Welfare Reform Bill

I support my noble friend in calling for an annual report on the operation of the assessment for limited capability for work. It is essential to have an independent person to look at the way in which the PCA is working and to publish the annual report to Parliament. One worry is that 50 per cent of appeals against incapacity benefit decisions were successful. On the issue of long-term and independent monitoring, the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform said: "““It is essential that we have a better process to monitor the operation of the personal capability assessment””.—[Official Report, Commons 8/1/07; cols. 9-10.]" It is especially important to ensure that there are no anomalies or disparities in either the regional or the sectoral treatment of people subjected to assessment. I gave notice to the Minister last week that this was probably the right place—not that there is a perfect place, but this is as good a place as any—to speak about the conducting of the PCA. The PCA matches a claimant’s conditions to a series of descriptors, each of which has a score attached depending on the severity of the condition described. A score of 15 gives eligibility. However, some of the lower-scoring descriptors are being scrapped in the revised test, which is giving rise to a great deal of concern in the specialist groups. The descriptors in the draft regulations seem quite inadequate for the range of disabilities that people have. I acknowledge that the department has just published an evaluation report called, rather dramatically, Transformation of the Personal Capacity Assessment, in which it is clear that it is trying to get it right. However, on page 15, for example, there is a table of the physical descriptors with ““Notes”” to one side. From these, I see that the first descriptor, under the heading, "““Walking with a walking stick or other aid if such aid is normally used””," states: "““Cannot walk more than 30 metres on level ground without repeatedly stopping or severe discomfort””." I had made a note that this might depend on the weather conditions, or a crowded pavement, but I see from the ““Notes”” that we are talking about an indoor environment, which is completely different. Why is it not made clear in the regulations what environment is being asked about? I gather from what was said in another place that there will be further consultation on the PCA, and I urge the Government to listen to the specialist groups who have such a valuable bank of knowledge to draw on. I raised the LIMA computer programme, with its pre-coded answers, at Second Reading and made the point that added comments by a claimant should be capable of being taken into account. Will the Minister give us an assurance that the LIMA computer programme is capable of doing that? As we are not allowed to see for ourselves how LIMA works, because of commercial confidentiality, some independent assessment of how it is working is essential. Finding out how these computer programmes work is a highly unsatisfactory pursuit if Parliament can never examine them properly because of commercial considerations. It is likely that many people who would previously be granted incapacity benefit will now fail the revised PCA despite better results for those with mental health conditions. For there to be confidence in the whole system, it is essential that independent assessors are able to evaluate it properly.