Disabled People: Access to Work Fund

Baroness Wilkins Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Altmann]

I reassure the right reverend Prelate that we will continue to support deaf people and people with hearing loss. Specialist teams will help customers and their employers with advice on adjustments and technological support and with personal budgets so that users can manage their support flexibly themselves when the scheme is rolled out later in 2015-16. We are also in discussions with relevant stakeholders about how best to plan the implementation. As I said, existing customers will be protected until 2018 while we work through the transition.

[Baroness Wilkins (Lab)]

My Lords, how will the department monitor the impact of the cap on Access to Work funding from the day it is introduced?

[Baroness Altmann]

We will carefully monitor all our programmes. Access to Work is one of the many programmes that we have introduced and are planning to roll out to protect the disabled and help them to work if they want to, as many do. Last year, we ensured that nearly a quarter of a million more disabled people had work. That is a tremendous success, and our programmes are working.

Disabled People: Independent Living Fund

Baroness Wilkins Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2014 Grand Committee

[Baroness Wilkins (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government have been given the clearest of warnings that their plans to close the Independent Living Fund and transfer its responsibilities to local authorities could relegate thousands of disabled people to residential care—either that or they would be living such reduced lives that they would be deprived of their current ability to live independently, have a family life, be educated, be employed, do voluntary work and contribute to their communities. Is the coalition Government honestly willing to accept this? Do they understand the wholly justified fear that this decision has generated?

I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, on securing this debate, and I look forward to the Minister’s response to her positive suggestions on ways in which this miserable situation can be alleviated. It is just not possible for the Government to deny that we have a crisis in social care. Only this past week, the Nuffield Trust reported that a quarter of a million older people have lost their basic social care over the past four years due to cuts in council budgets. The report’s authors warned that the NHS and Government are now “flying blind” in planning services for vulnerable people because there is no way of assessing the true impact that social care cuts are having on their lives.

Over the past three years, £2.68 billion has been cut from adult social care budgets despite the increasing numbers of working-age disabled people needing care. Research contained in the report The Other Care Crisis last year found that this is having a significant impact on the ability of disabled people to live independently; 40% of respondents said that the social care services do not meet their basic needs, such as washing, dressing or getting out of the house. How can the Government support a policy which now probably condemns another 20,000 to join that fate?

This is the situation we face, yet somehow the Minister for Disabled People, in his Statement on 6 March, could say:

“The key features that have contributed to the Independent Living Fund’s success, in particular, the choice and control it has given disabled people over how their care and support is managed, are now provided, or are very soon to be provided, within the mainstream system”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/3/14; col. 143WS.]

I take it that the Minister was basing his argument on the Care Bill, with its very welcome introduction of the well-being principle in Clause 1. But this principle does not include key concepts of independent living, such as choice, inclusion and equal participation.

How soon will it be that a local authority argues that a former ILF user’s well-being is being met in residential care, despite it being totally against the individual’s wishes or choice? All attempts by the Labour Opposition in the Commons to include independent living in the well-being principle were voted down by the Government. Moreover, as we constantly argued during its passage, the Care Bill has little chance of achieving its aims without sufficient finance. First it has to overcome the current £1.2 billion shortfall in funding social care for disabled people under 65, let alone care for older people. I feel sure that the Minister will cite the £3.8 billion joint health and social care funding—the so-called “better care funding”—as the solution. Welcome as this is, it is not new funding. NHS England and the Local Government Association have pointed out:

“The £3.8bn pool brings together NHS and Local Government resources that are already committed to existing core activity”.

The fundamental question that lies behind this debate is whether social care is capable of delivering a right to independent living. Disabled people have been striving to establish this for the past 30 years. Far from abolishing the ILF, we need a system which builds on the way it has enabled thousands to live ordinary lives. We need a system based on universal principles, which funds the additional costs that disabled people have—of all ages and across the whole range of impairments and long-term health conditions. It needs to be a nationally consistent system, with no element of postcode lottery.

The noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, has proposed to the Government a way to alleviate the misery of the policy they are adopting. I hope that the Minister will grasp it and at the very, very least persuade his fellow Ministers to ring-fence the ILF funds when they are transferred.

Social Security (Disability Living Allowance, Attendance Allowance and Carer’s Allowance) (Amendment) Regulations 2013

Baroness Wilkins Excerpts

Monday 24th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate and to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on bringing it forward. I should declare an interest as president of Mencap in Wales and a number of other disability organisations. The matter that we are discussing is of immense concern to countless thousands of disabled people who are dependent on the vehicles they get for their mobility. This is true generally; it is a particular problem in rural areas, to which I will come in a moment. Perhaps I might pick up the points as they have been made in turn.

First, on consultation, may we please have an assurance from the Minister that all relevant disability organisations will have a full opportunity not just to submit evidence but to engage in meaningful two-way discussion on this matter, and that the process will not be truncated and time-limited?

Secondly, on the more than 600,000 Motability vehicles, the Government must know how many people stand to lose their adapted vehicles, so why will they not come clean with the statistics? As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, mentioned a moment ago, they must know those statistics. I congratulate him on the Questions that he has tabled and the statistics that he has obtained, which bring this matter into sharp focus.

Thirdly, I draw the attention of this House to the disproportionate geographical impact. I obviously have concern with Wales. With 5% of the population, it has 7.4% of the total casework and 8.4% of the higher rate caseload. This is for an amalgam of historic industrial reasons, which we will not go into now. Those people stand to lose, and many are in areas with the lowest incomes per head in these islands—places such as Blaenau Gwent and Merthyr Tydfil, where I used to live, and where almost 13% of the population have a dependency on the mobility component. In my next-door area of Anglesey, which has one of the lowest GVAs per head of anywhere in the United Kingdom, at just 55% of the UK average, there is a caseload of 7.2%. That is in a rural area where they do not have alternative means of transport and taking away vehicles will deprive disabled people of the ability to get around.

The changes we are talking about will compound the disability and poverty suffered by these people. It will be made infinitely worse if they cannot have their mobility. They will be very badly impacted by these changes.

[Baroness Wilkins]

My Lords, I declare a tangential interest as a recipient of DLA since its inception, although being no longer of working age I am unaffected by the introduction of PIP. I will not repeat many of the excellent points that other noble Lords have made.

In a recent document, Motability set out the ways in which it is trying to ameliorate the changes and lessen the punitive impact of reclaiming customers’ vehicles. It states that the price to individual customers wishing to buy their current car will be in the order of £8,000 to £12,000. In the current climate, when disabled people have been repeatedly hit by cuts, how will many be able to afford that kind of outlay? Will the loan sharks be out in force to make yet another killing from people desperate not to lose their employment?

The Minister for Disabled People’s answer to those people facing the loss of their employment because of the introduction of PIP has been the Access to Work scheme. What work has been done to see if this could in fact be a more expensive alternative? For example, the chief executive of my local disability organisation needed to use Access to Work while he could not drive a car. The daily cost of the journey both ways was £80—£400 per week. On top of that, he has the cost of taxis for shopping, getting to the doctor, et cetera. Compare that to £55.25 high-rate mobility element of DLA, which provides him with a transport for all these activities.

Health: Atos

Baroness Wilkins Excerpts

Monday 26th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, the number of complaints against Atos is running at 0.57%, which compares, for example, with a figure of 3.5% for complaints about doctors to the General Medical Council. That is the level of complaint.

[Baroness Wilkins]

My Lords, 40% of those who go to appeal about an Atos assessment win their appeal. Will the Minister say what the cost of those tribunals has been and why the taxpayer should pay for the inadequacy of Atos’s assessments?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, while the figure of 40% for those who go to appeal is roughly accurate, the total number of those found fit to work by the tribunal changes only 15% of that total. The reasons are usually to do with fresh evidence, which is either written or oral. The cost of that runs at about £11.3 million from the DWP’s perspective and £14.9 million from the point of view of the courts. That figure is for the first half of the current year.

Welfare Reform Bill

Baroness Wilkins Excerpts

Tuesday 14th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, as the Minister will know, I have a considerable interest in this matter. We have debated it long and hard over recent weeks. I would like to take up the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, about the substantial effect that these changes could have on those who are in dire poverty. I would like to add a dimension to that: the position of those who may be in circumstances of uncertainty. The uncertainty regarding the benefit that may be available to help disabled children may in fact compound the difficulties faced by those families.

In those circumstances, I would like to press the Minister—while recognising the efforts that he has undoubtedly made to try to meet us on some of these points, despite the constraints of finance—on whether he can give any indication of the likely timing and mechanisms of these changes taking place. He referred to the fact that it will be 2015 before all the associated changes are in place. I am not sure whether to interpret that as an indication that the timescale may be so long that it will be 2016 before the changes are implemented. If I am wrong about that, what is the purpose of his flagging up the facts that we will know in 2015? If I am right about the implication of his statement being that there will be a delay until 2015 or, more likely, 2016 before the impact of these changes is felt, it would certainly give people time to start making adjustments, and the Government and this Chamber time for further consideration. If that is the intention, what would be the mechanism in 2015 or thereabouts to implement the changes that the Minister has in mind? If the mechanism is to be by order—that is, unamendable—that always causes misgivings in this place and other places. If it were possible at that stage to have a more general debate before an order was brought forward, it would give us an opportunity to pursue these matters in detail in light of what happens between now and then. I do not know whether these suggestions are in line with what the Minister indicated or whether I misunderstood what he said. However, I would be grateful if he could address these points when he responds.

[Baroness Wilkins]

My Lords, it was shocking that the other place left so little time for the important amendment concerning the disability addition for children. It received scant debate. I strongly support the current amendment for the reasons that I gave at Third Reading, and trust that the Minister now understands the damage that the Bill will do to disabled children unless action is taken.

[Lord Peston]

I start from the position that when your Lordships pass an amendment, it is for the Commons to consider it reasonably and make up its own mind. I am coming up to the 25th anniversary of my being here and my experience is overwhelmingly that that is what happens. It happens for one very good reason—namely, courtesy.

For most amendments, once is enough. For rather more important amendments, the Commons may come back with a reasoned argument and we may decide that we need to argue it through a second time. Overwhelmingly, I take the view that for virtually everything, except matters that would subvert our constitution, twice is absolutely enough. In all cases, I expect a reasoned, thoughtful reply from the other place. I hope that is not an oxymoron. When I was told what was happening over the amendments that we are currently debating, at first I just did not remotely believe that the Commons would behave in such a way. I regarded it as an insult to your Lordships’ House that the Commons had behaved in that way. The Leader of the House did his best somehow to persuade us that there was no other way. I sat here listening and thought, “How do I feel about this?”. I felt and feel as though I was being bullied. Those of us who have some experience of bullies know that there is only one way to deal with them—to fight back. That is why I sit here, not as an expert on constitutional matters but simply as a Member of your Lordships’ House, as we debate an amendment that is of great ethical importance, as I pointed out last time. The Minister has certainly said that he would like to respond positively if he possibly still can. I think I am right; perhaps he will nod if that was his intention to get that impression across to us. However, I do not remotely see how he can do that, given the way in which the Commons has responded. The Commons has not responded in any way in which reason was uppermost in its mind. Reason was the last thing on its mind. Essentially, the Commons stamped its foot and said, “No way”. I cannot advise the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, on what she ought to do. I just got up to place on record—on a matter that is of the utmost ethical importance, as I explained when we debated this previously—that, in getting its own way, the other House has chosen a means that we should not lie down and accept.

Welfare Reform Bill

Baroness Wilkins Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Wilkins]

My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment, which has been ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. The children we are talking about, those who will be affected by this reduction in benefit, are those who are profoundly deaf, who have Down’s syndrome and those with cerebral palsy, among many other conditions. The Government are focusing their resources on the most severely disabled, but the costs of bringing up a disabled child do not equate with the severity of the impairment. The care costs can be just as expensive, sometimes even more so, for bringing up a child who will qualify only for the future lower rate of addition under the Bill.

I grew up with my friend’s younger sister who was born with cerebral palsy. It was a family with four children. The whole family’s life was dominated by trips to London to visit her therapists, visits to hospital, visits to the swimming pool and so on, so that she could avoid contractures and had a chance to develop her full potential. Of course, we all had to go because there was no one to look after us at home. The cost must have been considerable. Then there were the costs of extra equipment, the constant wear on her clothes and so on. If Paula had qualified for the higher rate of care and needed night time attendance as well, it would have put a considerable strain on her family, but it would only marginally have increased the costs. Under this Bill, Paula’s benefits would have been halved, and her chances of developing to her full potential and living an independent life would have had no hope at all.

What about profoundly deaf children? Most do not need day and night care and so would not qualify for the higher rate. The National Deaf Children’s Society tells me that it was contacted by Laura, a single mother whose daughter was diagnosed as deaf soon after she was born. Laura had to give up her job as a nurse as she was the only person who was able to care for her child. She said to me that her life then spiralled out of control and she started getting into financial trouble. All she could think about was, “I have got to eat less and I have got to turn the heating down”, otherwise she simply would not be able to support her daughter. The NDCS helped her to apply for the current benefits, and now that the stress of not being in financial trouble has gone, she is finally able to concentrate on learning to communicate with her child, thus giving her the best possible start in life. But under this Bill Laura would lose up to £1,400 a year. That is £22,000 over her daughter’s childhood. The sum of £1,400 is the cost of heating your house for a year. Think of the danger and the misery that that will mean on a freezing cold day like today.

On Report, the Minister argued that he was working within a fixed financial envelope and that he just could not maintain the existing rates for disabled children if he was going to increase the rates for severely disabled adults. If ever there was an example of robbing poor Peter to pay poor Paul, this would be it. Surely the Chancellor is able to release his noble friend the Minister from this part of his restrictive envelope and find the money from the shoulders of people who would not notice the loss of £1,400 a year. We know that there are many of them; we read of them daily in our newspaper headlines.

Does the Prime Minister really wish to leave this as his legacy for disabled children—children with cerebral palsy? I urge your Lordships to support the amendment and send a message to the Commons to think again.

[Baroness Thomas of Winchester]

I gather that we are being asked not to rehearse all the arguments. We have, anyway, heard very full arguments from the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Wilkins. I shall try instead to concentrate on the amendment.

No one likes cliff edges of any sort in the benefits system, and this amendment tries to make one edge less steep over time. The cliff edge that the Government are trying to eliminate in universal credit is the amount of disability additions received, by way of different gateways, by new claimant families for a moderately disabled child under 16 and a moderately disabled adult of 16 and over. The amendment’s cliff edge is different. It tries to address the difficult and sometimes rather artificial differences between the needs of a severely disabled child—whose family will get more money under the Bill—and those of a moderately disabled child and a much less disabled child, both of whose families will get much less money. I have great sympathy with the amendment because I believe that as many families as possible with even moderately disabled children should be helped, although I acknowledge that the amendment, narrowly drawn as it is, to some extent preserves the cliff edge between the disability needs of children and adults in universal credit which the Government are trying to eliminate.

The question is whether the formula in the amendment should be locked into the Bill, or whether everything should be left to regulations. My noble friend Lord German will address that shortly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, we have spent a lot of time on child poverty, and the IFS projections do not take account of quite a few matters. They certainly do not take account of any change in government policy. Child poverty, to people’s surprise generally, actually went down last year, and it is projected to go down this year. What happens in future will depend on how we respond. I should point out to the noble Lord that the IFS had some very positive things to say about the impact of universal credit on child poverty, and it has pointed out the impact that universal credit will have as it goes in the direction that he and indeed I want to see.

Let me go through some of the figures on what happens under universal credit for a parent with a disabled child who works 20 hours a week on minimum wage. That parent, and that family unit, is likely to be £73 a week better off in work under universal credit, compared with £13 in the present system under tax credits. There are some 30,000 more families with a disabled child in work than out of work, so that extra money is being targeted pretty effectively.

Let me remind noble Lords again about the figures for the support that we are providing. Under universal credit, an out-of-work family with a disabled child can receive just over £8,000 a year in benefits for its child after introduction of universal credit, compared with just over £4,000 for an out-of-work family with a non-disabled child and around £1,000 for a family that receives only child benefit.

[Baroness Wilkins]

The Minister said that those children will receive £8,000. They are receiving £9,500 under the current rules.

[Lord Freud]

The figure that we have on the average amount is £8,800. There is a 5 per cent difference in the overall package for that family under universal credit. Those are the figures that we have worked out for the average. Taken overall, it is a small decline, and clearly there is a substantial incentive for the family to look at work. Work becomes much more attractive. Even a few hours of work under universal credit becomes attractive in a way that is completely impossible today.

Welfare Reform Bill

Baroness Wilkins Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Wilkins]

My Lords, I, too, put my name to the amendment. I declare an interest as someone who was awarded mobility allowance for life and was then moved to DLA at its inception. I have continued to receive this past pension age. I strongly support the amendment, which would put in the Bill the assurance that awards of PIP will be retained after retirement age, as is the case with DLA. When the amendment was discussed in Grand Committee the Minister tried to sound reassuring, but unfortunately the Government are not trusted.

We know that all Governments prefer to use regulations, which give them more scope and power. However, to quote Sir Bert Massie, the chair of the much lamented Disability Rights Commission, the difference between now and 1992, when the DLA was introduced, is that this Government are playing with false cards. If the Government are sincere in their assurance that PIP will be retained after retirement age, why will they not behave transparently and place the commitment in the Bill? Clause 82 only grants a power. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Low, imposes a duty. There is a massive difference.

Sir Bert fears, as I do, that the Government are planning to use the payment of post-retirement PIP awards as part of the Dilnot package for social care. On the argument about cutting the DLA mobility component for people in residential care, they will discover what they regard as double provision, and PIP will be lost to pensioners. In his response in Grand Committee, the Minister almost said as much when he stated:

“By setting out these provisions in regulations we can ensure that the legislation can be adapted in response to any future changes in the social care system which might affect pensioners”.—[Official Report, 16/11/11; col. GC 305.]

Given the demands of responding to the Dilnot commission report, would your Lordships trust the Government not to use the flexibility of regulations to devote the entire PIP budget for over-retirement age to social care?

DLA is an essential contribution to so much more than our social needs. Throughout the passage of the Bill I have tried to convey the enormous complexity of disability and the very wide range of extra costs with which we are faced. DLA gives the lie to the false dichotomy that the Minister always draws between benefit recipients and taxpayers. My DLA has enabled me to be mobile and be employed. It has enabled me to be a taxpayer all my life. As I have aged, my mobility needs have become considerably more expensive. I could not have contemplated buying that “nice bit of kit”, as the policemen outside the Peers’ entrance term the considerably adapted car that I can drive from my electric chair, without the assurance that my DLA is for life. Future PIP recipients should have the same reassurance and I ask noble Lords to support the amendment.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of the amendment. The case has been very clearly made. The amendment is seeking the assurance of something written in primary legislation rather than the comfort that was given that this could be dealt with in regulations.

Perhaps I may take the opportunity to clarify a part of the debate we had in Committee. The Minister said:

“Turning to the current rules, broadly speaking, current DLA provisions have a one-year linking rule. This allows individuals over 65 to renew an award within one year of their previous award without losing DLA entitlement. Similarly, we intend to allow a linking period for PIP. This will support those individuals who reach the upper age limit and have a break in their claim through temporary improvement, provided the individual makes a claim within a defined period and continues to fulfil the eligibility criteria for PIP”.

I understand all of that. The next sentence says:

“As with DLA, there will be restrictions on new and existing claims for those over the age of 65”.—[Official Report, 16/11/11; col. GC 305.]

Can the Minister expand on what particular restrictions on existing claims for those over the age of 65 he is intending to implement?

Welfare Reform Bill

Baroness Wilkins Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Wilkins]

My Lords, I strongly support the amendment, which has the support of many disability organisations and thousands of disabled people and their families who face losing help under the Government’s plans.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, has already outlined the numbers of people affected by the Government’s proposals. These people are not fakers and scroungers. Of current low-rate care claimants, DWP statistics show that 20,000 are blind, 57,000 have learning disabilities, 94,000 have arthritis, and more than 100,000 experience psychosis or psychoneurosis. These are some of the people affected, and these conditions are clearly not fake. These are the people who the Government suggest should lose support.

Disabled people have told the Government exactly what losing low-rate care could mean. Examples include people who categorically state the clear health and social care consequences of cutting DLA, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, outlined. I shall cite examples of people who have commented. One said:

“If DLA was reduced or removed then I would be unable to attend doctors and hospital appointments due to the cost of getting to and from them, and my health would be severely put at risk due to not having enough money to either keep myself warm and/or fed”.

Another said:

“We would be in crisis—end of story … my son would start self-harming again”,

and that even,

“prescriptions would be out of the question”.

The amendment could help prevent an explosion of avoidable NHS and social care needs, as the noble Baroness said. Will those needs of the disabled people who are losing help be met elsewhere? I fear that no support may be available from any other public service for many of the 400,000 who will lose all their DLA. The past decade has seen a shrinking of council social care service provision through the tightening of eligibility criteria. More than 80 per cent of councils in England now help only people with critical or substantial needs. The people losing DLA may very well not be able to access care services until crises develop. This leaves families, friends and neighbours to care for them. We already have one of the highest economic inactivity rates due to informal care provision. By not accepting this amendment the Government risk ignoring the impact on carers—especially on women aged between 46 and 64 who are more likely to have to take up caring responsibilities in lieu of formal services or benefit provision.

In proposing to abolish low-rate care provision, the department appears to fail to understand or, worse, to wilfully ignore the genuine needs of disabled people and carers. The amendment would help the Government ensure that they did not simply end the lifeline of DLA for disabled people and families who are unable to access alternative help until they receive expensive NHS treatment or residential care. Accepting the amendment and devising a fairer way to share the burden of the proposed dramatic cut in DLA resources would also help the Government ensure that they do not permanently undermine disabled people and the trust and confidence of carers. I hope that the Government really mean what they have said—that we are all in this together.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I will speak just briefly on this. It seems to me that the importance of this amendment has been heightened by the documentation we got just yesterday from the DWP, which emphasised that half a million people are going to miss out under the new system compared with the current arrangements. In passing, I might say that it would have been more helpful had we had that documentation a little earlier so we could have studied it in more detail, although clearly the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, has delved into it more deeply than I have had the chance to do.

There must be an onus on the Government to undertake some sort of assessment of the consequences for those half a million people who are not going to be able to benefit under the new system. Some of the consequences have been spelt out, such as extra pressure on social services and the health service. We know there will be loss of income tax and national insurance because DLA helps many people to stay in work or to work longer than they otherwise would. All those consequences are quite apart from the worst feature which is the human cost for people who are going to miss out who had been able to rely on funding and not just at the lower rate. It may be that most of those who fall out of the system are currently on the lower rate of DLA, but that certainly is not the case for all of them.

It seems to me that this approach reinforces the perception that is too prevalent that if you claim these benefits then somehow you are not worthy and you do not really deserve them. Half a million people will come out of the system under these proposals. What are the consequences for them? What assessment have the Government undertaken of their needs as a consequence of falling out of the system? Have they or will they look at the sort of proposal that this amendment covers so that there is some basis for bringing some redress for those people who, on any analysis, are bound to suffer as a result of these proposed changes?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thomas of Winchester]

My Lords, that was a most moving contribution from the noble Baroness. I think we were all very touched by it. I declare an interest at this point, as I receive DLA.

There is a real fear among so many disabled people who have contacted us that the migration to PIP is going to be like a horrid game of musical chairs, because they all know that the Government want a 20 per cent cut, wherever that comes. They all think that when the music stops, they will be the one without a chair. They also know that DLA, for all its faults, has the lowest incidence of fraud, and many of them say they feel demonised in the press for being scroungers. Would it not be nice if some of the screaming headlines in tabloid newspapers were about the way in which many people receiving DLA are able to live independently, contributing hugely to society in many different ways, rather than the other way around?

On the low level of DLA fraud, we have to acknowledge that my noble friend, coming to this whole subject with a fresh eye, reckons not that the wrong people are claiming the benefit but perhaps that the net has so small a mesh that it tends to pick up everyone who has any level of disability rather than picking up only those with the greatest need. Therefore, his argument goes, you do not have to resort to fraud in order to get DLA; it is so loosely drawn that almost anyone can get it if they know how to fill in a long and complex form in the right way. Taxpayers are entitled at this point to ask why medical reports are looked at in only around half the cases, which I for one find quite inexplicable, but we will come to that in our debate on a later amendment.

However, it is the phrase

“those with the greatest need”

that is most worrying. It could mean many things and is most closely associated with those who are entitled to means-tested benefits, which we know is not the case for PIP, and long may this last. Among the arguments that the Minister deployed when he rejected this amendment in Grand Committee were that it was too widely drawn; would be too expensive; would lead to too long an assessment, which would be too intrusive; and too complex. The noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, countered this by saying that the proposed points-based tick box descriptors approach will not capture enough information about the barriers and costs faced by disabled people on a daily basis. Both are right, which is why this issue is so difficult. It would be almost impossible to translate this amendment into a points-based assessment in a meaningful way, although in an ideal world that is exactly what is required.

I wonder whether there is any way in which the sense of this admirable amendment, or elements of it, could somehow be incorporated into the assessment process. I shall be most interested in my noble friend’s reply.

[Baroness Wilkins]

My Lords, I support the amendment, which seeks to ensure that the assessment for the new entitlement is fit for purpose and fulfils the Government’s commitment to the social model of disability. As has already been noted, DLA occupies a unique space in the welfare benefits system as it recognises that disabled people face a plethora of extra, often prohibitive, costs as a result of living in our society with a condition or impairment.

We should all warmly welcome the Government’s repeated commitment to the social model of disability, for which, as many of your Lordships know, disabled people have fought long and hard. At the heart of the social model is the recognition that it is our society, not just their bodies, that disables people with health conditions and impairments. However, I fear that the proposed assessment for the new entitlement does not reflect this commitment. Despite the Government’s assurances in Grand Committee, the Minister admitted that the proposed test,

“is not a full social model assessment; it is not intended to be”.—[Official Report, 14/11/11; col. GC 199.]

I ask the Minister in his response to clarify to the House and disabled people why such a commitment was ever made in the first place.

The second draft of the PIP assessment criteria includes some small improvements from the first. However, it does not go nearly far enough. By assuming that a medical assessment will capture social and environmental barriers to independence, the Government risk homogenising the diverse difficulties that disabled people face in their everyday lives. The new threshold document makes many mentions of extra costs and barriers, but only a few of these will be captured by an assessment that looks exclusively at impairment.

It is with this in mind that I support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. The assessment for the new entitlement must consider the real social, practical and environmental barriers faced by disabled people with impairments living in our society. I, along with disability charities such as Scope, disabled people’s organisations and disabled people across the country, voice great concern that the Government are reneging on their commitment to the social model of disability. Doing so would undo decades of campaigning for and progress towards a better and more equal society.

[Baroness Hollins]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, for her honest and enlightening contribution. I speak as a doctor and as a mother; I have two adult children who are in receipt of disability living allowance.

I wish to talk about the medical approach to disability. As a doctor, I have often been accused of being very “medical model”, usually by disabled people. The medical model to disability is reductionist. Many doctors and other health professionals do not understand the social model; they do not understand the social, practical and environmental barriers that people with physical and mental impairments face. I support the amendment, but it would require skilled and sensitive assessments to be available and they would need to be delivered by people who understand the social model.

Welfare Reform Bill

Baroness Wilkins Excerpts

Wednesday 14th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Wilkins]

My Lords, the Joint Committee on Human Rights has just published its legislative scrutiny of the Welfare Reform Bill in its 21st report of the Session. I quote from its recommendations:

“The National Housing Federation estimates that about 108,000 tenants in social rented properties adapted specifically for their needs are likely to be affected by the introduction of the size criteria to restrict housing benefit. If such tenants were forced to move into properties unsuited to their needs this might risk breaching their Article 8 rights to respect for private or family life as well as being potentially discriminatory.

The Government has indicated that it is prepared to look at exemptions for individuals who are disabled, where their homes have been subject to extensive adaptations. However, this would not address the disruption to patterns of caring and support networks which can be vital”.

The JCHR concludes:

“We recommend allowing some additional discretion to exempt disabled people facing exceptional hardship from the under-occupation provisions”.

I hope that the Minister will not only agree to the amendment but also agree to the JCHR’s recommendations.

[Baroness Thomas of Winchester]

My Lords, I have a question for my noble friend about the disabled facilities grant, which I gather is rising to £180 million in the current fiscal year. However, as we know, this grant is not ring-fenced, although it is still a mandatory grant. I find that a slightly odd concept. I just want to make sure that this grant is quite separate from the discretionary housing payment. What redress will a citizen have if the local authority is being rather mean with the mandatory disabled facilities grant? I have not quite got my head round that matter. It may be entirely a matter for the local authority but I wonder whether my noble friend can help me regarding the disabled facilities grant in particular.

Welfare Reform Bill

Baroness Wilkins Excerpts

Monday 12th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Wilkins]

My Lords, I strongly support the amendment and urge all noble Lords to do so. Are we really becoming such a mean-spirited nation that we are willing to take away funding from less disabled children as the only means by which more severely disabled children can benefit? That is what the Government are proposing to do with this clause, although we know from a recent Children’s Society report that 40 per cent of disabled children live in poverty, and that if there is more than one disabled child in a family the poverty rate increases to 50 per cent. As the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, suggested, might there not be some people with broader shoulders who could contribute and endeavour to raise all disabled children out of poverty?

In order to be eligible for the higher rate, a child must require care both day and night. Many disabled children with significant needs will not qualify. Think what the loss of that money means for a family on a very low income—that £1,400 a year would amount to £22,000 over the life of a disabled child. It can mean not buying another box of incontinence pads when your allocation runs out, so that the mother spends exhausting hours changing and washing bed sheets, day after day. It can mean not being able to replace a sibling’s toy that the disabled child has broken, perhaps in a temper tantrum or frustration or because he or she cannot control their movements. It means intolerable strains on families that too often lead to family break-up.

Much of the Bill is about changing behaviour by the imposition of penalties. However, having a disabled child is not a lifestyle choice. Parents desperately need financial help in order to give their disabled child an equal chance in life, or are we really willing to let this legislation increase the shameful number of thousands of disabled children already living in poverty?

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

My Lords, it would be impossible to have served, as I have for a number of years, as party spokesperson on disability issues and maintain a continuing interest in my party’s disability group without a degree of sensitivity to the problems of disabled children and, of course, to those of their families. The noble Baronesses and noble Lords who have spoken about this issue are clearly right in drawing the House’s attention to it. All that I would say is that we need to pause for a moment in looking at the overall implications of these proposals, because my understanding of the position is that relatively—broadly over the past decade, and it may properly be attributed to the previous Administration—there has been significant acceleration in the support given to disabled children, reflecting the pressures to which we have referred that have caused their benefit rates to increase faster than those of adults.

The Government’s proposal is not, and indeed was not presented as being, simply a matter of cutting back the support for disabled children. The other aspect of the Government’s proposals is the alignment of rates, reflecting the position of adults and including some with more severe disabilities. All I would say, with respect, to those who have moved this amendment is that if we are going to make proposals that will increase or maintain the public cost in relation to children, it will be very difficult to provide the equivalent or additional increases for adults. Given the economic state of the country, we cannot proceed through the Welfare Reform Bill with what I might call the “highest common factor” approach to benefits of all kinds. We need the most appropriate and targeted system. I say that not in derogation of the case that has been made but simply with reservation about its sustainability.

There may be a glimmer of hope—indeed, there is already a chink of precedence—in relation to the arrangements for transition and run-on to the new system. I know that the Government have already indicated that they will maintain DLA with its three levels in relation to children rather than transfer them all to the personal independence payments. That is a start. The key to this—and this will not be the only case in the matters that we will hear tonight—is that there should be appropriate and sensitive transition arrangements so that people do not lose significant or very large sums in years one or two, but that nevertheless the overall objective—rebalancing the system and maintaining some coherence in public revenues and expenditure—is maintained.