one parent is working. Does she agree that that is not just a failure by the Government to protect those children but an abject failure on their part to protect the welfare state and provide a continuing welfare state that works for the people who need it most?

[Debbie Abrahams]

I could not agree with the hon. Lady more.

I am going to carry on with my questions about what we deem acceptable in our country. Is it acceptable that sick and disabled people are being isolated and excluded across our society? I believe that, in addition to children, it is sick and disabled people who have borne the brunt of this Government’s cuts. That shames us all. Nine out of 10 disabilities and illnesses are acquired. Would we want this for ourselves or for our nearest and dearest? I am sure that the answer is no, so what does that mean for our policies for sick and disabled people? Many of us on both sides of the Chamber do not think that this is acceptable. We need a thriving economy, but the present levels of inequality are stifling the growth that we need—[Interruption.] That is evidence based. I can provide evidence for the fact that inequality is stifling growth in the economy.

We need a social security system that is there for all of us. I would like to see our social security system held in the same esteem that we have for our NHS. It should be there for each and every one of us, providing dignity and security in our retirement and the support we need if we become sick or disabled or if we fall out of work. Let us face it: with the current flexibility in employment, people are going in and out of work, and the system needs to be able to reflect that. It also needs to be able to protect us from poverty, because that is what a civilised society does. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South said, this should be about smoothing out our incomes so that we do not have to be plunged into poverty when we experience extreme events. A decent social security system is a vital weapon for tackling the poverty and inequality that are now rampant across the UK.

We know that, although work and pensions spending has increased since 2010, working-age support has actually been reduced by £30 billion because of the decisions that the Government have made. We also know that those savings are set to increase even further to £38 billion by the end of the forecast period in 2023-24. These figures should include the effect of the measures announced in the 2018 Budget, which included annual spending of £1.9 billion by 2023 on universal credit. Unfortunately, although some people have benefited from universal credit, 3 million people will still be worse off under it. As I mentioned in Treasury questions this morning, 87% of all disabled people will not benefit from those Budget measures and will remain worse off under universal credit, alongside 640,000 self-employed households and 475,000 working lone-parent households.

As my hon. Friend so eloquently put it, we have seen the rise and rise of food banks and an increase in in- work poverty. We know that 4 million sick and disabled people are living in poverty, as are 330,000 more older people. I mentioned the stifling effect that this is having on the economy. The Office for Budget Responsibility’s own model has shown that the independent effect of austerity has been to stifle economic growth by at least £100 billion in 2018-19, which is the equivalent of £3,600 per household. That is my evidence to the House.

I have mentioned the human toll of these policies. In Work and Pensions questions yesterday, I mentioned Amanda, a lone parent who was pregnant and had significant mental health issues. She had her universal credit claim closed in the final weeks before she was about to deliver her child. She did not know why this had happened, but it was revealed that it was because she had not undertaken an independent review. I am pleased that the Minister said that he would take the matter up, but let us just imagine if this happened to us. How would we feel if we suddenly had our income ripped away from us and we did not know what was happening, just as we were about to have a child? This is simply unacceptable.

We know that, between 2013 and 2018, 60 disabled people a month died after their personal independence payment claims were rejected. Many others have died after being found fit for work. A Government’s first duty is to keep their people safe, and that includes their vulnerable citizens. They are failing to do this. Poverty and inequality are political choices. Many of us have made suggestions on how we can tweak the current social security system, but I believe that we need a radical transformation. As my hon. Friend said, we need a new social contract with the British people, built on the Beveridge principles, to define a 21st century social security system that treats its citizens with dignity and respect and protects them from poverty, destitution and even death.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clarke]

Child benefit is, obviously, a sensitive issue, but the point is that a family not in the welfare system, perhaps just above the entitlement level for welfare support, has to make rational choices in their life. All families have to make rational choices in their life about the size of the family they can afford. Lots of people find it wrong that the system would allow people to have any number of children, whereas those people not in the system have to make budgetary choices. That is not a principle I am uncomfortable defending.

Let us go to the wider point, as we need to go back to first principles on this. I do not doubt the sincere differences we have and Labour Members’ concerns, but they have to justify the fact that under their Government 1.4 million people spent most of 2000 to 2010 trapped on out-of-work benefits, with some receiving more than the average wage. Some 50,000 households were allowed to claim benefits worth more than £26,000 a year. I represent a low-wage constituency in the north of England and I simply cannot justify a situation whereby the logical thing was for people to stay earning that amount of benefits rather than to be in work. That has profound and adverse social consequences.

[Debbie Abrahams]

I think what we are trying to do with this debate is look at where we are now. The hon. Gentleman is right, and we did not get everything wrong, but what we need to do is look at the system now. It is clearly not fit for purpose. The way he was talking made it sound as though he also had concerns about the number of children, and the number of sick and disabled people, living in poverty. I am sure he was not suggesting that all the sick and disabled people who require support are shirkers or scroungers, and that there is nothing wrong with them. So what do we do now?

[Mr Clarke]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right; of course, there are lots of people who, for reasons that are totally out of their control, need our support and compassion. No Conservative Member would argue with that. I would argue that we get more money for those people by ensuring that the system has the resource available to devote to those families and those individuals, rather than to those who do not need that support and need to be in work. We have seen a record number of people come into work. We are seeing record female employment. We are seeing a record number of disabled people move into work. We should celebrate all those things. Just as those on the other side are quick to point out the problems with the system—and any system run by Government that is as Byzantine as the welfare system will always throw up hard cases that need to be looked at carefully—we also need to recognise the considerable social policy success that has been represented by helping the equivalent of the entire population of Wales, more than 3 million people, move into work during this Government’s time in office. That is a really important shift and we do not want to see this go backwards because we have changed the incentives in the system.

That is one reason I was so profoundly opposed to the amendments tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) in this debate. I do not think it was appropriate for this debate and these estimates to be drawn into the context of the Brexit debate. That was profoundly unwelcome. No matter which side of the House someone sits on, we have to try to keep certain aspects of the debate separate. It will be interesting to hear from the shadow Front Bencher what the Labour party’s position would have been had the amendment been accepted and what it would be were a future such attempt to be made. It is important to put on the record that there are some aspects of this debate that are simply more important than the issue of the UK’s membership of the European Union—or not. In truth, the two things are fundamentally discrete.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to be the last, I think, of the Back-Bench speakers today on the important issue of the spending of the Department for Work and Pensions and its estimates. That vital Department takes a quarter of the £800 billion-odd spent each year on public services. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) on securing this excellent debate.

I spent a happy year sitting behind Ministers PPS-ing at the DWP. I was really passionate about working there, because it is a Department that can really make a difference; it has a huge spend and a vast range of levers to really help people and make a difference. Alternatively, if things go wrong, we see where people are hindered.

In his excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) referred to a number of Conservative Members elected in 2017 to seats that might previously have been described as the Labour heartlands. I want to add North East Derbyshire, a seat we won in 2017, to the list. I stood for that seat in 2010 against Natascha Engel—a former occupant of the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, and an excellent MP. I spent two and a half years there. I remember how toxic the benefits culture there had become: an issue that set neighbour against neighbour.

People were concerned that they were working hard while they saw other people who they thought were not putting in the shifts. At times, that was unpleasant and unfair: it is very difficult to tell who is capable of work and who is not, and neighbours are not necessarily able to make the distinction. But I was troubled by the situation and by the statistics showing that, in 2010, 1.4 million people had been on long-term benefits for nine years and 2.6 million had been on them for five years. Clearly, that was a difficulty.

The big challenge for any Government elected in 2010, whether Labour or Conservative, was to work out how to get people capable of work off benefits and give them the tools, access and ability to step into work, thus reducing the benefits bill and focusing funds on those who really could not work. It was about helping and empowering those who could work to get into and rise up the jobs market.

I think my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar is right about electoral success. Fast forward to now, and we see that the approach has gone down incredibly well with voters—not only those who saw people on benefits who perhaps should not have been, but those people themselves, who wanted the help and were given the encouragement.

[Debbie Abrahams]

rose—

[Huw Merriman]

I will give way only once, as we are short of time.

[Debbie Abrahams]

The hon. Gentleman continues to make the assertion that welfare reforms have driven the increase in employment. There is no evidence to support that: the National Audit Office, for example, disputes it.

On the issue of working as the route out of poverty, I should say that, according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, four out of five people in low-income work will still be in such work 10 years later. It is an absolute myth that work is a progression. That does not mean that we should not do stuff about that issue—of course we should.

[Huw Merriman]

Well, we can argue about statistics, but try this one. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady wants to throw one at me, but then will not let me respond with one, which I find slightly dictatorial. Some 2.2 million people were unemployed when we took office in 2010; that figure is now 1.4 million. I can give her the number of those who have clearly moved off unemployment benefit into work. We can argue about this all the way through—

--- Later in debate ---

[Will Quince]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, split payments are available. I know the Scottish Government are looking at split payments by default, and that is an area I am looking at very closely indeed. It comes with huge complexities, as indeed the Scottish Government recognise, and we are working very closely with them. The Secretary of State has done a huge amount of work in this area—we would expect nothing less from a former Home Secretary who has done an awful lot of work around domestic abuse. So this is an area that I am looking at very carefully; I am conscious of it and am very happy to commit to continue to work with the Scottish Government to try to find a solution to what is a very complex issue.

Supporting the most vulnerable in society is at the very heart of our compassionate Conservative Government and my Department does exactly that.

[Debbie Abrahams]

Will the Minister give way?

[Will Quince]

Last year we paid 20 million citizens—more than half of all adults in this country—a huge range of social security entitlements and benefits, from state pension and cold weather payments to universal credit and disability benefits. In total the Department spends £190 billion a year—spending that is equivalent to the GDP of Portugal.

[Debbie Abrahams]

Will the Minister give way?

[Will Quince]

Through our welfare reforms and our reforms to make work pay we have got spending under control while ensuring that we do not trap people on welfare. [Interruption.] Under Labour, 1.4 million people spent most of the last decade trapped on out-of-work benefits, with some receiving more than the average wage. Some 50,000 households were allowed to claim benefits worth over £500 a week or more than £26,000 a year, higher than the average wage at the time. [Interruption.] We are creating a welfare system in which it pays to work, with universal credit simplifying the complex legacy benefits—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Will Quince]

We are at record levels of employment and, once fully rolled out, universal credit will support another 200,000 people into work and help those already in work to increase hours. But we do not want people to have just any job; we want them to have good jobs where they are able to progress, and universal credit will enable this while providing an economic benefit of £8 billion a year to our economy and saving the Exchequer more than £3 billion annually.

But this is not “job done”. I know as well as anyone the importance of supporting people into work, particularly among vulnerable groups. That is why we have worked hard to create a safety net that not only supports people when they fall on hard times but gives them a hand up. That is vital. We are spending more than £55 billion this year to support disabled people and those with health conditions. That is more than any Labour Government did. Disability benefit spending will be higher in every year to 2023 than it was in 2010. Under universal credit, disabled claimants who cannot work will receive an average of £100 more each month than under the legacy system. So we are supporting those who have worked their whole lives and paid into our social security, and who now deserve to enjoy their retirement. We created the triple lock on state pensions, which has increased the amount of the basic state pension to almost £1,600 more than it was in 2010. We are further protecting the poorest pensioners through pension credit. This means that in total we spend more than £120 billion on benefits for pensioners in this country. As a result, pensioner poverty is now close to historic lows, which is where we want to keep it.

[Debbie Abrahams]

rose—

[Will Quince]

I will turn now to some of the points made in the debate. The hon. Member for Wirral South talked about the WASPI women. This Government have introduced transitional arrangements costing £1.1 billion. This concession reduced the proposed increase in the state pension age for more than 450,000 men and women, and it means that no woman will see her pension age change by more than 18 months relative to the 1995 Pensions Act timetable. As numerous hon. Members have pointed out, if we were to reverse the state pension changes made under the previous Pensions Act, it would cost more than £200 billion up to 2025-26.

Moving on, the two-child policy ensures that parents in receipt of benefits face the same financial choices when deciding to grow their families. As announced in January, we will no longer be extending the policy for new claims for children born before April 2017. Turning to the benefit freeze, I have already made it clear that we will end the freeze in 2020. As for universal credit, the principle is to have a simpler system, with six benefits rolled into one. When it comes to supporting children, I play a role in the early years ministerial group, which was chaired by the former Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom). That group is looking at numerous options around cross-departmental work on supporting children.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Monday 1st July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Alok Sharma]

I thank my hon. Friend for being a huge champion for the Isle of Wight and working so well with his local jobcentre. I am very pleased about that and he is absolutely right. As a result of universal credit, people are able to get the support—that one-to-one support—that is so vital. Since 2016, an extra £10 billion has gone into the system.

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

My constituent, Amanda, who is a single mum with significant mental health problems, had her UC claim closed—unknown to her—at the beginning of May. She was told by the DWP that this was a sanction because she failed to complete an online review. I should also mention that she was in the last few weeks of her pregnancy. Given that Amanda is clearly a vulnerable person, will the Secretary of State commit to ensure that all work coaches are aware of their obligations following last year’s High Court judgment, which demands that they should treat vulnerable claimants appropriately?

[Alok Sharma]

Of course. The Secretary of State, I and all colleagues want to ensure that absolutely every single person claiming universal credit gets the appropriate support and the right level of support. I would be very happy to look at that individual case with the hon. Lady. I would just say on sanctions that these are not just handed out; there is a clear process. I can tell her that, in February 2019, only 2.45% of those who were under conditionality requirements actually had a sanction and the average sanction’s length was 30 days. But I will look at that case for her.

Inequality and Social Mobility

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Wednesday 12th June 2019 Commons Chamber

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

I am afraid that the Government’s record on inequalities, across the piece, is absolutely woeful. I was particularly concerned by some of the data mentioned by the Secretary of State.

Last month, on the 49th anniversary of the Equal Pay Act 1970, the Equality Trust published more data showing pay inequalities. It analysed the average pay of chief executives and other workers, gender pay gaps and gender bonus gaps in FTSE 100 companies. That followed the report, in February, of an increase in income inequality according to the Gini coefficient, a standard measure. Who could forget “Fat Cat Friday” in January, which exposed the fact that top executives were earning 133 times more than their average worker? In 1998, the ratio was 47.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) was absolutely right to draw attention to the impact of austerity and the Government’s choices—and they are choices: poverty and inequality are politically determined—to ensure that their tax and spending plans harm the poorest most. That is not just my view. A report from the Equality and Human Rights Commission has shown that the poorest 10th of households will lose, on average, 10% of their income by 2022, which is equivalent to £1 in every £8. There have been similar findings from the Institute for Fiscal Studies and other organisations.

However, it is not just a question of income inequalities. Wealth inequalities are also prevalent and have worsened in this country. The richest 1,000 people in the UK have wealth estimated at £724 billion, which is more than the wealth of the poorest 40%, at £567 billion. That privileged 1,000 saw their income increase by £66 billion in one year alone and by £255 billion over the last five years.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Debbie Abrahams]

Very briefly.

[Matt Rodda]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, at a time of widening inequality and huge gaps between those who have advantages in life and those who do not, it is deeply and utterly irresponsible for a leading politician to promise tax cuts to the very wealthy while lacking any consideration for those in much more challenging circumstances?

--- Later in debate ---

[Debbie Abrahams]

I could not agree more. In fact, I think that a stock question to all who aspire to be the leader of this country should be “How are you going to tackle the inequalities that our country faces?”

The impact of these inequalities on life expectancy, which is now stalling after decades of growth, has not gone unnoticed. Among women, the gap is the largest since the 1920s, and for older women—as we have heard from other Members today—life expectancy is actually reversing. What has been the Government’s response? To increase the state pension age. People’s lives are becoming shorter, but they will have to work for longer to receive their pensions. The gap in life expectancy between the rich and the poor is 10 years for men and seven a half years for women, and that applies to healthy life expectancy as well.

The analysis shows that, while life expectancy is slowing down in the United States and some European countries, the slowdown is worst in the United Kingdom. This is not a developed country phenomenon: life expectancy is increasing in Denmark, Norway and other Scandinavian countries. The stalling in life expectancy has been picked up by the actuaries, who have estimated that there could be a 15% reduction in pension deficits—equivalent to £310 billion.

None of this is new. Seminal works such as “The Spirit Level”, published 10 years ago, showed that in societies and communities in which the gaps between the rich and poor are narrow, life expectancy, educational attainment, social mobility, trust and more increase. In addition, more equal societies see economic benefits, as described by the International Monetary Fund in 2015. Fairer, more equal societies benefit everyone.

Wilkinson and Pickett’s most recent work, “The Inner Level”, examined how more equal societies reduce stress and improve everyone’s wellbeing, unpicking the evidence of the pathophysiological pathways and mechanisms through which inequalities act to affect our health and wellbeing, physical, mental, emotional and more. Our health and longevity depend on how and where we are able to live, which in turn depends on our financial means. But on top of this, there is an independent and universal effect that reflects positions in our hierarchy: our class, status and relative power. The impacts of inequalities in power—political, practical and personal—are worthy of greater exploration and analysis, and I hope that the Deaton review will pick up on that.

Invisible Disabilities and Accessibility Challenges

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Wednesday 5th June 2019 Commons Chamber

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

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Dementia is one of those invisible cognitive impairments. I chair the all-party group on dementia, which has just conducted an inquiry on dementia as a disability. As a society, we still face issues on access to blue badges and on attitudes and how people relate to those with dementia. I am very grateful to him for his speech today.

[Martin Whitfield]

I am grateful for that intervention. The Minister will find that one of my requests at the end may make reference to that point.

Let me follow up on what has been said about those who suffer acquired brain injury, as there are many instances where people feel that the person in front of them is drunk and has not suffered an injury. People who have fatigue syndromes are accused of laziness when they ask for a seat. In employment, people with these invisible conditions are often disproportionately discriminated against. Those with neurological conditions such as autism will struggle in a conventional workplace setting, but this is to miss the great opportunity and strength that people with autism can offer in the workplace.

I was interested to hear yesterday from leading charities about the impact of signage, particularly in respect of conditions that affect the functioning of the brain. Signage that vulnerable people can understand works for everybody and will go a long way towards allowing people, particularly those with dementia, to become and to feel more integrated in society. It is such small changes that go a long way towards changing the lives of significant numbers of people.

I stress that I do not want this debate, nor the introduction of new signage, to dilute the need to reform and rearrange the built environment for those who suffer from a physical disability. Wheelchair users and those with mobility challenges face huge obstacles in our society, and this is in no way an attempt to split the two groups. In fact, it is an attempt to bring them together. Whether it is the creation of more accessible homes, the altering of transport infrastructure or the forcing of private companies to improve their surroundings, it is all helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) on securing this debate. It is an important issue. It is a shame that the Chamber is so empty again because every Member of this place will have constituents who have hidden disabilities. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) on her speech. She clearly has some relevant experience that she is bringing to this place.

I am pleased to be able to take part in the debate because I believe that the issue of hidden disabilities can have an immense impact on individuals’ lives. It is something we do not speak about enough in the Chamber. As some hon. Members may know from my contribution in a Westminster Hall debate earlier this year, my wife has an invisible condition—fibromyalgia—so I am well aware of how some of these conditions can be very hard to deal with. She can look perfectly okay on the outside, but she is really suffering on the inside. Fatigue can wipe out fibromyalgia sufferers for days at a time, and the pain experienced can vary from aching muscles and painful joints to extreme tenderness all over. There are cognitive challenges too, such as brain fog, insomnia and disturbed sleep. In fact, there are so many symptoms, it is not possible to list them all here. Just as with many of the conditions we have heard about today, the outside world cannot see that there is any issue at all.

My wife, like many others, has tried to find ways to manage her condition. She has to pace herself, plan ahead and make adjustments to keep her symptoms under control. That is the only way in which she can manage her condition. She does not always succeed—it still catches her out. It is incredibly frustrating and tough to know how best to help and improve things, which is why I, along with others, have called for greater awareness of the condition by the medical profession and employers so that fibromyalgia sufferers are not disadvantaged by more than their symptoms, and so that they have support out there in the world.

In common with many people with invisible, long-term and fluctuating conditions, what matters most to people with fibromyalgia is how their condition is treated and supported. Much more research is needed on the condition and how it begins. We need consistent treatment pathways and better training for medical professionals to recognise those symptoms and recommend treatment. There is a huge need for services to be put in place to support and enable people with invisible conditions to live their lives as fully as possible.

I should like to discuss the barriers that people with invisible conditions face in their everyday life, beginning with getting back to work. I recently spoke in a Westminster Hall debate on another invisible condition, arthritis. An estimated 16,000 people in my constituency live with back pain. Another 4,000 and 8,000 people respectively are estimated to live with hip and knee conditions. Those are just some of the estimated 17.8 million people who live with arthritis or related conditions across the country. About half of them live with pain every day. That is a staggering number of people coping in their everyday lives, while people around them are blissfully unaware of their suffering. Just because we cannot see their pain does not mean that it should be ignored or written off as just how it is.

As with fibromyalgia, the problems that people with arthritic conditions face are exacerbated by the fact that they can fluctuate in severity, leaving them unsure how well they will be able to cope from day to day. That can make it difficult to hold down a regular job, but that should not be used as cover for discrimination. Many people with arthritis want to work and can do so if the right support is in place. Such help is available through the Access to Work scheme, but that is not working as well as it should, as various arthritis charities have said. They are also calling for the Government to commission research on the meaning of “reasonable adjustments”, and for support to be put in place to help people who challenge employers who do not act on Access to Work recommendations. Employers, as we know, are obliged to make reasonable adjustments but, if someone is in work and not a member of a trade union, who will argue the case for them?

There was a Westminster Hall debate yesterday on trade union access to workplaces My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Faisal Rashid) has introduced a private Member’s Bill on the issue, as some well-known employers have actively sought to prevent trade unions from accessing workplaces by banning visits or by manipulating shift patterns to prevent opportunities for engagement. It is important that we do as much as we can to ensure that people have access to trade unions at work so that they can be adequately represented. Rights are only as good as our ability to enforce them.

To return to employment opportunities for people with invisible conditions, on a practical level, how easy is it for them to raise issues associated with their condition at a job interview, or when they begin work? It is a difficult conversation to have because, although discrimination is unlawful, that does not mean that it does not happen or that it is not a difficult subject to raise at the beginning of an employment relationship. If an employer refuses to make adjustments, how realistic is it to expect people to take them to tribunal, especially without support, and what reassurance can we give them that if they raise those issues and put their head above the parapet it will not rebound negatively on them?

I want to say a few words about the challenges of employment for people with autism. In a recent survey of over 2,000 autistic adults, just over half of respondents said that they had told their current or most recent employer that they were autistic, but just under a third had not. For people with autism, busy workplaces can be socially overwhelming, or they can overload them with too much information from noisy conversation, bright lights or other sensory stimuli. Many of these barriers can be overcome quickly, easily and cheaply through increased understand. We recently had some training here in Parliament on autism awareness—I certainly found it valuable. We can also make simple adaptations to the environment. Sadly, at the moment the National Autistic Society reports that about a third of its respondents said that support or adjustments made by their current or most recent employer, both in relation to sensory needs and to autism generally, were poor or very poor. We need to ensure that Access to Work is working effectively for autistic people and that specialist support is available throughout the country.

What about those with invisible conditions who are not well enough to work? We have talked about this issue many times, but my constituents’ experience of work capability assessments has not been good. Many decisions are overturned at tribunal and it seems to me that the system does not learn from its mistakes. A constituent of mine with two conditions I have already mentioned, arthritis and fibromyalgia, was assessed five times in eight years. At each assessment she was found fit to work. On each occasion she appealed and on each occasion she won the appeal. How can the process be wrong so many times? How can that waste of public money on five separate occasions be justified when the final decision has been the same every time? What does that say about the Government’s approach to people with long-term conditions? How many times does someone actually have to prove that they are not fit to work before it is accepted?

[Debbie Abrahams]

My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech, particularly in relation to the work capability assessment. Is he aware that sanctions are more likely for people with invisible health conditions? This is a real issue that needs to be addressed.

[Justin Madders]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. From my experience in the constituency, those with mental health issues in particular sometimes have real difficulty engaging in the process. That does, very unfairly, lead to sanctions.

Some constituents have raised concerns about the speed at which assessments are carried out and the fact that assessors do not listen to the answers given. Others have had their request for a home assessment refused, despite medical evidence being provided that they are necessary. I am thinking, in particular, of one of my constituents who has an invisible condition but was refused a home assessment. That condition was agoraphobia. Surely the need for a home assessment in those circumstances was obvious? People who enter the system deserve compassion, respect and support. They should not be made to feel that they are on trial because they are ill. I am afraid that that is the experience of so many people who come to see me about the assessments.

I want to say a few words on accessible toilets. I recently met a constituent who has a stoma, which, as I am sure Members are aware, is where the bowel is diverted through the abdomen so that bodily waste can be collected in a stoma bag. Stoma surgery is often used to treat a number of invisible illnesses, including cancer, Crohn’s disease, colitis and diverticulitis. People of all ages are affected and have additional needs—for example, when using a toilet. But, as their condition is hidden, they often, as we have heard, face prejudice. There are no accurate figures on the number of people with stomas in the UK, but estimates range from 120,000 to 150,000. A lifestyle survey by Colostomy UK in 2016 of over 1,300 people with stomas found that 19% had experienced discrimination, either in the workplace, in public or elsewhere, and 30% of respondents had been challenged or criticised for using an accessible toilet. A constituent I met last week is actively campaigning in my local area, raising awareness of the needs of people with stomas. This has included encouraging local businesses and organisations to change the signage, so that accessible toilets are able to reflect the hidden nature of conditions. We have accessible toilets here in Parliament, which have signs to remind us that not every disability is visible. I see no reason every disabled toilet could not have accessible toilet signage along the same lines.

People with a stoma have additional needs when using the toilet, which can make even a simple day trip to the shops or the supermarket extremely stressful. A few easy-to-implement changes to accessible toilets would make a huge difference to people living with a stoma: ensuring that every toilet has a hook on the door to hang clothing, handbags and luggage while changing stoma bags; a shelf to spread out the items they need; a mirror to allow users to see their stoma while changing; and a disposal bin in every cubicle to avoid embarrassment for men and women having to dispose of their stoma bag in public view. I do not see why those changes cannot be implemented across the whole country.

Many people have conditions or disabilities that affect their everyday lives and they are disadvantaged by barriers in society and in the workplace. It is incumbent on all of us to do what we can to remove barriers that restrict opportunities and choices for people with disabilities, invisible or otherwise. We need to ensure that no one is held back because of these conditions, not just because we know that fairer societies are better for us all, but because everyone deserves to be treated with dignity and respect.

Universal Credit and Debt

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Wednesday 5th June 2019 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Ruth George) on an absolutely outstanding opening speech. There is not much more that one can say. However, I will pick up on a few points.

To understand the rise in poverty that people are facing across the country—not in isolated areas, as some on the Government side would like to say—we need look no further than social security policies, unfortunately, and universal credit is a key aspect of that. The Child Poverty Action Group said back in 2015 that an additional 1 million children would be living in poverty. Just a couple of weeks ago, Policy in Practice estimated, on behalf of the Children’s Commissioner, that half of low-income households would lose nearly £3,500 a year, which will see child poverty double. The figure is already at 4 million—three quarters of the children living in poverty are from working families—and it is set to double. That is down to three social security policies: the two-child limit, the benefits cap and universal credit—particularly, as my hon. Friend said, the five-week wait, and the repayment not just of the advance loan but of other debts.

We recognise the intervention in last autumn’s Budget, but it is paltry compared with the £12 billion that was cut in the 2015 summer Budget. It did not go even halfway to restoring what was cut. It is still the case that 40% of people on UC will be and are worse off—this applies especially to disabled people; 1 million disabled people are worse off under universal credit—by nearly £2,000. It also applies to the self-employed and single parents; they are all worse off as a result of universal credit. We have touched on the natural migration that is happening, separately from managed migration, as a result of a change in circumstances.

The UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Philip Alston, said last month that the UK’s poorest people face lives that are “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”. He accused Ministers of being in a state of denial about the impact of policies, including the roll-out of universal credit, and referred to the “systematic immiseration” of a significant part of the British population. I know that his comments have caused some consternation on the Government side, but we have only to look at Westminster tube station to see our homeless people. Two thirds of those in homeless refuges are people who have issues with universal credit. We all have constituency cases—I shall mention a few if that is okay, Sir Henry—of people who are really suffering.

Sally is a single mum who moved out to escape an abusive relationship. Due to her change in circumstances, she has lost £400 from her universal credit. Katie’s employers made a mess of their returns, and she was left with £67 to live on. It was her employer’s error. She said:

“Every time I call they just say there’s nothing they can do and I just have to wait for a decision. Please help me as I’m at the end of hope!”

June was in receipt of employment and support allowance with a severe disability premium. Again due to a change in circumstances, she lost £300 a month. Karen works for the Greater Manchester police and has a two-year-old daughter. She was told by the jobcentre that universal credit would pay for 85% of her childcare. She had to pay it up front, but she was still waiting six months later. That is unacceptable, and it is happening up and down the country.

The Minister will be aware that universal credit has a bad press. In debates such as this, it is our job to draw attention to the dire circumstances that people are facing. There are also rumours, based on leaked emails, that there is a planned propaganda exercise to try to restore the public’s faith in universal credit. I would be grateful if the Minister could address that. I have gone over my time, so I will end there.

[Sir Henry Bellingham (in the Chair)]

I am afraid we will now have to move to a two-minute limit on speeches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alok Sharma]

The hon. Gentleman will know that we inherited dire financial circumstances from the Opposition—I know that colleagues will not be happy at my mentioning that—and that is why we had to make difficult decisions. However, if Labour Members want more money introduced, then when that money is made available in Budgets, they should support those Budgets.

I will go back to the point about payments, including advance payments. I highlight that advances are interest-free.

[Debbie Abrahams]

Oh!

[Alok Sharma]

I am sorry that the hon. Lady is unhappy, but that is a statement of fact.

[Debbie Abrahams]

They are still loans.

[James Gray (in the Chair)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alok Sharma]

I will not, as there is quite a lot to get through.

From this October, the Government will reduce the maximum rate at which deductions can be made from a universal credit award from 40% to 30% of the standard allowance. By the end of 2019-20, it is forecast that around 290,000 universal credit households will have had deductions reduced, by an average of £295 over the year. It is already possible to extend the period over which advances are repaid to 15 months in certain circumstances, and of course, as Members have acknowledged, from October 2021, the maximum period will be extended to 16 months for all claimants.

One issue not touched on in the debate was payment timeliness, but it is worth pointing out that it has been raised in previous debates, certainly during my time as a Minister. Payment timeliness has improved significantly. We now pay around 85% of new claimants of universal credit in full on time. In addition, 95% of claimants are paid in full within five weeks of their payment due date. If there are delays in making the first payment, that can be due to outstanding verification issues, such as the need to provide bank statements or proof of rent. It can also be due to a claimant not signing their claimant commitment. For ongoing claims, payment timeliness is around 98%.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), raised the issue of employment. The whole point of simplifying the welfare system is to remove the cliff edges and the disincentives to take on work and extra hours that existed under the legacy benefit system. We now offer claimants one-to-one support to help them to move into work.

I hope that colleagues will acknowledge that we are seeing record rates of employment, month after month. The shadow Minister talked about zero-hours contracts, but he will know that less than 3% of people in employment in the UK are on zero-hours contracts. That figure has fallen this year. Indeed, those on zero-hours contracts are doing about 24 hours of work a week on average.

We have recognised that we need to provide a consistently high level of support to those who may have difficulties in making a universal credit claim. That is why we announced our partnership with Citizens Advice and Citizens Advice Scotland, which are now funded to provide the “help to claim” service for claimants.

In the past, a number of colleagues have spoken about debt advice. They will know that debt advice is now fully funded by the financial services levy, and that service delivery is commissioned by the Money and Pensions Service, which was launched in January this year. In 2019-20, MaPS will provide around 560,000 sessions of debt advice in England. It is also worth noting that in addition to the funding that Citizens Advice receives for the “help to claim” service, it will, like other organisations, receive additional funding from MaPS to provide debt advice.

A number of colleagues raised the issue of rent arrears. I point out that a report published in July 2018 by the National Federation of ALMOs, or arms-length management organisations, showed that over three quarters of their tenants who had started claiming universal credit were already behind with their rent prior to commencing their claim. Also, research that we have carried out shows that the proportion of universal credit claimants who were in arrears at the start of their claim fell by a third after four months. In the universal credit full service claimant survey, which was published by the DWP in June 2018, 84% of claimants said that they felt confident about managing and paying their housing costs.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester raised the issue of rent arrears and asked what further work we were doing on it. I can confirm that we are carrying out further analysis with a number of housing providers to investigate and understand the true level of rent arrears among their tenants, and what is causing those arrears. Of course, when we have that information, we will publish it.

A number of colleagues raised the issue of tax credit debt. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs already seeks to recover overpayments of tax credit debts. When a claimant moves on to universal credit, any outstanding debt is transferred to the DWP for recovery. This does not include debt that is subject to ongoing disputes or appeals, and HMRC tells the claimant the amount of debt that is being transferred to the DWP for recovery. HMRC and the DWP continue to work closely to improve the claimant journey. This includes having a joint inquiry team to handle any issues that tax credit customers might experience during their move to universal credit. Of course, if claimants are struggling with the rate of repayment applied, they can ask the Department to review that rate.

A large number of points were made during the debate, so I say to hon. Members that if they want to meet me separately to discuss any points in more detail, I am very happy to do that, or they can write to me. However, in the remaining couple of minutes that I have, I will try to cover off some of the points made in the debate.

On the discussion about poverty, I point out that income inequality and absolute poverty are lower now than in 2010, and indeed the number of children—

[Debbie Abrahams]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alok Sharma]

I will not, because I literally have just a couple of minutes left. As I was saying, the number of children in workless households in the UK is down by 665,000 since 2010.

There was a discussion about homelessness. Since 2011, the Government have provided local authorities with about £1 billion in discretionary housing payments to protect the most vulnerable claimants. The hon. Member for High Peak raised the issue of how people know what deductions are being applied to them; that is shown in their statement, separately from the journal, and is available online. She also raised a point about deductions. I point out that if a claimant is subject to deductions to repay an overpayment, and those deductions are causing financial hardship, they can request a review of that rate by contacting the Department. Claimants have had their repayment rate lowered, temporarily suspended, or indeed both.

A number of colleagues also asked why we were not able to bring forward the 30% deduction rate on the standard allowance. The delivery date was chosen to achieve the best balance between continually improving universal credit in order to respond to claimant needs, and ensuring that the service is technically and operationally scalable as the volume of universal credit continues to rise. The hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) raised an issue about the breathing space scheme; the Department is supportive of that scheme, and officials are reviewing it to see how it could be applied to DWP debts. I would be very happy to sit down and talk with her further when more information is available.

A number of colleagues, including the shadow Minister, raised the issue of the Metro campaign. The whole point of the “Universal Credit Uncovered” campaign is to tackle common myths about universal credit. The Department has consulted the Advertising Standards Authority, and our adverts reflect its advice. To those Members who talked about the amount of money being spent on this campaign, I advise them that it is certainly not £23 million.

The issue of split payments was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney; as he knows, those are already available. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) raised the issue of Highland Council. He and I have met a number of times about this issue, and as he will know, my officials continue to engage with Highland Council about that point. Finally, the Scottish Government have themselves cut funding for Highland Council.

In conclusion, we are making changes that are benefiting claimants, but I am always happy to talk to colleagues about how we can do better.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Monday 13th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Justin Tomlinson]

My hon. Friend has worked really hard to promote opportunities for employers in his constituency to employ people with disabilities. I welcome the fact that, over the past five years, this Government have seen an extra 930,000 more disabled people in work and that, for the first time ever, there are now more disabled people in work than not in work. The key is to give businesses the confidence to realise that they can benefit, and that this is a win-win for the disabled person and for the business.

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

My concern relates to the number of people who are dying after being found fit for work. Further to my letter to the Secretary of State, will she commit to publish the Department’s internal reviews of the cases of those who have died? Will she also commit to an independent inquiry? Will she ensure that if any evidence of wrongdoing by someone in public office is found, that information will be forwarded to the police?

[Justin Tomlinson]

This Government are committed to working with stakeholders and those with frontline experience to continue to make improvements. There have been two independent reviews of the work capability assessment, and we have accepted and implemented over 100 improvements. We will continue to do all that we can to improve the process for claimants.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alok Sharma]

I am happy to discuss any issues around Verify with the hon. Gentleman, but, as he will know, there is more than one way for someone to verify their identity. Of course, they can use gov.uk Verify, but they can also use documentary evidence or a biographical test. Those are known, recognised tests, and they are all available in the system.

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

The Secretary of State just said that universal credit is better than the legacy system, yet evidence published this weekend shows that twice as many children will be pushed into poverty by universal credit, the two-child limit and the benefit cap. On top of that, universal credit is actually increasing infant mortality—the first time we have seen an increase in 100—

[Amber Rudd]

indicated dissent.

[Debbie Abrahams]

I am sorry, but there is irrefutable evidence on this. Instead of the cursory responses that we have had from the Government, will the Secretary of State commit to review the up-to-date evidence and get back to this House with some detailed explanations of how she is going to stop these things?

[Amber Rudd]

I totally reject the hon. Lady’s approach to this. Universal credit is a welfare benefit system that, overall, is more generous and much more straightforward than the previous system. I wonder whether she has talked to any Members of Parliament who had the experience of having to navigate the six legacy benefits, of three different places to go to, and of annual tax credits. The complications were totally out of proportion compared with the challenges that people sometimes encounter now. Above all, there was the difficulty people had with the 16-hour threshold, where they could not take up new work if they were on a certain amount of benefits. We have reformed the system so that it works for people—it works for families, and it works for people trying to better themselves and get better access to work.

Ten Years of the Work Capability Assessment

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Wednesday 24th April 2019 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry. I reiterate the congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Laura Pidcock) on an excellent speech, outlining some of the range of problems that we have with this work capability assessment process.

This feels like déjà vu: we are here, yet again, to argue that the current system of work capability assessment is not fit for purpose. We can use the latest available data that tells us that nearly three out of every four claimants who appeal their assessment decision telling them that they are fit for work will have the decision overturned. We can reference the five reviews of work capability assessment over the past 10 years, which have repeatedly raised problems with the assessment process, ranging from medical reports being mislaid to blatant lies in assessment reports. We can look at the Work and Pensions Committee’s report from last year on ESA and PIP assessments, which saw an unprecedented 3,500 individuals share their experience and what they had been through, as my hon. Friend described.

We can discuss the death rates for people on ESA and, before that, on incapacity benefit. In 2013 that death rate was 4.3 times that of the general population, increasing from 3.6 times in 2003. That shows the level of sickness and ill health of people in this group. As has already been said, this is a poorly group of people who deserve to be listened to and respected. We can talk about the peer-reviewed research that estimated that between 2010 and 2013, work capability assessment was independently associated with an additional 590 suicides, 280,000 cases of self-reported ill health and 725,000 additional anti- depressant scripts.

However, anyone watching this debate will be thinking, “What on earth is the point?”, because to date the Government have taken not a jot of notice. Little has changed. We know how this is affecting people, as we have already heard: people living in fear and dread of the envelope dropping on their doormat, inviting them for their work capability assessment.

The Government have said they want to amalgamate the work capability assessment and PIP assessments by 2021. They say they want a more personalised approach and will involve disabled people in this process. I ask the Minister which disabled people’s organisations have been involved in the decisions. I appreciate that charities may have been involved, and it is important that they be involved, but what DPOs and disabled people have been involved? Were they involved in the decision to put the contracts for this new assessment process out to tender? That has already happened; we had one week, and then the contract for this new process went out to tender.

What are the Government going to do in the meantime, while this Government-orchestrated harm—it is a Government policy—continues? I am really concerned, and I hope the Minister can respond, because to date there has been little but warm words and platitudes.

As we have heard, on Monday we learned that Stephen Smith, the Liverpool man whose emaciated body was reminiscent of someone found in a concentration camp, not in 21st-century Britain, had died as a result of multiple organ failure after being found fit for work. We know he is not the first. My hon. Friend mentioned Jeff Hayward, who died in 2018 of a heart attack, seven months before a tribunal overturned a decision that he was fit for work.

Also in 2018, Jimmy Ballentine committed suicide after being found fit for work, as did Amy Nice, Kevin Dooley and Brian Bailey. Jodey Whiting, my hon. Friend’s constituent, Elaine Morrall, Daniella Obeng and Brian Sycamore all committed suicide in 2017 as a result of being found fit for work. In July 2017, Mark Scholfield, a terminal cancer patient, received no universal credit before he died, in spite of his illness. Chris Gold, in 2017, was found fit for work following a stroke. He was facing foreclosure when he died as he could not work. Lawrence Bond died in 2017, collapsing and dying on the street after being found fit for work.

Julia Kelly committed suicide in 2015, as did Ben McDonald. Chris Smith, who had terminal cancer, was found fit for work right up until his death. David Clapson died in 2014, as did Michael Connolly. “George, from Chesterfield” died that year as the result of a heart attack, again after being found fit for work. Robert Barlow, another terminal claimant, died after losing his ESA. David Barr, Trevor Drakard, Shaun Pilkington and Terry McGarvey also died in 2014. Lee Robinson, Robert Christian, Jacqueline Harris, Nicholas Peter Barker and David Groves died in 2013.

That is not an exhaustive list, but those names are an indictment of this Government and their policy, and so is the lack of change that has happened as a result of those deaths. There needs to be an independent inquiry, as Jodey Whiting’s mother says, into the deaths of claimants found fit for work. Until then, there should be a moratorium on all reassessments; for new assessments, as has been said, medical evidence should be the primary data used, not the blatantly flawed assessment processes.

Sir Henry, I am sure you agree that any Government’s first duty is to protect their citizens, but our disabled citizens have been spectacularly failed by this Government. Like millions of people across the country, I condemn the attacks in Sri Lanka, and I share concerns about the emergency that is climate change, but the deaths of disabled people as a result of Government policy are nothing less than a scandal. I challenge each and every one of us, in this room and outside, to rise and say to the Government, “Enough is enough!”

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Tomlinson]

I cannot give a broad-brush answer. I know what the hon. Lady is saying and I am coming on to the use of evidence and how we can do more earlier and, potentially, then with paper-based assessments. I will come on to that. I understand, but I cannot give a definitive answer, because every claimant has their own unique challenges that have to be addressed.

In addition, SMS text message reminders about appointments have been welcomed, and there has been a lot of work on the website, which includes mock assessment videos so that people can get an idea of the sort of things to expect. Those things are all looking to remove some of the anxiety and worry about assessments. There is more to be done in that area, but we recognise that.

The improvements in the training and the extra healthcare professionals have meant that median clearance time halved from 25 weeks in March 2015 to 10 weeks in 2018, and customer satisfaction has exceeded the 92% target since that point. However, that does not mean that we are getting it right every time, and that is what I want to turn to now in focusing on MR and appeals.

All of us as Members are frustrated when what seem to be clear-cut cases come to our constituency surgeries asking for our help. There are times when we think, “How on earth can this have happened?”, and ultimately the person could have a very long appeal process to go through to get the right decision. In the majority of cases, appeals are successful because of additional oral and written evidence. That has to be addressed. We rightly are going to tackle it and will do so in two stages—first, with the MR process. We have started doing this with PIP. We are seeking to contact the claimant who is disputing a decision and talk to them directly to get the additional oral and, potentially, written evidence at that stage to see whether we can improve decisions at that point, rather than waiting for the evidence to come at the end of the appeal process.

[Debbie Abrahams]

Does the Minister think that it is unacceptable that any Government policy should cause their citizens to take their own life or to die? If he does, should there not be a moratorium on this policy until it is got right? Surely one death is one too many.

Disability Assessment Services

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Gillian Keegan]

Yes, I do, but we need to solve the root cause of the problem, so that we do not have these high tribunal rates. If we do not have them, we will not have the waiting times. That is the best way to ensure that the system has a low failure rate.

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

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. She is being very generous with her time. Is she as concerned as me about a report in the GP journal Pulse last week that said that the transformation of the new health assessment system could lead to unfettered access to medical records via the GP? We should surely speak up against that. Medical records are personal data; that is an absolute human right.

[Gillian Keegan]

Yes, although we need to balance that with having enough medical data to make the assessments in the first place. I have not seen that report. I do not know whether the Minister has, and whether she can take that into account in her speech.

I am glad to hear that, following the recent Government announcements, we are moving our benefits system into the 20th century by integrating multiple data sets into one system, although I take the hon. Lady’s point that we must ensure that they are very well protected. That will streamline the assessment process and make submitting a claim much more user-friendly, particularly for people transitioning between benefits. Plans to test a single health assessment for all disability benefits will mean less form-filling, and will reduce face-to-face assessments, cutting red tape and the inconvenience it causes. My constituents who need support often have highly complex needs, so I hope the changes will save them time and stress. It is important that we listen to our constituents and put them in the driving seat of reforms. I hope the Department will do that.

An issue that has been highlighted to me is people’s reluctance to attend assessments. We must do more to ensure people feel comfortable with and trust the process. It is key that we ensure that people know that in every case they are being assessed by a qualified doctor, nurse or healthcare professional—often somebody who works in the NHS—who has undergone additional training to carry out assessments. I did not realise that every single assessment is carried out by a qualified medical assessor. Many members of the public do not realise that. They think it is some third-party company, but often nurses work for those companies. We need to do more to make sure that people are aware of that, so they feel more comfort and trust.

Social Security and Employment Support for Disabled People

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2019 Commons Chamber

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

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if she will make a statement on the changes that her Department intends to make to social security and employment support, including the assessment process, for disabled people and people with health conditions.

[The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Sarah Newton)]

Yesterday the Secretary of State provided the House with a written statement, and delivered a speech to Scope that included, among other announcements, an announcement about changes in the delivery of health and disability benefits.

We are making significant progress in improving people’s experiences of claiming disability benefits by working through the recommendations made by several independent reviews of personal independence payments and the employment support allowance, but we need to continue to make improvements in order to give better support to people with health conditions and disabilities. The written statement set out a number of additional measures that we will implement to make improvements, now and in the future, in support for disabled people and those with health conditions.

We will improve and simplify people’s experiences by no longer undertaking regular reviews of PIP awards for claimants at or above the state pension age unless they tell us that their needs have changed. We will also transform the delivery of assessment services. We have established a health transformation programme to undertake the significant task of combining the currently separate work capability assessment for ESA and universal credit and PIP assessment services in one unified, integrated service from 2021. We are extending the contract for the health and disability assessment service, which includes the delivery of the work capability assessment, and aligning it with the duration of the extended PIP contracts. That will allow for a safe and stable service now, and as we make the transition to the new integrated service.

The Department for Work and Pensions will also be testing how we can increase engagement and build a trusted and strong relationship between work coaches and people who are awaiting assessments for universal credit or who are found to have limited capability for work. The Minister for Employment will take that forward.

The health transformation programme will be co-designed with disabled people. The Secretary of State and I will engage regularly with disabled people, disabled people’s organisations and charities. All of us, whatever our age or need, want an equal chance to live a life of opportunity and fulfilment. We intend to support disabled people during all the phases of their lives, so that the pursuit of equality is a shared goal.

[Debbie Abrahams]

Thank you for granting the urgent question, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for her response. I am, however, disappointed that the Secretary of State was not here to respond, and that the Minister has had to respond to an urgent question rather than making an oral statement, given the extensive scope of the proposals.

I welcome yesterday’s announcement that there would be no PIP reassessment for disabled people above the state pension age, but why are not all disabled people—particularly those with progressive conditions such as motor neurone disease, multiple sclerosis and cancer—being exempted from repeat assessments? I have a constituent with terminal secondary breast cancer which has gone into her bones, and she has been refused PIP.

The launch of a transformation programme whereby PIP and WCA assessments will be integrated by 2021 is interesting, given that the Government have previously said that that could not be done. How exactly will the two assessments be merged? Who is involved? I am grateful that the Minister has said they will be co-designed with disabled people, but will she commit to supporting the principle of “nothing about you without you”? Will there be a pilot? If so, where and when, and what would be the sample size? Will there be an independent evaluation?

Who will provide the new service? There are real concerns about the profiteering enabled by this Government at the expense of disabled people. There are also worrying reports in various GP journals this week that the medical records of claimants will be made available to the DWP or their social security support will be denied. So I will be grateful if the Minister can confirm that this is not, and will not be, Government policy. Obviously there are huge issues around privacy and ethics.

There is also strong evidence of the physical and emotional harm that these assessments are having on disabled people, over and above their condition. What is being put in place before 2021 to improve the poor quality, validity and reliability of these assessments?

On UC and the role of job coaches in determining limited capability to work, the detail was most unclear in the written ministerial statement. Can the Minister expand on it and confirm that work coaches may start an assessment to determine a claimant’s capacity to work? Can she also confirm a shift in the Government’s approach to sanctions and expand on her Department’s approach to conditionality?

I welcome the review into the inadequacy of social security support for disabled people and more widely. Poverty is a political choice, and 4.2 million disabled people have been pushed into poverty as a result of the £5 billion in cuts since 2010. So what form will this review take and, again, who will be involved?

On the Government’s more ambitious targets to get disabled people into work, again the pendulum is swinging back. The Conservative general election pledge in 2015 was to halve the disability employment gap, but it is actually 4.4% lower than 2015. Then in 2017 there was a pledge about 1 million additional disabled people getting into work, but there was nothing about access to work.

Finally, what is the Minister going to do about the cultural changes needed in her Department to ensure that disabled people and other claimants do not feel demonised, even dehumanised, as happens all too often?

[Sarah Newton]

I fear I will test your patience, of Mr Speaker, if I try to answer all of those questions at once, but I will do my best.

I welcome the hon. Lady’s tone and her welcome for the measures we announced in the written ministerial statement. Clearly we have been listening very hard to Members across this Chamber and, most importantly, to disabled people themselves about the changes they would like to see, and that is what has driven the changes we are going to be making. I absolutely want to confirm that throughout the process—in fact this is how we work now—we engage fully with disabled people, enabling them to help us develop the services which are for them.

The hon. Lady touched on a few points about people being repeatedly reassessed. I remind her that we brought in the severe conditions criteria so that people who have reached the highest level of support on PIP will not be routinely reassessed; we have introduced a 10-year light touch review so that many people with the sorts of conditions and illnesses the hon. Lady described will not be undergoing further reassessments. We also have a special process for people who are terminally ill. I undertook research in the summer—and I have been delighted to work with the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) on the work she has been doing—looking again at how the special rules for people at the end of life are working. We have worked very closely with the medical profession, which I think was not often aware of the special processes that could so easily be put in place to enable people to get benefits within days. I will shortly be announcing new guidance which is the fruition of the work we have been doing over the last few months.

I want to remind everyone that in the transition from DLA to PIP many more people with mental health conditions are now receiving support, particularly at the highest levels. Concerns have also been raised about work coaches and their ability to work with people with disabilities and health conditions, and I want to reassure the House that all of our work coaches are receiving extensive training and will continue to do so. Over 10,000 work coaches have already received training in mental health services, so I believe that that personal relationship that we want all people claiming benefits to have with their work coach is a possibility and is happening the length and breadth of the country.

We are looking at conditionality and have taken up the recommendations given to us. When people with severe disabilities and health conditions apply for UC there is no conditionality; that conditionality will be switched off, and then as the relationship develops with the work coach, if and when they are prepared to take those steps to work, they will be fully supported by their work coach and other resources that they have available.

As would be expected, we listened to and worked with a range of stakeholders before the announcement to develop the new service. I can absolutely commit to the House that the co-design will be ongoing and there will be plenty of opportunities for everyone in the House to be involved in how we take that forward. But the simple ideal behind it is to reduce the number of assessments people have to take and reduce the amount of information they have to give to the Department. We have all heard in our surgeries each week particularly in terms of people in receipt of both ESA and PIP that they can be asked to complete a whole number of forms where they give us the same information, and are going to assessments where they give the same information. The whole aim of this is to reduce that and to simplify it, so that people give us the information once and we are able to make the best decision we can right from the outset.