Employment and Support Allowance Application

Mike Penning Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2014 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mike Penning)]

In the short time that I have before we go to vote—I will continue when we come back—may I congratulate the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) on securing this debate on a very important issue? In the short period that I have been the Minister in the Department, the issue has occupied a huge amount of my time, not least because, like many families in this country, my family has been touched by mental health issues, including depression, so I understand the issues very well. Even if I do not agree with all the hon. Lady’s comments, I know that they were heartfelt.

Some of the things that we are trying to do aim to get to the core of how we can deliver a service that is fit for purpose—I often use this term—in both ways. I have met so many people with mental health illness who want to work. A lot of them, particularly those with depression, tell me that their conditions, which some of them have had since long before I became a Member of Parliament, have got worse because they have not had assistance to go to work. They want to be part of the community and want to feel as if they are contributing; they do not necessarily want to be on benefits—something that a lot of them find difficult. Of course, the job of the welfare system is to enable people to be looked after when they cannot fulfil their financial needs and have to deal with certain health requirements.

The hon. Lady asked me if I would meet her. By all means; my door is always open. Anybody who knows me, knows that. That is the way I am. I have met numerous stakeholders in the area of mental health since I came to office.

Although we have moved to a degree, there is always more work to be done. As I said to the hon. Lady before the debate, I am somewhat restricted in what I can do in the Department today, because I have a judicial review running in this area and cannot implement some of Harrington’s third review, though I would like to, let alone do some of the work that we would like to do in respect of Litchfield. I had a meeting earlier today about how to do that.

I agree with the hon. Lady: small things can be done that would have a dramatic effect on the big picture. I am minded to look carefully at whether we can have advocates, whom I think the hon. Lady mentioned, for not only people with mental health issues, but those with learning difficulties—we do this now—and people with hidden disabilities. As she rightly said, there is often a multitude of disabilities, some obvious and others less obvious. Often, more difficulties arise in respect of the ones that we cannot see.

The hon. Lady mentioned that I have negotiated with my officials that Atos will leave the work capability assessment contract. She will be pleased to know that the new contractors will be in this year, not in 2015, and that they will initially run in parallel with Atos and the Atos software, not least because if we stopped today and brought a new contractor in tomorrow, some serious problems would come out of the other side of that. If she thinks there is confusion with the system now, she can trust me on that.

What Harrington and Litchfield touched on is the fact that the system is not broken, but can operate better. Some hon. Members fundamentally disagree with work capability assessment; I do not, although it is not perfect. The previous Administration brought WCA in. It is important that specialists consider whether an individual is capable of doing some type of work, and that they are not the person—not, say, the GP—who sees the individual on a daily basis and has a personal relationship with them.

The hon. Lady made the crucial point that clinical evidence from specialists must be there and available when decisions are made. That is where a lot of the work needs to be done. We already extend the period for people with mental health problems beyond the normal period, while we are waiting for the ESA50 to come back, because we understand the rationale for that. We also have to understand that the filling in of forms and the commentary that needs to be given to officials, whether from Atos or the new contractor, is vital. We need to get as much information as possible—not least, as the hon. Lady said, so that we do not get into an appeal and tribunal situation when that is unnecessary.

Evidence in respect of changes that I have made in the past couple of months clearly shows that fewer people are appealing their WCA than did a year ago. We will release more evidence on that. A lot of that is because we are, for want of a better phrase, getting it right and making it better. We need to do more work on hidden disabilities, and mental health is one of those.

I do not get quite the numbers at my surgery that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned, but people do come to see me and, I think, other hon. Members on the subject. Anyone with an ounce of compassion in them will understand the issues and concerns that these people come to them with. I stress that it is not just about ensuring that a person gets the financial benefit that they need; it is about ensuring that they get the help they need, whether from the mental health side of the health service or from clinicians, and that they get assistance to get back into the workplace.

I reiterate that I am more than happy to work with not only the hon. Lady and SAMH, but all the groups, which are working much more closely with us now. Of course, I would prefer to have the judicial review addressed and done as soon as possible, so that we can not only hear the ruling, but move on with pilots for some of the ideas in the report. I will be perfectly honest and say that I have read the report summary but not the report in its entirety—it is a detailed report—but I assure the hon. Lady that it landed on my desk almost before it was in print.

This is an important issue, and it is important that we get it right; the Government are determined to get it right. It will never be perfect, because of the issues and the complexity that we are dealing with, but as long as I am the Minister, making sure that we address the issues will be at the top of my list.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mike Penning]

I have sat down, so it is up to the Chair.

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

The Minister has concluded his remarks. We will suspend until 4.30 pm. If there is a Division in the main Chamber between now and 4.30 pm, we will take 15 minutes for that Division.

Personal Independence Payment Assessment

Mike Penning Excerpts

Thursday 10th April 2014 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mike Penning)]

The Government have committed, through the Welfare Reform Act 2012, to carry out an independent review of the personal independence payment (PIP) assessment within the first two years of operations.

I am pleased to announce today that Paul Gray CB has been appointed to carry out the first independent review.

Paul Gray has held the position of chair of the Social Security Advisory Committee (SSAC) since November 2011. Prior to his retirement from the civil service in 2007, he held a number of senior positions including executive chairman of HM Revenue and Customs and managing director, pensions and disability in the Department for Work and Pensions.

During the period of the review Paul Gray intends to stand aside from any consideration by SSAC of issues relating to personal independence payment.

The review will provide valuable independent insight into the how the assessment process is operating in its early stages.

Paul Gray will present his report to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions before the end of 2014.

Personal Independence Payments (Wales)

Mike Penning Excerpts

Wednesday 9th April 2014 Westminster Hall

[Susan Elan Jones]

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend.

The Minister may be heartened to hear me mention a previous Prime Minister, Baroness Thatcher, who used to say she believed we should run the national budget like a household budget. Leaving aside our views on the politics of the late Baroness, perhaps we can use that analogy here, to look at the scandal of the joint DWP and Capita mess that has been made with our money. We might imagine Capita as a firm of builders hired for a two-week job at an agreed daily rate, but which has already taken a month and is still nowhere near finishing. If I or many of my constituents had hired those builders, they would be out on their ear. What if Capita were a local charity, such as the type I used to manage before I became an MP: the local organisation that has to negotiate with a local authority or other body for a service level agreement? We can imagine the conversation: “We are not seeing the agreed number of clients; we are not getting things done on time,” and so on. If a small or medium-sized voluntary or community group, dealing with the council or another external body, was in that position, the agreement would be terminated.

Yet we are not talking about one household and an incompetent builder, or a small or medium-sized charity working with a council. We are talking about a failure, paid for by the tax-paying public and being subsidised massively on a multi-million pound basis. It is time that someone, somehow, somewhere—preferably the Government—carried the can for what has happened as the result of a deal between a private company and the Government, which is not working. Capita has not delivered on its contract with the Department for Work and Pensions. It has time and again displayed the fact that it is letting people down. At what point will the Government stand up, take notice of the constituents who are asking for help, and take action on an issue that is becoming more serious with every passing day?

In Penycae, another village in my constituency, a constituent suffers from terrible arthritis throughout her body, and is on lifelong medication as a result. Until last year, my constituent held a responsible, white-collar job. In June, her contract was terminated for reasons of medical capability. One would think that at that point she would receive support, but since she left her job in June she has been waiting on PIP. She has been waiting for Capita. She is completely unable to work and that has been confirmed by her GP and by hospital consultants. My constituent can provide personal reports, X-rays and supporting documents that make it crystal clear that she is entitled, in need and completely genuine; there is no doubt about it.

Why, then, is the system failing my constituent and so many others like her across Wales? The Government’s fact sheet on personal independence payments says:

“PIP is to help towards some of the extra costs arising from a health condition or disability.”

PIP, the replacement for disability living allowance put in place by the current Government, can be anything from £21 to £134 a week. It can be used to cover transport, care and all sorts of other costs that can be vital to those who are disabled or sick. By the Government’s own admission, PIP is support for people when they are unable to work because of a health condition or disability and need financial help. That is what the Government say PIP is, and that is what they claim Capita is providing.

The constituent I mentioned is still waiting for any kind of financial help. She is receiving no level of care from Capita or any other Government body. Since being forced to leave her job in June, she has been completely outside the system and is without any financial support. As a result, my constituent has lost her bank account and is experiencing the attention of debt recovery services. For Capita to tell someone like my constituent from Penycae that her case is in the queue, that a backlog is being experienced and that someone will “get to her when they can”—I believe those were the exact words—is absolutely not good enough. My constituent cannot wait another few months for money to come in. She needs it now. In fact, she has needed it since June, when she first applied. How many people can seriously be expected to live for nine or 10 months without any income? Yet that is what is happening in her case.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mike Penning)]

It is right and proper that this debate is taking place, but PIP is not the only form of benefit; it is a benefit on top of other benefits. No income at all, which is what the hon. Lady said, is ever so slightly—I respectfully say—misleading. I accept that there is an issue, which I will come on to in my response, but the lady to whom she referred would have been able to get other benefits.

[Susan Elan Jones]

I would be delighted to put the Minister in contact with my constituent or, indeed, with all the current cases I have, and they could rightfully have that debate. PIP is a huge issue. I am sure that he is rather sorry that there are absolutely no Government Members here to defend him, so he has to do a little of his own work on that score this morning.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

I really hope that the debate this morning does not deteriorate. I am not that sort of Minister. I genuinely want to help. I do not really mind who is in the Chamber; it is a question of whether we can get PIP right. Of course I will take up any cases that are raised here today, as I do on a regular basis when constituents write to me; the hon. Lady has also written to me many times.

[Susan Elan Jones]

I assure the Minister that I want this issue sorted, and I am only sorry that it has not been sorted sooner.

I am of course aware that assessments are complicated. I am under no illusions that such systems are easy to run, and they are not simple to understand. I am clear, however, that Capita is being given public money to provide a service. I called for the debate today because my constituents are being left without any information about their cases; they are waiting on calls that are not returned; and they have no way of highlighting their situation, complaining or seeking help. That is why they are coming to me and to other Members of Parliament.

I was also shocked to learn that Capita has not even set up an official hotline for MPs. When constituents come to me about problems with other public bodies, I am able to contact someone quickly. That is part of our job as Members of Parliament, and the hotlines provided to MPs are an important part of the contact system. Capita, the company providing PIP assessments for the entirety of Wales, does not provide such a service. When it was pushed, I was given a number, but it was made clear to me that it was not an official hotline. I am loth to bring up Atos in this debate. The Government recently scrapped the contract with Atos because it was not delivering, but even Atos had an official hotline set up and working.

The debate is not simply about backlogged services and Capita not estimating correctly or preparing adequately. It is clear from Capita’s entire handling of PIP assessments that it was not the right company for the job. How much public money is being spent every single day by the Government on the service? How much public money is being spent on this company that is not returning calls? How much public money is being spent on this company that is forcing cancer sufferers to cross their fingers through massive delays? How much public money is being spent on this company while it forces those too sick to work into debt?

To return to our analogy with household economics, Capita is not the slow or dodgy builder, or the little charity worrying how it will see all the people it needs to see because it has two people off sick one month; Capita is supplying all the contracts for PIP assessment in Wales, which is a multi-million pound contract. Capita is the middleman, the company between the doctor and financial support—in many ways, it is the company between the hospital and the debt collector. At the moment, we are not seeing it provide such a bridge or, in many cases, any bridge at all.

Over and over again, the Government have said that they need to save money, and yet they are spending millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money on a company that is not delivering on its contract. At what point do the Government step in to ensure that the service is being provided?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Ruane]

Again, things come down to due diligence and to the assessment of the problem by the Government when awarding the contract. In addition, in the north Wales situation, there was no mention of staff who can deal with mental health issues.

We talk about the vast numbers of people affected, so let us consider who they are. One of my constituents who had mental health problems was told that she could not have an assessment in her own home. She lives in north Wales, but she was told to go to the nearest assessment centre—in Cardiff. It takes me two hours and 36 minutes to get from Rhyl to London, but I could almost have gone from Rhyl to London and back again in the time that it would take that lady simply to get down to Cardiff. Would the Minister send someone from London up to Cumbria for an assessment test, because those are the time scales that we are talking about? That shows total disregard for the individuals involved.

Another individual in my constituency, who is wheelchair-bound, waited for six months, but her case had still not been sorted out. In that time, there were knock-on effects to other benefits and funding was taken off her; she lost her mobility allowance and so she lost her car. There she was, with mental health issues, in a wheelchair and stuck in a house. Things that help people with mental health issues include visiting relatives, joining voluntary organisations, going to a place of worship and getting out in nature, none of which she could do because her car was taken away. All the things that could have helped her were taken away from her by Government action, or inaction.

The rules for the terminally ill suggest that if they have seven months left to live, they are pestered and hounded, but if they have six months left, they will be left alone. That should not be the case. We should prioritise the people—

[Mike Penning]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Ruane]

No, I will not give way.

[Mike Penning]

The hon. Gentleman is being misleading.

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

Order. No one is misleading anyone.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

I am sorry, Mr Owen; I am sure that was unintentional. This is rightly a passionate debate. I have referred in previous discussions to 28 days for terminal illness. That was completely unacceptable, and it was 10 days under disability living allowance. I told the Select Committee that the period would be below 10 days. That is where we are now, and that will continue.

[Chris Ruane]

The Minister talks about how things should happen; we are talking about how things are happening. Capita, which took the Government’s instructions, visited us last week and told us what I have just said. Perhaps the company got it wrong, but if it did the Minister should ask why the Government awarded a contract to a company that does not understand the basic rules of dealing with the dying.

I will move on. It is not just Labour Back Benchers from Wales who are raising the matter. The National Audit Office has said that

“the Department did not allow enough time to test whether the assessment process could handle large numbers of claims. As a result of this poor early operational performance, claimants face long and uncertain delays and the Department has had to delay the wider roll-out of the programme. Because it may take…time to resolve the delays, the Department has increased the risk that the programme will not deliver value for money in the longer term.”

The programme was introduced to cut costs by £2.6 billion. The National Audit Office is now saying that because of the terms and conditions and the fact that the rules were not set properly in the first place, value for money in the longer term—the whole raison d’être for the initiative—will be undermined. The NAO continued:

“A far higher proportion of new claims than was expected contained information that conflicted with existing data on the claimant held by DWP, leading to delays in processing new claims…Claimants were taking longer than expected to return claim forms”.

That should have been predicted and there should have been research before the contract was issued. The failings are the failings of this Government, and the Minister may have to fess up and say that he got it wrong. I ask him to be open, truthful and to sort out this terrible problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

I do not think that this has been mentioned so far in the debate, but Capita did not only meet us last week; it met many of us before the introduction of PIPs and it made certain commitments and promises, based on the assumptions that it had been given by the DWP that none of these things would happen. We were given assurances that there would not be these kinds of delays, that it had the right plans in place, that it knew what it was doing and that there would be no repetition of the mistakes made by other private contractors such as Atos. It failed miserably on that, and ultimate responsibility does come to the Minister. I am sure he accepts that, and we respect his willingness to take it on board, so as the Minister responding to the debate today, he does not need to go through the history of the benefit. We know that.

[Mike Penning]

I am not going to do that; give me a chance.

[Kevin Brennan]

Good, but I am just giving the Minister that warning not to go through the history of the benefit but, yes, to deal with his responsibility, who is responsible—

--- Later in debate ---

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I congratulate the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) on a fine, eloquent and valuable speech.

Well, here we are again. Some hon. Members will recall our PIP debate with the now former Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she was the Minister responsible for disability issues. We discussed the mobility needs of people in residential care, and eventually she performed a U-turn—eventually.

I like this Minister and think that he is sincere and conscientious. We can trust that he will take full account of the debate and make timely changes. We are here because of delays in dealing with our constituents’ cases, and we know about the concerns of the National Audit Office and the Work and Pensions Committee. Our particular concern is Wales, where there are higher levels of disability and long-term illness. I have had cases, but I will not go into them, because we have heard sufficient detail about how bad the situation is. I will, however, ask a number of questions. I have had a response from Capita, although it is not completely satisfactory. I worry about our constituents who do not think of going to see their MP, because there must be many of those—proportionately more than actually come through our doors.

As has been mentioned, there are delays. People are told that they will be paid from the date of their claim, but the problem is that people have current needs, and jam tomorrow, even if it is delivered, is no use. Where there are delays, are claimants given timely information about how long their cases will take? Knowing how long the case will take would at least be some comfort. It is a grim question, but I have also been looking for figures on how many claimants in Wales have died waiting for their claim. It would be useful to have the data sets as soon as possible, although I know that we are in the early stages, and I have had access to some of the management information. Too often, we have data sets for the UK in general, but we are concerned with Wales and it would be useful to have those data sets broken down as far as our country is concerned.

Another issue for Wales is rurality, which makes PIP particularly important for people’s mobility needs. There is a practical question of the travel time for people who are assessed in centres, or the extra travel time taken by Capita staff who have to go to remote locations in rural areas. Atos has chosen a slightly different emphasis from Capita, by doing more assessments in centres rather than home visits. Will the Department eventually conduct a compare and contrast exercise on Atos’s and Capita’s handling of the matter?

I had an interesting discussion with Dr Duckworth, the managing director for PIP at Capita, on the radio this morning. He reported, as we have heard, that Capita now thinks that face-to-face interviews take two hours rather than one. Will the Minister tell us, perhaps in writing, how the planning process worked and how such an alarming underestimate was reached? Any planning process must be somewhat speculative, but if one hour was planned for and the outturn is two hours, it seems to me to be a gross underestimate.

I understand that Capita is recruiting more staff, and I heard the other day that staff from the Department for Work and Pensions are helping out. That is good; in such a situation, it is all hands to the pump. However, are there additional costs, and who pays them? Given that the contract is with a private organisation, what penalties are being imposed on Capita? Has the Minister made any assessment of its willingness, or otherwise, to continue with the work? We saw what happened with Atos, which pulled out of a different sort of assessment because of the difficulties that it faced.

Furthermore, I understand that Capita is conducting more paper-based assessments. Initially, Capita planned to do 70% of assessments face to face, and then we heard that the figure was 99%, but I understand now that, to hurry matters along, some paper-based assessments are being made. That is where we came in when we discussed PIP in the first place. One of the unsatisfactory aspects of disability living allowance was that it was too often a paper-based exercise, which produced variable outcomes, to say the least. PIP was sold on the basis that it would involve a quality, individual, face-to-face assessment, that there would be reviews and that the system would be better all around, but I worry that we may be going back to where we started.

I referred earlier to the need for data sets. It would be useful if the Minister gave us a snapshot of claimant numbers in Wales—perhaps not now, because he may not have the figures to hand—and the number of claims outstanding. Usefully, the Department produced a document entitled “Personal Independence Payment: Management Information” in February 2014, which some hon. Members may have seen. The results for the UK are interesting and rather startling. I do not know whether the figures are still current, because they were published in February and we are now in April. I see from one of the tables that in December 2013, there were 229,700 new PIP claims, and 43,800 new claim decisions were made in respect of all new PIP claims. That is, as far as I can see, a rate of about 20%.

[Mike Penning]

Perhaps I can help the Chamber. We estimate that 233,000 claims have been made, of which 50% have now been decided. Of the terminally ill, 99% have been concluded, which is still not high enough.

[Hywel Williams]

I am glad to hear that that is the rate. Of course, with people who are terminally ill, we want to see a rate of 100%. I also had a look at the figures from the PIP reassessment and impact report from December 2012, which gives a forecast for March 2014 of 87,000 reassessments, with 180,000 reassessments in the March 2012 strategy. Perhaps the Minister can give us further information.

A particular issue in Wales is assessment through the medium of Welsh. I put a question to the Department some time ago, and was told that the assessments would follow the Department’s Welsh language scheme.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mike Penning)]

Thank you very much indeed for calling me to speak, Mr Owen. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in this very important debate.

Let me say at the outset that it is very important that this type of debate takes place, not least because we can get better information on the record. I know that some hon. Members have not raised individual constituency cases during this debate; some have, but some have not. If they have not done so, please would they give us that information? We will be in contact with Members during the course of today and tomorrow, so that we can pick up on those cases.

I will start today by touching on the point that was raised in the debate about colleagues coming to me and getting responses. I think that it was raised by the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) and I thank her for her kind comments about how we have responded to colleagues, not only in Westminster Hall today but at other times. Actually, it is very useful for me as the Minister to see what goes through, because if individual MPs write to me then I—as Members probably know—write them an individual reply, and while I cannot deal with every individual case, it does give me a better feel for what is going on.

With that in mind, I will go back from Westminster Hall today and act; my officials have heard what hon. Members have said and they will now hear what I am about to say. The hotline will happen. It is not acceptable that there is not a hotline in place. We will get on and do that.

I will touch, quite rightly, on what was probably the most sensitive issue raised in the debate, which is that of the cases concerning the terminally ill. I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), for her kind comments about the actions that I have taken on such cases in the short time that I have been the Minister. I was appalled—I have said that before publicly as well as privately—at the length of time that it was taking for cases concerning the terminally ill to be assessed and for payments to be made. I think that when I arrived in this post, the period was around 28 days. Under the previous disability living allowance system, which was not strictly comparable, the period would have been about 10 days. I want it to come down; I have anecdotal evidence that it is around three to eight days now. As I said to the Work and Pensions Committee, an average of five days is perhaps where we need to be. We need to ensure that these people who so desperately need help get it quickly.

I have worked particularly closely with Macmillan Cancer Support to develop some new methodologies. For instance, it is very difficult for someone visiting a terminally ill person to be on the phone to someone else while they are talking to the person they are looking after; that is particularly difficult with Macmillan cases. So we are going to set up a pilot whereby we give Macmillan the forms there and then, so that they have them on file and we can get them back and through the system more quickly. Macmillan said that it did not like the call system; it kept their nurses and other health professionals waiting for too long. So we are going to work with Macmillan and pilot that new scheme. And we will move from that scheme to secure portable document format, or PDF. That is what most of our GPs use when they deal with insurance companies or anybody else. Hopefully we will continue to review matters and we can continue to reduce the time that it takes to deal with these cases.

In an intervention, the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) said that he hoped I would not just read out the speech that had been prepared for me. He knows me better than that; I have never read a speech in this House that has been prepared for me. I will continue to respond to Members as best I can and, of course, if I am unable to answer the questions in the time that I am allowed, we will write to individual colleagues and ensure that they have the information they need for their constituents.

Do I, as the Minister of State responsible for this portfolio, take responsibility for it? Yes, I do. That is the way that Ministers should act. There was a former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in Westminster Hall earlier, the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain). He is not in Westminster Hall at the moment, but I went to him when I was a Back-Bench MP and said to him, “You are the Secretary of State. You’ve got to take responsibility.” That is exactly what he did.

Whether I make the right decision or the wrong decision will be for others to decide. However, one of the reasons that I wanted this portfolio was to make a difference. The old DLA system was broken; that was alluded to by the hon. Member for Cardiff West. Under that system, less than 6% of claimants had face-to-face interviews; most people were given a paper-based assessment for life. In the case of some people, that was absolutely right and proper, but for an awful lot of people it was not. For instance, it was particularly bad for people with mental health issues, because they could not get the upper rate on the old DLA, really. With PIP, they will be able to.

The hon. Member for Newport East asked me about the roll-out of this system. It has been rolled out in Wales; it is out, in its entirety, for reconsiderations as well as for new claims. So, the one area that I can see the new system in its entirety is Wales. We will break down the data and ensure that it is available to Welsh MPs, so that we can provide feedback. It is too early to give the full basis of the data, and the Audit Commission has also said that.

[Mark Tami]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mike Penning]

I will just finish this point on the Audit Commission, because the Audit Commission was quoted several times. As I was saying, the commission also said that it was too early to see whether the new system would be value for money, because the information is not here yet. I just wanted to balance that argument a bit.

[Mark Tami]

Before the Minister moves off the subject of mental health, one of the other important issues is that, depending on what is wrong with them, people have good days and bad days. It is important to get an all-round picture of their issues, rather than just an on-the-spot assessment—“Yes, they’re OK. Fine.”

[Mike Penning]

I completely taken on board what the hon. Gentleman says. Indeed, what is just as important is that people with mental disabilities often have other disabilities as well and they need to be treated as an individual case, with all their disabilities considered in their entirety.

We are working very closely with Capita. The Capita model is different from the Atos model. As was alluded to by the shadow Minister, Capita is doing 60% of its work within the home and 40% in other assessments. It is completely unacceptable if someone is being asked to travel the distances that we have heard about today. The maximum time someone should travel is 90 minutes. In rural communities, which were referred to in the debate, even that length of time is really difficult, because travelling for 90 minutes in a big capital city is completely different from travelling for the same time in a rural community. I have asked my officials to begin a review today about the access issues that people are having. They will review not only the time that it takes for people to go to an assessment centre but the time it takes for Capita to come to a person’s home, because travelling time is not considered as part of the time for the assessment. I will come on to that in a moment.

[Susan Elan Jones]

Can the Minister tell us how bad Capita has to get before, in his estimation, any fine would be imposed upon it by the Government?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

If the hon. Lady will be patient, I have another four minutes to speak and I will certainly address that issue.

With the contracts that were issued, there is not a change to a paper-based system. From day one, the perception was that the split should be 75:25 between face-to-face interviews and paper-based assessments. I have said that to the Work and Pensions Committee before. With the DLA, only 6% of claimants were interviewed face to face and nationally we are around about 97% for face-to-face interviews. So there is not a movement away from face-to-face interviews; actually, where we are trying to get to is where we were supposed to be in the first place, which is around 75% of interviews being conducted face to face and 25% of claimants being dealt with by paper-based assessments.

The contract with Capita allows for penalties and we are imposing financial penalties on it where it is not meeting its targets. That process is taking place now and we will continue with it. However, the best thing to do is for us to work with Capita to get accurate assessments.

The point about accuracy is the one that I will touch on for the remaining few minutes. One type of issue that we have is quality issues. We have been really tough, and previous Ministers were very tough, on both Capita and Atos about PIP regarding quality. Because of that, those companies have been very concerned—I have used the word “frightened” before, but they are certainly concerned—about ensuring they get things right, which is one of the reasons why we have nowhere near the number of appeals that we may have expected or that were made under previous benefit systems.

One reason for that is that we have put our staff into the offices of companies, particularly those of Capita, and we will probably do that elsewhere. It gives staff the confidence to make the decisions on the paper-based assessments. Very often, although staff feel they have the information in front of them, they are not sure about making a decision because they fear they will be hit on quality—“The audit will come down and say we should have done this”—so they have pushed the case through to a face-to-face interview. That is actually increasing the delays. We want to give people confidence; that is why our officials are there.

The question was asked, “Where do these officials come from?” Many of them are actually officials waiting for these decisions to come back, so I have a capacity of people sitting there and waiting for decisions to come back. That is why we are putting people at the right grade into the offices of Capita to ensure that we can get better movement and that we get the split down to a manageable one; I hope it will be a 75:25 split.

We will probably announce the review later on today, if not tomorrow, outlining who will do the review and how we move on from it.

The truth of the matter is that there will be people who benefit from PIP and there will be people who do not benefit from it. However, what they need is decisions and we need to communicate with them much better. We are introducing a text system so that people will be better informed as to where they are within the queue system. That is slightly more complicated in certain parts of the country than others. We can text—

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

Order. I am very grateful to the Minister, and to Members, for what was a full debate. The Minister has indicated that he will write to Members.

Work Capability Assessment

Mike Penning Excerpts

Wednesday 9th April 2014 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mike Penning)]

As usual, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Weir. I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) on securing this short debate.

I have looked extensively at some of the correspondence that the hon. Lady has had with Sir Andrew Dilnot, who runs the UK Statistics Authority. She had let me see a copy of her speech—she has stuck rigidly to the letter of it—so that I could do some research. I was slightly surprised, as I believe that Sir Andrew has answered, in his letters to her, many of the questions that she raised today. However, I will try to elaborate on that a bit.

Mandatory reconsiderations were brought in for reasons that I think we would all agree with: to ensure that we get the decisions right before we go down the enormously costly and lengthy route of tribunals and appeals—costly to the taxpayer and to the individual. A mandatory reconsideration can produce the right decision earlier.

We have debated at length as to how we can get a shorter distance, so that we can get the right decision through. Tribunals and appeals are enormously stressful for claimants, and sometimes the length of time is unnecessary. If we can get the decision appraised before it goes down the tribunal route, which we are doing with mandatory reconsiderations, we can save a lot of time, and it would be unnecessary to go through the tribunal. It still leaves an opportunity for the individual, should they wish, to go through the appeals and tribunal process, but if we can get the decision right, there will be no need to do so, which I am sure is what we would all like to see.

The issue about reconsideration of the statistics, which is the main thrust of the hon. Lady’s speech, was something that I thought Sir Andrew Dilnot’s letters to her, copies of which I have seen, have extensively answered, particularly the one of 21 February 2014. She quoted extensively from the letter, but some other quotes from that letter are relevant. He stated,

“since the publication of the statistics is up to 10 months behind the application reference point, we expect it to take some time for the effects of such procedural changes to flow through into the published statistics.”

He went on to say that departmental statisticians

“will consider your request for more detailed presentations of the statistics”.

That is exactly what the letter said. He went on to look at that.

The hon. Lady will know, as will the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, who is in the Chamber, that it is not possible for a Minister to instruct his departmental statisticians to do statistics in a certain way. We can look at something—that is exactly what we are doing—but I cannot instruct the statisticians to produce statistics in the way that the hon. Lady has asked. I think there is some merit in what she is asking to be done, but it will be for Sir Andrew Dilnot and his team and my statisticians to work together on that. I know that the hon. Lady corresponds extensively with Sir Andrew Dilnot and I am sure that he will confirm what I have said.

It is important that the statistics are right; all hon. Members would want that. The rationale behind mandatory reconsideration was to get the whole thing right. Sir Andrew Dilnot stated in his letter of 21 February that it was too early to have the sort of statistics that the hon. Lady mentioned. I am more than happy—and I have—in the light of the letters that I have seen, and in the light of the hon. Lady’s requests in correspondence with Sir Andrew Dilnot, and his comments, to ask my statisticians to look at this to see whether what she has asked for is possible. But I stress again that, as a Minister of the Crown, I cannot instruct statisticians in my Department to do what she asked. It was for them to make sure that we have a robust situation, but I can imagine the controversy that there would be in the House if a Minister was speaking in the House and it became public knowledge that statisticians had been instructed by a Minister to do things in a certain way.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I can understand why it would be a matter of concern if a Minister told statisticians not to record something, but surely a Minister will have a view about the form of statistics and the kind of information to be published; and presumably, these are bits of management information which are there anyway.

[Mike Penning]

Certainly, Ministers have a view on lots of things, but there is a difference between having a view and instructing departmental statisticians to do their statistics in a certain way. I have asked whether I have the powers to do so, should I wish to do so, and I understand, having received advice, that I do not. It is for my statisticians to work on producing statistics on mandatory reconsideration in a way that is as informative as possible, working with the UK Statistics Authority.

Regarding the clarification of that point, and with regard to the very narrow title of this afternoon’s debate, I honestly thought that Sir Andrew Dilnot had answered the questions that the hon. Lady has asked in this debate, which is why I reiterate that I was slightly surprised that we had the debate. The hon. Lady knows that my door is always open. We could have openly discussed this matter, if she had had anything to clarify. I know that Sir Andrew Dilnot’s officials are listening to this debate and want to work with her.

At the moment the information is not ready. It is not in the format that she is asking for. As soon as it is ready it will be published. It may not be in the perfect format that the hon. Lady is looking for. I have asked for this matter to be reviewed, and Sir Andrew Dilnot is doing the same thing, and I look forward to the response. However, I cannot instruct the statisticians to do so and I would not do so.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I was not suggesting that a lot of the data would already be there, but we are expecting far more such decisions to be taken. It is important to start planning for that, as I am sure the Minister would agree.

[Mike Penning]

That is exactly what the statisticians are planning for. Actually, with mandatory reconsideration we were trying to see whether we could get the decisions right before they went to appeal. It is early days yet—it is a bit like the early days with the personal independence payment, which we were discussing only this morning, where the early data reveal that the number of cases going to appeal is a lot less than expected. It does appear that the mandatory reconsideration work is working, but when the statistics come forward that will be for everybody to know.

I know that those in Sir Andrew Dilnot’s office are listening to this debate and I am sure that they will correspond with the hon. Lady on the points that I have raised in the debate and on points raised by her as well.

Question put and agreed to.

Office for Nuclear Regulation

Mike Penning Excerpts

Wednesday 9th April 2014 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mike Penning)]

Following my announcement on 1 April 2014 of the launch of the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) as an independent public corporation, I will place a copy of the ONR annual plan for 2014-15 in the House Library. The annual plan has also been published on the ONR website at: http://www.onr.org.uk/documents/2014/onr-annual-plan-14-15.pdf.

I can confirm, in accordance with schedule 7, section 25(3) of the Energy Act 2013, that there have been no exclusions to the published document on the grounds of national security.

I will place a copy of the ONR/DWP framework document, which sets out the sponsorship arrangements between the Department and the ONR, in the House Library. It is also available on the ONR website at: http://www.onr.org.uk/documents/2014/onr-dwp-framework.pdf.

Incapacity Benefit Migration

Mike Penning Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2014 Westminster Hall

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner, and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore). The Minister and I agree that since she arrived in the House she has made a dramatic contribution on the issue of work and pensions, the way in which the Department functions and how the Labour party develops its policy on the issue.

I will start on a point of consensus. Everybody in the Chamber believes that the best route out of poverty for the vast majority of people is work. That is not as easy for some people as it is for others. Some people start life with phenomenal advantages, whether it is an uncle who can ring up somebody and secure a job for them, an easy route into an apprenticeship or an internship, or the financial freedom to leave university with no debt. We all agree that the social security system must be there for everybody in their time of need. We may think we will never have a moment of need in our life, but it may come suddenly. For some people it lasts for a protracted period, and for others it lasts throughout their lives.

Notwithstanding the sometimes exaggerated and sometimes deliberately misleading fulminations in the press, the vast majority of people want to live in a country in which we all put a little more into the pot to support those who have profound disabilities and who genuinely find it difficult to work and provide for themselves and their families. It is not just that we know that one day we might need to rely on that support ourselves. We also all agree that “need” is not the same thing as “want”. Sometimes people want financial support from the taxpayer, or from wherever else, but do not actually need it. Occasionally, the most supportive and honourable course is to say, “No, there is not going to be a benefit available to you, and you are going to have to pursue as hard as you can any work opportunities there might be.”

I am MP for an area in which a large number of people of working age—between 25% and 27%—are on some form of incapacity or disability benefit. That is much higher than in most areas of the country, largely because for a period one industry was entirely dominant. In four generations, that industry went from employing 75,000 men to employing nobody. Many people in Rhondda used to suffer from conditions associated with mining—particularly musculoskeletal and chest conditions—but today those who have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease are far more likely to have it because of smoking than because they worked in a mine. However, patterns of poverty and multiple levels of deprivation are, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East said, often concentrated in areas in which one heavy industry—whether shipbuilding, iron, steel or coal—dominated and then disappeared. That creates a set of challenges for how we support disabled people through the social security system.

As my hon. Friend said, Governments of both stripes—there are three stripes now, because we have had coalition, Labour and Conservative Governments—have found it challenging to get this issue right. We want to show compassion to those who are in need, but the Treasury and the taxpayer have legitimate concerns. I have a passionate desire to see as many people as possible working who would otherwise be living in poverty, because, frankly, a life on benefits is not the fullest life available to the vast majority of people. I conceive trying to get as many people as possible into work as a socialist endeavour. I say gently to the Minister that when the Secretary of State and other Ministers suggest that Labour had no interest in people on disability benefits throughout our 13 years in government, that is a misrepresentation, and in their heart of hearts they know it.

Something else on which the Minister and I can agree is that people with disabilities face significant disadvantages in the workplace. It is not just the obvious disabilities such as blindness and deafness or being in a wheelchair that make it more difficult for people to get jobs; it is often much more difficult for people to sustain paid employment when they have a condition that is not linear, continuous or regular but has a chaotic pattern. A lot of work in former industrial areas is no longer available in those areas and people are required to travel. There are significant challenges for those with disabilities and they must be taken into consideration.

Disabilities tend to come not as single spies, but as battalions. Someone who is out of work because of one disability for more than six months is six times more likely to acquire a significant mental health problem. Mental health conditions are often the most difficult to assess in terms of need, and mental health charities have argued strongly that the best route back to mental health for the majority is going into work. It provides self-esteem, as my hon. Friend said, it socialises people so that they are not isolated at home, and it improves their financial situation. When all those issues are considered, the more we can do to get more people into work the better.

One of my biggest concerns about the cost of social security when we were in government was that it was often born in the mental health of those who were still out of work because they had no opportunity to change their situation. People on incapacity benefit often experience a double layer of anxiety because their next-door neighbours may think they are swinging the lead and automatically presume that a mental health problem is not as serious as a physical problem. Clearly that is not true, but the stigma attached to mental health is significant. Some 50% of the people we are talking about may be in receipt of benefits for conditions related to mental health or with a mental health condition on top of other problems. That is one of the most difficult problems in enabling people to get into work, and tackling it is a challenge.

I also believe, as does the Minister—I have never heard him say so, but I think he agrees—that the move we undertook before the last general election away from the old set of benefits to employment and support allowance was right. It provided greater consistency and coherence and we were right to insist that instead of assessing what someone could not do, we should assess what they could do.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mike Penning)]

As Hansard may not be able to record my nod, may I say that I completely agree with what the previous Government were trying to do before the last election? Assessment is vital, and I reiterate the shadow Minister’s point that the issue should be what someone can do rather than what they cannot do. That should apply to life in general, not just to work.

[Chris Bryant]

I am grateful for the Minister’s intervention. I am aware from my experience in the Rhondda that historically, under both Conservative and Labour Governments, when mines closed there were many men with musculoskeletal or chest problems related to their work in the mines who could no longer work in a mine or do heavy labour, but there were other jobs they could have done. In many places, it became part of the mindset that someone was either fit for work or unfit for work. Those were the only two categories. I wonder whether the phrase “fit for work” contributes to that. This may be a trite comment, but Douglas Bader worked. I know many constituents with profound disabilities who work hard every day, but others find it much more challenging. There is a mindset in some parts of the country that has been difficult to transform over the years.

Some years ago, before ESA was introduced, a man came to my surgery having been assessed as fit for work. He told me angrily that that was disgraceful because he had had a heart attack 14 years previously and two major operations, and had been on incapacity benefit since then, but he had worked all his life. I suggested that he had not worked all his life, and he said he had worked all his working life. I said that I was not a doctor and could not assess whether he was fit for work because I had no means of working that out. He said, “I knew you’d be rubbish. Everyone tells me you’re rubbish, and the worst of it is that the Labour party is so pathetic in the benefits it gives me that I have to go and mix cement on a building site every day of the week.”

What was shocking about that was not so much the fact that he did not quite understand the system and that he was clearly fit for work because he went to work every day and did manual labour, but that he thought that was a legitimate argument to put to a Member of Parliament. Fortunately, he had already given me his name and address so he was not in receipt of benefits thereafter. I hope he went on to get a proper job that was more fulfilling for him instead of going through the black market. If the ingenuity that some people have used in the black market were used in the legitimate market, we might be a far more entrepreneurial nation.

[Mike Penning]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman was coming to this, but we have all heard of such examples face to face in our constituency surgeries, although perhaps not so abruptly. Such behaviour is damaging to those who receive benefits because they are not capable or working, and infuriates disabled people who are in work and have worked all their lives. I am thinking of a proud Welshman, Simon Weston, who we all know has given so much to his country and was recently voted the nation’s most heroic figure. Not only is he an entrepreneur, but I understand that he has never taken sickness benefit at any time, even though his injuries are profound.

[Chris Bryant]

I do not want to leap from that to the suggestion that someone who is in receipt of disability benefit is not a hero. The situation often depends on someone’s family and community support, the nature of their condition and so on. Sometimes a single condition may be predictable in how it will play out for the rest of the sufferer’s life. Other conditions, particularly degenerative ones, are much more chaotic and their effects cannot be predicted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I cannot set the alarm on nearly any of the things in my house and I have not got children to be able to do it for me—they are basic skills. I will move on, if I may.

It is also true, as I think we all agree, that poor initial decisions end up being expensive for everyone. I think Governments of whatever stripe would like to be able to improve the quality of initial decisions. As was found in the run-up to 2013, £26.3 million had been spent on the tribunal service. The Government have changed the way in which that operates, and I shall come to that later, but when 19% of appeals are still overturning the initial decision, a lot of money is effectively going down the drain on behalf of the taxpayer. I suppose some lawyers would say that paying them is not money going down the drain, but if we could improve the quality of initial decisions, whether that is down to form-filling, ensuring that the correct information is available from the very beginning, or whatever it is, we would be saving ourselves time and energy, and most importantly, saving a great deal of heartache for a considerable number of people.

I shall move on to some of the problems that exist at the moment. It is uncontested that Atos has not been a great success. I think Atos itself would say that—in fact, it has done. It has effectively put its hand up and said that it has not been a great success. We note that the Government are now ending the deal; that is an established fact, but I would like to ask the Minister a few questions and if he is not able to answer fully now, I completely understand, because the questions are relatively technical, but I should be grateful if he would write to me.

The Minister referred, I think in questions on Monday, to the fact that Atos will be paying him—

[Mike Penning]

Not me personally.

[Chris Bryant]

No, not him personally—paying the Government. Will the Minister clarify exactly how anyone is arriving at a figure and what that figure is likely to be, because it will undoubtedly affect whatever the tender process is for a new contract? Will he also lay out exactly how he thinks that new tender process will go? Does he have a time scale for it? When does he think that might be in play?

I note that Atos said that it has been worried about death threats for its staff and so on. Even if we were to take out of the equation the fact that lots of people think Atos has done a terrible job—people have been able to point to some terrible mistakes and hideous instances where people who were either already dead or nearly dead were being told that they were fit for work, which has undoubtedly inspired a great deal of anger—whoever is doing work capability assessments in future will have to make unpopular decisions, by definition, because they will be turning some people down. What assessment have the Government made of the provision that there needs to be in any tender process, or for that matter, in future ongoing relations with whatever company will be doing this, to make sure that there is protection and that security is not compromised?

Capacity is another issue. Certainly by mid-2010 or by the end of 2010, it was pretty clear that there were not enough doctors and other medical staff—or, for that matter, administrative staff—to be able to do the work at Atos, so how do we make sure in any future tender that that does not happen all over again? It means that even if the Government want to say, “We are going to do more assessments,” they are unable to do so, which is why, because of the capacity problems, the Government have had to change what they are doing about people who are already coming up for reassessment after two years. Making sure that the capacity is there from the start is an important part of it.

As I said, the Government have now suspended reassessment for those on ESA for two years. I wonder what the cost of that is now going to be. I presume that the Government have made an assessment of that, because they would have been presuming that the reassessment was there for a purpose and that it would take more people off ESA. I wonder how many people they reckon will stay on who, in a sense, they would have thought otherwise might not be on it. The Government made assumptions when they introduced the policy, which they are presumably now unbundling. What are they assessing the future cost to be for each of the future years? How many people does that affect? How many people on ESA for two years would have been being assessed now, but are not being assessed?

On cost, the Office for Budget Responsibility report states:

“ESA is higher by £0.8 billion in 2014-15 and 2015-16…because the latest evidence suggests the caseload is higher than we assumed in December, despite substantial upward revisions made at that time. We have also updated the modelling on repeat work capability assessments, which has increased our assumption about the length of time and number of claimants waiting for a repeat assessment, meaning more claims continue for longer”.

It may be that I have just answered my previous question to the Minister, because it may be that the £800 million is all to do with not doing the extra reassessments—in which case, does he have any idea when we might be able to start doing reassessments? That might be a capacity question, but that £800 million is a significant cost.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

That rather chimes with what I was suggesting, and the Minister has just winked at me, for the record, so I can only assume that that was not a personal recommendation, but—

[Mike Penning]

I have a piece of grit in my eye.

[Chris Bryant]

I hope it is not a plank. Anyway, I hope that we are singing from the same hymn sheet.

I have one more serious point, which relates to mandatory reconsideration. Obviously, the Government have changed the system of appeals. We have now moved on to the system of mandatory reconsideration. There seems to be some evidence that that has meant that quite a lot of people have shifted on to JSA, because they are nervous about what will happen. That may, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) says, take them away from further support, rather than end up enabling them to get into work. I want to ask the Minister how many people that now applies to. Is the number of people seeking mandatory reconsideration higher or lower than the previous number of people who would go for appeal?

Because the Department has no fixed limit on how long the process can take, I wonder how long on average it is taking for a mandatory reconsideration to be arrived at. Someone would be in limbo, potentially, for a considerable time. We have seen that in other areas. For instance, assessments for the personal independence payment have been taking three months, six months, nine months, a year and so on. I think that all of us would be rather hesitant about allowing the Government to have a blank sheet on this and to reply whenever they felt like it.

I would like to talk about sanctions, but a debate is happening in the main Chamber on sanctions, so I think that we will leave that issue to hon. Members who are there. As I said, I hope that where the Minister is not able to provide instant answers, he will write to me. If he has not replied at the end, I will write him a letter, so he will have to write to me then anyway.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mike Penning)]

It is a pleasure to respond under your chairmanship, Mr Turner, to this wide-ranging debate on incapacity benefit migration. Let me touch on the last point made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). He knows me well enough to know that I will naturally write to him and other colleagues on any points that I do not manage to cover in my contribution. I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) on securing the debate. She and other colleagues know that my door is open. She has used that opportunity to come to see me in the past, and I am sure that she will come to see me in the future.

If it is okay with you, Mr Turner, I will not go back over the history of this matter, because the hon. Lady covered it eloquently. I will touch on some of the relevant issues that are around now; obviously, some of them have existed since the system’s inception.

There will be some Members and other people who passionately believe that assessment should not take place. I disagree with them, and I think that the hon. Lady is agreeing with me, from a sedentary position, that assessments should take place; I think that that is her position.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I certainly agree that assessment should take place. I am not sure how, without assessment, we could establish that people were unwell or incapable of work, however we want to define it. The question is really about the process that we use.

[Mike Penning]

I wanted to give the hon. Lady the opportunity to clarify her position. In some cases, face-to-face assessments are what is required, unlike on IB where it was hardly ever face to face.

[Sheila Gilmore]

On the question of face-to-face assessments, one of the interesting points has been that sometimes they are better and sometimes they are not. It depends on the person. One of the things that I have come across in the past year or so is that quite a large number of people have been reassessed on paper rather than face to face, but have been placed in the work-related activity group and later discovered that not all the information was in the paperwork in the first place. I can see that we need both.

[Mike Penning]

As I said, there are some who agree with us that in certain circumstances, face to face is required. I passionately believe that face to face is not required in every case, whether in the WCA or in PIP. We have to make sure that we get it right. There are people who do not think that that should be the case.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I am very sorry that I have not been able to be part of the debate, because I was taking part in the sanctions debate. On that point, would it be possible to consider face to face if a different decision was due to be made? If someone was going to continue in the support group or in the WRAG, they would not need to be called in for the face-to-face interview, but if a different decision was to be made, that is when a face-to-face interview should take place.

[Mike Penning]

I am not certain that that would work, not least because decisions that had been made would also have to be reversed. The decision must be based on the evidence that is before the decision makers. I agree with many of the things that the shadow Minister has said, but it is crucial that we remember that this is not about diagnosis. The diagnosis has been done by the clinical experts. In response to the shadow Minister’s concern about a drain on NHS doctors, a lot of the assessments are done not by doctors, but by trained clinicians.

Like other hon. Members, as a constituency MP I have had correspondence about the matter, so when I took on this portfolio a couple of months ago I desperately wanted to dig down and look at it. Dr Litchfield’s report came out almost simultaneously with my arrival in post. One of the first things I did was to go off to a tribunal and listen, as a member of the public can do, to two cases being put before the tribunal judges. As I left the building, I said to my officials—I have said this in the House before—“Clearly, we are not getting decisions right.” The first case that I listened to should not have been at the tribunal; we should have sorted it out before. In the second one, interestingly enough, the Department had not seen the evidence until the morning of the hearing. Extra evidence was produced, and the judge had used his autonomy to waive the four-week rule and allow it to be presented.

I have been urgently looking at how we get the right decisions by ATOS professionals being sent to our decision makers. The final decision is made by the Department, not by Atos; Atos makes a recommendation and we look at it. I looked carefully at the quality of the decisions that were coming from our contractor, which in this case was Atos. I have said on the record several times that I was not happy at all about the quality of the decisions. Before I arrived, the Department had been putting pressure on Atos to improve quality, so we were also starting to get an ever-increasing backlog. So many cases that could have been decided through paper assessments were instead being assessed face to face. Even then, people were appealing, and because we were getting the assessments wrong, we were losing the appeals.

We will always lose some appeals, as the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), knows. It is for judges to weigh up what the will of Parliament was in making regulations, and apply that to the case before them. I was keen to make sure that we got this right, because we are talking not only about taxpayers’ money, but about individuals. The shadow Minister described the welfare system as a safety net. For some people, it will be there from birth onwards, and for others it will come into play because of circumstances, events, traumas and illnesses over the course of their lives.

The shadow Minister was quite right to say that there will be things that I will be unable to answer, and other things that I will not be able to discuss because of confidentiality within contractual obligations. Regarding Atos’s decision to exit its contract early, I was pressurised by colleagues from both sides of the House to remove or sack Atos. One of the shadow Minister’s colleagues said that I should sack Atos. The problem with that was that because of the form of the contract, we would almost certainly have had to pay compensation to Atos, and I do not think that anybody inside or outside the House would have wanted us to do that. We have negotiated an early exit for Atos and have arranged for a team to work alongside its management as it continues to do the work while we exit it. I cannot simply turn off the tap, because we would have no capacity. The biggest issue with Atos has been with its management controls, rather than with its front-line decision making.

[Dame Anne Begg]

Under the original time scale, the migration from incapacity benefit to ESA was meant to have been completed by now—I believe the date was the end of March 2014—but a sizeable number of people have yet to be migrated from IB to ESA. The original contract must have worked to the original time scale, so Atos surely was not still contracted to carry out the migration, even though it was contracted to do the reassessment. Surely, an automatic break must have been built into the contract; otherwise, Atos would still have been employed even when there was no work to be done, because it was meant to have been finished by now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

Clearly, as the Select Committee knows, Atos was already getting into backlogs. That is why I talked about turning off the tap—stopping the reassessments and doing only the new applications, to ensure that we got those right. By doing that, we were allowing people who needed it to get through the system as fast as possible, and we intended to get to those who already had it later, because the backlog was becoming intolerable and unacceptable.

When I made the statement last week, we also issued an invitation to tender. We had already put out an invitation to tender for multiple contractors. We cannot go as fast as we would like with Atos leaving, so we will now be seeking a tender from a single contractor, and within that process there will be the decision to move to multiple contractors. That gives us a great opportunity to make the contract into a better format than we had before. We can deal with capacity issues by making sure that we get the flow correct and take care of the backlogs. Atos is still committed to working on the backlogs as we approach the date of its exit. There are issues around the software that we are using, which is Atos’s software and which we will continue to use. The new contract gives us an opportunity to migrate to a new supplier with the capacity and the skills that we need. We also have an opportunity to learn from Dr Litchfield’s report so that we get the assessments right, particularly when it comes to mental health, which the shadow Minister mentioned.

[Sheila Gilmore]

There clearly is a capacity problem, which has been building up. The Select Committee raised that point back in 2011, when there were problems with potential capacity. Will it be more expensive to take on a new contractor to get the capacity right, or does the Minister feel changes could be made, for example on reassessments, which could keep the cost down, similar to that with Atos?

[Mike Penning]

I think we are going to have to wait for the tenders to come in, but we are asking for a contract of a different sort from that let to Atos in 2008. No Minister coming into government is allowed to see advice from a previous Administration. With hindsight, that is probably right, although I have struggled with it in the three Departments I have been in over the past four years. One difficulty is that I therefore cannot see the assumptions that Atos made, based on the bid, about how it was going to make a profit out of its part of the scheme. I can now see such detail going forward, and there will be assumptions in the contract about what the profit margins will be, but the biggest thing for me will be putting capacity and quality together simultaneously. If we do not get that right, we will end up in the position to which the hon. Lady alluded.

Capacity is important, but—this falls partly within my ministerial portfolio, but not wholly—so is getting individual help to those moved on to the Work programme. Getting that right is really important. I will write to colleagues with more up-to-date figures on where we are on that, but it is crucial that we give confidence to people who want to go into work that they can go into work. Many people think that they cannot work until we give them the confidence and skills to return to the workplace or to enter it for the first time.

Something that I have touched on a couple of times, but will mention again, is the fact that when the Prime Minister asked me to take on my new portfolio, which is very different from how previous Administrations, and indeed the current Government, have previously run things, I asked for responsibility for the Health and Safety Executive. One of the biggest reasons was that I am an ex-firefighter, so I have seen how health and safety can work to make the environment we live in much safer, but I have also all too often seen health and safety being abused and used as an excuse for why something cannot be done, whether in the leisure or commercial sector. I was passionate in thinking that if I could look after health and safety along with my other responsibilities, I could break some of the myths about why people cannot get back into the workplace, or ensure that disabled people already in the workplace did not have to leave. We are currently working on that, and that has gone down particularly well with commerce and a lot of disability groups.

There have been some myths out there about why people cannot work. It is all about confidence. That is why I have been taking the Disability Confident campaign around the country, asking employers to give people an opportunity and to have the confidence to take people on. The larger companies have always been good at that, but small and medium-sized enterprises, which employ more people in this country than all the corporates put together, have some real confidence issues. We have been ensuring that they have as much confidence as possible.

[Mr Adrian Sanders in the Chair]

It has been a real eye-opener for me to be in a position to see Atos coming away from the system and the new contracts being issued. I have tried desperately to ensure that we listen, because no matter what our political colours, I passionately believe that we need to get this right. That is true not only of me—Ministers and Governments come and go—but of all of us, because we must get the right system in place for those who need it. It must be right for the taxpayer and for those who need help.

It has been a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for about 30 seconds, Mr Sanders. I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh East on her debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Office for Nuclear Regulation

Mike Penning Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2014 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mike Penning)]

Today, I am announcing that the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) has been created as the new independent statutory regulator of the nuclear sector. This follows my signing of an Order under part 3 of the Energy Act 2013 for this purpose. The ONR will operate as a public corporation.

The new ONR is responsible for the regulation of nuclear safety, nuclear site health and safety, nuclear security, nuclear safeguards and the transport of radioactive material.

As a public corporation outside of Government, the new regulator has increased agility to address the regulatory demands of an expanding nuclear industry, holding it to account on behalf of the public.

The Government announced plans in February 2011 for primary legislation to create this new regulatory body. The Energy Act 2013, which received Royal Assent in December last year, and its associated secondary legislation, provides the statutory basis for the new body’s operations.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Penning Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

9. What progress he has made on the mesothelioma compensation fund scheme; and if he will make a statement.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mike Penning)]

I am proud to say that the Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme Regulations 2014 were passed by the House on 17 March, and the scheme administrator is in place. Applications will be accepted from next month, and we will make the first payments in July, as planned.

[Alison Seabeck]

Can the Minister explain why this morning, following an earlier inquiry on my part, there is nothing on the Department’s website, nothing on the gov.uk website and nothing on the website of Gallagher Bassett, the scheme administrator, although the scheme is intended to be up and running early in April? My constituents who suffer from this disease want to know how to apply. I think that the Minister is cutting it a bit fine.

[Mike Penning]

We may be cutting it a bit fine, but we want to get it right. We do not want people to try to apply before it is possible for them to do so. I find it difficult to understand why any Opposition Member should deny that this is a wonderful scheme that gives hope to people with a disgusting, horrible disease. Those people received nothing previously, which is why the scheme is so important.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

In a previous profession I represented many victims of this terrible disease and I welcome the fact that the coalition has managed to get approval for the mesothelioma fund on the statute and also secured enhanced damages. Does the Minister agree not only that this will make a very big difference in the north-east, where there is a high prevalence of this disease, but also that the focus now must be on enhanced publicity so all the victims know just what they have to do to get the compensation?

[Mike Penning]

I could not agree more and I was very proud to be able to announce that we will be raising the benefit to 80% of average civil claims. That will give £123,000 to the claimants and their loved ones, plus £7,000 in legal fees, which if they do not spend they can keep; it will not be clawed back in any shape or form. People have waited for this scheme for many years and we will do everything we can to make sure that people who deserve it get it.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

10. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of (a) the Work programme and (b) Universal Jobmatch.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

T8. A number of my constituents have contacted me to say that they are having to wait six months or even longer for an assessment for employment and support allowance or the personal independence payment. Surely that is unacceptable. What will the Minister do to make sure those people get assessments that are both accurate and prompt?

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mike Penning)]

There are two separate answers to that question. On WCA, Atos is leaving and we will bring in a new contractor before moving to multiple contractors to ensure that the suppliers can do what is said on the tin, all without paying a single piece of compensation to Atos—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Exactly the opposite, actually—Atos will be paying it to us. Secondly, PIP is being rolled out. We need to ensure that we get it right, as the hon. Gentleman said, and we will make sure that we get it through quicker. We need to make sure that the assessments are correct rather than making mistakes.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

T4. My constituent, Lyn Ward, has had a lumpectomy, a mastectomy, chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Eleven months later, she is still waiting for her PIP assessment and in desperation has gone back to work, even though she is not yet fit. When will that be sorted out?

[Mike Penning]

As I said to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), we need to make sure that we get it right as we roll out PIP. The hon. Lady can give me the details of the case if she would like. Thousands of cases have been handled correctly, and if there are mistakes we must ensure that they are addressed.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

T9. What recent assessment has the Secretary of State made of the innovation fund in helping disadvantaged young people?

[Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)]

Last week, the Select Committee on Work and Pensions published a report that recommended that the backlog for the PIP assessment should be cleared before the Government continued with the migration from the disability living allowance to PIP. Will the Government accept that? Will the fact that Atos has now lost the contract for the WCA have an impact on PIP? What action has the Minister taken to speed up new claims for PIP?

[Mike Penning]

Atos leaving the WCA contract will have no impact on the PIP part of the contract. We are making sure that we speed it up as we go. Interestingly, as the Chair of the Select Committee knows, I have turned off the tap on reassessments so that we get the initial backlog done first. The backlog is taking too long, in my own Department as well as in the two providers, but we will get it right.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

Given the German Government’s determination to clamp down on EU migrant benefit abuse, does my right hon. Friend agree that there is growing support among key EU member states for this Government’s agenda on this vital issue?

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

With thousands of PIP claimants waiting six months or more for even their medicals before they get anywhere near any money, will the Minister say exactly what penalties he is imposing on Atos and Capita for failing so abysmally?

[Mike Penning]

As I said in my previous answer, it is not just Atos and Capita that are too slow. They are under a contractual obligation to the Department and I am enforcing that contract, so where they are asked for compensation we will get that compensation.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

One of the most satisfying ways for people to get into work is often by setting up their own businesses. I am always impressed by the young entrepreneurs mugging me in my constituency to buy something from their new business. Will my right hon. Friend update us on the progress of the new enterprise allowance, in particular on how it is helping our younger entrepreneurs?

--- Later in debate ---

[Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

We read in The Guardian—it must be true—that the Secretary of State is considering charging for appeals against DWP decisions. If someone has their benefits stopped, with what money are they supposed to pay to get justice?

[Mike Penning]

That is a matter for the Secretary of State for Justice, but we have no plans whatsoever to charge for appeals or tribunals.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that, when it comes to a jobs guarantee, in the real world there is no such thing as a guaranteed job and that new, genuine jobs can be created only by growing companies?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

I find it very hard to listen to that from a former Minister in the Government who signed the original contracts with Atos, and who seemed very happy with it at the time. We have removed Atos from that work. I will look into the particular situation the right hon. Lady refers to, but I find it very difficult when Opposition Members hark on about what to do about Atos when it was they who employed it in the first place.

[Mr Speaker]

I cannot identify the individual involved—I would not be in a position to do so—so I will simply tell the House collectively that blowing one’s nose underneath a microphone is a distinctly risky enterprise.

Work Capability Assessment

Mike Penning Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2014 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mike Penning)]

The Government will be publishing today the response to the fourth independent review of the work capability assessment (WCA).

Dr Paul Litchfield carried out the review, and I welcome his findings. In carrying out his review Dr Litchfield gathered a range of evidence to provide invaluable insight into how the WCA is working.

I strongly support the principle of the work capability assessment and am committed to continuously improving the assessment process to ensure it is as fair and as accurate as possible—Dr Litchfield’s recommendations allow us to build on improvements already made to the assessment to achieve this aim.

Government have accepted or accepted with certain caveats all but one of the 32 recommendations that fall within the scope of DWP. As a result of Dr Litchfield’s recommendations we will:

Carry out a full impact assessment into the alternative approach of decision-maker triage outlined by Dr Litchfield;

Continue work already begun with the British Medical Association (BMA) to develop and co-design a new ESA113 for the collection of further medical evidence; and

Comprehensively review all letter and forms—including the ESA50 form—used in the WCA process.

As announced on 6 March, Official Report, column 67WS, I am delighted that Dr Litchfield has agreed to lead the fifth and final independent review of the WCA and I look forward to receiving his findings before the end of 2014.

Finally, the Government response to Dr Litchfield’s review also sets out what we will do as a result of the evidence-based review of the WCA descriptors.

The evidence-based review did not provide evidence that changes to the WCA descriptors would significantly improve the overall assessment. However, the findings do indicate that it might be possible to make practical improvements to the assessment process.

As such we intend to build on the experience of using a semi-structured interview topic guide during the evidence-based review and examine the possibility of health care professionals carrying out face-to-face assessments using prompts from a topic guide in WCA discussions with claimants generally.

Atos

Mike Penning Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2014 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mike Penning)]

The previous Government appointed Atos the sole provider for carrying out work capability assessments in 2008. Since this Government inherited the contract to deliver the work capability assessment, we have been committed to a process of continuous improvement.

When this Government took over responsibility for the work capability assessment we were concerned about the nature of the contract and the process we inherited from the previous Government. We immediately identified the need for considerable improvements and we undertook a series of reviews to improve the balance. When I took over responsibility, I decided to build on the work identified by my predecessors who engaged Professor Harrington, a respected occupational physician, to undertake the initial independent review. We have taken forward the recommendations from the three Harrington reviews and these have significantly improved the assessment. Today I am pleased to announce we are publishing our response to the first review by his successor Doctor Litchfield.

My commitment to performance is why my Department took immediate action last summer when we identified significant quality failures in the written reports produced by Atos following assessments.

Today I am announcing that following detailed negotiations with Atos, the Government have reached a settlement for Atos to exit the contract to deliver work capability assessments before it is due to end in August 2015.

I am pleased to confirm that Atos will not receive a single penny of compensation from the taxpayer for the early termination of their contract. Quite the contrary, I can also confirm that Atos has made a substantial financial settlement to the Department for Work and Pensions.

It is important to outline that we have learnt from the mistakes of the last contract agreed by the previous Government. We have negotiated an agreement covering the remaining term that is more robust, with an agreed performance regime that gives us confidence delivery goals will be achieved. It is that same commercial rigour that will underpin the new procurement for these services that I am announcing today.

I will shortly be issuing a notice in the Official Journal of the European Union seeking a new provider to deliver health and disability assessments including work capability assessments. My Department will now withdraw the notice issued in the Official Journal of the European Union last September.

To ensure protection for claimants and a smooth transition, I believe the most effective way to stabilise and then increase delivery is to bring in one national provider to deliver the work capability assessment, initially using elements of the Atos infrastructure. In the longer term, I am committed to moving to multiple providers to increase competition. My Department is committed to learning the lessons from these past failures and ensuring they are reflected in the design and management of future contracts, as well as the Department’s own commercial capability.

The plan is for the new contract to be awarded later this year, with a view to the new provider taking responsibility for delivery of work capability assessments by 2015. It is expected that the transfer of undertakings protection of employment regulations will apply and most of the Atos employees will transfer to the new provider. The new provider should therefore be able to step into the contract without disrupting the service. My absolute priority for the new provider will be to deliver the best service possible for claimants, increase the volume of assessments carried out and reduce waiting times. In the meantime, we will focus on delivery of assessments for those making new claims and those who have changes in their condition.

Atos is announcing today that the company will be withdrawing from delivery of work capability assessments in Great Britain (Atos will continue to deliver these assessments under its separate contract in Northern Ireland). Atos will continue to deliver personal independence payment assessments in two regions of Great Britain.

Atos will continue to deliver work capability assessments until contract exit and will be subject to a rigorous quality and service credit regime. To that end, I am appointing a remedial advisory team to work with the Atos health care management during this period to assist Atos in meeting their contractual obligations, ahead of awarding the contract to a new provider. This is being accomplished with the full co-operation of Atos who will meet all related costs.

There is strong evidence that work is good for physical and mental well-being, and that being out of work can contribute to poorer health and other negative outcomes. While we will always support people who genuinely cannot work, this Government are committed to getting as many people as possible into work. Notwithstanding the considerable improvements that we have had to make to the work capability assessment process we inherited, our reforms mean that over 650,000 people are now looking for, or preparing for, work. I am committed to ensuring that the assessments are fair and accurate and, together with robust contract management, the recommendations made by Dr Litchfield in his independent review will help us continue to improve the work capability assessment.