Welfare Reform Bill

Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2012 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Low of Dalston]

54C: Clause 82, page 59, line 34, at end insert “other than by virtue of an award made before the person reaches the relevant age”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, this amendment would ensure that those who are awarded either the daily living component and/or the mobility component before pensionable age can continue to receive it after they reach pensionable age. Currently the Bill states that persons of pensionable age are entitled to neither award.

The matter was fully debated in Committee, when the argument was fully rehearsed, so I do not intend to speak to it at great length this evening. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, said in moving the same amendment in Committee—on 16 November at column 303 of Hansard—how the Disability Alliance and other charities were being approached regularly by disabled people worried about what the current proposals would mean when they reach pension age. She maintained that the amendment would clarify the position and put many minds at rest. She also drew the committee’s attention to the fact that the Dilnot commission highlighted the pivotal role that DLA plays in preventing high-level needs from escalating. Receiving DLA helps disabled people manage their health and prevents avoidable NHS costs or people entering residential care prematurely, or at all, with potential savings in the long run.

The noble Baroness understood that the Government intended to provide in regulations for those who received DLA before pension age to retain it after they reached pension age, but she said her concern was not allayed by the Minister for Disabled People stating in the Commons that the Government wanted the matter to be addressed in regulations to allow for flexibility. Such flexibility, she said, could easily include altering the entitlement in the future and denying support to disabled people reaching pensionable age. It would offer a significant boost in confidence for many disabled people, she said, to receive the reassurance in the Bill that their support will not be withdrawn when they reach pension age.

The Minister made it clear that the Government intended to make regulations for PIP that will allow people who have reached the upper age limit to continue to receive PIP. He said:

“Our priority is to support those individuals with established, long-term health conditions or impairments that would put them at a financial disadvantage over a long period … The intention behind this amendment is to ensure ongoing support throughout later life for individuals whose abilities are limited earlier in life, recognising that they may have had less opportunity to earn and save for later life. I can assure noble Lords that this is also our intention and that it can be achieved without amendment to the Bill, but instead through regulations. As it currently stands, the amendment would potentially widen the scope of personal independence payment and undermine our intention of creating a more affordable and sustainable benefit”.—[Official Report, 16/11/2011; cols. GC 304-05.]

He also made clear the Government’s intention of replicating, under PIP, the one-year linking rule which operates under the DLA regime, which allows individuals over 65 to renew an award within one year of their previous award, without losing DLA entitlement.

The matter seems quite straightforward. The assurance that those who have DLA when they reach pension age can keep it is provided in current legislation. The Government propose to remove this insurance in the Bill before us. They say that they will maintain the guarantee in regulations, but we all know that regulations can be changed much more easily than primary legislation. What possible motive can the Government have for removing from the Bill the guarantee to pensioners? One cannot blame people for asking the question or for being suspicious of the answer.

If the Government intend to give the assurance in regulations, what skin would it be off the Minister's nose to give it in the Bill? In circumstances where he needs all the confidence-building measures he can devise to take disabled people with him through the legislation, this would be an obvious and cost-free concession. The Minister referred to an earlier amendment as being the priciest yet. Surely this is the cheapest. If the wording needs to be fine-tuned in order to avoid widening the scope of PIP, I would be entirely amenable to working with him to find the appropriate wording before Third Reading. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, I declared my interest as a DLA recipient when I first entered the debate on PIP before dinner. However, in view of the particular relevance of this amendment to my own situation, I ought to have made it clear, like the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, that I have received DLA from its inception and continue to receive it now that I am past pension age.

Obviously, at this time of night, I am not going to press the amendment and will seek leave to withdraw it. However, I have to confess that I am not entirely convinced by the Minister’s answer. The strongest point he made was that, in the way it is drafted, the amendment could override linking rules and enable somebody who had received DLA a considerable length of time before he reached pension age successfully to resuscitate a claim to PIP after he reached pension age. That would not be our intention and, as I said in moving the amendment, if we could resolve that and any other matters of mis-wording to which the Minister could draw my attention by Third Reading, I would be very happy to have discussions with him and his officials.

[Lord Freud]

Perhaps I may make the position clear. The difference between us is that we would not want this in the Bill but the substance of what we are trying to do matches what the noble Lord is looking for. I am not in a position to offer anything further for Third Reading. I am, however, very willing to see him personally—and any groups he wants as well—to discuss this matter when we move into the spring period to make sure that we get it absolutely right. We are anyway having full consultation, but I am absolutely prepared to commit to looking at this so that the detailed regulations are acceptable.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

The trouble is that by the spring consultation the Bill will be done and dusted and we will have missed the opportunity. However, on the basis that the Minister is happy to meet us to discuss this matter further and perhaps bottom it more than we are able to do at this time of night, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 54C withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rix]

My Lords, as Mencap has just been mentioned, I would very much like, as president of Mencap, to thank the Minister and his colleagues for accepting this situation and the Low report. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Low on his splendid research into this problem. It is wonderful to hear the Government’s change of tack. I notice that the Minister mentioned hospitals, but I was busy chatting to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, at that moment. Did he mention children? I was not quite sure what the position was going to be regarding children—over 16 and under 16—in regard to this mobility component. However, apart from that, we are very satisfied in Mencap. I would like to thank, both personally and on behalf of Mencap, the Minister and his colleagues for this change of heart.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, I promised the Minister earlier on that if he just waited long enough, sweetness and light would break out. The fact that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and I have our names on another amendment in this group enables me to tell him that we have now reached that point.

There is more joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth than over 99 just persons who need no repentance. For that reason, I greatly welcome the Government’s decision to drop their proposal to withdraw the mobility component from those living in residential care. I have been given some credit for bringing this about with the review that I was asked to lead by Leonard Cheshire Disability and Mencap, but I think, in all honesty, I must disclaim this. Half of that is because I had a very good team working with me, supported by an extremely able and hard-working secretariat from both organisations; and half because I think Ministers, to their considerable credit, largely came to their decision of their own accord. Perhaps I may have provided a little cover for a U-turn—if so, I am glad to have been of service.

It would be tedious if I were to start recycling all the water that has now flowed under the bridge by rehearsing the considerations that led both the Government and my review to come to the conclusion that it would not be appropriate to withdraw the mobility component from those living in residential care. Probably the most significant of them, as has been mentioned, was that we could not detect any evidence of the double funding that was thought to exist and the Government could not either.

The Government can be proud of the fact that on this occasion, when faced with the evidence that did not support their initial conclusion, they had the grace to acknowledge the fact and reverse that initial conclusion. This is very much to be welcomed and a matter for congratulation.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I should take the opportunity to say thank you. It is lovely to have some sweetness and light after a few days where there has not been very much.

Welfare Reform Bill

Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, I have added my name to the amendment and I have here an eloquent speech in its support. However, I do not propose to deliver it because I am aware of even larger fish to fry a little way down the track, and I think it is important that we should reach those as soon as possible. However, I want to make it clear that that in no way reflects any lack of support for the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas. I support and agree with every word that she has said, and I entirely agree with the approach that she has suggested of getting together with the Minister and his officials to see whether we can find a way through before Third Reading.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

My Lords, I support the amendment. I have raised this issue with the Minister in private in the past. Many people on the existing benefit have used the money to increase their possibility of living normally by putting it towards aids or adaptations, and it would be very wrong if they were disadvantaged because of that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Grey-Thompson]

My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that there is an independent report on the plans for both the PIP assessment and its implementation before implementation starts, and a trial period before it is implemented in full.

We have spent much time today debating why disability benefits matter so much, but perhaps I may briefly point out that nearly one-quarter of individuals in families with at least one disabled member live in relative income poverty, and over 50 per cent of working-age disabled adults are not in paid employment. One-third of working age disabled people are estimated to live in poverty.

There is huge concern about the effect of DLA reform. The thresholds for the new benefit were announced only yesterday. The modelling suggests that the second draft will produce a 2015-16 caseload of 1.7 million people receiving PIP. Without introducing the new benefit, we would expect the number of 16 to 64 year-olds claiming DLA in 2015-16 to be 2.2 million. That is a reduction of half a million people who will not receive any help with the cost of disability, who would have been receiving DLA.

Just last week an analysis of organisations’ responses to the original government consultation on DLA reform highlighted the amount of concern about the proposed changes. The extent of this concern was not clear from the DWP response to the consultation. Scope, in its report, The Future of PIP: A Social Model Based Approach, says:

“We remain very concerned that this decision is based purely on budgetary targets, rather than on robust evidence as to how the benefit is used and by whom”.

I just do not believe that there has been time to analyse who will lose out. The Disability Benefits Consortium stated:

“We are very concerned that there has not been due consideration of the impact this reform will have both on those who lose all their entitlement and those who are left with a reduced award following reassessment”.

The thresholds were published only yesterday, but without those thresholds it is impossible to look in detail at who will lose out. Without them, it is almost impossible to have an informed debate about this part of the Bill. The few examples in the consultation document, while helpful, cannot possible address this properly.

Why do we need an independent review and trial period? Some early analysis has suggested that one of the groups who might lose out are those with mental health conditions, who currently receive the lower rate of mobility. Many people with a mental health condition find it impossible to use public transport. They frequently use their DLA to pay for taxis. If they are unable to get out, it is likely to make them more socially excluded, and push them further from the job market. This is just one possible unintended consequence.

There needs to be careful scrutiny of who will be affected by these changes. Many more groups will emerge in the months and years ahead, together with some unintended consequences. I have a real concern that it could lead to a deterioration of people’s health. Will it impact on the social care budgets? There are so many more things to consider in this. For such a major change as this, it is important to be much clearer on what the changes will be.

There is concern not just about the test or the thresholds but about the way that the benefit is assessed, and this is a much greater change than the move from IB to ESA. An independent report on the plans for both the PIP assessment and its implementation, before the implementation starts, would provide an appropriate level of scrutiny, given the huge impact this reform will have on disabled people.

The trial of the IB reassessment process in Burnley and Aberdeen threw up a number of important lessons which the DWP learnt from and implemented in the full rollout. It is so important that there is a trial of PIP in a similar way before the full rollout to either new or existing claimants. I beg to move.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, I declare my interest in these debates as a recipient of DLA. This amendment is every bit as important as those we passed last week. Noble Lords will know from their postbag that people are looking to us to ameliorate the worst excesses of this Welfare Reform Bill. Although the Bill has some very sensible and progressive things at its core, in the shape of universal credit, nevertheless it goes too far for most people’s consciences in the way that it takes vital support away from some of the most needy in our society, in ways that have been movingly illustrated—far more eloquently than I could—in earlier debates.

Let me be clear about what the amendment does and does not do. It does not entail the Bill being paused, as happened with the Health and Social Care Bill, and as it has been portrayed outside. It merely states that the new assessment regime should not be commenced until Parliament can be given the benefit of an independent review—a common enough procedure regarding the introduction of particular statutory provisions.

It may be said that it is pointless to pass such an amendment, and that the Commons will only reverse it. However, there are two reasons for passing it, notwithstanding that. First, it sends a strong signal to the Government that they cannot be too cavalier in the way that they drive the juggernaut of reform over those who are weakest and most defenceless in our community. Secondly, as we have seen in the last week, it ensures that they cannot do this below the radar of public attention.

I support the amendment from my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson because I think that this is all being rushed through far too quickly to meet Treasury targets, before it is ready. The latest consultation draft of the assessment criteria reached us only yesterday, as we have heard, which has left little time to carry out the necessary analysis, but enough to see that it is still very much work in progress. For instance, just one day before we were due to discuss the Government’s plans for the future of DLA, the number of disabled people likely to lose help through the new assessment process was revised upwards to 500,000, as we have heard.

When the proposals were first announced in the June 2010 Budget we were told that a 20 per cent reduction in case load was likely. At that time this represented 360,000 disabled people, so the figure for the total of losers from the Government’s proposal has risen by 140,000, to which we should probably add the 80,000 care home residents who will no longer lose their mobility payments.

The Treasury’s target saving of 20 per cent was always arbitrary, being cost-driven rather than evidence-based. The Government themselves admit that the level of fraud is very low with DLA, at only 0.5 per cent. There are even suggestions that the increased figure for losers which we heard of yesterday will not achieve the Treasury’s target, either. At all events, the DWP is giving the impression of making it up as it goes along, all in an effort to satisfy its Treasury masters.

Disabled people do not have confidence in this process, which all serves to underline the fundamental unfairness of taking needed support away from the most vulnerable simply to meet Treasury targets. Confidence is not enhanced by the experience disabled people have had of the work capability assessment for out-of-work benefits. This was trialled on new claimants and regionally piloted for 18 months before national implementation, and has been the subject of two independent reviews, yet still gives rise to considerable difficulty, with 40 per cent of appeals upheld. This is a massive waste of money. We need to be sure that we have got the system right for the personal independence payment before it is introduced. So far, the DWP has tested the proposed assessment for PIP on fewer than 1,000 people. A sample of fewer than 1,000 is simply not enough to get a proper handle on the complexity of the issues that will arise when the full DLA caseload of 2.2 million people is put through the reassessment process; it is not like saying whether you vote Labour or Conservative.

Welfare Reform Bill

Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts

Wednesday 11th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, I understand that short speeches are the order of the day so that we may make progress. I shall therefore try to make a short one. I put my name to this amendment because I feel very strongly that the proposal to time limit contributory ESA to one year is one of the most retrograde features of the Bill. At Second Reading, I identified as many as five things wrong with the Government’s position. I will not repeat all those here but I will refer to a sixth, which I did not quite crystallise at Second Reading. The matter was gone into in great detail in Committee, although I was unable to be present. However, I have carefully read the debate twice, most recently through the long watches of last night as I travelled back from Bangkok on an overnight flight with an active two year-old for company.

In any case, the argument emerges most starkly if one sticks to its bald outlines, which have to do with the basic unfairness of the proposal. This was incisively encapsulated by the Disability Benefits Consortium in the words of a woman with Parkinson’s disease. She said,

“There’s no guarantee that I’ll find a job in 12 months. It could take me much longer”.

At this point, one might interpolate, “especially in current economic conditions”.

She continued,

“I’ve worked all my life and paid for decades into the system on the understanding that there will be support if I need it. To be told that all this support could have an arbitrary time limit is both unfair and stressful”.

There are two aspects to this unfairness besides the one which I have just interpolated. First, the condition of sick and disabled people in the WRAG is such that their likelihood of being able to get into work within a year is remote in the extreme, especially in present conditions. As my noble friend Lord Patel has told us, the Government’s figures show that 94 per cent of people in the WRAG need support for longer than a year and a DWP research report entitled Routes onto Employment and Support Allowance, which was published last September, revealed that, despite its name, after 18 months, only 9 per cent of claimants who had previously been out of work on incapacity benefit had found work and still only 25 per cent of those who had entered ESA from work had found new employment. In these circumstances, as the lady quoted by the Disability Benefits Consortium said, to limit ESA to just one year is both arbitrary and unfair. It is in no way evidence-based and is simply cost-driven. The DWP estimates that by 2015-16, 700,000 people will lose their entitlement, of which 280,000 will lose it entirely, which will mean a loss of £94.25 a week.

The second unfairness resides in the breach of the contributory principle that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, was so concerned about in Committee; that is, the breach of faith of citizens who have paid their national insurance contributions perhaps for 30 or 40 years in the belief that the support would be there if needed. A correspondent who wrote to me said:

“I believe it is totally wrong that people who have worked and paid tax plus national insurance for many years—36 in my case—should have their entitlement to state support time limited in this manner. It seems that the state is breaking its side of the contract at a time when people are most vulnerable”.

The Minister dismissed this in Committee. He said that national insurance contributions were to cover a wide range of contingencies, including the state pension and the NHS. He argued that a year was a reasonable amount of support to give someone when they got into difficulty. In a letter dated 10 January 2012 addressed to Cross-Bench Peers, to which my noble friend Lord Patel has referred, the Minister said that it strikes a reasonable balance between the needs of sick and disabled people claiming benefit and those who have to contribute towards the cost. But you might as well say that it was enough to give someone a pension for, say, three years to help them with the adjustment to retirement, after which they are on their own. Perhaps that will come to be the Government’s position: who knows? Anything is possible. Who would have thought that we would be reducing ESA support for which people have been contributing all their working lives to just one year?

Finally, I come to my sixth point, which I failed to develop at Second Reading. Ministers are constantly pointing to the unprecedented amount of support that they are putting in place to help people back or in to work. Only last night a statement was read out on the radio from a DWP spokesperson, which said:

“We are absolutely committed to supporting more disabled people into work. That is why this Government has protected the budget for specialist disability employment services. Aside from our disability employment advisers, we also have specialist teams at Jobcentre Plus who actively work with businesses to encourage them to interview disabled people with the right skills. Work Choice is expected to support more disabled people into employment each year than any of its predecessor government programmes”.

As regards specialist teams, Ministers have little idea of the reality. No Minister could go on the programme and this statement was read out in response to a blind woman—an able person with a lifetime of successful, professional employment, who had been made redundant last May. She told a woeful tale of the poor advice and lack of support that she had received. She received none of the interviews or training that had been promised. She is very eager to find a new job but few, if any, openings have been drawn to her attention. Despite repeated requests, no information has been provided in an accessible form. Her adviser seemed to have had little training. I know the woman concerned and on one occasion she told me that she felt she could do the adviser’s job better than the adviser.

The Work Programme is not working. In these circumstances it is not only unfair but downright cruel to time-limit contributory ESA to one year. At present it is unlimited. To reduce the level of support to just one year at a stroke is draconian in the extreme. I would drop Clause 51 entirely but I am a realist and recognise that, to have any prospect of success, compromise will be necessary. The amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Patel is surely the least one could make to ameliorate the draconian nature of the Government’s proposal. I very much hope, too, that in the light of their conference’s decision to oppose the time-limiting of contributory ESA last September, Liberal Democrat colleagues will search their consciences and also give my noble friend’s amendment their support.

[Baroness Hollins]

My Lords, local health charities and services are also very concerned about the impact of time-limiting ESA. They are well aware of how difficult it is for people with severe and enduring mental illness to obtain and to sustain employment, especially at a time of deficit. My postbag is full of angry letters. One correspondent wrote to say that her brother took his own life largely due to difficulties in his working environment. She wrote:

“I personally have only ever managed a very chequered career due to living with complex mental health conditions and welcome any effort on the part of our Government to encourage a mental-health friendly workplace and specialist schemes to support people with mental health conditions into work, but”—

and here is the rub—

“on a voluntary basis because I am deeply concerned that any system built on a backdrop of conditionality, sanctions and time limits will prove to be totally counterproductive, leading to fear, anger and disengagement”.

I could speak at great length about some of the many issues that have been raised with me and I support this amendment.

Disability Benefits

Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts

Monday 12th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

Well, my Lords, clearly we are very concerned by any misrepresentation in the tabloid press, which likes to simplify matters a great deal. We have a real issue in making sure that we have a very clear, coherent and consistent categorisation of who should receive these benefits, because one of the main policy thrusts of this Government is to make sure that the people who really need the money are the ones who get it.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Benefit Integrity Project, introduced by the previous Government to weed out the misuse of disability benefits, found more people on DLA whose needs had risen than fallen, contributing to a rise in expenditure on benefits? Does he expect the introduction of personal independence payments to lead to a similar increase in expenditure, as well as a rise in the cost of administration?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, there has been relatively little research on DLA and how accurately it is targeted. The last comprehensive survey was in 2005, and it was found that more than 11 per cent of cases were no longer applicable. That does not mean that fraud was involved; it just means that matters had moved on so that it was no longer applicable. We also found a reasonable proportion—much less—of people who should have had higher payments. It is a subjective, inconsistent benefit, which relies too much on self-assessment. We need to get a grip of it.

Welfare Reform Bill

Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts

Wednesday 16th November 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, as I was saying before I was interrupted a couple of days ago, these amendments touch on a critical consideration—namely, the need to ensure that those making assessments can identify factors that may make it difficult to engage meaningfully, fairly and objectively with the applicants: disabled people, whose condition of course fluctuates, as has been mentioned already, and for whom communication itself is often a challenge.

Nowhere is this more evident than among those whose difficulties arise from the autistic spectrum of disorders. As was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, on Monday, on the autistic spectrum not only are no two people the same, but the same person may exhibit different characteristics over a period of time.

The Minister will, I am sure, have noted from Monday’s debate that many of those who contributed—the noble Lords, Lord German, Lord Addington and Lord Touhig, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Howe and Lady Healy—highlighted the challenge of proper assessment in the context of autism. The noble Baroness, Lady Healy, emphasised the need for assessors to have specific training in autism, and access to expert champions. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, who moved the amendment, warned of the dangers of incorrect decisions where assessors base their conclusions on face-to-face interviews without professional knowledge and without experts’ evidence. Given the extent to which autism factors have run through this debate, may I urge the Minister to address the points raised in that autism context?

In particular, I urge the Minister to ensure that in dealing with problems of face-to-face assessments, safeguards be written into the Bill, so that wherever there is ample expert written evidence available, applicants do not have to go through unnecessary face-to-face assessments. The Bill should stipulate that all assessment will take into account expert reports and evidence as a first tier in that assessment process.

Secondly, there should be a requirement that those undertaking assessment have appropriate training, including in autism. This is something about which Autism Cymru, the organisation in Wales, feels particularly strongly. Also, in every assessment centre there should be available to assessors appropriate experts or champions in mental, intellectual or cognitive disabilities, including autism.

The third point I want to underline—and these have all been raised in different ways by noble Lords who have contributed to this debate—is that the Bill and regulations must specify that parents and carers are categorically allowed to support disabled individuals at every stage in the assessment process. Those without such support should be told of their rights to an independent advocate.

Finally, I turn to the position of lifelong awards in the context of Amendments 86F and 86G, to which I have added my name. The Government have said that they want all awards to be for fixed terms apart from in exceptional circumstances, and that there will be some sort of built-in review process. Surely the Minister must realise and accept that there will be people who are sadly not exceptional, whose condition is a lifelong one and for whom the worry and uncertainty of regular reviews are an unnecessary imposition, the cost of which is a waste of public money. Does not all common sense say that those with a degenerative disease, for example, should not have to face repeated assessments? In this group there are more than 300,000 adults, as I understand it, with autism, whose core condition will not change; there are some 70,000 with MS and 20,000 with Parkinson’s disease, whose condition is incurable. Retesting these people is no more than pandering to the tabloid agenda we heard about in the last sitting.

I urge the Minister to take on board these amendments and to facilitate lifelong awards where appropriate.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment 86ZB in this group. These amendments, which would dispense with a face-to-face assessment where there is appropriate written evidence, have considerable overlap with Amendment 86ZZZV in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, in the next group. So, if I may, I will say what I have to say on the matter now and spare the Committee the repetition when it comes up later especially since, with apologies to the Committee, I have to leave for the airport at 3.15 and may not be around when we come to the later discussion.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Lucky man.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

I particularly support the idea of a trial period before incurring huge public expenditure in reassessing 2 million disabled people, many of whom really do not need it, for example, if their circumstances are unlikely to change. Where there is written evidence of severe impairments, it is simply common sense to accept that evidence and avoid putting people through costly and potentially distressing face-to-face interviews. Setting out criteria that would signal eligibility for PIP without an interview is an administratively simple way to indentify those who have severe impairments that have already been assessed through written evidence as giving rise to a higher level care or mobility need.

The Government have said that they do not think it is right that we should judge people purely on the type of health condition or impairment they have, making blanket decisions about benefit entitlement. One can understand their desire to personalise the assessment process when the impact of an impairment may not be clear. However, it is obvious that in some cases the impact is clear from written evidence and beyond dispute in terms of its implications for the rate of PIP that should be awarded. For some groups of people it is perfectly clear from the severity of their impairment that they should be eligible for enhanced rates of PIP without further assessment. For example, if someone is deafblind, a face-to-face interview to establish that they have mobility needs of the highest level is barmy. If someone has no sight at all or no legs, no further assessment is needed to confirm that they have a high level of mobility need. In cases such as these, a face-to-face interview is simply a waste of money. In addition to avoiding unnecessary stress for severely disabled people, this amendment would save money for the taxpayer. It feels pretty much like a no-brainer to me.

[Baroness Thomas of Winchester]

My Lords, I strongly support this amendment and perhaps I might read it out, because it is a long time since we first started talking about it. It would insert:

“including a requirement for the decision maker to collect evidence from the claimant’s own health care professionals as a part of the decision making process”.

There is a strong suspicion that this is not always done. The only thing that I would quibble with in that amendment is that not only does the decision-maker have to collect evidence, it has to be taken into account when the decision-making process is gone into.

My question for my noble friend is about a sentence that I found in one of the documents we were given—I cannot now remember which one it is. It says:

“Decision Makers will change erroneous decisions rather than send them to a Tribunal”.

The next sentence says:

“If a claimant’s points at issue are not resolved, they can still appeal to the HM Courts & Tribunals Service”.

I had to go to a tribunal having had my papers re-examined, presumably by a decision- maker. What will change about the process now with PIP? I am not quite sure, reading between the lines, what the two sentences that I have read out mean. Are things going to change from now, or not?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wigley]

Before the Minister sits down, he mentioned the possibility of developing in conjunction with the National Autistic Society an initiative to augment training. Is he aware of the scheme that has been running in Wales, under the autism plan that was adopted by the Government of Wales, with training work undertaken by Autism Cymru with Careers Wales and to some extent with Jobcentre Plus itself? Last February, an online booklet was published for Careers Wales and Jobcentre Plus, and there were similar publications on autistic conditions relating to the advocacy service and GP practices. Are these the sort of initiatives that the Minister sees being developed in conjunction with the National Autistic Society?

[Lord Low of Dalston]

Before the Minister concludes, I am sorry if I was not paying attention, but I did not hear him respond to the points made about our amendment about cases where the written evidence was clear and unambiguous, where there were very high levels of need which, the nature of the impairment made clear, were unlikely to change. I heard the Minister say that the assessment process would be implemented with flexibility, but my impression was that the avoidance of a reassessment would be a pretty exceptional situation. Those of us who support Amendment 86ZB believe that cases where people's circumstances are unlikely to change and their high levels of need have been unambiguously and unequivocally evidenced are not isolated exceptions. That is a widespread and general circumstance. Can the Minister respond a bit more positively on that?

[Baroness Thomas of Winchester]

Will the Minister also respond to my question, when I asked whether the sentence:

“Decision Makers will change erroneous decisions rather than send them to a Tribunal”

is a change from the present system?

Welfare Reform Bill

Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts

Monday 14th November 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Grey-Thompson]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Campbell of Surbiton has very ably described the purpose of this amendment. I, too, declare an interest in that I am in receipt of DLA. Like my noble friend Lady Wilkins, it has helped me in terms of education and working throughout my life.

When I was doing my own research on what the title PIP meant, the most common response was, “Isn’t that something linked to pensions—a personal investment plan?”. The title should more accurately reflect what the benefit is and why support is required. Obviously, a name change on its own will not solve the issue but anything that clarifies why the benefit is necessary can only be helpful. Many disabled people are very frightened, partly by what will happen to their benefit but also about the change in the way in which they are viewed by society. It is not just in the recent media coverage over the weekend.

There has been a worrying change in how disability is reported in the media. The Strathclyde Centre for Disability Research in the media unit at Glasgow University has recently published a report, Bad News for Disabled People. It compared the coverage of five papers in 2005-06 and 2010-11 and found that there had been a decrease in stories presenting disabled people in a positive way and an increase in stories concentrating on benefit fraud. The focus groups in the same study all claimed that levels of fraud were much higher than they are in reality with some suggesting that up to 70 per cent of claimants were fraudulent. Participants justified these claims by reference to articles that they had read in newspapers. One of my concerns with the current name is that it possibly suggests that disabled people are getting a lot more money than they will actually receive. I also believe that there is an ongoing misconception over the purpose of DLA that we need to correct.

The DWP has highlighted in a press release the length of time many disabled people have received DLA as if people somehow do not need the benefit after a certain time. Again, this leads people to misunderstand the purpose of the benefit. Many people with congenital conditions, like myself, will continue to have higher costs of living throughout their lives. Of course, there need to be reviews as circumstances can change, but the fact that some people continue to qualify for these benefits in the long term is not on its own a signal that the system has gone wrong. A colleague frequently says to me that language is the dress of thought. Disability cost allowance is the right name to use.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, I give my support to this amendment—the first in a long series that we are due to consider on this part of the Bill which deals with the personal independence payment. Like the noble Baronesses who have already spoken, I declare my interest as a recipient of disability living allowance since its inception in 1992. I hope that that can be taken as read throughout the rest of the amendments as we speak to them.

The noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, has made a very full case. What has emerged is the iconic significance of DLA to disabled people. It was an enlightened measure introduced by a previous Conservative Government, when, as the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, told us, the noble Lord, Lord Newton, was Secretary of State—and, if I am not mistaken, Sir Nicholas Scott was Minister for Disabled People. It corrected many anomalies, as the quotation of Sir Bert Massie by the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, reminded us.

Blind people were particularly grateful for the introduction of DLA. They had campaigned for many years for recognition of the extra costs attributable to blindness, but they were never officially acknowledged until the introduction of DLA. There were still anomalies; blind people were only eligible to apply for the mobility component at the lower rate—an anomaly that was only removed with the passage of the Welfare Reform Act 2009. That reform was supported by the Conservative Party at the time. I very much hope that blind people will not find that that hard-fought gain is snatched from their grasp—just as it has been won—with the implementation of personal independence payments. That would surely leave a legacy of bitterness that the Government would find hard to overcome.

This brings us back to the iconic significance of DLA. For many people it is not only the means but the symbol of their independence. As we have heard, much apprehension has been caused among disabled people by the changes the Government are making to the benefit system. People are fearful that their independence will be undermined with the change from DLA to PIP, or personal independence payment.

As Ministers probably recognise, the Government have a gap in confidence to overcome as regards the reforms where disabled people are concerned. They may well feel, on reflection, that retaining the name, which has such significance for disabled people, would be a small price to pay for the changes that they wish to make to the benefit. As the noble Baroness has said, names are important, and many disabled people obviously feel that we would lose this one at our peril. I hope, after due consideration, the Minister will take the same view.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, I would like to speak very briefly indeed in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell. I apologise that I cannot be here for all of our deliberations today.

The noble Baroness made a very strong case. I was struck by one thing she said when she talked about the signal sent out by this label. The Ministers are constantly telling us about wanting to send out signals with this Bill. It is one signal after another. The noble Baroness has said very clearly that disabled people are telling us that this is sending out the wrong signal. Disabled people are the experts here and we should be listening to them.

I want to add one further point. An additional reason why personal independence payment could be very confusing and give the wrong signal is that, unfortunately, the term “independence” in government speak has come to be equivalent to being in paid work. There is a real danger that disabled people will think it is only for those of them who are able to be in paid work or who are in paid work. I do not believe that that is what “independence” means, but it has become a kind of conventional wisdom. There is an opportunity here for the Government to send out the correct signal to ensure that this benefit is taken up by those for whom it is designed. I hope that we can take note of and support what the noble Baroness has said. I am sure that the artwork has not yet been done. The amendment will therefore be completely cost-free and the Government could take the credit simply by accepting it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Campbell of Surbiton]

My Lords, I, too, support this amendment. In fact, it was down in my name, but when I saw how many amendments I was going to put down I thought I was being too greedy. My question to the Minister is very short. Has he had discussions with those in the Department of Health responsible for the prevention agenda with regard to closing the basic rate? It will have a massive impact on the prevention agenda, which is very much about giving a little bit of support and keeping people independent for a lot longer with a lot less cost for healthcare and social care services.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, my name is on the amendment. I will very briefly make clear my support for it. Most of the things that I intended to say have been said, but I will underscore them. My first point is very much the same as that of the noble Lord, Lord Newton. The proposal to eliminate the lowest rate of DLA care when introducing the daily living component of PIP at only two levels is one of the principal causes of the fear and apprehension on the part of disabled people that we talked about when discussing the earlier amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell. As we heard, we are not talking about a small number of people but 652,000, or nearly three-quarters of a million. That is a substantial consideration of which the Government should be mindful.

My other point, which I do not think anybody has made, is that the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, allows the Government room in regulations to reduce the number of disabled people receiving the lowest rate of the care component while still ensuring that some of those who currently access this level of help will not be cut adrift at a stroke from support when the new benefit is introduced. Now I come to think of it, this point is the same as that made by the noble Lord, Lord Newton; it is about transition and flexibility. If the Government, for cost considerations or for any other reason, feel it imperative to push ahead in this direction, I urge them to give serious thought to the question of phasing out and showing flexibility on the precise number who will be cut adrift from the benefit at a stroke. If we need to lose some people, perhaps consideration can be given to articulating the benefit in such a way that not all 652,000 people are affected at once.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, I hope that by means of the Minister’s response to the amendments we will come to understand the Government’s thinking on why and how they will move from three levels of disability living allowance to two levels as part of what today I will call PIP, even though I hope that we may rename it.

PIP will have a daily living and mobility allowance, with the daily living component awarded according to an individual’s ability to carry out key activities so as to enable them to participate in everyday life. This is a fairly fundamental description of why it should be paid. However, I will ask four questions about the move to abolish one of the rates. First, what is the evidence base for this change? Clearly there is one; we know that the Minister is a good evidence-based policy developer. However, I am unclear about what it is. Will the two rates satisfactorily encompass the whole range of disability that we seek to help or will it be simply administratively easier and therefore quicker to administer and get help to people? What is the rationale?

Secondly, if neither of these two explanations is right, is it simply a device that has been selected by Government to help achieve the 20 per cent cut? Is it to be achieved by chopping out the bottom one-third of assessed needs? I am afraid that the Disability Alliance judges that this is the reason. It is particularly concerned that disabled people receiving the DLA low-care payments may lose support as a result of the scrapping of this bit of assistance and the Government’s stated aim of only helping those with the most severe needs.

--- Later in debate ---

I beg to move.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, I realise that I should have apologised to the Committee earlier for having taken no part in the debates on this Bill heretofore, then turning up on day 13 and contributing to practically all the debates. I hope that this will be regarded as making up for lost time rather than trespassing on the good will of the Committee. I would have been here for day 11 when contributory ESA was discussed at considerable length, but unfortunately I was away last week and therefore not able to do that, however keen I was to do so. However, I hope that I will be able to make up for lost time on that when we come to Report. There was certainly a lot to get one’s teeth into in the report of the debate on contributory ESA held on day 11, which I have already begun to study with care, but it is quite technical so it will need more study—I can see another weekend or two going on that.

I turn to the matter in hand. I certainly want to support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Campbell. People vary in the extent to which they regard the social model of disability as another holy grail of disability policy and in the extent to which they regard the barriers erected by society as opposed to medical factors as accounting for the bulk of a disabled person’s difficulties. I confess that I am inclined to allocate a bit more significance than some to the so-called medical factors—those to do with the individual and their impairment. But this amendment is moved in impeccably moderate terms. Its purpose is simply to ensure that the assessment process for PIP takes into account the full range of factors—social, practical and environmental as well as medical—that disabled people face. No one could possibly disagree with that, and I am sure that the Minister will tell us that he does not either.

In introducing PIP, the Government have stated their commitment to support disabled people to overcome the barriers they face in order to lead full and independent lives. If that is the case, the assessment should assess the full picture of the barriers that disabled people face in their everyday lives, and putting this amendment in the Bill would help to ensure that the assessment process took that form.

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, I regard this as one of the most important amendments we are considering because of the importance of the message it carries. If we were alive then, most of us remember where we were when President Kennedy was shot, or when 9/11 occurred. I remember exactly where I was when I first came across the social definition of disability. I was in Sweden, it was 30 years ago this year, and it was the International Year of Disabled Persons. I was in the process of trying to get a disabled person’s Act on to the statute book in the House of Commons. With the support of a number of people here, we were successful. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Low, gave me a considerable amount of help outside the Chamber at the time.

The definition was put to me in these terms, which I still carry in my mind. Handicap is the relationship between a disabled person and his or her physical, social or psychological environment. By medical intervention, we may or may not be able to do something about the basic disability, but our ability to amend and adjust the environment can prevent disability becoming a handicap. In those terms, it is glaringly clear where responsibility lies to minimise the degree of handicap that people, for various unfortunate reasons, whether accidental or congenital, have to face as the consequence of disability. It is the responsibility of any Government in any civilised country to have that at the core of their approach to disability politics.

I am not certain of the extent to which the words in the amendment will change the thrust of policy, but I am certain that the commitment to this approach must be central. If we have that commitment at the heart of our thinking, other decisions in this Committee and in later stages will work out for the benefit of disabled people.

Welfare Reform Bill

Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts

Tuesday 13th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, this is a very important Bill. It could well be a Bill which defines the coalition every bit as much as the Health and Social Care Bill. It certainly deserves the same treatment. At its heart is the introduction of universal credit, which brings together the majority of in-work and out-of-work benefits and tax credits for people on a low income, with the aim of simplifying the benefits system and getting people off welfare and into work. Allied to measures which limit the amount of time for which people can remain on contributory employment and support allowance, and benefit from more generous levels of support, this is the Government’s flagship policy for addressing poverty. As such, by incentivising work and reforming a welfare system which has kept people in a state of dependency and out of work for too long, in making it pay to be in work, this would seem to have much to commend it. But there are losers as well as gainers.

Tony Blair is reputed to have asked what you had to do to save £1 billion on welfare and been told that a million people had to lose a thousand pounds. The Government’s welfare reforms are aimed at saving £18 billion. That is an awful lot of people who have to lose a thousand pounds—or rather more if you want to reduce the number of losers. Many of these losers are disabled people, the most vulnerable in our society, whom the Government have pledged to protect. At this point I ought to declare my interest as a disabled person myself, president of the Disability Alliance and a vice-president of RNIB.

The enhanced disability premium and severe disability premium will not be replicated within universal credit. As a result, disabled people living alone without a carer will be worse off; without the disability addition, so will parents with disabled children who are out of work. Research by the think tank Demos has shown that, far from being protected from the worst of the cuts, disabled families face losses of £2,000 to £3,000 over the course of this Parliament. Overall, it estimates that disabled people will lose £9 billion in welfare support.

The Government propose that the range of premia will be replaced by two additions reflecting the ESA components, and it is intended that the weekly rate of the support component equivalent will rise in stages from £13.40 today to £74.50. But the Disability Benefits Consortium estimates that if, instead of this, the severe disability premium and the disability addition were retained, a higher proportion of the childcare costs of disabled children were met and disregards payable to certain groups were made additive—so that, for example, someone who is both a lone parent and disabled was entitled to two disregards—the losers could be protected without resulting in extra cost.

However, this would undermine the entire logic of the scheme. Incentivising work means penalising the condition of not working, and making it, in the language of the Poor Law, less eligible. The most flagrant example of this is the proposal to time-limit contributory ESA to claimants in the work related activity group to one year. The DWP estimates that, by 2015-16, around 700,000 people will lose their entitlement to contributory ESA. On average, their income is expected to drop by £36 a week. About 60 per cent of these will be able to receive income-based ESA, but the rest will lose their benefit entirely if they do not meet the means test. Indeed, 400,000 will have to lose their benefit if the Treasury is to make the planned savings of £2 billion. The loss will be more for some than others, but it is estimated that 280,000 will lose their entire benefit, currently worth £94.25 a week.

There are five things wrong with this. First, in the great majority of cases, the people we are talking about do not want to be dependent on welfare. They do not choose economic inactivity; they are not the “undeserving poor”; they want to work. Secondly, their impairments often make it very difficult for them to do so. Thirdly, where this is not the case, or the difficulties can be overcome, prejudices, or sometimes just the reasonable apprehensions of employers, can present an insuperable barrier. Fourthly, in the current state of the economy, there just are not the jobs. In all these circumstances it can be quite unrealistic to expect people to find a job within a year.

The DWP has estimated that of those on contributory ESA and in the work related activity group, 94 per cent will take longer than a year to find work. Cutting off the enhanced level of support after a year is a breach of faith with people, many of whom will only have become disabled towards the end of their working life and will have paid their national insurance contributions for perhaps 30 or 40 years. Add to this the indignity of ever more draconian assessments by people who palpably do not understand the realities of disability—highlighted so graphically and eloquently by the noble Baronesses, Lady Campbell and Lady Wilkins—and it is not difficult to understand the fear and anxiety being expressed by disabled people at the present time.

The Disability Benefits Consortium quotes a disabled person who trenchantly articulates this complex of interacting issues:

“I don’t want to be declared not fit to work as I know there is work I can do despite the problems that Parkinson’s can cause. But there is no guarantee that I will find a job in 12 months. It could take me much longer. I’ve worked all my life and have paid for decades into the system on the understanding that there will be support if I need it. To be told that all of this support could have an arbitrary time limit is both unfair and stressful”.

There are many aspects of this complex Bill that it has not been possible even to touch on. Others have and will speak about them. I am afraid that I will have to disappoint my noble friend Lord Rix for today, until my review of the funding of mobility for people in residential care is further advanced.

I have concentrated on ESA because it is so emblematic of the approach that this Government are taking toward welfare. Ministers appear oblivious to what is happening at the coal face; instead, they proceed with all the messianic zeal of Poor Law commissioners, careless of who gets rolled over by the juggernaut of reform. Indeed, the casualties are a necessary part of the reform. We will need to see many changes before this Bill is fit for purpose, but nowhere more than in relation to contributory ESA.

The Liberal Democrats have a motion before their conference next week which opposes the time-limiting of ESA. I hope that our Lib Dem colleagues will be taking note and realising that there is more about this coalition’s programme which needs eviscerating than its reforms of the NHS. I hope, too, that Ministers will be listening so that we do not have to regard the Conservative Party, this time with its Lib Dem accomplices, as the nasty party once again.

Disabled People: Disability Living Allowance

Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts

Wednesday 11th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, this is a key matter. There are a large number of benefits attached to DLA. I suspect that at least six government departments are involved. No one knows exactly where all of them are because local authorities use them in different ways. We are going to make a very close assessment of this. Indeed, we suspect that some of the attached benefits will be looked at again to see how they can best be directed at the people who need that support.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that on Monday the Government published draft assessment regulations for the new personal independence payment. It appears that assessments will seek to distinguish between those who have not adapted to their disability and those who have and who will be at risk of having their benefit reduced or losing it altogether. Does the Minister not agree that people may have adapted to their disability by reason of the very help that they have received from disability living allowance, which supports their independence and fuller inclusion in the community, and that reduction of benefit for those who have so adapted may, in fact, be self-defeating and undermine the integration into the community of the very people the benefit was designed to help?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, this is clearly a quite nuanced issue, because there are people who are climbing Mount Kenya on prosthetic limbs who are, I suspect, less challenged in doing that than many of us would be. It does not make sense to go on treating them as disabled in any way, although they may need ongoing support to keep that particular disability support going. We need to get this right. We are consulting on it, and we are determined that we do not create a disincentive for people to use all the supports that they need.

Disabled People: Employment

Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I can categorically reassure the noble Baroness that there is no such plan as has been suggested by the unions; we are looking at a voluntary redundancy plan. The next stage of what happens to Remploy will depend on the review that Liz Sayce is conducting into disability employment programmes, which is due to report in the summer.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, I recognise that only voluntary redundancies are being sought at this stage, but does the Minister not agree that Remploy’s failure to meet its financial targets is, at least in part, attributable to the Government’s failure to meet their commitment to put work into the factories through procurement and otherwise? Can he assure the House that the Government will redouble their efforts to fulfil their side of the bargain contained in the five-year funding agreement of 2007?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, the Remploy business plan was designed by Remploy management. It has failed to achieve its targets because, in retrospect, it was wildly overambitious to expect that public procurement could go up by 130 per cent. The cost of subsidising a disabled person in a Remploy job has now reached £23,000 a year, compared with the success of Remploy employment services in putting a person into an independent job for a one-off cost of £3,400.

Employment and Support Allowance (Limited Capability for Work and Limited Capability for Work-Related Activity) (Amendment) Regulations 2011

Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, many speakers have already gone over the new regulations in great detail, and I do not wish to repeat what others have said and go into all the ramifications. I propose just to talk about the impact of the new regulations on blind and partially sighted people, which is likely to be quite serious and which illustrates that the regulations as we have them at the moment are not fit for purpose. I think that other speakers have been unduly kind about the regulations. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, said that he was in favour of them. I have to say that I am not in favour of them as they stand. I am more with the Social Security Advisory Committee, which has said that they are not yet fit for purpose in a number of respects, that they were being rushed through prematurely, and that the department should take them back to await the second phase of Professor Harrington’s review. There should be more mature reflection on some of the points that have been made about the regulations and further consultation with the stakeholders who have been so critical of them, about which we have heard.

As has been stated by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, these regulations fundamentally undermine the structure of the employment and support allowance where claimants with limited capability for work are put into either the work-related activity group or the support group. The new descriptors make the limited capability for work test, the gateway to the benefit, unreasonably difficult to pass for many disabled people, certainly for blind and partially sighted people. By setting such a high threshold for eligibility for the ESA, they transform the limited capability for work test into a limited capability for work-related activity test, which large numbers are bound to fail. This in effect erodes the distinction between the two tests, undermining the intention of the Welfare Reform Act 2007 that there should be two distinct groups of claimants, one moving towards work—the work-related activity group—and the other with no conditionality—the support group. Under these regulations, the number of disabled people able to qualify for the work-related activity group will drop dramatically, as whole groups are largely excluded by the eligibility threshold.

The Merits Committee, in its first report of this Session, stated that the department itself estimates that 23 per cent will be found fit for work and will be required to make a new claim for jobseeker’s allowance, with its obligation to participate in activities to improve job prospects. The Social Security Advisory Committee believes that the DWP has underestimated the support required by this vulnerable group of claimants. It has also said a number of other things: first, that the current descriptors are also inadequate for measuring the capacity of those with mental health conditions, sensory disabilities or fluctuating conditions; and, secondly, that there needs to be a closer correlation between the tests and normal work situations. For example, someone who needs to be accompanied to familiar places by a helper is not sufficiently adapted to their condition to be capable of work, yet this would score only nine points under the proposed new descriptors and would therefore not enable that person to get through the gateway and qualify for the benefit.

The disability organisations that have made submissions to the Merits Committee have also made a number of other points. The perspective on work skills needs to be wider. Someone might be able to pack boxes all day, but not be able competently to find their way to the factory canteen; or again, people with a limited capability for work—blind people are actually instanced for this—may be able to work, but in a very circumscribed set of jobs. There is an insufficient supply of those jobs in a depressed job market.

I wish to concentrate on the impact of the regulations on the situation of blind and partially sighted people, and in doing so I declare my interest, although at my time of life I am not likely to be applying for employment and support allowance. However, I am a vice-president of the RNIB, which has had a certain amount to say about these regulations. Those who know about these things are clear that the new regulations will have a disastrous impact on blind and partially sighted people, who will in all likelihood fail to qualify for the ESA if the regulations come into force. This is deeply concerning, they say, considering that many blind and partially sighted people have limited capability for work and so should be able to qualify for the ESA, where limited capability for work can be demonstrated—which, I repeat, will be very difficult to do under the new regulations.

A person of working age who loses their sight will need to learn new skills such as independent mobility and how to use a computer using screen magnification or speech output software, as well as new everyday living skills such as cooking, dressing, cleaning and so on. It is not appropriate to require someone in this position to end up claiming jobseeker’s allowance, yet that will be the impact of these regulations. Under the proposed limited capability for work test, a blind person’s difficulties in performing most work-related activities would be ignored and only extreme difficulties in navigation and maintaining safety would be assessed. A visually impaired person would be considered to have a limited capability for work only if they were unable to navigate around unfamiliar surroundings without being accompanied by another person.

The RNIB says that it does not believe that Atos has the specialist knowledge and expertise in a medical test centre environment to carry out functional assessments of the mobility of people with sight loss. It says:

“For example, we are unclear how they would determine whether or not a person is unable, due to sight loss, to navigate a familiar route without support, when they will be assessed in an unfamiliar environment at the test centre, under conditions of limited time for the assessment to be completed”.

The department’s internal review stated that it was the department’s intention to continue to work with experts and specialist disability organisations to refine the descriptors related to sight loss. However, this has not happened, despite requests to meet officials. For that reason, the department really ought to look further at the regulations before it has these discussions with interested organisations that it says in its internal review it is its firm intention to have.

For many blind and partially sighted people, the regulations, if brought into force, could see them denied the ESA. This is due to the high qualifying threshold being put in place around limited capability for work and the failure properly to assess the effects of sight loss. The regulations will seriously undermine the distinction between the work-related activity group and the support group, and force people who should be eligible for the ESA on to the JSA, which is not the appropriate benefit for people with limited capability for work. I do not believe that this is either appropriate or that it was the intention behind the Welfare Reform Act 2007.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I did not want to interrupt the noble Lord, but I think he said that I had said I was in support of these regulations. I am not and I do not believe I said that—if I did it was certainly not my intention. I tried to play back some of the concerns that have been raised with us. I certainly support the concept of the ESA and of the WCA, but I do not support these particular regulations.