Welfare Reform Bill

My Lords, at the risk of replaying the record, this is an important amendment because it would go a long way to protect the Government from facing the same sort of vilification that they have received from their introduction of the work capacity assessment for employment and support allowance. Much more importantly, it would protect disabled people from facing the anxiety, illness and ill health they have experienced while undergoing the headlong rush to reassess the 1.5 million claimants for incapacity benefit. That reassessment has gone ahead despite the fact that the Government know that the assessment criteria are seriously flawed. As the Minister of State at the DWP, Mr Chris Grayling, said in the other place on 24 October: "““We have received suggested descriptors for mental, cognitive and intellectual function from Professor Harrington’s working group. Given that they represent a substantial departure from how the current assessment works, we are considering what impact they will have and will come forward with proposals soon””." That is fine. He went on: "““The challenge facing us is that the recommendations will involve a complete change of the work capability assessment, not simply for mental health issues, but for physical issues, and is therefore a multi-year project””.—[Official Report, Commons, 24/10/11; col. 8]" Let us not make the same mistake again. Or rather, please let the Government not make the same mistake again. I was going to quote from the lady I mentioned in an earlier debate, a GP who attended a recruitment evening for Atos assessments, and who wrote in the BMJ this year. The figures that she was quoted about what a doctor could earn from the assessment process were, I found, quite shocking. Sessional doctors work a minimum four sessions a week, and are paid per item: £51.37 for non-domiciliary disability living allowance examinations, for example. The application forms for sessional doctors state : "““10 DLA domiciliary visits cases per week would earn £40, 211.60 per annum””." I ask the Minister—and I apologise if he has already given this answer to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie—what is the Government’s estimate of the cost of re-examining the thousands of people whose conditions will not change, or will only worsen? And can he remind us how often he is expecting them to be reassessed ?