Benefits: Eligibility

Question

Tabled by

To ask His Majesty’s Government what criteria they use to assess the eligibility of people claiming benefits, such as Employment and Support Allowance and Universal Credit, due to ill health; and how frequently these claims are reviewed.

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott, and with her permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in her name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, before I answer the noble Viscount’s Question, I briefly pay tribute to Alan Haselhurst—Baron Haselhurst—who retired from this place during the Christmas Recess. When I was first elected to the other place in 1997, Alan was the Senior Deputy Speaker and always dealt with the many new MPs with a great deal of patience. I do not remember him ever losing his temper, despite my best efforts, and he was a great Deputy Speaker. He will be much missed, certainly by me. I am in danger of waxing lyrical, so I had better get to the Question.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his Question. The work capability assessment—the WCA—determines eligibility for ESA and the additional health-related amount of universal credit. It assesses an individual against a set of legal definitions to determine their ability to work. The department prioritises WCAs for new claims; reassessments occur when there is a need to redetermine capability for work, which itself is a separate process. The frequency of when claims are reassessed is determined by an understandably limited capacity.

I echo the Minister’s words about Lord Haselhurst; I completely agree with him.

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has acknowledged that addressing long-term sickness is key to the PM’s priority mission to boost economic growth. She has promised to address spiralling economic inactivity. We all understand that support must be provided to those who are generally unable to work. However, according to the ONS, 21.9% of all 16 to 64 year-olds are economically inactive. I am sure the House agrees that these numbers are completely unsustainable for the taxpayer and the individuals concerned, and to achieve growth. What is the Government’s current sanctions policy? Will they introduce new sanctions on those who are capable of work but refuse to?

I cannot disagree with much of what the noble Viscount said, but I cannot give a particularly full answer to every question he asked because, as I think he is aware, a Green Paper is due in the spring. This will include a consultation on various changes to benefits, including UC and ESA. At the moment, the system remains much the same. However, there have been certain changes. The Get Britain Working White Paper was released a while ago and it includes about £245 million directed at a group he talked about—18 to 24 year-olds. That includes personal support and a youth guarantee, which promises 18 to 24 year-olds in the pilot areas an apprenticeship, a route to work or full-time education.

My Lords, the move to universal credit is impacting income-based ESA claimants. Will my noble friend the Minister and his ministerial colleagues in DWP, noting that these claimants would always be the most vulnerable, provide your Lordships’ House with assurances that all efforts will be made to put in place adequate safeguards to protect them?

I appreciate everything that the noble Baroness said. I was a Member of the other place when universal credit was introduced, which is some years ago now, and the process was very complicated. I am not making a party-political point—although I could—but the process was extremely complicated, every time a new cohort was moved on to UC. However, the particular issue she raised is about claimants on ESA only or ESA with housing benefit, who started receiving migration notices from September last year. This gave them a reasonable amount of notice that they would be moving to UC, the aim of which was to give individual assistance to those experiencing difficulties in the move to UC by the end of December 2025. The window is fairly wide; it gives a lot of opportunities to iron out any difficulties. In addition, the department provides what is now called the enhanced support journey—ESJ—for claimants moving to UC from ESA. That supports the more vulnerable claimants to make the transition to universal credit.

My Lords, the Government’s White Paper, Get Britain Working, which I welcome, has the ambitious aim of moving almost 2 million people from benefits into employment. However, there are huge issues around the data regarding the 2.8 million people of working age currently on incapacity or disability benefits. Can the Minister confirm that, of the fit notes issued by doctors, 70% do not record an individual’s diagnosis, meaning that we do not know the primary health conditions for the vast majority of these claimants?

I am grateful for the question, but I do not recognise the figure of 70%. The noble Viscount is accurate in saying that the ambition is to move 2 million people into work. The traditional view, which still holds credibility, is that being in work is not just the best way out of poverty but that people in work are generally much healthier than people who are not. The problem is that, under the previous Government, we saw a situation develop where roughly 60% of households in poverty have at least one person in work. That had never been the case before in British history. That itself provides all sorts of complexities and problems, which we are trying to deal with, partly through the White Paper, which he mentioned, but also through the Green Paper, which introduces the consultation in the spring.

My Lords, seven in 10 refused claims for personal independence payments are overturned after mandatory reconsideration, even before appeal. Data has shown that the DWP spent £22.8 million on mandatory reconsiderations and £24.5 million on appeals in the 2022-23 financial year. Do the Government agree that the assessment process is massively failing disabled people and putting them under unnecessary stress? Is it not time that the Government made the assessment shambles fit for purpose, starting with the form itself, so that claimants receive their entitlement without the stress of initial refusals and lengthy and intimidating appeals?

The noble Baroness raises a perfectly reasonable question. However, I point out that the mandatory reconsideration process was changed—this was under the previous Government, to give them credit. For one thing, it was brought in-house, whereas it used to be contracted out, and made more straightforward. More recently, as was contained in the White Paper which I talked about earlier, assessors have been given more time. The noble Baroness will be aware that, some time ago, there was a system of target-driven assessments. That is what led to the fairly inhumane treatment of people who were disabled. The system is not perfect—and through bitter personal experience I agree that it is not perfect. It has been improved, but we are looking to improve it further through the consultation in the spring.

My Lords, I want to follow on from the Question from the noble Viscount, Lord Younger. The Work and Pensions Secretary has said:

“If people repeatedly refuse to take up the training or work responsibilities, there will be sanctions on their benefits”.

Please can the Minister provide the House with a rough date for when he thinks we can expect to see these sanctions introduced?

I appreciate the noble Earl’s question. The new regime of sanctions will not start to see the light of day until spring next year, with the Green Paper and the consultation, but sanctions are already in place.

I should correct one thing. I mentioned earlier the youth guarantee, in response to the noble Lord. I said that it applied to 18 to 24 year-olds, but it applies to 18 to 21 year-olds. I apologise for that error.

My Lords, the Government have made clear their ambition to get more people with health conditions and disabilities into work. What plans are in place to ensure employers consistently implement the reasonable adjustments required of them in the Equality Act and do not discriminate against disabled people?

I appreciate the question, but the right reverend Prelate would have to be more specific. Employers come under the Equality Act, and therefore, like anybody in the country, have to abide by the existing legal framework. If there are any specific areas where there is evidence that employers are not complying with the legal framework, he would have to raise those specifically.