Atos Healthcare

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Tuesday 4th September 2012 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) on securing this debate about a matter of huge importance to hundreds of thousands of people, as well as on the work that he has done to highlight the problems that people face. I give the Minister my hearty congratulations on his appointment as Secretary of State for Justice and thank him for turning up to discharge his final responsibility in his old job. I am also very pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) is in the Chamber because she and I have had a close interest in this issue for a long time.

The previous Government introduced the work capability assessment and employment and support allowance to provide support for people who are out of work for health reasons, but who are able to plan for a return to work. The current Government chose to take a drastic short cut by curtailing the bedding down period for the new benefit and rolling out the assessment without any improvement, even though by that stage improvements had been identified and proposed. The predictable result of that has been severe problems. Ministers are failing in their task of managing the contract with Atos, of ensuring that people who claim employment and support allowance are treated as they should be, and of reviewing and reforming the test so that it works as it should. The test needs major improvement. Two of Professor Malcolm Harrington’s reviews have reported so far—the hon. Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) was right—and while the Government say that they have accepted most of the recommendations, they simply have not implemented them, and that is the heart of the problem.

One simple example that shows the muddle that the Minister has got into has been raised several times in the debate. The year 1 Harrington review recommended that Atos should pilot the audio recording of work capability assessments, and a pilot of 500 claimants followed. Atos said that it was a good idea, but we have heard what has happened in practice from my hon. Friends the Members for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue), for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) and for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash).

In a previous debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West, the Minister made a commitment that

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

He has not delivered on that pledge, and it turns out that the problem is a shortage of tape recorders. I was contacted by someone who struggled for weeks to get her assessment recorded. Eventually, Atos wrote to tell her that she could not have a recording or a rescheduled appointment. I wrote to the Minister about that and reminded him of the commitment that he had made. He said that he thought it would be unreasonable to delay the assessment indefinitely for such a reason, but that was not the commitment he gave to the House in February. I am afraid that this mess and shambles shows all we need to know about the Minister’s management of this process. The Government need to get a grip on Atos. I wish the Minister great success in his new job, but I wish he had put a bit more effort into this aspect of his old one.

We have also had a series of mishaps. For example, the Minister made rather farcical efforts to suppress a YouTube video giving advice to people who were claiming against their work capability assessment. It turned out that the subversives who were responsible for this pernicious video were his colleagues at the Ministry of Justice.

Perhaps the most harmful thing to the credibility of the work capability assessment has been the delay in making the changes needed so that the test can work. Professor Harrington’s first review in 2010 asked Mind, Mencap and the National Autistic Society to propose better descriptors for people with mental health conditions. They produced recommendations in November 2010, and Professor Harrington commended them to the Department in April 2011. Further recommendations went to the Department in November 2011 about changes to the descriptors for fluctuating conditions.

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

Several announcements that have been made, including about having mental health champions, have not been rolled out to assessment centres. Atos is still being inconsistent about allowing support workers or friends to assist those with mental health illnesses who are going to assessments.

[Stephen Timms]

I agree that commitments have not been delivered, and my hon. Friend cites a good example.

The work capability assessment must not be a snapshot of someone’s condition on the day they attend the medical assessment. By definition, that is likely to be a good day, because otherwise they would not be able to show up. The assessment needs to take account of the frequency with which they can do work-related tasks and that with which they suffer the ill effects of their condition. The alternative descriptors proposed do just that. They are now in the public domain thanks to the Grass Roots disability blog, without which we would not have known what they were, and they look like a real step in the right direction.

The Department has had the recommendations on mental health descriptors for 17 months and those on fluctuating conditions descriptors for nine months, but hardly any progress has been made in that time. On 25 June, in a written answer, the Minister said that

“we have been carefully considering how to build an appropriate evidence base around the proposed new descriptors…Terms of reference have been agreed and we aim to publish a report of the Evidence Based Review in the spring of 2013.”—[Official Report, 25 June 2012; Vol. 19, c. 54W.]

The Minister’s successor will need to get a grip on this. If that ambiguous deadline is even met—and that would be a first—it will be two years after expert guidance was received on how to improve the assessment for people with mental health conditions, and a year following the other recommendations.

[Ann McKechin]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if a person suffers from cancer but does not require chemotherapy, they should still be deemed to be not capable of working if they are in treatment? Why have the Government not changed that indicator when they could do so immediately?

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend raises a good point that we discussed when we considered the Welfare Reform Act 2012. My understanding was that the Government had committed to make precisely that change, but it appears that that has not happened.

I want to ask the Minister two questions. First, on recording assessments—this might appear to be a minor issue, but it has been raised several times in the debate—will he stand by the commitment he made in Westminster Hall in February that people who want recordings will be able to have them? He seemed to renege on that commitment in the letter to me that was written by officials, but signed by him, about a case that I raised. Secondly, will he get these new descriptors evaluated quickly—he can urge his successor to get a move on—do so transparently, and make the changes quickly after the evaluation is completed?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

It is a matter of record that since we implemented changes as a result of the Harrington process and the internal review that we inherited from the previous Government, the number of people going into the support group, including the number of people with mental health conditions, has increased. That is a good thing and I am pleased that we made those changes.

The issue of cancer has been raised. It has taken us longer than I expected to address that, because of various issues that arose in our discussions with Macmillan Cancer Support, but I believe that we are now in the right place. We will be making a formal announcement very shortly, but I have said before that I believe that we should extend to those receiving oral chemotherapy the access to the support group that is offered to people receiving intravenous chemotherapy.

[Stephen Timms]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Grayling]

I will give way very briefly, but this is the last intervention that I will take.

[Stephen Timms]

The Minister will acknowledge, however, that the new descriptors that have been proposed for mental health conditions and for fluctuating conditions are nowhere near being implemented. When does he expect that they will be implemented?

[Chris Grayling]

I will make just one more point and then I will answer that question.

It is really important to put it on record that Atos does not take decisions. In no circumstance does Atos take a decision about whether somebody receives a benefit or does not. A claimant will be asked to fill in a form that goes to Atos for consideration of whether they should be put to an assessment, or passported straight through to the benefit. Atos carries out the assessment, but the decision about benefits is taken by a Department for Work and Pensions decision maker in Jobcentre Plus. It is really important that people understand that Atos does not take decisions.

When we talk about Atos, we are talking about a team of perhaps 1,500 health care professionals, many of whom have trained in the NHS. Those professionals are carrying out an assessment that was designed by the DWP under the previous Government and that has been continued under the current Government. Atos does not take the decisions itself.

As a result of the Harrington recommendations, we have gone out of our way to address people much more directly. Rather than letters, they now receive phone calls, in which they are asked to bring forward additional evidence. A question was asked about the mandatory reconsideration phase. Effectively, that phase already happens. Every case in which the person says they are not happy will now involve a reconsideration within Jobcentre Plus. I am keen that we have that second opinion, because we will not always get things right and I want to try to see whether we can bring forward further evidence that would enable us to make the right decision before a case ever reached the tribunal service. Effort is being put in to make that happen.

The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) asked about recordings. Let me be clear that Harrington recommended that we carried out a pilot to test recordings. I was keen that we just did it, but Harrington said to me, “Actually, it may not work, so I really think that you should pilot it. It may prove to have a negative effect.” We therefore tested recording and found that there was little enthusiasm among those being assessed to have their assessment recorded. In the end, the conclusion was that we should make recording available on a voluntary basis, but it should not be something that we do across the board.

I do not rule out recording. If there was overwhelming evidence showing that it was necessary, I would make it available, but let me give some statistics. There are 300 claimants waiting for an audio-recorded assessment, while Atos is conducting 8,000 assessments a week. We are ordering additional audio-recording machines so that people can have their assessment recorded, if they want. They are perfectly entitled to bring their own recording equipment to an assessment as long as it can record two copies of an assessment, because they need to be able to take one copy with them and leave the other behind. That is why we have to buy what is fairly expensive equipment, and we have ordered additional equipment because there has been an increase in demand in the last few weeks.

I am perfectly relaxed about recorded assessments and perfectly happy to make recording facilities available. However, the advice that I received from Malcolm Harrington was that we should test recording. The result of the pilot was not only that there was not a need for recording, but that many people felt uncomfortable being assessed with a tape recorder running.

The right hon. Gentleman also asked about the new descriptors that were brought forward by the charities, but he is out of date. The charities have been working with us for the past few weeks on the assessment project of the package that they brought forward. The work was finished last week. The charities wanted more time to work with us because the process is complicated and we are trying to mesh mental health issues and fluctuating conditions. As I said in Westminster Hall about 12 months ago, the problem that I had with the recommendations that the charities made in the first place was that they came forward not simply with adjustments to the existing descriptors, but instead with a comprehensive reorganisation of the assessment, which would also have involved a redesign of the physical descriptors. Given that the right hon. Gentleman has carried out such projects in the DWP, he will know well that that would be a two or three-year project.

We have tried to take forward some of the suggestions that the charities made and embed them into elements such as the ESA50 form, and we are now working with the charities to road test all this work to see whether it really makes a difference. However, I am not going to embark on a major overhaul of the whole exercise based on recommendations that are not backed by evidence without our having tested them in the way in which the previous Government tested recommendations: by putting real cases against proposed descriptors and making a comparison between the outcomes of the theoretical new descriptors and the old descriptors. Such work is on track. We are pushing the charities to make progress, because I want to get the work done, and we are still on track to complete the gold standard review in the spring.

The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) referred to the National Audit Office report. I have had the benefit of having read that report, although I know that he has not. The reality is that the report highlights a number of what I regard as not particularly major areas of improvement. If he reads the report, he will see that it reflects a big and complicated contract. It makes some suggestions for improvement, but it is not as he portrays it.

When the hon. Gentleman talks about the performance of Atos during the last two years, the key point he must remember is that the recommendations that Malcolm Harrington made, combined with some fluctuation in volumes coming through to Atos, which are certainly beyond its control, have caused significant operational difficulties. I can give him my word that I have sat in meetings with representatives of Atos and put them under intense pressure. Atos has brought in extra capacity at cost. We have made sure that we deliver at every stage. However, it is not possible to change the goalposts totally and then expect the subcontractor to take it on the chin with no consequences.

We have seen some consequences of the introduction of the Harrington recommendations, particularly the personalised statement. However, as I stand here today, we are on track to close the backlog time to where it should be later this autumn. The numbers that the hon. Gentleman gave are already well out of date. We have brought down the backlog in the number of appeals that we inherited two years ago, but it is a big task. We are dealing with a large number of people and this is a big challenge.

Let me be clear that we want to get this process right and we want to do the right thing. I want people who need long-term ongoing support to be in the support group. The Government have no interest in doing anything other than looking after those people who need that, but we will also give encouragement and support—and a bit of a push—to those who can get back into work, because I believe that that is the right thing for them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I studied that model carefully. One reason why we have adopted various programmes requiring people to undertake full-time work is to create a sense of urgency for them in finding employment. I am not convinced, however, that government is good enough at managing data to manage, for long periods—many decades—at a time, the kind of systems set up in the United States.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

The Minister did not provide the data that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) asked for. He holds the parliamentary record for the abuse of statistics, having been rebuked for three separate offences by the UK Statistics Authority. Will he now sort out the shambles in his Department, do what he promised in January and lift the Work programme data ban?

[Chris Grayling]

The right hon. Gentleman does talk a lot of nonsense sometimes. First, he cannot add up—I have not been rebuked three times by the Statistics Authority. Secondly, the Work programme is progressing well, and I will publish further data on it soon.

[Stephen Timms]

Until today, the Government have told us that benefit reform plus the Work programme would sort out the welfare system, but this morning the Prime Minister said that they will not be enough. Will Ministers now sort out this chaos? Would not lifting the ban on data be a good place to start?

[Chris Grayling]

Let me give the right hon. Gentleman one piece of data: 80,000 fewer people are on out-of-work benefits today than when his party was in power.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Monday 23rd April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

First, I pay tribute to the work being done in the Moorlands by the job clubs there, which is making a real difference to the prospects of the unemployed. What I say to my hon. Friend and to every hon. Member is that there is a real opportunity for each of us, individually, to approach local employers and encourage them to provide work experience opportunities. Tremendous work is already being done by colleagues in organising job fairs and organising different opportunities for young people who are looking for work. We can all play a part in this; it is a way in which this House can be a real activist centre in trying to help unemployed young people.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

It is a good thing that the youth contract has finally started. The Deputy Prime Minister says that he told the Cabinet in January last year that something needed to be done on youth unemployment. Why has it taken the Department for Work and Pensions 15 months to make something happen?

[Chris Grayling]

I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but on this occasion he has plain got it wrong. Over the past 12 months, we have put in place support through the work experience scheme, and we have put in place the Work programme and sector-based work academies. We have also given greater flexibility to job centres to use funding that is available to them to provide tailored support for people in their community. We have been working hard to tackle a problem of youth unemployment that built up and was left behind as a dreadful legacy by the previous Government.

[Stephen Timms]

In the youth contract, the wage subsidies are in a national pot to be handed out on a first-come, first-served basis, so providers will be competing to hand them out as fast as possible, whether or not they are actually needed. Surely it would have been far better to target subsidies where they are needed. Why has the youth contract been so badly designed?

[Chris Grayling]

Once again, the right hon. Gentleman has just got it plain wrong. We are targeting this support at young people who are struggling to get into work—the long-term unemployed. I am talking mostly about those who have been out of work for more than nine months, but sometimes this will go to those who have come from the most difficult backgrounds and who have been out of work for three months. This money is targeted absolutely at where it is needed, and I believe that it will make a difference.

Work Experience

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Tuesday 13th March 2012 Westminster Hall

[Sheila Gilmore]

I shall explain the issue as far as this young woman was concerned, and I think that this is where it comes down to conditionality. She was certainly put under, as she explained it, considerable pressure—as part of a general conditionality point—to do the work experience or her benefits would be put at risk. That was how she perceived it.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

Is not part of the problem that, as the Minister has repeatedly said, and as others have said today, this is a voluntary scheme, but jobcentres sent out letters telling people that they would lose their benefit if they did not join the scheme? There is, at the very least, huge confusion in Jobcentre Plus about what the terms of this arrangement are.

[Sheila Gilmore]

That is the kind of information that I have been getting from constituents. I am referring to the rules on conditionality and the advice or information that they were getting from the local jobcentre. This point is different from the point about whether people are sanctioned when they leave the scheme; it is about the conditionality regime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I am grateful to you, Mr Crausby, for giving me this opportunity to speak. I also thank the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), who has done us a great service by securing a debate on this very important topic.

The Government have got themselves into an extraordinary muddle over work experience. Labour supports work experience. It can be invaluable in reconnecting people with the labour market; it has been a part of labour market intervention since the 1970s; and it was a key feature of the success of the new deal. Unfortunately, however, the Government have got themselves into a terrible mess.

On 29 February, the Minister—in an attempt to extricate himself from that mess—announced a U-turn and that the “Work Experience” scheme was to be fully voluntary. Previously, he had said that it was a voluntary scheme; I suppose that his announcement on 29 February means that it really will be voluntary. However, his problem is that the letters that Jobcentre Plus staff sent out to claimants said something quite different. He was memorably confronted on “Channel 4 News” with a letter that had been sent out to somebody who was being told about a placement on a “Work Experience” scheme; the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) quite rightly said that there are other schemes, but in this case the placement was part of a “Work Experience” scheme. The letter said:

“You have been referred to the following Opportunity: retail assistant…If you cannot attend for any reason or if you stop claiming Jobseekers Allowance please contact this Jobcentre immediately. If without a good reason you fail to start, fail to go when expected or stop going...any future payments of Jobseekers Allowance could cease to be payable or could be payable at a lower rate.”

There is no point in claiming that the scheme is voluntary if Jobcentre Plus staff—staff in the Minister’s job centres—are telling people precisely the opposite.

[Chris Grayling]

Has it crossed the right hon. Gentleman’s mind that nobody would receive a letter unless they had volunteered?

[Stephen Timms]

Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman what I suspect is the source of the confusion. It arises from the decision maker’s guide, which any Member of the House can read on the website for the Department for Work and Pensions. That guide says:

“JSA may not be payable or it may be payable at a reduced rate to claimants who are entitled to JSA and have...after being notified by an Employment Officer of a place on a Work Experience scheme, refused without good cause or failed to apply for it or to accept it when offered, or...neglected to avail themselves of a reasonable opportunity of a place on Work Experience.”

A Jobcentre Plus adviser who is doing their job and looking at the official guidance discovers that that is what the guidance is—a clear description of a mandatory scheme.

It is no wonder, therefore, that Jobcentre Plus staff have been so confused and have contradicted what the Minister has said. Of course, as we know, a number of businesses also lost confidence in the scheme. But the muddle goes even further, because the DWP’s provider guidance for the Work programme says:

“Where you are providing support for JSA participants, which is work experience, you must mandate participants to this activity. This is to avoid the National Minimum Wage Regulations, which will apply if JSA participants are not mandated”.

The DWP was saying that until a few weeks ago, but that particular statement has now been deleted from the guidance on the website.

Therefore I want to ask the Minister three specific questions. First, now that there are no sanctions in work experience other than for gross misconduct, will he amend the decision maker’s guide? Secondly, how will he ensure that the policy is now implemented in line with what he has announced? Thirdly, what has changed in the legal position so that work experience no longer has to be mandated to “avoid”—to quote the guidance that was on his Department’s website—the national minimum wage rules?

The Work Experience scheme is too valuable to let this muddle continue. And as we have already heard in the debate, there are other schemes apart from the “Work Experience” scheme. In fact, Inclusion says that there are seven different current work experience schemes, which may be part of the reason for the muddle. At the time that some claimants are starting on the “Work Experience” scheme, others start on mandatory work activity, which was the scheme referred to by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth. That may well be another source of the confusion. As the name of the mandatory work activity scheme suggests, it is not voluntary. It is designed for people who are a long way from the labour market and who have no experience of work or the work ethic. Placements are for a similar period to those in the Work Experience scheme, and they are sourced through private welfare-to-work providers. The total value of the contracts for mandatory work activity is £32 million. I have repeatedly asked the Minister to tell the House what the average cost of such a placement is, and various other details. He has repeatedly refused to answer those questions, claiming that it is “Commercial in Confidence” although heaven knows why.

[Mr Marcus Jones]

The right hon. Gentleman has talked a lot about “confusion”, but from where I sit in Westminster Hall today I am extremely confused about the position of his party in relation to the Government’s work experience programme. On the one hand he says that he supports work experience, but on the other he seems to be coming up with all sorts of “confusion” in his argument to try to get away from supporting that programme. Does his party support the current Government’s work experience programme and will he commit to supporting those employers that are doing a fantastic job in giving our young people this type of opportunity?

[Stephen Timms]

I very strongly support work experience and I strongly support the contribution of employers. However, what I regret and deprecate is the extraordinary muddle and confusion that the Government’s handling of the Work Experience scheme and the six other similar schemes has created.

On mandatory—[Interruption.] Time is running out and I want to give the Minister every chance to respond to these points, so let me just tell the House about one of my constituents. She was put on to mandatory work activity. She was not a long way from the labour market; indeed, after I inquired about her, she received a phone call to say that she should never have been put on mandatory work activity in the first place. The letter that was sent to her initially was a classic of incomprehensibility; I sent a copy of it to the Minister. It instructed her, a resident of east London, to go to an obscure Sheffield postcode, and it said that if she had any queries she should ring telephone number 000. Her placement was at a charity shop. When she arrived, there were 14 other people on mandatory work activity who had also been sent to the same charity shop to help out. There was nowhere near enough work to go round, although presumably all 15 of those people attracted a payment to the provider from the Minister’s Department.

Experiences such as that will not help anybody into work. I ask the Minister: what checks is he making on placements to mandatory work activity? In fact, does he know if his Department is being ripped off on a large scale, as the example that I just gave suggests? Also, why does he insist on secrecy about all of this, when the openness that is being promoted by the Cabinet Office would help to resolve all these problems? This Minister has some form on this. He has been officially rebuked for misusing statistics—I think more than any other Member of the House—including on three separate occasions since he has been a Minister. That is a pretty extraordinary record.

[Chris Grayling]

On a point of order, Mr Crausby. Is it in order to make allegations about another Member without giving details? I am certainly not aware of the issues that the right hon. Gentleman has just raised. He has made quite a serious comment about another Member. I have no knowledge of any such occasions since I have become a Minister.

[Stephen Timms]

I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the three occasions are all on the UK Statistics Authority’s website: first, data relating to the flexible new deal; secondly, data relating to worklessness statistics; and thirdly, data about benefit claims on the part of immigrants. The first and third of those were widely publicised at the time. I have the letter on the second in front of me. The Minister publishes statistics that he thinks advance his partisan case, but he refuses to publish straightforward, routine data that certainly should be in the public domain.

[Chris Grayling]

Further to that point of order, Mr Crausby. Since becoming a Minister I have not received, to the best of my knowledge, any communication from the UK Statistics Authority questioning any statistics that I have published. I want to place that on the record and ask whether it is in order for a shadow Minister to make an allegation of that kind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms]

I will gladly copy the letter from the UK Statistics Authority website for the Minister.

Work experience should have been straightforward and uncontroversial. It is valuable and we need more of it. Instead, we have had U-turns, public relations fiascos and even street protests. The Minister needs to clear up the confusion at Jobcentre Plus, level with us about mandatory work activity and embrace at last the open data initiative that was conceived by the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General so that everybody can judge for themselves the effectiveness of the schemes.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)]

We have just heard a clear example of why the Opposition have yet to adapt to opposition. In long years of opposition, we learned that there are times when one should simply accept that what the Government are doing is right. I am sorry to hear the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), for whom I normally have a high regard, misrepresenting the situation around any letters or communications that the Department has received from the UK Statistics Authority. I am also sorry that he is dancing on a sixpence to try to oppose something that he should support.

Mr Crausby, if you had told me three months ago that we would be dealing with protests against the work experience scheme, given all the difficult decisions that we are taking in the Department for Work and Pensions, I would have thought you were mad. Among all those difficult decisions, this is a positive programme that is designed to help. It is innocuous. It does what it says on the tin. It started as a result of a complaint that I personally received from the mother of a young woman who said, “My daughter has arranged a month’s work experience for herself and been told she will lose her benefits if she carries out that experience.” I regarded that as unacceptable, so we started to use the teams of people we have in Jobcentre Plus to look for opportunities for young people to do work experience, precisely because of the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis). It is all well and good if someone comes from a prosperous background, but not everyone does. Helping young people find work experience opportunities is enormously important.

I will deal straight away with the issue raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore). I am afraid she needs to look in the mirror and ask the question about being a job snob. The row came about because of a computer error, which published an internal bulletin about a work experience placement at Tesco. Had it been Airbus, this would never have been a story, and the hon. Lady would not be complaining today. I commend Airbus for joining our scheme, along with many other manufacturers.

About 12 months ago, I met an older, former unemployed worker at an Asda store in Birmingham. He said: “I came here after years of unemployment. I got a job at the bottom level of the scale. A few months later, I was running a department with a staff of 20.” The job of running a high street retail branch—a big supermarket—can be a job that oversees a large staff in a business turning over tens of millions of pounds a year. In a large company such as Tesco, there are a vast range of opportunities in IT, HR, logistics, or community outreach. There was magnificent community work at Asda in my own constituency. There are all kinds of opportunities for someone to go in at the bottom and work their way up.

Let me explain to the hon. Member for Edinburgh East how the scheme works. Our advisers sit down with young people and talk about different career options. They ask them about the sectors that interest them, and find them—if we can—a placement in one of their preferred sectors. It is their choice. We listen to them and try to find the opportunity. Unfortunately, we cannot find opportunities for all the young people, because the scheme is over-subscribed. That is the nature of what we are trying to do. We expect them to turn up, if they have taken a placement from someone else; we expect them to fulfil the placement if they stay beyond the first week’s grace; and we expect them to behave themselves. It is the lightest-touch conditionality anywhere in the welfare system. We have listened to the employers—given all the brouhaha—and accepted that we would remove the attendance requirement. We still have sanctions in place for things such as racism in the workplace, theft in the workplace and abusive behaviour towards customers or fellow co-workers. Only about 200 out of 34,000 participants have been sanctioned.

The scheme was and will continue to be a voluntary scheme that is positive and beneficial. Some of the coverage—particularly the BBC’s—and wilful attempts to mislead were disgraceful. My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) is absolutely right. The way in which this was covered was nothing short of disgraceful. The scheme is aimed at the under-24s. Putting people in their 40s on the TV was nonsensical and extremely poor-quality journalism. However, a small number of older people do get work experience placements: for example, long-term carers and people who have been out of the workplace for long periods for whom such experience is beneficial.

The right hon. Member for East Ham raised a variety of questions about letters and so forth. Of course, someone does not get a letter about the scheme unless they have volunteered to be on it. It is as simple and straightforward as that. I will tell the House a simple story, which was fed back to me by one of our Jobcentre Plus teams a couple of weeks ago. They were briefing a group of young people about the work experience scheme and opportunities. One of them—a young woman—said, “I don’t wanna do that. It’s slave labour.” Our staff said that they did not have to do or say anything at all, because the rest of the group turned on her and told her in no uncertain terms how important the opportunity was to them and how important it was that they all took part. By the time they had finished discussing it as a group, she was going to take part, too. There was no mandation from us, but mandation from her peers.

The scheme is positive. It is not about retailing. The tragic aspect to the debate is the absurd discussion about whether we should be helping young people get work experience places—of course we should. There should be no doubt about that. We are still not hearing, especially from the right hon. Member for East Ham, “This is a good scheme that we will back publicly. It is the right thing to do. We will continue it if we get back into Government.” All we hear is cavilling about this and that detail. Let us stand up and say, “We have a problem with youth unemployment. We need to do something about it. We will do something. We will all work together.” Every single one of us in this House, whether it is the right hon. Gentleman, me or any other Member here, could do a power of good for this scheme, Mr Crausby. Indeed, you could yourself, sir, in your constituency. We can talk to local employers and say, “Get involved.” This is a real way to help young people. It makes a difference. It is great. They go on into employment and many of them look back and say that it is the best thing that ever happened to them.

We do have mandatory programmes. The mandatory work activity programme gives our Jobcentre Plus advisers the discretion to refer someone whom they believe is struggling, not pulling their weight or having real difficulty in their work search to a month’s full-time activity. We do not mandate to go and work for private companies—they would not take it even if we did. The same is true of the Work programme. We cannot send people against their wishes to work for a big retailer.

[Stephen Timms]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Grayling]

I will not, because I have very little time.

Mandation in our system will apply to community benefit schemes and to nothing else. We are absolutely clear about that. It is the same for the Work programme. The work experience scheme is a good scheme, which must and will continue. It will now grow, because more people are coming forward to help—after all the publicity, ironically. The protesters are plain wrong. They are misguided. It is a tragedy that they are supported by the unions and Labour MPs, but we will not listen to them. We will listen to the young people who say, “This is the best thing that could happen to us.”

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Monday 5th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I accept the hon. Gentleman’s positive involvement. I simply say to him that the scheme as it stands is incredibly positive. More than 50% of those who enter the work experience scheme go into work, many with the employers who took them on for work experience. The reason we set up the scheme is what young people said, and they told us, “Our problem is that when we go to an interview, employers ask us, ‘What experience have you got?' We say, ‘We don’t have experience.' They say, ‘We can’t employ you.' But without employment we can't get work experience.” I genuinely believe from our discussions with employers that the scheme is a positive move, but I will certainly look at the scheme that the hon. Gentleman talks about.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I echo the Secretary of State’s good wishes to the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee.

Work experience is a very good thing. The Minister of State has emphasised that the scheme is voluntary—his U-turn last week underlined that—but jobcentre letters say the opposite. They say:

“If, without good reason, you fail to start, fail to go when expected or stop going…Jobseekers Allowance could cease to be payable”.

The Department for Work and Pensions website says the same. Until recently the website also said that the minimum wage applied unless work experience was compulsory. That point has mysteriously disappeared from the site. Will the Secretary of State get a grip, clear up this extraordinary muddle and end the confusion in his Department?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I will do a little deal with the right hon. Gentleman: I will ensure that any little discrepancies are sorted out, providing that he and his party step forward and publicly welcome the whole idea of the work experience programme and condemn the many unions, such as Unite, GMB, Unison and others, that are backing this ludicrous Right to Work programme. Will the Opposition state that the unions should withdraw their backing? Last week, we held discussions with employers, and they asked that no sanctions be taken unless they say that something has happened to damage the business or cause a problem. We have agreed that in essence, and that is how it will stand.

Pensions and Social Security

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

My hon. Friend is right that when the uprating was considered, there was speculation that a different month, or a rolling average or something like that, might be used. It was decided to continue the practice of using the September CPI, but I would stress that that is not a one-month figure, but a figure published in one month about the past 12 months. Although as it happened 5.2% was the peak—I think I am right in saying that it was lower in the month before and the month after—each 12 months joins on to another 12 months, so in another year, the September figure could be the lowest. We took the view that that was the established practice, and that changing it could leave it open to manipulation. Although in a particular year it can stand out, when we take one year with the next, it will sometimes be lower and sometimes higher.

As hon. Members know, using the CPI measure of inflation was an important part of this Government’s plans for uprating pensions and benefits. I am delighted that we will have a debate on that very subject next Thursday afternoon—I look forward to being here at the same time and the same place next week. In addition to being the headline measure of inflation in the UK and the internationally recognised target measure of inflation used by the Bank of England, we believe the CPI is a superior measure of inflation when it comes to uprating benefits and pensions, first because the CPI basket of goods is a better match for the spending patterns of pensioners, and secondly because it takes better account of how households respond to price changes.

Last year, the High Court upheld the Government’s decision that the CPI can be used for pensions and benefits uprating and we have robustly defended our case in the Court of Appeal.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

As the Minister knows, the UK Statistics Authority has said that CPI should be used for that purpose only if it incorporates a measure of housing costs. I know some work is being done to incorporate such costs in the CPI measure, but is it the Government’s intention to use that modified measure when it is available?

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Webb]

The hon. Lady may not have been in the Chamber when I referred to next week’s debate, when we will debate such issues at greater length. I was not aware that it was Labour party policy to revert to RPI—its view for now is that CPI is appropriate. She might want to raise that with the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), who is on the Opposition Front Bench. For the reasons I have given, our judgment is that the CPI basket of goods matches the spending patterns of pensioners. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has confirmed that modelling and people’s response to price changes is better with CPI than in RPI. No index is perfect, but there is a good case for using CPI.

Funnily enough, when I attended a National Pensioners Convention event in the House a few months ago, the people there all demanded CPI, which shows how the debate has moved on. I am sure the hon. Lady has a press release saying that more is being demanded, but the tenor of the debate was that there was speculation that we would not honour our triple-lock promise. They said: “Minister, will you guarantee us the triple lock—prices, earnings or 2.5%? Will it be the 5.2% that we have just seen?” That was commendable realism on the part of the National Pensioners Convention—that is its role in life—but things may have moved on now it has banked the 5.2% in the current environment. In fact, 5.2% is the biggest cash increase ever and one of the biggest real-terms increases in a long time. I am proud to stand by that figure.

Restoring the earnings link for the basic state pension was an early action by this coalition Government, putting an end to 30 years of deterioration in the value of the foundation of retirement income relative to average earnings. Better than that, we went one further with our triple guarantee to pay the highest of the growth in earnings, prices or 2.5%, so that even in times of slow earnings growth, we will not see a repeat of the small rises, such as the 75p rise in 2000, presided over by the Labour party.

In line with the triple guarantee, the new rate for the basic state pension, received by more than 11 million people in this country, will be £107.45 a week for a single person, an increase of £5.30 a week. My hon. Friends in the coalition may be interested to know that that means that from April 2012, the basic state pension is forecast to be 17.1% of average earnings, which is a higher share of average earnings than in any year of the previous Labour Government from 1997.

[Stephen Timms]

A minute or two ago, the Minister said that this was the highest ever real-terms increase to the state pension.

[Steve Webb]

No.

[Stephen Timms]

I thought that was what the Minister said. Perhaps he can clarify that point, because by definition it cannot be a real-terms increase.

[Steve Webb]

It is the highest cash increase ever and the highest real-terms increase for about 10 years.

[Stephen Timms]

Given that the increase is purely in line with inflation, how can the Minister describe it as a real-terms increase?

[Steve Webb]

Because the point at which the money is paid is not the point at which inflation is measured, so when people actually get the money it will be substantially more than the inflation since the last increase.

[Stephen Timms]

This takes us back to the point raised by the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley). The Minister is making a virtue out of a timing point rather than a substantial point. He is a modest man, and I am sure he will accept that the Government cannot claim credit for inflation being slightly lower now than it was last September.

[Steve Webb]

On the contrary, let us bear in mind what the Government have done: the Chancellor has taken action on the taxation of petrol, resulting in inflation being lower than it would have been, and we have successively frozen council tax in many parts of the country, which is of huge benefit to many pensioners. There are many things that Governments do that influence inflation. Some factors are global, which is one reason inflation peaked at 5.2%, but measures that the Government have taken have also been one reason prices have been falling. That is entirely to the Government’s credit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

The Minister has helpfully explained that we are dealing with three separate orders, aspects of which are welcome but others of which are decidedly unwelcome. I shall make it clear where we do not support the Government.

The Pensions Act 2008 (Amendment) Order—to give it a rather briefer title than the one the Minister used—makes minor amendments to protected rights over payments of defined contributions contracted-out pension schemes. As he said, the underpinning legislation is the Pensions Act 2008. I accept that the order is necessary to clarify a following order, and I have no objection to it.

The most substantial of the orders—the one that I am sure this debate will focus on—is the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2012, which, as the Minister said, uprates most out-of-work benefits and the basic state pension in line with the consumer prices index. For most out-of-work benefits, this will be the second year that CPI has been used rather than RPI, but for the basic state pension it is the first year. Members might recall that, like this year, last year the Government trumpeted their triple lock on the basic state pension.

I recall that in the debate last year the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), who unfortunately is not with us today, congratulated his hon. Friend the Minister on his success in introducing the triple lock—only, the Government did not, in fact, apply it last year. Under the triple lock, the basic state pension would have been uprated by CPI, which was a long way below RPI last year, so the Minister—prudently, I think—decided to overrule his triple lock on its first outing and instead operate the old mechanism, uprating the basic state pension by the higher rate, RPI. In doing so, he exposed to public view the weakness of his triple lock. He had to override it in the first year it was due to be applied. Advertised as a safeguard for pensioners, the triple lock in fact undermines pensions uprating.

The Government have told us that the switch from RPI to CPI is not simply a deficit reduction measure. Instead, the justification for the switch is that, as the Minister said again today, CPI is a more accurate measure of changes in the cost of living for pensioners. Last year the Minister told us that he viewed CPI as

“the most appropriate measure of price inflation for this purpose,”

and that he saw

“no reason to change it in the future.”—[Official Report, 17 February 2011; Vol. 523, c. 1174-77.]

However, the view that RPI, let alone CPI, is an adequate measure of pensioner inflation is one on which many pensioners would take issue with him, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) suggested a few minutes ago. I was interested in the Minister’s view that the National Pensioners Convention is happy with CPI uprating. However, as the Civil Service Pensioners Alliance, among others, has pointed out in its briefing:

“The Royal Statistical Society…has said that CPI fails to reflect the spending patterns of pensioners and the rising costs they face. The Institute for Fiscal Studies”—

to which the Minister referred—

“has shown that most pensioner households are not shielded from many of the costs excluded from CPI. The UK Statistics Authority…has said that they do not believe the CPI should become the primary measure of data inflation until housing costs are included,”

which is a point that he touched on in response to my intervention.

The Minister has tried to paint the change as simply a sensible bureaucratic change, not one that is ideologically motivated or that represents a cut in the income of pensioners, but in reality that is not the case. As the UK Statistics Authority put it last year:

“Questions about compensation, who to compensate and what for, are straightforwardly political questions, not for statisticians.”

In other words, this is a matter for political decision. Let us be frank with people: the Government have chosen to uprate benefits and pensions permanently in a way that, in the case of benefits, will usually be meaner than the method used before and, in the case of pensions, was meaner this year and last year, which is why the Government overrode it last year and used the old method instead.

[George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con)]

I seem to recall some embarrassment in the Labour party back in 2000 when the low rate of 1.1% was used to uprate pensions, the result of which was a 75p increase. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, under this Government, the triple lock will ensure that 2.5% is the minimum that can be paid?

[Stephen Timms]

Of course, that is indeed the effect of the mechanism that the Government have chosen. I would simply point out to the hon. Gentleman that if the previous method was still in place, there would be a higher increase in the basic state pension than the Minister has announced today.

[Ian Paisley]

The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the triple lock, which interests me and which applies only to the basic state pension. A number of charities, such as Age Concern and others, have contacted me about this issue. They argue that the Government should apply the triple guarantee to other elements of the state pension, including the additional pension allowance. Does he agree that that would make good sense?

[Stephen Timms]

That is a matter that the Minister may well want to comment on in his response to this debate. In my view, the triple lock is certainly not the wonderful device that the Government maintain it is. As I have said, it is leading to a lower uprating of the basic state pension in the year ahead than if the RPI mechanism was still being used.

[Oliver Heald]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we need to exercise judgment about what the increase should be? One of the faults of the last Government was to be too rigid. My hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery) has already mentioned the 75p increase, but there was also the freezing of the additional pension, which, again, was considered a mean act. Is it not right for the Government to take a judgment and—on pension credit, for example—to make increases well above the rate that they have to use, which is earnings, and instead use a higher measure, in order to be fair?

[Stephen Timms]

The hon. Gentleman’s argument is a different one from the Minister’s. The Minister says that because of the triple lock, pensioners are safeguarded and need not worry about what future judgments Ministers will make. In a way, I am rather more with the hon. Gentleman on this than with the application of the formula. Again, however, I would point out that last year—the first year that this supposedly wonderful mechanism was in place—the Government overrode it. I am therefore not quite sure what certainty pensioners would have for the future about whether, in the event of siren voices being heard—we heard about those earlier—the triple lock might be overrode in the other direction, if someone judges that to be appropriate.

[Steve Webb]

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the statutory position that his Government left—and which was the basis of the spending plans for 2012 that they published for us—was based not on the higher of either prices or earnings but on earnings alone, and that the pension rise that his party pencilled in for 2012 was not five-and-a-bit per cent., but more like 2.5%?

[Stephen Timms]

As the Minister well knows, the basic state pension was uprated over a long period in line with RPI. My point is simply that if that mechanism was still in place, there would be a greater increase in the current year than the Minister has incorporated in the order before us today.

[Steve Webb]

But if the right hon. Gentleman thought that in the event of prices being higher than earnings he would choose prices, why did he make it the statutory position that just earnings would be used, therefore pencilling in an earnings-only increase for 2012, which meant that we had to find extra money to do better than just earnings this year?

[Stephen Timms]

It is probably the case that the Government’s poor performance on inflation—to go back to a point the Minister made earlier—and the resulting high level of inflation have been a surprise. I do not think anyone expected inflation to rise so rapidly. However, I want to underline the point, which the Minister has not acknowledged yet, that if RPI was still in place for the coming year, the increase for pensioners would be higher than the order in question sets out.

The judgment to adopt this approach of using a permanently meaner version of uprating than was in place before is one that we oppose. Of course there is a pressing need to reduce the deficit. We know, as does the International Monetary Fund—and, it would seem, the credit rating agencies and, this week, the former Defence Secretary—that reducing the deficit requires economic growth, which is strikingly absent at the moment. With the economy not creating enough new jobs and so many people out of work, not paying taxes but instead claiming benefits, targets for reducing the deficit will just keep being pushed back further and further. We heard in the autumn statement that we will be borrowing £158 billion more over the lifetime of this Parliament than on the last estimate, because the Government’s economic policy has failed to deliver growth and the economy has flatlined. If, instead of the permanent switch to CPI uprating, a temporary switch had been proposed—with the aim of contributing to deficit reduction over a short period—that might, in our view, have been justified, but we do not support the Government’s policy of a permanent switch to meaner uprating.

In the debate last year, the Minister attempted to make something of the fact that, for five of the past 20 years, RPI had been lower than CPI. Well, it was not lower last year, and it is not lower this year. RPI has generally been higher. Since 1989, the gap between RPI and RPI minus X and the CPI measure has been 0.7% on average. The Office for Budget Responsibility’s November economic and fiscal outlook suggests that the long-run difference between RPI and CPI is likely to be a good deal more, at about 1.4 percentage points. That is twice as much as that historic average, so the OBR thinks that the gap between RPI uprating and the CPI uprating that the Government want to apply in perpetuity is going to get bigger, not narrower.

[George Hollingbery]

I think I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he has made a commitment that, had a Labour Government been in power now, they would have uprated pensions using RPI. Has he calculated how much that might cost, and is that a spending commitment that he is prepared to make here today? Secondly, if he is arguing for RPI uprating in future, does he have any idea of the long-term commitment that that might involve for the Government?

[Stephen Timms]

I shall deal with the last point immediately. I have said that if this Government had proposed a temporary switch to CPI uprating in order to contribute to deficit reduction, we would have looked seriously at that argument. It is the permanent downgrading of the uprating method for pensions and all other benefits that we think is wrong.

The DWP impact assessment from July last year told us that the impact on occupational pensions over the next 15 years would be more than £70 billion, and I think the Minister has said that it would be more than £80 billion. It will certainly involve a very large figure indeed. In this coming year, the gap between CPI and RPI—the figure that has been used refers back to last September—is relatively small, at 0.4%. I think the Minister is hoping that pensioners will not notice that his triple lock, which sounds so generous, is in fact delivering a lower increase than the long-established formula used by all Governments until this one. High inflation makes this a substantial cash increase, but, given what the Minister has said about the importance of keeping inflation low, it is not greatly to this Government’s credit that the cash increase is so large.

[Stephen Lloyd]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree, however, that if the Labour Government had used the triple lock, there would never have been the scandalous scenario of a few years ago when Labour gave pensioners an increase of 75p?

[Stephen Timms]

The point I am making is that if the RPI method were in place for the coming year, the increase would be larger than the one in the order before us today.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

I acknowledge the right hon. Gentleman’s deep knowledge of this subject, but he is not giving the House an entirely accurate picture. For the longest period, the state pension was linked to average earnings, but it suits his argument today to make a comparison with RPI. The huge benefit of the triple lock is that it provides a choice. Average earnings could be taken into account, for example, and if they grew between 6% and 7%, so would pensions. Also, there is always the floor of 2.5%, which would prevent a repeat of the disgrace of giving pensioners 75p, as happened under the last Government.

[Stephen Timms]

I thank the hon. Lady for her generous remark. There is some merit in having an earnings underpin to the system, but I say again that, for the year ahead, RPI would give a higher increase than the triple lock has delivered. That was the case last year as well, which is why the Government set the triple lock aside in the first year it was supposed to be in place. This year, the difference is much smaller, at 0.4%, and the Government must be hoping that people will not notice that the triple lock is delivering less than an RPI uprating would have done. However, in principle, having an earnings underpin as well is entirely helpful.

[Sarah Newton]

But does the right hon. Gentleman not see the benefit for pensioners and the wider economy of the certainty provided by the triple lock? People can now plan for their retirement, and the Exchequer can plan for the economy.

[Stephen Timms]

It is not clear what the degree of certainty is. As I have said, the triple lock was overridden last year because it would have given such a low rate of uprating. This year, it has been applied because there is not much difference between RPI and the triple lock. So no, I do not think that any kind of rock-solid certainty has been introduced; the triple lock was waived the first time it was supposed to be put in place.

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman talks about certainty, but will he acknowledge that the triple lock will give pensioners the certainty that they will no longer get the derisory 75p they got when his party was in government?

[Stephen Timms]

As I have said, in the first year that the triple lock was due to be put in place, it was overridden, so I am not sure about the certainty to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

[Oliver Heald]

The right hon. Gentleman is being a bit naughty. It is a general provision in many pension schemes that there is a method of indexation, and it is often permissible to exceed it. To exceed the triple lock is not to break it; it is simply to be more generous. I do not think that “overridden” is the right word to use.

[Stephen Timms]

I deny being naughty. I am simply making the point that the Government have been telling pensioners that they are now in a wonderful new era, thanks to the triple lock, yet it had to be overridden in the first year it was supposed to be in place because it was not delivering an adequate increase. I am not persuaded that the degree of confidence that Conservative Members believe to have been bestowed on pensioners is a reality.

[Ian Paisley]

Far be it from me to encourage the right hon. Gentleman to be naughty, but is there not a certainty that pensioners—those over 80 in particular—are now going to be £50 a year worse off because of the loss of the winter fuel allowance additional payment?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. People will feel that loss to a significant extent.

Those big figures, £70 billion or £80 billion, are a direct hit on the incomes of pensioners. They have paid into a pension, in many cases throughout their entire working lives, on the understanding that it would be indexed in a particular way. The Civil Service Pensioners Alliance notes that many of them will have

“entered into particular financial arrangements such as the purchase of added years, the conversion of lump sums into pensions and acceptance of moves to other employers on TUPE terms on the basis that future indexation will be linked to RPI”.

That contributory deal, understood and signed up to by pensioners, is being broken for good—permanently. KPMG has estimated that the total cost of the move to CPI uprating across the pensions system to public sector and private sector pensioners over the next 40 years will be £250 billion. The Government tell us—Conservative Members have just attempted to make this point as well—that pensioners will appreciate the stability. I have to say that they would appreciate even more having an income that kept pace with their costs.

I want to ask the Minister one specific question. The UK Statistics Authority has made the case that

“CPI should become the primary measure of consumer price inflation, but only when the inclusion in the index of owner occupiers’ housing costs has been achieved.”

I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the timetable he envisages for a change to the CPI mechanism possibly being introduced. He has not committed the Government to introducing such a change, but he has indicated when they expect to be in a position to do so. However, does he acknowledge the UK Statistics Authority’s point that, as things stand, the CPI is not an adequate measure, because of the exclusion from it of important elements of housing costs?

[Dr Whiteford]

The right hon. Gentleman has advocated a temporary use of CPI, but will he clarify whether he is advocating a return to the use of RPI at some future date? If so, when that would be?

[Stephen Timms]

I am simply making the point that if the Government had proposed a temporary switch to CPI uprating, perhaps for three years, that would have been a reasonable proposition for us to consider. As it is, we have this permanent switch, which we oppose. As to what we will do when elected to government, I will have to ask the hon. Lady to wait until the publication of our manifesto ahead of the next election, which she and many others will be eagerly awaiting.

Will the Minister say more about what will happen once this revised formula for CPI has been drawn up and published by the UK Statistics Authority? Can he provide any encouragement that the Government will in fact use what will almost certainly be a higher rate resulting from that, or will they wish to stick with the current, lower CPI figure—the one being used for the coming year?

This order also provides for an increase in the standard minimum guarantee element of the pension credit—3.9%, as the Minister said, which is above the increase in earnings to which it would be statutorily tied. It is not clear to me how the 3.9% figure has been arrived at; can the Minister shed some light on that? I do not intend to object to it. As the Minister also said, to pay for the increase, the threshold for the savings credit element, which rewards those who have made their own provision for retirement, has been increased by 8.4%—quite a large amount. The maximum savings credit payable has been reduced by about £2 a week. The reduction in eligibility was made clear when this policy was announced, but the reduction in the maximum amount was not announced at that time.

How many people does the Minister expect to be affected by those changes, and what financial savings will each of them realise for the Exchequer towards the cost of the slightly higher uprating of the minimum guarantee element of the pension credit? We need to recognise that what is happening here is that money is being taken away from slightly better-off pensioners who are still receiving pension credit in order to give to those who are dependent on the guarantee element.

Let me press the Minister on one specific question about CPI uprating. The Government are freezing local housing allowance rates from April in preparation for the linking of the benefit to CPI. To put it politely, that has not been well publicised. One might almost think that the Government would prefer it if people were not made aware of it. When the policy was originally announced, the impact assessment said:

“Some savings are assumed in 2012/13, on the assumption that LHA rates will be fixed at some point ahead of the first uprating.”

It did not say that it would be fixed for the entire year, which is what the Government are now saying. What is the Minister’s justification for doing that?

Local housing allowance rates will be calculated annually as either the lower of the rent at the 30th percentile of local rents or the previous year’s allowance uprated by CPI. That is my understanding; perhaps the Minister will confirm whether I am right. What that means, of course, is that LHA rates will fall over time below the 30th percentile of local rents. Surely Ministers should commit to ensuring, as they seem to have indicated, that at least 30% of local rented housing supply will be affordable to tenants on LHA; otherwise, there is no clear definition of what Ministers expect the LHA to deliver in each local area. Let me ask the Minister directly: what proportion of the local housing market do Ministers think should be affordable for tenants on housing benefit? When will they step in, and how far does the proportion have to fall before they will step in to uprate the LHA level back up to, hopefully, the 30th percentile point?

I have another query about housing benefit. In paragraph 4 of part 20 on page 14 of the order, the maximum deductions from benefit in respect of heating, cooking, hot water and lighting, when those costs are included in the rent and paid to the landlord, are being raised substantially by 18%. Will the Minister say a few words about why those deductions from benefit have been increased so much?

The Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order requires occupational pension schemes to uprate their guaranteed minimum pensions by their 3% share of CPI, with the state meeting the remainder of the costs. These provide an important floor to defined benefit schemes so that individuals do not get less than they would if they had remained on the state second pension. The 3% increase would have occurred under either CPI or RPI uprating, so it is not objectionable in itself.

This year we are debating these orders as proceedings on the Welfare Reform Bill seem to be drawing to a close.

[Stephen Lloyd]

I have enjoyed listening to the right hon. Gentleman. In my time in Parliament, I have always appreciated his fairness when he debates various issues. I would like to press him on one matter. He said at the beginning of his speech that he agreed with the Government on some aspects of the uprating. Thus far, however, I have mainly heard about where he disagrees with the Government about the uprating, so I would be grateful if he clarified what he thinks is good about it.

[Stephen Timms]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for not accusing me of being naughty—indeed, rather the reverse. I have drawn attention to a number of points of agreement with the Government. For example, I do not object at all to the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order. On its own, the increase in the pension credit guarantee level is welcome. We need to know a little more about how it is going to be funded, but it is a good thing in principle, as I said. I also made it clear that I had no objection to the first order I commented on. I thus hope that I will manage to maintain my reputation for fairness—at least in the hon. Gentleman’s mind.

As the debates on the Welfare Reform Bill come to an end, it is important to place this measure in the context of the Government’s wider changes, which will penalise pensioners and in some cases make it impossible for people of working age to save. Couples with one member drawing near to the state pension age are unaware that, as a result of the Welfare Reform Bill, if the other member is younger they will not qualify for pension credit, so the household will not benefit from the increase in the pension credit guarantee level to which the Minister drew attention—I understand why he did so. Couples who live in council or housing association accommodation and claim housing benefit will face the under-occupation penalty; if one of them is below the age of entitlement for pension credit, it will be applied to them as well.

Families on tax credits do not yet know that they will be punished for saving. If they are trying to save up for a deposit on a house or for a child’s university education, and have managed to save more than £16,000—such people have been and are currently entitled to tax credits—they will not get any universal credit at all. For some, universal credit will make it impossible to save. The Minister made a virtue—again, I understand why he did so—of the 5.2% increase in the level of contributory employment and support allowance in the order. What he did not mention was that 100,000 people will lose out when the time limit on contributory employment support allowance comes into effect. If, against all our efforts, the Welfare Reform Bill achieves Royal Assent in time, those 100,000 people will lose out at the beginning of April and another 100,000 will lose out in the following year as they hit the one-year limit. That is the world that the Welfare Reform Bill is ushering in.

We recognise that there are elements in these orders that are acceptable—some, let me say again for the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd), are even welcome. Other elements, however, and in particular the permanent adoption of a lower rate of inflation uprating for pensions and other benefits, we cannot support. For that reason, we will be unable to support the Government in the Lobby.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Webb]

Indeed. If one could obtain pretty robust and independently accepted forecasts—although that prompts at least two questions—there would have to be a decision about whether one used “forecast, forecast, forecast” or “history, history, history”. In terms of the orders, I am concerned with the decision that we had to make about this year. Had we switched from history to forecast just at the point when forecast was helping us, I think that we would have been criticised. With an historian sitting opposite me, I hesitate to say that no one can argue about history, but at least there is some certainty in the past. We now have the Office for Budget Responsibility, and we have the Bank of England, so we could get an objective future figure. However, if we did that and the future started to turn out differently, there would be a lot of pressure with people saying, “You forecast this figure but it is turning out to be more”. There would also be pressure to make in-year corrections, whereas nobody can argue about history, and that gives us a certain amount of certainty. Having said that, I understand my hon. Friend’s comment about the point of indexation being to match the inflation experience.

My hon. Friend talked about in-work and out-of-work benefits and the relative position of pensioners, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd). I remind him that we have different approaches for pensioners and for non-pensioners. The statutory position for non-pensioners is generally CPI or, in some cases, discretionary, while our policy for pensioners is triple lock. We are in very strange times, with CPI, RPI and earnings going all over the place. In more normal times, when earnings rise faster than prices, pensioners will generally get bigger increases.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the burdens on the low-paid. That is why we are keen to raise the tax-free personal allowance, among other measures. Nobody would say that being in a low-paid job is a comfortable place to be, especially with pay freezes. On average, people affected by the tax credits changes are on incomes of some £17,000 a year, but someone who is drawing employment and support allowance is on an income of about £3,500 a year. It is a question of how much scope the person has to accommodate and absorb these inflation shocks, and that was the judgment that we made. Most of the time, earnings rise faster than prices, and the gap between jobseeker’s allowance and low-paid people’s wages is increasing year after year. In the past 20 years, it has probably increased 17 or 18 times. In general, that will be the sort of outcome that we get. Of course, as soon as we introduce universal credit, that will institutionalise the gap between out-of-work and in-work benefits in the way that I think he wants to see.

My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne welcomed the 5.2% increase, particularly for working-age disabled people. I am grateful for his representations on that. He is right that we need to protect people who are not able to work. He asked about the evolution of CPI and RPI. Just to be clear, the £13,000 figure was reached by comparing our triple lock, based on OBR-type assumptions, with the RPI policy of the past 30 years. We asked what somebody retiring on a full pension this year would have got had RPI been rolled forward and what they would get under the triple lock according to realistic assumptions about earnings and prices. The difference between the two is a cumulative £13,000. That figure has changed. I used to say that it was £15,000, then the OBR changed its numbers and I said that it was £10,000. We now say that it is £13,000. The figure will change, but over time earnings tend to grow faster than RPI, so the basic pension will tend to grow faster than it would have done. That is something that we need to communicate over the coming years.

I wrote down a bizarre phrase that was used by the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms). He said that the triple lock “undermines pensions uprating”. People can check his speech, but that is what I thought he said. That is nonsense. The triple lock reinforces pensions uprating because it always gives pensioners the best deal between CPI, earnings and 2.5%.

[Stephen Timms]

Will the Minister give way?

[Steve Webb]

I will in a second. Clearly, those numbers all fluctuate relative to each other. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can confirm whether he disputes the fact that £13,000 extra compared with the policy that his Government adopted for 13 years is the result of the triple lock?

[Stephen Timms]

I want to focus on the year ahead. Will the Minister confirm that the triple lock will deliver a lower uprating than would RPI?

[Steve Webb]

It is interesting that the Labour party has said that it does not support the orders, which include a CPI increase, and yet is not going to vote against them. I assume that it will not vote against them as there are only about four Labour Members here.

It is unclear what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. He does not think that there should be an RPI increase. Whether RPI is higher than CPI this year could be a debating point. Of course RPI is higher, as he well knows and as we all know. However, he is not in favour of using RPI this year, but favours a temporary move to CPI. I am not sure what debating point he is trying to make.

The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont) asked about CPIH, which is CPI including the housing costs of owner-occupiers. We are entirely open to looking at that. We are not going to say that we will definitely use it, because we do not know what it is, what it will include or what its properties will be. It would be premature of us to sign up to a prices index that we have not seen and that has not even been invented yet. We are entirely open to considering whether that is the right measure to use when the Secretary of State decides the general increase in the cost of living for September 2013, which is when it will presumably happen. I have said that consistently.

The right hon. Member for East Ham asked why we had increased the standard minimum guarantee by 3.9%. That is the cash pass-through. We have given the basic state pension £5.30. We wanted people on the minimum guarantee to get at least £5.30. It turns out that it will be £5.35. That is 3.9%.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the savings from the savings credit change. We over-indexed the guarantee credit compared with statute, so it is 3.9% rather than 2.8%. That cost us £200 million, which we have to find by cutting back the savings credit. There is therefore no net saving on pension credit as a whole, but rather redistribution from the savings credit to the guarantee credit. I hope that that answers his question.

The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government had been secretive about the link between the local housing allowance and CPI, and about the freeze in April 2012. I accept that not many people listen to our debates in the House, but I announced that measure from the Dispatch Box on 6 December 2011. I think that he might even have been here. I said:

“As part of the preparation for this change, we need to fix LHA rates, to establish a baseline… As the new cycle for uprating LHA will be annual, we have decided that the baseline should be one year ahead of the first uprating event. Therefore, LHA rates will be fixed from April 2012.”—[Official Report, 6 December 2011; Vol. 537, c. 164.]

The measure was therefore announced before Christmas. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman had his mind on other things at the time.

The right hon. Gentleman asked why the deductions from heating and so on in the social security order are relatively high. The deductions are linked to the component indices of CPI. Those things have gone up by more than inflation. Each year, we link them to what has actually happened to the cost of those items. Therefore, had the costs been lower, we would have used a lower figure. That is just for consistency.

I stand before the House having just announced £6.6 billion of spending. With due respect to the hon. Members who have attended the debate, it has not received a huge amount of scrutiny, but as was said during the debate, that is because people overwhelmingly think we have done the right thing. We have recognised that pensioners, who will get two thirds of the money, should benefit from the triple lock, that the poorest pensioners should be protected, that disabled people should be protected from inflation and that people who are out of work through no fault of their own should not suffer a cut in their real living standards. It is therefore my great pleasure to commend the orders to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Pensions Act 2008 (Abolition of Protected Rights) (Consequential Amendments) (No. 2) (Amendment) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 30 January, be approved.

Pensions

Resolved,

That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 30 January, be approved.—(Steve Webb.)

Social Security

Resolved,

That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 30 January, be approved.—(Steve Webb.)

Welfare Reform Bill

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I hope that Government Members think long and hard before simply voting down Lords amendments 3B and 26B, but at the outset let me comment on the other amendments, as the Minister did.

I want in particular to welcome the Government’s concession on time-limiting contributory employment and support allowance for people in the work-related activity group. Amendments 17B to 17D and 19B provide in circumstances prescribed in regulations for a longer time limit than one year. That is a very welcome change, and I am grateful to Ministers for permitting it. The Government have made it clear that they have no intention of bringing forward such regulations, but the Bill will now at least allow a future, more fair-minded Government to do so, and I welcome that change very much.

The Minister in the other place also gave some assurances about people being treated for cancer, which has been an important issue in this debate. His assurances were, however, rather vague. They do not help people recovering from strokes or from severe mental health problems, or others who have no chance at all of getting back into work within a year, but the assurances in respect of cancer patients, in so far as they went, were helpful.

Amendment 73BA, which the Government tabled, would allow them to waive charges for the parent with care when accessing the child support system in specified circumstances. Again, we have no idea what those circumstances will be, but the amendment is nevertheless helpful rather than unhelpful.

There also needs to be movement on the policy addressed by amendments 3B and 26B, which the Minister before us still opposes. They have some perfectly reasonable aims, to which attention has been drawn in this debate. Under-occupancy of social housing is a problem; many people are stuck—overcrowded—on housing waiting lists; fewer people under-occupying would help; and a workable penalty for people who refuse an offer of smaller, more suitable accommodation could achieve that aim.

[Mr Tom Clarke]

I follow absolutely my right hon. Friend’s logic, but in the field of disability does he not recognise that in many cases the so-called extra room is there for a carer or for other physical reasons to help the disabled person? It is therefore pretty unacceptable to change that arrangement.

[Stephen Timms]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is why the Lords propose in their amendment an exemption for people in receipt of disability living allowance, thereby addressing exactly that point.

Our original amendment would have penalised under-occupation in a workable way. If a tenant refused a suitable offer of a smaller home, they would suffer the penalty. If, however, no smaller home were available, they would not suffer that penalty. Unfortunately, that amendment was defeated in our previous debate, but I pay tribute to the 12 Liberal Democrat Members and two Conservative Members who supported it. I am glad to see some of them in their places this afternoon.

Legal challenge to the Government’s policy seems inevitable, because it penalises people for a situation that it is impossible for them to change. The amendment could not be reintroduced in the other place because the Government claimed financial privilege, so this afternoon we have in amendments 3B and 26B a much weaker proposal. It does, however, at least protect those, like the people to whom my right hon. Friend has just drawn attention, who will be hardest hit if the Government’s policy goes through.

The proposal would safeguard four tightly defined groups: first, people in the employment and support allowance support group—those who are too ill to be expected to return to work in the near future; secondly, adults and children who receive disability living allowance or its successor, the personal independence payment; thirdly, war widows; and fourthly, foster carers, because for the purposes of housing benefit calculations foster children do not count towards a bedroom need.

Let me underline how modest the proposal now is. Many Members will take the view, for example, that war widows should not be penalised for having a spare bedroom. The proposal, however, would not protect war widows in that way. It simply says that no war widow should be fined for under-occupying her home unless she has been offered appropriate smaller accommodation. If such an offer has been made to her and she has refused it, under the Lords amendments she would be penalised. The amendments would protect her position until such an offer was made. Only tenants in one of the four specific groups would have even that safeguard. Everybody else who was under-occupying their social tenancy would, under the amendments, be penalised even if it was impossible for them to move to somewhere smaller.

The Child Poverty Action Group has highlighted an example of how similar rules currently apply in the private rented sector, which highlights the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke). Let us consider a claimant who has two daughters, one of whom has severe and uncontrollable epilepsy with frequent fits during the night. Her social worker and occupational therapist agree that the two girls need separate bedrooms. The claimant currently rents a three-bedroom house, but housing benefit covers the cost of only a two-bedroom house. The Lords amendments would fix that situation for social housing because the daughter is in receipt of disability living allowance.

I will now consider the hypothetical example of a couple in which one person has terminal cancer, which puts them in the employment and support allowance support group for people who are not expected to work again. That is one of the four specific groups that the Lords amendments would protect. The couple have a spare bedroom in their two-bedroom council house because their child moved out recently. They would be happy to move to a one-bedroom council or housing association flat but none is available. Under the Minister’s policy, that couple will be penalised, on average by £12 a week. Under the amendments, because of the exceptional circumstances, they would not be penalised. That would be the modest and reasonable effect of the amendments that the Lords agreed.

The National Housing Federation tells us that 180,000 social tenants in England are under-occupying two-bedroom homes, but that only 68,000 one-bedroom social homes became available to let in the year 2009-10. The impact assessment from the Department for Work and Pensions, which is well worth reading, states:

“According to estimates from DCLG there is a surplus of 3 bedroom properties, based on the profile of existing working-age tenants in receipt of Housing Benefit, and a lack of 1 bedroom accommodation in the social sector. In many areas this mismatch”—

I am quoting the Department here—

“could mean that there are insufficient properties to enable tenants to move to accommodation of an appropriate size even if tenants wished to move and landlords were able to facilitate this movement.”

That is the reality in many places. There simply will not be a one-bedroom home to move to. That will be the case in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), who intervened earlier, and in my constituency. Of course, the policy will not release a single one-bedroom home, because one cannot under-occupy a home with one bedroom.

The couple in the example, in which one person has terminal cancer, would see a cut of £12 a week or nearly £60 a month in their income. That is the average across the country. They would somehow have to make that up to their landlord from other income. The Department, no doubt trying to be helpful, gives some suggestions in the impact assessment of how they might do that:

“In these circumstances individuals may have to look further afield for appropriately sized accommodation or move to the private sector, otherwise they shall need to meet the shortfall through other means such as employment, using savings or by taking in a lodger or sub-tenant.”

I ask the House to reflect on each of those three suggestions in the case of somebody with terminal cancer. People in the ESA support group are, by definition, not in a position to work. That is why the Government have placed them in the support group. That suggestion therefore does not help. The DWP suggests instead that our terminally ill tenant in a two-bedroom flat should take in a lodger to help pay the rent. One has to ask whether the people promoting these policies have ever met anyone who will be affected by them. Of course, in many cases, the social landlord would not permit somebody to take in a lodger under the terms of their tenancy. The Department’s other suggestion is that they can use their savings. People in receipt of income-related ESA do not have very much saved—if they did, they would not receive income-related ESA.

Another alternative, as the impact assessment suggests, is that the tenant will have to move out of their council home into the private sector. In that case, their housing benefit will rise sharply. Where is the gain in forcing that to happen? The National Housing Federation, whose members are very worried about the change that the Government insist on making, makes the point that

“a couple with one child moving into the private sector from a three bed social flat in Crawley would be entitled to around £66 per week more in benefit to cover their additional housing costs.”

The key point is that it will be impossible for many of those affected to avoid the penalty. If suitable alternative accommodation can be offered to them, then fine, they can move and will no longer be under-occupying, and their benefit will continue to cover their full rent. The Lords amendments specifically allow for that. However, if there is no smaller flat available, our cancer patient will just have to take the £60 a month hit. How can that be justified?

The Minister will tell us, as he has before, that £30 million has been made available to councils in discretionary housing payments to avoid penalising a limited number of households. However, the Minister in the other place made it clear that, as the Minister of State hinted today, that money is to help foster carers and disabled people with adapted homes—so no help there for our terminally ill tenant.

Even for foster carers and disabled people in adapted homes, contrary to the impression that the Minister of State gave to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson) and the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, there will be no certainty. People wanting help will have to go to their local council and ask for it, because it will be discretionary—that is what the word means. It will up to each local council to decide what it does with the money. It could use it for that purpose, or it could use it for a different one. If other people have already taken all the discretionary funding that has been provided, that will be it. No further help will be available.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I understand that the policy in the Lords amendments would cost the Exchequer £150 million. How would it be funded?

[Stephen Timms]

The hon. Gentleman should reflect on the fact that, as I have described, the costs will be greater in a number of ways with the Government’s provisions in place than they would be if the Lords amendments were retained.

Before I leave the topic of discretionary housing payments, it is worth my noting how the extra £30 million has been found. Initially, the average penalty for under-occupying by one bedroom was going to be £11 a week, and now the Government have increased it to £12 a week. They have increased the penalty for everybody affected in order to scrape together the extra cash to increase discretionary payments.

The last time this policy was debated, we offered an effective alternative whereby a tenant would have their benefit cut as a penalty if they refused a suitable move. Unfortunately, Government Members threw it out. The Lords amendments would limit that safeguard to the four groups that I have mentioned—the sick, the disabled, war widows and foster carers.

Ministers have said that their policy will be a work incentive, but the support group comprises people who are not in a position to work. A work incentive will do them no good at all. Let us call a spade a spade: this is a spiteful cut in people’s income. Foster carers provide a service that saves the Exchequer billions. The Fostering Network has warned that people will be forced by the penalty to give up fostering, which will increase costs to the Exchequer. War widows and widowers have seen their loved ones die for their country. Their grieving barely over, they will be fined under the Government’s policy because they have one bedroom too many. I ask whether that is really what Government Members came into the House to do to their constituents. The Government’s policy, without the Lords amendments, will penalise everybody regardless of whether they could move.

Fourteen Government Members joined us in voting for the relevant Lords amendment last time. I thank them for that, and their constituents will do so as well, even if their Whips will not. As we were not successful, social landlords will have to take on extra staff to chase the resulting arrears that will start to accrue in every social landlord’s stock across the country. The current Lords amendments are much more modest than the previous ones, but they would at least protect those who stand to lose the most from what the Government want to do. I hope that hon. Members will support the Lords amendments and oppose the Minister’s motion.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

When I spoke during our last consideration of the Lords amendments to the Bill, I expressed concerns about this policy, particularly about the changes to child maintenance payments. I am pleased that there has been some movement on that front, but I find myself once again in support of their lordships. I am sorry about that, because the ministerial team is one of my favourites. I will not tell you which is my least favourite, Mr Speaker, but people can guess.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms]

I agree with the points that the hon. Gentleman is making. Just to take him back to foster children for a moment, as I understand it, they do not count towards the housing benefit bedroom entitlement, whether they are there are not. Therefore, not only is there a problem when there are no children; there is a problem when there are children.

[Stephen Lloyd]

I would welcome a response from the Minister on that issue.

To go back to disabled people and adjustments to their homes, I would like some detail from the Government as to exactly how they will meet that challenge, because clearly it makes no sense to move someone out after their home has been adapted to the tune of thousands of pounds.

Thirdly, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that there is enough housing stock when 2013 comes around? We have a year before that happens, so I would be interested to hear the Government’s plan. Last but not least, what plans are the coalition Government making, prior to implementation, to work with local authorities and housing associations in advance of April 2013 to ensure that the changes are made in a sensible and productive manner? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reassurances in response to those four important questions.

Welfare Reform Bill

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I can indeed confirm that that is the case. We have listened very carefully on this issue, and it was a point well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott) in Committee. We have listened and we have taken appropriate action. It is important that we look at such details to ensure that we get them right, but that does not detract from the overall principle of what we are trying to achieve.

I believe that a time limit of one year is the correct approach. It applies the right balance between restricting access to contributory benefits and allowing those with longer term illnesses to adjust to their health condition and surrounding circumstances. There is also a very strong financial argument. If accepted, this amendment would reduce the total savings in the spending review period by around a third by 2016-17, which is £1.6 billion. Given the current fiscal climate, we cannot afford to forgo these savings and this is one of a number of very difficult decisions the Government have had to make because, as the shadow Secretary of State pointed out at the time, there was no money left.

Lords amendment 18 would mean that no time limit would be applied to contributory ESA for those claimants receiving treatment for cancer if they have or are treated as having limited capability for work, or they have or are treated as having limited capability for work as a consequence of a cancer diagnosis. The whole point of our approach on these matters is that we have always looked at the effects of a condition on an individual, rather than at the condition itself. We can all think of other cases which could equally be regarded as special cases. We are trying to be sensitive to the very real concerns of individuals suffering from cancer, and since we took office we have made significant changes to improve the protection and support that we provide to them.

Most individuals with cancer are placed in the support group at the outset of their treatment. We have increased the scope of the support group for cancer patients. We have been working closely with Macmillan Cancer Relief to improve how the WCA assesses individuals being treated for cancer. We are now consulting on our proposals, following work by Macmillan and Professor Harrington, our independent assessor of the work capability assessment.

We are clear that our proposals, which are now out to consultation, include a presumption that someone with cancer will be in the support group. What we simply do not accept is that in all circumstances, regardless of the impact of cancer on an individual’s ability to work or otherwise, they should be guaranteed a position in the support group. We have not taken that approach with any other condition and we do not believe that we should take it with cancer.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I know that there has been some discussion in the last few days about whether, if a doctor or nurse were able to provide confirmation that a person with cancer was not able to work, that person would be automatically passported into the support group. Is that something that the Government intend to introduce?

[Chris Grayling]

It is very much our intention—especially for those who have finished their treatment but are not yet prepared to return to work—to have a simple system that enables a medical professional to indicate to us that that person is not yet sufficiently recovered to make a return to work. Our proposals are out to consultation at the moment, but our overall clear goal is that, in the vast majority of cases, someone who is undergoing treatment for cancer or is recovering from the aftermath of that treatment should be in the support group. What we cannot accept is a principle for absolutely all cases and regardless of circumstance, and some people with cancer do work—

--- Later in debate ---

We want people to qualify only if they have lived in the UK recently prior to the claim, but we are also obliged to take account of the Court’s case-law view of what constitutes a sufficient link. We strongly disagree with the Court’s ruling. The effect of that EU judgment is that we can no longer have a blanket past presence test of this kind for benefit claimants. As a result, the ESA youth provision is potentially more widely available than intended, and given that we are bound by EU law, there is nothing, short of abolition, that we can do by way of domestic legislation—even primary legislation—to change its effect. As a consequence, we could end up paying this benefit, on a long-term unconditional basis, to more people who have never lived in the United Kingdom but who can simply demonstrate a link to it.

[Stephen Timms]

Will the Minister confirm that the case in question relates to a disabled young woman who is living with her British parents—in Spain, I think—but who was born and brought up in the UK?

[Chris Grayling]

It relates to someone who has not lived in the UK for most of the past 15 years, although she is a British national and has a link to the UK. The implication of the court case is that somebody who has a link to the UK but who has had no recent contact with it is none the less entitled to receive benefits. That is where we disagree with the European Court and why we think that its decision was wrong.

We think that the best way to close this door is to abolish the ESA youth provision, but it is not the only reason we are abolishing the youth provision. It is by no means the sole rationale for doing so, but as a matter of principle it is our view that we should make every effort to ensure that our benefits are paid only to those whom we think should be paid UK benefits—those who have recent connections to, or have lived in, the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

I would love to secure a more pragmatic and sensible approach to the regulation of social security in Europe. I have been working on it for the past 18 months with my counterparts in other member states, and I hope that we will make progress as soon as possible. Right now, however, we must obey European case law as delivered to us by the European Court—much as it sometimes might be frustrating to do so.

I have a couple of technical points to make before I finish. As a result of providing for the new category of entitlement, in respect of claimants whose health has deteriorated to such a degree that they are placed in the support group—I referred to this earlier in response to the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg)—it has been necessary to remove the substance of the ESA youth time-limiting measure from the original clause 52 and to insert it in clause 51 via a new subsection in section 1 of the Welfare Reform Act 2007. The Opposition amended that new subsection by changing the period of the time limit from 365 days to a period to be prescribed of at least 730 days. That is Lords amendment 19. As a result, the House will need to agree to amendment 19 but with an amendment consequential upon the rejection of the other amendments providing for entitlement to ESA to be for 730 days rather than 365 days. This will restore the Government’s intention.

A similar complexity surrounds amendment 22, which was voted for in the other place and which ensures that no new claims can be made under the youth provisions in the future—in effect, from whenever that provision is commenced by order. This amendment would amend clause 52 by removing the substance of ESA youth time limiting, which is now included in clause 51, but would retain the key provision in clause 52 preventing new ESA youth claims from being made.

I am afraid that this position is further complicated by the fact that also in the other place amendment 23 was not pushed to a vote and therefore also stands part of the Bill. Amendment 23 effectively allows claims to be made to contributory ESA under the youth provisions for those that are placed in the support group. We therefore now have two conflicting clauses for conditions relating to youth. Finally, if amendment 23 were to be accepted, it would reduce the expected cumulative benefit savings by around £17 million by 2016-17—savings that would need to be found elsewhere in the benefits system.

In the light of these arguments—the urgent need to address the fiscal deficit we have inherited and the need to deliver principled reform to our welfare state—I hope that hon. Members will feel able to support the Government.

[Stephen Timms]

The Government are determined to insert some terrible things in the Bill, and none of them is worse than the indefensible one-year time limit on contributory employment and support allowance for people in the work-related activity group. Amendment 17 removes that one-year limit. The Government are trying to put it back. Now, with the blanket appeal that we have heard for financial privilege, they are trying to prevent the other place from daring to disagree with them once again.

The measure is literally indefensible: the Government have been unable to defend it. The Minister made no effort to defend it in his speech, other than to point out that it would save a great deal of money. He referred to what happens in other European countries, but there, of course, the support that people fall back on is much more generous than here. There is no defence for the one-year time limit, and the House needs to be aware that this change will start to impact in two months’ time, at the beginning of April. According to the Government, 100,000 people will lose contributory benefits at the beginning of April this year, having already been in receipt of contributory ESA for more than one year, and another 100,000 will lose it as they reach the one-year stage of their claim over the following 12 months.

Some people argue that ESA should not be limited at all—for example, the Liberal Democrats. At their party conference, they opposed any arbitrary time limit on how long claimants can claim contributory ESA, and the Liberal Democrat peer Baroness Thomas of Winchester told Members of the other place that what troubled the conference last year was

“the arbitrary nature of the one-year cut-off.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 January 2012; Vol. 734, c. 158.]

Liberal Democrat party policy is clear on this, but we understand that today its elected representatives will take no notice of it.

The Lords amendments that the Government want to overturn are much more modest. They argue that the time limit should be not less than two years and, crucially, that the limit should be set down in regulations rather than in primary legislation. If the Government get their way, absurdly it would require a new Act of Parliament to change the limit. Throughout debates on the Bill—many Members have been present in Committee and other stages of the Bill—the Minister has told us that the purpose of the Bill is to provide the structure and that the details would be in regulations. On this measure, however, with no explanation, the opposite approach has been applied. These debates provide a clear indication of whether Ministers mean what they say when they tell us these things, or whether they are simply reading the script put in front of them.

We do not quarrel with time limiting. As the Minister said, contributory jobseeker’s allowance has been time-limited to six months for many years. The rationale has always been that within six months more than 90% of jobseekers are back in work. If it is to be fair, however, a time limit for ESA must also give people a reasonable chance to get back into work. A year is not enough. The Government’s own figures suggest that 94% of those who qualify for ESA are still on it a year later, so fewer than 6% are managing to get into a job within a year.

[Chris Grayling]

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how he has factored into his considerations the typical six-month period that somebody in that position would have spent on statutory sick pay before they started on contributory ESA?

[Stephen Timms]

The question is: how long do people need to be on ESA before they get back into work? According to the Minister’s figures, only 6% are off the benefit within a year, whereas 90% are off contributory jobseeker’s allowance within the period that is being allowed for that benefit.

[Chris Grayling]

I would be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman answered my question. I asked him to what extent he had factored in the additional six months that most people would have had on statutory sick pay before starting 12 months on contributory ESA.

[Stephen Timms]

I answered the Minister’s question. What his figures show is that only 6% of those who go on to ESA—no doubt many of them will have been on statutory sick pay before that—are in a position to come off the benefit within one year. That is not a reasonable chance to get back to work, as I think the Minister will recognise if he reflects on the matter.

As the Minister said, Lords amendment 18 specifically addresses cancer. I do not think that anyone in this House will be surprised to learn that, for many cancer patients, 12 months is not long enough to become well enough to get back into work. At 12 months, many people are still experiencing debilitating physical and psychological effects from the cancer and from its treatment. People cannot go back to work in those circumstances, and that is why Macmillan Cancer Relief, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) referred to, says that

“proposals that ESA claimants who are expected to carry out work-focused activities will only receive the benefit for one year, without being means-tested, will hit cancer patients particularly hard”.

Macmillan also says:

“Three quarters…of people with cancer placed in the ESA Work-Related Activity Group are still claiming ESA 12 months later.”

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Minister, with his rather “Let them eat cake” answer to our right hon. Friend, the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), was emphasising that the 7,000 people affected would generally have another income available to them? That ignores, first, that that other income could be quite modest; secondly, their family circumstances; and, most importantly, the fact that they face other costs—of a personal, family and household nature—because of their condition.

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Ministers say that there is no need to worry because means-tested ESA will still be there, but if a partner is earning £7,500 a year, no means-tested support will be provided at all.

In the other place, Baroness Hayter quoted a letter from a 59-year-old man currently on contributory ESA who has worked and paid into the system since he was 15—that is, for 44 years. Now, when his health is failing, he will be left on the poverty line. He draws the obvious conclusion—this picks up on the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) made earlier—saying:

“It would be better if my wife stopped working then perhaps I could claim income-related ESA—just like any person who has never worked”.

That is the position that this change is putting people in. The Government say they want to reward work; with this measure, they are scrapping the reward for work.

[Mr Frank Field]

Before my right hon. Friend moves on, perhaps he could dwell on that point. The Government rightly say that this Bill is about changing and shaping behaviour, and for all of us in this House, it is important to know that this year we will probably crash through the £200 billion mark. Anybody who thinks that that does not affect people’s behaviour is living in cloud cuckoo land. However, what message is this Bill sending out, when those who have provided and paid their contributions will get no benefits if there is any other income in their house, whereas those who have not played by the rules—who have decided that they will coast it on the back of taxpayers—get rewards?

[Stephen Timms]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am afraid that the message that this measure is sending to people in that situation is, “You’ve wasted your time.” Indeed, that is the case not only if they have a partner with an income, but if they have any savings. If they have more than £16,000 saved, there will be no means-tested support at all.

Members need to be clear about what the Government will be doing if they get their way. Under this measure, people who are in the middle of a health crisis will be plunged into a financial catastrophe. People who have worked and paid into the system all their lives—people who have, as my right hon. Friend says, done the right thing—will find that the system is not there to help them when they need it.

[Chris Grayling]

The shadow Minister has just talked about the position of somebody who has a spouse who is earning £7,500 a year. Will he confirm to the House that as a result of a diminution of household income, they would also be entitled to working tax credit, housing benefit, council tax benefit and possibly to child tax credit, and that therefore the amount of support that they will receive is substantially more than he is suggesting?

[Stephen Timms]

It will be a financial catastrophe for a very large number of people, and the Minister should listen to what people in that position are saying to him, because they have made their position extremely clear.

[Ian Paisley]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, very simply, this change that the Government are seeking is saying to cancer patients, “You will be penalised because you are not recovering quickly enough”? That is where the insult rests: they are doing their best.

[Stephen Timms]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: 12 months is simply not long enough for a very large number of cancer patients—or other patients, in fact—to get back to work.

Lords amendment 18 was moved in the other place by Lord Patel, the Cross-Bench peer who was formerly president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. He quoted a man with renal cancer who had had a kidney removed and who started claiming ESA in March last year. His partner earns £160 per week, but if the Government win, that man will lose all his contributory benefit in April. He says:

“We have used up virtually all our savings already. I have worked all my life and paid into the system but this doesn't seem to mean anything”.

Is that really how the Government want their system to work? Of course, it is not just cancer patients who will be affected.

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

Does the shadow Minister agree that it is completely illogical to single out cancer as a separate disease when, in fact, there are many illnesses and conditions that may result in someone being unfit for work and when, under these provisions, they would be provided for by being put in the support group?

[Stephen Timms]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right—indeed, I am just going on to make that very point. It is not just cancer patients who will be affected; there are many other people in exactly the same position. That is why we have argued for a two-year limit instead of a one-year limit, because with a two-year limit there is a chance for people to get back into work. The National Aids Trust makes the point:

“Many people living with HIV who are found eligible will face significant barriers to work that cannot be overcome within 12 months.”

[Dame Anne Begg]

The other group of people who will be affected by the time-limiting are those who have slowly progressive degenerative conditions. Initially on diagnosis, they may not be able to work—or they may have fallen out of work—but their conditions will not be severe enough for them to be placed in the support group, and they could spend up to 10 years without any kind of independent income-replacement benefit.

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A woman with Parkinson’s disease also makes exactly that point:

“There’s no guarantee that I’ll find a job in 12 months. It could take me much longer. I’ve worked all my life and paid for decades into the system on the understanding that there will be support if I need it. To be told that all this support could have a… time limit is…unfair and stressful.”

The charity Sense points out that for some people in the work-related activity group, once their health has stabilised, they will need to retrain to get back into work. It will be impossible for them to do that within the 12-month period that is being proposed.

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about those constituents of mine who have had strokes and who are not able to return to work within that period of time, and the concern that DWP officials are implementing the legislation in advance of its being on the statute book?

[Stephen Timms]

I was not aware of that, and I am concerned to hear it. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that stroke is exactly the type of condition that we are talking about. In the other place, Lord Low read out a letter that had been written to him, which said:

“The state is breaking its side of the contract at a time when people are most vulnerable”,

having had a stroke, or whatever it is. Someone else was quoted in that debate in the other place who made the point that the news of the time limit

“came as a massive shock to me. I have found it…hard to come to terms with the fact that the government can be so cruel”.

They continued:

“My medicine prescription has been increased 4-fold and been supplemented with extra medication since the time limit was announced”.

This is a dreadful proposal. Removing contributory benefit long before most people will have a chance to get back to work will remove an absolutely key plank of the contributory system. In the past, people have been able to depend on support in the event of a health disaster. This change will mean that that will no longer be the case. Those in the other place were absolutely right to say that what the Government are trying to do is shameful. This House should throw it out.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

The right hon. Gentleman has accepted the principle of time-limiting. He says that a year is too short a time, and he is against arbitrary time limits. Will he tell the House the basis on which he alighted on two years, rather than three, four of five?

[Stephen Timms]

If the hon. Gentleman looks at the amendment, he will see that it refers to a period of “at least 730” days. That was proposed precisely because there is as yet no evidence—certainly not from the Department—about what the right period should be. We can be absolutely sure, however, that it should not be less than two years, for all the reasons that I have just outlined.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a heart-rending case, but will he tell us what assessment he has made of the extra cost of moving to a two-year limit?

[Stephen Timms]

Those figures were quoted extensively in our debate. Our view is simply this: we should not be taking large sums of money from people who are recovering from cancer or from a stroke, and who have been told throughout their lives that if they paid into the national insurance system, they would be able to get help when they needed it. That pledge needs to be honoured, even by this Government.

Let me turn to Lords amendment 15 and the question of the youth passport. It is astonishing that the spiteful policy towards disabled young people remained in the Bill for so long. It is even more astonishing to see the Minister now trying to ram it back in today, after the other place took it out. The current principle is that people who have been disabled since birth or childhood should be passported on to a contributory benefit. In Committee, the Minister described the principle as an “oddity”, but it has been well established since the 1970s and backed by Tory Ministers throughout the 1980s and 1990s. Only now are this Government trying to scrap it. It provides an independent income for severely disabled people whose disability started before they had a chance to work. The Minister wants to deny them that. The principle that young people who are disabled from birth ought to be able to rely on a secure independent income might seem odd to him; to most people, it is simply right.

The Government’s impact assessment justifies this change, disgracefully, on the basis of simplifying the system.

[Dame Anne Begg]

The change will affect not only those who have had a disability since birth or childhood. A young person who has worked for only six months before having a major accident could also lose out and never have the chance to have an independent income-replacement benefit at any time in their life.

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

The impact assessment states that the provision

“puts those previously eligible for ESA ‘youth’ on an equal footing with others who have to satisfy the relevant National Insurance conditions before they qualify for contributory ESA, which will create a simpler system”.

It will not put them on an equal footing. They have been unable to work since before they had a chance to work, or at least to build up two years of contributions, as my hon. Friend points out. They have had no chance to build up their contributions, and they are therefore at a disadvantage, compared with everybody else. Attempting to justify the proposal—in frankly Orwellian terms—as a simplification really takes the biscuit. We are talking about a small group—15,000 people—who have never had a chance to build up a contribution record. It is right that they should be treated differently. A little complexity is necessary for fairness.

It is worth looking at how much money the Government will save by overturning this amendment. It involves a fair amount of contributory ESA —Ministers in the other place said £70 million. However, many of those young people—the Minister said it would be 90%—will be entitled to income-related benefit if they lose their contributory benefit. Furthermore, the amendment from the other place is very narrow. It applies only to the support group—that is, those who the Government accept should be protected from ESA time-limiting. The net annual saving from this spiteful cut will be about a quarter of the amount that the state-owned Royal Bank of Scotland will hand out in executive bonuses this year. It will be less than £10 million a year.

[Mr Frank Field]

When my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) asked a question about a 20-year-old living at home, we did not get an answer. I was just wondering whether my right hon. Friend was trying to find out the answer by osmosis. At what point will disabled young people qualify in their own right for means-tested support, as opposed to having a household means test applied to them?

[Stephen Timms]

I also noted that the Minister did not give my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South the assurance that she was seeking. My understanding is that any other income in the household, from any source, contributes to the household income, and the benefit for the disabled young person is therefore removed, pound for pound. My hon. Friend was seeking an assurance that some other provision would be put in place to safeguard the young person, but the Minister was unable to give her such an assurance, because I do not think that that is the Government’s intention. No such provision appears in the Bill at the moment.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the measure will have an impact on young people’s ability to form relationships? Having to depend on the income of a potential partner will have a great impact on their lives.

[Stephen Timms]

That is a particularly important point. If a person decides to marry someone who has an income, they will lose all their own income. The independence that the system has provided for 40 years is now being taken away.

[Ian Paisley]

The social impact of the proposals concerns me greatly. The right hon. Gentleman has rightly characterised them as “spiteful”. It is at the point when a long-term severely disabled person is in transition from their teenage years to adulthood that their parents or family unit require additional support. Cutting that support will hit the family, and the young person, really hard, socially.

[Stephen Timms]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The young person will be robbed of their independence.

[Chris Grayling]

If someone is living independently, they will be entitled to income-based ESA.

[Stephen Timms]

The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) was talking about young people who are living with their parents, who might have a little bit of income or savings. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South was seeking an assurance on that point, and if the Minister were able to give her that assurance, it would be most welcome.

[Chris Grayling]

Once someone becomes an adult, they count as living independently.

[Stephen Timms]

Can the Minister tell us at what age a person becomes an adult?

[Chris Grayling]

When their child benefit stops.

[Mr Frank Field]

It is at 19.

[Stephen Timms]

My right hon. Friend is prompting the Minister with the answer. We will look carefully at the detail of the proposals. Presumably, they are going to appear in regulations; they are certainly not in the Bill. It is helpful that the Minister has told us that, however.

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

Concerns have been expressed to me by parents who have tried to save for their disabled children. They have put money aside for them, but the proposals will affect them because the money will be in their children’s names.

[Stephen Timms]

The Minister has told us that someone who receives an inheritance should lose all their support from the state. Those could be similar circumstances to those that the hon. Lady has just mentioned.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the answer that the Minister has just given is quite astounding? He seemed to suggest that, in order to qualify for independent benefit, a disabled young person would have to leave the family home, where they have the support and facilities that they need, despite all the additional costs that that would entail. That would end up being even more costly.

[Stephen Timms]

To be fair to the Ministers, I think that there is some confusion on the Front Bench over the position on this. The Minister was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South, who chairs the Select Committee, to give the House a straightforward assurance. He failed to do so—

[Chris Grayling]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms]

Perhaps he is going to have another go.

[Chris Grayling]

Let us be absolutely clear: when someone leaves child benefit—which can be at the age of 18 or 19, depending on their circumstances—they are deemed to be an independent adult. The only issue around the savings rule comes in if they actually hold and own the money themselves. So, if someone gets a £1 million inheritance, they will not carry on getting benefits. Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not disagree with that principle.

[Stephen Timms]

The Minister talks about people getting £1 million, but people who have £16,000 will get absolutely nothing. That is the system that he is putting in place, and I am not surprised that he is ashamed of it.

[Mr Nuttall]

As a matter of general principle, does the shadow Minister agree that there has to be a rule about the amount of capital that people hold? Should not a cut-off apply? It was the Labour Government’s rule: there has to be a cut-off.

[Stephen Timms]

We are being taken into a slightly broader argument, but I will answer the point directly. The capital limit has always been a feature of means-tested out-of-work benefits. It was never a feature of the tax credit system because the previous Government wanted to encourage people in work to save. That incentive to save is being destroyed by the application of this capital limit—exactly the same capital limit—in future to people in work as well as out of work. That is another terrible feature of this Bill.

[Dame Anne Begg]

What has just been illustrated is the assumption that people are out of work in order to get benefit. We know—well, we hope, unless the Government are proposing to change the new personal independence payment—that there will be no capital rules, so someone with a million pound inheritance will, if they qualify and meet the criteria, continue to get benefit. That has always been in our system.

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The number of people who have a million pounds can be counted on the fingers of one hand.

[Mr Frank Field]

Are not Government Members mistaken on this? We are talking about the existing rules, which encourage parents to put away money—they might have found it difficult to do so—for an endowment for a very disabled child. They will now find that their carefulness in not playing the system but trying to seek independence for their offspring will be penalised by the rules, which they could never have foreseen.

[Stephen Timms]

That is absolutely right; that is how the Government are changing the system. Disabled young people, in recognition of their particular circumstances, have been assured since the 1970s—under Governments of both parties—of an independent income from the state. This Government are taking it away from them. As a result of this change, they will lose that security in exchange for very little saving at all to the Exchequer. The Child Poverty Action Group points out that the current arrangement helps

“young disabled people who may be vulnerable to forming unsuitable relationships, or may avoid forming a suitable relationship due to fears about losing an independent income”,

as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) correctly said. The current arrangements give the chance of a more secure and independent life to people who would, through absolutely no fault of their own, find that very difficult otherwise. At less than £10 million a year, that is a price worth paying for the independence of severely disabled young people. I urge the House to reject the Government motion.

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

I am pleased to welcome the vast bulk of what the Government are doing. It is a pleasure to hear that people are not being defined by their condition and are not being forced to have decisions taken about them on the basis of a label or a particular condition. That is why, as I say, I strongly welcome much of what the Government are doing.

I would, however, like to reflect briefly on amendment 23, which relates to the youth passport. It is not that I particularly disagree with what the Government are doing, but I wish to focus on a few questions, which I hope the Minister will answer, about how we intend to ensure that these young people are given, as it says in the impact assessment, the “equal footing” that the Government rightly want them to have.

My primary concern is that these young people have not been able to acquire national insurance contributions because they are severely disabled. I would welcome some clarity about the expectation that they will accrue these contributions and be protected in the welfare system at the point at which they become an adult. Despite reading the impact assessment and all the debates in the House of Lords and listening carefully to what has been said today, I am still not entirely clear how that will be achieved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jenny Willott]

I am grateful to the Minister, and I hope that when the figures flow through on appeals that have taken place under the new system, we see a reduction in the number of decisions overturned, and in the number of people who go to appeal. That would suggest that the assessment was working properly.

If we make sure that the assessment works properly, it will reduce the arbitrariness of the timetable, but as the Minister mentioned in an intervention on the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for East Ham, it is important that we recognise that many people will receive six months’ statutory sick pay before they go on to the ESA, so they will be receiving benefits for 18 months. It is important that the Government continue the work that is being done to look at ensuring that employers work with staff when they become disabled or fall sick, and do not immediately push them on to ESA. Instead, employees should get the support that they need, possibly to stay in work over an extended period, and get their full entitlement to statutory sick pay and ESA, so that they get the full 18 months’ support to which many of them will be entitled.

[Stephen Timms]

The hon. Lady set out the fact that there was objection at her party conference to an arbitrary time limit. Does she accept the case for setting the limit, whatever it should be, in regulations instead of in the Bill? Putting it in the Bill means that it will take another Act of Parliament to change it in future.

[Jenny Willott]

There needs to be some stability, so that people know what to expect. One of the problems with putting that type of provision in regulations is that it becomes very difficult for people to know what they can expect. That creates uncertainty, which makes it more difficult for people to cope.

To return to the point made by the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) about people with deteriorating conditions, I welcome the concession that the Government made in the Lords. It is important that people with MS, motor neurone disease, Parkinson’s and so on get ongoing support when they really need it. That is definitely a step forward.

I still have some concerns about work incentives and the means test. A person does not get means-tested ESA if their partner has a low level of income. If the partner worked 24 hours a week on the minimum wage, that would be a household income of £145 a week. However, as people would get increased housing benefit, council tax benefit and so on, the drop in income for that household when the sick or disabled person no longer received ESA would be significantly less than the scare stories are leading people to believe. I also appreciate that when universal credit is introduced, that will be far less of an issue, because the income disregard for households in which there is someone with a disability will be set much higher, at £140 a week. In the future, under universal credit, a household with an income of £140 a week will get the whole of their income and the full universal credit on top of that, so this is mainly an issue for the 18 months between the introduction of the policy that we are discussing and the introduction of the universal credit in October 2013.

I would be grateful if the Minister, if he gets the chance to sum up at the end of the debate, would say whether anything can be done to bridge that gap. For example, we could look at making sure that people in that category are among the first to be moved on to universal credit, so that we can ensure that the period in which they lose out on income is as short as possible. In addition, the DWP impact assessment says that it is likely to cost £30 million in increased benefit payments as the partners of those affected leave work. I would be grateful if the Minister could consider whether there is anything that could be done to reduce that amount of money by considering the effect on such households.

Work Capability Assessments

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) on securing the debate. We have heard some important and telling points.

As we have heard, the previous Labour Government introduced the work capability assessment as part of the change from incapacity benefit to employment and support allowance. Incapacity benefit did not help people with long-term sickness or disability back into a job. In fact, in 1997, the vast majority of people in receipt of incapacity benefit were simply abandoned; in many cases having been encouraged to move on to that benefit to reduce headline unemployment.

We started, experimentally, with the new deal for disabled people, which was a striking innovation at the time. I am pleased that the Minister has sought to build on the lessons of that programme, and from pathways to work which followed, into the new Work programme, and the ESA was the next step in that process. The WCA was designed to look at applicants’ functionality, and to assess whether each applicant was fit to return to work, fit to undertake work-related activity, or not fit for either.

Atos was contracted in 2005 for seven years. The current Government opted to extend the contract for a further three years in November 2010—the contract now runs until 2015—and will soon need to decide whether to take up the option to continue the contract to 2017. That decision needs to be influenced by the kind of experiences that we have heard about in the debate.

It is clear that the system has been overloaded. There needs to be change for it to function properly, so we support fully the implementation of the first Harrington review and much of the second. We regret that the Government pressed ahead with implementing the Department’s internal review last year, given the widespread consternation about the findings of that review. We were particularly concerned by one aspect of Professor Harrington’s second review, which proposed that some cancer patients, who until then had been exempted from a WCA, should no longer be exempted. Macmillan Cancer Support was concerned that that would put greater stress on cancer patients when they ought to be concentrating on recovery. It was a particularly frustrating development for everyone. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us this morning—if not this morning, then in the debate in the House this afternoon—that there will be something of a climbdown on that point.

I am anxious to ensure that the Minister has the time to answer fully the points that have been put to him, so will shorten my remarks. We have still to hear—apart from the point about cancer patients—about a number of other proposed changes that the two WCA reviews have recommended. What is being done on the new descriptors that cover fluctuating conditions—on which we have heard a good deal in the debate—and mental health conditions? There have been some helpful recommendations on those. When will the results of the pilots on recording assessments be released and responded to by the Government—a point also made in the debate?

It is worrying to hear that capacity pressures are restricting the ability of Atos to implement the Harrington recommendations. There needs to be better communication between Atos health care professionals and decision makers in the Department for Work and Pensions if we are to reduce the number of mistakes made in WCAs and the current, astonishingly high number of successful appeals.

I should like to draw attention to an issue that has not yet been raised and is a practical consequence of the problems and delays in the WCA system. The DWP recently revised its estimates of the number of people receiving ESA who will go into the Work programme, which the Government introduced in June. The forecast of the number of people going into the Work programme has been reduced dramatically, and the bottleneck in the WCA seems to be a major part of the explanation. Will the Minister comment on that? It is one of the key reasons why a number of small voluntary sector providers, which are contracted to the Work programme, are now at risk. Groups with specialist expertise to help people with particular health problems are receiving far fewer referrals—therefore, a far lower income—than they were encouraged by the Government to expect. In some cases, they have had no referrals at all since the Work programme started in June. Some are saying that they will have real trouble staying in business at all.

Problems with the WCA, as we have heard, could turn into a serious loss of capacity in the voluntary sector. People then left with no specialist help available would be in a worse position still. How will the Minister ensure that the WCA is refined? When will he introduce the changes that have been called for by charities and Professor Harrington? What assessment has he made of the capacity of Atos to implement those improvements? Will some of Professor Harrington’s recommendations not be implemented, as has been suggested, because of the capacity pressures in the system?

Ministers have defended their decisions about the welfare system on the basis of the need to save money. However, it is very important, particularly for Ministers in this Department, not only that they are saving money, but that the system that they are responsible to Parliament for is working fairly. All hon. Members who have spoken in the debate are absolutely right to highlight the fact that, with this part of the system, there is a long way to go.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

When I visit Work programme providers —I have now visited most of them—I certainly find a great deal of enthusiasm, a sense of purpose and successful progress. I hope that that will show through in the official statistics when the time arises. I am not in the business of burying good news, and I very much hope that we will be getting the good news about the Work programme out there as soon as we possibly can.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I welcome the U-turn on the publication of data that the Minister has just announced. The White Paper, “Open Public Services”, which was published only last summer, included the following commitment:

“Providers of public services from all sectors will need to publish information on performance”.

So why did he write into the Work programme contract a ban on the publication of performance data by those providers?

[Chris Grayling]

As we can all see, one of the challenges that Labour Members face at the moment is that they are all over the place on policy. On Friday, they were attacking me for allegedly misusing statistics; today they are asking why I am not going round the rules set out for us by the Office for National Statistics. They need to make up their minds about what they really stand for, because at the moment they have no idea.

[Stephen Timms]

The Minister has signally failed to answer the question. We know that he did not ask the UK Statistics Authority, whose rules he regularly quotes, before he imposed this absurd ban. I welcome the fact that he has finally announced a climbdown today, but he cannot blame anyone for asking him what he was trying to hide.

[Chris Grayling]

I have absolutely nothing to hide. I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman, as I have been saying to him for weeks, that I am not in the business of burying bad news. None the less, the statisticians expect us to make sure that we have robust and clear statistics before we publish them. As the Work programme has been going for only six months, and we have barely started to make payments for providers’ success in getting people into work, he is, I am afraid, not portraying the reality of the situation. I am glad that he is pleased that we are going to try to get the good news out there as quickly as possible, but we have to stick by the rules.