Found: Letter from Lord Strathclyde, Chair of the Constitution Committee to Baroness Sherlock regarding the

Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:

To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Sherlock on 9 May (HL6877), how they monitor and evaluate whether PIP assessors are appropriately applying the reliability criteria in cases involving fluctuating or invisible conditions; and how many cases have been overturned at the mandatory reconsideration or tribunal stages due to a failure to consider these criteria correctly by assessors.

Answered by Baroness Sherlock - Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)

DWP has set standards for the quality of assessments for all health professionals (HPs) conducting Personal Independence Payment (PIP) assessments on behalf of the department. The department closely monitors all aspects of the process including how HPs apply the criteria set out in legislation.

PIP assessments are conducted by fully qualified, clinical professionals (Doctors, Nurses, Paramedics, Occupational Therapists, Physiotherapists and Pharmacists) who have undergone a comprehensive training programme designed and approved by DWP. The quality of their advice is continually assured internally by the assessment suppliers and externally by the department's independent audit function.

Audit refers to a comprehensive check of the elements of the assessment, including the evidence collection, further evidence provided and the completion of the assessment report by the HP. The check is completed against a set of guidelines which ensures the criteria is applied appropriately and that a consistent approach is taken in all cases, including those involving fluctuating or invisible conditions. This ensures that assessment reports are fit for purpose, clinically justified and sound, and provide sufficient information for the department to make an informed decision on entitlement to benefit.

The department does not hold data on cases overturned at mandatory reconsideration or tribunal stages due to a failure by assessors to correctly consider reliability criteria in cases involving fluctuating or invisible conditions.

The recent Pathways to Work Green Paper has proposed that assessments should, in future, be recorded by default. It is hoped that this will give new opportunities to establish what has gone wrong when assessments are subsequently found to be incorrect, including when the fault has been a failure to assess correctly the impact of a fluctuating condition.

Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:

To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Sherlock on 12 May (HL6876), whether the forthcoming review of the PIP assessment will include a specific focus group or panel comprising of individuals with fluctuating and neurological conditions, such as myasthenia gravis, to incorporate feedback from their lived experience in the review.

Answered by Baroness Sherlock - Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)

On 12 May, the Secretary of State announced in the House of Commons the start of the first phase of the review of the PIP assessment, which will be led by the Minister for Social Security and Disability. We will work with and listen closely to stakeholders to gather views on how best to approach the review before publishing the Terms of Reference.

The review will be guided by the principle that PIP is there to support disabled people with extra costs and to enable independent living, taking account of how the nature of disability and health conditions have changed since PIP was first introduced. The work to prepare the Terms of Reference will not include a specific focus group or panel comprising individuals with fluctuating and neurological conditions, but suggestions from such individuals about what the Terms of Reference should cover would be welcome.

Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:

To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Sherlock on 2 May (HL6725), how many and what proportion of (1) existing, and (2) expected inflow, recipients of Personal Independence Payment (PIP) are expected to lose (a) the standard, and (b) the enhanced, PIP rate, broken down by gender.

Answered by Baroness Sherlock - Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)

The Department does not hold the data requested.

Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:

To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Sherlock on 12 April (HL6549), whether they intend to review how the reliability criteria, that is being able to carry out an activity safely, repeatedly and within a reasonable time period, are applied for Personal Independence Payment assessments in cases involving fluctuating conditions or neurological conditions, such as myasthenia gravis.

Answered by Baroness Sherlock - Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)

We currently have no plans to review this specific criterion. However, in the Pathways to Work Green Paper ,we announced plans to launch a review of the PIP assessment, which the Minister for Social Security and Disability shall lead.

To make sure we get this right, we will bring together a range of experts, stakeholders and people with lived experience to consider how best to do this and to start the process as part of preparing for a review. We will provide further details about the scope of the review as plans progress.

Found: Clause 14 BARONESS SHERLOCK 26_ Clause 14, page 9, line 33, leave out paragraph (a) and insert— “(

Found: Clause 14 BARONESS SHERLOCK 26_ Clause 14, page 9, line 33, leave out paragraph (a) and insert— “(

Found: Clause 14 BARONESS SHERLOCK 26_ Clause 14, page 9, line 33, leave out paragraph (a) and insert— “(

Found: BARONESS SHERLOCK _ Clause 19, page 12, line 25, at beginning insert “Subject to subsections (9A) and

Found: BARONESS SHERLOCK _ Clause 19, page 12, line 25, at beginning insert “Subject to subsections (9A) and

Found: BARONESS SHERLOCK ★_ Clause 19, page 12, line 25, at beginning insert “Subject to subsections (9A) and

Found: Nil Return Alison McGovern Nil Return Nil Return Nil Return Nil Return Nil Return Nil Return Baroness Sherlock

Found: Nil Return Nil Return Alison McGovern Nil Return Nil Return Nil Return Nil Return Nil Return Baroness Sherlock

Found: Nil Return Nil Return Alison McGovern Nil Return Nil Return Nil Return Nil Return Nil Return Baroness Sherlock

Found: Nil Return Alison McGovern Nil Return Nil Return Nil Return Nil Return Nil Return Nil Return Baroness Sherlock