Disability Benefits: Assessments

Debate between Stephen Timms and Debbie Abrahams

Monday 4th September 2023 Westminster Hall

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The hon. Member is right: these are often difficult judgments, but I would like to know what discussions the Minister has had with Ministers in Scotland about how things have worked in practice there. I would also like to know what progress the Department has made on plans for 16 to 18-year-olds in work in the severe disability group. I take the point that there are often quite fine judgments to be made, but the unanimous view of the Work and Pensions Committee was that it would be right to move to a system where applicants were not required to move on to PIP until the age of 18.

The Minister will know of concerns that were raised over the summer about pre-application screening questions in the new online PIP application form, which is being developed at the moment, and of the fears being expressed that people will be wrongly put off claiming by those questions, which have not been a feature of the application process before. In winding up, will he say something about those concerns and update us on progress with the online claims system for PIP, which, in principle, is something I very much welcome.

At the moment, claimants have 20 days to return ESA and universal credit forms and a month for PIP forms, and of course they have to send all the supporting evidence in at the same time. Each of those forms runs to tens of pages. The Association of Disabled Professionals told us that this deadline is very difficult to comply with. The deadline starts from the date on the letter, not the date the letter was received. The Association said:

“it is extremely rare for a letter to reach the claimant within five to seven working days of the letter being sent.”

In the pandemic, claimants had three months in which to return the forms. I think there were considerable advantages to that. Mind told us that extending the deadline could

“reduce the need for Mandatory Reconsiderations or Appeals”

by ensuring that the right decision was made first time around. So we recommended a compromise whereby claimants would have two months in which to return forms. Unfortunately, in its response, the Department said no. However, I wonder whether the Minister recognises that the time to return forms is being reduced by delays in getting those forms out to people. We have been hearing that, typically, at least a week—seven of the 20 days—is disappearing before the claimant receives the request.

As we have heard, one of the e-petitions is about considering disability benefit claims on medical advice alone. I am sure the Minister will point out—he will be right to do so—that, as the Work and Pensions Committee heard, GPs and other medical professionals may not know exactly what is needed for a functional assessment. We certainly heard repeatedly that the British Medical Association is absolutely clear that doctors do not want to take on this additional job.

However, the Committee wanted better use of another kind of evidence, which is evidence from family and carers. We heard that the way in which their input is received “is incredibly patchy”, as is whether their input is welcomed or not. The PIP guidance for assessors is explicit that evidence from carers and family should be considered but, anecdotally, it appears quite often that it is not. So we called on the Government to review the guidance, and I am pleased to say that, on this occasion, the Government did respond positively to our recommendation. Will the Minister update us on progress with that review and say when it will be completed?

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

Is my right hon. Friend as concerned as I am about the safeguarding of our most vulnerable claimants when they apply for PIP or have a work capability assessment and about their inability in some cases to complete that process? As a consequence, we are seeing an increasing number of prevention of future death reports from coroners that are directly related to work capability assessment or the PIP assessment process?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and she has done a great deal of extremely valuable and important work on this subject, both on our Select Committee and in the Chamber. I do share her concerns and, as she knows, because it was substantially at her instigation, we are undertaking an inquiry specifically on the safeguarding of vulnerable claimants to look at these issues. I do share her concerns, and they are reflected in our report. The point about the time people have to send the forms back is important for people who are struggling, for the kind of reasons she sets out, to complete the forms within the very tight deadline that is set at the moment.

Shortly before we published our report, the Department published its long-awaited health and disability White Paper. The Minister knows, because he has kindly given me the opportunity to tell him about it, of my concern that people may miss out on support under the new system because they will not meet the eligibility criteria, although they do under the current system. Quite how that will be resolved is not yet clear, but can the Minister provide reassurance today that claimants and groups representing them will be involved in developing the new system?

There is much more I could say based on our report, but it is absolutely clear—it is already clear from this debate—that these assessments are not working well. We need significant changes to make them work better in the future, and I hope that, before too long, more of the recommendations in our report will be accepted than have been as yet.

Social Security Benefits: Claimant Deaths

Debate between Stephen Timms and Debbie Abrahams

Monday 24th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Debbie Abrahams]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. I shall go on to show that this has been going on for years now, and that nobody has responded. Systematic errors are coming out in repeated coroners’ reports and other reports, yet there is still no action.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I commend the determined way in which my hon. Friend has pursued this issue consistently over a long time. She has talked about the coroners getting in touch with the Department. Does she share my concern that, as was shown in the National Audit Office’s recent report, there is no systematic way at the moment of compiling what coroners say about suicides and other cases that they report to the Department on?

[Debbie Abrahams]

My right hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. There are systemic failures within the Department and they have to be addressed. This is just not good enough.

Jodey Whiting, who was from Stockton, died on 21 February 2017. She was a vulnerable woman with multiple physical and mental health illnesses, which left her housebound and requiring 23 tablets a day. That meant that she was entirely reliant on social security support. In late 2016, the DWP began to reassess Jodey’s entitlement to ESA. Jodey requested a home visit as she rarely left the house due to her health, and she had made it clear in her reply that she had

“suicidal thoughts a lot of the time and could not cope with work or looking for work”.

Despite this, the DWP decided that Jodey should attend a work capability assessment in January 2017. Unfortunately, Jodey missed that appointment and, on 6 February, the DWP decided to stop the fortnightly ESA payments that Jodey relied on. She was immensely distressed to learn that her last payment would be made on 17 February. With the help of her family, Jodey wrote to the DWP to explain the severity of her health conditions and to ask the Department to reconsider the decision to terminate her ESA, but that did not happen until after her death. She also received letters informing her that her housing benefit and council tax benefit would be stopped because they are linked to ESA. She told her mum, Joy, “Mam, I can’t walk out of the house, I can’t breathe, how am I going to work?” Jodey took her own life just three days after her last ESA payment on 21 February.

The Independent Case Examiner concluded that DWP was guilty of “multiple” and “significant” failings in handling Jodey Whiting’s case and found that the DWP failed to follow its own safeguarding rules five times in the weeks leading up to the suicide. In addition, a report by psychiatrist Dr Trevor Turner says that Jodey Whiting’s mental state was likely to have been “substantially affected” by the DWP’s decision to remove her out-of-work benefits for missing a work capability assessment that she did not know about. The case is now the subject of an appeal to the Attorney General for a new inquest, and I know from speaking to Jodey’s family today that they are desperate to know when they may hear from the Attorney General.

Then there is Stephen Smith. Last April, we learned that Stephen, the Liverpool man many people remember from the front pages of various newspapers and whose emaciated body was more reminiscent of someone from a concentration camp than 21st century Britain, had died of multiple organ failure after being found fit for work. But there are many, many more cases of DWP claimants dying, some of which I raised in last year’s Westminster Hall debate.

Jimmy Ballentine took his own life in 2018 after being found fit for work. Amy Nice also took her own life in 2018 after being found fit for work. Kevin Dooley committed suicide in 2018 after losing ESA. Brian Bailey died in July 2018, again taking his own life after being found fit for work. Elaine Morrall died in November 2017, taking her own life. Daniella Obeng died in December 2017, again taking her own life. Brian Sycamore died in September 2017, taking his own life after leaving a note blaming the DWP after failing his work capability assessment.

Mark Scholfield, who died in July 2017, was a terminal cancer patient who did not receive any UC before he died in spite of his illness. Chris Gold, who died in October 2017, was found fit for work following a stroke and was facing foreclosure when he died because he could not work. Lawrence Bond collapsed and died in the street in January 2017 after being found fit for work. Julia Kelly died in 2015, taking her own life after losing ESA for a third time. Ben McDonald took his own life in March 2015 after being found fit for work. Chris Smith, who died in 2015, had cancer and was found fit for work despite a terminal diagnosis.

David Clapson could not afford to power his fridge to store his insulin and died as a result in July 2014. Michael Connolly took his own life on his birthday in 2014 after losing his ESA. George from Chesterfield died of a heart attack in May 2014, eight months after being found fit for work despite having had three previous heart attacks. Robert Barlow died of cancer in April 2014 after losing his ESA. David Barr died in September 2014, taking his own life after losing ESA. Trevor Drakard took his own life in 2014. Shaun Pilkington—

[Debbie Abrahams]

Absolutely. I thank the hon. Gentleman.

This is unforgivable. These are people’s family members and we are failing them. We must not let this continue.

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend will probably have seen, as I did, the comment in the recent National Audit Office report on suicides that internal process reviews, which are perhaps not carried out as frequently as they should be, are often carried out when a claimant takes their own life, but the Department does not know whether the lessons from those reviews are implemented. Does that not point to another dramatic change that is required here?

[Debbie Abrahams]

My right hon. Friend is spot on. There are so many learning points that we should have already picked up on, and I will go through them in a minute.

I will finish the list if I can. Shaun Pilkington died in January 2014, and Terry McGarvey died in February 2014. This is not an exhaustive list, but it shames us all. This inaction shames the Government. I have raised this so many times over the past five years, and there has been no change whatsoever.

For years now, there have been warnings that the Department’s safeguarding policies are not working. In 2014-15, as a member of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, I asked for an inquiry on sanctions policy. From this inquiry, the Committee recommended:

“DWP should seek to establish a body modelled on the Independent Police Complaints Commission, to conduct reviews, at the request of relatives, or automatically where no living relative remains, in all instances where an individual on an out-of-work working-age benefit dies whilst in receipt of that benefit. Such a model, operated within the purview of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, should ensure that the role of all publicly-funded agencies involved in the provision of services or benefits to the individual is scrutinised, so that a learning document can be produced setting out how policy, and the service delivery pathway, can be improved at every stage.”

In their formal response—[Interruption.] Would the Minister like to intervene? I believe there is something he finds amusing about this.

Social Security

Debate between Stephen Timms and Debbie Abrahams

Monday 10th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I welcome the fact that, for the first time for many years, benefits are being uprated in line with inflation. It is a welcome change and one that is long overdue. But I think we do need to look a little bit at the history of what has happened since 2010, as the shadow Minister has done in part.

In the 2012 autumn statement the then Chancellor, George Osborne, limited increases in most working-age benefits—including those for people in work—to 1% for three years from 2013-14. That was due to end in 2015-16. But then, as we have been reminded, we had the benefits freeze, which froze most working-age benefits at cash levels for a further four years. Thank goodness that freeze is ending, but we have now had seven years without inflation uprating, and the inflation uprating that we are getting through this order is at the lower CPI rate, rather than at the RPI rate that was always used prior to 2010.

The Government have chosen to cut the incomes of those who are assessed as being the poorest, and we all know the consequences. We have been reminded of some of them already in this debate: enormous numbers resorting to food banks; people sleeping rough in Westminster tube station; and child poverty going through the roof.

Social security spending on working-age adults and children amounted to 5.7% of GDP in 2010. It is now down to 4.3%. A single adult’s jobseeker’s allowance will be £74.35 a week from April under this order. It would have been £86.72—one sixth more than it is actually going to be—if RPI uprating had been in place since 2010. Child benefit for the first or oldest child is going to be £21.05 a week after the modest increase that the shadow Minister drew attention to in his speech. If it had been uprated by RPI since 2010, it would have been £26.90 a week—over 25% more than it is actually going to be because, of course, child benefit was frozen in cash terms from 2010, not just from 2015.

This morning Citizens Advice published research entitled “The impact of the benefits freeze on people in debt”, which states:

“Since the benefits freeze began, we’ve seen an increase in the proportion of people we help with debt who have no money left at the end of the month once they’ve covered their living costs. In 2016/17, 32% of all people we helped with debt had no money left after covering their costs, but by 2019/20 this had risen to 38%.”

It argues that the Government should adopt the recommendation of the Work and Pensions Committee to which my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) has already drawn attention. I think the Committee first made this proposal last July under the chairmanship of Frank Field, to whom I pay tribute and who will be greatly missed in the House. The recommendation was:

“From 2020/21, the Government should increase the rates of frozen benefits by CPI plus 2%. That would mean that benefit rates would, after four years, reach the level at which they would have been set if they had not been frozen.”

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation calculates a minimum income standard for a minimum acceptable standard of living for different household types. In 2009, the benefits system provided 70% of that standard for a lone parent with two young children. By last year, that was down to 58%. In 2009, the system provided a childless working-age couple with 42% of the standard. Hon. Members might think that that is low enough, but last year it was down to 30%. The household benefit cap is not being uprated at all, when it certainly should be, and there is no change at all to the harshness of the two-child limit.

[Debbie Abrahams]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend—the new Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee—for giving way. Many of us are concerned that the Government’s proposed increase is not at all going to rectify the dreadful social security situation that exists at the moment. Is he as concerned as I am about this?

[Stephen Timms]

I am very concerned. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I think that the Government are making sure that the situation is not going to get worse, or at least not much worse, but they are certainly in no way putting right the damage that has been done over the last few years—indeed, over the past 10 years.

Universal Credit Project Assessment Reviews

Debate between Stephen Timms and Debbie Abrahams

Tuesday 5th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Debbie Abrahams]

Well, where to start with that? First, unless the hon. Gentleman has a crystal ball and has been able to read the reports, I do not think he is in a position to say that they will reveal nothing else. Secondly, on the stats he mentioned, I think there is enough on the record to refute those points.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s insistence on cloaking this project in secrecy, right from the start, has been one reason why it has gone so badly wrong?

[Debbie Abrahams]

My right hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. We must have greater openness and transparency about this and other Government schemes. For universal credit especially, the effect it is having on people now means that we must do the right thing. As I said, the ruling must be complied with.

Compulsory Jobs Guarantee

Debate between Stephen Timms and Debbie Abrahams

Wednesday 11th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is right about that. I have spoken to a large number of people, including young people whose break came through the future jobs fund. They have said that having got six months’ work under their belts, thanks to that initiative, they were then able to look after themselves and apply for jobs, do well and build a career. As he rightly says, young people need that crucial first break and that is what this guarantee will provide.

Every day of unemployment means hardship, worry and missed opportunity for someone who wants to be working and earning. But the full costs are borne more widely and last much longer. Every day of unemployment is a cost to the taxpayer in unemployment benefit and tax revenue forgone, and a cost to the economy in lost output. It also imposes a cost we can never account for, through the strain it puts on individuals, families and communities. Those costs—in benefit spending, tax revenues, economic output, and individual and social well-being—can reach far into the future, as the scarring effects of unemployment build up.

The Acevo commission on youth unemployment found that people who experienced unemployment in their younger years are more likely to suffer not only spells of unemployment in later life, but in work an average wage penalty of more than 15%. That is why it is so troubling that youth unemployment is going back up. It is back up today to more than three-quarters of a million. Young women now unemployed will, a decade from now, be earning on average £1,700 a year less as a result of being unemployed today. Young men now unemployed will be earning £3,300 less a decade from now. Those effects worsen the longer that somebody is out of work.

Work by Paul Gregg at the university of Bath and Emma Tommony at the university of York suggests that the 200,000 young people who have now been out of work for more than a year are, on average, likely to spend another two years either unemployed or economically inactive between the ages of 28 and 33, and that the men, by the age of 42, will be suffering a wage penalty of more than £7,000 a year. Those are big effects that need to be addressed.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is making a very powerful case. On the effects of long-term unemployment on young people, he mentioned the impact on income, but will he comment about the impact on mental health, as unemployment can have lifelong effects? Does he agree that it is important to have a joined-up approach between the Department of Health and the Department for Work and Pensions?

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was at an event yesterday with the Prince’s Trust where a young man was describing how he was about to be sectioned when, thanks to the Prince’s Trust, he was able to go into a job and his mental health problem was resolved. She is also right about the costs to the economy and the health service of long periods of unemployment early on.

Jobcentre Plus

Debate between Stephen Timms and Debbie Abrahams

Thursday 10th July 2014 Westminster Hall

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Amess. It is also a pleasure to follow my colleague on the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris), who, as always, made a balanced speech. I am particularly pleased to speak on behalf of my constituents, many of whom are claimants and use their Jobcentre Plus, but I also speak on behalf of those who work within the Jobcentre Plus network and more widely within the Department for Work and Pensions system. I have been contacted by a number of people since the Select Committee started looking at this issue, and I want to air their views as well.

My speech will focus on sanctions, which both the previous speakers have touched on. The Select Committee’s report raised concerns on whether sanctions are being applied

“appropriately, fairly, proportionately and in accordance with the rules, across the Jobcentre network.”

The principle of conditionality has been accepted across all the parties represented in the Select Committee and beyond. It is that if claimants are receiving financial support from the state, there are conditions around that—on job search and on having regular meetings with jobcentre advisers, for example. That principle is long established and has in recent years been extended to involve financial penalties or sanctions being applied to the claimant, with benefit payment being stopped for a limited period if the conditions are not met. Even more recently, it has been extended to people who are sick or disabled, who can have work preparation conditions, with associated sanctions, applied to their benefits.

As many know, two thirds of those who receive social security payments are in work. The Government have already mooted that in-work conditionality and conditionality for in-work social security payments is likely. We should remember that and reflect on the particular issues we are facing with those on out-of-work or ill-health payments. The Welfare Reform Act 2012 introduced a new regime of sanctions. Instead of a maximum of six months of sanctions, the maximum period of a JSA benefit sanction is three years. The minimum is a month. Under the previous system, people could perhaps tide themselves over for a week’s sanction—they might have been able to borrow off family members or friends. A month, however, is a different kettle of fish. Later, I will come on to what that change means for so many individuals and families.

Many fair-minded people would say, “If you’ve done something wrong, it is only right that you should be punished for it.” That was raised by the Committee and has been mentioned today. My colleagues and I, however, have received overwhelming evidence, and investigative journalists have highlighted, that people are being sanctioned for doing nothing wrong at all. They are being set up to fail.

A whistleblower—a former JCP adviser—came to my constituency office and said that stitching up claimants was part of the job. He referred to a “bullying” culture, driven from above, in which claimants were constantly harassed to get them “off flow”, off benefit and off register. If advisers resisted pressure from managers, they were issued with a performance improvement plan, which is the start of a disciplinary procedure. Targets were set for advisers to cover targets for decision makers, resulting in perverse behaviour. He described advisers setting claimants up to fail, including making appointments about which they had no knowledge so that they were automatically sanctioned when they did not turn up. That is absolutely outrageous and there is growing evidence that it is happening up and down the country.

Another whistleblower from the midlands this week reported the pressure that she is under to meet targets to push people, including the sick and disabled, off benefits, such as being told to “disrupt and upset” claimants. The article states:

“Managers repeatedly question them on why more people haven’t been sanctioned. Letters are sent to the vulnerable who don’t legally have to come in, but in such ambiguous wording that they look like an order to attend. Tricks are played: those ending their contributory entitlement to a year on ESA need to fill in a form for income-based ESA. But jobcentres are forbidden to stock those forms. These ill people’s benefits are suddenly stopped without explanation: if they call, they’re told to collect a form”—

but of course the jobcentre does not stock them. The article continues:

“If someone calls to query an appointment they are told they will be sanctioned if they don’t turn up, whatever. She said: ‘The DWP’s hope is they won’t pursue the claim.’”

It is shocking.

Figures for the new sanction regime introduced at the end of 2012 show that sanctions have increased by 11% on the same period and that 1.35 million people on JSA were sanctioned in the first six months, with 553,000 upheld on appeal. For the same period, 11,400 people on ESA were sanctioned, including a constituent of mine who had a heart attack in the middle of a work capability assessment. The nurse said, “You’re having a heart attack. We’re going to have to stop. You’re going to have to go to hospital.” He received a letter two weeks later to say that he had been sanctioned.

The work that Citizens Advice in Manchester did on the effects of benefit sanctions on claimants showed that 40% did not receive a letter informing them of their sanction; they just had their money stopped. Over half of claimants said that they had not received any information about how to appeal.

When the Minister attended the Work and Pensions Committee in November, I asked her how sanctioned JSA claimants would affect JSA claimant figures and she said that, as long as they kept signing on, they would be counted. What she did not say, however, is that the Department does not keep such data. No one knows how many sanctioned JSA claimants keep signing on. If more than half of those sanctioned do not know that they can appeal, how many will know they need to sign on stay on register? Will JCP tell them? I would query that. I did some basic maths: taking the May JSA claimant figure, if 5% of 1.09 million people are sanctioned every month, the actual JSA claimant figure would be 1.147 million. It is apparent how the number can be distorted because the actual JSA claimant figures are not being kept.

I also asked the Minister whether she would commit to a second, broader independent review, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), to look at inappropriate sanctions. At the time, she agreed. The Work and Pensions Committee certainly believed she had—it was one of our recommendations—but it is disappointing that the commitment has since been reneged on. I ask the Minister once more whether she will commit to that important piece of work in light of the compelling and growing evidence that has come forward since our inquiry and the potential distortion of the JSA claimant count.

The impact of benefit sanctions on people’s lives is becoming well documented. The Trussell Trust, which runs so many food banks up and down the country, cites benefit changes and delays, including sanctions, as the main reason why people visit it needing help. People are not able to feed themselves and their families. The principle of social security conditionality is well established and supported, but it needs to be examined in the round, as my hon. Friend said, to ensure that it is effective and produces the desired behaviour.

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Regarding the documentation of problems with benefit sanctions, has she seen the website devoted to the topic? It is entitled “A Selection of Especially Stupid Benefit Sanctions” and contains a raft of ludicrous examples, including the case of her constituent not completing his work capability assessment because he had a heart attack in the middle of it.

[Debbie Abrahams]

I have seen that website. Following the inquiry and people becoming more aware, a whole raft of unbelievable examples are coming forward.

As I said, the principle of social security conditionality is well established and supported, but the reports of punitive, unfair and inappropriate sanctioning and bullying behaviour in JCP offices should be a cause for concern. I urge the Minister not to turn her back on the issue and the people it is affecting this time and to do the right thing by committing to an independent review of inappropriate sanctioning.