Mr.
Harper: The Minister mentioned the contact centres. My
understanding is that there are 64 benefit centres, only one of which
will have the IT system in place by the date on which the benefits will
start. In answer to written questions that I have tabled, Ministers
have confirmed that in the other benefit centres, everything will be
done manually. He expects about 28,000 benefit claimants a month, which
sounds like an awful lot of claims to be handled on paper. That sounds
like a recipe for a lot of confusion and a lot of postbags being filled
up over the next year or
so.
Jonathan
Shaw: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point.
Members in this House will want to be confident that the delivery
systems are in place. This will be a considerable transformation. I do
not doubt that some inspiration on that point will come to me any
moment—one
never knows what might fall out of the sky. Hon. Members will understand
that I have attempted to cram information on this subject matter and
policy area over the weekend.
Mr.
Stuart: The Minister will be aware of the difficulties
that people have, particularly in rural areas. Perhaps I may briefly
mention that Jo White, an adviser who ran a freelance advisory service
in my constituency, is now no longer able to sustain that and has gone
out, supported people in rural areas and had an 80 per cent. success
rate on appeal. There are many people stuck in rural areas who, through
the existing state system, do not get the support that they deserve. I
hope that the Minister will look carefully at that, especially when
bringing in new regulations.
Jonathan
Shaw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman—he and I
have discussed matters rural in another job. As part of the
Government’s policy for mainstreaming, it is vital that our
Department has those discussions and takes advice from DEFRA. There has
been good joint working on a number of projects affecting people
claiming benefits in rural areas. As the hon. Gentleman will know,
overall socio-economic levels may be high, but they might mask certain
areas of deprivation and isolation. It is important to remain conscious
of people who live, for example, in constituencies in Yorkshire such as
his.
The hon.
Gentleman makes a point about appeals. We are all aware of people who
have an expertise in supporting people in their appeals. Often, and I
am sure that hon. Members will bear me out, when we see a constituent
who has been turned down for a particular benefit, we see if we can
identify new information—things that perhaps the constituent had
not thought of in the first place. DWP and Jobcentre Plus make their
assessment on the information in front of them. Often, appeals are
upheld because new information is presented to the tribunal. That is an
important aspect.
Jenny
Willott: It is true that appeals where there is an adviser
who supports the claimant have a high success rate—at the moment
with the personal capability assessment, that tends to be around 70 per
cent. Even for those claimants without an adviser, the overall success
rate on appeal is 57 per cent., which is high. As the new assessment is
brought in with the work capability assessment replacing the current
system, how confident is the Minister that the training and new systems
that have been put in place will reduce that? Those who currently work
in the system are not confident that there is any chance of it
improving.
Jonathan
Shaw: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that comment as
it brings me to the point on which I wished to expand. The existing
system gives a snapshot of a person at that time. Hon. Members will
recall cases—I give a hypothetical example rather than an
accurate account—in which someone who has gone for an assessment
is asked, “Can you walk? Can you manage a certain
distance?”, and the claimant, or constituent, says, “Yes,
I think I can manage that,” because they could manage it on that
day. However, when we say to those people, “But you cannot
manage it today, and you probably cannot manage it next week,”
they say, “I tried my best. I thought it was the right thing to
do.” They
are precisely the people who we want to ensure get an accurate
assessment. That is why the new arrangements will look at
people’s life as a whole, and their overall condition, rather
than just a snapshot. We have endeavoured to introduce our new
assessments processes with the involvement of all of those who are
concerned about the welfare-to-work agenda and supporting disabled
people’s groups.
To finish off
the important point about contact centres, which the hon. Member for
Forest of Dean asked about, I can tell the Committee
that—
Mr.
Harper: Now that the Minister is
inspired.
Jonathan
Shaw: Indeed. This was one nugget of information that
escaped me over the course of the weekend. Perhaps I should have given
the hon. Gentleman a call. [Interruption. ] I am
sure that the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East wants to
ensure that we have a good flow of information to the Whip from a
sedentary position, rather than any sort of
adversarial— [Interruption.] He is not as nice as I
thought he
was.
Mr.
Harper: He is a
Whip.
Jonathan
Shaw: Well, I am a former Whip, and it takes one to
know one.
There will be
six contact centres, and all will have IT that will go live. We are
testing the whole benefit delivery system from end to end, where we can
key in a claim to get benefit, but there will not be a large clerical
process from the first day. We will ensure that our systems are in
place and that the IT is there to manage the delivery
carefully.
Mr.
Harper: The reason I asked the question is that I recently
received a written answer that said something quite different. The
written answer provoked a letter from the chief executive of Jobcentre
Plus, which specifically said that only one out of 63 of the benefit
delivery centres would have the IT in place and that the rest of them
would be doing it clerically. I therefore calculated, looking at the
on-flow of benefits, how many claimants we would be looking at per
month, and thought that that sounded rather extraordinary, hence my
question. Will the Minister check whether that position has changed
since the chief executive wrote to me a few weeks ago, and if so,
perhaps a new letter could be furnished and placed in the Library of
the House for the benefit of all hon.
Members?
Jonathan
Shaw: I am grateful for that comment because it is
important that all hon. Members have accurate information. They must
have confidence that we have the necessary systems in place to deliver
the new benefits. I accept the hon. Gentleman’s invitation and I
will write to him with the most up-to-date information, and ensure that
all hon. Members have a copy of the
letter. The
hon. Gentleman referred to mistakes in the regulation. Hands
up—yes, we have made amendments to the regulations, and that is
right and proper. I thank a number of organisations for pointing those
out.
The hon.
Member for Cardiff, Central asked whether there had been communication
with general practitioners. That is an important point, and I can
assure hon. Members that there has been extensive and thorough
communication through a GP publication and an ESA pack, which has been
sent to all GP surgeries across the UK. We believe that that contains
all the information
that GPs require, but, as with other issues, we will see. We have put
these new arrangements in place to the best of our endeavours and we
are confident that they will work. In terms of the levers that are
available within the Department in Whitehall, however, we cannot be
absolutely sure or give an absolute guarantee that every GP will get
the information. I will not put my hand on my heart and say that that
is what will happen. However, if hon. Members find that important
people in their constituencies do not have it—GPs, for example,
who are central and will be a key component part of ensuring that the
system works, and who provide confidence to their patients—I
should be pleased if they let me know. I would value that
feedback. The
hon. Member for Forest of Dean and my hon. Friend the Member for
Walthamstow mentioned the housing benefit review. We will be reviewing
all housing benefit. We understand that there are issues relating to
how the ESA will be delivered and we want to ensure that it is fair.
However, we need to consider the enormity of the task of reviewing
housing benefit, which is a key component part of getting right the
whole equation of people’s being better off in work, rather than
on benefit. We cannot do it on a piecemeal basis; we have to do it in
its entirety. The Department will undertake that work. We look forward
to bringing those proposals to the House and to wider society for
consultation. I assure hon. Members that we will keep the matter under
review.
Mr.
Harper: Will the Minister tell us roughly when the House
might expect those
proposals?
Jonathan
Shaw: I am not in a position to advise the hon. Gentleman
about the time scale that we are working to, but as soon as we are in a
position to do so, we will advise the House
accordingly. The
hon. Member for Cardiff, Central mentioned permitted work. The ESA will
be more generous than incapacity benefit in its treatment of people who
are in part-time employment while still on benefits; it will extend the
higher £92 limit to the income-related side. The limit is only
£20 on income support, so the ESA permitted work level is
generous. A typical claimant on ESA of £84.50 a week and earning
£92 under permitted work limits would have an income of
£176.50 a week after tax, not counting their housing benefit or
disability living allowance. That would, in many instances, be similar
to their income in full-time work and off
ESA.
Jenny
Willott: Will the Minister confirm that that applies
specifically to those on income-based ESA, not to those on
contributions-based ESA? That is the point of contention for many hon.
Members.
Jonathan
Shaw: Yes, I can confirm that. In terms of the contention
that hon. Members brought to these regulations, I want to set in
context all our investment and expense on this new programme. We will
need to keep reviewing certain areas to ensure that people are not
unduly disadvantaged. However, there is a whole-scale advantage with
the investment of the £400 million and, indeed, with the
£1.1 billion for Pathways to Work. On top of that, we are
investing in Access to Work, and our doubling of that programme has
been widely welcomed. All the changes should be viewed in their
entirety. However, we have to operate within some pretty tight
financial
constraints.
Jenny
Willott: Although the Committee welcomes the increase in
the Access to Work budget—hon. Members from all parties have
said that they appreciate that—the fundamental point for me is
the fundamental unfairness of treating two people differently who are,
in all financial circumstances, identical apart from the fact that one
has worked and the other has not. We are treating those two people
unfairly and differently. The person who has contributed and has worked
in the past could be significantly worse
off. I
appreciate what the Minister says about the other benefits, but those
accrue to everybody, regardless of their previous employment history.
He has not clarified and confirmed to the Committee what can be done to
improve the situation for those who are being discriminated against by
the
regulations.
Jonathan
Shaw: We will keep the permitted work rules under constant
review, and we are considering more flexible ways to help more people
to take up opportunities and increase their options without fear of
their benefits being removed. We will continue to do that. I
remember—a whole hairline ago—when I was a care assistant
working with adults with learning disabilities that therapeutic
earnings, as they were then called, were very restrictive in terms of
people’s opportunity to earn any income while retaining their
benefits. We will consider ways in which we can be flexible, but we
have to operate within the envelope that we
have.
John
Penrose: I want to pick the Minister up on his last
response, because it sounded as though he was trying to avoid saying,
but none the less meant, that he accepted that this was an enduring
problem and that the difficulties that Opposition Members have been
describing exist, but he just did not have an answer to them. I want to
press him further on this issue, because it is only one example of the
disincentives to work encased in the difference between the
income-based and the contributions-based versions of the ESA. Surely,
given those differences—this relates not just to permitted work,
but to benefit levels and many other things, too—many people
will be reluctant to leave their existing benefits and take a job,
which may only be temporary. Often, people use a seasonable job as a
beginning, and they will find that they are worse off when they come
back, because they have some contributions under their belt. Surely,
that is the central issue, but I have not yet heard the Minister give a
good
answer.
Jonathan
Shaw: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, the central
issue is what the entire package involves. When we instituted the
pathways programme, which provided people with support and for the
first time put some conditionality to their benefits, people got into
work. We are not setting up a programme that will provide disincentives
and penalise people. We are setting up a programme that far more
generously provides the infrastructure for people to get off benefits
and into work, and we are providing that choice for them in a very
supportive way—for many of them, for the first time
ever.
I accept that
there are differences in the system in terms of the contribution and
the income-related matters as the benefit comes together, but I do not
accept the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion that it will provide a
disincentive to work. If we take that point in isolation, we can see
how he makes a logical argument with it, but it is not fair to say that
it is isolated, given the infrastructure and the investments that we
are making across the
piece. The
hon. Member for Forest of Dean made some accusations. He said that
commitments made by the Secretary of State to pay ESA above the current
rate of long-term incapacity benefit for the main phase have not been
met. I do not think that that is fair. We have acted in good faith.
Those in the work-related activity group will receive £84.50 and
those most severely disabled—those in the support
group—will receive £89.50, and those rates are well above
the long-term IB of £81.35. In reforming IB, we wanted to target
additional financial support on the most severely disabled people in
our community, and in keeping with that, we have agreed substantially
higher rates still for that vulnerable group. That is why we announced
an additional £5 extra for the automatic enhanced disability
premium passport for those in the support group, thus guaranteeing them
a minimum income of £102.10 before their DLA or housing benefit.
Many of them would currently receive only £86.35, so they will
be nearly £16 a week better off. This is certainly not a cut
agenda. We are paying the proposed ESA rates to new customers,
including the enhanced disability premium passport, which will cost an
additional £400 million over the five years, despite the
constraints that we will operate
under. My
colleague is tugging at my coat, which tells me that it is time to wind
up. I am sorry that I got a little lost in the snow of paper on my
desk, but I believe that the regulations herald a new way to institute
a benefits regime that helps people to come off benefits and into work.
Work, as we know, is good for
us. Question
put:— The
Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes
6.
| 
