Incapacity Benefit (Hansard, 12 October 2004)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham)
My Lords, let me say first that I am grateful to my noble friend for not pressing me on this Question in September, during a week in which major changes were made in my department. As a result I am able to give him a clearer Answer today than would have been the case. I thank him for that.
I can do no better than to quote the assurances given by my right honourable friend Alan Johnson, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who said yesterday in the House of Commons that, we have no such plans". When pressed, he added: I saw some of those press reports … None of them is based on fact … any longer term reform to incapacity benefit has to build on our existing approach in pathways to work".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/10/04; cols. 2–3.]

§ Lord Ashley of Stoke
My Lords, I warmly welcome that response. It is a very significant statement by herself and the Secretary of State. I also welcome the Government's splendid attempts to get people off incapacity benefit and back into productive work through the Pathways to Work scheme. These are great pluses for disabled people. However, I am not quite clear about the question of time limits. Although Mr Johnson referred to them yesterday, can we have an assurance that there will be no time limits on incapacity benefit? Finally, I turn to a question about the claimants of IB. Can my noble friend try to dispel some of the myths about these claimants by agreeing with me that the number of incorrect claims for incapacity benefit amounts to under 2 per cent, and over half of those are incorrect because disabled people are claiming too little rather than too much?

§ Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I am happy to give my noble friend the assurances he seeks. He asked first whether there is a categoric assurance that there will be no time limits on incapacity benefit. Obviously I can never say never, but what I do know is that you cannot bully people off incapacity benefit. If you change the structure of benefits, you do not necessarily get more people into work. All that 112 happens is that they go on to a different benefit and, in due course, come back on to IB. It is both decent and infinitely more effective to work with people's aspirations by helping them back into work, but in order to do so you have to work with them in the early months of their being on IB before, to put it bluntly, they have lost their nerve. That is what we are seeking to do and I am delighted that my noble friend supports me on this.
My noble friend also asked about the statistics for IB. It is the case that in 1995 almost 1 million people were new claimants to IB. That figure is now down to just over 600,000, so the number coming on to incapacity benefit has fallen dramatically. However, once someone has been on IB for a year, they are likely to stay on for eight years, while someone who has been on IB for two years is likely to remain on it for the rest of their life. Our difficulty lies in encouraging people back into work later on. My noble friend is again right when he says that there is no abuse. The amount of fraud in disability benefits is extremely limited.

§ Lord Higgins
My Lords, I assume that the initial remarks of the noble Baroness related to reports that the Government have a four-year plan to put strict time limits on incapacity benefit. However, when the Secretary of State was challenged on this yesterday and asked to rule it out, he said that he was, not in the business of ruling anything in or out".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/10/04; col. 3.] He went on to say that he had not been in the job for long and was considering the matter. Given that the noble Baroness has been in the job for quite some time, is she now ruling it out?

§ Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I can only refer to the answer I have just given to my noble friend: I cannot ever say never. What I am saying is that, if we are to get people into work—as they wish to do—and to stay in work, we know that the right way forward is to work with them. The Pathways to Work programme shows that we are getting double the number of entries into work of disabled people provided that we intervene during the first six months that they come on to benefit. We are working with health authorities, personal advisers and employers. The programme is extraordinarily cost effective and popular—people are trying to come on to it outside the pilot areas—and so far I am absolutely convinced that this is the right way to go forward. As I have said, you cannot bully people off incapacity benefit because all that will happen is that they will move on to another benefit.

§ Baroness Fookes
My Lords, is the Minister aware of the excellent work done by the organisation Tomorrow's People, of which I am a patron and so declare an interest? The organisation works one to one 113 with the long-term unemployed and is now very much involved in helping those who are on incapacity benefit.

§ Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I am not aware of the details of the work undertaken by the organisation, but I have certainly heard it referred to in glowing terms.

§ The Countess of Mar
My Lords, I know that the noble Baroness is aware of my long-term concerns for people suffering from chronic fatigue syndrome, also known as ME, and the way the Benefits Agency treats them. I have been asking Questions on this matter since 1994. Can the noble Baroness confirm that people suffering from ME and others who have fluctuating symptoms will not be treated as though they are scroungers or psychiatric cases and be forced into work when it is well known that too much stress will make them even more sick, resulting in them going back on to incapacity benefit in no time?

§ Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I do not disagree with the noble Countess, Lady Mar. To say that such people are being treated merely as psychiatric cases does not exclude them from incapacity benefit. Indeed, some 38 per cent of those on IB are claiming on the grounds of mental ill health. Like the noble Countess, I would challenge anyone who thinks that mental ill health is a less serious condition than physical ill health. So I agree with her that where someone is clearly incapacitated for work and has not been able to show that they have a capacity to work under the personal capability assessment test, they are indeed entitled to incapacity benefit. However, I hope that with Pathways to Work and by working closely with local health authorities, we can get all our clients on incapacity benefit who seek to do so back into the labour market.

§ Baroness Wilkins
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there are many complex reasons why disabled people find it difficult to get off incapacity benefit and back into work? Does she further agree that the great majority of cases are not about individuals not wanting to work but are due to external factors? What do the Government plan to do to tackle the great range of external factors, which will require considerable resources?

§ Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, there is a range of issues. Obviously there is the state of health of the individual concerned and also—this cannot be overstated—the length of time involved. For the first 12 months, people on incapacity benefit are desperate to get into work. From my experience, after about 12 months—certainly after two years—they are desperate to protect their benefit. There is a real job in building up not only someone's physical health but their self-esteem and willingness to take the risk of change and so on. That obviously must be allied with encouraging employers to open their activities to disabled people. As 114 my noble friend will know, we are seeking fairly soon to bring forward a disability rights Bill which, in conjunction with Pathways to Work, should make it much easier for disabled people to do what they wish to do—and join the world of work.