Work Capability Assessments

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Williams. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) for securing the debate and for his tenacity—I think that would be the best word—in pursuing this issue. He has submitted what is probably a record number of parliamentary questions on it, and my constituents and I are grateful for that, because we have seen that someone is taking it seriously and cares passionately about it.

I want to concentrate on a number of issues raised by constituents. They were keen that I should take this opportunity to make representations to the Minister. People often feel that they are on their own and that they are the only ones having particular difficulties. Given what we have heard already, my constituents’ experiences appear to be very similar to those of constituents elsewhere, and I hope the Minister will take account of that.

I want to echo what my hon. Friend said. Neither I nor my constituents have a problem in principle with the notion that someone who is fit and able to work should do so if work is available. Many people with disabilities wish to hold down jobs and they can do so. Other people will require support, adaptations and particular circumstances to enable them to work. The constituents who come to me most frequently about work capability assessments, however, are those with fluctuating and perhaps long-term conditions. They tell me and my caseworker that the work capability assessment report does not accurately reflect their day-to-day experiences. They often say that they feel as if the wrong report has been sent in. They wonder whether people are making generalisations on the basis of their answers to questions.

People with these conditions also make the point that if they are having a good day, they will probably get along to the work capability assessment. However, if they are having one of their bad days, they simply will not be able, in some circumstances, to attend or to cope with the assessment. In addition, people with mental health issues, in particular, tell me that they do not get a fair assessment. They feel that because their condition is apparently invisible the assessor often seems to know little about it.

Of course, there are problems. Chronic but intermittent conditions can mean that claimants sometimes find themselves moved from ESA to jobseeker’s allowance and back to ESA, with all the work capability assessments in between. That leads to real difficulties because people often find themselves with no financial support while DWP processes are under way, with one claim being closed while another is being opened.

The most frequent cause of concern for constituents is apparent inconsistency. In a recent case in my area the maximum 15 points were awarded by the health care professional; that award was overturned by the DWP decision maker. The GP, the hospital consultant and Atos agreed that the person was unfit to work, but the decision maker in the DWP disagreed. In another example from my constituency a man with a progressive and incurable kidney condition, which requires him to undergo surgical operations every six months, was awarded 15 points; but that award was overturned by the decision-maker in the DWP, even though the decision-maker stated in correspondence:

“I am satisfied that the descriptors have been fully justified with clinical findings, observations and extracts taken from the typical day history provided by Mr A. The medical report…was appropriate, complete and covered all the area of incapacity described by Mr A as well as including a comprehensive typical day history and full set of clinical findings.”

We can understand why constituents find it difficult to understand why, when all the medical professionals and, indeed, Atos, appear to agree, someone in the DWP without a medical background apparently can overturn their findings.

I should like the Minister to tell me how many people—and what percentage—he is aware of who, having been awarded that maximum 15 points, have had the award overturned by the DWP decision maker, and how many of those have had appeals upheld. That may be useful for our understanding. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West mentioned, there is concern about the cost of appeals, and I hope that the Minister will tell us the average cost of an appeal, and how much time is spent processing all the associated paperwork.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful case. I went to an appeal with someone with ME who scored zero points. She took with her the medical evidence from the experts at the hospital; when the panel looked at it, it was a case of giving it a tick and telling her that of course she was not fit to work. However, those dealing with the form-filling and Atos stage were not prepared to consider it. It seems ludicrous that my constituent must go through the expense and stress of an appeal, and that the expert evidence cannot be considered earlier.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

The big difference is that we are adopting the payment-by-results approach. The organisations taking part in the programme can be paid only at certain points—first, when they agree an action plan with one of the individuals in a problem household; secondly when they deliver that action plan, which might mean the person completing a training course or something similar; and thirdly when that person gets into employment. The taxpayer does not pay the bill unless that happens, and that is a much better deal than ever happened under the previous Government.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

In Bristol, we had the pilots for family intervention projects that involved working with families who had a multitude of problems to tackle some of these issues. Does the Minister accept that this is not just about working through one Department such as his own? Other Departments such as the Department of Health and the Department for Education, as well as drugs funding, will need to be supported if we are to succeed in tackling these problems.

[Chris Grayling]

I absolutely do that. Two points regarding the contracting of this support are crucial to what the hon. Lady says. The first is that referrals come from local authorities so that they know they are taking people from their problem family register and are not duplicating effort. Secondly, the contracting was based very much around the effectiveness of the firms in the bidding process at showing they could form the kind of partnerships that she rightly says are so important.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

In order to give my hon. Friend a sense of scale, let me tell him that we lent a little over £200 million in crisis loans last year, and less than £500,000 was written off as unrecoverable. As I have said, the vast majority of loans are recovered, but I share my hon. Friend’s concern that the money should be lent correctly. Localising parts of the crisis loan system will lead to much closer local scrutiny of the purposes for which the money is being lent.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

24. What assessment he has made of the effect on child poverty of benefit changes in (a) 2011-12 and (b) 2012-13.

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

Treasury projections show that modelled tax and benefit reforms announced since Budget 2010 may result in a small reduction in child poverty in 2011-12 and 2012-13. These include above-indexation increases to the child element of child tax credit by £180 in 2011-12 and £110 in 2012-13.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I am slightly puzzled by the Secretary of State’s response. I am sure he is aware of the research published last week by the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation predicting a huge rise in the number of children living in relative poverty—of perhaps 500,000 more—despite the Government’s introduction of the universal credit. Does he accept that child poverty is predicted to rise under his rule?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The hon. Lady should not be so surprised given that I responded to the question she asked. The IFS projection deals with the tax and the benefits systems, but there are wider issues; we are addressing the pupil premium and other areas, which we think will also have an effect. The IFS projections are based on the premise that absolutely nothing changes, and I remind the hon. Lady that the last report showed that the previous Government were going to miss their 2010 targets before they left office.

Back to Work Agenda

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Wednesday 11th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I appreciate the need to recognise that unemployed people are individuals with individual circumstances, to which the Minister has referred. My concern is that Jobcentre Plus does not always recognise that at a local level in respect, for example, of the new requirement that lone parents seek work when their youngest child is aged seven—the age is eight at the moment. I hear tales of people being told that they are regarded as not looking for work, because they say that they cannot work in the evenings because babysitters are unavailable, or because they turn down a job that starts at 9.30 am and they have to drop the kids off at school on the other side of town at 9 am. Will the Minister reassure me that such people will not be penalised?

[Chris Grayling]

I can absolutely give the hon. Lady that reassurance. She will know that there is a definition of reasonableness in deciding whether somebody should be required to take a job. We only expect lone parents with a child at primary school to take up a job that is consistent with school hours—it would be absurd to expect a lone parent to work a night shift, for example. I absolutely assure her that that is the case.

While we are on that point, I will pick up the point that the hon. Gentleman raised on targets. The truth is that we discovered that problem, were horrified about it and put a stop to it immediately. However, is he aware of the roots of the problem? The roots are in a set of benchmarks that were introduced by Jobcentre Plus regions to judge whether appropriate sanctions were being achieved in each area, why there were differences, and whether policy was being applied uniformly. In an organisation that is, in my view, too target and detail-focused, the consequence was that in some areas, that was interpreted as a need to apply the individual target of which the hon. Gentleman is now aware.

However, the hon. Gentleman might be unaware that the those benchmarks were introduced in 2006 under the previous Government. Jobcentre Plus is much too focused on targets and goals. Benchmarks are turned into individual targets for front-line staff, and the organisation’s culture does not appreciate the fact that we want front-line individuals to use discretion. We are going through a long change process after 13 years. Jobcentre Plus is used to taking diktats from the top, but this Government are saying, “We want you to use discretion in the front line and to take the right decisions in the interests of individual with whom you are dealing. We do not want you constantly to look back over your shoulder to ask what the centre is saying.” That is an important development, but it will take us time to feed through the whole organisation.

Ironically, given what the hon. Gentleman said about targets, that policy dates back to changes made by the Labour party when it was in power. Indeed, last April it changed the rules actively to encourage an increase in the number of sanctions—again, something that we inherited. It is easy to look at the current Government and say, “What are you doing?”, but actually it is a problem which we inherited, which has grown and which we are now trying to unpick.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the future jobs fund. I know that Labour Members are wedded to it, but in truth it cost four times as much per job outcome as the previous Government’s other scheme, the new deal for young people. At the end of the day, given that we have inherited the biggest budget deficit in Britain’s peacetime history, we have to take some hard decisions and look for value for money. The problem with the future jobs fund was that it was a six-month work placement in the public or voluntary sector with no clear pathway through to a long-term career. We took the view that it was much better to invest our money in apprenticeships, where the young person spends an extended period with a private sector employer gaining skills that will provide the foundations of a lifetime’s career and that will not simply lead to a shutter coming down at the end of six months.

We are pretty early on in our apprenticeships programme, but we are already having considerable success in getting employers to take up apprenticeships. I was delighted to go to Newcastle earlier in the week and see the front page of The Journal announcing a great success for the paper’s campaign to encourage small employers to provide apprenticeships for young people. That is the kind of partnership that I really like. I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of local partnerships. I want local employer groups, papers and public sector organisations working together to encourage young people to take up apprenticeships and to encourage local employers to provide apprenticeships. He will know that we are focused on ensuring that we provide work experience places for young people, but above all we are trying to ensure that decisions are taken locally. In the context of what is being done in Rhyl, there is nothing in the Work programme that prevents that work from continuing. Excellence will flourish in the Work programme. The whole system is designed to give local communities, providers on the ground and local organisations the freedom to do what works for the individual, which is what is important.

In conclusion, I regard unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, as among the most important of this Government’s challenges. I am relishing the chance—

Oral Answers to Questions

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Monday 28th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

As my hon. Friend will know, at the moment parents caring for their children can claim credits for the basic pension, but the credit for the second pension is more limited and has only come in since 2002. Our proposals to put in place a single-tier pension would have the advantage of making one year of caring worth the same as a year of working.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Obviously, the Minister will be aware that it is not just women who bring up children, and it is often not just the parents, either. I have been speaking recently to groups such as Kinship Carers about the situation that arises when grandparents or older siblings are left with the responsibility of bringing up a child, often having to give up work as a result. What support is available for people in such a situation?

[Maria Miller]

Obviously, we support the very idea of kinship care. It is an important way in which children can remain in family care when their own parents are unable to look after them. I believe that in April we will bring in some support to help them with their pensions, too.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Monday 19th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

There is some important legislation in place that will help employers to understand their responsibilities. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the fact that we are only at the beginning of a process of implementing that legislation. It is about changing cultural norms in the workplace to ensure that reasonable changes are made to help more disabled people to do the work that they want to do.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

In the coalition agreement, the Government pledged to reform the access to work programme. Will the Minister tell us what the timetable for that reform will be, and can she give us an assurance that the programme will continue to be funded at the same level in real terms as the current access to work programme? Or is reform just another byword for cuts?

[Maria Miller]

I am sure that the hon. Lady will be pleased to know that I have already had meetings with officials and with employers who are participating in access to work, so as to understand how we can make it work better for more disabled people. The real challenge is to ensure that the money available supports more disabled people in an effective way, so that we actually get people into work rather than leaving them languishing on benefits.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Monday 14th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

Yes, the hon. Gentleman is right. We want to see an end to top-down, “Whitehall knows best” government. We want to see local communities and voluntary groups empowered and enabled to provide tailored solutions for individuals and local communities.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Labour in government had planned and funded 50,000 jobs for older people in areas of high unemployment and high deprivation under the future jobs fund. Will the Minister confirm how many of those jobs will be scrapped and what, if anything, will be put in their place?

[Steve Webb]

As the hon. Lady knows, jobs that are already contractually bound will go ahead. However, she falls foul of the old new Labour fallacy—that just because the Government temporarily fund a job, that makes it into a real, lasting job. I am afraid that life is not like that; the Government’s payment of a temporary subsidy does not make a permanent job. We will be investing in long-term, sustainable employment, which will benefit older people far more.

Tackling Poverty in the UK

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Thursday 10th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

This is my first outing at the Dispatch Box. I know it is customary for Front Benchers to start by saying what an excellent debate it has been, regardless of whether that is true, but I can in all sincerity say that today’s has been an excellent debate and I have been pleased to be able to sit here listening. Members on both sides of the House have spoken with conviction and passion about the fight against poverty, which blights so many lives and communities. Of course, we have also heard many excellent maiden speeches, in which new MPs have demonstrated their determination to do their utmost for the people they represent and the constituencies they serve.

The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) disappointed the House by telling us that he had turned down an invitation to join MP4, but given that the current membership consists of one Tory, one Scottish nationalist and one Labour Member, perhaps in the new politics we should be looking for a Lib Dem to join them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) made an excellent speech praising the diversity in her constituency and her predecessor for introducing the ban on smoking in public places.

The hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) confirmed that she is not related to Stanley Baldwin and dwelt in some detail on the wonderful food produced in her constituency, which I think was rather unfair to those of us who were trapped in the Chamber all afternoon and not able to get out to have some lunch.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cumberland, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East—how did I do with that?

[Gregg McClymont]

Cumbernauld.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Oh, I wrote it down wrong. It is not my pronunciation that is wrong but my literacy. My hon. Friend told us that he was better looking than his photo in the parliamentary guide— I shall have to check that out—and spoke eloquently about the poverty in his constituency and the previous Government’s progress in tackling it.

The hon. Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) told us that he is not better looking than his election photo, much to the disappointment of his constituents who met him on the election trail. He also told us that one of his predecessors had, as a lawyer, defended the Kray twins and then, on being elected to Parliament, defended the Governments of Margaret Thatcher and John Major. I am not sure which was the most difficult task.

The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) talked about her great love of football, of which I am already very much aware, having attended a Chelsea-Arsenal game with her. Perhaps she could have done a little more to endear herself to the Press Gallery: pointing out that one member of it, Nigel Nelson, was writing articles before she was born might not be the best way to get into their good books.

I missed the speech of the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat)—I popped out to take a phone call—but I am told that he spoke without notes and with great eloquence about issues such as social mobility and worklessness.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer), making his second maiden speech after returning to Parliament, delivered a passionate speech about the need to protect Sure Start and child trust funds, and about his support as a committed trade unionist for the agency workers directive.

The hon. Member for Corby (Ms Bagshawe) did not quite live up to the romance of her previously published works—novels such as “Passion” and “Sparkle”. I am the proud owner of an autographed copy of “Passion”, which she sent to me—we have never met, only communicated through Twitter. Perhaps an autographed copy of her maiden speech should follow.

My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) confirmed that she is taller than her predecessor, Ian McCartney. I want to place on the official record the fact that I too am taller than Ian McCartney, although it is perhaps a slightly closer match. She spoke with great passion about her interest in financial capability and the need to promote it, as well as her work with credit unions. I look forward very much to seeing her promote those agendas in the House.

The hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), who is my neighbour, although we have yet to meet—he should get on Twitter; that is how I make all my friends—praised the work of his predecessor. I have to say that, in Roger Berry, he has a very hard act to follow, but I wish him well.

My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) will not, I suspect, be glued to the television watching the new series of “Big Brother”, but she raised an important issue. Tackling poverty is not just about putting money in people’s pockets and a household’s immediate resources, but about things such as transport. The poor transport links in her constituency make it difficult for people to gain access to jobs.

The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles) praised his constituency, and discussed the need to promote more green jobs there. I was pleased that the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) discussed her support for international development, and I hope that she puts pressure on her colleagues in the Department for International Development to carry on its good work linking international development with work in schools. The hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), as is almost customary for Members making maiden speeches about Swindon, mentioned the magic roundabout, and perhaps persuaded me that I ought to get off the train more often when I pass through Swindon on the way to London.

The hon. Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) discussed his experience as the lead member for children’s services when he was a councillor. I was pleased that he expressed support for his local Sure Start scheme. The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod) said that she was pleased to see more women in politics—I am too, and I am glad that we are no longer looking at a row of men in suits on the Government Benches. Perhaps the Front Bench has a little more work to do, although I am glad to welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), to her ministerial position.

The hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) tried to tempt us with the delights of Bury black pudding, which I shall pass on. The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) gave us a cultural tour that ranged from George Eliot to Larry Grayson—quite a wide span. The hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) discussed how she wished to support members of the armed forces in her constituency and their families, and I wish her all the best with that. The hon. Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery) explained to a bemused House exactly where his constituency is. We are all very much in the picture now—somewhere around the Winchester area, I think. The hon. Member for Erewash (Jessica Lee) discussed the importance of volunteering and the experience that she will bring to the House as a lawyer who has worked on child protection issues. I am glad that she will pursue those interests in Parliament.

We also heard speeches that were not maiden speeches, including from my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field). I was pleased that he described Labour’s job guarantee as precious, and I hope that in his new role he can do something to protect our future jobs fund. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Miss Begg) on her election to Chair of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions. I am sure that she will do an excellent job.

My hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) made an excellent speech in which he rightly highlighted the progress made by the Labour Government in tackling pensioner poverty, for which we did not get enough credit. We heard two speeches from people whom I had the pleasure of working with on child poverty issues in the last Parliament: my hon. Friends the Members for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) and for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan spoke from her experience at the Children’s Society and discussed the legacy of communities that have been ignored and suffered from a lack of investment going back to the 1980s. Once that intergenerational cycle of poverty and worklessness is created, the issue cannot be solved overnight; it is a difficult problem to crack. I thought that she spoke incredibly eloquently about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston, who was chief executive of the Child Poverty Action Group, impressed us all with the experience and knowledge of the issue that she brings to the House. I hope that Ministers listen closely to what she has to say.

In the short time remaining—I appreciate that we do not have long, given that many Members wish to speak—I should like to ask the Under-Secretary a few questions. I am pleased that Ministers managed to secure a debate on poverty, as it at least suggests that it is an important issue for the new Government. However, I have heard very little to convince me that the reality will match the rhetoric, and that their professed desire to tackle poverty will triumph over their desire to implement savage cuts. It was notable that when the Secretary of State replied to the Queen’s Speech debate on Tuesday there was barely a mention of any policy at all. I hope that we can hear a little bit more from the Under-Secretary today.

The Labour Government did not just talk about poverty but acted to tackle poverty. We acted to lift 1 million pensioners out of poverty with our pensions guarantee, the pensions credit, the winter fuel allowance, free bus travel and eye tests, and by cutting fuel poverty by insulating pensioners’ homes. We lifted half a million children out of poverty, not just by putting more money into their families’ pockets, but by helping their families move from welfare into work. It is a complete fallacy to suggest that the Labour Government did not try to move people from welfare into work. The suggestion is that we were quite happy to leave people languishing on benefits and that we did not address that. That is exactly what we were trying to do with nursery places, tax credits, and making work pay to ensure that people were better off in work. I could list a range of other policies that were all intended to address that issue.

When the Minister replies, will she say how, in terms of looking at the bigger picture, the Government can claim to be serious about tackling poverty, when, through their planned programme of cuts, they will undermine the package that the Labour Government tried to put together in the last 13 years to support people on their route out of poverty? How can they claim to be serious about tackling poverty and yet axe the future jobs fund, which aims to break the intergenerational cycle of unemployment that the Government claim to deplore? How can they say that they want to enhance the life chances of children growing up in poverty when they are scrapping child trust funds, and cutting tax credits, and when they will not confirm what is meant by their proposal to streamline benefits? Does that mean cuts in benefits for people or not?

How can the Government claim to care about so-called broken Britain—a phrase that I reject—when they fail to support Sure Start and family intervention projects, which work with families with the most difficult problems, when they oppose things like compulsory sex education in schools, which would have helped to address the issue of teenage pregnancy and lone parenthood, and when they are slashing public sector jobs and public services without a thought for the consequences?

The Government say that they want people to stand on their own two feet, but how can they do that if the Government pull the rug from under them? I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.