Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Sheila Gilmore and Chris Grayling

Tuesday 6th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

Of course, these changes do not affect the support we provide at inquests. My challenge to the Opposition is this: they have yet to give us any clear answers on how they would bring down the cost of legal aid. They campaigned at the previous general election for reductions in legal aid costs. They continue to oppose the difficult changes we have made, but offer no alternative suggestions.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

5. What assessment he has made of the consequences for future decisions by employment and support allowance tribunals of the provision by the judiciary to the Department for Work and Pensions and appellants of reasons for their decisions in appeals.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Sheila Gilmore and Chris Grayling

Tuesday 17th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. We are looking carefully at our own contract management approach and at the contracts that we hold. It is worth reminding the House, however, that the issues that are being referred to, and the contracts that we are looking at, date back to the time of the last Government.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

We have several years of experience of multi-purpose companies that appear to bid for anything and everything, regardless of whether they have any particular expertise, and that is happening again with the roll-out of the personal independence payment. Promises that were made about the service that would be delivered are simply not being fulfilled. Is it not time for a complete review of contracting of this kind?

[Chris Grayling]

I am very much in favour of a broader supplier base and the arrival of new organisations to work with the Government. I think it important for us to work with third parties, as, indeed, the last Government did. I believe that when, in the near future, we publish the list of organisations that have passed the pre-qualification questionnaire stage in respect of the reforms of the probation service, every Member in the House will be encouraged by the mix of organisations that have put their names forward.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Sheila Gilmore and Chris Grayling

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

In May, the now Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), announced a new pilot in which tribunal judges would give detailed explanations to the Department for Work and Pensions of their reasons for allowing employment and support allowance appeals. When can we expect an evaluation of that pilot?

[Chris Grayling]

We are engaged in detailed discussions with the DWP. We are now providing it with much more detailed information, and paying close attention to the lessons that are learnt from that information.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Sheila Gilmore and Chris Grayling

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I do not like the concept of automatic early release at all. My hon. and learned Friend will be aware of the financial limitations that we face at the moment, which is why I made a start with the most serious and unpleasant offenders, but it is certainly my desire, when resources permit, to go further on this.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

A few months ago, in response to a question from me, the Secretary of State or one of his Ministers suggested that he would be setting up a new system for ensuring that tribunal judges dealing with work capability assessment appeals would give good reasons. Has that new programme been instituted, and when can we expect a statement on how it is working?

[Chris Grayling]

This is specifically the responsibility of the Department for Work and Pensions, but I can tell the hon. Lady that extensive work has been done. Much more detail is now being provided to the Department for Work and Pensions by the Courts and Tribunals Service, and we will continue to explore ways in which we can ensure that decision makers in Jobcentre Plus understand fully the reason for a decision in a tribunal.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Sheila Gilmore and Chris Grayling

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I very much welcome the discussions that are taking place. Support is being provided by the Cabinet Office, including financial support, for those members of our probation teams who want to set up their own spin-offs, and I would positively encourage them to do so.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

3. What progress he has made on improving the feedback from tribunal judges to the Department for Work and Pensions on the reasons for overturning employment and support allowance refusal decisions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Sheila Gilmore and Chris Grayling

Tuesday 5th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

The problem with judicial review is that it has mushroomed beyond any expectation. It started with a few hundred cases when it was first introduced and there are now more than 10,000 a year. Often, those judicial review processes are based on a public relations exercise or an attempt to derail the reform temporarily by using a technicality. Judicial review should be a genuine process to challenge the public authorities when they get it wrong; it should not be an excuse to fly a kite.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

17. If he will develop a feedback process to the Department for Work and Pensions on the reasons for the overturning of employment and support allowance decisions by tribunal judges.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)]

The provision of feedback on reasons for tribunals’ decisions is a matter for the judiciary. However, as the hon. Lady will remember, in my previous role we put in place new arrangements last year. Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service is now working with the DWP to evaluate the findings so that decision making can be improved wherever we can do so.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. However, his successor as employment Minister, the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr Hoban), told the Work and Pensions Committee that it was important to expand the reasons given by tribunals far beyond those on the dropdown menu, so that opaque statements such as “cogent oral evidence” are not given as the reason for an appeal being upheld. Will the Secretary of State confirm that those reasons will be expanded greatly?

[Chris Grayling]

Of course, the intention of the change was to identify relevant information that would improve decision making. We have learned quite a lot from the dropdown menu. The two Departments will of course discuss any improvements that will increase the quality of decision making and reduce the number of appeals.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Sheila Gilmore and Chris Grayling

Tuesday 13th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

The European convention on human rights was written in the 1950s by Conservatives at a time when Stalin was in power in Russia and people were being sent to the gulags without trial. What has happened over 40 or 50 years is that the judgments around the human rights framework have moved a long way from the original intentions of the authors of the convention. That is why it is my strong belief that change has to happen.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

10. What progress he has made in encouraging tribunal judges to supply feedback to Department for Work and Pensions decision-makers on the reasons for successful employment and support allowance appeals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

I am as concerned as anybody about what has taken place over the last two weeks. It is utterly wrong that anybody should have their name blackened inappropriately and falsely on any form of social media. Of course, the laws of libel apply equally to what is published on a Facebook or Twitter page as they do to what appears in printed form, so those who are damaged in that way have full legal redress to try and get proper justice done.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

What discussions are taking place between Ministers and officials in the Ministry of Justice and those in the Department for Work and Pensions in anticipation of the further burden that will be put on the tribunals service when the new personal independence payment comes in next year, because experience shows that the level of appeals resulting from benefit changes is very high?

[Chris Grayling]

We will continue to do everything we can to improve the process in both Departments. I am absolutely clear that we want to get the appeals process right, both in the tribunals service and in Jobcentre Plus, where we have introduced a mandatory reconsideration process. Ultimately, the reason we are doing all that is that there are large numbers of people out there who can return to work and make a better lot of their lives, which we want to help them to do, but unless we have a reassessment process, we will never find those people to deliver that help to.

Parkinson’s Disease (Employment and Support Allowance)

Debate between Sheila Gilmore and Chris Grayling

Tuesday 19th June 2012 Westminster Hall

[Chris Grayling]

The average figure was about 40% in the last figures that were published. That represents only about 6% of overall claimant numbers. In the case of decision making for Parkinson’s, people are much more likely to end up in a support group. On the average numbers for new claims going through a work capability assessment, 40% are entitled to ESA; 13% are put in the support group; 26% are put in the work-related activity group, and 60% are fit for work. That is the whole gamut of applications.

For Parkinson’s, 71% are entitled to ESA; 33% are in the support group; 38% are in the work-related activity group, and 29% are fit for work at that stage. We expect those who are fit for work—as they reapply and are reassessed as their condition develops—to enter the work-related activity group and then the support group. Of course, when people are not able to work again, they will receive support in the support group.

The hon. Member for Halifax mentioned the case of the constituent affected by the time-limiting proposal. She is right to highlight that. It applies only to people in the work-related activity group and only to people who have money in the bank or who have another form of household income. It establishes the same principle to contributory ESA as has always applied to contributory jobseeker’s allowance. In the way our welfare state works, if someone is a JSA claimant with another form of income or with money in the bank, we have always allowed them to get a contribution back in recognition that they themselves have paid contributions. They get six months of contributory JSA if they have other financial means. We have simply applied that same principle to contributory ESA. We have done that for reasons that the hon. Lady well knows. We face enormous financial challenges, and we have had to take back that part of our welfare state into the safety net that it was originally intended to be, and we have had to accept that we cannot afford to pay benefits to people who have got another form of household income. We debated that extensively in the welfare reform debates. I would rather that we had not had to make that decision, but financial necessity meant that was inevitable.

We are not talking about people who have no other means of support. They are not people whose condition has developed so that they can no longer realistically work again. They are people in the work-related activity group who may be able to return to work with help and support, but possibly not in the profession that they worked in previously. It may be that their condition has made that impossible, but that does not mean that it is impossible for them to work.

[Sheila Gilmore]

The Minister has given us figures for the proportion of people in the work-related activity group, but he has not really addressed the issue of Parkinson’s. The figures that the Parkinson’s Society presented suggest that 45% of claimants are being placed in the work-related activity group. Such people will have lost their previous jobs and are often in their 50s and early 60s. With the loss of the contributory benefit, they have to use up their retirement savings. Will the Minister address the specific issues around Parkinson’s?

[Chris Grayling]

Nobody has to spend their pension funds while they are of working age. Realistically, if people put aside money for a rainy day, and they become ill and lose their job, but have money in the bank, what else constitutes a rainy day? There will always be limitations on the amount and breadth of support that the state can provide through the welfare state. There were limitations under the hon. Lady’s Government; there are under our Government. The constraints on us are greater than on hers, because the money is not there any more. The reality is that the state has never provided unconditional support for everyone. There are limits inevitably created by an individual’s financial means.

We have only five minutes remaining, so let me touch on a couple of the other points that the hon. Member for Halifax raised. Let me give the context for the gold standard review. We invited the mental health charities and the fluctuating condition charities to bring forward their thoughts on how we could adapt the work capability assessment to reflect more closely what they believed to be the best approach. I am open about this. I want continually to improve this process and I want it to be as good and effective as possible.

What the charities came back with was extremely ambitious, not just in changing the current descriptors. It would involve rewriting and recasting the whole work capability assessment for not only fluctuating conditions or mental health problems, but physical conditions as well. It would involve re-engineering all the software and the assessment. It would probably be a two-year process and extremely expensive. Before we embark on that process—I am open to looking seriously at that—we need to understand the impact of the changes.

More than a year ago, I was told by the charities that if I implemented the internal review that I had inherited from the previous Government, with recommended changes to the work capability assessment, it would disadvantage particularly people with mental health problems. The advice that I had internally was that we had done a similar review to the gold standard review on the work capability assessment, as it was then structured, and it showed that more people with mental health problems would end up in the support group—the opposite of what the charities had said. History has shown that the internal advice was right and the charities were wrong, so I really want to get this right. I do not want to embark on a grand project to reorganise this without getting it right.

Work has started on the gold standard review. The terms of the project have been agreed. There are meetings between the Department and the charities virtually on a weekly basis at the moment. The work is being carried out over the next few months. We will judge the outcome of that work and ascertain whether there is a need to make changes or whether the charities have got it wrong. We have to do that. The hon. Lady would expect us to do that. In the meantime, we are looking to embed some of the recommendations that they have made into the way the ESA50 form is structured. If that enables us to tease out more information that is of value to the decision maker, informing the decision about a person’s condition, that is clearly the right thing to do.

The other point that the hon. Lady made was about the support not being there for people in the work-related activity group. That is not correct, either. Every single person in the work-related activity group on ESA has access to the Work programme tomorrow. They will receive specialist back-to-work support from one of the providers operating up and down the country—a mix of public, private and voluntary sector organisations, some with specialisms in fluctuating conditions. There is a specialism within each supply chain for those who are on ESA. One of the challenges that we have at the moment is trying to encourage more people to come forward and take advantage of that support. It is absolutely not the case that people cannot access help and support. Everyone has access to support, and it works.

We had a case a few months ago—not a Parkinson’s sufferer, but a gentleman from the north-east who was partially sighted and in a wheelchair. He had applied for thousands of jobs and got absolutely nowhere. He did not believe he could get back into work in a part of the country where the labour market is weak. He joined the Work programme and within a small number of weeks was in employment with a job and his life turned round. That, fundamentally, is what this is all about. I know it is difficult and sometimes challenging. I know that it takes many people through a process that they do not want to go through, because they do not actually believe that they can make a return to the workplace. Is it not better if we can help them get there? Even if they happen to have had to give up the profession that they have had for years, because their condition makes that no longer possible, surely it is better to get them back into doing something that they can do with their condition, that can keep them in the workplace for a few more years and give them a chance to live a more fulfilling life. That is what we are trying to achieve. We will not always get it right. The system is not perfect. It never can be perfect. I wish that it could be, but it cannot.

In conclusion, I can tell the hon. Lady that this is absolutely about saving lives, not saving money. I genuinely want to see more people given a chance to live a more fulfilling life. We will do everything that we can to help them, but those who cannot work again will get ongoing unconditional support.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Sheila Gilmore and Chris Grayling

Monday 23rd April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

We have had enormously gratifying levels of support from employers for the youth contract, in terms of their willingness both to hire and to give apprenticeships to young people. In particular, I wish to pay tribute to all the companies, large and small, around this country, including in your constituency, Mr Speaker, and that of my hon. Friend, which are providing work experience opportunities for young people. We know that such opportunities give them a much better start in life than those who do not have that experience.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Press reports have suggested that the amount of extra support being given to young people might be as little as a text message. Will the Minister be specific about how much face-to-face advice and support young people are getting under this programme?

[Chris Grayling]

Much more than was the case under the previous Government. We do not apply a one-size-fits-all approach; we do not drag somebody in from a work experience placement or from a sector-based work academy to do an interview with them. However, we keep in contact with everyone every week, and when people are not working—when they are not in a work experience placement—we are now providing weekly contact with young people, as opposed to the fortnightly contact that was the case under the previous Government.

Work Capability Assessment

Debate between Sheila Gilmore and Chris Grayling

Tuesday 13th March 2012 Westminster Hall

[Chris Grayling]

In relation to mental health champions, let me explain some of the things that we have done for mental health patients. We have a pool of about 60 specialists who provide advice within the Atos network, and their skills are available to every centre, either in person or by phone. Professor Harrington has looked at how we implemented that change, and he praised it because he thinks that it was done well and effectively. We think that we have delivered that expertise, as does Professor Harrington who is an independent assessor and can say whether or not his recommendation has been implemented properly, which in his view it has been.

If I find evidence that we are not getting things right, we are open to change. As I have said from the start, this programme does not have a financial target and is about saving lives, not saving money. If we are successful in moving people back into work it will, of course, reduce the cost to the welfare state, but it will do so in a right and positive way that will help people such as the woman whom I described, who I hope will return, step by step, to the workplace. The alternative is for her to spend the rest of her life on benefits suffering from depression at home, and no one benefits from that.

That is the spirit in which we have approached all this. We tried very hard to ensure that we got it right with the internal review. There was no particular reason for me to implement the internal review. It was set up by the previous Government. The findings were put together by the previous Government. It would have been easy just to say no, but the advice was that it would increase the size of the support group, and that is what has happened. I regard that as a positive step. I always said, and said on a number of occasions in the House, that I was happy to see the dividing line between the work-related activity group and the support group move a bit in the direction of caution, because we are trying to get this right and I do not want people in the wrong place. There will never be a perfect system—I wish there would be—but we shall try to get this right.

I will move on to the recommendations of the work carried out by the charities. I commissioned that myself. I asked the charities to come back with recommended changes to the descriptors. I very much wanted, and do want, to get this right. The problem is straightforward: they did not actually do what they were asked to do. They were asked to make recommendations about further ways to improve the descriptors that would allow us further to ensure that the assessment process for people with mental health challenges was accurate, effective and reflected their needs and potential. That is not what happened.

The charities came back with a recommended system that would have involved tearing up the whole work capability assessment for mental, fluctuating and physical conditions and starting again from scratch, redoing all our computer systems and all the training for every member of staff in the entire network. That was not just a tweak; it was a comprehensive change to the whole thing, based on no actual evidence. The charities did not come forward with tangible evidence. They simply said, “We think it would work better this way.” They may or may not be right, but that is quite a big step to take just on the basis of a set of recommendations from a group of charities that had been proved wrong in the internal review process.

[Sheila Gilmore]

The recommendations from the charities were put to an independent scrutiny panel that had a large number of people with considerable expertise, so will the Minister agree that it is not true to say that they were simply the recommendations of a group of charities?

[Chris Grayling]

That is the case, but what we lack and what we intend now to get is hard evidence to determine whether this is right. Given that the charities were wrong the first time round, I am very reluctant to tear up the whole thing and redo all the computer systems—a vast amount of change; probably a two or three-year project—only to discover that that does not make a difference.

Alongside this, we have been doing work on fluctuating conditions. These are the two particularly challenging areas. Fluctuating conditions can represent a real challenge in the assessment process, because someone who is fine one day may not be fine the next. There are a range of fluctuating conditions and, again, I want to be careful to ensure that we get this as right as we can. In a moment, I will touch on some of the changes that we have made. I just want to explain first where the issue arises with the new set of recommendations.

The working group on fluctuating conditions reported at the end of last year. We intend this year to do that gold standard work, which in effect involves applying the new systems recommended by both groups to a set group of cases to understand what the difference would have been. If we discover that there is very little variation between what they are recommending and the existing system, there will be no point in changing it. If we discover big changes, we will want to understand why. I am perfectly open to making changes in the future if I think that that will make a significant difference. I will state again that we are not trying to force into work people who should not be there. We are not trying to get this wrong, but at the same time this is not about a simple change. It is not about introducing mental health champions throughout the network, improving the quality of the telephony process, ensuring that our staff are better trained or strengthening the reconsideration process. It is about tearing the whole thing up and starting again. That is quite a big step and a very long step to take.

We shall do the gold standard work. We have already done the initial scoping work. It is very important that that is completed. I am very open to making changes, but I will not make changes on the hoof without clear evidence that they will make a difference. The hard evidence that was there for the internal review, which I based my judgment on, proved to be right, whereas the external advice, based on what the charities thought, proved to be wrong, so we have to be very careful.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I thank the Minister for taking another intervention. Obviously, there have been many changes in the system and changes initiated after Harrington 1 as well. Is there a reason why the Minister thinks that the change in the descriptors has resulted in more people being put into the support group?

[Chris Grayling]

The general view of the team who worked on the internal review was that the assessors were better placed with a broader base and less specific descriptors in relation to mental health. People should bear in mind that both the assessors and the subsequent tribunals and decision makers have to operate to a pretty tight template around the descriptors as set in law. By creating additional flexibility within the descriptors, we end up with more people being put into the support group than was previously the case, and that is indeed what happened.

I thought that there was good and sensible thinking in the way that the charities brought forward their ideas. We made some pretty rapid changes. We have continued to adapt the ESA50. We have adapted our training, so that some of the issues that they have highlighted are built more clearly into it. We have also invited all the charities—some have taken this up—to work with decision makers, to contribute to the training process for decision makers.

Probably the biggest change that we made to the whole process was to de-emphasise slightly the role of the assessment itself. One of the criticisms levelled at the whole WCA process before we took over was that it was much too formulaic, with far too little flexibility. Of course, one of the reasons for the appeals issue was that a vast amount of new evidence came forward only at the appeal stage. As a result of Professor Harrington’s report, we tried to create a more holistic process, so we actively ask people for evidence from their specialists up front.

Our decision makers have the discretion to look for additional evidence at the point at which they reach their view, based on the evidence that has been submitted by the individual themselves, the ESA50 and the outcome of the work capability assessment. Likewise, we now actively encourage people to supply new evidence at the reconsideration stage. It is now almost universally the case that we see most if not all of the evidence before it leaves Jobcentre Plus. That has to be the right thing to do.

We have tried to build the learning from the work done by the mental health group and by the fluctuating conditions group into the decision making that is already happening. We have not parked this on the sidelines and said that we will come back to it at a later date. I can explain my problem using the analogy that I used in the Select Committee. It is rather like taking one’s car in for a service. When we come back at the end of the day, it looks great. The people who did the service have done a brilliant job, but they have turned it into a boat. That is not a lot of use if we have to drive it on the road. That, in a nutshell, is the position that I am in. The charities made a recommendation. If they had recommended some tweaks to the descriptors, we would have done that by now, but they did not; they recommended a total transformation of the whole process, including redoing everything for physical health conditions as well—all the descriptors for them—a new scoring system and a new computer system. It would be and will be, if we do it, a monumental task.

We are therefore putting together the mental health work and the fluctuating conditions work. We are looking at the consequences of the approach, through the gold standard review, in a way that the previous Government did, and rightly so. It involves taking a selection of cases, applying the new methodology and understanding what the difference would be. However, we are not sitting on our hands in the meantime. We are not just saying, “Well, that work has been done. Maybe we’ll get round to it at some point in the future.” We have used that as the basis for changes across the way that we interact with people through the assessment process, because we genuinely want to get it right.

I have said on many occasions that this is about helping people who are potentially able to return to work to do so. That is the right thing to do. We will not always get the decision making right, whatever we do. Even if we implement everything that the charities are recommending, we still will not have a system that is perfect in all circumstances. That is why we have the appeal process. We are not talking about putting people into a position whereby they are doing an activity that is damaging to them. We are, step by step, helping people to get back into a process whereby they can apply for jobs and get into work—sometimes quite gently.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Will the Minister clarify, if the gold standard review has now started, whether he has any anticipated time scale for its concluding?

[Chris Grayling]

I have not instantly, but it is certainly my intention that we will complete it within the next few months, as we said that we would. I think that it is necessary to understand the impact. Above all, I want to get this right. Our objective has only ever been to find the right number of people we can help back to work, not any number of people. That is a human goal, not a financial one.

Question put and agreed to.

Work Experience

Debate between Sheila Gilmore and Chris Grayling

Tuesday 13th March 2012 Westminster Hall

[Sheila Gilmore]

My hon. Friend is correct. Someone spoke previously about an elephant in the room. The job at the end is probably the biggest elephant in the room. It is not good enough to say that the whole problem is about people not having skills or training and that, somehow, if we list all the schemes, work programmes and other programmes, we have solved the unemployment problem. There are two sides to the unemployment problem. There is the problem of the lack of jobs, which is very considerable in some areas of the country, and, yes, there are issues about whether people have the proper skills and experience to take up opportunities. We need both. To say constantly that we are on top of this because we have programme X, Y, Z and goodness knows what else will not solve the problem of the lack of jobs.

One big issue that we face is that we do not know a lot about the outcomes of the scheme. We are told that it is a wonderful scheme and is having great results. Will the Minister tell us when he will give us more detailed information about what is actually happening? Ministers and Back Benchers constantly recite the fact that half of those doing work experience are in jobs within a short time. That is based on an initial pilot involving some 1,300 people between January and March 2011. The more accurate statement—I accept that the Minister usually gives the more accurate statement, although others do not—is that one half or 51%, to be exact, were off benefits 13 weeks after the work experience period. They may have come off benefits and gone into a job or to college, or simply not have been claiming. For example, someone who has got to the end of their six months on jobseeker’s allowance and who has a working partner may simply stop claiming.

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

Will the hon. Lady confirm that the benchmark that we use to judge the success of the work experience programme is exactly the same benchmark that she and her colleagues used to judge what they claimed to be the success—it was at a much higher cost—of the future jobs fund?

[Sheila Gilmore]

I am not going to dispute—[Interruption.] It is important to know a bit more about what has been happening. All these assertions are made on the basis of a fairly small number. If the Minister has other information to give us, that is all well and good, but we are not hearing that at the moment. I asked him in a written question how many of those who had taken part in the scheme, either between 16 and 18 years of age or between 18 and 25, had found employment with the firm with which they had done the work experience or with another employer. The answer was that the Department does not hold that information. The Government are not tracking that information. I find that worrying, because assertions and statements are being made about the success of a programme, but answers to the detailed questions that anyone might reasonably want to ask about these programmes are simply not being given to us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheila Gilmore]

That is precisely what I said—that 51% of the first 1,300 people who took part in the scheme between January and March 2011 were off benefits. That was the point where I came in.

We have to look not only at the quality of work experience, but at the fact that some firms may simply be using schemes to get people to do jobs they would otherwise have employed someone to do.

On a slightly different matter—this does not relate to the work experience scheme pure and simple—I was astonished to read in no less a paper than The Sunday Times, which is hardly a friend of the left, that McDonald’s had, it seemed to me, reframed its trainee posts as apprenticeships. It was taking Government money to train people in the skills they would need if they got a job at McDonald’s, such as customer service and food hygiene. Many people, including students and others, have gone through the McDonald’s scheme over many years and they have gone on to work in McDonald’s. However, people on the scheme are now being designated as apprentices, and I know of one case in which somebody doing a Saturday job got a contract as an apprentice. McDonald’s got the money from the Government and was quoted as saying that no additional jobs had been created.

[Chris Grayling]

Is the hon. Lady aware that she is describing the previous Labour Government’s policy of allowing companies that developed in-work training places to designate them as apprenticeships? Does she accept that what she is describing originated under the Labour Government and has been deemed—by that Government and this one—to be an important part of the career development mix?

[Sheila Gilmore]

Even if the Minister tells me that that is the case, I would not necessarily always accept everything previous Governments have done, because such provisions are not helping us in any respect to create additional jobs. The worry about firms taking successive people to do work experience without payment is that they may be reducing their other employees’ opportunities to do paid work—through additional hours, for example. We need reassurance that that is not happening, and if we do not get it, we will have some queries.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Sheila Gilmore and Chris Grayling

Monday 5th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

We are also stepping up the support that we provide to young unemployed people through Jobcentre Plus, which will include more frequent work-focused interviews. We are also recruiting more youth advisers in Jobcentre Plus to provide help to the young unemployed. We are determined to deal with the problem of youth unemployment, which in all parts of the House we agree is a massive challenge for the nation.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

If the scheme is to cover 5% of those in the NEET category—those not in education, employment or training—what plans does the Minister have for the other 95%?

[Chris Grayling]

I assume that the hon. Lady is referring to the programme that we have just announced for 16 to 17-year-olds. Of course, the big challenge with that age group is not the total number of NEETs, because most young people move quickly back into education. However, there is a hard core of young people who spend long periods not in education or employment, and they are not in the benefits system either, so we have no direct means of engaging with them. I hope and believe that the new approach—founded on payment by results, with charitable and private sector groups working together to try to reach that audience—will make a big difference to engaging with them and getting them back into either employment or education.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Sheila Gilmore and Chris Grayling

Tuesday 21st February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

The right hon. Gentleman needs to remember what the amendments are about. Large numbers of people in our community are under-housed and others are in temporary accommodation. We have formed the view that it is neither good value for the taxpayer nor right for those people that we pay for those in social housing to have spare rooms. That is the purpose of our amendments.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

If the Minister is successful and people move from homes that they under-occupy and other people move in, and assuming that the same proportion of people are on housing benefit, there will be no financial saving. Which is his real argument?

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Lady simply has not thought things through properly. At the moment, we are paying expensive temporary accommodation costs, partly because the previous Government—her own party—had such a lamentable record in office in building social housing. When Opposition Members make those claims, they should remember how poorly they performed in that regard.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Sheila Gilmore and Chris Grayling

Wednesday 1st February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Does not the Government’s proposal conflict with what they are trying to do? The Minister says that benefits will not be taken away from those who have nothing, but their measure will take away benefits from, for example, a couple in which one partner is in part-time work. They could be asked to dig into what they have saved for retirement.

[Chris Grayling]

The principle of the welfare state that I described—that it is there to provide a safety net for those who have no other form of income—has operated for a very long time, including under the previous Government. The welfare state provides a degree of support to those who have another form of income, but it is a long-standing principle of the jobseeker’s allowance system that such support is not unlimited. We are simply applying that same principle to ESA for people who are deemed to have the potential, in due course, to return to work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheila Gilmore]

rose—

[Chris Grayling]

Let us ask one of them who was on the Committee. Does the hon. Lady support the benefit cap?

[Sheila Gilmore]

I stood up to say that we cannot simply go to the population in the way suggested. When I was out on Sunday, one of my constituents said to me, “Yes, £26,000 seems a lot of money”, but when I asked her what she thought about so much money going in rents to landlords, she immediately changed her mind. We cannot create policy by giving people insufficient information.

[Chris Grayling]

You’d think they hadn’t been in government for a generation!

As we stand here, we still do not know exactly where Labour stands. I cannot, hand on heart, say, when the House divides in a minute’s time, whether Labour Members will vote for the benefit cap or against it. We asked the question again and again but they would not answer. They dance around the issue and come up with lame last-ditch excuses and new ideas that they did not discuss in Committee. At the end of the day, they do not want to give an answer to the public. In a moment, they will have to give that answer, because out there are millions of people watching us this afternoon, asking, “Will the House of Commons back something we passionately believe in?” We on this side of the House will be walking through the Division Lobby tonight in support of a benefit cap. We will be backing the views of our constituents; the question is: will the Opposition? Will the shadow Secretary of State, will the shadow Minister, will all the people who we have listened to in debates in Committee and in this Chamber—

Youth Unemployment and Bank Bonuses

Debate between Sheila Gilmore and Chris Grayling

Monday 23rd January 2012 Commons Chamber

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

Let me start by making it absolutely clear that tackling unemployment and youth unemployment is right at the top of the Government’s list of priorities. I share the frustration of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) at some of the comments from Opposition Members. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education, to whom I pay tribute, is firmly of the view that the decline in the teaching of history in this country is a lamentable failing in our education system, and we realise precisely why when we listen to the Opposition. They have forgotten the history not of 10 or 100 years ago, but of two years ago: the mess they left behind for us.

Someone listening to Opposition Members tonight might think that youth unemployment had been created in the past 18 months, but the truth is that when Labour left office 18 months ago youth unemployment stood at 940,000. It has since risen by 100,000, which we wish had not happened. Half of that increase has come from students in full-time education looking for part-time work. The Opposition talk about surging youth unemployment, and I get increasingly frustrated by their use of figures, because they keep up the spurious claim that long-term youth unemployment under this Government has rocketed, but that is utterly untrue. A like-for-like comparison that removes all of the ways in which they massage the figures reveals that long-term youth unemployment today is actually lower than it was two years ago. There is one other fact that they do not mention: fewer people in this country are on out-of-work benefits today than were at the time of the general election. Let us hear nothing about the failures of the past 18 months, and let us never forget the failings of 13 years of Labour government.

We have had a thoughtful debate and heard some sensible contributions, including those from my hon. Friends the Members for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley), for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), for Bristol West (Stephen Williams), for Salisbury (John Glen), for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) and for Gloucester (Richard Graham). We have also had a snapshot of the past, present and future of the Labour party. On the future of the party, I must say that the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) made some thoughtful contributions on things the Government might do, and I listened carefully to what she said. We also had a bit of a throwback from the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher), who talked about bankers’ bonuses while conveniently forgetting that the bankers’ bonus pool in the City of London was twice as big under Labour as it is today.

I was also struck by the lack of ambition among Labour Members. When they went through their plans yet again—we have to bear it in mind that the money from their proposed bankers’ bonus tax has been announced for nine different things so far; another bit of history they have conveniently forgotten—we realised that the reality is that they are talking about creating 100,000 places in a replacement for the future jobs fund. I see that as rather unambitious, because the package of support we have put together will help, and is helping, far more young people into employment.

We have a clear strategy to support the creation of jobs in the economy and provide help for those people, older and younger, who are looking for work. We have set out some of those measures. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury team set out in the autumn statement a range of proposals to do everything we can to stimulate and support the growth of business. I am particularly pleased that in the last quarter private sector employment in the economy increased at a time when we face huge economic challenges that were described recently by the Governor of the Bank of England as probably the most difficult in modern peace time history, if not ever. Yet against that background we are determined to give business every opportunity to grow and develop through investment in infrastructure, measures in the tax system and the measures we are taking to deregulate—for example, in relation to health and safety—in order to support business growth. There is no other way of securing the future of our work force or job creation in the economy.

We cannot go back to the uncertainty and instability under the previous Government and under the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), who is chuntering away on the Front Bench and forgets the severe damage that he and his colleagues did to the economy when they were in office.

Alongside the work that we will do and are doing to ensure that business has the best possible opportunity to grow and to create jobs, however, we have put in place a package of support for the unemployed that I believe is more ambitious and more successful than anything that the previous Government did.

Let us start with our work experience scheme, which will double in size under the youth contract and is already helping large numbers of young people to move into work.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I am sure the Minister agrees that work experience programmes should give people skills that they do not already have, and perhaps confidence if they have not worked for a long time, so why has it been made compulsory for people who have already done the work or had the training to go into jobs such as shelf-stacking, on which I know the Conservative party is so keen? Why is that relevant to people who already have such experience?

[Chris Grayling]

I simply cannot understand the view that Opposition Members have of our retail sector. Our larger retailers are national and international businesses, with hugely varied career opportunities for young people. The manager of a single supermarket can run a £100 million business, so let nobody say that giving an unemployed young person the opportunity to show to a supermarket chain their ability to contribute to that organisation is nothing but a possible footstone for a long-term career.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, because more than half the young people who are going through our work experience scheme are moving off benefits quickly afterwards. When we make a comparison with the future jobs fund, from which about half moved off benefits immediately afterwards, we find the total cost of that scheme was between £5,000 and £6,000 per placement, whereas the total cost of our work experience scheme—of achieving a similar result—is about £300 per placement. Which do Opposition Members think represents better value for the taxpayer?

Alongside that, we are also delivering 170,000 wage subsidies, through the youth contract, to employers who take on young people, and that is the big difference between our philosophy and that of the Opposition, who simply want to recreate another scheme with artificial, six-month job placements in the public or voluntary sectors. We are trying to create a path to a long-term career for young people. That is what the wage subsidies in the youth contract will do, and it is also why we have expanded by so many the number of available apprenticeships. They are not about short-term placements; they are about building long-term career opportunities. Since we took office, we have increased massively the availability of apprenticeships in the economy, precisely because we believe that our young people are best served by creating a path that they can follow to a long-term career opportunity.

The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) talked about the Work programme, which is providing much better and more intensive support for the long-term unemployed than previous schemes, and about the flexible new deal, which we inherited last year. Let me, however, give him some statistics about that. It cost the Department for Work and Pensions £770 million, and it achieved 50,000 job outcomes in six months—at a cost of £14,000 per job outcome. Does that represent good value for money or a programme worth keeping? Does anybody seriously believe that that programme had the effect he describes?

I am confident that, by contrast, the Work programme will deliver results because it is based on payment by results, and because we have created an environment in which the organisations, large and small, that are delivering the programme are paid only when they succeed in getting somebody into long-term employment. Having now been around the country and visited almost all the providers, I have seen a team of people who are motivated, determined and succeeding in getting the unemployed back to work. I meet people who have not worked for years but who have got back into employment, and people who did not believe they could get back into work but are getting back into employment.

When we publish the figures, and we will, I look forward to demonstrating that that approach makes a difference to the prospects of the long-term unemployed in this country—

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Sheila Gilmore and Chris Grayling

Monday 23rd January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

That does not follow because the Löfstedt review—and the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller)—identified many areas in which the rules and codes of conduct are too complicated and difficult for businesses to understand. We need to get back to a simple regime that is easy to understand and does what it is supposed to do: protect people from death and serious injury in the workplace.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Given that the Löfstedt report does not say that our health and safety legislation is either excessive or wrong, will the Minister also say that and stop peddling the myths on health and safety legislation—the Löfstedt report says that they are myths—that some of his colleagues keep peddling?

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Lady misunderstands the challenge we face. It is not Members of the House peddling myths; they are peddled all around the country, by local authority inspectors and middle managers in organisations who blame health and safety for things that have no basis in health and safety law. If we have a simplified regime that everyone can understand, it is much less likely that they can get away with doing that.

Unemployment

Debate between Sheila Gilmore and Chris Grayling

Wednesday 14th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

The report issued by the Office for Budget Responsibility at the time of the autumn statement made it clear that the boom was greater and the recession sharper and deeper than had previously been thought. It also stated that the recovery in 2009 was stronger than had previously been thought, and that it was brought to an abrupt halt in the second half of 2010. Perhaps the Minister would like to reflect on what happened in 2010 to change things.

[Chris Grayling]

What the hon. Lady has missed is that the OBR said at the time of the autumn statement that the structural deficit—not the cyclical deficit—that we inherited from the previous Government was much worse than it had previously believed. That means that the economic legacy that we inherited was much worse than we had previously believed. It is therefore a much bigger task to overcome that and to get the economy growing again, to get jobs being created again and to get Britain moving.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Sheila Gilmore and Chris Grayling

Monday 28th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

From what the hon. Gentleman says, I do not think that he is describing our work experience scheme. If he wants to write to me about the individual case, I will look at whether it is due to something that the Government are doing or something else.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Will the Minister comment on reports that even young people with qualifications are being sent for 13 weeks of shelf stacking? What sort of experience is that giving them?

[Chris Grayling]

I am always very disappointed to hear Members attacking major employers such as our supermarkets. A few months ago I met a man who had been long-term unemployed, who was given a job at one of our major supermarkets and who, within a few months, had graduated to running a department of 20. These are major employers with good opportunities, and we are about giving young people a start in life.

Youth Unemployment

Debate between Sheila Gilmore and Chris Grayling

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I want to make a bit progress first.

Let me now deal with the second element of our strategy: how we will deal with long-term youth unemployment, a problem that has become much more acute now that we have stopped massaging the figures and hiding the real picture. I believe that the Work programme will make a real difference to those young people. It has been up and running for four months—

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Grayling]

I think that the programme is doing good work. I have visited providers throughout the country—

[Sheila Gilmore]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Grayling]

I extend an invitation to Members on both sides of the House to visit their local Work programme providers. They can contact my office if necessary to arrange the introduction. I think that they will be impressed by the work that is being done.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

We will publish details of what is happening in due course, but I can tell the House now that more people have been referred to the Work programme than we originally projected, that it is growing fast, and that a large number of providers are having a great deal of success in getting people into work.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Grayling]

I pay tribute to one of our providers, EOS in the west midlands, which has just achieved its 1,000th job placement. I congratulate all its staff on their success—

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

Absolutely. The Department for Education is working hard to remedy the failings of our schools system in partnership with my hon. Friend the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning, who is working with the FE sector to try to deliver a much better quality of vocational education. That, along with the partnership that now exists between my Department and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, will ensure that the unemployed are presented with a genuinely joined-up offer of an opportunity to obtain the skills that they need, and it represents a real step change from what we saw in the past.

The third element of the support—

[Sheila Gilmore]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Grayling]

I will.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheila Gilmore]

I am obliged to the Minister for finally noticing me.

Is it not the Minister himself who is trying to have the question of the Work programme both ways? He does not want to publish figures on a national basis, but when he chooses, he will use figures plucked from we know not where to prove that the programme is working. Can he explain exactly how a work programme ever creates any jobs?

[Chris Grayling]

The point of the Work programme is very straightforward. We have a team of organisations throughout the country helping people to get into work. We pay them if they succeed. Fortunately, they seem to be making a good start. In due course, when I can do so, under national statistics rules, I will publish information for the benefit of the whole House. I want to expose to the whole market who is doing well and who is doing less well, so that there is competitive pressure on organisations to become the lead provider. I will publish those figures as soon as I can according to national statistics rules, and as soon as the programme has been going long enough for them to be reliable.

The third point—

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Sheila Gilmore and Chris Grayling

Monday 13th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I am saying to him precisely what he said to me all those years ago—that many of the details will be dealt with in secondary legislation. The Bill contains a framework that will include, among other things, provision for a child care element in universal credit. That is fundamental, and we all agree that there should be such an element, just as there should be elements relating to disability and to other aspects of the current benefits system that need to be replicated in universal credit.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Why does the Minister expect us—and, indeed, the general public—to accept his statements about the impact of this huge reform when so much of the detail in unknown? Is it not reasonable for us to request the details that will tell us whether people are in fact going to be better off?

[Chris Grayling]

I expect it for precisely the same reason that the right hon. Member for East Ham expected me to support his education measures 10 years ago. He asked me to take on trust many of the same kinds of thing that I am asking the House to accept today. We have been completely transparent in setting out the different stages of the formulation of universal credit, and about the consultation processes that we have been through to fill in the details. We have also been clear and transparent in setting out the principles that we are following in trying to fill in those details.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

It is not our intention that routine or minor changes in circumstances would lead to the loss of transitional protection. The requirement for child care clearly fluctuates during the course of the year, but follows a set pattern. It is not our intention for a moment to remove transitional protection in that situation, nor is it our intention to remove it in an environment in which there is an annual increase—RPI or CPI—in the rate of child care. We are looking at material changes in circumstances, and I certainly would not envisage the change from term time to holidays as a material change.

The other issue that I have with the Opposition’s proposals is that they would remove the ability for people to take up mini jobs. For women re-entering the workplace after a lengthy time out of it, there is a bigger barrier than needs to be the case. One of the strengths of the universal credit system is the flexibility for people to take on mini jobs. The level of prescription set out in the Opposition’s proposals would set up unnecessary and inappropriate barriers to getting people back to work.

[Sheila Gilmore]

In Committee, we heard a great deal about these mini jobs. We have just heard the Minister say that we should not be worried about the effect on parents of children of school age because a job could be encompassed within school hours. Why is it so necessary to take money away from people who are trying to improve their families’ prospects of getting out of poverty in order to help people in mini jobs—although I do not fully understand the concept—because surely those would be covered by school hours even more?

[Chris Grayling]

The changes we made last year—the reduction from 80% to 70% support—merely returned us to the situation that applied before 2006. On the mini jobs, I want us to spend the money we have on supporting people from deprived backgrounds and in the most deprived situations into the work place so that they can make the most of their lives. The mini job is a perfectly reasonable way of doing that. I also happen to think that for many lone parents, a mini job during schools hours is a perfectly reasonable alternative that might mean that the need for child care is not great. None the less, the option should be there. We should not be writing—this is the key point about some of the Opposition amendments—into primary legislation rules that cannot be undone for two or three years, while we wait for a parliamentary slot. Instead, we need to set out straightforwardly a situation in regulations that can be amended if the situation requires. I could not possibly accept an amendment from the right hon. Member for East Ham that would write into primary legislation actual amounts of benefits that should be paid. The Labour party would never have done that while in government. It would not have happened, and I am not going to tolerate the idea now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

The £2 billion contains sufficient money for us to be able to deliver the transitional protection and the various changes. I do not have the numbers in front of me, but I will happily write to the hon. Lady to give her the more detailed figures we have published so far. We have given a clear commitment to transitional protection. It costs what it costs, but we have made a sensible projection of what we believe it will cost, which is contained in the budget for the spending review period. It is important to ensure that there are no cash losers as a result of the transition, but it is impossible to make a big change of this kind without finding that people in subsequent years are in a different financial position from their counterparts in previous years. Inevitably, some will move one way; others will move another. The only fair and proper way of dealing with the situation is to ensure that everyone is protected in cash terms.

We think that we have put together a framework in part 1 that will give us the flexibility to introduce the universal credit and to fine-tune the proposals as necessary so that if we do not get everything quite right at the start, we can fine-tune as we go by, and that a future Government will have the flexibility to do that. We have made absolutely sure that we have the appropriate protections in place so that there is an element for child care, for parents, for those with disabilities, and so on and so forth.

We think we have created a sensible framework of the kind that in different areas of policy and in different ways were created through primary legislation by previous Governments, including the last Government. I do not believe for a second that it would be prudent to write into the Bill the sort of amendments that the Opposition have tabled. I have responded to their wish to see more measures brought forward on the affirmative rather than the negative procedure, which I think is right and proves that we will listen and make amendments where it is sensible to do so. I am afraid that the Opposition are seeking to write the sort of detail into the Bill that they would never have put in legislation when they were in government; they would never have followed that approach themselves. That is why I cannot possibly accept their amendments and why I ask the House to accept the Government new clauses and to reject the Opposition amendments.

[Sheila Gilmore]

The debate we have had—in Committee and this evening—shows some of the pitfalls of saying, “We are going to simplify benefits.” The Minister and his colleagues have said to the country generally, “We're going to simplify benefits. This is a simpler system, so it must, by definition, be a good thing.” They expected and, indeed, got from many people the answer, “We agree that benefits should be simplified.” The problem is that when dealing with real people and real situations it all becomes much more complicated, as our debates tonight and on previous occasions have demonstrated quite clearly.

The details of issues such as school meals, health charges and the even bigger matter of child care are extremely important, and will have a real impact on whether the new system works for people, will make them better off, and enables them to get into employment, stay in employment, improve their circumstances and get out of poverty. We all agree that, except for those who suffer from real and deep health problems, employment is the best way out of poverty. If, however, such an important element as child care is left so undefined, we cannot know the answer to that question.

Frankly, we are being asked to buy a pig in a poke. We are told, “If you don’t accept it, don’t vote for it or don't agree with it, you are throwing over the whole issue of welfare reform.” I do not accept that. Nor do I accept the Minister’s view that he was given that sort of response by the previous Government and that there should be simply a framework—an empty bookcase, as he was wont to say in Committee—as there was before. It seems to me that if he thought it was wrong then—and it sounds as if he did—it may still be wrong now. As I said in Committee, people should not be asked to buy that empty bookcase without knowing whether it contains classics or cheap comics.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Sheila Gilmore and Chris Grayling

Monday 28th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

19. What recent progress has been made on implementing the recommendations of the Harrington review of work capability assessment.

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

We are committed to taking forward Professor Harrington’s recommendations so that we can make the system we inherited from the previous Government fairer and more effective. Many of the changes he proposed are already in place, and we will implement the remainder by the summer, to coincide with the first work capability assessments of incapacity benefit claimants taking part in the full nationwide reassessment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheila Gilmore]

One of the findings of the Harrington report was that the Jobcentre Plus decision makers were not, in fact, making decisions; rather, they were simply rubber-stamping the Atos assessments. What steps have been taken to ensure that that is no longer the case, and will the Minister publish some figures on this so that we can have some reassurance that that has actually changed?

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. That was clearly one of the flaws in the system we inherited. We have retrained decision makers, instructing them to take into account a broader range of evidence than simply the assessment so that claimants now have the opportunity to submit proper evidence from their own medical practitioners, and we have made it absolutely clear to decision makers that they are in charge. We have also introduced a process of reconsideration within Jobcentre Plus to reinforce that process.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Sheila Gilmore and Chris Grayling

Monday 18th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

That is precisely the kind of negative politicking that I hope we will not have from the Opposition over the next few months. I believe, and I think that most Members believe, that people with long-term health problems are better off being helped back into the workplace, if possible. They are better off than they would be if they spent a lifetime on benefits, and that is what all the charities that work with them also say to us. I want to do the right thing by those people, and I hope that Members on both sides of the House will unite behind a programme designed to deliver that.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Contrary to the Minister’s earlier assertion that our Government did nothing to deal with incapacity benefit, I must say that that is clearly not the case, because all of us will have heard our constituents’ experience of the work capability test. The hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) mentioned some of the problems, and one issue that some of my constituents have raised is that written reports from their doctors or other people are not taken into account at all; the assessment is based simply on the test carried out by the company in question. Will the Minister agree to allow written documentation as part of the test?