Clause 8
Welfare Reform Bill
10:30 am

Danny Alexander (Shadow Minister and Disability Spokesperson, Work & Pensions; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, Liberal Democrat)

I notice that the hon. Gentleman on the Tory Front Bench, from a sedentary position, seems also to be engaged in a pilot scheme of being nice—he is managing reasonably well so far. No doubt, however, we shall be able to get some more rancour into the debate as the week goes on.

Amendment No. 171 would allow the Secretary of State to require those carrying out assessments of claimants with particular impairments or health conditions, in relation to limited capability for work, to be trained. The amendment probes the Government’s intentions in that area. Given the range and complexity of disabilities, impairments and health conditions that might be encountered in the assessment process, as described in previous debates, it is important to ensure that assessors have the required degree of training, knowledge and understanding of the full range of those conditions or impairments.

It is interesting to note that in some cases specialist nurses are used already for assessments in relation to disability living allowance, specifically to ensure that specialist knowledge is brought to the assessment. By contrast, however, personal capability assessments so far have relied exclusively on general practitioners, but it is widely believed, particularly by disability lobby groups, that GPs’ knowledge of some conditions or impairments might not be sufficient to make a reliable  assessment. The amendment would empower the Secretary of State to order such training as might be necessary to bring them up to speed.

Currently there are no statutory obligations for training for medical assessors in relation to certain disabilities, particularly in relation to mental health conditions, learning disabilities and so on. A higher level of understanding of those non-physical conditions would help to reduce the current high level of appeals and their high success rate. For example, in 2003 nearly 48 per cent. of appeals against the refusal of incapacity benefit were successful; indeed, 68 per cent. were successful when a citizens advice bureau or other adviser with expertise in the appellant’s condition attended the appeal. In many cases, the lack of knowledge of the nature of the condition or impairment at the initial PCA is cited by appellants as a reason why they think that the first decision was wrong. The amendment aims to bring more specialist knowledge to the PCA.

See this speech in context