Remploy

Anne McGuire Excerpts

Thursday 4th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her statement, and for giving us advance warning of it just after 9 o’clock this morning. If there were a league table for the way in which Departments advise us of ministerial statements, hers would certainly be ahead of the Ministry of Defence.

Given the great interest in Remploy, will the Minister tell us what efforts were made to inform Members with a Remploy factory in their constituency that their factory was due to close? I understand that a letter went out at 11.40 this morning, just one minute before she stood up to make her statement—

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

What did you do when you closed Remploy factories—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

[Mrs McGuire]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sorry; I might have touched a nerve.

I also wonder, given the way in which the House works, whether the Minister had given Members advance warning of her briefing at 4.30 this afternoon.

I shall turn now to the substance of the review. The Minister often cites the Sayce review, as did her predecessor, as protection for her decisions. I would remind the House, however, that the Sayce review did not recommend the speedy closure of the Remploy factories in the way that the Government have progressed it. Indeed, it recommended a phased development of the process. Once again, however, the review has been brought into play. The Government’s aim has always been to get rid of the Remploy liability in this financial year, and no matter what else was said, this was always going to be the cut-off point. That has been confirmed this morning. Of course I welcome the fact that viable bids have been received for some of the factories and that 17 of the 27 CCTV businesses are in the commercial process. I also welcome the Minister’s comment that it appears that eight of the other 10 will continue in one form or another.

The textile division based in Scotland has a long and proud tradition of making security and chemical protection wear for the Ministry of Defence, and the disappearance of the skills built up over many years will be a great loss. The textile division recently lost a major MOD contract that it was eminently capable of carrying out, given the quality and timeliness of its work. Given that the factories are under pressure of closure, will the Minister tell us whether she or any of her officials had any engagement with MOD procurement officials to encourage them to use Remploy as a supplier, given that it had carried out the work successfully over many years? It has never been properly recognised that much of the kit worn by our service personnel in Afghanistan and Iraq was made in Remploy factories. Did the Minister use her good offices to encourage the MOD to award that contract to Remploy, if necessary using article 19?

Will the Minister also explain what she meant when she said that there was an asset bid from a social enterprise company for the textile section? What opportunities does she believe that that bid will open up? Many of us on the Opposition Benches see the words “asset bid” and worry that they might really mean asset stripping. We need to know exactly what is involved.

I also want to ask the Minister to define the word “success”, which she used in the closing paragraph of her statement. She mentioned that about 1,100 former Remploy workers were choosing to work with personal caseworkers to find other jobs. In other words, they are not currently in employment. Another 400 are in work and another 300 are in training, so by my calculation, significantly less than 50% of the former Remploy workers who have already been made redundant are currently in employment. I am wondering what the Minister’s benchmark for success is.

Given that the Work programme is performing three times worse than doing nothing for disabled people—

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)]

Rubbish.

[Mrs McGuire]

The Secretary of State keeps saying “rubbish”, but he needs to listen—[Interruption.] I did not realise that the Minister had brought along—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am sure that we need to hear both sides. I was happy to hear the Minister and will certainly be happy to hear and wish to hear the shadow Minister. Interruptions are not helpful.

[Mrs McGuire]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. If the Secretary of State wants to say something, he should make his own statements and not heckle.

Given that the Work programme—[Interruption.] This is ridiculous, Mr Deputy Speaker, frankly. Given that the Work programme is not performing for disabled people, can the Minister say how the former Remploy workers are going to be supported in their quest for employment?

Finally, if the Minister looks at the areas where the Remploy closures are happening, she will find that there are unemployment rates of 7.5%, 8.2%, 8.1%, 7.4% and 7.9%—nearly double the national average—in the majority of cases. Does she really think that the closure of these factories today is an indication that she is really there to support disabled workers?

[Esther McVey]

I am led to believe that the etiquette of the House is to come here first to give a statement, which is entirely what I did. I believe, too, that this is a working parliamentary day—a full working day—so all the processes we undertook were carried out to the best possible standard. People were informed through a correct process and in the correct way. I am glad that we can put that on the record.

Moving forward, what this was all about was supporting disabled people. We had a situation in which £50 million—a sixth of the entire budget—was not supporting individuals, but going into failing factories. We cannot allow that to be case. We have therefore made sure that we support those individuals. There are 8,500 disabled people in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire), but only 29 of them, along with two non-disabled people, were employed at Remploy, making a total of 31 people. The Remploy factory in her constituency turned over £71,000 a year, but actually lost £439,000 a year.

I have faith in Remploy employment services to be able to find those people jobs. Since 2010, Remploy employment services have found a job for 109 people with the same disabilities. That is 109 in two years, while there are only 29 disabled people at this factory. Those are the statistics for the right hon. Lady’s constituency, and they are the same for many others.

I did indeed look into the MOD contracts. There are various criteria, which have to be adhered to—the cost to taxpayers, for example, and various others—and I also looked at article 19. It was put in place, which meant that Remploy factories could be considered, but article 19 also says that offers have to be viable and value for money, which was not the case.

On the asset bid, I said that no best and final offer came forward, although there were expressions of interest in the Marine and Frontline textiles businesses. An asset bid, however, has now come forward from a social enterprise, so we have faith that this can move forward. Our criteria for the bid involve, first of all, the employment of disabled people.

Let me add, to put the right hon. Lady’s mind at rest, that following the submission of assets bids during stage 1, the factories in Wigan, Wrexham, Oldham, north London, Motherwell, Bridgend, Bolton and Birkenhead have reopened.

I described as a success, and warmly welcomed, the process during stage 1 which led to 400 people obtaining jobs and 328 being involved in some form of training, because that has happened at a faster rate than has been the case following any other regular redundancy. Furthermore, nine factories have reopened.

I have read the written statement made by the right hon. Lady in November 2007, and the report of the oral statement made during the same month by the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain). At that time, everyone was looking for a way of making the factories work. The Labour Government put in more than half a billion for modernisation, but that did not work. They looked into whether an increase in public sector procurement was possible, but it proved not to be, following an overestimate of 130%.

The right hon. Lady also forgot to mention that she had closed 29 factories in 2008. In that instance, 1,637 people were not tracked, and did not benefit from an investment of £8 million and the provision of personal caseworkers. We have done all those things. I have met ex-Remploy workers. I went to Talit’s house in Oldham, and asked him what he wanted, and I met Chris from Burnley here at the House of Commons. We helped to reshape the whole package with the help of those people.

We have done a great deal, and, although there is more to do, I am proud of what we have done.

Oral Answers to Questions

Anne McGuire Excerpts

Monday 1st July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey]

My hon. Friend is correct. We have extended the new enterprise allowance to help disabled entrepreneurs with support from Access to Work and she will be pleased to know that more than half a million disabled people have now set up their own businesses.

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

In spite of the bluff and bluster of the Minister of State for employment, the reality is that Work programme outcomes for new ESA clients show a pathetic performance outcome of only 5.3%, three times worse than doing nothing.

However, I want to turn to another employment support programme for disabled people, Access to Work, which the Under-Secretary has just mentioned. According to the DWP’s most recent statistics, the programme is now supporting 27,000 people compared with 37,290 in the year 2009-10 and 35,000 in 2010-11. Given that many disabled people want to get into work and are constantly told that they need to get into work, can the Minister advise when both the Work programme and Access to Work will start to make a real change to their lives?

[Esther McVey]

The right hon. Lady is quite right that Access to Work is key in helping people to remain in work, which is why we have extended it to young children who want to do internships and to new people who want to set up in business. It is working well and we are continuing to expand it, but we must also ensure that it works as best it possibly can. I am proud of what we are doing and we will build on that good platform.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I like to think that on both sides of the House the objective is to reduce child poverty. That is our stated objective; I think it was the stated objective of the Labour Government.

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

It has gone up.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I hear from a Labour Front Bencher, “It has gone up.” Actually, relative poverty has fallen by 300,000 since the start of this Parliament. Before Labour Front Benchers intervene again, I should say that while the hon. Gentleman’s question is thoughtful, their interjection is not. The reality is that throughout the past 10 years they talked about relative poverty as the measure, not absolute poverty, so they ought to be slightly careful. It has fallen under this Government.

The real point is that we are in a difficult time; there is no question about it. Just the other day, we saw that the Office for National Statistics has revised its figure on the scale of the collapse in 2009 down to 7%, which is a dramatic fall. We will drive all those programmes that I mentioned to the hon. Gentleman, and the change—we hope—to the measurement is about getting real help to real people.

Oral Answers to Questions

Anne McGuire Excerpts

Monday 20th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey]

Obviously, I do indeed look at those regulations, but, as I said, every case is looked at on a case-by-case basis, to see what is required in that specific instance.

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

The Minister and the Secretary of State have recently been found out using figures that show a dramatic increase in the number of people receiving disability living allowance. To quote the Secretary of State, they wanted

“to get in early, get ahead of it”—

that is, the PIP. However, Department for Work and Pensions statistics show that there was a significant decrease in the number of working-age people—that is, those affected by the changes—getting the benefit, so much so that The Economist said:

“Over the past few months…questionable numbers have floated out of Iain Duncan Smith’s office into the public debate like raw sewage.”

Those are the words of The Economist, not mine. Will the Minister take this opportunity to correct the figures on the record, and to resolve to use accurate figures only? As The Economist puts it,

“they shouldn’t manipulate…and distort”

figures

“to tell stories that aren’t actually true.”

[Esther McVey]

I will put on record that we do use correct figures. We use the right figures, and we make sure that people know exactly what is happening, because that is only right. We are dealing with the most vulnerable people in society, and it is only right that they get the correct information. We will continue doing that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Anne McGuire Excerpts

Monday 11th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey]

I will be very happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with the exact numbers for Northern Ireland. I can say, from the money that has been made available through the discretionary payments, that we will be supporting those most in need, as we have said so clearly throughout today.

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

Given that the Prime Minister continues to state that families with disabled children or with family members as carers will somehow be exempt from the bedroom tax—and before the Minister reaches for her brief and tells me once more about the discretionary fund, she needs to realise that it is time limited and there is not enough in the fund—will the Minister advise the House whether the Prime Minister is pulling the wool over the public’s eyes, or has she abrogated her responsibilities as the Minister with responsibility for disabled people and not told them the exact impact of his Government’s policies?

[Esther McVey]

In line with the judgment, the Prime Minister was correct. We have clarified today that they will have the room and they will not need to move.

Housing Benefit (Under-occupancy Penalty)

Anne McGuire Excerpts

Wednesday 27th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

We are always happy to meet my hon. Friend. He raises an important issue about rural areas, and that will obviously be germane to some of the concerns that members of the nationalist parties have raised today—

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

And others.

[Steve Webb]

And others, yes. As this is a nationalist debate, that seemed to be a relevant remark.

In response to concerns expressed in the House of Lords, we are going to undertake a rolling two-year research programme into the impact of these and other changes, and the impact on rural households will be one of the factors that we will look at specifically. Wales and Scotland are included in the scope of the research. We are happy to look at the allocation of discretionary housing payments, and at whether we have done enough justice to the needs of rural areas, compared with other areas. We will keep that matter under review.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Mulholland]

I have made it clear that the exemption needs to be a straightforward one for people who need a separate bedroom because of their disability. Again, if that is in place, we do not need to have this discussion, and then we have to look at whether the adaption should qualify.

Similarly, there is local discretion if a bedroom is clearly needed for storage of medical equipment for a child with a particularly severe disability, for example. Discretion can also be applied for people with certain mental health conditions—something that can be far better assessed locally than it possibly could be through legislation.

The people who know best about local issues and problems with housing stock are those in the local authorities and housing associations. In some areas, local authorities and housing associations have been keen to place people in accommodation that has been very hard to let. They will often put, say, single people or couples into a two or three-bedroom property in what has been deemed a difficult-to-let area, and so they end up under-occupying. It becomes ironic if someone then has to move away from that area, leaving the property lying empty. The discretion should be intended precisely to deal with that kind of knowledge of each different local housing issue.

[Mrs McGuire]

Given the list of suggestions that the hon. Gentleman has identified, I can do nothing other than agree with the main thrust of his argument. Does he think that the discretionary payment that the Government have allocated is adequate to meet even his list of exemptions, which is not exhaustive?

[Greg Mulholland]

We need to have the further exemptions that I have mentioned so that we are clear that discretion is just that, rather than for dealing with large categories of people whom many of us believe should be exempted in the first place. We can divide up the amount put forward by the Government, which is a significant sum, but it needs to be targeted at the types of matters that I have specified, and it has to be discretionary. That is why it is essential that we have the further exemptions or give councils the choice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs McGuire]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that there may be an ideological trend in the Government’s philosophy whereby social housing is seen as welfare housing only, and not as homes for many people in our communities?

[Sheila Gilmore]

I think we can see a large element of that in this policy.

As many hon. Members have said, if people move to the private rented sector, the housing benefit bill may actually increase. In Edinburgh, the local housing allowance, which is not especially generous, is £114 for a one-bedroom house. Some of my constituents have asked me about moving into the private rented sector. If they move from their two-bedroom council house, for which the rent is £91 a week, into a private rented property, it will cost more. Rather than a saving, there will be an increase in spending.

The vision set out by the Government is of a lot of single people rattling around in big houses with three or four bedrooms. We are asked, “Doesn’t that seem unfair? Why shouldn’t they move on?” In fact, the vast majority of my constituents affected by this tax are not living in especially big houses. It is suggested that people take in a lodger. I visited a constituent—a woman in her 50s who is on ESA, although she has always worked previously. Her home has two bedrooms, although the second is pretty small, and the kitchen is off the living room. Having a lodger is not just about having someone in the spare bedroom; it involves sharing all those quite small facilities with somebody else. While my constituent is sitting in the living room, perhaps enjoying watching television or whatever she enjoys doing in the evening, the lodger will come through the room, go into the kitchen, make a cup a tea and come out again. Hon. Members have to understand the kind of houses people actually live in.

Local councils in particular are making real efforts to mitigate the impact, but there is a downside to that, because this is another example of where savings in general public spending will not be achieved. How is money saved if, as my council will do, local authorities find additional funding to put into their DHP fund because they believe that that is the humane and common-sense thing to do, given all the disruption that various categories of people might otherwise suffer? That is additional public spending, so we will be saving with one hand and spending with the other. Crucially, the saving that central Government want to make will result in councils having to pick up the pieces.

Oral Answers to Questions

Anne McGuire Excerpts

Monday 28th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey]

My hon. Friend is correct. If people are being reassessed or if their term has come to an end, they will be reviewed according to their needs now and many people will get an increased award.

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

On 13 December 2012, the Minister announced that there would be

“a significantly slower reassessment timetable”—[Official Report, 13 December 2012; Vol. 555, c. 464.]

for the PIP process—the replacement for DLA—which I welcomed. However, did that significantly slower reassessment timetable impact on the contracts that were signed in August 2012 with Capita and Atos on a different timetable? Will there be any significant financial reassessments as a result of the new timetable? Did she consider whether the changes were significant enough to necessitate re-tendering the contract?

[Esther McVey]

We did indeed slow down the roll-out of the reassessments, having listened to the consultation and what various organisations and charities said, but we did not consider that to be significant change to the contract, so we are working closely with both Atos and Capita to ensure the smooth running of the roll-out.

Welfare Reform (Disabled People and Carers)

Anne McGuire Excerpts

Tuesday 18th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

Thank you very much, Mr Chope, for calling me to speak. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.

I thank the many Members who have made a contribution to this debate, and indeed I also thank the many Members who sat here in Westminster Hall but did not speak; they did not make a contribution but wanted to show their support for my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), who promoted today’s debate very successfully.

I have to say, in passing, that rarely have I seen a Government Minister so ill-supported by people on her side. Frankly, she is supported more by the number of officials with her than by Back Benchers.

I also thank the many organisations that have given us briefings, and indeed would probably have given briefings to many MPs from all parties. They include Scope, the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign, the British Medical Association, the Disabled People Against Cuts, the Hardest Hit campaign, Rethink, Action for Children, Disability Rights UK, Mind, Pat’s Petition, the Gateshead Carers Association and the Gateshead Citizens Advice Bureau, which of course are in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, Carers UK, and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux.

Many Members have commented on the Chancellor’s statement of 22 June 2010, in which he said that the Government would not grind the poorest into the ground. Frankly, what a difference two years has made. This is the same Chancellor who is now looking for more cuts from the Department for Work and Pensions. As many colleagues have said, there are many hidden costs to being disabled, which do not always compute.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the costs that has not been mentioned today is the additional cost of child care for a child with a disability, the benefit for which is being reduced under universal credit?

[Mrs McGuire]

Yes, and because of the width of the spectrum of impact that we are having to deal with, it has been very difficult to highlight every particular aspect of that impact. I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue.

There is a hidden accumulation of disadvantages that this Government have consistently tried to hide, in the face of the evidence that has been presented to them over the past two years by some of the organisations that I referred to.

The Minister told me last week in response to my question about a cumulative impact assessment—I think this was mentioned earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore)—that there had never been a cumulative impact assessment under Labour, as if that somehow absolved her from undertaking a cumulative impact assessment. I find that an astonishing answer, because no Government—neither Conservative nor Labour—have ever launched such a torrent of changes, with such a speed of change, in the way that this Government have done in tackling the support that we give to disabled people. I worked with disabled people during the premiership of Baroness Thatcher, and frankly I have never seen anything like this—never.

According to the figures, disabled people have dropped at least a massive £500 million in income since that emergency Budget statement two years ago, when the Chancellor said that he would not be breaking the backs of the poorest in our society. The cuts to the incomes of disabled households go up to more than £2,000 a year; they vary, depending on individual circumstances.

We can see what the impact of those cuts is. There has been the imposition of the 12-month rule on employment and support allowance, a benefit that is intended to support people who are too ill or too disabled to work. The Government were so stubborn that they would not even accept an Opposition proposal to extend ESA to two years, to give people the opportunity either to adapt to a long-term disability or to receive the treatment that they needed to take them out of illness. That change is underpinned by a flawed work capability assessment, which states that disabled people are ready for work when they are palpably not ready; we have heard examples of that today.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead that we should not just attack Atos. There are issues to do with Atos and the professionalism with which it is conducting some of the assessments, but we should pin the responsibility on the Ministers who are supposed to be managing the Atos contract. If it is not the Ministers who are responsible—as is the way with this Government—there will be a civil servant somewhere who will have to accept some responsibility.

We have an appeals service that is logjammed, and many people, after months of uncertainty, find that their benefits are restored. Sometimes that happens—this shows the bizarre economics of this situation—after they have had their Motability car repossessed; several months later, they find that they are to get it back again. What sort of economics is that?

Although I welcomed some of the mitigation, or easement, that the Minister announced in the changes to the personal independence payment, there are still many descriptors that are causing concern. I appreciate that the Minister has only a few minutes to respond to the debate, but perhaps she will share with us details of where the new descriptors in activity 12 come from. It looks as though the 12 points needed for the enhanced mobility rate can be achieved solely by people who have only a physical impairment and who are not able to stand or move more than 20 metres. Perhaps she can tell the House how many people will lose access to their Motability vehicles as a result of this further tightening of the gateway. I point out to her that even in the 1970s disabled people qualified for those little blue single-seater cars if they were able to move more than 20 metres, aided or unaided. Talk about back to the future.

From April next year, families with disabled children will receive £1,300 less than they would receive under the current system. It is estimated that about 450,000 families will lose out under universal credit. Until the last couple of weeks, the Government gave the distinct impression—this was a clever dodge—that if a carer was in the same household as a disabled adult child, their carer’s allowance would not be included in the benefit cap. The Government have now had to admit that an adult disabled person will be assessed as being in a different household from their parents’ household.

Before the Minister says to me, “That’s always been the way; when an adult reaches the age of maturity, or the age at which they can receive benefits in their own right, they are a separate household”, I accept that is true, but what we never did—indeed, what no Government ever did before—was decouple a carer’s allowance from the disabled person whom it is intended to help. That is what this Government are doing.

I say to the Minister in all honesty that if this Government are so sure that what they are doing is right, and that, as the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) said, they have the best intentions as regards disabled people, why in heaven’s name will they not carry out a cumulative impact assessment? I have said this to the Minister and to the previous Minister, who is now the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport: it is surely not beyond the wit of the best brains in the DWP to come up with a cumulative impact assessment that will prove either the Government’s case or ours.

Personal Independence Payments

Anne McGuire Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her statement and for the advance copy of it.

Last Thursday we had the written announcement of the closure of Remploy factories, with more than 800 redundancies. This Thursday we have a statement that is intended, according to the Government’s own estimates, to remove a disability benefit from more than 500,000 disabled people. Let me make it clear that we are in favour of an assessment for DLA, but the assessment needs to be the right one.

I shall deal first with a number of myths. There has indeed been an increase in the number of people claiming DLA. A significant number of those have protected DLA as they move into retirement. As the Minister knows, about 900,000 people currently receiving DLA fall into this category. However, the other factor that I thought she might have alluded to was that the lives of disabled people have changed dramatically since 1992, when the expectation for many of them was that they would move into residential care. Thankfully, that is not the current situation when most disabled people want to live, as far as possible, independent lives in their own community, and DLA has been crucial for many disabled people as they move into that environment of independence, choice and control over their own lives.

I listened carefully to the Minister’s statement. In the short time available to us, I have not been able to scrutinise carefully the detail of the new assessment criteria, but I shall make some initial remarks. I welcome some of the changes that the Government have made, including the broadening of approach and the mirroring of the DLA linking rules. I welcome too the fact that the Government have recognised that the initial proposal on the speed of the assessment was unrealistic, and there will now be a significantly slower reassessment process. Nevertheless, we are still looking at June 2013 as the vesting date for new cases and we have not yet properly scrutinised the new criteria, so although I welcome the change in the speed of the assessment, I think there are still some issues about the new cases coming on in June 2013.

We will apply stringent tests to the new PIP assessments. Let me ask the Minister some specific questions. Given that DLA support allows many people to travel to work, will the Government give a commitment that it will not be taken away from anyone who is in work? In other words, if they are currently on DLA and are currently in employment, will the Minister give a commitment that the financial integrity of disabled people who go to work will not be undermined?

The Government are protecting under-16s and those over the age of 65, so how does the Minister’s claim that she is maintaining the overall budget square with that protection at each end of the age spectrum? If one looks at the demography, one clearly sees that there is a disproportionate impact on working-age disabled people. The Minister makes great play of the fact that the budget will remain the same, but I want to remind her of the comments made by her predecessor and other Members on the Front Bench, including the Secretary of State, that greater support would be given to those with the most severe disability. I wonder how that marries with the fact that the rates for the new PIP will be exactly the same as the current rates for DLA. That seems to be a conundrum.

The new criteria must not push people into social care or into the NHS. What discussions has the Minister had with the Department for Communities and Local Government, local government and the NHS to consider the impact as 500,000 people—over a longer period, admittedly—lose benefit?

May I also ask the Minister what the impact on carers will be? I think that there was a little confusion in her answers about carers on Monday, so I want to give her another opportunity. Carers UK estimates that 10,000 people who currently receive carers allowance could lose it as a result of the changes. Has she made any estimate?

I appreciate that this is a short statement so I will give a shortish response but I say once again to the Minister and to the Secretary of State that there is a whole raft of welfare reform changes that are impacting on the lives of disabled people. The Government have the facility and capacity, with hundreds of thousands of civil servants, so why do they not undertake a cumulative impact assessment of the effect of their changes on disabled people?

[Esther McVey]

I welcome the right hon. Lady’s words and her acknowledgment of the listening and consultation that we have done and the changes that we have made. I cannot give the assurances that she would like on PIP, as those were not the case for people of working age under DLA. What we can say is that everybody will be viewed as an individual when it comes to assessing their needs and that more people will get the higher awards—nearly 25% of those on PIP will be on the highest awards. As for carers, one thing we all agree on is that they do an incredible job. We will support them as best we can. I can also announce today that the links for carers that were in place under DLA will also be in place under PIP.

The Opposition never conducted a cumulative impact assessment when they were in government, and for good reason. I understand that it would be impossible to measure the impact of such large reforms and changes, particularly as they will not be in place until 2017 and the case load is dynamic. Even the Institute for Fiscal Studies says that it would be nearly impossible to do that. As I have said, I am delighted that we have listened to the disability groups, taken on board what they have said and made the changes they asked for.

Oral Answers to Questions

Anne McGuire Excerpts

Monday 10th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey]

Yes, I am confident it will. Guidance will go to local authorities on how to use the discretionary housing payments and all factors will be taken into account, including those concerning my hon. Friend’s constituents.

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

Disabled people across the country currently have to cope with a torrent of piecemeal welfare reform changes that will impact on their lives. Disability Rights UK, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Royal National Institute of Blind People, Mind, Scope, Leonard Cheshire Disability and Carers UK, among others, including tens of thousand of people who have signed Pat’s petition, have asked the Minister to conduct a cumulative impact assessment. If she is confident she is doing the best for disabled people, why does she not listen to them and conduct a cumulative impact assessment? Why does she stubbornly refuse to do one?

[Esther McVey]

I am afraid that the right hon. Lady never did one when Labour was in government. Disabled people remain my top priority. Let me reiterate to the House that the disability living allowance, carer’s allowance and the support group of the employment and support allowance will all increase with CPI. We have protected the disability support programme in its entirety, and an extra £15 million is going into Access to Work.

Oral Answers to Questions

Anne McGuire Excerpts

Monday 5th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

There are situations in which new evidence is brought forward by claimants. We all should recognise the importance of getting people into work, to give them the hope and the improvements in their well-being that work brings. We should also, therefore, all recognise the importance of finding ways to improve the system, and I would hope that the hon. Gentleman would welcome our efforts to improve it.

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

Last week in Scotland, the Daily Record ran a story about Kieran McArdle and the death of his father, Brian. Brian was paralysed down his left side, blind in one eye and unable to speak properly, and yet was declared fit to work. Atos said in response that

“our trained doctors, nurses and physiotherapists strictly follow the guidelines given to them by the Government”.

Given the crescendo of complaints about the implementation of the work capability assessment, should the Minister not abandon his mantra that progress has been made and instead accept his responsibility and undertake a fast and fundamental review of the test, as called for by the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne)?

[Mr Hoban]

Our condolences are with Mr McArdle’s family at this time, and I believe that the Secretary of State is writing to his son, Kieran, in response to his letter, which was delivered to the Department late last week. We know that going through the WCA process can be difficult for claimants and their families, but we and Atos go to great lengths to make it as fair as possible. That is why we are undertaking this process of refinement, taking the system left to us by the previous Government through the Harrington reviews and ensuring we improve it so that it is fair. The previous Government set up this system, and Opposition Members should not shirk responsibility for that.

[Mrs McGuire]

I am getting weary of the charge that this contract is somehow—[Interruption.] No; the reality is that we would not have managed the contract in the way this Government are managing it. Although the work capability assessments have been controversial to say the least, Atos, which delivered that contract, has recently been awarded two out of the three contracts for the personal independence payment. Did the company enhance its bid by naming disability organisations with which it would work, and what due diligence was done to test the authenticity of such assertions before awarding the contracts?

[Mr Hoban]

The right hon. Lady might be weary of that charge, but she will have to get used to hearing it. This Government are taking forward the changes that are necessary to get this system to work well. I think all Members on both sides of the House recognise one thing, however: as the evidence demonstrates, it is better for people to be in work where possible so that they can look after their families and provide dignity. That is exactly what we are trying to do in getting this process right. We are making progress, and we await Professor Harrington’s third review, which is due in the near future. Let me just say this to the right hon. Lady: when Atos bid for the PIP contract, it made it very clear that it would look to work with disability organisations to improve outcomes. We should try to work together on these matters, rather than make partisan political points.