Welfare Reform Bill

I had not quite finished. The department is currently carrying out a review of the work-capability assessment. The purpose of the review is to ensure that the WCA is identifying individuals for the correct benefits. A group of experts in the field of physical disability, mental function and occupational health are undertaking analysis of WCA cases in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the assessment in identifying individuals who are incapable of work-related activity, who are currently unfit for work but would benefit from support and eventually return to work, and those who, in spite of their condition, are fit to continue work at that time. A broad range of conditions has been included in the cases analysed, including those that are variable or fluctuating. Picking up on my noble friend’s points, representatives from both employers and disability rights groups are also involved in the review and have contributed to discussion around the descriptors themselves, their applicability and appropriateness. There is a statutory requirement to carry out an independent review of the assessment every year for the first five years of its running. This will provide further opportunity to evaluate the assessment and its effectiveness in appropriately identifying fluctuating conditions. I will make a point of referring the letter that the noble Countess sent to me to whoever is running that assessment. I do not know the extent to which it could be included, but they should be made aware of its content. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, asked about computer-aided decision-making. I think he is referring to the LiMA system. We are reviewing it as part of our review of the work capability assessment. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, focused on how advisers will help customers manage conditions in employment. Condition management programmes are available to help customers with a range of health conditions and focus on learning how to manage the condition in work. I realise that that still focuses on the individual, not the employer. Off the top of my head, I do not know the extent to which access to work and other such programmes are brought to bear, but I will have a look at that. I know that in this debate, like many we have had in Committee, we have asserted that this is the system, this is the training and these are the skills that the advisers have, and we perhaps have a mismatch between that and individual experiences. There is no easy way around that. There is no easy way of squaring that in this Committee, other than keeping engagement focused on the outcomes that our programme is meant to deliver. Notwithstanding that, I hope that what I have said has provided some reassurance that safeguards are built into the system that will sufficiently protect customers with fluctuating health conditions. With that in mind, I urge the noble Countess to withdraw the amendment.