Welfare Reform and Work Act

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Wednesday 21st March 2018 Westminster Hall

[Dr Whitford]

I will come to that point later in my speech, if the hon. Lady is happy to wait.

In addition, carers are now subject to conditionality and treated as jobseekers, regardless of what their caring commitments are. That means that they may be open to sanctions. In 2013 we had the infamous bedroom tax, which thankfully in Scotland we have been mitigating, but which has impacted on people with disability, who will lose 14% of their housing benefit if they are deemed to have a spare room. Many disabled people require additional space, whether that is for complex equipment or because they need to sleep separately from their partner, or because they routinely or occasionally require someone to stay over when they are not well.

With the Welfare Reform and Work Act we also saw the removal of the work-related activity group component from employment and support allowance. We spoke out against that repeatedly. Taking £30 a week away from someone who has been defined by DWP assessors as not fit to work will most certainly not get them back into work. That impacts particularly on people recovering from major illness. As a cancer surgeon, I have seen for myself the impact on people who have gone through a year of intense surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy and the time it takes to get back to work. We are talking about extra heating, because they are at home. In England, we are talking about prescription charges and car parking charges at hospitals, both of which, thankfully, patients in Scotland do not have to pay. Is it any wonder that this Government have been criticised by the United Nations for breaking the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities? It has been a relentless attack.

The stress has increased the mental health issues suffered by people with disability. A survey has shown that over 40% have at some time considered suicide. What kind of society are we, if we are not willing to look after those who are vulnerable? We can judge a society by how it looks after its most vulnerable. As these disability benefits come to Scotland, it is our aim to use a human rights approach and ensure that dignity is at the centre of how we treat people.

Carers should also be supported and valued. They save the state millions of pounds by providing virtually free care. In Scotland, one of the first Acts that will come in next year will increase the carer’s allowance to at least the level of jobseeker’s allowance. It is little enough, but it is at least a declaration of intent. It is envisaged that employment support allowance is to support those who, due to their disability, are simply unable to work. PIP is meant to allow those with disability to reach their full potential. We should not be sticking people in their houses, because we take away their mobility, and then saying, “We are trying to get them into work.” People with disability who are working have extra costs, and that is the whole point of PIP, so the Government should put their money where their mouth is.

We also know that child poverty is rising and is expected to rise further. We have seen it climb by about 5%. The poorest areas in the UK now have child poverty rates of around 50%. How can that be right, when we know the impact that will have on children? But while we talk often about child poverty, we should recognise that it is actually family poverty, and that children cannot be separated from the experience of their family. Their income has been hollowed out since 2010. We saw the benefit cap in 2013 set for families at £26,000 a year. That affected about 20,000 families. The Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016 cut that to £23,000 in London and to £20,000 elsewhere in the UK. That affected 88,000 families, who lost either £3,000 or £6,000 from their income.

In 2011 we saw the local housing allowance brought in to cut what was paid for those living in the private sector. It reduced housing allowance from the median in their area to 30%. But in 2016 that was frozen and in a third of areas it does not even come close to 30%. In London, housing benefit for those in the private rental sector will cover only 16% of their housing costs, meaning that they fall about £1,000 a month short. That is significant for anybody’s wallet, but for those at the lower end of income earnings it is a severe hit. That has led to over 4.5 million people in the private rented sector struggling as rents have soared.

In 2016 the Government cut the family premium that was allowed with a new claim or a new birth, leading to a loss of £907. The bedroom tax also affects families, particularly in situations of separation or divorce, because the parent with minor caring responsibilities is not recognised. For example, a man—most likely—now living on his own in a small flat is not allowed a bedroom that would enable his children to stay over when he has them for the weekend. What does it say about us that we are not trying to strengthen families, but actually trying to undermine them?

Tax credits, which had such a big impact on child poverty, have faced attrition since 2011, when the first thing to go was the baby element, removing over £500. The 2012 changes saw families over £700 worse off. We all remember the haggling in the Chamber about changes to tax credits and the Chancellor stepped back from doing it after the Lords objected, but that was because he knew that those tax credit changes were simply hidden within universal credit and that, therefore, eventually they would hit everyone. The Government have removed the family element for the first child, again over £500, and now tax credits are claimable for only the first two children. The third child in a family loses out £2,780 a year. That has a huge impact on such families.

Universal credit has also reduced the work allowance. That means that it will often not be worth the while of the partner in a family—the second earner—going out to work, because they would lose so much and, particularly when childcare is taken into account, could end up worse off than if they did not take the extra work. The Government always talk about making work pay, but they do not always follow through.

The policy from the 2016 Act that has had the biggest and widest net, dragging more people into poverty, is the benefit freeze. Again, that comes on top of a 1% cap that was in place from 2013. The holding down of all working-age benefits has been in place for a number of years.

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

Will the Scottish National party and the Scottish Parliament use the powers they have to raise taxes in order to end the freeze on benefits in Scotland?

[Dr Whitford]

We are already looking to raise more money to mitigate some of the cuts from here but, frankly, with our budget dropping over 8% between 2010 and 2020, it is simply not possible for a Government to mitigate everything that comes from here. This place has to take responsibility. We are already spending £450 million on mitigating changes that came from here. So all the hon. Gentleman is asking is that the Scottish Government should keep sending their budget back to Westminster.

[Alex Burghart]

If the benefits freeze was to be unfrozen in Scotland, people in Scotland would be receiving additional benefits that people in the rest of Britain would not receive. Consequently, it would seem fair if that came out of Scottish tax take. The Scottish Parliament has the ability to raise taxes, but the hon. Lady is declining to do so. Why is that?

[Dr Whitford]

That is what I am saying; we are already mitigating £450 million in benefit cuts from this place. We are not here to talk only about Scotland; we are actually talking about the suffering right across the UK. Some hon. Members in this place like to imply that Scottish National party MPs do not care about people in the rest of the UK, but I have friends and family here, as many of us do. The source of the benefit freeze is the Department for Work and Pensions—this place—and it has to be fixed at source.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) on securing this important and timely debate. I have come to the debate to offer my views from a practical, not an ideological, point of view. I pride myself on being a constituency MP. When I go to my surgeries in Parkhead, Baillieston, Easterhouse or Cranhill, people do not tell me how wonderful the system is. When I go to the jobcentres that are left in my constituency, because the UK—

[Alex Burghart]

I am also a constituency MP and I take my casework very seriously. Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that it is not the nature of casework that people come and tell us when things are working? People come and tell us when things are not working. Naturally, we see an unrepresentative portion of the population.

[David Linden]

As well as being a constituency MP who does surgeries, I spend two hours every week door-knocking in my constituency. I do not regularly find people opening their door and saying to me, “This welfare system is absolutely fandabbydozy.”

This week marks two years since the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016 implemented some of the most punitive cuts from this Government. Some of those were a fresh round of cuts, and some built on the cuts made in the Welfare Reform Act 2012. This debate allows us the opportunity to shine a bright light on the damage caused by those punitive welfare reforms, which have had a direct impact on some of the most vulnerable people in my constituency. I will address two policy areas in my remarks: first, the punitive benefit freeze, which leaves people out in the cold, quite literally, while the cost of living soars, and secondly, the medieval two-child policy and abhorrent rape clause.

Figures commissioned by the SNP and put together by the Library show that, based on the spring statement 2018, between 2018-19 and 2020-21, the benefit freeze will save an additional £3 billion compared with what was forecast for those years in the summer Budget 2015. In November 2017, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation said that the benefit freeze means that between 2010 and 2020, a couple with two kids will be £832 a year worse off. It has also said:

“The freeze is the single biggest policy driver behind rising poverty by the end of the Parliament.”

The impact of the poverty premium means that people on low incomes face higher costs as a proportion of their income than those on higher incomes, due to the nature of products and services. People on low incomes often cannot pay for goods or services by fixed direct debit, but for many things, such as mobile phone bills, energy bills and bank cards, companies only offer discounts based on people signing up for a direct debit.

Economic shocks such as the breakdown of a car or a washing machine are far more significant for people on a low income. I know that from direct experience, having spent two years working at Glasgow Credit Union. One of the most heart-breaking things about being in that job was people coming to me for loans to pay for a washing machine that had broken down or for school uniforms.

Sadly, that is the reality we are now in. I am disappointed that that lived experience did not come into the previous speech. We see it week in, week out when we do our constituency surgeries. With all those factors, the benefit freeze is an additional financial burden on disadvantaged people. The Government must urgently restore the real value of benefits by scrapping the freeze.

The second issue I will raise is the Government’s medieval two-child policy that would frankly make China blush. The idea that in 2018, we are saying to families, “Two children in your family—that’s it. The state won’t pay for any more than that,” sends a strong signal from this place. [Interruption.] If the Minister is unhappy with that, I am more than happy to take an intervention—absolutely not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. I congratulate the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) on securing this debate on a very important subject. Although I disagree with her on several points, I fully respect the tone in which she delivered her remarks.

Something that has not yet been spoken about today is the context in which many of the welfare reforms since 2010 were introduced. In 2010, as we all remember, we faced a broken economy and a broken welfare system. We had a deficit that was spiralling out of control. There was a very real threat to public finances and a danger that if Britain did not control its spending, the international bond markets would take action against us, further undermining our ability to pay for our essential public services. That was acknowledged across the House at the time and still holds true.

At the same time, but for entirely different reasons, the welfare system that we inherited was not fit for purpose. Over many years, through no grand design, it had grown into a system of great complexity that was confusing for users and expensive to administer. It had to be reformed. Peculiar, perverse disincentives had arisen, not because anyone had wished for them but because different benefits clashed at different points in the system. The most obvious and regularly cited example is that people were disincentivised from taking more than 16 hours of work, but many people were also disincentivised from moving into the initial stages of work at all. Unfortunately, the system often trapped people out of work or in low wages. That was completely unacceptable, because we all know the importance of work.

[Neil Gray]

Is the hon. Gentleman seriously still attempting to use the banking crash to justify the cuts to welfare? That is what they are: reform would be one thing, but these are cuts to social security. Are the bankers seriously still to blame for the projected 7% rise in child poverty over the next few years?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

As the hon. Gentleman will have heard from my opening remarks, there are two issues at play. The first was the broken economy. As I have said, if the Government had not taken action to dramatically reduce public spending—[Interruption.] Our deficit has been cut. The hon. Gentleman suggests from a sedentary position that that was in 2008 and the situation is different now. Our deficit has been much reduced by the actions of this Government and the coalition Government over the past eight years, but it has not yet been fully eliminated.

Once the deficit is fully eliminated, we will be able to do the most important thing, which is to start to reduce debt as a proportion of GDP. That is essential, because at the moment we are spending more on servicing our debt than on defence, on education or on our police forces. None of us wants that. Effectively, we have created a new “Department of Debt” that sits in Whitehall and gobbles up money. I want to see the budget for that Department cut year by year, but only the steps that this Government are taking will achieve that.

Let me return to my point about the broken welfare system. Regardless of what happened in 2008, it was essential that the welfare system be reformed to encourage more people to take more work and benefit from all the associate factors surrounding it. We all know that there is great dignity in work and that it provides pride, purpose and a great example to children. It is what we want for ourselves and for our constituents.

[Rachel Maclean]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he recognise that well over half a million fewer children are living in workless households now than in 2010? Children are five times more likely to be in a low-income household if they are in a workless household than if they are in a household in which all adults work. There is a knock-on effect for the next generation.

[Alex Burghart]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for stealing my thunder and taking away my next paragraph. Yes, I am fully aware of that fact and she is right to emphasise it. One of the great things that has happened since 2010, which must be acknowledged in a balanced debate on the subject, is that we have achieved record employment in this country. Unemployment has fallen substantially—in all constituencies, I believe—but it is unfortunate that so far my hon. Friend has been the only hon. Member to welcome that in this debate.

It is right to talk about the full package. Yes, there have been cuts and freezes to welfare payments but, as my hon. Friend mentioned, they must be seen alongside increases to the national living wage, increases to the tax threshold, a new offer on childcare and the creation of universal credit, which enables people to progress in work without the disincentives that existed before. Alongside all that, the most important thing that has happened is that far fewer people are in out-of-work benefits. When we talk about assessments that people may have lost money under the welfare changes, we must always acknowledge that this is a dynamic system. The whole point is that people move into work and progress in work so that they earn more money. I fear that that has not been acknowledged in this debate.

The Welfare Reform and Work Act introduced several changes, as hon. Members have already mentioned, but they must be seen in the context of fairness. The welfare cap limited the amount of money that some families receive, because it was deemed by Parliament that it was unfair for families out of work to receive more than families in work. It was not just a parliamentary majority of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats who agreed with that; regular polling has found that 77% of the population do, too.

I am delighted to draw attention to a new report by Policy in Practice, “Low Income Londoners and Welfare Reform”, which has examined the effect of the welfare cap on 600,000 low-income people in London. It shows that there has been a positive impact on employment outcomes for those families and no measurable impact on homelessness in comparison with a control group of similar households. The welfare cap is working in London, and the most serious piece of analysis so far conducted upholds that. It is a good example of how adjusting the welfare system carefully can create work incentives to help people to make positive choices to improve their lives and those of their families.

The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire mentioned the four-year benefit freeze. I acknowledge that inflation is now higher than it was when the freeze was set. I also acknowledge that it is now falling. As my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) pointed out, the value of benefits increased by 21% between 2008 and the 2016 Act, while the value of wages increased by only 11%. The freeze is therefore not quite as stark a corrective as the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire makes out.

On the two-child limit in universal credit, it is only right that we have a welfare system in which people who are out of work have to make similar decisions to people in work. However, it is extremely important that people in the welfare system understand the potential consequences. I have become concerned that there may be people who are thinking of having a third child but are not aware that they will not be entitled to further benefits under universal credit. The system cannot work as intended if people are not aware of how it works.

[Neil Gray]

The hon. Member seems to have a basic misunderstanding of the impact of this measure. Does he not appreciate that many people start planning their families from a very different perspective from where they end up? We cannot continue to punish people who have fallen on hard times, as he is suggesting should happen.

[Alex Burghart]

I think the word “punish” is entirely wrong in this context. I think we have to say that if people are aware of the consequences of their actions—that there are benefits available for certain decisions they make but not for others—they can make their own decisions. It is up to the state to decide where the balance of benefit lies.

[Dr Whitford]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Alex Burghart]

I will happily give way to the hon. Lady.

[Mike Gapes (in the Chair)]

Order. I am conscious of time. At least two other Members wish to speak. They will not be able to speak if there are any more interventions and if the hon. Gentleman does not conclude his remarks soon. I intend to start calling the Front-Bench spokespeople at 10.30 am.

[Dr Whitford]

Thank you, Mr Gapes. I intervened merely to point out that people’s circumstances change, so if they end up redundant, ill, or whatever, and then apply for benefits and have three or more children from better times, they will not receive that support.

[Alex Burghart]

No, but they will have additional support to get back into work and they will have the benefit of universal credit to progress in work when they do.

I will go back very quickly to the Scottish perspective, because something that is obviously completely unacceptable in the position of the Scottish National party is that they want to fix the problem but they do not want to do it themselves. I find that very peculiar from a party that seeks independence, because of course if Scotland was independent the only way that it could get rid of the freeze would be by paying for it out of Scottish coffers, which would require an increase in tax, and that is something they have declined to do.

I was very surprised when I questioned Jeane Freeman, the Scottish Minister for Social Security, about this issue in a Select Committee. She failed to answer the challenge, just as SNP Members have done today. The SNP can raise taxes now to pay for this, but it chooses not to. It has therefore decided not to prioritise this policy.

Obviously there are always steps we can take to improve the welfare system. Universal credit, which is coming online, will help people to overcome major barriers to employment. It will help people overcome addiction or mental health problems and move back into work. On disability, we have an admirable aim to halve the disability employment gap, and I believe that assistive technology will help us do that. I would like to see us increase work incentives by adjusting the taper as and when the budget allows.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) on securing this debate and her magnificent speech, which set out perfectly the issues before us. I also thank Emily Cunningham from the SNP research office. She has helped to drive this week of campaigning on the pernicious Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016. I also thank our press office, led by Catriona Matheson, which has helped to highlight our campaign.

This is rather pertinent to some of the issues being discussed this morning, but today is World Down Syndrome Day. They are out of sight, but I am wearing colourful odd socks to help celebrate difference, and I hope others are, too.

I remember well the great frustration and anger—some of that has been brought back to me by some Conservative contributions today—I felt when speaking at the various stages of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill. I remember the anger I felt when we put across the evidence from the expert charities and those arguments were ignored. I remember the meticulousness with which the former Member for Banff and Buchan, Dr Eilidh Whiteford, dismantled the Government’s basis for introducing the Bill and the erudite way she evidenced what the impact would be.

We warned then that the four-year freeze to social security would mean a rise in child poverty, but we were ignored; the Government marched on. We warned then that cutting disability employment support would hurt those who need the support most, but we were ignored; the Government marched on. We warned then that introducing a two-child limit to tax credits would push low-income families on the edge into poverty, but we were ignored; the Government marched on. We warned that lowering the benefit cap would arbitrarily hit low-income families, women and children the hardest, but we were ignored; the Government marched on. Sadly, on all those areas the Government knew what was coming. It was not just the SNP telling them; all the expert charities lobbied hard against the Bill, but they were ignored, too.

Two years on, we can start to see the impact of the arbitrary, austerity-driven cuts to the DWP that have forced arbitrary austerity-driven cuts to social security. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire covered that well. She also gave a very good, if sad and desperate, history lesson on the cuts from 2010. In addition to the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016, cuts have hammered the incomes of the sick, the disabled and those living on low incomes. She also gave constituency examples of people who have been affected by this Government’s policies and said there was no cumulative impact assessment of the Government’s cuts to various elements of social security.

The hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) did not have time to talk about the correlation between this Tory Government’s cuts and increased food bank use, including at St Stephen’s church in her constituency—that was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden)—but I do. The Trussell Trust has highlighted a clear correlation between cuts or delays to benefits, low incomes and those using its food banks. Mary Anne MacLeod’s report, “Making the Connections: A study of emergency food aid in Scotland”, made the very same connections. I encourage the hon. Member for Redditch to read those reports before coming to another debate like this.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East made another good speech based on his lived experience and what he sees in his constituency. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) said he appreciated the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire, but did not agree with much of it. My hon. Friend quoted many facts, so the hon. Gentleman can disagree on policy,

“But facts are chiels that winna ding”.

The facts show clearly how low-income families, children, women, the sick and disabled are paying the price of this Government’s cuts. At the end of his speech, he made a number of inaccurate statements not only about the social security system we are building in Scotland, but his Government’s policies. The UK Government sadly no longer wish to halve the disability employment gap. That policy was removed in the manifesto he stood on.

[Alex Burghart]

I am looking to the Minister for confirmation, but I believe it is still very much our policy to halve the disability employment gap.

[Neil Gray]

I am looking to the Minister to intervene, but he is looking down at his notes sheepishly. As of the Conservative party’s last manifesto, it is clearly no longer an aspiration to halve the disability gap; it merely wishes to reduce it. Rather embarrassingly for the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar, that commitment was removed at the time of the last election.

My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) focused on universal credit, as he has done so diligently for years. He also called out the empty Tory and Labour Benches. That is most stark when compared with the debate last night, when Scots Tories and Scots Labour MPs teamed up to try—they failed—to attack the Scottish Government’s policies.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) has been a diligent and award-winning campaigner on the two-child policy and the rape clause. Perhaps this Minister will be the one who finally listens on that pernicious policy.

We know that in Scotland things could have been much worse had it not been for the Scottish Government’s intervention and early action. We have already stopped anyone paying the bedroom tax, and we have ensured the continuation of council tax benefit, which has been stopped by the UK Government in England. The Social Security (Scotland) Bill has just completed its Committee stage. With that, we have seen some of the actions we will take to help build a new and fairer social security system with the limited powers at our disposal in Scotland. We will develop a new benefit to overcome the removal by this Government of housing benefit for most 18 to 21-year-olds. We will make assessments fairer, with no private companies involved and a reduced need for face-to-face assessments. We will set up an independent scrutiny body to ensure that this Scottish Government and future Scottish Governments adhere to human rights and scrutinise social security actions.

More will come out on what we have planned in the areas we control, but it will be a stark departure from the UK Government’s approach to social security. Sadly we cannot clear up all the mess that the UK Government have left for Scotland, and that is why we want social security devolved to Holyrood in its entirety. Until that happens we will keep fighting from Westminster for fairness for people across the UK who need that safety net.

This has been a perfectly timed debate brought to the Chamber by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire. It has highlighted the desperate need for the Government to revisit their punitive and indiscriminate social security cuts. The Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016 led to international condemnation of the UK Government, led by the UN committee on the rights of persons with disabilities, which highlighted grave and systematic violations of the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. The Government have lost court battles on their social security cuts, and just today the National Audit Office said that the DWP has underpaid an estimated 70,000 people on employment and support allowance by an average of £5,000 a person. That is yet more evidence of how this Government are letting people with disabilities and long-term health conditions down. It is time they acted. It is time they helped low-income families. It is time they properly supported people with disabilities. It is time they looked again at the Welfare Reform and Work Act. If the Prime Minister is still serious about tackling burning injustices, this is the place to start.

Universal Credit

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Tuesday 13th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

The Government have plucked the 50,000 figure from their own consultation document, but it had no accompanying methodology, so I am not convinced. Indeed, that makes up less than 5% of those who are in poverty. The regulations would mean that those who would currently be eligible for support under the transitional protections this Government laid out for universal credit would have that rug pulled from under them—[Interruption.] Conservative Members can keep making faces, but those are the facts.

Once again, this creates a cliff edge for families in receipt of childcare, and the policy will squeeze the income of working families who are already struggling to get by. Under universal credit, they have to pay their childcare costs up front and then claim the money back. With childcare costs rising faster than wages, meeting these costs up front will make it impossible for many working families to make ends meet, so yet another barrier is put in their way. Only months ago, several Conservative Members asked the Chancellor to look again at the taper rate because it meant that work would not pay for low-income families. Today’s vote is on exactly this issue. When the Government have already made those families bear the brunt of their cuts, adding yet another burden is just wrong.

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way; she is being extremely generous with her time. The Labour party manifesto committed to extend free school meals to all primary school pupils. This is an additional extension of free school meals to a lot more children who are in secondary school. Will the hon. Lady please tell us how much that would cost and how her party would fund it if it was in power?

[Angela Rayner]

The hon. Gentleman will know that the “School Food Plan” that was published in July 2013 recommended that the Government looked into free school meals for infant and junior schools. The Labour party manifesto was clear that we would just extend that. It was unfortunate that the Government chose not to do as recommended, instead just giving it to infants. If Conservative Members would like to see our costings and manifesto, I am sure I could provide that, because there were many more costings in our manifesto than there were in the Conservative manifesto—[Interruption.]

Disabled People and Economic Growth

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Thursday 22nd February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dr Cameron]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that important intervention highlighting the autism employment gap, which is far too large—much larger even than the disability employment gap. We must take extra strides to support people with autism into work, because they have great skills and abilities and they will be fantastic contributors to our economy given the appropriate opportunities.

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate and salute the work she does on the all-party group for disability. I serve on the Select Committee on Work and Pensions and we are currently looking at how employers, work coaches and people with disability can better understand the assistive technology that is emerging. Does the hon. Lady think we can do more to bring those three interested parties together to help people enter and stay in the workforce?

[Dr Cameron]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important intervention. I am not a tech buff, but I am always heartened when we can see technology assisting people to achieve their potential and get into work. We need collaboration and to take those issues forward.

Examples of best practice are exactly that: they are examples to aspire to, and, as uplifting as they are, they are not a true reflection of the lived experiences of many disabled people. They do not reflect the systemic problems and barriers faced by many people with disabilities in looking for work or trying to retain it. It is time for Parliament to question why these practices, which move us forward and develop inclusivity, are not more commonplace.

In 2017, Scope published a report that found that one in two people with disabilities had experienced bullying and harassment at work and felt they could no longer take part in the workplace comfortably, and over half—58%—felt at risk of losing their job. So this is not just about getting people into work; it is about ensuring there is an environment that maintains people in work and helps them to aspire to and achieve their potential. Disabled people also have to apply for more jobs than non-disabled people before finding one; research shows that almost 60% more jobs have to be applied for. Lauren Pitt reported to The Independent in 2017 that she had to apply for over 250 jobs before securing one, so something is clearly not working correctly. We must ensure that employers are open to employing people with disabilities and to seeing their skills, abilities and value to the workplace and the economy.

The disability employment gap is large and enduring. The most recent figures from 2017 show that the gap currently stands at 31.4%. About 80% of non-disabled people of working age are in work, but the figure for people with disabilities is just 49%. This has been routinely recognised by the Government, and in their 2015 manifesto the Conservatives committed to halving the gap. However, research from the all-party parliamentary group for disability shows that, on the basis of progress to September 2016, that would have taken 49 years to achieve. Their 2017 manifesto replaced that commitment with a new commitment to get 1 million more disabled people into work in the next 10 years. Analysis suggests that this new target is weaker and is likely to be met simply because the number of disabled people within the working-age population is increasing. Even though the Government might well meet their new target, the size of the disability employment gap might not actually shrink. We must take account of that.

Most of the Government’s proposals for reaching their more attainable commitment are published in the Command Paper “Improving Lives”. A brief look at the paper shows that almost all the policies are dependent on further research or pilot schemes and cost very little to run, so I would ask that we have adequate resourcing and prioritisation. We cannot afford to sit and wait. Unemployed people with disabilities are entitled to the same opportunities as everyone else—now. Our economy cannot afford to sit and wait either. Scope has estimated that reducing the disability employment gap by just 10% would generate a further £12 billion for the Exchequer by 2030, so it makes absolute economic sense.

Finding a solution to the problem will involve going significantly beyond the Government’s current focus on welfare and benefits. We will not see significant increases in the number of disabled people in employment unless employers can be encouraged to up their game, to acknowledge the positive contribution that people with disabilities make in the workplace and to develop new workplace cultures and practices that are more accommodating. Reasonable adjustments are key.

[Alex Burghart]

I support what the hon. Lady is saying about businesses. Does she think that there could be a case for having larger employers report on the proportion of their workforce who have a disability, so that we could see which large employers were not pulling their weight and not taking advantage of the high-quality disabled employees who are in the market?

[Dr Cameron]

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman on that point. It is particularly concerning that the Office for National Statistics has suspended publication of disability statistics from the labour force survey. We should ensure that that matter is addressed.

It is in employers’ self-interest to make a difference in this area, not least because it presents a solution to the labour market problems that this country is likely to face in the event of tighter controls on the free movement of people. The UK currently has a skills shortage, and it will become more profound once we leave the European Union. Indeed, KPMG recently published figures indicating that almost 1 million EU citizens, many of whom are highly qualified, are planning to leave following Brexit. We already have a willing workforce of people with disabilities whose skills are undervalued, and they should be trained in sectors that are developing and that will be much needed in the future. As has been mentioned, the health and tech sectors are extremely important.

This is fundamentally a labour supply issue. The Government will not be able to deliver on their industrial strategy if they do not have the capacity to do so, so we need to train our ready-and-waiting workforces across the UK. We need to see more investment in apprenticeships, as well as the targeted, widespread advertisement of current Access to Work schemes, to encourage the business community to utilise our workforce. The new commitment in the industrial strategy to increase the proportion of apprenticeships started by people with disabilities by 20% is an excellent start, and I commend the Minister for that, but it is not enough. It will form only part of the solution.

The Government acknowledge this critical role for employers, but their main policy in this area is to encourage more employers to sign up to the Disability Confident scheme. As I have argued previously in Parliament, the evidence on Disability Confident is varied. It shows that the scheme does not go far enough, and that it does not result in enough people being employed. It is particularly worrying, therefore, that the “Improving Lives” Command Paper uses the scheme as one of its central policies for achieving the Government’s target.

The all-party parliamentary group’s “Ahead of the Arc” report sets out a number of bold new alternative policy initiatives that the Government should pursue. These include using public procurement contracts as leverage by stipulating that such contracts will only go to firms that monitor disabled people’s employment and commit to adopting an inclusive approach to their recruitment and retention policies. To that end, Government initiatives should think of people with disabilities not just as employees but as entrepreneurs and business leaders. The Government must ensure that disabled entrepreneurs receive the support they need from business advisory networks such as the Federation of Small Businesses and local chambers of commerce, as well as the financial support they need from bodies such as Innovate UK and the British Business Bank.

I referred earlier to two great examples of disabled entrepreneurs. The notion that disabled people can be business owners and entrepreneurs as well as employees was completely missed by the “Improving Lives” paper. We must ensure that disabled people are not pigeonholed into one sector and that they have the opportunity to choose their own future and be masters of their own lives. That is why the Access to Work scheme should also apply to start-ups, to accommodate the talent and innovation of people with disabilities. The Government must also go further and fund specialist advice services on taxation and benefits for people with disabilities who want to explore the opportunities of self-employment.

As I have laid out today, the solutions are there in every corner of the economy, and if action is taken, the benefits could be felt by all in society immediately. But for this to happen, we need to change the current narrative and put good policy into practice, so that my constituents and those of other hon. Members throughout the land recognise that we need to tap into the under-utilised and important human resource of people with disabilities who are willing and able to work. The workforce are there and ready to fill the skills gap that will only grow once we leave the European Union. It is in the self-interest of employers and the Government to engage with this agenda and accommodate a diverse and inclusive workforce, but the reality is that far too many disabled people are facing no real prospects in today’s job market. That is simply unsustainable and, quite frankly, bad economics. I am pleased to have been able to bring this debate to the Chamber today, and I look forward to hearing other colleagues’ experiences. I also look forward to working together as part of the all-party parliamentary group for disability, and across the House, to take this extremely important issue forward.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Monday 5th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms McVey]

We are getting feedback from various businesses on how they think we can best enable and support them. Any knee-jerk reaction might result in unintended consequences. Shining a spotlight on one area could close down loopholes, only for others to open up. This has to be looked at in the round, but, as I said, stakeholders, shareholders and the executive team should be held to account. We will make sure that that happens.

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

Can my right hon. Friend reassure my constituents that the UK’s pension protection system has responded effectively to the Carillion situation?

[Ms McVey]

I can indeed reassure my hon. Friend that what it is doing, and the avenues it is pursuing, are correct and thorough. I met the regulator last week. It is making sure that it investigates these key matters and provides the necessary pension support. Where we need to strengthen in future, we will do so. Equally, I would like to make Members aware of what the pension regulator has done in the past. With regards to the British Home Stores fiasco, which is totally different from this situation, it employed an anti-avoidance measure and got Philip Green to pay his pensioners £363 million. Further prosecutions are coming forward for Chappell, who bought that company for a pound. That is the kind of good work the pension regulator is doing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms McVey]

This reviewing will be an administrative process, so we will not need to see the people, but what is most important is that the right people get the right amount of money, and that will take the time it needs.

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

We had a very interesting session on assistive technology in the Select Committee on Work and Pensions recently. Will the Government commit to looking at how assistive technology can be used to help more disabled people into work?

[The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Sarah Newton)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and I really welcome the work that the Select Committee is doing. I believe that the fourth industrial revolution has the most enormous potential to transform the lives of disabled people, and of course I will read that report thoroughly.

Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Guy Opperman]

I am grateful. I will therefore attempt to answer the points made by the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South as well. I will take her points first, because there is a sequential approach.

Effectively, we are all dealing with three drafts. The House of Lords, in its wisdom, produced clause 5(2). Subsequently, the Work and Pensions Committee, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar is a member, assessed that and produced what is in reality Labour’s amendment 33—the amendment is a straightforward lift from that Select Committee. The Government then went away and produced new clauses 1 and 2 to see if we could improve on it.

I take on board everything that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington said. It is manifestly the case that we all want to see the full guidance. We are about to have a precise discussion as to which is the best way to get to the objective we all seek. The Work and Pensions Committee was sure, as are the Government, that clause 5(2) is not good enough and we can improve it massively. Therefore, with no disrespect to the hon. Lady, we will reject her amendments because they are to clause 5(2).

The principle is the same: how can we best improve the drafting from the House of Lords? There are a variety of points, and I hope the Committee will bear with me as I set out a little detail. The Government amendments are specifically in keeping with the intent of the Work and Pensions Committee, and go further. They make provision for all schemes providing flexible benefits, including all defined-contribution schemes regardless of whether they are personal, stakeholder or occupational pension schemes, including in Northern Ireland.

I will make two points at the outset. First, the Work and Pensions Committee’s recommendation does not include occupational pensions, so in any event it is fundamentally deficient, because one would definitely want that. Secondly, Northern Ireland is not included. While there is no representative from Northern Ireland on the Committee—the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has not intervened like he normally does—we are in a situation where I have due respect to our good brethren from Northern Ireland, and we are including Northern Ireland in the provisions, which neither of the other provisions had done.

The Government amendments will ensure that there is what we consider proper consideration and co-operation between the Financial Conduct Authority, the Secretary of State and the single financial guidance body so that the FCA rules and regulations are effective, workable and consistent. This is a discrete, important point. The Work and Pensions Committee amendment would require the FCA to impose rules on pension scheme members, but the FCA’s general rules do not entitle that, so the amendment is defective in that way. It also sets out delivery channel exclusions, which would not be appropriate for primary legislation.

The proposal is that there regulations should be informed by consultation. I think all parties agree on that but suggest different mechanisms to get there. Before the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington jumps to his feet, I get that such a consultation needs to be speedy—this is not something for the long grass. The regulations will then reflect informed consultation, with all bodies working together to create the right integrated form, allowing for updates and changes in technology, current user needs, best practice and research on existing rules and regulations as well as taking into account potential exceptions.

It is a brave Minister who starts to give exceptions to the rule, but I will give an example that may assist the Committee. If an individual has very, very small pots, as many people do—perhaps of £10 or £12—and wishes to transfer them or consolidate them, the nature of the advice, guidance and default in relation to that person will possibly be very different to the British steel worker we are dealing with in south Wales or Scunthorpe.

On the specific amendments, we with the broad consensus that we can do more. I have set out new clause 1, which is the effective replacement of clause 5(2). The specifics are that we believe that there are greater criteria and tests in the Government amendments than there are in the Work and Pensions Committee amendment.

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

I speak as a member of the Work and Pensions Committee. As we set out, clause 5(2) is an improvement on the original legislation. I believe that the amendment made by the Opposition—it is very flattering to see the wording from the Work and Pensions Committee report—was an improvement on that, but new clause 1 and 2 are an improvement on that amendment for the reasons the Minister has set out. All schemes are involved, and the Opposition amendment places the onus on the individual, whereas the Government’s amendments place the onus on trustees or management, which is a preferable way of proceeding. Does the Minister agree?

[Guy Opperman]

My hon. Friend is right to make that point. The provider will be required to ask members and other beneficiaries looking to access or transfer their pension benefits if they have received either pensions guidance or independent financial advice. If the member indicates that they have not received guidance or advice, the provider will have to recommend that they seek it. The provider will also have to ask the member whether they want to wait while they access guidance or advice, or, crucially, to confirm that they want to proceed without receiving it.

That will do two things from a behavioural nudge perspective—I suspect we will talk about behavioural nudges at great length. First, asking the scheme member if they would like to wait before accessing their pensions benefits so that they can receive guidance will give a clear steer that receiving guidance is the default option. Secondly, asking people to confirm that they want to access their pension without first receiving guidance ensures that the scheme member has to take an active decision to opt out. We believe that that strikes the right balance. It ensures that people are encouraged to take guidance without removing the element of personal choice. It also does not inconvenience those who have already accessed appropriate guidance or independent financial advice.

I could give a number of different quotes, but I will cite Tom Selby, the senior analyst at AJ Bell, who described the original auto guidance idea as weak and said that our proposal represents an improvement. He said:

“Automatically enrolling members into guidance for each transfer or every time they took money from their own pension pot—when they have already decided what they want to do—would have caused massive delayed and huge complaints.”

It was by no means clear, previously, that

“it would have a material impact on the take-up of guidance. It therefore risked being…ineffective.”

He added:

“The new amendment is a vast improvement and, in the short term, should help increase awareness of the importance and value of advice and guidance. It also gives the Financial Conduct Authority breathing room to consult on alternative nudges towards guidance that have been shown by research to be effective.”

The amendments also ensure that the occupational pension schemes that provide flexible benefit are covered—they are not covered by the Work and Pensions Committee’s suggestion—including those in Northern Ireland. Our proposals seek to ensure consistency of approach between personal and stakeholder pension schemes, which are regulated by the FCA, and occupational pension schemes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvonne Fovargue]

I thank the Minister for his letter about breathing space and the other issues, but it gave me another question for him. He mentioned a six-week breathing space period. I have said this many times: please, please talk to debt advisers. Six weeks is really not enough time.

[Alex Burghart]

I appreciate the point the hon. Lady is about to make, because I heard her make it in the Chamber the other day, but does she acknowledge that the six-week breathing space in Scotland has been effective? That is an interesting example of effective legislation coming out of the Scottish Parliament. Although a longer breathing space may be preferable, six weeks has been shown to be effective up there.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

It may have been shown to be effective, but it has not been shown to be the right amount of time. The average debt in Scotland takes four months to handle, so six weeks is not the right amount of time. People have regularly asked for extensions to the six weeks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

To re-emphasise the point—I promise not to come back on it again—that the six-week breathing space in Scotland has led to a reduction in bankruptcies. It has been successful in that respect. It is wrong to suggest that six weeks is wholly inadequate.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

The number of bankruptcies is not the issue; they are actually quite rare. A very small proportion of the people who go to debt organisations are made bankrupt. It takes most people with the average amount of consumer debt four to six months to deal with it. Those are not people who would ever have looked at bankruptcy. Bankruptcy is not appropriate for them and would not even be considered.

The average number of consumer debts is rising, and creditors are slow at responding. People often forget to bring in a debt, and so they have to write to all the creditors and redo the statements. Six weeks is just about better than nothing, but I would say, from my long experience of dealing with debts, that four months is probably the minimum. We want to prevent creditors from delaying it until the six weeks is over and people have to go for extensions, which may or may not be granted. Some creditors—I have to be honest—delay it simply so they are not part of the solution.

Although I still think the length of time is inadequate, I welcome the proposal for a breathing space. Another issue with the length of time is that it is very difficult for people who suffer from depression or low-level mental health problems to make regular appointments, and they are often asked to come in all the time to deal with their debt. That needs to be taken into account. I welcome the move, but please do not be wedded to six weeks.

PIP Back Payments

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Tuesday 30th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Newton]

We will be working with Mind—I agree that it is an excellent charity—and other organisations, and they will help us to shape this process so that it is conducted in a sympathetic and appropriate way to make sure that we reach all people who are entitled to PIP.

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her statement and for the way in which the Department is going about this reassessment. Will she assure the House that, as the Department undertakes this major operation, it will still be able to deliver assessments for people moving on to PIP for the first time and that this will not affect their claims in any way?

[Sarah Newton]

My hon. Friend asks a really good question because, as I have demonstrated with the numbers I have shared with the House, more people are benefiting from PIP than from DLA, its predecessor benefit. I do not want people to miss out on the opportunity that PIP affords them. We are absolutely determined to make sure that there will be no reduction in the quality of service that we provide for new applicants or, indeed, people transferring from DLA to PIP.

Personal Independence Payment

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms McVey]

We will implement the judgment in full, but we will work with stakeholders and charities to understand and implement what was said. When we said we did not agree with the detail, it was a reference to the language and terminology that went above and beyond a legal ruling and judgment, but we saw through that to the facts and that is why we decided not to appeal.

I reiterate that I am not the kind of person who sneaks anything out. I have come to this House and answered every question. I set out the timetable. The matter had to go to the Court for a decision on Friday. The House was not sitting by the time I made the decision, so I put out a written statement. I hope that all hon. Members understand that it is better to get a decision right than to rush just to answer in a different way. Nothing was sneaked out.

Again, I reiterate the support the Government give and have said they will give to people with mental health conditions. The Prime Minister has made that a key issue that she wants to deal with, and she and I came to that decision to do so.

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

I strongly welcome the Secretary of State’s decision, which will benefit a lot of disabled people. We all know that DLA was a far worse benefit for people with mental health problems than PIP. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, even before the ruling, far more disabled people were receiving PIP than had ever received DLA?

[Ms McVey]

Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend, who knows a great deal about this subject and is also a member of the Work and Pensions Committee. He has given the correct facts. We as a compassionate Conservative Government will do as much as we can to help people who need our help.

Private Sector Pensions

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Monday 22nd January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms McVey]

People who are concerned about their pensions should take advice from the Pensions Advisory Service. That is the best thing they can do. Obviously, the regulator will look into any incidents that it thinks need to be investigated.

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

I welcome the Government’s commitment to do more to protect the pensions of private sector workers. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is absolutely necessary to have private sector providers of public services, and that the Government should continue to support them?

[Ms McVey]

Of course it is important that we have the private sector delivering an array of services, because as the world gets more complicated and more specific, we need people with specific skills to go forward and do that. That is the best way to have a well-functioning country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Monday 18th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Sarah Newton)]

I thank the hon. Lady for the opportunity to make this clarification. As I have mentioned before, 8% of decisions are taken to appeal, and only half of those are upheld. I appreciate that every one of those people is disappointed with the result, and we are working tirelessly to improve the process. But, overall, most people get a good decision on time, and their benefits.

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

On Friday, I visited my local jobcentre and saw the genuine enthusiasm that work coaches have for the new universal credit system. Will my hon. Friend confirm that additional help is available for users who are not too tech savvy?

[Damian Hinds]

Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend is quite right about the enthusiasm of jobcentre staff for universal credit, because it enables them to do more of what they want to do, which is to help people to get on and get into work. I can confirm to him that, yes, computers are available in jobcentres, and assistance is available when needed.

Work Capability Assessments

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Wednesday 13th December 2017 Westminster Hall

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) on securing this important debate. It is always refreshing to be in a debate where there are so many shared views from different parties. I congratulate him on the tone with which he conducted his speech.

I echo some of the comments that remind us of how we have come to this position. There is absolutely a need for a work capability assessment within our benefits system. It is extremely important that people who suffer from physical and mental conditions have their conditions assessed to see whether they are able to work today or tomorrow. It allows the state to give them the requisite support that they need and deserve.

When the Labour party introduced the system in 2008, it did so with the laudable intention of creating a benefits system that identified what people could do rather than what they could not. That is a value to which we should remain attached. I am not sure that between 2008 and 2010 the then Government managed to achieve that. To be honest, I am not sure that we have managed to achieve it since, but the value of that principle is one that we should hold dear.

I should prefix what I say with my belief that there is substantial room for improvement within the system and perhaps a need to go back to some basic values. One thing that I find often gets lost in the powerful and personal stories that I come across in my surgery, and that colleagues from all parties come across in theirs, is that the system works well for a great many people. Of the 1.6 million people who completed the assessment process between October 2013 and December 2016, 85% did not appeal, so the vast majority were content with the decision that was made. Only 3.5% of the 1.6 million had a successful appeal. I do not wish to belittle those numbers because that 3.5% still represents tens of thousands of people, many of whom have very serious conditions, and many of whom will have been left substantially worse off by a negative decision. I want us to remember that the system is not wholly bad, but that there is substantial room for improvement within it.

[Neil Gray]

The hon. Gentleman quotes figures that I am happy to accept, but does he accept that many people who have been through the system, particularly with work capability assessments, feel so frustrated by the process they have gone through that they self-deny the support that might be available to them, and that that is perhaps part of the reason why there is a low appeal rate in some periods?

[Alex Burghart]

I absolutely accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but I think he would accept that some people do not appeal because they are pleased with the outcome. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) mentioned that the Government and the previous Government have always been in a process of ongoing review—we have had annual reviews and a Green Paper. I am sure everyone has read “Improving Lives”, published last month, which sets out the Government’s future commitment to reform, and that we all welcome it.

As a member of the Work and Pensions Committee, I have been fortunate enough to come across a great many cases and a great amount of submitted evidence. It is becoming clear to me that there are four key areas in which we should seek to improve the system. The first, which resonates with a lot of what has been said, is the accuracy of the assessments. I have had people through my surgery in my constituency who have presented me with information that is clearly wrong and clearly relates to somebody else. Basic errors creep in before we even get to the validity of the assessment process. That makes me think that the accountability system for the accuracy of the reports should also be revised. If an assessment company sees its assessments overturned, there should be consequences. I would certainly like, at the very least, the cost of the assessment process to be charged to that assessment company, and I would certainly be open to the idea of compensation for people who had been wrongfully denied benefits because assessments had been mishandled.

The matter is bound up with the question of expertise. The Work and Pensions Committee questioned witnesses from the major companies the other day about the level of expertise that they employed.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman talks about compensation, but how does he think people can be compensated for damage to their mental health? A constituent who contacted me has been on Valium since her last ESA assessment because it was so devastating. Another constituent, who is affected by the issues covered by the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign and is therefore already missing out, has multiple sclerosis. She was so damaged and upset by the assessment that she and her husband cannot bear to go through the experience again.

[Alex Burghart]

The hon. Lady gives powerful examples. As I have said, the most important thing that we can do is improve the accuracy and quality of the assessments to prevent such cases.

Schizophrenia is a complex condition that can manifest in many different ways from case to case. Consequently, it will vary in its impact on the ability to work, depending on the individual case. To my mind, it would be difficult for an individual assessor without expertise in schizophrenia to make an accurate judgment about whether someone with schizophrenia would be capable of working, whether on a daily or temporary basis. I urge the Government to consider how we can encourage or oblige assessment companies to employ people with the requisite expertise.

There is a substantial point to be made about simplicity. I have been through all the application papers. I do not like filling in forms at the best of times, but those things are the stuff of nightmares. They have a huge number of pages and fields, and contain requests for information that the Government must hold. I find it strange that that peculiar bureaucracy is asking for information that other bits of our state system must have.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

I appreciate the fact that the hon. Gentleman has raised the difficulty with forms. The inadequate and inflexible nature of the questions that are asked has been raised with me. I have heard of people with epilepsy being asked, “Can you lift a glass to your lips?” The answer was “Yes, if I am not having a fit,” but there was no room on the form to add that important additional fact. “Can you walk 25 yards?” “Yes, if I am not having a fit,” and so on. Will the hon. Gentleman comment on that?

[Alex Burghart]

I appreciate that it is the nature of bureaucracy to be inflexible, so I take the hon. Lady’s point.

I am keen for the Government to go back to the central principle of finding out what people can do rather than what they cannot do. With greater expertise in the assessment process it would be possible to identify the sorts of jobs that other people with the condition in question have managed to hold down. That would bring the principles of universal support into the assessment process, helping people to identify their barriers to work and overcome them.