3rd Report – Get Britain Working: Pathways to Work

We agree that recent increases in spending on health-related welfare, as well as future spending projections, are concerning, but at the same time, we cannot ignore the fact that spending on non-health related, non-pensioner welfare has fallen, especially given the possibility that the increase in the first might be partly the result of the reduction in the second. (Conclusion, Paragraph 25)

We agree that the incapacity benefit system is broken. It focuses too much on what people cannot do and on assessing claimants’ eligibility for benefits, rather than on supporting them into work. As concluded by many of the most reputable authorities in this area, the disparity in rates and conditionality rules has no doubt impacted on economic inactivity. Whether people are being parked on benefits depends largely, however, on the barriers to their engaging with the available employment support or attempting to move into work. The Government recognises this point in the Green Paper and has set out proposals to address the challenges. The success of its reforms, which we discuss later in our report, will depend on whether it really can improve levels of trust in the system. (Conclusion, Paragraph 36)

Trends in health-related benefit spending cannot be properly understood without appreciating the impact of rising ill-health and financial insecurity. The disparity between the standard and higher rates, for example, would not be nearly so great an incentive to claim were those affected not struggling financially. If a disabled person is struggling financially, they are obviously far more likely to claim benefits for which they are eligible but which they might previously not have thought about claiming. The combination of rising ill-health and financial insecurity cannot account for all the increase in caseloads but is certainly a significant contributory factor. (Conclusion, Paragraph 45) 64

The accessibility of workplaces is highly relevant to the Government’s reforms, especially since it has predicated its criticisms of the Work Capability Assessment partly on there being a range of jobs and adaptations available in the labour market. We will return to this subject in a future Get Britain Working inquiry. (Conclusion, Paragraph 49) Changes to PIP eligibility and UC rates

We are sympathetic to the intention behind the changes to UC rates and we agree with the importance of increasing the standard allowance. As such, we warmly welcome the desperately needed increases in the standard allowance, although we hope the Government will give serious consideration to further increases before the end of the Parliament. The Minister gave us reason to think he was keeping an open mind on this. We also welcome the decision not to freeze UC health for existing claimants. We remain concerned, however, that the significant reduction in UC health for new claimants after April 2026 will push many disabled people further into poverty and away from the labour market, even with the increase in the standard allowance. (Conclusion, Paragraph 98)

We recommend that the Government consider implementing further increases to the standard allowance over the life of the Parliament, in addition to those provided for in the Universal Credit Bill. We also call on the Government to delay the reduction in UC health until it has carried out an independent and comprehensive assessment of the impact the change could have on disabled people. (Recommendation, Paragraph 99)

We are pleased the Government has provided some clarity about how those with the most severe, lifelong conditions will be protected, at least until the removal of the Work Capability Assessment, and we look forward to the publication of the White Paper in the autumn, which will set out the Government’s long-term plans for protecting this group. We also welcome the fact that those in this group will benefit from the decision not to freeze UC health for the rest of the Parliament. However, we have some concerns about those conditions, especially serious mental health conditions, that might not be caught under the severe conditions criteria and about the extent to which the Government consulted with stakeholders on those eligibility criteria. (Conclusion, Paragraph 100)

We ask that the Government set out what conversations it had with stakeholders about the eligibility criteria for the protected rate of UC health for those with the most severe, lifelong conditions, and any assessment it has made about the types of serious conditions, especially mental health conditions, that might not qualify. (Recommendation, Paragraph 101) 65

The change to eligibility for the daily living component of the Personal Independence Payment was always the source of greatest concern and anger. This was partly because it appeared to many that the Government was treating PIP as an incapacity benefit, although we recognise that, as the Minister said, a large majority of PIP recipients are not in work. (Conclusion, Paragraph 102)

In the end, the Government made the right decision by removing Clause 5 from the Universal Credit Bill, as a result of which there will now be no change to PIP eligibility until after the completion of the PIP review. The decision, and the way it was made, of course gives rise to many other questions. We had concerns about the policy development process, which was particularly troubling given the Government’s commitment to improving its approach to safeguarding. We do not understand why a comprehensive and independent impact analysis was not undertaken before the Bill was introduced. There are clearly lessons to be learned. We would also welcome Ministers’ consideration of how a realigned, disability friendly labour market and an NHS with additional capacity might impact on the rate of disability and incapacity benefit off-flows, and similarly how longer-term improvements in population health might impact on the rate of on-flows. (Conclusion, Paragraph 103)

We call on the Government to explain in its response to our report what assessment it made of the safeguarding implications of the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill before it was introduced to Parliament. We also recommend that it publish as soon as possible an assessment of the impact that a more disability friendly labour market and additional NHS capacity, as well as longer-term improvements in population health, could have on rates of disability and incapacity benefit on and off- flows. (Recommendation, Paragraph 104) Other reforms to health-related benefits

We agree with the principle of a streamlined, single health and disability assessment, given the distress caused by repeated and unnecessary assessments. The objection to the Government’s proposal to abolish the Work Capability Assessment (WCA) and to link eligibility for UC health to receipt of the daily living component of PIP is that the two assessments assess different things: one a person’s capacity for work and the other the impact of a disability on a person’s daily living. This objection seems to miss the point, however, since the Government is explicit that it wants to decouple access to UC health from an assessment of a person’s capacity for work. (Conclusion, Paragraph 117) 66

We are cautiously supportive of the idea of decoupling UC health from an assessment of a person’s capacity for work, but it does raise an important question about what type of benefit UC health will be in the future. If it is not related to a person’s capacity for work, it can hardly be described as an incapacity benefit. If it is to depend on receipt of the daily living component of PIP, it is perhaps best described as a means-tested disability benefit, but the Government has not described it in these terms. (Conclusion, Paragraph 118)

The regulations underpinning the WCA include important safeguards for those with high-risk pregnancies, the terminally ill, those receiving cancer treatment and those who would be at substantial risk if they were not awarded UC health. Given the serious impact the loss of these protections would have, we welcome the Minister’s confirmation that it will protect these groups in the future. (Conclusion, Paragraph 119)

As the Minister accepted when he gave oral evidence, the fact that disability benefits are a devolved matter in Scotland presents potentially very serious obstacles to implementation. We are particularly concerned about the possibility that in the future the criteria for determining eligibility for the Adult Disability Payment could be very different from those for PIP, especially in the context of the record level of funding provided to the Scottish Government in the 2025–26 funding settlement. We will scrutinise very carefully the solution the Minister expects to be set out in the autumn White Paper. (Conclusion, Paragraph 120)

We recommend that the Government: • clarify what type of benefit UC health will be in the reformed system; and • provide an update as soon as possible on the progress of discussions with the Scottish Government regarding implementation in Scotland. (Recommendation, Paragraph 121)

We welcome the publication of the terms of reference for the review of the PIP assessment, which is in desperate need of reform, and the Government’s commitment to co-produce it with disabled people and their organisations, as we called for in our letter to the Secretary of State. We are particularly encouraged by the Minister’s suggestion that the same approach of co- production could be applied to other changes to the health-related benefit system, following successful completion of the PIP review. In the meantime, we will follow the review’s progress very carefully to make sure it really is being co-produced. (Conclusion, Paragraph 131) 67

People’s experiences of the PIP assessment process are often dreadful, so we fully support the proposal to record all assessments, but we think still more needs to be done to hold assessment providers to account for their performance. This subject is slightly beyond the scope of our inquiry, but it is a crucial area in which much more work needs to be done. (Conclusion, Paragraph 132)

We share the Minister’s concern about young people being trapped in economic inactivity before their working lives have even begun, but we do not see why this means they should lose entitlement to UC health. The Government’s changes to UC rates, along with many of the other changes in the Green Paper, are designed precisely to support the economically inactive back to work, no matter their age. In other words, the Government believes that in the reformed system those on UC health will no longer be forgotten about. If this is so, the Minister’s concern about young people being trapped on benefits early in life will have been addressed and there will be no need to deny them access to UC health. (Conclusion, Paragraph 137)

We urge the Government to review its decision to delay access to UC health until the age of 22. (Recommendation, Paragraph 138)

Enshrining the right to try work in legislation will be a small but important and worthwhile measure that could provide greater clarity and even reduce levels of mistrust by putting the matter beyond doubt. This is just one step, however, in the many that will need to be taken to seriously rebuild trust in the system. We will carefully scrutinise the Government’s progress on this throughout the Parliament. (Conclusion, Paragraph 142) Pathways to Work

We are cautiously optimistic about the Government’s proposals for conditionality, although a great deal remains uncertain. The tone of the Green Paper suggests the Government is minded to focus more on positive engagement than coercive conditionality. We appreciate the concerns expressed by many about the principle of drawing more disabled people within the scope of conditionality, but if support conversations are to be the extent of conditionality for the majority of claimants, we would consider this regime to be so light as to barely count as conditionality at all. We are more concerned, however, about the arrangements for determining a person’s conditionality regime, about which there is too little information, and about the availability of an appeals process. (Conclusion, Paragraph 155) 68

We recommend that the Government clarify its intentions for the conditionality regime for disabled people. In particular, it should spell out what requirements beyond support conversations a disabled person might have to meet. Furthermore, if the nature of a person’s conditionality regime is to be left to the discretion of work coaches, the Government needs to make clear on what basis they will be making their decisions and what right of appeal a claimant will have. Conditionality for disabled people must not become dependent on the whims of work coaches. (Recommendation, Paragraph 156) 69