Ten Years of the Work Capability Assessment

Laura Pidcock Excerpts

Wednesday 24th April 2019 Westminster Hall

[Laura Pidcock (North West Durham) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered 10 years of the work capability assessment in relation to employment and support allowance and universal credit.

This feels like such an inadequate environment to describe the work capability assessment and its brutal consequences. I wish that every single person affected by the system could be here with us in the Chamber and look in the eyes of those who defend the system. I hope that when they have heard what I am about to describe, Conservative Members—there are not many of them—will feel shame, and that in this debate we can do justice to the experiences of those subject to the work capability assessment.

The work capability assessment for the employment and support allowance and universal credit should be a simple concept: people who have a physical or mental health problem or a disability that means that they cannot work or have a limited ability to work will receive a replacement income from the state. I will talk about the face-to-face application process and the assessment, which are draconian, elicit fear, deny justice and have, in some circumstances, ended up contributing to the end of life. As Frances Ryan wrote recently in The Guardian, suicide is becoming a feature of the system.

Everyone in the Chamber will know someone who is unable to work for whatever reason. Those with personal wealth are often able to avoid having to prove that they are worthy of income replacement. Because they have that personal wealth, they are safe from having to share every single detail of a condition or illness, and do not have to wonder if they will be believed. People without savings, on the other hand, are only one step away—one accident or one conversation with the doctor—from being subject to that system.

Let me set out some of the elements that we believe are wrong with the system; this is based on evidence gathered from my constituents when they come to surgeries, on submissions by professionals, and on the vast number of submissions I have received from people currently applying for this social security payment. In both the application form and the face-to-face assessment, the descriptors that enable a score to be given to assess a person’s ability to carry out tasks are essentially a functionality test. They cannot capture the fluctuating nature of physical and mental unwellness or disability and how that could prevent or limit the ability to work. People often describe feeling punished for telling the truth. Yes, perhaps they could go out unescorted on a journey somewhere, but the test is not interested in, for example, the panic attack before leaving the house, or the emotional recovery afterwards. Perhaps venturing to the supermarket will have been their only trip out that month, but making that journey could lose them their entitlement.

In reality, one day someone may be in the depths of despair, and the pain from their condition may be unbearable; the next day, they may be able to have a laugh over a cup of tea with a loved one. The question is, should they lie about that laughter or feel shame about it because they might get points deducted? Does that laughter render meaningless the pain felt the day before? Fundamentally, does that have any bearing on someone’s ability to work? I think not. The test ignores the complex reality of living with long-term or fluctuating conditions.

Many people have told us that they do not feel accurately represented by the reports written about them. Advisers have openly claimed that they see copy-and-paste jobs. A constituent read that they were apparently happy and confident during the assessment, when in fact they were crying and shaking. No wonder as many as 74% of ESA decisions are overturned at appeal, according to Citizens Advice. That, of course, is one of the consequences of using a private company to assess the medical conditions of people who need support. Not having people qualified in the condition or illness with which assessors are presented is also a huge issue.

It is claimed that Maximus incentivises health professionals through the number of reports they complete. Logic says that that could directly lead to a proliferation of inaccuracies. Ultimately, profit should not be made from ill health; it leads to corner cutting and misplaced priorities. To defend the marketisation of the process is obscene.

I am not sure whether the Government or Conservative Members realise just how truly terrified some people are of the brown envelope from the Department for Work and Pensions. They know that they will be forced through a long and extremely difficult process. They will have to attend an assessment, and the decision notice they receive about the outcome of their work capability assessments is often inaccurate and misleading, leading to a long and stressful appeal process of up to 18 months; that is 18 months without the entitlement that those people deserve and need.

The process exacerbates poor health, and the Government make things worse. When people, because of their physical or mental health condition, ask that their assessment be carried out at their home, the answer given is almost always no. My caseworkers and agencies have sent substantial evidence to private contractors to show that my constituents would have severe difficulty attending the assessment centre. The stock response is, “If the claimant can get to their GP or to the hospital, they can attend the assessment centre.” How cold-hearted is that?

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

Does my hon. Friend not agree that there is a difference between someone going to a location quite close to their home, which they are familiar with, and an assessment centre that may be many miles away and difficult to get to unless they have their own transport?

[Laura Pidcock]

That is right, and in a place like North West Durham, where we have an inadequate and expensive transport system, it is unjustifiable not to have assessments carried out at home if someone is feeling unwell and faces stress in having to go to that assessment.

If the person does manage to get to the assessment centre, the assessor uses that as evidence of their ability to travel, walk, sit comfortably and cope with social interactions. One person got in touch with me to say that they had to sit in the assessment centre waiting room in soaking wet clothes due to their incontinence issues. Is this a system anyone can really defend? Is anyone really comfortable with a private provider forcing people to attend assessments in pain and with worry, to be degraded by the DWP?

If a person is found fit for work when they are not, that can have a huge impact on their mental and financial wellbeing. It can have a direct impact on their entitlement to housing benefit and council tax benefit, plunging them into destitution, and resulting in increasing debt, risk of eviction and untold stress. People wrongly found fit for work are then expected to do job searches and training, and are even sanctioned. It came as no surprise to any of us Opposition Members that in 2016 the UN concluded that the Government had committed “grave and systematic violations” of the rights of people with disabilities. That report should have seen an end to the Government, but they limp on.

For people who do go on to win at appeal, reassessment is too frequent. No sooner have they won than they are being reassessed—even people with terminal illnesses have to endure that. Imagine the retriggering of mental health difficulties when people have to describe, in assessment after assessment, historical sexual abuse to which they were subject.

Let me mention some of the contributions from people who got in touch. One person said:

“The process feels like psychological rape, expressly designed to make you feel that you are the absolute property of the state, that you are not a human being and that your continued survival is basically an affront to society.”

Another said:

“When you are disabled, you are defined by the able-bodied by what you cannot do, rather than what you can do. No disabled person wants to be a burden on society. They want to be an active contributor but are denied this by society”,

and that

“The whole thing should be abolished as it’s a cruel and pointless exercise in ideology.”

It is about ideology, isn’t it? This system, with its complexities, its high thresholds and the way in which employment and support allowance and higher rates of universal credit have been denied to so many, cannot be seen outside the context of almost 10 years of austerity and budget cuts, which have literally taken money from people who are disabled, unwell or dying.

What are the worst consequences, the ultimate results, of this brutality? Jodey Whiting, who lived in Thornaby, not too far from my constituency, took her life 15 days after her benefits were stopped for missing a work capability assessment when seriously ill. The independent case examiner found multiple failings on the part of the DWP, including it simply not following its safeguarding procedures. Her mum, Joy Dove, is campaigning for an independent inquiry into benefit death and I am sure everyone on this side would say “All power to her” in that campaign.

Stephen Smith, aged 64, who had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, osteoarthritis and an enlarged prostate that left him in chronic pain, failed a work capability assessment in 2017, which meant that his employment and support allowance payments were stopped. Anybody who saw Stephen’s emaciated body on social media will have been horrified. Stephen died last Monday. Jeff Hayward, who won his appeal seven months after his death, had a debilitating skin condition and spent his last 18 months fighting a “fit for work” decision. Michael O’Sullivan, aged 60, from north London had long-term mental health problems, and the coroner found that the benefit process was a key trigger for his death.

These are the real-life tragedies of a broken system. I do not think I can bear to hear the Minister say, yet again and as his predecessor did, that we should come to him with our individual problems with the system. They are not individual problems; they are systemic failings, and a consequence of privatising social security and making £37 billion in welfare cuts.

Let us be honest: this is institutionalised bullying and harassment of sick and disabled people. I have no doubt that administrative ineptitude is part of it, but when the issue is on this scale, there can be no other conclusion. By deliberately stripping people of their rights, in order to disrupt the welfare state and the very concept of legal entitlement, the Government have trodden all over the expectation of citizens that they will be looked after in their hour of need. And what for? To replace the state with private and family provision, to boost the coffers of private insurers, and to replace legal rights with charity, subject to moral judgments of deservingness.

It does not have to be like this. How can our social security system be about security and not about punishment? The Labour party has rightly committed to scrap the work capability assessment. That will be a big step forward and will no doubt be welcomed by disability rights groups and welfare rights agencies alike. In the meantime, why do the Government not start rectifying injustices in the system by taking the vast amount of evidence from medical professionals, including GPs, consultants and nurses, into account? Testimony should be fundamentally believed. The culture permeating the DWP is one of disbelief that looks cynically on those who request help. Stressful, face-to-face assessments should be used only if there is an absolute necessity, such as a lack of evidence on which to decide on entitlement. Assessments should be a last resort.

The system should be designed by people who are experts through experience. Experts who understand how conditions affect the ability to work should be employed. Any social security system that replaces the work capability assessment as it exists today should not be a functionality test with arbitrary rules that do not account for the fluctuating nature of a person’s condition, disability or illness. There needs to be a revision of the assessment criteria, so that they are linked much more closely to the real world of work, or the work that the person was doing. Knowing whether someone can move a carton of milk with one hand cannot allow us to understand a person’s comfort or ability to work in a specific environment. Any process should include an assessment of the additional support that person would need to ease them back into the workplace. Recording of assessments should be standard, unless a person asks not to be recorded. The Government are dragging their heels on that recommendation.

Private outsourcing of the assessments has to be scrapped. The market has failed all aspects of the social security system, placing company profit before the needs of the people interacting with the system. When will the Government understand that private enterprise and illness are incompatible, and inevitably lead to the injustices that we see today?

When people are dealing with the stresses of not being in full health and of needing support for their disability or mental health condition, they should fundamentally not be subject to further stress, degradation and even abuse by the state. The system should be designed on the presumption that people are telling the truth when they come to see the assessors. They should not be forced though a humiliating and exhausting process that often results in them winning appeals at tribunal, with the help of the excellent but underfunded advice agencies and many of our caseworkers. For many people, their last fight on this earth is not with their illness, but with the state, and that fact alone should lead us to scrap this dreadful system.

[Sir Henry Bellingham (in the Chair)]

I thank the hon. Member for North West Durham (Laura Pidcock) for her moving and impressive speech. We will have an informal limit of seven minutes from now on. If right hon. and hon. colleagues could adhere to that, I would be grateful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laura Pidcock]

I thank all the hon. Members who came to the Chamber today to share the painful experiences of their constituents. I pay tribute to my excellent caseworkers, who work day in and day out to try to get justice for people who are subject to the abuses of the state. I express solidarity also with all the disability rights campaign groups and advice services.

It is a real shame that not one Conservative Member came to the debate or prepared a speech and showed their constituents that they cared. They will have people who are subject to the work capability assessment, and I think that their absence is symbolic of their complicity in the system. This Minister is now in control of the system, so warm words and sympathy are not enough. The Minister has control, so action is necessary.

I want to stress this point in the 30 seconds that I have left. It is just not true that additional evidence is what wins at appeal. It is often evidence that the DWP could have had, and the evidence that people go and give in the initial assessment is the same as that at the appeal stage, so this is not about blaming advice and support agencies or the person for not giving the evidence in the first place. The evidence is there; it is the system that is flawed. The language is also an issue. They are not claimants or customers; they are people who are entitled to this support by the state.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered 10 years of the work capability assessment in relation to employment and support allowance and universal credit.

Mental Health: Assessment

Laura Pidcock Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd January 2019 Westminster Hall

[Angela Crawley]

I could not agree more. During last week’s debate on fibromyalgia, she explained how the process and the application forms simply do not pay respect to mental health conditions. I champion her calls to the Government to change that process.

I urge the Minister to look through the comments, to get an idea of how the policies really impact people and to understand what they have gone through. Standing here and reading out the comments does them no justice; it is only by reading them that she will get an understanding of their point of view.

[Laura Pidcock (North West Durham) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady’s stories are a perfect depiction of the fact that the process is not adequately designed to assess mental health and wellbeing. Instead, it is a functionality test that lacks understanding of the nuances and fluctuation of mental health. If anything, the process actually exacerbates mental illness, meaning that people drop out of the cruel system to avoid and end acute worry. Let us hope that the Minister will not try to individualise the problems by saying, “Come and see us about these cases,” and that she will acknowledge the systemic failure of the assessment process.

[Angela Crawley]

I completely agree. I know that the Minister is always receptive and keen to understand and learn more. I am not going to harp on and give her a hard time about this. I am simply trying to change a process that I think we all want to see improved.

Department for Work and Pensions: Members’ Representations

Laura Pidcock Excerpts

Wednesday 16th January 2019 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Justin Tomlinson)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I pay genuine tribute to the hon. Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor); although obviously I do not agree with all the points she made, it is clear from her time as an MP and formerly as a councillor, and from the issues she raised in her speech, that she is a passionate campaigner on the subject, particularly for vulnerable claimants in her constituency. I am not the Minister ultimately responsible for universal credit, which was the predominant focus of her speech, but part of my portfolio is to represent vulnerable claimants who go through the universal credit process, so I recognise some of the issues that she pointed up.

I will talk about some of the specific asks that have been addressed and on which there is much agreement, but first it is fair to remind hon. Members that there was cross-party support for the principle of universal credit: to offer personalised, tailored support. Stakeholders broadly support that principle. That does not mean that all is right, but we must not forget that legacy benefits were not the panacea of a utopian state in which everything was great. They were incredibly complicated, with six different benefits and three different agencies, and with the involvement of the DWP, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and local authorities. Frankly, anyone navigating them had to be a nuclear physicist, whether they were claimants, MPs or MPs’ staff members trying to support predominantly vulnerable claimants.

The figures bear out that point. We typically saw 700,000 claimants a year missing out on £2.4 billion of benefit support—about £280 each per month—that we had all voted to give them because we recognised that it was the right thing to do for those predominantly vulnerable claimants. There was a 90% tax rate for some claimants, and there were well-known problems with the cliff edges at 16, 24 and 30 hours. In our casework, we saw people who wanted to do the right thing and were trying to improve their opportunities in life, but the system was working against them. Universal credit was therefore introduced, as I said, broadly with cross-party support. It is right that we have looked at it all the way through as a test-and-learn, and that is why it is important that the hon. Member for Edmonton has raised her direct experiences and those of her office.

We have already made some significant improvements. We, rightly, made the changes to advance payments. Those payments were always there, but people had to know to ask and, unsurprisingly, very few people did. They are now, rightly, automatically part of the initial interview with the work coach and, unsurprisingly, the take-up rates of advance payments have significantly improved.

Initially, those payments were repaid over six months. That was, rightly, changed to 12 months, and then to 16 months. The repayment rate has also been reduced and we have strengthened the discretion to take into account particular hardships, to make sure we are not compounding a problem.

Those who are transferring over from legacy benefits, such as housing benefit, will get an additional two weeks-worth of housing benefit money, with no strings attached. That is additional money. As the regulations come forward, there will also be an additional two weeks for those on employment and support allowance, jobseeker’s allowance or income support, again with no strings attached. That is typically worth £237 on housing benefit and £200 on ESA, JSA or IS. Opposition Members often seek to oppose what the Government do, but this is something they should support.

We have scrapped the seven-day waiting period and strengthened the alternative payment arrangements, on housing costs direct to the landlord, for example. If a legacy claimant already had that provision, there will now be a presumption that we should have the conversation to see if that was the right arrangement. We have also looked at the frequency of payments, for those who have been used to a more frequent payment and might struggle with monthly payments.

There is the extra work allowance. We have made changes to the exemptions for the minimum income floor for self-employed claimants, and there are additional protections for those on severe disability premiums. But there is still more to do.

[Laura Pidcock (North West Durham) (Lab)]

The advance payments are still a loan, which is a crucial point that my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) made. My question is this, however: those people who are being managed through their migration to universal credit will have protections, but those people who have naturally migrated—often, but not always, through change of circumstances—will not have those protections. What is the justification for that? Many of my constituents are worse off.

[Justin Tomlinson]

As the hon. Lady said, that is to do with change of circumstances. The transitional arrangements were put in place for those who were transferring as part of natural migration, and we have, rightly, confirmed that that number will be ring-fenced to just 10,000 this year, so we can have a real deep dive to look at the levels of support that are needed. I will come back to that in a moment.

On the wider point about why transitional arrangements were not put in, that is because it was recognised that there would be a change of circumstances. We are seeing that a lot of people benefit, and some go the other way, but overall we are now spending an additional £2 billion on the current benefits compared with the legacy benefits, before the extra money goes in. That is more money going to the people who need that help.

Let me turn to points where I think there is agreement. We talk about office casework. We all have busy offices and have to prioritise casework and supporting our constituencies. I am very proud to have been rated third out of 650 on theyworkforyou.com on helping constituents. I absolutely understand the importance of casework. One of my staff specialises in this area, has visited the jobcentre with me and talked to the partnership manager. We all have a partnership manager, who is the point of contact for escalating cases.

I know the hon. Member for Edmonton was due to visit the jobcentre in December 2017, and that that visit was cancelled. I encourage her and her staff to take part in such a visit. It is really important, and they are there to help. Where we have specific cases that do not seem right, there is an ability to escalate; MPs can talk to the senior people in the respective jobcentres and they can help take that forward.

I have a lot of sympathy with the point about digital by default. The principle was to mirror the world of work, because most workplaces now expect staff to have a reasonable level of digital engagement. However, that is not the case for all people. Not all people on universal credit will end up in work—even if that is their ultimate aim, not everybody is going to, and not everybody will do that overnight. We need to improve communication in order to advise about alternatives; claimants can access support via the telephone, face to face, or through home visits. We need to do better at promoting that and it is certainly something that I will continue to push on.

We also need to look at the issue of consent. One of the complications of the General Data Protection Regulation is that we now need implicit consent. I regularly meet stakeholders, particularly housing associations and local authorities, who say, “We represent many of your vulnerable claimants, and we want to help. We have the resource to help, and we have teams, but unless we know that one of the people that we are working with is about to be migrated or has come on to universal credit or is accessing an advance payment, how can we help?” We have got to find a way, and I think that should be done in the same way as with advance payments—through making asking for implicit consent an automatic part of the initial interview, in order to get those support organisations working with claimants. There is a resource there that wants to support claimants and we should be doing everything we can to match them up.

We made a significant announcement on putting citizens’ advice into every single jobcentre throughout the country. It will be an independent organisation, and we will cover the costs. That will start in April, and I welcome it. As part of the test-and-learn with the 10,000, I want to look closely at exactly how much time is available to vulnerable claimants. Is it enough or are there other things that could be done? I think we should look very carefully at that.

Universal Credit: Managed Migration

Laura Pidcock Excerpts

Tuesday 8th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Alok Sharma]

We have been fixing problems, and we will continue to do that. Again I say—I make this offer in all sincerity, not least because this is how we will learn in this process—that where the hon. Gentleman has a specific case I will be happy to sit down with him and talk it through and see what we can do to make sure that the system works for others who come after his constituent.

[Laura Pidcock (North West Durham) (Lab)]

The Government always try to individualise our constituents’ problems, but these are systemic flaws in the system. People every single day are made deliberately worse off under this scheme which makes them wait five weeks. Deep design and administrative flaws have been listed exhaustively in numerous reports. Is it acceptable to continuously test and learn on people? Is it acceptable that every single day we have people naturally migrating on to UC, because they are no less vulnerable and deserving of protections than those on managed migration? Will the Minister please halt the natural migration and the managed migration?

[Alok Sharma]

The roll-out of UC has already taken place across all jobcentres. UC is continuing; I have set out the timetable, as the Secretary of State did yesterday. But the hon. Lady is right that we need to make sure we get this right and that is why we have the test phase. I am pleased that at least some colleagues on the Opposition Benches have acknowledged that this is an important part of making sure we get this right in terms of managed migration.

Oral Answers to Questions

Laura Pidcock Excerpts

Monday 7th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

It is very good to welcome the hon. Member for North West Durham (Laura Pidcock) back to the House.

[Laura Pidcock (North West Durham) (Lab)]

Happy new year, Mr Speaker.

I note the delays to the roll-out of universal credit announced over the weekend, but will the Minister please tell us what justification there can possibly be for people who have had to claim universal credit so far not receiving any protections? Will the Secretary of State agree to halt natural migration, compensate every single person who has lost out, and investigate the circumstances that have led people on to universal credit when there has been no change in their circumstance?

[Justin Tomlinson]

If the hon. Lady looked at the feedback we have had from stakeholders following this week’s announcement, she would see that they make it absolutely clear that they support universal credit over the legacy system. We know that 700,000 people—some of the most vulnerable people in our society—are missing out on £2.4 billion of support because the legacy system is too complicated. Universal credit gives personalised, tailored support and makes sure that people get the support that they need.

Oral Answers to Questions

Laura Pidcock Excerpts

Monday 21st May 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Kit Malthouse)]

The Child Maintenance Service is working hard to improve its recovery efforts and will be increasing the number of individuals assigned to the financial investigations unit. The Child Maintenance Service is working much more closely with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to make sure that we have as full a picture as possible of people’s earnings and to ensure that people take responsibility for their children.

[Laura Pidcock (North West Durham) (Lab)]

Dupuytren’s contracture, or miner’s claw, as it is commonly known, is a progressive condition that causes the fingers gradually to curl up, occasionally requiring amputation. It is a very common disease among former miners, and the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council has made it clear to the DWP that there is a link between the use of percussive tools and miner’s claw. Why has the Secretary of State chosen to ignore that expert advice, and will she explain why the condition has not been added to the industrial injuries disablement benefit list of conditions?

[Sarah Newton]

I am working very closely with the independent advisory board, which advises on which conditions should go on to the list for which people can receive severe disability payments. My meetings with the board are ongoing.

Women and Work

Laura Pidcock Excerpts

Wednesday 14th March 2018 Westminster Hall

[Laura Pidcock (North West Durham) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) for securing this extremely important debate. I am sure it will not be a surprise that some of the interpretations that I have of the world of work are somewhat different from what has been expressed. For many of the women in my constituency, work is not a choice or a health benefit, but an absolute necessity for survival.

Last Thursday we marked International Women’s Day: a day when we celebrate the victories that women have achieved so far on the path to liberation, and a day when we remember how far we have to go. That one day in the calendar is when we focus on women’s issues and they are thrust into the limelight. It serves as an opportunity to briefly scrutinise our collective experience. The Labour party used the day to announce that we would fine employers who not only fail to audit their gender pay gap, but fail to take decisive action against it.

In the narrative around women at work, the focus is not always on workplace issues that affect women the most. In recent years we have seen the agenda—it is as though I knew what the hon. Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan) was going to say in her speech—that applies only to women at the top. Women in this Chamber will be aware of campaigns such as the 30% Club, which aims to get at least 30% of women on the board of large public companies, and similar campaigns. I do not wish to discredit such campaigns, but I do not think it is unfair for me to say that they are irrelevant to the majority of working women in this country.

Pictures of gender-balanced boards or of women chief executive officers might be glitzy, but they are a distraction from the material reality of working-class women in this country.

[Gillian Keegan]

I simply want to say that I am a working- class woman who left school at 16 but still aspired to be on a board, so I would say they are relevant. They are just one part of the picture.

[Laura Pidcock]

Those campaigns do not focus on the reality of most working-class women in work at this point in time in our nation. As with most things, success at the top does not trickle down. [Interruption.] I will not take any more interventions, because of time constraints.

What good is it if a woman becomes a CEO, only to rely on an army of women on precarious contracts and on poverty pay to make her sandwiches, look after her children and clean her offices? The success of elite women does not facilitate the emancipation of lower-paid sisters in the economy. In fact, some would argue it prevents it. The experience of most women, after all, is that of a worker, not of a boss. Our obsession with boardrooms has not only failed to close the pay gap for working-class women, but produced another kind of pay gap—the gap between women at the bottom and women at the top. Professional women earn on average 80% more than unskilled women, while the difference between professional and unskilled men is still huge, at 60%.

Although a few elite women succeed, the experience for most working-class women is of a system that is completely rigged against them. It is a system in which women are on zero-hours contracts and are scared that they will not get adequate maternity pay if they want to start a family. As a proud pregnant working woman, I know that my position protects me from many of the forms of discrimination that pregnant women face in the workplace. It is a system in which women are still the main childcare providers. They represent 90% of lone parents and are terrified that they will not get enough hours to provide for their children.

It is a system in which 230,000 jobs held by women pay less than the minimum wage. The Government—let us be honest—do not even give adequate notice to women about changes to their pensions, leaving them in fear of their retirement, and then think it appropriate to suggest that those women expecting to reach retirement take an apprenticeship. It is a system in which women in low pay and poverty reduce their meal portions to allow their children to eat in the school holidays. It is a system in which unaffordable and inaccessible childcare forces women to work fewer hours or accept poorly paid, poor quality part-time positions—and, of course, as has been mentioned, they are at risk of dismissal while on maternity leave.

It has been mentioned many times in the Chamber that the fact that we have had two female Prime Ministers satisfactorily explains that the Conservatives are the party of gender equality. That is an affront to the women in my constituency and across the UK who experience much inequality. It is important that there are women in the highest positions, of course, but it is never enough to just stop there. There have always been women who have succeeded in the face of structural sexism and women who buck the trend, but we cannot and must not be satisfied with the achievements of a minority of women while most women bear the brunt of poverty and austerity.

Some Members might not know that International Women’s Day started as a campaign for the rights of women garment workers in New York. Women’s issues have always been inextricably linked with class issues. Only by punishing the bosses who exploit women and only by creating a social security system that recognises the inequality faced by women, will we have any hope of genuine equality at work. Fundamentally, we must give all workers the ability to collectively bargain for their own pay and terms and conditions. We need a system that challenges the gender-segregated nature of employment. I am glad that the hon. Member for Redditch secured the debate, but I can tell the House that women in my constituency will not be grateful for the way the Conservatives have treated them.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Employment (Alok Sharma)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) on securing this important debate. In her speech, she spoke with passion and from the heart about her own experiences. It is often our shared experiences that drive us to bring about change and improvements. There was a discussion about role models, as raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty), and he is right: they matter as well.

Many colleagues noted that last week we celebrated International Women’s Day, when we reflected on the achievements and progress of women not only in the workplace but in everyday life. This year’s theme encouraged everyone, regardless of gender, to press for progress—to think, act and be more gender-inclusive every day. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch that it is important that we celebrate the success and the progress that we are making for women in work, but I also agree with many colleagues that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Kirstene Hair) noted, there is more to do.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and others talked about the joint-record high for female employment, which, at 70.8%, is five percentage points higher than in 2010. I have no wish to introduce any note of rancour in the debate, but I point out that under the last Labour Government the highest rate was 67%, back in 2008. I agree that all of us—politicians and businesses—should be working together to improve the employment rate further.

[Laura Pidcock]

It is irrefutable that there are more people in employment, but does the Minister acknowledge that work is more precarious, and that people have to do two or three jobs?

Universal Credit

Laura Pidcock Excerpts

Tuesday 13th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Laura Pidcock (North West Durham) (Lab)]

I have been texting my team furiously during the debate to check, double check and triple check that what I am about to say is accurate. I asked them to ring the DWP and the Library and then assure me that this is right. The vast majority of my constituents who currently receive tax credits are not on universal credit and will not be migrated on to it for some time, and they will not be protected by transitional arrangements, which will not apply. I have just checked this with the DWP and the Library. This is about the future denial of free schools meals, and it is valid that we have a conversation about that. I am not interested in embellishment in this debate, because the truth is enough.

For people who are in work and in poverty, or looking for work and in poverty, food is a huge part of their expenditure. It is a never-ending struggle to make sure that there is enough to eat, and that children are getting enough to keep them healthy and well. Children cannot concentrate in school when they are hungry—we all know the arguments. For many young people, that one hot meal is all they will get. I have not been told, despite the claim being repeated time and again, what calculation was used to reach the figure of 50,000 for the number of extra children who will get free school meals. I am sorry, but I am just not able to believe that on a whim, or on a calculation that was plucked out of thin air.

Under the current system, families are normally entitled to free school meals if their income is under £16,190. That will be changed to £7,400 per year, unless it is covered by transitional protections. The reduction to £7,400 is, frankly, delusional. Who will it help? What is the figure based on? Which advisers, experts or charitable organisations have the Government met who actually think that slashing the threshold is a good idea for children in low-income households? The BBC rang around headteachers to try to get a quote on these changes, but not one headteacher knew about them, so what consultation has there been with schools?

[Anna Soubry]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Laura Pidcock]

Time is very short, so I am certainly not going to give way to somebody who has intervened many times and was not here for the start of the debate.

Nearly 2,000 children in my constituency quite rightly—

[Anna Soubry]

Just for the record, Madam Deputy Speaker, I was in this place when the debate started.

[Laura Pidcock]

Well, that was not my experience. Anyway, the idea that claimants in my area—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I cannot hear the hon. Lady. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady should not shout from a sedentary position when I am defending her and giving her space.

[Laura Pidcock]

I have 17 seconds left and there have been so many interruptions.

[Mrs Hodgson]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. As a fellow north-easterner, I want her to be able to finish her point.

[Laura Pidcock]

There are 2,000 children in my constituency who rightly receive subsidised school meals. The reason that new claimants after 1 April will not be protected is not that they no longer need that protection or need those meals; it is due to arbitrary cuts. This change will ensure that more children are in poverty and that more people have to access food banks. The Government may be able to justify that in this Chamber, but how can they justify it to a child? Taking all the proposed changes together with all the changes that have already happened to the so-called social security system, the only conclusion I can draw is that there is no security anymore. That is not embellishment: I know poverty when I see it staring me in the face in my constituency surgeries. We do not need to lie, we do not need to embellish. The truth is good enough: these changes are shambolic.

Personal Independence Payments

Laura Pidcock Excerpts

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)]

This debate is rather over-subscribed. More than 20 people wish to speak. If everyone takes two minutes, I might be able to get most of you in; if people take four or five minutes, I will get seven or eight in. If you take interventions, the number will go down. It is all in your hands. I cannot impose a formal time limit, but think about your colleagues when you are into your sixth or seventh minute.

[Laura Pidcock (North West Durham) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the claimant experience of the personal independence payment process.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hosie. I am going to be really stingy with interventions. I can already feel the wrath of my colleagues, but I have to do that because of the number of people who have put down their name to speak.

I called this debate because of the sheer volume of casework my constituency office receives regarding personal independence payments. My constituents find many aspects of the process difficult, not because they are not capable but because the forms are confusing and the assessment procedure is complex and exhausting. There are more face-to-face consultations, more regular reviews and more reassessments of awards than under the preceding benefit, disability living allowance.

The initial impetus for this debate came from my constituents, but as soon as I asked on social media for people to tell me their experiences, I realised the huge scale of this issue in North West Durham and all over the country.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Does she agree that the Government made the situation significantly worse by passing regulations in 2017 that have been found to be blatantly discriminatory against those with mental health conditions?

[Laura Pidcock]

I agree strongly. That ruling was a wake-up call for the Government.

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Laura Pidcock]

I will make a bit more progress.

I asked people to comment and send me emails about their experiences, and I was absolutely deluged. I received more than 600 emails and 1,500 messages on Facebook and Twitter. Most of those people took a great deal of time to tell me what had happened to them. Individually, their stories are shocking; collectively, they shame the Government and the Department for Work and Pensions. They are testament to a broken and cruel system. I will come back to those harrowing stories in a second.

[Stephen Kerr]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. She mentioned her Twitter appeal and so on. An official survey shows that 76% of people in the system responded to say that they were satisfied. That itself is not a happy position, but it shows that her representation of people’s average experience as wholly negative on the basis of a Twitter appeal does not reflect the results of a scientific survey.

[Laura Pidcock]

What an absolute joke that is. To diminish those people’s experiences, which made me weep, is an absolute disgrace. Those people took their time in extremely difficult circumstances to tell us about the difficulties with the system. To talk about another survey to try to diminish those experiences is a disgrace. [Interruption.] I will not take any more interventions. The Child Poverty Action Group handbook on personal independence payments states that the Government’s case for replacing DLA with PIP was that it had become an outdated benefit.

[Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Laura Pidcock]

I have to make progress—just give me a minute.

DLA was criticised for having complex and subjective criteria and inconsistent decision making, resulting in too many awards and too few reviews of awards. The Government say that the PIP process is

“a more active and enabling benefit”.

I disagree in the strongest possible terms. The introduction of PIP was another cuts exercise. The coalition Government made the need to make savings a clear aim of the new benefit. [Interruption.] They said it themselves. According to the Library, PIP was expected to reduce expenditure by £1.5 billion, and 607,000 fewer people were expected to receive PIP by 2018. That kind of reduction cannot be achieved without the anguish and suffering of thousands of people.

[Gloria De Piero]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Let me share the experience of a constituent from Kirkby who is a long-time claimant of DLA because of his post-traumatic stress disorder. He is unable to leave the house, so he has always had a home assessment. Since his last assessment, his wife has been diagnosed with terminal cancer. He was told, “No, we won’t do a home assessment this time.” Is it not a disgrace—[Interruption.] Well, he was denied. He came to me; I sorted it out. The Government need humanity, compassion and, frankly, some common sense.

[Laura Pidcock]

Those stories are so, so common. The changes have hit those most in need of a social security system while reducing the overall welfare budget, and have taken away the safety net for a massive number of people. When cost-cutting is the motivating factor behind changes, we hit trouble, just as we have with universal credit. Let me take Members through some of the difficulties that my constituents and many other people—

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Laura Pidcock]

I am making progress. There are 20-odd people down to speak; it would be disrespectful to them not to do so.

The initial claimant form is often daunting and time-consuming. People have to rely on stretched services and support agencies to complete the form. At the same time, the questions are very restrictive and do not fit the description of everyone’s illness. Following that, claimants are invited to a medical assessment by an outsourcing company—Atos Healthcare or Capita Business Services, depending on their location in the United Kingdom. The accessibility of venues is often cited as a problem: claimants are invited to assessments miles away from their homes and in inaccessible rooms. Some say that that is a test from the outset. There have also been reports of assessments taking place in expensive gyms and spas in my area, which makes claimants feel on edge. Some people are sure that they were filmed upon entering the assessment, and I believe them.

[Jo Platt (Leigh) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. I have lost several members of my family to motor neurone disease, a progressive disease for which there is no cure—people do not get better. Does she agree that people with terminal illnesses such as MND should not be up for reassessment?

[Laura Pidcock]

There are hundreds of stories of people with conditions that will not change being reassessed. That is terrible.

There are extensive concerns about the suitability of PIP assessors—that was a clear theme throughout the correspondence—who often do not have the medical expertise to assess claimants with particular medical conditions. A midwife, for example, may assess a claimant with mental health problems, but they will not know every sign and symptom of every mental health condition, as they are not qualified. That calls into question the accuracy of the assessment.

Constituents have told me how brutal and gruelling the medical assessments are, as they lay bare the claimant’s disability and how they cope with it, but they are based on a medical model of disability rather than a social one. One person put it brilliantly: they said the assessment was like a functionality test, and that it did not capture or consider how someone can live their life each day. The fact that assessors do not take notice of professional medical assessments from doctors or psychiatrists, and that that information is considered only at tribunal stage, is not even questioned. Assembling that information at assessment stage is such a waste of energy for people, especially since doctors charge for medical assessment letters. In my view, that cost should be met by the state, not by the person making the claim.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

rose—

[Laura Pidcock]

I will take one last intervention, then I must press on.

[Kate Green]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Does she agree that the costs that pile up at tribunal are in part a function of a mandatory reconsideration system that, again, does not look at additional evidence properly?

[Laura Pidcock]

That is right. I will come on to mandatory reconsiderations in a second.

The outsourcing of the assessment process is very much part of the problem. Some 60% of assessment reports completed by Capita healthcare professionals and sent to the DWP were judged to be of an “unacceptable” standard. Neither Capita nor Atos has ever met the DWP contractual target that no more than 3% of reports should be found unacceptable. I wonder what it would take for those companies to lose a contract with the Government. No action is taken, because the Government are ideologically wedded to the outsourcing model, despite such poor results. Incredibly, I have read that those companies pay people bonuses for completing extra assessment reports, which in my view incentivises rushing and contributes to inaccuracies. Many feel as if they have been lied about in their reports—that is all part of the same inadequacies. I have even had reports of healthcare professionals who conduct the assessments asking claimants if they have thought about killing themselves. While I understand that it is a difficult subject to broach, sensitive language needs to used when dealing with such topics; otherwise, it can be damaging and triggering for that person.

If a claimant is not awarded the points they think they are entitled to, or they are told that they are not entitled to PIP, they must challenge the DWP’s decision through a mandatory reconsideration. Constituents of mine, and many people who have been in touch, have said that the process is completely pointless due to the DWP not reviewing medical evidence or investigating whether the decision maker’s report was accurate. Actually, DWP workers feel unable to challenge the assessor’s report. Advice and support agencies also state that hardly anyone has their decision overturned at that stage. I cannot help but think that is just another stage in the process to grind people into submission.

If the mandatory reconsideration process is unsuccessful, the decision must go to tribunal, putting tribunals as well as claimants under enormous pressure. Advice and support agencies say that they are under a great deal of strain, trying to deal with the demand from people seeking representation. Latest figures show that 68% of PIP decisions are overturned on appeal, so the DWP’s systems are clearly not working. That is completely indefensible: all that trial and trauma for claimants to be proved right, if—it is a big if—they manage to go that distance. People have reported that they have to wait over a year for a tribunal date.

What is very clear is that the assessment process is working against claimants entitled to the benefit. Many campaigners believe that the companies who provide medical assessments are heavily encouraged to hit targets by the Government in order to cut the welfare budget, and I believe them. Perhaps it is because there is an ambivalence to these people, or—more likely—because the Government do not see it as the state’s role to provide that support.

[Luke Graham]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Laura Pidcock]

I will give way once more to the Conservative side, and that is it.

[Luke Graham]

I thank the hon. Lady. I would not necessarily disagree with some of the criticisms she is making of the assessment process. Some of my constituents face those challenges, and we would be happy to work across the House to try to fix them. Does she recognise that under PIP, 66% of claimants with mental issues now get the higher rate of benefit, versus 22% under DLA? Can I ask her for a little balance when she comes to look at the system rather than just criticism?

[Laura Pidcock]

The balance is that thousands of people are locked out of the system and never even get an award because they are so ground down by the process. The Government need to realise what a cruel and callous system they are putting people through and the knock-on effect that has on our constituents. I am a bit shocked by the disbelief on the Conservative side—they look stunned that this is taking place. That is the reality for disabled people in this country. People are falling further into depression and self-harm, having suicidal thoughts and becoming reliant on food banks. All of those things are harmful for our society. Losing Motability cars was a consistent theme, along with falling into debt. The NHS is also being put under much strain.

[Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Laura Pidcock]

I will make a bit more progress.

In the past seven years of this Government, the Department for Work and Pensions has become a harsher and colder organisation. A culture has grown through successive Secretaries of State that sees claimants as numbers and fraudsters instead of people with needs, and a burden on the state rather than citizens with potential. The Government’s own figures put the rate of fraud for PIP at 1.4%—not even worth talking about—yet the system is built on the presumption that people are lying and need to be found out.

Here is a symbol of that callousness: a few weeks ago in my surgery, one of my constituents showed me a decision letter telling her that she was no longer entitled to PIP—her lifeline. The letter was dated 25 December—merry Christmas from the DWP. That is far from the most shocking story. Over the past week, I have read several hundred testimonies from people who have suffered under the system.

A whole community out there has been frightened, mistreated and intimidated by the Government, the media and the DWP. I will read a few of those testimonies—they put things much better than me—before drawing my speech to a conclusion. One says:

“I hope change can be made as presently the PIP system is too brutal, rigid and unfair to people like me who want to live an able life despite disability”.

Another says:

“Why are they treating disabled citizens as though we are undeserving of welfare support?”

Another says:

“I do not want to be in this situation. I am not choosing this life or lifestyle. I am a human being with feelings and emotions. I need help, support and understanding, not being ridiculed or made to feel like a criminal and waste of space and a burden on society or that I am going to be caught out at any opportunity for my disability.”

This one was the most striking:

“being on benefits is like being in an abusive relationship with the state. We cannot escape our abusers, we need them, we are financially dependent on them”.

This is what I ask of the Government: remove the contracts from Atos and Capita with immediate effect and bring the assessments back in-house; remove the assessors’ bonuses; abolish the mandatory reconsideration step of the process, because it is utterly pointless; make it compulsory to take medical documentation into account at the initial assessment, because it is traumatic for people to have to go through their medical conditions in detail, and the evidence from professionals is already there. There must be consequences for inaccurate assessment reports about people’s health conditions, and we should redesign the assessment process alongside disabled people so that it accepts a social model of disability, not a medical model.

The judgment against the Government towards the end of last year when, as was mentioned, a High Court judge said the changes were “blatantly discriminatory,” should give the Minister pause for thought. It is an opportunity for reflection. What has become of not just this Government but our society when we treat people as criminals and fraudsters for being disabled? Do they really know what fear is experienced across this nation at the clatter of the letterbox? People are scared that there might be a brown envelope from the DWP. It is time for the Government to admit that the system is a disaster and that a review of PIP and the whole benefit system is urgently needed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laura Pidcock]

I am completely astounded by the Minister’s use of her time. She ignored every single one of our points. I would like her to write to every single Member who took time to set out in detail the inadequacies of the system, because they were all completely ignored while she spoke about Conservative Members, the history of the Conservative party and justice on welfare.

The Minister said that the Government would be judged on their actions. They certainly will. Every single disabled person in this country is waiting to see what the Government will do to remedy the system’s inadequacies. An alternative reality is being presented by Conservative Members—

[Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Laura Pidcock]

Their use of figures diminishes disabled people’s experiences. It is a shambolic system.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Oral Answers to Questions

Laura Pidcock Excerpts

Monday 18th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Newton]

I pay tribute to Rethink and its campaign—I have read the findings of its survey with interest—as well as to Mind. These organisations are key stakeholders that help the Department to get these things right. No, I do not want people to be stressed by the process, which is why we are implementing a wide range of reforms that we have worked on with our stakeholders. We will make a paper-based decision wherever possible—wherever the information enables us to—and people also have the opportunity to be assessed at home.

[Laura Pidcock (North West Durham) (Lab)]

Constituents and support agencies in North West Durham have told me that the assessment to determine entitlement to PIP is too black and white, and is not able truly to capture a person’s day-to-day life with all the nuances that involves, especially when assessing mental health problems. This is leading to traumatic and humiliating experiences, and claims being refused to people who really need them. Will the Minister please look into this process in detail for those with mental health problems?

[Sarah Newton]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comment. We keep the process under constant review, and we have it independently assessed to make sure that, if there are any problems at all, we will work to overcome them. However, I can assure her that, compared with the previous benefit—disability living allowance—many more PIP recipients with mental health conditions are getting the enhanced rates.