Remploy

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Monday 10th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

The Minister’s view seems to be that we should equalise downwards and that, if some disabled people are not working while others are employed in Remploy factories, it would be better to move those in the second group into the first one, because at least then they would all be treated fairly. Given the failure to get the people affected by the first round of closures into work, surely the fairest thing to do now would be to stop, get it right and then move on. This is not about whether we should or should not try to get people into mainstream work; it is about whether we can get these people into work.

[Esther McVey]

Of course it is about getting these people into work. It has nothing to do with levelling down. We have taken the advice of the Sayce review and disability organisations, which have said that they want as many disabled people as possible in mainstream work. We are proceeding with that. I do not need to remind the Opposition that their failed modernisation plan, which started in 2008, was a disaster and we, as always, are picking up the pieces.

Benefits Uprating (2013-14)

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

It might be a bit more sensible if we had an opportunity to vote on all parts of the package. We could then include some of the things that the Minister’s Liberal Democrat colleagues did not manage to include—I am thinking, for example, of higher rates of tax on property. For working people, and particularly those who are working part time and are dependent on housing benefit, the changes to housing benefit uprating are yet another cut in their standard of living. They lost out in the last round of uprating because of the differential tax credits, which were not uprated in line with inflation. The latest changes are another hit on working families.

[Steve Webb]

The hon. Lady’s constituents will want to look closely at how she votes. We hear the sound and fury, but then there is abstention. The Labour party has no alternative. There is a shortfall, and the Government have found a measured and reasonable way to fill it. I have heard nothing from Labour Members about an alternative strategy. Until we hear that, we will not take them seriously.

Work Capability Reassessments

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Wednesday 5th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hood. Everybody here is probably familiar with some of the issues relating to the employment and support allowance and the work capability assessment. Between the introduction of the assessment in October 2008 and August 2011, 1.15 million new claimants were assessed and 687,000 were declared fit for work. Of those, 102,500 successfully appealed their decision and were awarded ESA. That means that 9% of all ESA assessments have been overturned. When we look at assessments leading to fit-for-work decisions, the figure rises to 15%. Although the proportion of decisions overturned has started to fall, the overall number still remains extremely high.

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 figures published recently cover claims only after appeals have been taken into account—they have been published on a different basis—so we have no data on how many claimants in the migration are originally declared fit for work and then appeal, and how many of those appeals are successful. Although that is not precisely the subject of this debate, I hope that the Minister will see to it that we have more comprehensive and comparable data in future.

The number of incorrect assessments and successful appeals is still high. Like many of my colleagues, I have been considering a number of different aspects of the issue. Earlier this year, I secured a debate here in Westminster Hall on the work capability assessment. On that occasion, I focused on the recommendations for new mental, intellectual and cognitive descriptors drawn up by Mencap, Mind and the National Autistic Society. Although the descriptors are certainly not the only issue that needs addressing, they could have gone a long way to improving the assessment process.

Professor Harrington approved and submitted the descriptors to the Department for Work and Pensions in spring 2011. It is frustrating that officials are only now getting down to assessing properly whether the descriptors would improve the WCA, and we will not get the results of that so-called gold standard review until next summer. There will have been more than two years of delay since the proposals were published.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I preface my remarks by thanking my hon. Friend for the work that she has done on the issue over a long period. Is her experience the same as mine? The largest number of constituents with whom I deal who have lost their benefits, and those with the most distressing cases, are those with mental health problems and those on the autistic spectrum.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. That is the case. There is a flaw in how the original test was drawn up if it is not accounting properly for those types of condition. That is why it needs to be examined.

[Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)]

On that point, one of my constituents, a former careers adviser, had a breakdown that led to depression and panic attacks. He was assessed as fit for work—by a physiotherapist.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I thank my hon. Friend for contributing that example. We must look at such situations carefully.

The process of reviewing the new descriptors is finally under way—although I suspect that we will return to it in due course—so I will concentrate on appeals and the time between assessment and reassessment. One of the most common stories that I hear from constituents is that they are found fit for work, wait several months for an appeal, get ESA and are then called back for a further assessment, sometimes just weeks and often only two or three months later. That is one of the most visible flaws in how the system works.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that not only is the waste of money enormous, given that so many are granted benefit on appeal, but that given all the cuts to citizens advice bureaux, it is difficult for people to get the right support going into a frightening tribunal situation?

[Sheila Gilmore]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. There is evidence that people who are represented are more likely to be successful than those who are unable to get representation.

That is the context for the issue of reassessment: the high volume of appeals means that people must wait long periods for a hearing and a decision. In answer to a written question last month, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) said:

“During the period 1 April to 30 June 2012 (the latest period for which data has been published) the average time taken from receipt of an ESA appeal by the SSCS Tribunal to disposal was 19 weeks”.—[Official Report, 19 November 2012; Vol. 553, c. 307W.]

However, that 19 weeks is not the average waiting time for an individual making an appeal but merely the average time it takes the Tribunals Service to process the appeal after it receives the papers. Before it even receives the papers, an appeal must be lodged with the DWP, the relevant decision maker has to perform a series of checks and the Department must prepare and submit its response.

There is no time limit for DWP to prepare its response to an appeal. In a written answer to a question from me in February this year, the then Justice Minister, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), indicated that between June 2010 and May 2011, the average time it took from the submission of an appeal to DWP to receipt of the papers by the Tribunals Service was 8.1 weeks. If we add that to the average of 19 weeks, we are looking at about 27 weeks. Over and above that, individuals will have submitted an application and undergone an assessment. In 2011, they had to wait seven weeks for the result of that assessment, although I know from talking to my colleagues that many people encounter much longer waits.

What does all that mean in practice? I raised an example during Prime Minister’s questions on 2 March last year. A constituent of mine had a young adult son who was severely autistic but had been found fit for work, and who appealed successfully. The process took 10 months, and he was told that he would have to be reassessed in six months. I do not think that the Prime Minister understood the question that I was asking; he gave me an answer about disability living allowance rather than employment and support allowance.

Before the Minister says, “That was then; that was 2011, and we have made so many improvements that it isn’t happening any more,” only two weeks ago, I visited a constituent whom I had not met before who told me a similar story of having applied, being refused and appealing, and who within a relatively short time had to go through another assessment.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is being generous with her time. Does she agree that it seems to be utter nonsense? There is a lack of understanding. If people have progressive illnesses or permanent conditions, they will not be any more fit for work in a few months’ time. It seems to be one of the absolute immoralities of the system that people who cannot ever work continue to be called back for reassessments.

[Sheila Gilmore]

That leads me neatly into my next point. I followed up with a written question, and the then Minister of State for the Department of Work and Pensions—now Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice—set out the official line, which is that the period between assessments is known as a prognosis time and is determined by the decision maker at the time when they decide whether someone is fit for work or should be given ESA. The clock starts ticking on the date of the original decision.

My immediate question is why someone found fit for work would be given a prognosis time in the first place. Hon. Members might think that that would not be necessary, because the assumption is that the person will be moving on to jobseeker’s allowance. The only reason that I can envisage for that is that prognosis times are, in effect, a precautionary measure in the event that if a claimant successfully appeals, as so many do, and is awarded ESA, a prognosis time is ready. But if the decision maker’s original determination that the claimant was fit for work is overturned, why should we put any faith in the corresponding determination on what the prognosis time should be? If the decision on a claimant’s being fit for work was wrong, surely one imagines that the decision on the prognosis time would be wrong.

It would make much more sense for those who are declared fit for work to be given no prognosis time and, in the event of a successful appeal, for the judges to be given a responsibility for settling the matter when making their new decision. If that is not thought possible, the prognosis times should only kick in after a successful appeal and should not start from the time of the original decision, because that is putting people on a rapid roundabout.

During the summer, my hopes were raised that the Government might have seen the contradictions in the current arrangements. In an interview for the BBC “Panorama” documentary in July 2011, the then Minister—now Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice—said,

“It’s been apparent to me in the last few months that we were calling people back too regularly and I’ve instructed the officials that operate the system to actually make sure that we leave a much more sensible gap in between the two.”

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for being a champion of this cause. I have a staff member who looks after nothing else but ESA and DLA appeals, because of the volume of those coming in. That is one of my great concerns. For descriptors, they ask them, “Can you move the box from here to there?” or “Can you hold the pint of milk?” Those descriptors do not apply to blind people, to people with depression or to those with severe mobility and other issues. Does the hon. Lady feel that the Government could look upon this matter more favourably and ensure that people have a report from a general practitioner, the person who medically knows them best of all?

[Sheila Gilmore]

Without a doubt, that is one way that it could be done. The flaws of the system include whether people are able to present information, when it is accepted and how it is used.

It seemed that the former Minister at least was prepared to move in respect of people’s being called back too quickly. I put this issue to the new Minister at the Select Committee on Work and Pensions evidence session held on 21 November, but I did not get a particularly helpful response. The Minister said,

“There is the opportunity for the tribunal to make a recommendation”,

which suggests that the tribunal could do that, but he then said,

“When that recommendation is made, it is something that the decision maker should take into account. I think there is also an issue about at what point of time is the tribunal disputing DWP’s decision.”

Should they be looking at

“the point in time the decision was made, which could be nine months earlier…or is it based on what they saw on the day in the tribunal? So there is a lack of clarity there, but I think we should take a fairly clear view about when reassessments should take place, and it is an area that decision makers should work on.”

The Minister used a lot of words, but did not provide clarity about our making progress on this matter. He was far less clear than his predecessor talking on a television programme. That was disappointing. Perhaps the Minister will provide clarification when responding.

Can the judges suggest a different prognosis time? Are they given guidance as to when they should and should not set prognosis times? Do the Government collect statistical analysis of how often judges take up this option? If they are allowed to do so, they appear to exercise that ability rarely. At what point and how are decision makers brought back into the process once a fit-for-work decision has been overturned? If that happens, could a decision maker at that stage, as opposed to at appeal, suggest a new prognosis time, even if the judge has not taken up the option? What guidance is provided to decision makers in this regard and are there any statistics on it?

I shall pre-empt the Minister by acknowledging that in government my party introduced ESA and the work capability assessment. I do not raise these issues to make political points, but in a genuine attempt to get them dealt with. I have repeatedly stated that I came to this place determined to raise these issues, regardless of who won the election. I first came across many of the issues as I was campaigning for election. I was concerned about a politicised response at the last Work and Pensions oral questions, consisting too much of saying, “You introduced it,” which did not get to the crux of these issues.

It would help if the Minister provided clarity on the following points. Do decision makers set prognosis times for claimants found fit for work? If so, why are those not overturned when this happens to corresponding fit-for-work decisions? Can judges set new prognosis times when they overturn decisions? What role do decision makers have with respect to prognosis times following successful appeals?

Finally, I seek an update on the apparent instruction from the former Minister to civil servants that the time between reassessments should be reduced. A central recommendation of Professor Harrington’s first report was that the WCA should be more compassionate and empathetic, and this will only be achieved once Ministers intervene and stop people being called back for reassessments immediately after successful appeals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Esther McVey]

I will come to that point a little later.

The number of working-age people on ESA and incapacity benefits as of February 2012 was 2.56 million, which is the lowest level since the introduction of IB in 1995. Early estimates to September 2012 suggest that overall the numbers on these benefits are further decreasing and for the first time the data have gone below 2.5 million.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Is the Minister aware of the research that the DWP carried out for some of the early applicants for ESA, which showed that after a year of being found fit for work, 43% were neither on an out-of-work benefit nor in employment? This fall in the number of people on benefit may be the result of their simply getting nothing and disappearing out of the system. Is she concerned by that?

[Esther McVey]

Of course, that would concern me; it would be of concern to anyone. Everybody will be followed up and duly represented and given sufficient support. However, we would have to look into those numbers. Those who are on benefit get the support they need, in contrast to previous approaches through which they were abandoned to a lifetime on benefits. Those who have been found fit for work now claim JSA, an active benefit with a proven track record of getting people into work, as the falling unemployment figures have shown.

On the cases raised this evening, it is important to note that if someone appeals against a disallowance decision, the tribunal considers the evidence, the law and the claimant’s circumstances at the time of that decision. If the appeal is upheld and the claimants are awarded ESA, they are quite rightly required to attend a further work capability assessment in the same way as any other ESA claimant—the timing of the reassessment is the issue. It is not true that the time frame set for the work capability assessment remains fixed by the original decision maker when the fit-for-work decision was made. If an appeal has been upheld, the date for the next WCA is decided afresh by a decision maker; re-referral dates chosen can be three, six, 12, 18 or 24 months later, depending on when it is considered most appropriate for claimants to have their next contact with the Department.

--- Later in debate ---

[Esther McVey]

As I said, all factors will be taken into account for the individual having an assessment. It is true that a small number of claimants are asked to attend a further work capability assessment as little as three months after a successful appeal, but only after careful consideration of all the available evidence by the decision maker. Our latest data show, however, that that only happens in around 5% of cases. As part of our ongoing commitment to continuous improvement, the process was reviewed, with revised guidance issued to decision makers in February 2011 to ensure that they were actively considering a suitable re-referral date, so that claimants are called back when most appropriate for them.

Following the recommendations from Professor Harrington’s year two review, a regular audit of decision-maker performance is now conducted via the quality assurance framework, whereby checks are made on a sample of ESA and IB reassessment decisions. We also conduct twice yearly calibration exercises at a national level to ensure consistent application of the quality assurance framework. More than 90% of decisions met the required standard each month between February and September 2012. Additionally, due to changes introduced in July 2012, we have improved the process for receiving feedback from the tribunals if the tribunal has overturned the original decision. Judges now have the discretion to include a recommendation of when the next WCA should take place on the tribunal’s decision notice. The decision maker will take account of that recommendation when setting the review date.

I recognise that the number of appeals that the Department receives, as well as the effect on the individuals concerned, is an emotive issue. I also acknowledge that the volume of appeals has increased significantly over recent years, but that, too, is being addressed. I want to ensure that the decision making is right first time around, which was a focus of Professor Harrington’s independent reviews of the WCA. He has made a number of recommendations to support such an approach to decision making. As a result, we have: changed how we communicate with claimants, to explain the process more clearly; put decision makers at the heart of the process; and introduced the quality assessment framework to improve the quality of decisions made. We have also introduced the personalised summary statement and regional mental function champions to improve the quality of face-to-face assessments.

If a claimant disputes a decision, however, we must be able to resolve the dispute within the DWP, whenever possible. If the dispute cannot be resolved within the DWP, we need to ensure that an effective and efficient dispute resolution procedure is in place. The DWP and Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service are working together to improve the quality of initial decision making to address the high levels of appeals while ensuring that fairness and efficiency are maintained.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Can the Minister address a specific issue? As recently as July, the former Minister appeared to accept that in spite of the changes mentioned he thought that people were being called back too quickly for reassessment. What has been done since July to deal with that?

[Esther McVey]

I thought I had dealt with that a little earlier when discussing the decision makers and how there is the right to look at when they feel it is appropriate to call someone back, whether three, six, 12, 18 or 24 months later. That obviously has to be right for all, whether the person assessed or the system as a whole. As the hon. Lady knows, we have reviewed the process not once, not twice, but three times under Professor Harrington. Each time recommendations have come back, and we have implemented them, so significant changes are under way.

As the hon. Lady mentioned at the start of the debate, we inherited the situation—the system was put in place before this Government—but we are trying to get it right, we have brought in changes and we will continue to do so until all parts of the House and, most importantly, those being assessed, feel we have got it right.

In conclusion, I echo Professor Harrington who has made it quite clear that the work capability assessment, designed as the “first positive step” towards work, is the “right concept” for assessing people who need our support. He also recognised, however, that there was a need to improve it, which is why we accepted and have largely implemented more than 40 recommendations made in his first two reviews.

Following our reforms, twice as many people go into the support group now as when ESA was introduced. The proportion of people with mental health conditions being awarded ESA has risen from 33% to 49%. I know the hon. Member for Edinburgh East asked specifically what was happening in that regard, and I hope that she can take some comfort from how clearly we are looking into the matter and at how the numbers have changed.

In response to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero), who mentioned one of her constituents and a physiotherapist, the assessment looks at the function and not the condition. Physios are experts in this area and have comprehensive training, especially on mental health. They are only approved and allowed to be assessors if they have the necessary skills.

As for the critics, Professor Harrington made it clear in his third review:

“All they call for is a scrapping of the WCA but with no suggestion of what might replace it”,

and

“to recognise that things are beginning to change positively in the best interests of the individual would be helpful.”

Debates such as this improve the situation.

Jobs and Social Security

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Wednesday 28th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman). I think that I agree with most of what he said. I certainly agree that on this issue we need cross-party consensus and not political point-scoring. It is a pity that his Front Benchers did not take note of that in drafting their motion and chose to play politics instead of dealing with the substance.

Whatever our concerns about the performance of the Work programme to date, it beggars belief to suggest that people would have been better off left to their own devices, with none of the support that it has been providing, and that more of them would have found work in the difficult economic climate we have seen over the past 18 months. That is a grave insult to the providers and their employees who have been working hard trying to help people who have been unemployed for a long time. We have to give the programme somewhat more time than its first year before we draw any real conclusions about its success. We can see from the data published by the trade association that its performance is improving, and that is consistent with what I have seen on the ground in my constituency.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

The problem I have with quoting the additional figures that have emerged from the trade association is that for the past year and a half we have been lectured on the fact that we could not have any interim information about how the Work programme is going because the data had to be properly evaluated and reliable. Yet because the published data do not suit the Government, we are suddenly having all these unverified data thrown at us to tell us that things are not really how we think they are. Why was all this kept secret?

[Nigel Mills]

I am not sure that I am the best person to answer that question. However, when we have a programme that is running for seven years, with people being put on to it for two years, we cannot draw many conclusions from the data in the first few months of its operation. A decent period will have to elapse before we get some reliable data that will have some meaning and can be used to look at trends. I see why we have official data to the end of July this year, but data since then would have more relevance if we also had data from the first three months of the programme.

No Member of this House seriously disputes the need to provide those with most barriers in their way with the additional support that they need to get back to work. Many such people have been out of work for a long time and will need help with serious issues in order to build up confidence and have any chance of getting back to work. To be fair, the scheme of the previous Government towards the end of their time in office was not radically different from that introduced by the current Government. This Government have accelerated the change, introduced a more consistent programme over the whole country and brought the strands of different schemes into one programme, but the direction of travel is not entirely different. In fact, many providers involved with the previous scheme are also involved in the current one. It is not sensible to say that the Work programme is doing the wrong thing and is a terrible idea, and that its support is completely wrong. Where does that leave us? Surely it is not the Opposition’s policy to have no support at all for the long-term unemployed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Guto Bebb]

Indeed. My experience of going around Tesco’s partnership stores, for example, has been quite inspiring. I found somebody who had been unemployed for eight years and was given an opportunity to work in the bakery section; 18 months later she was the manager, and famously said, “They’ll be carrying me out of here in a box, because I’ve been given an opportunity.” That is the reality of what creating a job and helping people into a job is all about.

[Sheila Gilmore]

The points the hon. Gentleman makes about the importance of employment are clearly correct. The reason I have any criticism of jobs in the retail sector, for example, is not because they are not important jobs, but because people are increasingly being offered short-hours jobs, on zero-hours contracts and with little security, which simply does not work for those trying to organise child care. That is the problem.

[Guto Bebb]

I disagree on the whole. Quite often the current restriction means that when people go over a certain number of hours, they are penalised. That will be dealt with when we introduce universal credit. What I have found is that there is a feeling out there that people are still being penalised for wanting to work more. Universal credit will certainly deal with that, which is an important change that is required.

We have heard a lot in this debate—from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman and some Opposition Back Benchers too—about youth unemployment. Obviously it is absolutely problematic if too many young people are not working, but between 2004 and 2010, youth unemployment in my constituency of Aberconwy increased by 192%. If I recall it correctly, I think the Labour party was in government at that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies]

I have been the housing chair for London and for Croydon. I know that it is possible to devise strategies involving incentives to encourage people to move to smaller homes—and, of course, as people die over time, housing is recycled in any case—but the suggestion that a group of people in social housing should be evicted once their children have grown up and that, because suitable housing does not exist in their own communities, they should be moved around is not only despicable but completely counter-productive. It is economically insane as well as socially immoral.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I am sure my hon. Friend agrees that this is not an attempt to ensure that housing is distributed more evenly. It even applies to people with disabilities. Couples who have to sleep apart for medical reasons will be suddenly told that they have too big a house. It is a draconian measure.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. There is a danger that those who wish to make a speech later will not be able to do so. I am sure that the hon. Lady understands that if she does not have an opportunity to make a speech herself, it will be her own fault.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Whenever any Government Minister, from the Prime Minister down, is asked what they are doing to tackle unemployment, they always answer by setting out a litany of schemes, starting with the Work programme. The problem is that the Work programme does not create any jobs. Jobs are created by other aspects of the economy. In the past financial year, the number of affordable homes in Scotland has halved compared with the previous two years, so we can see where the problem lies. An awful lot of building jobs are not being done, because houses are not being started, because the funding is not in place. Since the start of the Work programme, one of our issues has been that it does not create jobs, and if the jobs are not there in the right areas for the right people, no amount of money put into the programme will resolve that. Perhaps the Government have just convinced themselves of their own propaganda. They have spent so long saying that the employment problem facing Britain is that people either will not or cannot work and that benefits are too generous that they have swallowed their own propaganda.

Another question about the Work programme is whether it is actually effective in doing what it sets out to do, namely training people, giving them confidence and skills, and helping them to meet employers to get jobs. We were told a lot about the black-box approach, the trouble with which is that we do not know and are not allowed to know what is happening.

The hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) spoke about visiting one of his Work programme providers, which I have also done. I heard a whole load of stuff—this was near the beginning of the programme—about how it would give people personalised programmes, have medical people on hand and give people counselling. It sounded wonderful, but the anecdotal evidence from my constituents—yes, it is anecdotal; we are not told much about what is happening because of the black box—is that all that is lacking.

I met one constituent last weekend whose view was that he could have done what his Work programme provider got him to do equally well at home. He went there once a fortnight—it was not an intensive programme—to do a job search on a computer, but he already knew how to do that and had been doing it himself. It was what he did with the jobcentre before he ever went on the Work programme. There did not seem to be a huge amount of value in what was happening.

The problem lies partly with the Government’s pride in cheapness. If we pay peanuts, we do not get very much. Gingerbread, an organisation that represents single parents, has told me of single parents on the Work programme who, because their provider does not provide child-care costs—it is not funded to do so—cannot necessarily take up any available training opportunities. Perhaps we are not investing enough in the programme to get the job outcomes. It may be cheap, but it is not producing the outcomes.

I have also visited in the past couple of weeks a social enterprise in my constituency that does employability services work, mainly with people with mental health problems. It gets some of its funding and a substantial number of referrals through Edinburgh’s health services, which is probably just as well, because that at least gives it some steady income. It is also a Work programme subcontractor. It carries out an intensive programme with people with mental health difficulties and understands the lack of confidence that they often have. The constituent I mentioned who had had the bad experience could have done with that, because he had suffered a nervous breakdown previously. The enterprise does 95% of its work with people who are got into work, and it is successful and involves less than half the contract price. Might it not be more efficient to contract directly with such organisations, which have been a proven success? That could be done locally through Jobcentre Plus or local councils. I offer that as a possible solution to the problems with the Work programme. I am not just criticising it but suggesting how to make it better.

Personal Independence Payments

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Tuesday 13th November 2012 Westminster Hall

[John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this important issue. I welcome the new Minister to her post and wish her well.

I have brought the matter of preparing for personal independence payments—PIPs—to the House as a representative of a good number of people in my constituency who have come to me to ask for advice and to express their concerns about the replacement for the disability living allowance. I feel that the issue is so crucial and of such great concern to disabled people, in my constituency and the rest of the country, that we should keep it on the agenda. It is vital that we discuss the plans for personal independence payments now, so that we can be proactive in solving any issues, rather than waiting for them to become problems and reacting to them too late.

Let me start by saying that disability living allowance needed to be reformed. Crucial problems had to be addressed, about which people across the board were in agreement, but the reforms that have come through have raised a great number of concerns. I do not, however, want to talk about any of the flaws in the policy as a whole. It is far too late for that. We need to move past them now and look to the future, to ensure that the philosophy behind the policy—the slashing of the welfare budget—does not undermine its implementation and that the final regulations and guidance are designed around the needs of disabled people.

In its research, the Department for Work and Pensions has calculated that half a million people who would have been eligible for DLA, had it continued, will not be eligible for personal independence payments. That tells only half the story. Many other people will be significantly affected by changes to the system: 280,000 claimants will lose their entitlement to the enhanced or higher rate mobility allowance and some 370,000 fewer claimants will be entitled to standard or lower rate mobility allowance. Those people will also lose many of the benefits and necessities associated with DLA.

Scotland’s disabled people will be severely affected, with an estimated 74,000 people losing some or all of their mobility allowance. I can see why so many people in my constituency have come to me with their concerns. Library figures show that 1,260 people are likely not to be transferred on to personal independence payments. That is a huge number of people, and let us remember that many more will lose their entitlement to higher levels of benefit.

With so many people losing so much, we need to discuss what will happen to them. People who do not qualify for PIPs will need to look elsewhere to cover the loss in their income; people not entitled to PIPs may appeal such a decision and be left in limbo; and people will lose some of their passported benefits, because of the difference in the number of levels in the daily living category. There will be carers who lose their benefits, which will impact on both themselves and the people they care for.

We must discuss what happens in those situations and where people are to go for help. Why? Because so many of the constituents who are coming to us about the issue want to know exactly that. They are scared, and as their representatives, we need to ensure that we have done everything that we can to protect their rights. Their concern, which is mine, is about the process itself and how it will be conducted.

The PIPs system is intended to provide more face-to-face assessments than the DLA one. That raises several issues, the most important of which is that assessors should be given adequate training to enable them to identify disabled people’s issues and how they face such issues. That is an extremely difficult challenge, and I want guarantees that that has been thought through.

The number of disabilities is vast, and they vary from extremely physical ones to those that are less obvious to someone who has not been trained adequately. The system involves a very medical model, looking at what people can do, rather than what they cannot do. That might be appropriate for some types of disability. However, someone with a learning disability, for example, might be asked by an assessor, “How are you?” and they might reply, “I’m good.” Of course, they may be good physically, but such a conversation would not necessarily pick up the many problems that the person with a learning disability does not realise they have but needs support for.

Face-to-face interviews will be very stressful for those with mental health problems, who find it difficult to communicate with strangers. People with a different category of disability, such as those with acquired brain injury, need more time to consider and understand issues and find it difficult to grasp the scope and complexity of interviews. Will we have trained assessors for people with all those and other examples of disability? Will assessors have access to medical records with written consent? They need to be able to identify all issues correctly and must have the expertise to conduct interviews effectively. For example, I do not want what happened to one deaf-blind person during the trial period to happen to others. She was unable to be assessed as the assessors could not find, and had not asked for, a deaf-blind manual interpreter.

Will we have trained assessors for disabilities the symptoms of which cannot be seen, such as those caused by a stroke? I asked that very question about whether additional training would be provided to assessors, and I was told that clear guidance has already been received and that there are

“no plans to provide additional training.”—[Official Report, 29 October 2012; Vol. 552, c. 64W.]

I have heard many horror stories that suggest that that might not be the case. We need to learn from the problems caused by the lack of training and awareness in employment and support allowance and work capability assessments and incorporate the lessons learned into a better system for PIPs.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend share this concern? I welcome the fact that there will be some piloting with a small number of applicants, but that pilot is scheduled to last for only two months before the start of the wider roll-out to new applicants. That will not give sufficient time to ascertain what the problems might be and certainly not to evaluate them and make changes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Esther McVey]

If I had reached the end of my paragraph, I might have answered those questions.

Assessors will have broad knowledge and specialist knowledge, but the assessment will not be medical; the assessment focuses on outcomes and how the health condition affects the individual. We recognise, however, that assessors might need support on mental, intellectual and cognitive impairments when assessing individuals with, for example, mental health conditions, learning disabilities or autism. As such, we require providers to have mental and cognitive champions, as recommended by Professor Harrington.

[Sheila Gilmore]

There are more people to be assessed and reassessed for this new benefit than there were for the employment and support allowance, which I accept is very different. One problem that we have encountered is that there are only two mental health champions for the whole of Scotland. Can the Minister reassure us that that number will be increased, because we are dealing with larger numbers?

[Esther McVey]

Absolutely. The hon. Lady is right that the assessment is very different, but we have to take forward the knowledge that we have learned. I have had many meetings on the need for more champions to provide the knowledge, so that people can have confidence when they are being assessed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Monday 5th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey]

I can indeed. User-led groups will be a key element in everything that we do. It is essential for disabled people and their organisations to be at the heart of that. We have also created a £3 million fund, and I was delighted to be in Redbridge last week when we delivered £1 million of it.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

An important part of the disability strategy is to get people into work. Can the Minister tell us what proportion of the people in the work-related activity group who have been mandated to join the Work programme have actually found work?

[Esther McVey]

The figures have not been published yet, but as soon as they are published, I will give the hon. Lady the information.

Working-Age Disabled People

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2012 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Amess. It is also a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, of which I am a member.

Some of my colleagues already know that, unfortunately, and in true DLA style, my hearing aid conked out a few days ago, so I do not have it with me. I am rather deaf, so if the folk on my right want to intervene, they should wave furiously. If I miss that, Mr Amess, please let me know. I apologise, but that is the reality of disability.

Introducing a new disability benefit in place of one that has been around for a number of years is fraught with complexity, anxiety, and often inaccurate media reporting. Consequently, I intend to drill down to a number of the specific features and concerns that the Select Committee has with the new personal independence payment benefit, and the current response from the Department for Work and Pensions. This is a complex issue. The hon. Lady mentioned a number of areas where we have concern. I have flagged some of them up before, and I am going to be precise.

I hope that all of us in the Chamber agree, to a varying extent, that disability living allowance is a benefit based on unclear criteria, is not well understood and has no proper system of reviewing awards. The Committee recognised that. For example, the 2004-05 national benefit review found that approximately £630 million of DLA per year was overpaid as a result of unreported changes in circumstances, while £190 million was underpaid—vital support not reaching the people for whom it was intended.

The concept behind the introduction of PIPs is to ensure that the state, rightly, can continue to support those individuals experiencing the greatest barriers to living an independent life while ensuring that the benefit continues to remain affordable and sustainable. It is also worth noting that the new PIP assessment has been developed in conjunction with a group of independent health, social care and disability experts, and the DWP believes that it will be fairer, more objective and consistent. The theory is that there will be a more responsive and individualised process for ensuring that claimants continue to receive the right support. In taking evidence, the Committee found that the complex DLA claim forms can make it difficult for people to make a claim. Therefore, I and the Committee broadly support the Government’s intention to address those issues.

In addition, we found that there is no proper system for reviewing DLA awards; for instance, 24% of working-age DLA claimants have either had no change in, or no review of, their award for more than a decade, which underlines the Government’s point.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

The problem I have with the 24% figure is that it mixes up two things. We have to acknowledge that. It seems to refer to people who have never been reviewed and to people who have had no change, which is not the same as not being reviewed. It could well be that they have been reviewed, but have had no change in their circumstances. The 24% figure is often put across as if people are not assessed. My experience with constituents is that a lot of working-age recipients of DLA are being assessed, because they come to me with their problems.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne Marie Morris]

rose—

[Sheila Gilmore]

rose—

[Jane Ellison]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Sheridan. Given the colour of your shirt and tie, you are obviously celebrating “Think Pink” week or whatever it is. That is germane to some of the people who have to claim the kind of benefits that we are dealing with today.

I sincerely welcome the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison); I am sure that she will indeed be joining the Select Committee. We have missed our Conservative members at the last few meetings. It might be thought that we would find that a bit of a relief, but actually it is very good to have the debate that we usually have. I am sure that the hon. Lady will be relieved to know that it is a Select Committee in which we do not necessarily spend a lot of time berating one another; there is often a wide area of agreement.

I would like to take up a couple of points before going on to the more detailed issues that I wanted to raise. People think that this is a change for the worse because of the context from which it started. That is very important to remember. It is still about reducing the number of people who will be on PIP compared with DLA. That is in the Department’s own impact assessment. It is about saving money. That not only coloured the beginning of the process, but has continued to colour the process. People are very concerned that things may get worse for them or members of their families.

I take slight issue with the comment made by the hon. Member for Battersea that previous Governments left all this in the “Too difficult” tray. My right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire), who will be answering this debate on behalf of the Opposition, will have the scars to prove that that was not the case. Changes were made to many of the benefits that existed; I do not think that it is true to say that nothing changed.

I find slightly odd some of the language that has been used in relation to the need to reform DLA. The suggestion has sometimes been that it is a very old benefit that has to be modernised and brought up to date. In fact, it is not that old—20 years old is not Victorian; it cannot even be described as post war. There is a tendency to exaggerate some of the claims, and if people do that, there is a danger—

[Jane Ellison]

On the point about exaggeration, I take the point made a moment ago about where things started—the way a debate starts out and how it is framed can influence the tone of it thereafter. I accept that point.

Would the hon. Lady accept that there is a duty and responsibility on those who support the best interests of disabled people not to assume the worst in every circumstance—not to highlight only the cuts aspect or whatever of reforms, but to present them in a more balanced way? Many important reports, including the two I referred to in my speech, are based on opinion surveys of disabled people or their families. Colouring opinion by misrepresenting the facts feeds directly into how people feel and becomes self-perpetuating. I seek balance on both sides in the tone used in the discussion.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I would not suggest that exaggerated comments have not been made. In answering or writing to constituents, I certainly find myself at times being careful to say, “I think this is wrong” or “I think this should not be done”, while not panicking people, so I tell them that it is not happening tomorrow, that there is time and that they should seek advice. It is important that people are not unnecessarily concerned.

The atmosphere in which the debate is ongoing is not helping. It is easy to blame the media, but there is still a tendency on the part of Ministers, whether they intend to or not, to juxtapose benefit claimants with hard-working people. Only the other week, the Prime Minister spoke about people heading out to work in the early hours of the morning, seeing their neighbour’s curtains closed and feeling rightly angry.

That neighbour with the curtains closed might be a night-shift worker or someone with an illness, which might not be visible. It is clear that those with mental health difficulties or less obvious conditions are those who people see and think, “What are they doing on benefit? How is that happening?” It does not help to compare and contrast continually in that way. It engenders some of the responses that we get.

The Government have to be careful about how they present their statistics. There have been improvements of late, in that not quite such provocative statements have been made in response to statistics, but it is not all about media spinning. There is a tendency with the statistics—this week, for example, on the outcome of ESA assessments—to emphasise how many people are found fit for work, with an undertone of, “which means that they were previously scroungers or not entitled to the benefit.” We have not had the migration statistics on ESA, so they were new claimants; they are claiming for the first time.

Let us have a comparator. Let us see what happened previously with incapacity benefit, for example, when people claimed for the first time. I hope that we are careful not to fall into the same trap when the PIP statistics come out. Some 50% of those who try to claim DLA are refused, so if 50% of those who try to claim PIP are also refused, I hope that it will not be hinted at or suggested that that in some way proves that people were getting a benefit that they should not have had. Remember what a baseline is and look at it that way.

[Teresa Pearce]

Does my hon. Friend agree that a possible unintended consequence of such media reports and skewed statistics is that employers who have read those reports may be more prejudiced against people with disabilities, who already face prejudice, who want a job, and against those who have been on benefit and want a job? It makes it more difficult to get those people back to work.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I hope that employers would not form that view, but there are dangers.

If the Government wanted to reform, the way to start would have been to discuss seriously the issues around DLA, not to start from an assumption that it was somehow old-fashioned, not working and that people did not understand it, so we had to throw the whole thing in the air and start all over again. That leaves aside how the reform was couched in terms of financial savings.

If the Government wanted to make a change, it would have been helpful to have the discussion and carry out the research. If we think back to when the White Paper came out in late 2010, an extraordinarily short time was given for people’s responses. It was a generalised paper, and the extensive response to it was responded to in a very simplified fashion. That did not help. If we had sat down with a lot of the groups in the first place, we might have come out with a better ending.

Obviously, as a Select Committee, we look at the details. The hon. Member for Battersea was correct to say that we have to be careful that we do not end up seeing the trees and not the wood, but details are part of the job of a Select Committee. One thing that we all say, and we all feel strongly about, is that we must get the assessments right first time, which is precisely what appears not to have happened with the WCA.

We know that the cost of appeals is met by the DWP, not the provider.

[Stephen Lloyd]

I completely concur with the hon. Lady about the statistics on the WCA and the level of successful appeals. Does she agree that the changes to the WCA that the coalition Government have brought in, with Professor Harrington’s reports, will mean that the first assessment is wrong for fewer people and that the new WCA is more effective and productive?

[Sheila Gilmore]

Unfortunately, the statistics do not yet show a huge change. The latest statistics show a small reduction in the number of successful appeals, but the number is still very high. Statistics always lag back a few months, so it may be that further improvements are still to come, which would be good. It is particularly important that we get this benefit reform right.

Many people, including those in the disability field and Opposition Members, have asked whether there is any penalty of any sort on the assessor for not doing the job as they should. We are constantly told that we cannot have the information because it is all commercially sensitive. I can understand that perhaps being the case during the tendering process, but I am not clear why it is deemed to be quite so commercially sensitive once the contract is awarded. We still do not know. Public money is going to these organisations, so it is important that we have confidence that this time there is a system in place.

The Select Committee’s recommendation was:

“DWP contracts with private companies for the delivery of the PIP assessment”

should

“directly link the payment of public funds to the production of reliable assessment reports that are ‘right first time’.”

Now that the contracts have been awarded, I hope that the Minister can tell us whether that has been done and whether it will be monitored and reported on. Obviously, if the assessments are much better, there will not be many penalties, but we need to know now whether that link has been made. It would give people more confidence in the process.

The Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), briefly mentioned contracting. The PIP assessments have been let on a regional basis. In Scotland and the north of England, Atos won the contract, but it appears to be subcontracting to NHS Lanarkshire to carry out the assessments.

If Atos is not doing the work, what is it getting out of the contract? How much of the contract price goes to Atos and how much to Salus? Salus is the not-for-profit arm of NHS Lanarkshire; it does other forms of occupational health work, which is why it was selected. It is not unreasonable to ask those questions. Such arrangements are becoming all too typical in this new world of outsourcing to large, all-purpose, public service, private companies.

We saw it in the Work programme. At the apex are the big boys such as G4S, A4e and Serco. Sometimes they do the work themselves; sometimes they subcontract; sometimes the subcontractors subcontract. At the bottom of the heap some of the sub-subcontractors see little of the payments. That is a major problem.

What are some of those big companies being paid to do? Are they being paid just to put the contract together? Are they just creaming something off the top? They are certainly not shouldering the risk for their subcontractors, because when those get into trouble—with the Work programme, at least—they are not bailed out by the prime contractor. The main contractors do not carry a financial risk of that kind.

We need to know what is happening with the process. The question arises whether it might not have been easier to contract the work in the first place directly to the NHS. If we talk about these things a lot, it is because people naturally think there may be a connection. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) pointed out that in statements that have been made in the past the connection with WCA was made overtly. It is not only we who make it.

The question of targets has been controversial. Atos has said there are no targets in relation to WCA. The Government have vehemently denied that there are targets. However, it now seems clear from people who have worked as health care professionals in this field for Atos—and this came out of the television documentaries in the summer as well—that there are expectations about normal and correct outcomes of assessments. Health care professionals whose performance deviates from those expectations are audited so that their performance can improve towards them. We must ask ourselves at what point an expectation becomes a target, or when there is very little difference between the two.

If there are such expectations, what cognisance will there be of regional variations in ill health—and even variations within regions? Partly because of industrial history, certain forms of ill health are more prevalent in some areas and they are likely to have a greater number of people with certain conditions than others. If there are to be targets or expectations, whatever we may call them, such things must be taken into account. However, since we do not know the guidance, we do not know whether they are taken into account. I hope that they are.

If the Government want people to be more confident about the changes, they must be more open and transparent about them. In the absence of such openness and transparency people reach conclusions, rightly or wrongly, which tend, in modern parlance, to go viral around the disability community. People then get very frightened.

Another aspect of the matter that has, I suppose, come out of the WCA experience, is to do with what kind of assessment is being carried out and the attempt to restrict complex conditions to a simple set of descriptors. The aim from the outset seems to have been, certainly with WCA, to create a system that could perform large numbers of assessments and achieve reliable and replicable results. People have often complained about a tick-box approach, and that seems to me to be a direct result of that attempt.

It is not just bad practice by Atos; sometimes, critics concentrate too hard on Atos and not enough on the underlying system. I think that what happens is inherent in the adoption of what is effectively a computerised test approach. I am sure it was sold to the Government as the IT answer to carrying out assessments. I think that we all know that IT magic miracle cures are often oversold by those who sell them. Before the Minister says so, I know that it was the previous Government who introduced the WCA and the form of test in question. The fact that they turned out to have inherent difficulties should not mean that we should not criticise them and consider whether we were perhaps naive to think an IT solution could deliver all that was needed.

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend also accept that the previous Government had already established some monitoring and evaluation of the WCA as it was initially introduced? They did not go for a big bang approach but were going to role it out gradually, so that lessons could be learned.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Certainly the system had been operating for some time before the roll-out to all the existing invalidity benefit claimants, but it is not clear that the evaluation was put in place first. I think at the time we said that as some concerns were being considered, and new ways of doing things were being found, it would have been more sensible to put those changes in place before moving everyone else across.

The WCA experience tells us that IT is a tool, and should never become the master of the process. The computerised test should not be the whole of the assessment process. What comes through loud and clear from Professor Harrington’s report is the importance of seeing the computerised assessment as only a part of the whole. Gathering essential documentary evidence early in the process is important. I often heard the previous Employment Minister say that people come to WCA appeal tribunals with information that was not there in the first place—as if people keep it hidden at home and deliberately wait for the appeal to produce the information. Many of the appellants say that no one asked them for it. Some people have even said that they turned up at assessments with information that was not looked at. We must ensure that information is made available from the outset.

The other important thing, according to Professor Harrington, was that DWP decision makers should not simply rubber stamp the computerised assessment. They should consider the position in the round—look at the documentary evidence and consider the situation again. That change should now be in place for the WCA, and there are signs that that is happening, although when I have asked the Government questions about how many Atos assessments are changed by DWP decision makers, I have been told that the information is not kept in that form. Again, it is quite difficult to know exactly what is happening.

The Minister’s predecessor gave us to understand that the PIP assessment would be very different. In the Government’s response to our report, they said:

“The face-to-face consultation, as part of the Personal Independence Payment assessment, is fully intended to be a two-way conversation between the claimant and the health professional, allowing a detailed exploration of how the claimant’s health condition or disabilities affect their day-to-day lives. The discussion at the consultations should not be mechanistic and should be tailored to individuals. This is being clearly expressed to potential providers as part of the tendering for Personal Independence Payment assessment contracts and will be set out in detail in the supporting guidance for providers and their staff. The guidance will stress the importance of positive interaction throughout all aspects of the assessment. The contract will require assessors to have excellent interpersonal and communication skills, including the ability to interact with people sensitively and appropriately.

The Department is not placing targets on the time required for face-to-face consultations and is making clear to potential providers that consultations will need to be as long as necessary to reach evidence-based conclusions on individual cases.”

That sounds wonderful, and if it happens we will definitely have a much better assessment process than the WCA one that we have criticised. I have a problem reconciling it with the contract approach. Has it been built into the contracts? How will it work? If an assessment on one day, for one person, takes as long as is needed, what happens to the other people sitting in the building waiting to be assessed?

Are those people going to be sent home or asked to come back another day? What effect will that have on the number of assessments carried out? What are the targets or expectations of how many assessments should be carried out each week or month? There is a conflict—a tension, at least—between those hopeful and optimistic words and a contract-based system that has expectations of putting through a large number of people over a short space of time.

The Committee was also concerned about the frequency of reassessments. Although we accepted that there should be more reassessments than previously, we had concerns about how often people should have to go back through that process. It is very stressful and expensive for claimants. Stress can affect people’s health and make them worse rather than better.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

I am glad the hon. Lady has raised that point. The whole question of getting to assessments has been one of the biggest issues around the WCA for people who live far away and often depend on relatives or friends to take them. It can mean a whole day trip for a simple—and sometimes unnecessary—assessment process.

[Sheila Gilmore]

That is where I hope we will see a more flexible approach that in some cases allows for a decision to be made without the absolute necessity of a face-to-face assessment. That should certainly apply in the case of reassessment, even if not always for the first assessment. There will be some cases, even when it is the first occasion, when the obviousness of someone’s situation should make a face-to-face assessment unnecessary.

There is sometimes a reluctance to accept that anybody falls into that category. It is important to give people optimism and hope. I had a constituency case concerning WCA, although it could have applied equally to DLA. A constituent’s son has a number of conditions but basically he is a 21-year-old toddler. He had no concept of what he was to be put through, but his mother did. He had been kept at his special education school for some time beyond normal school leaving age. However, he now had to apply for the benefit. His mother asked whether it was absolutely necessary to take him to an assessment. His inability to handle new situations is so great that she cannot get him into strange places and buildings.

When she phoned to ask about that, she was repeatedly told that there would have to be an assessment and that she would just have to do it. She filled in the form and sent it in. She was then told that he had been granted the benefit without an assessment. That is good, but she had been put through a lot of unnecessary stress, because one bit of the Department did not seem to know that that was possible under certain circumstances. Anyone who had met him would quickly see that the young man was clearly entitled to the benefit and to be in the support group. There was no way he could undertake employment any more than any toddler could.

There are real cases of people who should not be put through all that and the extra difficulties. Apparently, one of the providers is proposing to do quite a lot of home visits and that might take out some of the difficulty. However, that prompts the questions of whether the process will take longer and of how to deal with the large numbers involved. It has been described as a much bigger challenge than the migration from incapacity benefit to ESA. The Department is taking on a bigger challenge before it has completed the previous one.

One problem encountered by people who appeal under the WCA process is that the reassessment comes through quickly thereafter. One oddity is that the decision on the reassessment period is based on the recommendation of the original assessment. The original assessment might say that someone should be reassessed within a year. The person might then appeal and win. If the appeal takes 10 months, that person could still be called back for reassessment two months later, even though the decision to call someone back within a year was based on an original flawed assessment. It does not seem sensible to operate such a procedure. There seems to be no reason why a decision about reassessment should not be reviewed if someone wins an appeal.

The Government response said that the recall time for reassessments could be almost any length; they could be a year or 10 years. They would never again be indefinite. A year is a very short time when one considers that to qualify for the benefit in the first instance, it is necessary to demonstrate that the condition is likely to last for at least a further six months. I would suggest that over-short periods will put everybody through unnecessary difficulty.

Other speakers have mentioned the piloting phase. It defies belief that a proper evaluation of a pilot can be done within two months and then the results applied. That is what is being suggested. The initial roll-out in the Bootle office will start in April. The roll-out to new claimants in the whole of the UK will start in June. There is barely time to get enough data to make an appropriate evaluation, let alone carry out that evaluation and then make changes.

The Department constantly tells us in connection with this benefit and universal credit that it now has an agile system that allows details to be changed as things go along and it can keep rolling out in different ways. That was not our experience with the Harrington changes in WCA. It took months for most of those changes to be put in place. When we asked about it, we were told, “We have got to draw up new instructions to staff. They have to be sent out to staff. New training has to be put in place.” In effect, between the first Harrington report in November 2010 and the following summer, some of the changes began to be rolled out. The explanation we were given for the time lag was that that was the time it takes to go through a process of getting staff ready for the changes.

How is it that suddenly, only a year later, the Department is confident that it can have a pilot, evaluate it and roll out changes and make a real difference to people who are making claims? In October next year, the process of ending people’s DLA claims and inviting them to apply for PIP will begin. The whole process is quite tight and does not give opportunity for proper evaluation and tracking of what is happening to people. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether there will be a proper evaluation of the Bootle pilot. Who is to carry it out? When will the results be known? Does she think it makes sense to move to the full roll-out in June?

Monitoring and tracking changes of this sort is important. We need to know how this will be monitored in an ongoing way. I was appalled to discover how little tracking seems to go on of the results of the ESA process. Parliamentary questions that I have asked about the destinations of people who are found fit for work are often answered with, “We do not keep that information. We may know who is on benefit and who is in employment, but as for other things, we do not know.”

The previous Government put in place a research project that started to track such information, but I think that it has now stopped. It had a first and second wave, but there is no sign of the research continuing. Perhaps the Minister will let me know whether I am wrong.

On ESA, the project found that within a year of people being found fit for work, 43% were neither in work nor in receipt of an out-of-work benefit. That is an awful lot of people simply to disappear. There are a whole lot of reasons for that; people may have gone on to jobseeker’s allowance, run out of the contributory JSA or they may have a working partner. Some may have a small pension because they were retired from work early on health grounds—even though they were then found to be fit for work, which is not uncommon.

There may be lots of reasons, but, as a responsible Parliament and Government, we really should know the effect that this measure is having. These people are seeing a substantial reduction in their incomes. They may have been in a two-income household, which then becomes a one-income household plus a benefit and then a one-income household possibly with the additional costs of having an illness of some kind.

What happens to those people and their standard of living is important. It is the same with the change we are discussing. Some may say that making the change will be good. We were even told by the Minister’s predecessor that some people who previously did not get this benefit—especially mental health applicants—will do so now. We may have even more people getting the benefit. We need to know all the information. I hope that we will have a proper research project and that the Minister will tell us that it is being fully funded by Government.

As for the housing benefit changes, the Government have put in place a research project, which is being carried out by one of the universities. A baseline piece of work has been done, so that we know what we are measuring against, and then it will look at the effect of the changes. If we are going to do that, we should have been doing the baseline now, but perhaps we are and I simply do not know about it.

Data collection is important as well. There have been some hints that the Government will be doing less reporting and data collection on benefit recipients. However, if we do not collect the data, we cannot do the research, even if we try to do it later. At the moment, we can find out how many people claiming DLA are doing so in relation to different conditions. We can tell the proportions of people who are receiving the benefit because of Parkinson’s or other such conditions. If we stop collecting these data—I hope the Minister will reassure me that there is no such intention—we will have a much less clear view of what is happening. Hopefully, we will go on collecting them.

Finally, the implications of the change not being a migration are important. People will consider it to be a migration if they had received incapacity benefit and are now on ESA—of course, not every DLA recipient is in that category. The notion that people will necessarily respond, and respond in time, is fraught with difficulty. Possibly the first time people will notice it is when their benefits stop. Suddenly the benefit will stop, and they will say, “What has happened here?” They will go and get advice and then discover that they have missed the boat—they had not gone ahead as they should have done.

The time scales are short. From the letter’s dropping through the door, a recipient has four weeks to get in the first part of the application. When they get the stage 2 form back, they have four weeks in which to return it. Voluntary and advice agencies say that if people are going to get assistance with some of this process—for some people it is very important to get such assistance—four weeks is not a long time. In many areas, people can wait that sort of length of time for an appointment with an advice agency or a welfare rights adviser, so the time scale can be a serious problem.

If people have to get additional information, which the form will apparently ask for, people will need time. The time scale seems short, and that may be revealed by the pilot. Will the Minister assure us that if it turns out that a large number of people are either not making the claim that they should be—they are not responding to the stage 1 letters and are dropping out—or are having difficulty with the four-week period for returning the form, the Government will move to change the process fairly quickly?

We do not want to see a lot of people losing out over this. If, as the Government claim, the change has genuinely been made to improve the situation for people with disabilities and to give them a personal independence payment that enables them to play a full part in our society, we have to get it right. No Government should be unprepared to accept that.

Let me touch briefly on the issue of our Olympians and what people can and cannot do. Sadly, the success of the Paralympics could turn out to be a double-edged sword for some disabled people, although I hope that it will not. Not everyone can be a Paralympian. Just because some people can, it should not be assumed that other people who are not able to find work, volunteer or play sport are somehow not trying very hard. Although it is good for people to see that disability is not about being a victim and that people can do lots of things when they are disabled, we should not make the obverse mistake of thinking that everyone is up to that and that they are just not pulling their weight.

As many of the Paralympians said, DLA was one of the benefits that helped them to achieve some of the important things that they did, whether it was getting to their training sessions or being able to have a carer so that they could concentrate on getting to places, doing their training and having a home. Many of them specifically said how much they benefited from DLA. We must remember that someone can be a Paralympian and still need benefit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs McGuire]

The expectation would be that there might be more accurate assessments, but we must also take on board the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), who said that the assessment criteria are set not by Atos but by the Government. The issue is how those assessment criteria are interpreted further down the line. We might get better, more valuable assessments, but as the previous Minister said on more than one occasion in this House, the ultimate decision is made by the decision maker in the Department for Work and Pensions, and the criteria are set down by that Department. We must always remember that.

I want to come on to an issue relating to Atos, of which the Minister may or may not be aware. I understand that this afternoon some major disability organisations are up in arms about the fact that Atos has apparently named them in the contract. They did not know anything about it. As a matter of fact, they are incandescent with rage, because their being named in the contract has given the company an element of credibility. In one instance the contract states, I think, that those voluntary organisations are going to carry out the disability training of Atos staff and do various other kinds of partnership work with the company. Someone in one of the organisations has said, “It is difficult to know whether we should fall about laughing, because it is so ridiculous.”

Will the Minister tell us whether Atos named in the contract organisations that it had not contacted? What is happening now that those organisations are challenging the fact that Atos has put them down there? If the contractual system has proved to be flawed, will the Minister say that she will have to review the contracts? We cannot have a situation in which a private sector contractor uses as cover disability organisations in the voluntary sector, when those organisations have not given their permission and have in some instances said that they would have nothing at all to do with Atos.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is all part of the opacity of the contracts? Public money is going out, and we do not know what is in the contracts or, in the case of the subcontracting, who is getting what money and what Atos is even being paid for, if it is getting other people to do the work.

[Mrs McGuire]

My understanding is that the disability organisations involved did not know that they were listed as Atos partners, if I can call them that, until some of the information was published recently. There are serious questions here. I do not know whether the Minister will have an answer this afternoon, but if she does not, I suggest that she might need one pretty quickly, because some organisations are up in arms.

Finally, I want to come on to young people. I note from page 19 of the Government’s response that they still think that the age of 16 is the appropriate cut-off. There is a myth that the changes will have no impact on young people and children, but by the end of the roll-out of the process a 14-year old who is in receipt of disability living allowance now will be affected by the changes brought in with PIP. The previous Minister told me that 16 was the appropriate age because it is the natural point at which a child transitions to adulthood, but I suggest that the Minister reconsider that. The school-leaving age is going up, and I assume that that will have an effect on disabled young people at school. If a child or a young person was moved from a benefit at the age of 16, when they were still going through their school career, they could be in the ludicrous position of having qualified for DLA but not for what the Government have promoted as the tighter benefit of PIP. Young people in what would be fourth year in the Scottish education system—I do not know what it would be in England—should not be put under such additional stress. I suggest that 16 is no longer the appropriate age. The Government have stated that they are considering a transitional arrangement for people aged 16 to 18, and I am keen to find out the Minister’s view on that.

In conclusion, I will quote an optimistic sentence spoken by the Chancellor just before the emergency Budget, which is highlighted in the Hardest Hit report:

“Too often, when countries undertake major consolidations of this kind, it is the poorest—those who had least to do with the cause of the economic misfortunes—who are hit hardest.”—[Official Report, 22 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 180.]

There is a strong sense out there that disabled people are the hardest hit. [Interruption.] I am delighted that the hon. Member for Battersea is back in her place. I am sure that she will be a great asset to the Select Committee.

In the Hardest Hit report that I have mentioned, the Paralympian David Clarke stated:

“There are hidden costs [to being disabled]. Computing what those costs are is very difficult…but fundamentally they exist. Withdrawal of [that] additional funding to cover those additional costs, if that is being planned, will jeopardise the independence of disabled people.”

Paralympians did wonderful things this summer, but many of them will say that one reason why they could do those things was because of the additional support from something like disability living allowance. I hope that the Minister will address that issue because we need to consider that there are extra costs to disability. PIP will, according to the Government, recognise the people who are most severely disabled and those in the greatest need, but there are people in great need, and people in greater need. No matter how laudable, if we concentrate all the effort and finance on those who are most severely disabled, there will still be disabled people who require some help to meet those additional costs. That is the dilemma the Government face.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I begin by congratulating and thanking the Liaison Committee for calling this debate. I thank the members of the Select Committee and other right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken today, some with very personal knowledge of this most important subject.

In summing up I hope to get through all the questions. As Members can see, I have papers on those questions across my desk, but should I not get to answer all of them, I am sure Members will catch my eye and pursue the matter that most concerns them.

I am pleased, Mr Sheridan, that you are chairing the debate today. Thank you.

I believe that the change will be of the same quality and standard as the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague). I thank the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) for mentioning that Act, because I think all of us here are concerned about, committed to and believe in the rights of people with disabilities. We want the changes that we seek to be implemented as best they can be and brought about for the right purposes. The coalition Government are committed to enabling disabled people to fulfil their potential and to have opportunities to play a full role in society.

We have been clear about our welfare reform plans, which are designed to rebalance the benefits system so that it is fair to claimants and affordable for the taxpayer. Key to ensuring those objectives is replacing the disability living allowance with personal independence payments for people of working age.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Will the Minister give way?

[Esther McVey]

I have only just begun, but the hon. Lady may intervene if she wishes.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I regret that the Minister has fallen into the trap of counterpoising claimants and taxpayers. Many claimants are indeed taxpayers. Many are income tax payers, but they all certainly pay VAT. The two groups are not distinct.

[Esther McVey]

I never sought to put them in two distinct groups. I said “affordable for the taxpayer”. I am afraid that it is the hon. Lady who distinguishes between the two. I certainly did not.

The Government currently spend almost £50 billion a year on disabled people, including more than £15 billion on adult social care, £1 billion on free transport for elderly and disabled people, £13 billion on disability living allowance, £15 billion on a range of other benefits and £320 million on disability employment programmes. We are also putting an extra £15 million into Access to Work. We should be proud that we are doing all of that. We spend a fifth more than the EU average, and we are acknowledged as world leaders, which is a very good point to start this debate.

Those services enable disabled people to make their own choices and live independently, and for the services to continue to be available they must be sustainable and keep pace with the needs of disabled people today, which is considered no longer to be the case with disability living allowance. As hon. Members may be aware, from May 2002 to February 2012 the number of people claiming DLA rose by almost 34%. DLA, therefore, is financially unsustainable. We, like many others, including the Select Committee, consider DLA to be outdated and in need of fundamental change.

Child Support Agency

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Wednesday 11th July 2012 Westminster Hall

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Weir, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) on securing this important debate. It is an issue that, even during our discussions on reform, often comes at the end of a lot of other matters and has sometimes not received the full amount of time that it deserves.

I do not for an instant pretend that the CSA has not had problems, but I am concerned that we are making a wrong analysis of them, and it is possible that we could again make a gigantic mistake. Many mistakes were made when the CSA was set up in 1993, and one reason for that was because at the time, the views of those who worked in the field were almost totally disregarded.

I had better declare an interest because I am a family lawyer by profession although I am not currently practising. The CSA was introduced to meet a need because the previous systems were not working well. Then as now, many children and families were not receiving the money that they should have been getting, and the Government did not invent the CSA simply to be difficult. When it was introduced, however, it was an all-or-nothing system that was not terribly helpful and produced a huge work load right from the start. That was probably the wrong end to go from. I am still convinced that the CSA should have been started, at least in the early stages, on a slower basis, perhaps dealing only with some types of situation, and that we should have listened to some of those who were used to working in the field.

Many of the problems that the hon. Lady mentioned are endemic to the situations in which people find themselves, rather than caused by the Child Support Agency. The hon. Lady mentioned self-employed people, and they are always extremely difficult to tackle. They were extremely difficult under previous legal powers when we went to court, or used the system in Scotland that did not involve going to court—I will mention that in a minute. Trying to get from the self-employed what we felt they ought to be paying was extremely difficult, and their ability to produce accounts that made it look as if they did not earn much was notorious. That was always a problem, as were people who disappeared and went overseas. I had a client whose husband worked on oil rigs. Every time we got an earnings assessment for him, he would simply give up that job and take another. He was a scaffolder and very well paid, and his ability to thwart the system, as it was then, was great. I do not, however, believe that that situation would have been any easier for the CSA. We must address the real problems, and not necessarily blame the CSA.

[Mr Spencer]

Surely the hon. Lady will acknowledge that within her constituency there will be people who experience enormous frustration when trying to communicate with the Child Support Agency. People get moved between different offices around the country; the CSA loses information and does not acknowledge the simple facts that are happening in people’s lives. That is the fault of the CSA rather than the lifestyle of those individuals.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I must say that my case load on this matter is not as large as some people’s appear to be. Some of the cases are almost a legacy because they come from the previous system. I have some long-standing cases, and in my experience, although I do not seek to defend the CSA, it is not necessarily much worse than dealing with other large Government agencies.

I am worried that we are in danger of making another big leap based on a wrong premise. The Minister’s assumption—this also came through in the opening speech by the hon. Member for Loughborough—is that the statutory child support system is the cause of discord and bad feeling between parents. However, if we start off with a wrong premise, we will come to a wrong conclusion.

The hon. Lady cited research that indicated that two thirds of people with family-based arrangements were happy with them, whereas only one third of CSA clients were happy. Some 74% of those with family-based arrangements considered them to be fair, compared with 42% of those with CSA arrangements. However, the crucial point missing from that analysis is that the people who end up using the CSA are those who cannot reach family-based arrangements. Those who can reach such arrangements do so, and we are not comparing like with like if we come to that conclusion and decide that we should basically shrink the existing statutory system. If I understand the situation correctly, those currently within the system will be asked to close their cases and restart the process by trying to get a family-based arrangement. If they cannot, presumably they will come back through the process. The idea is to shrink the system due to the analysis that the CSA is what causes discord between parents.

My experience as a family lawyer is that separation is a very difficult situation. People do not separate because they are getting on well. They do not usually separate because they can communicate well. Often they are angry and often they have good cause to be angry. That anger is not something that is just stirred up either by the courts, which is one of the assertions that we hear, or by the Child Support Agency. People are angry. They do have difficulty getting money, and there are reasons why that will always be quite difficult.

Generally, when people separate, both partners lose financially. It is a financially difficult situation for them, and often it does not get better after a few weeks, months or even years of separation, because new liabilities come into play. People form new relationships and they find it even more difficult to cope. These things influence people’s attitudes to one another, and some people clearly are not willing to come forward to make an agreement. My concern is that we are making the wrong assumption—that having a statutory system is causing discord—and if we start from the wrong point, we will reach the wrong conclusion, and the solution will not be the one that cures the problem.

I would like to make a practical proposition to the Minister. It is drawn from Scots law and could fill a gap. The Government should think seriously about it, especially if they are determined to shrink the child support arrangements. In Scotland, it is possible to have not just the vague, family-based arrangement that everyone talks about, but a legal minute of agreement, which is enforceable in the same way as a court order would have been under the previous system. These minutes of agreement are usually negotiated with the assistance of solicitors. Many people have them drawn up, and they have worked extremely well. As I said, they are directly enforceable. All the same steps can be taken to enforce them as could have been taken with a court order. That model would enhance the system here tremendously. I offer it up, from Scotland, as something that perhaps the Minister will want to discuss with the Ministry of Justice. They may want to discuss how something such as that might be introduced into the English legal system to enable people to have something that, yes, is agreed—it is negotiated and agreed—but also has legal enforceability.

There is one minor point about minutes of agreement that the Minister might also want to consider. Under the previous CSA arrangements, after one year of having a minute of agreement, it was possible to go to the CSA and renege on it—that was possible for either partner, in effect. The Law Society of Scotland suggests that it would be better if that were a four-year period, and I concur. I think that if people have been properly advised and a minute of agreement has been drawn up—people can ask for a minute of agreement to be reduced in certain circumstances, such as if they have been coerced—a four-year period would be sensible.

Another couple of issues have been raised about how the much-diminished statutory scheme will work in the future. These have to do with finding out about the earnings and assets of some of those who are the most difficult to deal with. Under the present regime, the CSA can have regard to evidence about people’s assets and lifestyle that suggests that their income is not what they say it is. My understanding is that the Government propose to remove the effect of two regulations that achieve that at the moment. I believe that they are regulations 18 and 20 of the child support regulations. That, too, would be a mistake, because it would enable people to construct their affairs in a particular way. Regardless of gender, it is very frustrating for the parent with care, who is struggling, to see the other parent living what appears to be a fairly affluent lifestyle, yet able to present official records suggesting that they do not have the money to pay for their child. That makes people angry, but it often has to do with the attitude of the partner. The Government should reconsider that.

Fundamentally to take away the system and say, “We want people to make their own arrangements,” especially if they will not be legally enforceable, is a mistake and underestimates the difficulty of making those arrangements. Furthermore, that is happening at a time when changes to legal aid may make it harder for people to obtain legal advice so that they can turn the arrangements into more formal ones, and to obtain advice on what their rights are. Sometimes—perhaps not always but sometimes—informal agreements are not very good ones. Let us say that one parent says to the other, “I’ll give you 20 quid a week. That’s fine. Just don’t shop me to the CSA.” I know people who have been through that. The weaker partner, the one who has perhaps traditionally been quite afraid—I am thinking not just of domestic violence as it is narrowly defined—may well accept that when actually it is grossly unfair. People need proper support. I am not convinced that the £20 million that is talked about will be sufficient to put in place for people the level of advice, support and mediation that will be required if the Government press ahead with their proposals.

It is regrettable that, because the Government have framed the question in the way that they have and made this assertion—created this straw man—about the CSA being the cause of so much family discord, that will lead them into a situation in which even fewer children will get maintenance.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

The hon. Lady is touching on a very important point. Obviously, the position will differ throughout the United Kingdom, but I have found through experience that the turnover of staff at the Child Support Agency is pretty significant, given the difficult task that many of them face. Does the hon. Lady agree that additional training of staff coming into the agency would go some way towards trying to deal with what are very emotive and difficult problems and could help alleviate the issues to which she has just alluded?

[Sheila Gilmore]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I agree. Obviously, we want staff to be well trained, given that they are dealing with very difficult situations. My point was that, if the official agency is to be shrunk to the extent that appears to be the case and people are to be largely discouraged from going down that route, on the assumption that it will be relatively easy for them to reach family-based agreements, that flies in the face of the reality of the situation that many people find themselves in after separation. I am referring to the fact that it is very difficult to conduct these negotiations and that that will allow people who just want to walk away to do so even more easily than they can at the moment. If the answer is to put in support services, they have to be put in at a level that will be effective. Up and down the country, people know that there are often waiting lists to get support and advice and that mediation is not necessarily easily available—and mediation itself has a cost. Not all mediation services are offered free to users.

It is important that we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater and that a generation of children do not lose out as a result of these proposals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheryll Murray]

I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting that important point. I would like a formal mechanism through which parents can share experiences and suggestions with the Government and the CSA. A kind of CSA users forum or a panel made up of non-resident parents and those with care could be initiated to feed back their experience regularly to Government. That would enable the CSA to improve its performance for parents with care and non-resident parents.

A major issue seems to be the CSA’s use of the deduction of earnings system. Non-resident parents complain that the CSA does not adequately monitor changes in their income or give them sufficient notice that a deduction of earnings is taking place. Deduction of earnings comes out of the non-resident parent’s pay before they see it, and the payroll department cannot make changes if anything is incorrect. Nothing can be done if an error has been made; the person paying the money has to claim it back and prove that errors were made, which can take years.

An absent father who lives in my constituency has never missed a payment. He was following the old rules, and then the departure was granted and he went on to the new rules. The CSA now says that he has arrears of £8,000, although he has never missed a payment. There appears to be a catalogue of errors, which are being investigated, including putting the wrong child’s name on correspondence, which causes unnecessary angst. The CSA is now taking £400 out of his wages per month for one child, which is ridiculously high. Because that money comes out of a deduction of earnings, the father has no say over the amount taken out—at one point, it increased considerably with no explanation. The situation has caused untold stress to him and his family, especially when the paperwork says that he should pay £42 a month.

Outstanding child maintenance arrears increased by almost £1 billion between December and March. If net weekly profit is over £100, £5 plus a percentage of weekly income in maintenance is payable. That may help to explain the complaint that non-resident parents often try to avoid paying child maintenance. The Government recognise that, and the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission has recommended a new scheme, which is at consultation stage. It would use HMRC-sourced gross annual income for the income child maintenance calculation. That method would reduce costs to business by £0.8 billion.

A major difficulty for the CSA occurs when the non-resident parent is self-employed. Self-employed status means that it is much more challenging to obtain accurate figures. Money cannot be taken at source or from a deduction of earnings. A case in my constituency has taken approximately 14 years. The parent with care is owed a considerable amount of money. The absent parent owns a number of properties, and a charge should be taken on his properties. Allegations have been made—I cannot confirm or deny them—that the absent parent has put his accounts into his partner’s name, so it appears as if he has no assets. I obviously do not know whether that is true, but it is clear that it is not a straightforward case.

[Sheila Gilmore]

The circumstances the hon. Lady describes are familiar to me, but would she not concede that such difficulties existed before the CSA and there would undoubtedly be difficulties whoever enforced decisions? Such cases were always hard to pursue, because people could do exactly as she describes.

[Sheryll Murray]

I accept what the hon. Lady says, but I am sure that we can do something with the system to ensure that there are not such anomalies and long-standing cases. It has been 14 years and there is still no conclusive result. The situation needs to be addressed.

I must express my concern that in such circumstances, the only option left open to parents with care is variation mechanisms, such as lifestyle inconsistency tribunals, and the Government have announced their intention to scrap them. If the last line of defence for parents with care is removed, what hope is there for justice to be done and for children to get the money they are owed? Some non-resident parents are engaged in practices that, if this were income tax and not child maintenance, would be seen as tax evasion. I urge the Government to think again and ensure that parents with care have adequate opportunities to appeal against obviously perverse CSA assessments.

In another constituency case, the absent parent lives in a caravan, which is not an official registered address. That completely throws the normal process off balance, because the CSA has to send out officials to identify the tenant. In that case, the non-resident parent denied their identity to the CSA and had to be photo-identified by the parent with care. That process has taken months. The CSA should be equipped to deal with unusual situations. The person concerned has asked for face-to-face meetings, but is being ignored. I have even visited the regional CSA centre with my caseworker to discuss long-standing cases—the regional manger of my centre was a classmate of mine from school.

The CSA costs the public £450 million, and a typical case costs the taxpayer £25,000. Reform is desperately needed, but we must be exceptionally careful because botched reforms by the previous Government cost almost £1 billion, left thousands of families in hardship and were deemed one of the greatest public sector disasters of recent times. I am glad that we have a Minister and a Government who understand that reform is necessary and a priority, and that we have learned the lessons from the previous Government’s time in office.

Specialist Disability Employment

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Tuesday 10th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

Both the Secretary of State and I have visited the Acton factory in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and I know that this will be a difficult time for the 31 people who work there. I can confirm that we are already ensuring that a tailored package of support is in place for each individual who is affected. It is important, however, to acknowledge that that factory, like the others that we are discussing, has sizeable operating losses—more than £700,000-worth last year. I am sure she will agree that we could use that money better to support more disabled people into work.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Does the Minister not appreciate that she is, in effect, setting off one group of disabled people against another? Surely it is not necessary to have some people lose the jobs that have given them so much in their lives in order to help other disabled people. We should think of much better ways of doing that.

[Maria Miller]

I simply do not accept the hon. Lady’s premise. Through the work that we are doing today, we will support thousands more disabled people into work. If she were to examine the consultation responses that we received, she would see that the overwhelming majority of disabled people and disabled people’s organisations thoroughly support our measures.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Of course, the hon. Lady is absolutely right, and the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), is absolutely focusing on this issue with Jobcentre Plus. If we hear of any programmes that are not in that category, we will not allow young people to go on them. However, the key thing to bear in mind here is that this gives young people a real chance to get something they can sell to an employer. We should all back that, and I wish that more people were like the hon. Members who have just spoken.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

The questioners on the Government Benches asked about recent assessment of work experience, but the Secretary of State responded by talking about figures that he has been punting for several months now. Has he carried out any further assessment since the pilot project that produced those figures, which is nearly a year old now, given that the only other published assessment, of mandatory work experience, suggested that it did not work?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

We published these figures two months ago, but if the hon. Lady really wants to press me, I hear anecdotally from those in the Work programme that it is even better.