Universal Credit

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I will not reject the offer of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) because I am an optimist. On the road to Damascus, there is always a chance that such an individual may change his view and realise that what we are doing is the right thing. I will do my level best to persuade him that everything that he has done so far is wrong and that there is a better way—marked “coalition”.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State’s problem is that we have been here before. We were told on every occasion that everything was fine and that “Agile” programming—whatever that is—would solve all the IT problems, but now we find that “Agile” was all wrong. The problem for the Secretary of State is that he still wants to deliver this by 2017, despite the fact that he is already way behind his original timetable for delivery by then. If he accepts that there are all these problems and statements such as it is

“unlikely that Universal Credit will be…simple or cheap to administer”,

would it not be better to delay the final implementation date?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The hon. Lady is right and I agree that we have been here before: the national health IT collapse costing £13 billion; the Child Support Agency failure and £120 million crash programme; and a £7.1 billion IT project that failed. The difference is that, unlike those programmes under the Labour Government, I acted to ensure that changes were made early to deliver the programme on time and on budget.

Disabled People

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Even if there were sufficient accommodation for this huge change to take place, the trauma that people with disabilities, and in many cases their carers, will be asked to go through is simply unacceptable.

Each of the people I have described stands to lose a minimum of £401 a year. At a time of rising fuel costs and rising prices in the shops, that £401 can be the difference between having electricity or not, having a warm home or not, or having three meals a day or not. The bedroom tax is creating fear and despair among the most vulnerable in my constituency and the country.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Is it not the point that, according to the Government’s forward budgets, they expect to make a saving from the bedroom tax, but if the people affected moved there would not be a saving? That is how cynical the policy is.

[Mr Clarke]

Again, that is a good point. I think of a constituent whose case I raised with the Prime Minister. I visited her the day after our exchange. Her house has been adapted because she is in a wheelchair, which she has to use upstairs as well as downstairs, so she needed a lift. That lift was provided in one of the rooms of her house. Are we to believe that it would help society for that woman to move to a smaller house, which would also have to be adapted? Where is the sanity of that, far less the decency?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I fear that that will be the last intervention that I take. In the first instance, it is not about trying to cut how much money people get; its purpose is to direct the funds, recognising the expenditure constraints. The Opposition, in their robotic insistence on very simple, clear messages that are completely false and not based on any sense of reality, have forgotten about that. Considering that the DLA budget has gone up £10 billion in real terms—that is more than the Home Office budget or what we receive from capital gains tax and inheritance tax—it is vital that we are more sensible and intelligent in how we apply those funds.

It is perfectly clear to me that the PIP reform will be much more intelligently applied than the DLA, the costs of which spiralled, as I have suggested. We had a self-regulatory system, whereby people could essentially say that they were eligible for the benefit.

[Sheila Gilmore]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Mulholland]

I say two things to the hon. Gentleman. First, the experience of all right hon. and hon. Members is crucial; each and every one of us should be bringing constituents’ cases not only to this House, but to Ministers. That is part of how we learn.

Secondly, all Governments must be prepared to do full impact assessments of policies before they are implemented, as has been done, and then to review them constantly. I do not want the message to be sent out that the Government are afraid of doing that. We need a constant and ongoing review, and I hope we get that message. I have made that point specifically about the under-occupancy penalty, to give that policy its honest and factual name.

We have to accept that there were many flaws in the system inherited by the Government. Although undoubtedly well intentioned and in some ways positive, the Welfare Reform Act 2007 had flaws and did not always do the kind of things that we would all want it to do. It was right that it was reviewed.

The question that we should ask, and I hope we will all ask today, is not about whether reform was needed, because it very clearly was, but about whether the reforms are the right ones. We should be asking that question continually, and not from a partisan perspective on either side. Are the reforms working and delivering for disabled people? If and where they are not working, we should look into that. I have no problem in saying that and urging Ministers to review the situation on an ongoing basis.

[Sheila Gilmore]

In the course of the debates about the Welfare Reform Bill, people predicted that a number of specific issues would be difficult. For example, there was an amendment suggesting that adapted properties should be exempted from the bedroom tax. Does the hon. Gentleman now regret that his party did not support those changes?

[Greg Mulholland]

I pay tribute to the work of the Work and Pensions Committee, of which I was proud to be a member in the last Parliament. It has a vital role to play and I look forward to its ongoing reports, which should be part of the review of these policies.

The hon. Lady knows, having listened to me in debates on more than one occasion, that I personally felt unable to support the under-occupancy penalty precisely because there were not the sort of exemptions that I believed should be included. I thank Ministers for listening to at least some of my points and introducing further exemptions before the policy was introduced, but I would like more exemptions and I will continue to press for them.

During our last debate on the subject, I stood in this exact place—the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) was probably very near where she is now—and said that the Government must and should commit to a review on the specific policy. We did get that commitment. There must be a review, which should be done not only through the Department for Work and Pensions but in conjunction with councils up and down the country, so that we get an open and honest assessment of how the policy is affecting disabled people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

To justify many of their benefit changes the Government have had to construct a narrative that the system required a complete overhaul. I suspect we shall hear that from the Minister when she responds to the debate, so I shall pre-empt it with a narrative about the disability living allowance.

The DLA is old-fashioned and too reliant on physical disabilities. The Minister is fond of saying that the new system will be better for those with learning difficulties, mental health problems and so on, but if overall numbers are to be reduced—nobody has suggested they will not be—and more people with mental health problems are included, who will be excluded? We need to know that.

It has been argued that DLA is too easy to obtain, but more than half of all claims are refused when first applied for. Part of the idea that DLA is too easy to get was set out to the House again by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng). He claimed that most people get DLA by filling in a form, which is all they have to do, but that is simply not the case. Figures from the Department for Work and Pensions from 2010 state that 16% of decisions are made without “additional” information, other than the form, but that does not mean that medical information is not provided because people send it with the form. Some 36% of decisions are made on the basis of further non-medical information—remember that there may already be medical information—such as phoning the claimant to get more information or speaking to a carer, and 48% of decisions are made on the basis of further medical information or assessment. Worryingly, in a press release from as recently as June this year, the DWP again repeated that more than half of claims are made without any medical information. It is not helpful to keep repeating things that are not accurate.

The other accusation about DLA was that claims are never looked at again, and the June press release stated that 71% of current recipients “get” indefinite rewards. The tense is important because if we read “get”, we presume that something is still ongoing. In fact, in 2010, 77% of new claims were for fixed periods, and 23% were indefinite. The figure in the press release goes back to 1992, when many more indefinite claims were granted. Things have already changed. If we start making policy on the basis of false premises, and create a straw man—as the Government constantly do to justify what they are doing—the chances are that we will get things wrong.

One group of people who are very badly affected by these changes are those in the 45 to 65 age group. If they fall ill, they lose income from their job. For many couples, that means a halving of their income, and of course they will have higher costs for such things as heating. Many lose employment and support allowance after a year if they are in the work-related activity group, often because they have a partner’s earnings, even if that partner works only part time; savings towards their retirement, which they will now have to use up before they ever get to retirement age; or an early retirement pension. Given the forthcoming increase in pension age, people will be in that limbo for a lot longer. The people who have tried to help themselves are being hit particularly hard.

The same group may be among those who do not receive the personal independence payment. Some 66% of those on the lowest rate of DLA are aged over 45, so they are likely to be the most affected. That is also the age at which illness and disability are most likely to occur. If they are tenants, they are also likely to be affected by the bedroom tax. Those are important issues for that group.

Ministers constantly tell us, “Well, we’re not doing a cumulative impact assessment because the previous Government did not do one.” However, it is this Government who boast about carrying out a comprehensive and revolutionary reshaping of the welfare system. If they do not do a cumulative impact assessment when they are doing that, when would they? It is important that that is carried out properly so that we can see what is going on and make the necessary adjustments rather than simply say it will be all right on the night.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Monday 1st July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

That is a fantastic example of how local employers can work with the Work programme to deliver good outcomes for people and get them into work.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

From this month, hundreds of jobseekers, including young people, will be returned to jobcentres. The DWP originally said they would be asked to come in weekly, but I think I heard the Secretary of State say they will be coming in daily, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that new jobseekers will be coming in weekly. The problem here is that the National Audit Office has said job advisers are seeing far more jobseekers than ever before, that the time they spend with jobseekers is down, and that the DWP budget fell by 9% in last week’s spending review. Is this not just a lot of hot air? Is it not something that is not actually going to happen?

[Mr Hoban]

I remind the hon. Lady that over the last seven months the number of jobseekers has fallen. She has not welcomed that, but it is good news for her constituents and for people across the country. We want to make sure Jobcentre Plus advisers offer a good quality service. They do that, and I am very disappointed that a member of the Select Committee cannot see fit to thank Jobcentre Plus advisers for their hard work.

Pensions Bill

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Monday 17th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field). I welcome the Bill as warmly as he did in his initial comments, but I suspect that my comments will carry on being positive throughout.

It is important to put the changes in context, because the truth is that we have a coalition Government, without a majority in this House unless the two parties work together, making significant proposals on the welfare state and changes to the state pension system. Every Opposition speaker so far has welcomed those changes before moving on to criticise various specific individual points that will, I suspect, be addressed in Committee. The important point is that, despite the terrible financial background, these changes have been taken on by the coalition Government after three years, whereas for 13 years under the previous Government we saw precious little change that would have allowed people to save for their own well-being in retirement.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

I am, perhaps, risking making the debate more political than it needs to be, but cannot this reform be introduced now only because a lot of the platform is in place thanks to steps taken by the previous Government and, to a lesser extent, the Government before that?

[Guto Bebb]

That is a very interesting comment. As I saw it, the previous Government dealt with the worst circumstances faced by some pensioners, but only by creating the view that the only way to deal with people in retirement was to ensure that the state could provide through a means-tested system. The worst thing about the previous Labour Government was that those individuals in pension schemes within businesses who were saving up for retirement were punished for trying to do the right thing by ensuring that they provided for themselves in retirement. Yes, the previous Administration offered some benefits in dealing with the worst aspects of poverty for pensioners, but at the expense of the concept of self-reliance.

[Sheila Gilmore]

The platform I was trying to describe did not simply include the introduction of things such as pension credit, which has helped to finance the Bill by a considerable amount. The Labour Government introduced the state earnings-related pension scheme; a Labour Government introduced S2P. Those elements were part of the platform that makes it possible to move forward.

[Guto Bebb]

They were certainly part of the platform that created the degree of confusion and complexity that has resulted in people not saving up for their retirement. Yes, there was a state system imposed on the British public by the previous Administration but in many ways that was at the expense, I would argue, of the simple concept of a basic state pension that meant that anything and everything that a person saved above it would be beneficial to them. It should be noted that the only people who suffered significantly as a result of the changes introduced by the previous Administration were many of the self-employed and many of those in schemes operated by companies that stopped operating because of the tax charges that resulted from those changes.

The context is that this is an important and significant change. These changes to the pension provisions go hand in hand with what we are trying to do as a Government with the welfare state. All our welfare reforms are trying to ensure that work pays. In the current circumstances, it is not easy to make the changes as radical as we would like, but their implication is clear: the more someone works, the more they will benefit from that work. If they take on added hours, they will be better off. If they manage to get a promotion, they will be better off. That message is key to our proposed changes.

[Sheila Gilmore]

rose—

[Guto Bebb]

No, I will not take another intervention for the time being.

We need to send out the same message about pension saving. We need to ensure that people understand that they will be offered a basic level of state pension as a result of the changes, but—this is where the communication issue highlighted by so many Members needs to come into play—that that basic state entitlement will not be sufficient for most people to have the standard of living that they anticipate. People will understand that that basic state level of support will be there, regardless of any further savings they make towards their own retirement pots. Anything and everything above the basic level will be additional and that, in my view, will change people’s behaviour, simply because they will no longer feel that they will be punished for trying to do the right thing.

The shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne), gave some examples of where there would still be an element of means-testing in the system. We all regret that, but the truth is that we are moving significantly away from means-testing for pension provision. We should all applaud that because we want to ensure that people in work are encouraged to do the right thing, to do more for themselves and, at the same time, to save towards retirement. These are crucial changes that will change how the British public view the support offered by the state.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham]

Alas, I was not at the pensions Minister’s meeting with the Financial Times. However, the hon. Gentleman has raised a rather different question from the one I asked; I had mentioned his description of the current triple lock as a triumph of rhetoric over reality. Most of my pensioner constituents would describe it as a triumph of financial reality for their pensions.

[Sheila Gilmore]

The hon. Gentleman’s history appears to be slightly at odds with reality. The infamous 75p increase—nobody would say that it was particularly happy—was based on certain rules. It happened, I think, in 2000, so it was not the last time that the previous Labour Government raised pensions. The arrangement applied in every year of the Conservative Government after the earnings link had been broken. If inflation had provided for a 75p increase in 1996, doubtless that increase would have been given. Nothing was particularly different from what had been in place during the 18 years of Conservative Governments.

[Richard Graham]

I read modern history, not ancient history, at university. My clear recollection of recent and modern history is that the hon. Lady’s party contributed three things to the evolution of pensions. First, there was the abolition of the advance corporation tax on dividends, which has been estimated to have cost occupational pension schemes about £100 billion. Secondly, although the hon. Lady’s Government made great play of criticising the breaking of the link between pensions and earnings by an earlier Conservative Government, over 13 years her Governments failed to do anything at all about it.

Thirdly, the contrast between the 75p increase and the £234 that I have just described represents, by any standards, a pretty compellingly disappointing story for the Labour party. I will not dwell on the Labour party’s shame on the matter of pensions, because it is well known to the House. However, the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, recently described his Government’s approach over 13 years as “evolutionary”. Evolving an approach towards a single state pension over 13 years is different from putting forward a Bill and implementing a single state pension, which is what this coalition Government are doing today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in a debate on what is clearly a complex subject. Some of those who spoke earlier suggested that its complexity had reduced the number of Members wishing to contribute, but it is nevertheless hugely important. When we get pensions policy wrong, there are consequences for many years to follow. It is therefore necessary not simply to welcome a Bill such as this, but to make what I hope are constructive comments.

One problem, which may be partly of the Government’s own making—the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) alluded to it—is that the Bill has been sold on the basis of it being a great leap forward. I would describe it as a step forward, but not necessarily as great a leap as others may think.

Many of our constituents have expressed, in their correspondence, the fear that they will miss out substantially, and that they face a cliff edge. The other side of the coin is that once the new system has been introduced, Members of all parties will be approached by people saying “Hang on a minute! I thought that we were all going to receive £144 and keep all the pension that we had built up in the meantime, but now you are telling me that that will not be the case.” Of course it will not be the case.

Anyone who observes that all this will be contained in the existing cash envelope—and, possibly, in an envelope containing a diminishing amount of cash in years to come—will conclude that there must be some explanation. The explanation is that many of the building blocks that allowed this step forward to be taken are already there, in terms of Government expenditure. I would argue, and indeed did argue in an intervention earlier, that much of this Bill has been built on an existing platform, consisting partly of the development of an additional state pension over the years.

It is many years since the only provision available from the state was the state pension. Initially there was the state earnings-related pension scheme, which has been described as one of the great legislative achievements of the 1974-79 Labour Government. I am a great fan of SERPS, which was pushed through by Barbara Castle. If it had been allowed to mature, it would have had very beneficial effects. It offered the prospect of greatly improved pensions—not far short of half pay—for those who were not in an employer’s scheme. The aim was to close a gap that had existed previously and that, sadly, has existed subsequently.

[Mark Reckless]

I am puzzled by the hon. Lady’s suggestion that the Government are building on some great platform left by Labour. Surely we can either have a system with a single decent pension, or we can have the system developed by Labour, involving separate types of pension and complex arrangements whereby people pay in various sums and possibly receive more. I do not see how the former can be building on the latter; it is clearly moving in an entirely different direction.

[Sheila Gilmore]

In financial terms, it is clearly building on that platform. Had the previous system not been in place, if any Government had come along and said “We will create a flat rate pension for everyone”, the expenditure involved would have been huge. It would not have been possible to achieve this if all the other bits and pieces had not been there already. That is why many people will find that the amount they receive is not hugely different from the amount that they might have received before.

[Mark Reckless]

Surely we would otherwise have had a single state pension that would already have been a great deal higher, and nearer to the level for which we are aiming now.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I think the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that all parties—and I am not sure this had come from his party any more recently than quite recently—suggested that should be the case. What then happened was that the state earnings-related pension scheme was dismantled under a previous Conservative Government. In my view at least, the worst thing that happened was that people were given the freedom to opt out of SERPS and go into personal pension provision. In many respects, that has proved to be a disaster for a lot of people. It was an illusory freedom. I suspect that a lot of people who took that path now regret that they were ever given the freedom to do so. Although SERPS was a very good scheme and will have left people in a much better position than anything suggested since, it was dismantled.

That was one of the changes in pension provision that the then Government made, but it was not the only one. From 1995, the state scheme stopped underwriting contracted-out schemes, for example, whereas previously it had provided preservation and inflation-proofing of the guaranteed minimum pension. There are lots of ways in which pensions have been interfered with and changed, therefore. I do not think any Government have a monopoly in being able to say they have got this right or the changes they have made have been helpful.

The much-maligned—by certain people, certainly—pension credit system is another relevant measure. A considerable amount of Government expenditure has been laid out on that. The debate at the time and subsequently on pension credit was not for the most part—there were exceptions—about saying, “Everyone should get a flat-rate pension credit level.” The big debate was about the link to earnings being restored. The incoming Labour Government in 1997, faced with very severe pensioner poverty, took the route of concentrating on those in most need, and they succeeded in quickly alleviating pensioner poverty. That would not have happened if there had simply been restoration of the earnings link, as that would have taken many years to alleviate that level of pensioner poverty, nor would it have happened even in relation to the introduction of a flat-rate pension, because the pension credit system applied to all pensioners whenever they had retired, which a lot of the prospective reforms, including this one, do not do. That is why a lot of people will still be receiving means-tested top-ups for many years to come.

The last Government also introduced the revised additional state pension through the state second pension, which was particularly beneficial to low earners, and which did build in credits for people with caring responsibilities, as, indeed, did SERPS, as it was based— or would have been, if it had ever gone through to maturity—on the best 20 years of people’s earnings, which would have been particularly beneficial not just for those with caring responsibilities, but for other people with interrupted work patterns, perhaps through illness or unemployment. That issue has not been resolved by any other proposal.

I would argue, therefore, that much of what has made this step forward possible has been done already, and that this would not be financially viable otherwise. That is not to say that a means-tested top-up is the best system to go forward with for ever. When I was campaigning for election prior to 2010, there were complaints and issues about pension credit, with people feeling that those who had saved or contributed to a pension scheme were relatively disadvantaged, even if they were not actually disadvantaged. That and the work capability assessment were two issues I picked up strongly from constituents, and I came here determined to argue for change, whoever won the election. I, for one, would certainly have been seeking to move us towards a system that was not so dependent on means-testing. We have to accept, however, when we look at all the impact assessments carried out by the Government, that there will still be a substantial element of means-testing even with the changes that are proposed. That will go on for many years and we have to take it into account.

Reference has been made to some, but not all, of the issues of detail in the Bill, which are important and we have to get them right. Constituents have contacted me about the changes to bereavement benefit. I know they were flagged up some time ago, in a White Paper and so on, but it is often only when these things get close that people realise they are really about to happen. The concern is that 90% of claimants of this new bereavement benefit would be worse off under the reforms and, in particular, that parents who have the misfortune to lose their partner while their children are young will be particularly badly affected. The feeling is that the current system gives parents an opportunity to be there for their children, who have already been through the trauma of losing a parent, and to resettle them without the stress of having to go back to full-time work quickly or to enter the labour market, where previously they had not been there. Although people will be able to get universal credit in that situation if their income is particularly low, it has been pointed out that the conditionality requirements could be difficult for families going through a trauma.

One thing that I had not picked up on—perhaps the Minister will say this is wrong—is that kinship carers have been promised a relaxation of the conditionality requirements for a year after taking on the care of their grandchildren, whereas widows or widowers would have only six months’ relaxation of the conditionality. If that is the case, why are widows and widowers not being dealt with in the same way as kinship carers? That is a good question to ask.

There are also issues to deal with in relation to the changes being made to contracting out, some of which have been referred to—I am not sure this one has, although it has been brought to the attention of the Select Committee. Some people who were previously in the public sector but now work in industries no longer in that sector had been told that there would be protection for their position, and they are concerned that that will change. Private sector employers have the ability, through the override provisions that are part of the Government’s proposals, to make changes, either to contributions or to benefits, to counteract the impact of having to pay higher national insurance contributions. This particular group of former public sector workers are concerned about promises made to them previously—indeed, until fairly recently—that their protections under the protected persons regulations would never be interfered with. They fear that those may now be interfered with because of this change and they are asking for clarification from the Government.

There are other worries about the change from the contracted-out situation and the national insurance contributions. Some people have referred to the issue of public sector employers—including the NHS—facing these higher levels of national insurance contributions and the promise the Government have made that there will be no ability to change the benefits or contributions. How that will be paid for? What effect will that have on public spending in general? Are we, perhaps, simply robbing Peter to pay Paul? Will it have an impact on services in the future?

The other issue is the speed at which some private sector employers have to make changes to take all the provisions into account. I am not sure whether the Government changed the date from 2017 to 2016 simply, as has been suggested by some speakers, to allow them to understand the needs of some of the women affected by the changes or whether it was something that the Treasury wanted. The Select Committee had previously been assured by the Minister that it would not be possible to make the changes until 2017 and that it would not be practical to have an earlier start date, but suddenly an earlier start date has been put in place. The more cynical take the view that that might have had as much to do with generating additional income for the Treasury as it had to do with compassion for the women affected by the changes to their pension.

The matter is serious because the one thing that nobody wants to see is any further diminution in the provision of defined benefit pension schemes in the private sector. There are concerns that some employers, rather than going through the changes that would have to be made even with the benefit of the override, might simply decide that the time has come to close their defined benefit schemes entirely. That would mean that even fewer people would benefit from such provision and we must be clear that that should not happen. The industry is looking for some reassurance—including through early sight of regulations and of how all this will be organised—that we will not look back on these provisions, as we sometimes do on others, as another nail in the coffin of defined benefit schemes.

On the subject of concerns about raising the pension age, the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) mentioned the contributions made to previous debates by the late Malcolm Wicks, who paid considerable attention to the problems of people who had had to leave work early and who were not always able to build up their pension contributions. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has pointed out in some of its most recent work on poverty among different groups that one group in which poverty remains unchanged is those aged between 55 and 64. Pensioner poverty among the over-65s is down from 25% 10 years ago to 15%, but in the 55-to- 64 age group the figure has stayed static at 20%. The report from the foundation states:

“For some older working-age adults, the best hope of escaping poverty is to wait for state retirement age, an age which is set to rise steadily.”

One in three people between 50 and 64 is economically inactive and a fair number either have poor health or are caring for somebody with poor health or a disability. Those people are already out of the labour market, are not contributing towards pensions and might not have the opportunity to contribute. We must consider their problems, especially as the pension age is going up. The assumption that everybody will be fit and able to work, not just to 65 but to 66, 67 and potentially beyond that, is belied by reality. A substantial group of people are already unable to remain in the work force up to that point. Provision must be made for them and thought must be given to them. They should not be left in a limbo land, as they often are at present.

The hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb), who is not in his place at present, viewed the measure as a companion to welfare reform and suggested that it would ensure that people benefited from savings made through their lifetime contributions to pensions in the same way as universal credit would make work pay, but the irony is that at the same time as saying how good it is that means-testing will be reduced for older people, the Government have been pursuing a path that increases means-testing for those of working age. The taper in universal credit is set much higher than the current taper for tax credits, which means that people lose benefit much more quickly. One of the groups who will not benefit at all from universal credit are those who work full time but are not necessarily on high incomes and who, because of the taper change, will lose benefit much more quickly.

Working households with some capital will be subject to a test. This is again a change from tax credits. People who have relatively low incomes but have some savings will not be eligible for benefits. That is means-testing. The restriction of employment support allowance to one year for those in the work-related activity group also exposes a group of people to means-testing who were not previously exposed to it. Somebody in that situation who loses their contributory ESA after a year, who has savings, who has a working partner or who has an early retirement pension is subjected to means-testing in a way that did not happen previously. So we need to look at the different ways in which people are treated, and we should not take comfort by saying, “We’re dealing with means-testing here”, when in fact means-testing has been expanded for other groups.

Some of those people are the same people that I have already described as being in limbo when they reach the age of 55 or 60 and are unfit and unable to work. They are precisely the people—the Secretary of State seems to think this is extremely amusing—who are likely to find themselves hit by the loss of contributory benefit and the means test that is applied. Those are the sort of households who may find that they have to use up their savings in order to get to retirement age, and they will require a means-tested pension in due course. [Interruption.] It is relevant because these are the same people, and they may still end up in retirement dependent in a way that the Government say they are trying to prevent.

Will the new system help people to save and stop them feeling that it is not worth saving? The issues associated with saving for retirement are wider than simply means-testing. I am not entirely convinced that people now in their 30s and 40s are sitting at home and thinking, “If I don’t save, I’ll get pension credit so I’ll be fine. That’s why I’m not going to save.” There are many other factors involved in pension saving or the lack of it. One of those is a lack of trust in the financial services industry and concerns that saving in pension schemes in particular has not been well rewarded in recent years.

People see the low product of many of the private pensions that people join, and the defined contribution schemes that many people are in do not yield particularly good results. People are aware of that and they are not particularly trusting of the financial services industry after its recent history. Some parts of the Bill—I would argue not enough—ensure that if people are saving into private pensions, they are well protected and get a good result at the end. That means that the Government consider putting a cap on pension charging. There is still an opportunity to amend the Bill to include that. The Government have indicated recently that they are coming round to looking further at the issue. We must ensure that people are not paying into schemes where too much of what they contribute is taken out by way of fees and charges, and they end up with much less than they thought they were going to get.

There are also issues about the annuity market, and about what happens when people get their defined contribution pot and go out into the market to get an annuity. Do they know enough about where to get an annuity from? Do they have enough information to make comparisons? Is there enough control over the level of annuities that people are getting? These have been major factors for people who get their private pension pot and try to create an income from it on which they can live. That is the other side of the coin. If people are going to have enough faith and trust to save towards a pension, we must ensure that that pension will protect their interests.

I hope that the Government will take the opportunity of having the Bill before the House to expand that part of it and to put in further elements to improve the situation for many people. People would then be more willing and able to save for their retirement, which is what we all want them to do.

Work Capability Assessments

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Most people here will probably be familiar with the employment and support allowance. Between the introduction of the assessment in October 2008 and February 2012, 1.36 million new claimants were assessed and of those 794,000 were declared fit for work. Of those, 311,900 appealed their decision and 116,400 were successful. That means that nearly one in 10 of all ESA assessments have been overturned. Although the proportion of decisions overturned has started to fall, the overall number remains very high. And those figures do not include all the incapacity benefit claimants currently being migrated to ESA—a process that started last year and is due to be completed in 2014. The cost of appeals is a considerable issue for the Government. This year it is projected to rise to £70 million, up from £50 million.

I have considered a number of detailed aspects of this issue. In May last year I secured a Westminster Hall debate on the recommendations for new descriptors for mental, intellectual and cognitive conditions that were drawn up by a number of charities. In December last year I secured another debate, in which I highlighted the fact that people are regularly called back for reassessments just months after their previous claim has been granted. Today I want to focus on the provision of audio recording equipment in assessments. I sent the Minister an advance copy of my speech, because this is a serious issue that deserves an attempt to reach a constructive solution. I will spare him the need to spend time telling me that it was my Government who started the employment and support allowance. I know that. It is people’s experience of the system that has shown many of us that it needs substantial reform.

The assessments carried out by Atos have been much criticised. Assertions have been made about some of the questions asked and the attitude of assessors. For example, I recently met a constituent—by no stretch of the imagination is she a disability activist—who told me that the assessor made a comment about her handbag, saying, “Well I couldn’t afford that, even on my salary.” My constituent tells me it was a present, but she felt the comment was irrelevant and carried the implication that she did not need the benefit. Such assertions are regularly denied by Atos and not accepted by the Department for Work and Pensions. We even have differences of opinion on the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, with some members feeling that campaigning organisations exaggerate such claims.

Audio recording of assessments would allow such disputes to be settled once and for all. Importantly, they would provide new evidence in the event of appeals, but should also improve the quality of assessments, thereby reducing the number of appeals and helping to get things right first time. Assessors would be prompted to ensure that their work was of the highest possible standard—for example, taking more time, asking open as opposed to closed questions, and probing for possible follow-up issues.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech about the importance of quality in the work capability assessment. May I bring to her attention the situation of my constituent George Rolph, who is currently on the 23rd day of his hunger strike about his treatment at the hands of Atos? When he failed his work capability assessment, he felt he had no choice but to take such drastic action to bring to the Government’s attention the failures of the system.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving such a graphic example of the human issues that lie behind what might seem to be quite a dry subject in many respects.

I was pleased when the year 1 Harrington review recommended that Atos should undertake a pilot to test the hypothesis that audio recording would make a difference.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

This is a vital issue in my constituency. Every week my office deals with issues arising from the Atos work capability assessment. People who go in for the work capability tribunal test receive no points at all or very few points. The question they ask is: “How can they disregard my health?” Would not the introduction of audio recordings enable my constituents and the hon. Lady’s to have confidence in the system?

[Sheila Gilmore]

That is exactly the point I am trying to convey. We want to improve the scheme and give people that confidence.

I was quite interested today to come across an online headline in the Daily Mail that said: “Record your builder to make sure he sticks to his word”. That was the recommendation from the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson). She was suggesting that that would help to resolve disagreements in those situations.

The pilot went ahead in Atos’s Newcastle assessment centre between March and May 2011, and an evaluation report was submitted to the DWP on 4 June 2011. In a Westminster Hall debate on 1 February 2012, the previous Minister, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), set out the Government’s position. He said that owing to a lack of demand, audio recording would not be rolled out for all assessments. Specifically he said:

“We decided not to implement universal recording because, based on the trial experience, people did not want it.”—[Official Report, 1 February 2012; Vol. 539, c. 292WH.]

I am afraid that that assertion is not justified. The Atos pilot concluded that

“68% of customers agreed to the recording when contacted by telephone prior to the appointment.”

Owing to some claimants not turning up for their assessment, or eventually deciding that they did not want a recording, the figure for those whose assessments were recorded dropped to 46%. That figure is still substantial, however, and the demand for audio recordings is reflected in one of Atos’s key conclusions, which stated:

“Our recommendation would be that recording should be become routine as it is in a call centre or, for example, NHS Direct.”

Parliamentary questions and freedom of information requests have yielded another metric to defend the Government’s position—namely, that only 1% of the claimants in the pilot requested a copy of their recording. However, that cannot be regarded as an accurate reflection of demand, for two reasons. First, assessors in the pilot used hand-held devices and the recordings had to be transferred to computers and burnt to CDs after the assessments. That meant that claimants could not pick up their recording on the day but had to go to the added effort of making a request in writing. In effect, that required claimants to opt into the pilot and then opt in again to get their recording. We also do not know what the claimants thought the pilot was about. Often, when we phone helplines, we are told on a recorded message that the call will be recorded for staff training purposes. It is possible that the claimants in the pilot were not clear about its purpose.

Secondly, claimants were told that recordings would be of use to them only in the event of an appeal. Given that the report was completed just days after the pilot concluded, most of those involved would not yet have received a decision on their claim, let alone come to a view on whether they would appeal. Demand for copies might well have been higher had this metric been measured after a longer period. I therefore ask the Minister to accept that the number of claimants in the pilot who requested a copy of their recording is not an accurate reflection of demand, and that the number of people acquiescing to their assessment being recorded is a more appropriate metric to use.

Turning to what has happened in the two years since the pilot, I want to refer back to the statement given by the previous Minister in Westminster Hall on 1 February 2012. In addition to claiming that there had not been much demand for audio recordings, he said that

“we will offer everyone who wants it the opportunity to have their session recorded.”—[Official Report, 1 February 2012; Vol. 539, c. 291WH.]

In practice, however, it is hard for anyone to have an assessment recorded. The option to request recordings is not mentioned in the official DWP communications to claimants. I was reassured to see that the DWP website was updated last week, on 6 June, and that it now states that the Department and Atos are going to amend written communications. It states:

“We are working to introduce more widespread information for all claimants as soon as possible.”

However, it is now two years since the pilot, and the Department is still “working” to have this included in its communications. It does not seem to be too complicated a sentence to include in letters to claimants.

My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) said in a debate on 4 September that even when requests are made, they are not always met because of a lack of equipment. A freedom of information response from 22 May this year indicated that Atos now has some 50 audio recording machines, but this is inadequate given that over 11,000 assessments are undertaken across the country every week. Another freedom of information request from 23 May suggests that this national roll-out may even be a temporary measure that will end later this year.

Will the Minister confirm when DWP communications will be able to inform claimants that they can have their assessment recorded? To how many audio recording devices does Atos now have access? Will he confirm whether the recordings currently taking place are part of a wider roll-out that is intended to be permanent or merely a further pilot?

The report from Professor Harrington in 2010 prompted the Newcastle pilot, and it is worth looking at what he has had to say on this issue since then. In his December 2012 report, which was his third and final one, he said:

“The pilot of audio recording of assessments has also been subject to much debate…The Review has seen little evidence from the DWP evaluation of the audio recording pilot of 2011 that the universal audio recording of assessments would improve their quality…further monitoring and evaluation work needs to be completed before a decision can be made.”

The Minister might like to interpret Harrington’s reference to “little evidence” as suggesting that audio recordings make no difference, but I would argue that what he was getting at was the inadequacy of the pilot commissioned and accepted by the DWP, which was why he called for more examination of the issue.

What the assessors did in this pilot was to take a small number of reports, review them in light of the recordings and conclude that they tallied with each other—that what the written report said and what the recording said were the same. Subsequently, to justify their policy, the main arguments from the Government have both highlighted and ignored the various metrics of demand mentioned in the report. Neither of those approaches answers the key question: do audio recordings improve the quality of assessments?

Instead, I would contend that the key performance indicator for the work capability assessment should be the proportion of decisions that are subsequently overturned on appeal. A more robust pilot would have involved taking larger samples of both recorded and unrecorded assessments and examining the proportion of successful appeals for both. If they were the same, it would have been fair to conclude the recordings make no difference; but if there were a smaller proportion of successful appeals from those that were recorded, it would be equally fair to conclude that they were worth while.

We need to be clear, too, whether the current roll-out is actually just another pilot still to be evaluated. If it is to be evaluated, it would be useful to know what is going to be evaluated. This has a relevance beyond the employment and support allowance because the DWP now says that it will make a decision about audio recording of personal independence payment assessments after the evaluation of the ESA experience. That is despite the fact that one of the companies tendering for that PIP assessment, Capita, originally offered to audio record all its assessments. Asking the right questions about what the evaluation is for is crucial.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Is it not important to test not only the impact on quality but the impact on the confidence of those assessed?

[Sheila Gilmore]

Indeed. As I think I said earlier, this may well answer some of the issues. If people are anxious about these assessments, their confidence would certainly be improved in this way. If, as some suggest, the assertions made by claimants are exaggerated, that would be established, too, and we would all be happier. We need to know—it is a bit unclear—whether we are going to re-run another pilot, whether what is going on is a pilot and, if so, how it is going to be evaluated.

In conclusion, I want to raise three sets of questions. First, will the Minister accept on the basis of how the pilot was carried out that requests for copies of audio recordings should not be cited as a reflection of demand, and does he accept that the number of people who want to have their assessment recorded is a more appropriate measurement to use? Secondly, will the Minister tell me exactly what steps are being taken, and how quickly, to inform claimants that their assessments can be recorded? If people do not know that that service is available, they will hardly ask for it. Will the Minister also tell me how many audio recording devices Atos now has access to, and whether there will be a wider, permanent roll-out or merely a further pilot? Finally, will the Minister accept Professor Harrington’s call for more work to be done, so that there can be a proper evaluation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hoban]

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to how difficult it is for people to provide their own equipment, and to the importance of ensuring that proper controls govern such matters as consent.

Atos has access to 31 audio recording machines, three of which are currently being repaired. It also has access to 21 cassette machines which are on loan from the DWP. We constantly monitor the updating of audio recording assessments to ensure that the supply of the equipment meets demand.

Let me put our commitment into more context. Those who want an audio recording can request one, but a claimant has no legal right to an audio-recorded assessment, and neither the DWP nor Atos Healthcare has a legal obligation to provide an audio-recording service or equipment. Our commitment is based on our intention to provide the best possible service for claimants, but the unavailability of audio recording facilities does not mean that the WCA process can be delayed indefinitely. That could slow down the process unnecessarily. Since the introduction of audio recording, only nine requests have been refused owing to the unavailability of equipment.

As the hon. Member for Edinburgh East said, Professor Harrington’s first independent review of the WCA recommended that the Atos Healthcare pilot audio recording of assessments should be used to determine whether such an approach is helpful for claimants and improves the quality of assessments. In making that recommendation, Professor Harrington rightly noted the need to balance potential drawbacks such as the increased burdens on tribunals and the sharing of sensitive personal data, with potential improvements in both assessor and claimant behaviours.

Following that recommendation, the audio pilot took place in the Newcastle assessment centre during spring 2011. The pilot involved 500 claimants being offered the chance to volunteer to have their assessment recorded. The results of the pilot showed that less than half of those offered ended up having an audio recorded assessment and only a handful, less than 1%, requested a copy of their assessment.

The hon. Lady has raised concerns about the metrics we use when considering demand for audio recording. We feel that the metrics used are key in showing the exact demand during the pilot.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Perhaps the Minister was about to come to this point, but I am sorry that he has chosen simply to repeat the 1% figure without addressing the criticisms that have been raised—I have heard them from others, too. The context of the pilot made it difficult for people to get a copy and the pilot was then evaluated very quickly.

[Mr Hoban]

I do not think that it was that difficult to get hold of a copy. The recording might need to be held on a handheld device before it is transferred to a computer and a transcript is printed, but that does not stop people asking for a copy. I thought that was one point in the hon. Lady’s thoughtful speech that was not well substantiated.

The results also provided little evidence that audio recording of face-to-face assessments improved the quality of assessments. There was only limited evidence of improvement in the customer experience for some individuals. Of those who took part, fewer than half the claimants thought that audio recording would be helpful to them. Those are the key areas that Professor Harrington wanted to understand when he called for the original pilot. As a result the Department decided not to introduce audio recording of face-to-face assessments universally on the basis that a facility for all assessments would be extremely costly, with no apparent substantial benefit or improvement in the quality of assessments. We ensured that when claimants asked for an audio recording, we were in a position to provide that facility. That was not intended to provide a permanent solution, but it is important in helping to provide the evidence for further changes.

Let me say a little about current demand. Since the introduction of a limited audio recording facility in September 2011, fewer than 4,000 claimants have requested a recorded assessment. To date, Atos has conducted more than 2,000 audio-recorded assessments. During that period almost 1.5 million face-to-face assessments for both ESA and incapacity benefit reassessments have been completed. Therefore, the proportion of recorded assessments is less than 0.2% of all assessments carried out during the period. We need to continue to monitor that take-up, but universal recording for such low numbers does not seem prudent and might not provide value for money.

We have always been clear that the provision of a limited audio recording service is a temporary measure that needs to be evaluated fully before a final decision is taken on the future of the service. As I have already said, we need the evidence to show that investing potentially large sums of money into the provision of universal recording will improve quality and will be used by claimants.

We agree with the comments in Professor Harrington’s third report in which he expressed views about audio recording needing to improve the quality of assessments. He said that

“further monitoring and evaluation work needs to be completed before a decision can be made”.

That is why we have decided to extend the evaluation period until the end of the summer to allow us to gather additional data on quality and potential take-up for a subsequent robust decision on any potential future audio-recording provision. We now have a benchmark for current take-up but, as has been rightly pointed out, we cannot get a true comparison until we routinely let people know about its availability. I am pleased to say that we are therefore taking steps to boost awareness of audio recording.

The Department and Atos are in the process of amending written communications to claimants by updating the WCA AL1C form. The document is sent to claimants when they need to arrange a face-to-face assessment and will provide more information on how to arrange an audio-recorded assessment. We expect the revised form to be sent out to claimants by the end of next month, once the necessary changes have been made and the form has been cleared for use.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheila Gilmore]

Perhaps the Minister might be able to explain why it has taken nearly two years to make that amendment. If I understood him correctly, he said that the evaluation of all this process was being extended to the end of the summer, so if the revised letter is not going out until the end of this month or the end of next month, there will be very little time to judge whether that has made any difference.

[Mr Hoban]

The volume of people going through the WCA on a monthly basis is significant—I believe that 100,000 claims are made for ESA every month—so it will not take long to find out the take-up rate, although we need to make sure that the pilot has the right amount of time to gather sufficient evidence. Earlier the hon. Lady was arguing in favour of a shorter pilot and now she is potentially arguing for a longer pilot in order to get the evaluation right, but she makes an important point.

In addition to the letter I mentioned, the Department has recently provided more information about the audio-recording facility on the “Inside Government” section of the gov.uk website. By ensuring that more people are aware of the facility we will get a much better picture of how many people are applying for an audio recording and a better assessment of the level of demand. The hon. Lady rightly made the point that we do need to understand what the demand actually is.

In the past, the Department has asked Atos Healthcare to apply a processing safeguard whereby requests for audio-recorded assessments should be accommodated within four weeks, and where that was not possible, the assessment should go ahead without a recording. However, during the remainder of the evaluation period, to help ensure that claimant expectation can be met, the four-week safeguard for requesting audio-recorded assessments has been removed. That will enable us to gather a fuller picture of demand and capacity, in order to inform a full and robust evaluation.

To conclude, we are continuing to evaluate the costs and benefits of the current approach, and will await the results of a further evaluation during the summer before making a further decision on the future of this service and how it can improve the WCA.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Monday 20th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

Indeed. I went to Portsmouth last month to see the Cathedral Innovation Centre, which was working with people from the Royal Society of Arts and Portsmouth university business school, as well as volunteers, to provide the right sort of mentors to enable social enterprises to get set up and be successful.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

3. What financial support his Department makes available to sick and disabled people while their claim for employment and support allowance undergoes mandatory reconsideration prior to the formal appeal.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mr Mark Hoban)]

Jobseeker’s allowance is available to those found fit for work. Alternatively, employment and support allowance can be paid for those who subsequently decide to appeal. ESA can be backdated to include the reconsideration period. Those who are put in the work-related activity group, but appeal because they want to move to the support group, will continue to be paid ESA at the assessment rate, as now.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I thank the Minister for that answer. A number of my constituents who have claimed for JSA have been told that they are not fit for work—they have a medical certificate—and are therefore not eligible because they are not available for work. What are people supposed to do in that situation? Will it not drive them into the hands of payday lenders?

[Mr Hoban]

First, if someone is found fit for work, they should be eligible for jobseeker’s allowance. The hon. Lady will be aware, as I am, of some of the hardship arrangements that are in place to help people, but it is absolutely right to try to encourage those claiming incapacity benefit to be reassessed, to ensure that those who are fit for work can get back into work, rather than be written off and face a lifetime of inactivity, as happened under previous Governments.

Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Bill

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

Absolutely. There are no league tables in place. We do not set targets for sanctions; I have made that point in previous discussions with, I think, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms). The decisions that need to be made are the right ones. They need to be based on whether people have breached the agreements they have set out with the jobcentre, and there are no targets in place.

Let me set out in a bit more detail the programmes that exist. The programmes might vary from a training course that the Government have paid for so that the claimant gains some essential skills that will increase their chances of finding work, or they might involve a community work placement, whereby claimants can pick up the basic disciplines, such as turning up on time, that every reasonable employer will expect.

We also know that those schemes work. Recent research on our mandatory work activity scheme found that nine in 10 participants said that they better recognised the benefits of a working routine, and around three quarters said that their confidence and ability to work as a team had improved. More than half said that they felt more positive about work than they did before attending.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Is it not the case that the research on the mandatory work schemes found that, afterwards, people were as likely to be on benefit as they were before?

[Mr Hoban]

The scheme is used particularly for those who are some distance from the labour market. We know that we need to make a range of interventions to get people to move closer and closer to the labour market. The scheme changes people’s attitude to work. Those on the scheme can put that work on their CV and demonstrate to employers that they are ready for work. That makes a contribution to moving them closer to work. As the evaluation that the hon. Lady referred to pointed out, people themselves feel the benefits of taking part in the scheme. It is therefore right that when claimants refuse to take up the support that is available, and then fail without good reason to attend these mandatory programmes, they face the consequences of their actions—a benefit sanction.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hoban]

The High Court upheld the steps that we took in setting out the detail in the regulations. As I said earlier, the letter that we sent to claimants who were required to participate in the schemes set out the fact that they could be subject to sanctions of up to 26 weeks’ worth of benefits. That is not the only communication we have with jobseekers. The jobseekers who come into Jobcentre Plus will have discussed the requirements with their personal adviser, so there is a range of ways in which we will communicate to jobseekers their obligations under the schemes. That is vital. It is important that people are aware of those obligations. We believe that the notices and regulations provide sufficient detail, and that will be backed up by the conversations and other communication that jobseekers have with personal advisers.

[Sheila Gilmore]

rose—

[Mr Hoban]

I want to make some more progress.

The Bill will ensure that the Government will not have to refund sanctions on the basis of the Court of Appeal’s judgment and will be able to make a decision in cases where no sanction decision has yet been made.

As I have previously stated, the Government have applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. However, to ensure that we are not faced with having to repay benefit sanctions, we have had to press ahead with this fast-track legislation.

I would like to put it on record that I am grateful for the constructive way in which the right hon. Members for Birmingham, Hodge Hill and for East Ham have approached this topic. In supporting the Bill, they have allowed us to expedite its progress, thus safeguarding taxpayers’ money.

Following discussions last week with the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill, we will be proposing two Government amendments in Committee. The first will reiterate in the Bill that a claimant’s appeal rights against a sanction decision remain unchanged in all matters, apart from those covered by the High Court and Court of Appeal judgments. For example, when a claimant felt that they had good cause for not participating in one of these schemes, they would still be able to appeal to the first tier tribunal on the basis of good cause. That is a helpful reconfirmation of the right of claimants to appeal. Similarly, the Bill will not overturn appeals that have succeeded on the basis of good cause. I hope that our amendment on that provides the clarification that the right hon. Gentleman seeks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

The Bill is not perhaps what some people think it is, nor perhaps what we would like to debate. It will not end various forms of work experience, whether we think that is a good or a bad idea, because the Government have put in place—and have done so very quickly—regulations to overcome mistakes in previous regulations.

We need a lengthy debate, and we need to think hard about what we do to help people find work, if there is work—often there is no work to find, which is the fundamental failure of many of these programmes. Whatever we call the schemes or however we dress them up, if the jobs are not there, no amount of job readiness and training will get people a job. They might make people readier for a job, which might not be a bad thing in itself, but it is an illusion to assume that if we simply introduce a programme and make people do it, suddenly a job will emerge at the end. It will not, unless there are jobs and demand in the economy.

It is the same for many people doing part-time jobs. We have had many debates in the past few weeks about the bedroom tax, and people have said, “Well, people can go out and get extra hours to pay the tax; it will be easy.” In the course of half an hour on Saturday afternoon knocking on doors in my constituency and asking people about this, I met two people who were working part time. They both wanted extra hours and had gone to their employers to ask whether extra hours were available but were told they were not. Ironically, if firms gave extra hours, that work would be taken away from someone else, giving them fewer hours or no job at all. Hours are short because the jobs are not there. Similarly, many job programmes have failed because, to a large extent, the jobs are not there.

Perhaps we should give more time to this debate, because we need to consider whether we are achieving what we should be achieving. Unfortunately—and I say this to people watching our debate—whatever the result of the vote at the end of today’s debate, it will not stop these programmes. Some people say that this is a vote on whether some of these so-called training programmes continue, but sadly it is not. I hope that we have further votes on the issue in future, because the new regulations, which may still be proved to be not as valid as the previous ones, have been introduced. Anyone out there who thinks that how the House votes today will bring an end to all those programmes will find that, sadly, that is not true.

If this were a situation involving parking regulations—my council introduced parking regulations, which were challenged in court and found to be invalid—and we were asking, in effect, for a sanction on sanctions or, in parking regulation terms, retrospectively forcing people to pay parking penalties which were unlawful at the time they were incurred, the Lib Dem and Tory Benches would be packed with Members saying how unfair that was. Even if we correct the regulations, that would not solve the problem. In the example I gave of my council, it corrected the regulations and issued new ones, and achieved the parking restrictions that it wanted, but it did not seek to go back to people and say to them, “Well, we can impose these penalties, because we will make it right retrospectively.” If it were any other subject, we would not see people sitting on their hands, which is what is happening today. Much attention has been focused on what the Labour party is doing, and rightly so; people are right to ask what we are doing. However, they also must ask what the Government parties are doing, because apart from the Minister, no one has come into the Chamber to speak in favour of what the Government are doing, and that speaks for itself.

A number of things have been said today that are simply not accurate. In one intervention, for example, a Government Back Bencher said that half the people going on the Work programme had got jobs. No one could seriously suggest such a figure. The only time I have heard the Government use the word “half”—[Interruption.] The hon. Member did mention the Work programme, but perhaps he did not intend to do so. The only programme that was mentioned where the word “half” was used was the pilot for the work experience programmes that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has described so thoroughly. I am talking about the research on the pilot programme. Half of those on that pilot programme, which was for 1,300 people, were off benefit in 13 weeks, but being “off benefit” is not necessarily the same as being in a job. After the results of that pilot were published, there were no further figures on those schemes. No one has actually said what the success rate of those schemes has been.

The hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) referred to a visit that she and I and other members of the Select Committee made to a jobcentre today as part of our inquiry into the Work programme. Yes, some people who are providing the programme did feel that their morale had perhaps been undermined by its results and outcomes and the fact that they had been told that it was worse than doing nothing. However, those outcomes were the ones that the Government themselves set for their own programme; it is not something that someone else invented. It is not those individuals who should feel that they are to blame; it is the set-up of the whole programme that is at fault. It is unfortunate that those people felt that they were being criticised.

If the hon. Lady had stayed to make a speech, perhaps she would have told the House about some of the other things that we heard. Although of course the providers speak up for their programmes, all of them made the point that if they had more resources they would be able to do far more and do far better.

One provider we heard from was putting considerable additional resources into individuals to get them job-ready and hopefully to find them jobs. They were putting some people through programmes that cost £900 a head out of their own resources. If those people get jobs as a result of being part of that Work provider’s programme, no doubt the Government will say, “We managed to do that through the Work programme, and it was the cheapest Work programme ever.” The truth is that it would not be cheap, because those programme providers are supplementing the cost by a considerable amount. They all said that if it were not in fact the cheapest Work programme, it could be doing a lot better. Cheap is not always good; cheap is sometimes extremely shoddy and of poor quality. As we all know, a cheap pair of shoes will not last very long.

Much of what has been said about the quality of the programmes is poor. I want to have the debate about sanctions, because the experience of my constituents is that the sanctions regime has not only been increased in extent but has lost discretion. Discretion has flown out of it all together, so that many people are finding that they are sanctioned for things that they hardly understand. Many people who are deemed to be job-ready are actually suffering from mental illness or a learning disability and they are the people who may be sanctioned. I therefore welcome the new clause that provides for a report on sanctions. The sooner that comes through, the better.

I ask the Government yet again, as I have before, to look at individual cases. I raised one with the Minister at DWP questions. A young man was on the Work programme for a year and a quarter, but there was no real progress. He sourced a training course—a very good training course—to learn construction skills. That would have involved eight weeks of unpaid work, which he was quite prepared to do, as part of a structured scheme, followed by 13 weeks of paid work and the prospect of a job at the end. When I raised that case with the Minister, he simply said, “The reason he is not getting to do that is the Scottish Government’s funding.” I will come back to the Minister on that case because that is not so. The underlying issue is that the Work programme provider could not provide anything like that quality. In a year and a quarter, the provider had never offered that young person that sort of training. That should be the significant point; it should not be a blame-game—“Oh, it’s the fault of the Scottish Government, Jobcentre Plus, or the Work programme provider.” That is the merry-go-round that that person is on; as far as I am aware, unless something has come in today, he is still on it.

I am not against good schemes, good work experience, or sanctions, but I am against poor-quality schemes. The Government are so gung-ho, saying that it does not matter that this measure is retrospective, that they have made mistakes and will go back over it. That is not acceptable, and we must stand up and say that clearly. I am sorry that the Government have not been prepared at any stage to say, “We did get it wrong and we are going not only to alter that bit of regulation but put real effort into improving our employability schemes.”

Under-occupancy Penalty (Nottingham)

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. I wonder how Government Members sleep at night after what they have done.

The Minister might claim that the Government are protecting the most vulnerable, such as the individual my hon. Friend has just mentioned. Ministers have been saying that for months. It was only continued pressure from the Opposition Benches that forced them to concede that the Prime Minister’s assurances about protection for disabled children, foster parents and members of the armed forces were completely hollow and that exemptions needed to be put in place.

Unfortunately, to suggest that discretionary housing payment will provide the answer is disingenuous. Nationally, the DHP allocated for 2014-15 makes up less than 6% of the £2.2 billion in planned housing benefit cuts for the same year, and the Government have failed to provide any assurances on the level of DHP funding as part of the next spending review. The National Audit Office is critical of how the level of DHP funding has been determined, stating that

“it is not clear how the overall level of funding has been determined or whether it is likely to be sufficient to tackle the effects of reforms.”

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Has her council, like mine, considered trying to top up the DHP fund so that it can help people? Is this not simply a central Government cut being imposed on the shoulders of local government, because topping up the fund means a cut for councils? Also, the administration involved in the whole process is huge, and that is another cost for local government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Monday 11th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

A constituent of mine, aged 20, has spent a year and a quarter on the Work programme, and has had six meetings with three different advisers during that time. He still has no job, and has had no job offers. He eventually found a Barnardo’s course, but was told that he would not be allowed to go on it because he was on the Work programme. Is the programme not failing such young people?

[Mr Hoban]

I think the hon. Lady should raise issues about training in Scotland with the Scottish Government, who are responsible for it. They will not allow people on the Work programme to go on Scottish Government-funded courses, and I suspect that that is where the problem lies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have no issue whatever with the Church of England and the bishops saying whatever they believe. It is right and proper that they should argue with us and put pressure on us on a variety of issues. However, I do not agree that the way to get children out of poverty is to keep transferring more and more money to keeping people out of work. The reality is that we are having to reform a system that became completely out of control under the last Government and get in place a system that gets people back to work, because being in work is how people get their children out of poverty.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

T2. Mandatory reconsideration after employment and support allowance is refused and when somebody wants to appeal can lead to people being without either ESA or jobseeker’s allowance. Will the Minister ensure that a short time limit is set on reconsiderations so that people are not left without any income?

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mr Mark Hoban)]

Mandatory reconsideration is in place to help accelerate decision making, so that the Department can revisit a case rather than have to wait for it to go to the tribunal. We try to keep delays as short as possible to ensure that we get the right outcome and get the right support to people as quickly as possible.

Universal Credit

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Dame Anne Begg]

The Government’s whole point in doing this is to make the system easier, so hopefully it will be. If it is not easier at the end of the process, we really will have got everything wrong. In the process of introducing this fully, the Government will obviously have to address some of the concerns that hon. Members have raised.

The Government’s response indicates that they expect only 50% to claim online and about 5% to get face-to-face interviews, which means 45% will claim through the telephony system. Perhaps the Minister can explain the wording in the Government’s response. It states:

“Our target is that 50% of claims which can be made online will be made online in October 2013 when Universal Credit is launched nationally.”

I am not sure that I understand that sentence. Does it mean 50% of the total number of people who will make a claim, or 50% of those who can make it online, which will not be everybody. I am not exactly sure what proportion the Government are talking about.

The Government’s response mentions face-to-face interviews, which is good, but they are still for only 5% of cases, and they give not a hint about where the interviews might take place and what proportion of them are likely to be home visits. After all, a large number of people in the universal credit cohort will have severe disabilities. They might receive other benefits that they have claimed previously, but they will also be in the universal credit cohort.

I am also glad to see that jobcentres are to have IADs—internet access devices—which sounds great. The Government response trumpets the fact that there will be computers in Jobcentre Plus offices. However, if we divide the number of computers by the number of Jobcentre Plus offices, we find that it works out at about three terminals per office, and I am not sure whether that will answer some of the questions about access to computers. Also, it appears that wi-fi is not yet available in Jobcentre Plus offices, although that is planned, as it should be available. Many people do not have a computer at home and will need to access their claim form through a public-access computer, whether in Jobcentre Plus or not. They will need help, and the Government’s response is not very clear about that. It does say that staff will be available, but it is very vague: it does not say how many or how much time they will have. Jobcentre Plus staff are already overworked. Will they have the time to sit down alongside someone until they have filled in their whole claim, or will they just get the screen up and leave them to it? For many people, that would not be enough help.

The Government say in their response that they are liaising with local authorities to supply help. However, we all know that local authority budgets are already being squeezed year on year, and that a lot of welfare rights officers, where councils have them, are disappearing, if they have not already done so. There is also a squeeze on organisations such as Citizens Advice. This is such a big undertaking that it is incumbent on the Government to make sure that this help, of the necessary quantity and quality, is there and that people know how to access it. It has occurred to me that as some local authority staff will no longer be employed in administering housing benefit, they might be an experienced resource that the Government could call on to act as advisers in providing the help that many people will need to make an online claim.

Another big area of concern about UC is that it will be paid once a month into a single bank account for each household. The Government’s response says that the Secretary of State has powers to vary the frequency of payments, but this would be time limited. It also says that the Department for Work and Pensions will try to identify claimants with, for instance, mental health or addiction problems who might not manage monthly payments, but suggests that help will be provided for only a limited period. The Government seem to think that a drug addict will somehow be able to learn how to budget properly after a couple of months. The essential problem is that getting a whole month’s money in their hand at once might be too tempting. I do not think that what the Government describe as “transition to monthly payments” after

“getting help with monthly budgeting”

is going to work in practice. Will the Minister clarify that?

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

As the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend knows, but I suspect that other people do not, that we have been hearing evidence about the apparent lack of information held by Jobcentre Plus about people’s circumstances in relation to being placed in the Work programme. Jobcentre Plus may therefore be unaware that people are homeless or have other difficult circumstances. What confidence does she have that it will be any better for the purpose of working out which people need this additional help?

[Dame Anne Begg]

I am worried that the Government say bluntly in their response to our report that they are not going to provide a definition of a vulnerable claimant. Without that, it will be difficult for Jobcentre Plus to identify the individuals who need help. This is our biggest area of concern. We do not know whether someone will need to get into trouble before they can get help rather than already having been identified as needing it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

When the Welfare Reform Bill was in Committee, the Minister’s predecessor was fond of the bookcase analogy. We were constantly told that what we were dealing with at that time was an empty bookcase, which would shortly be filled. Ministers and some Government Members who have intervened in the debate today, rather than those who have spoken at length, tend to feel that because most commentators, interest groups and parties think a unified system that will take people from unemployment to employment is in itself a good thing, that somehow means we should not be critical of the policy or its contents.

We have reached a point where some of the books have appeared on the bookcase, but there are still large gaps, some of which may not be filled until the roll-out takes place. We should realise, and the Minister should appreciate that, as I understand it—he may correct us—the initial pathfinder will deal only with very simple cases and people who do not have any complicated family situations, so it will test only some elements of the system. After that, more books will doubtless appear. However, one can have the same bookcase as someone else yet disagree radically about what books to put in it. We need to have that debate.

We must be careful not to oversell the reform. Although we talk about universal credit as though it will be simple, in reality universal credit will have lots of arms and legs. It is an umbrella, so to speak, with lots of arms and legs, because there will be different categories of people who fall under this umbrella, who will have to meet different eligibility criteria, who will receive very different payments and elements of payments, and who will be subject to very different conditions in order to get their benefits.

There will be a series of different types of universal credit. I would not be at all surprised if, in a couple of years, for convenience, particularly those who work in the field will refer to employment support allowance universal credit applicants or unemployed universal credit applicants. Otherwise it will be difficult to explain the situation. Universal credit will not be and perhaps cannot be simple. We on the Opposition Benches have said repeatedly that simplification is not the be-all and end-all when one is dealing with people who have complicated lives.

We have to put the financial capacity to deal with monthly payments in place. The Minister may remember that during his previous incarnation in the Treasury we had a debate about basic bank accounts. One of the issues I raised with him in his previous role was the need to extend basic bank accounts and to make it compulsory for banks to provide them. He resisted that move at the time. He may come to regret that in his new role in the DWP because it might have been better if there were a better raft of basic bank accounts that people could access. The number of banks offering basic bank accounts has not grown in the past nearly three years; it has diminished. Where will people be able to have the moneys paid to? Will they be able to get such bank accounts? There are people who cannot access basic bank accounts, either because there is no bank in their vicinity that offers them, or because they are not allowed to have such an account for one reason or another.

[Dame Anne Begg]

There are indeed difficulties getting a basic bank account, but does my hon. Friend accept that there are also people who have had a bad experience with banks, particularly with direct debits, and found themselves overdrawn and incurring lots of charges, and who therefore do not want to use a bank account to manage the money they get through universal credit?

[Sheila Gilmore]

My hon. Friend raises another important aspect. People have run up large bank charges, often inadvertently, on a very limited income. They might decide not to use the bank account any longer because that is easier, or the account may even be suspended.

Many warm words have been spoken about credit unions, but if we are honest about it, in most parts of the UK—the situation might be slightly different in Northern Ireland—credit unions are pretty small and cover only a relatively small part of the population. If we seriously wanted to increase their use, we would have to fund that properly and give them some ability to expand to the extent required. I would be more than happy to direct constituents in that sort of difficulty to a credit union, but I know that the credit union serving the local area currently has very limited capacity to expand. We have to think about that extremely seriously.

Another question considered today was that of the direct payment of rent. There are six demonstration projects, and indeed a report was published some time ago, but it was what the researchers called a baseline project report. In other words, it effectively looked only at people’s attitudes and capacities before the project got going; it proves nothing about whether it is working. Further data published by the DWP in December 2012 showed that in four months 8% of rent had not been collected. At that stage, 316 tenants had already been switched back to direct payment to the landlord, and the range of collections was actually greater than the 92% would suggest. In one project in an Edinburgh housing association, 63 of the 1,832 tenants were switched back to direct payments in the first four months, which I think is a substantial portion in a relatively short period.

It also appears—this will have to come out in the research very clearly—that some of the pilots have excluded some of the people most likely to fail. The pilot in Oxford apparently excluded those considered to be vulnerable, and the one in Wakefield excluded those who did not already have a bank account, so some of the difficult cases have not been included. That is fair enough in a pilot, but those cases must be taken into account before it can be claimed that all will be fine when this is rolled out more fully.

Members have spoken at length about the “digital by default” approach. I am not a luddite. I think that moving towards online claiming, wherever possible, is a good idea. In fact, when I was the convenor of housing on City of Edinburgh council we started a choice-based lettings system. It was possible to apply through a newspaper, people could fill in a form in the more traditional way, or they could apply online. Some people, including tenants’ groups, told us that we could not do it online because people would not be able to access it. We replied that we were giving people the choice. The online take-up was actually higher than many people had feared. Some of them will be getting help to do that, and that is the distinction we have to see.

There is a problem with the top-line figure, which is constantly quoted, of 78% for the proportion of claimants who already use the internet. It is drawn from research done for the DWP. It revealed that 78% have used the internet, but only 48% said they used it everyday, and that includes people in work, on tax credits and right across the whole spectrum. When we break the figures down, we see, for example, that 60% of people who are in receipt of incapacity benefit said that they had used the internet, but only 31% used it every day. There are some important distinctions within these groups.

If the new system frees up more adviser time, that can only be a good thing, but we need to know that that is really going to happen and where it is going to happen. The current situation appears to be quite stressed already. I have been told, and claimants’ experiences tend to back this up, that in Jobcentre Plus in my city people barely get four minutes with an employment adviser. Time is very stretched as it is.

[Helen Goodman]

Does my hon. Friend agree that another problem is that the voluntary sector advice agencies are also suffering from a shrinkage of resources? For example, the citizens advice bureau in Spennymoor in my constituency has only a third of the level of resources that it had two years ago.

[Sheila Gilmore]

There is undoubtedly a reduction in resources. Many of the advice agencies that I have contact with are having to tell people that they cannot get an appointment for three weeks, or even four.

[Dr Whiteford]

Does the hon. Lady welcome the fact that in Scotland Citizens Advice has had an increase of £5.7 million in recent weeks to cope with that situation?

[Sheila Gilmore]

I certainly do, although I rather regret that that money was so long in the coming given that it was available to be paid out some couple of years ago—but better late than never.

Finally, I want to discuss a particular group—single parents. Some of the problems I am going to consider do not necessarily result from universal credit as such, but they will not be cured by universal credit and may even be made worse. For many single parents, getting back into work is not easy. There is a great deal of evidence that many of them, when they do find work, find that it is low-paid and low-skilled work. There is a high level of churn because of the type of work or because of the practical difficulties that can arise. They may find that arranging child care is unexpectedly expensive or difficult—for instance, when they run into the summer holiday problem. All these things can lead to a single parent who wants to work finding a job and doing it for a period, but then having to leave and go back to the beginning again. Skilling up is particularly important.

Over the past few years, including under the previous Government, there have been several changes to the rules for single parents, particularly about their registering for work once their children reached certain ages. Considerable flexibilities were built into the system whereby, for example, a single parent would not be required to apply for a job, go for a job interview or take a job where it would not fit with their child care responsibilities. There are several such flexibilities, none of which, bar one, are in the new regulations that have been produced for universal credit. They are in guidance, but the problem is that guidance is not legally binding and these matters are at the discretion of an individual adviser.

There are currently 12 flexibilities, only one of which has been migrated into the new regulations in its entirety; the other 11 are not there or have been very much qualified. For example, under the regulations a single parent is still able to restrict the hours they work, but only if they can demonstrate that there are jobs with those hours available locally. If there are not, they cannot have that flexibility, so presumably they will have to look for a job that does not accord with their child care responsibilities or look for one outwith their area, which creates a whole new set of difficulties. Anyone who has had to pick up their child from nursery at a fixed time and has experienced the reception they get when they arrive back late because the bus has been delayed will know that working a long distance away is not easy.

It is not at all clear why these changes are being made. They might make it more difficult for single parents to get back into work. If the flexibilities are not there, the other problem that arises is sanctions. If people do not have those flexibilities, they may be required to take on a job—or to refuse a job—that does not meet their needs. If they refuse to take the job, they can be sanctioned. The level of sanctions was increased substantially in the Welfare Reform Act 2012 and the number of people who are being sanctioned is increasing. We are all seeing those people already. I would like the Minister to explain why the decision has been taken not to put the flexibilities for single parents into the regulations.

Gingerbread, which represents single parents, feels that getting skilled has been made more difficult of late. Again, there does not seem to be anything in universal credit that will help that situation. Previously, a single parent with a very young child who was on income support got a fee remission if they did a college course. That fee remission has been removed, so although a single parent with a child under five can still do a college course if they can fit it in around everything else that they are doing, they have to pay for it. When they hit the requirement to sign on for JSA, they will get fee remission for a course, but if a job offer comes up that they have to accept, they will either have to drop the course, which they might be part-way through, or continue the course and be sanctioned. That is not the way to upskill people. Gingerbread has proposed that a single parent who is undertaking a further education course, up to and including level 3,

“should be treated as fulfilling work search and work availability requirements”

until their youngest child reaches the age of seven or the course ends. That is a practical proposal.

There is serious concern that the structure of universal credit, far from enabling single parents to work, will not be of great assistance and might even be harmful. The Gingerbread report, “Struggling to make ends meet”, with which I am sure the Minister is familiar, points out that a single parent who is earning the minimum wage cannot expect their disposable income to increase by much once they start working 10 hours or more. We are talking about very short hours. For anyone who does not understand, we are not talking about 10 hours a day, but 10 hours a week. Somebody who works only three, four, five, six or seven hours a week will be better off under universal credit, but because of the structure of it, once they are working 10 hours a week or more, they will not be much better off. For all that has been said about universal credit making people much better off and encouraging them to go into work, the structure is not quite as good as has been made out.

[Kate Green]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to that problem. Does she agree that it is therefore especially unfortunate that in-work conditionality will propel that lone parent to increase her hours or, in other words, propel her into diminishing returns for her work?

[Sheila Gilmore]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. The concept of in-work conditionality, which is new to the UK, needs to be fleshed out considerably as universal credit rolls out. It is not at all clear how it will work. It appears to mean that if somebody is working a low number of hours, they will be expected to look for more hours or for a different job in which they can work more hours. It will be open to the DWP to tell people that they have not made enough effort to do that and to sanction them for it. That is supposed to make people better off; it is supposed to be good for them to go through such a process, but if it does not make them better off, it feels more like punishment than assistance.

The report also looked at single parents who are not on the minimum wage but earn a median salary, and it was calculated that they would be worse off working full time than part time. They would not simply be no better off, they would actually be worse off as their hours increased. Again, that undermines the Government’s pledge to make work pay. Part of the reason for that concerns things such as child care costs. The cap on reimbursable child care costs has not been increased, and those costs are rising rapidly in many places. That has a marked effect on whether working longer hours and increasing earnings makes work pay.

Single parents are just one group that will be involved in this massive upheaval that will either create something completely different, or might lead to something that does not look very different at the end of the day—I am not sure which. There will still be many different categories of people, and the problems that we know about such as eligibility, and issues such as employment and support allowance and the work capability assessment that we have frequently discussed in this House, will not go away with the introduction of universal credit but will be tucked inside it.

I urge the Government to look at some of those issues and not simply to sit behind a general statement that universal credit will make work pay and that people will be better off. They think that if they keep asserting that and say it often enough it will happen, but it will happen only if we get the books right on the bookshelf.