Economy: The Growth Plan 2022

Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Low of Dalston (CB)]

My Lords, the economy is not in a good state. The Budget and the so-called growth plan are not about to make things any better.

The Prime Minister and the Chancellor would like us to believe that all our economic woes are the result of Putin’s war and the resultant energy price increases. They want us to focus on the energy-capping element of their economic strategy, but the truth is that, before Putin, there were already worrying signs of output constraints, labour market distortions and inflationary pressures resulting from the disruptive effects of both Brexit and the pandemic.

Now, inflation is at almost 10%, output is still below its pre-pandemic level and wages for many, especially those in the public sector, are lagging well behind prices. Meanwhile, public services are in urgent need of resources, not just to deal with the enormous backlog built up during the pandemic but to rebuild resilience following a decade of underfunding of health, social care, education and local authority spending. Not only that but the lack of healthcare resources is almost certainly having a significant, negative impact on the labour market and, consequently, economic output.

In these circumstances, the Budget on 24 September should have confined itself to introducing the new energy price caps, with a promise of properly considered tax and spending decisions—and funding arrangements to match—to come later in the year. Instead, the Chancellor succeeded in spooking the financial markets with the promise of massive unfunded tax cuts, thereby weakening the pound and, more importantly, pushing up the cost of government debt and raising interest rates more quickly than would otherwise have been needed.

With mortgage rates already increasing to over 6%, mortgage payments as a proportion of household disposable income will be at their highest since 1989, just before the crash in house prices of the early 1990s—and this on top of record energy bills. No wonder consumer confidence and business confidence are weak and there is every prospect of stagnation, perhaps even recession, in the coming months. What is the Government’s response? It is tax cuts for the rich, benefit cuts for the poor and the prospect of a new round of austerity in public sector spending, all dressed up as a plan for growth.

How, then, are we to explain the Chancellor resorting to swingeing tax cuts, worth £43 billion at the latest count, in conditions of high—and rising—interest rates and overstretched, underfunded public services? The Government’s position, at least in public, is that tax cuts will be paid for by increased economic growth, which they will also help to generate in combination with cutting red tape and easing planning regulations. The problem, however, is that almost no one—certainly not the markets—believes that these things are likely to happen. There is no evidence from either comparison across countries or past experience that lower taxes are associated with higher productivity growth and, hence, higher trend rates of growth in output. Of course, in the right circumstances, cutting taxes can stimulate demand and so raise output in the short run, but that works only when inflation is low and there is plenty of spare capacity, which is far from the case at the moment.

As for deregulation, easing planning regulations may help a little if it is not thwarted by local opposition, including from Tory interests. However, the perennial and often counterproductive war on red tape and gimmicks such as investment zones will have a marginal impact at best.

If we cannot rely on increased growth to fund the Chancellor’s tax cuts, there is only one option for avoiding an unsustainable spiral of increasing government debt: large-scale cuts in government spending. Perhaps it is not unduly cynical to suggest that shrinking the state may have been a secondary—even primary, in some quarters—objective of the tax-cutting strategy. That would certainly be consistent with the decision to sidestep the scrutiny of the OBR when the tax cuts were announced. In any case—

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

The noble Lord has had quite a lot of latitude with the advisory speaking time but is now significantly over. Perhaps he could think about drawing his comments to a close.

[Lord Low of Dalston (CB)]

I am on my last sentence.

In any case, if the tax cuts are to be sustained, substantial cuts in government spending are on the way. The paradox is that this is the opposite of what is required for a credible growth plan.

Elections Bill

Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Committee stage
Tuesday 15th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise very briefly in support of this group of amendments. I will speak briefly as I was not able to participate in the Second Reading debate.

Looking at the Bill in its entirety, it is pretty clear why most of the various elements are contained within it. I hope that the Minister will not find it pejorative if I suggest that this is because they convey an advantage in one particular direction rather than another. I look at the provisions in the Bill for blind and partially sighted people and I wonder, “What is it that blind and partially sighted people have ever done to the Conservative Party?” Because, in its existing form, the Bill reduces and diminishes the rights that blind and partially sighted people have in terms of casting their vote independently and in secret.

So why was that? There are various reasons. It could be that, in an excess of zeal to extend the rights of disabled people more generally, somehow this was a mistake, and they did not intend to take away the rights of blind and partially sighted people but simply wanted to put in an additional, rather than a replacement, provision for disabled people. If so, that is clearly a mistake, and no doubt when the Minister rises, he will say, “Yes, it was a mistake and we’re going to correct it”.

The other concern may be that, as I understand it, the Government have lost two court cases on precisely this principle: whether they are meeting their existing obligations. So maybe this is about cost. In which case, I hope that the Minister will recognise that to deprive certain categories of people of their vote because it will cost too much to make the necessary provision is inappropriate.

So I hope that the Minister when he responds will recognise that the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, are entirely sensible—they remedy what I hope was an accidental change introduced by the Government that would diminish the rights of blind and partially sighted people—and that he will accept them, or one of the other amendments before us today.

[Lord Low of Dalston (CB)]

My Lords, I have here a speech in support of the case which has been deployed already with great eloquence by a number of speakers— I think that we are up to three or four already—so I think that the best service I can perform for the Committee is not to read it out. The argument for amending the Bill to underwrite the case for inclusion and accessibility in the voting process, particularly for blind and partially sighted people and people with disabilities, has been very strongly articulated. That being so, it is incumbent on the Government to take particular note of what has been said and respond to the call for reinforcing the accessibility and inclusiveness of the electoral process, in particular for people with disabilities and people who are blind or partially sighted.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, if an amendment has been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, moved briefly but eloquently by my noble friend, and now endorsed by the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, we do not really need to say any more, do we?

We talk about the expertise of this House. Here we have three of our most respected Members, who themselves have overcome so many of the difficulties of being blind. They can speak with a measure of experience that none of us can begin to emulate. I hope that my noble friend will give a very brief summing up and say, “Yes, we accept what has been said by those who truly know what they’re talking about”—and then we will move on.

Covid-19: Wedding Venues

Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord True]

I would say to my noble friend that we have only just moved into a new phase, which people are welcoming, in which marriages can actually take place. For a number of months, weddings have not been allowed and managers have had to confront that question. I am afraid that the position must remain that venue managers themselves will have discretion over when they consider it safe to open. Also, the officiant at a wedding, whether in a church or a secular setting, needs to be content that it is safe to proceed.

[Lord Low of Dalston (CB) [V]]

My Lords, once weddings resume, there will no doubt be a huge backlog of demand for registrars that could easily stretch through to the end of next year. One way the Government should seek to ease that demand is by extending legal recognition to humanist marriages, which would mean that couples who want a humanist wedding would not also have to have a civil ceremony to gain legal recognition. Humanist marriages are already legally recognised in Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Will the Government commit to acting now to bring about similar recognition here?

Covid-19: Economy

Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Low of Dalston (CB)]

My Lords, will rushing to lift the lockdown hasten or postpone recovery? The Prime Minister seems to have started to lift the lockdown more quickly than most scientists would have advised. No doubt the reasons are mixed, but strong pressure seems to have come from the Treasury, concerned about the costs of furloughing and other income support measures, and anxious to see an increase in tax receipts from increased economic activity. However, the belief that the sooner we lift lockdown, the sooner we will all get back to work, may well be misplaced. Infection and death rates are still high: the R value is not much below 1, and we do not have a fully functioning test, trace and isolate regime in place. The danger is that infection rates will start to rise again, and we will not have the testing capacity to track and suppress new outbreaks.

In the event of a second wave, lockdown may have to be reimposed—or in any case people will choose not to go back to work and be unwilling to go out and spend, and the recovery will stall. Premature unlocking could well thus cost the Treasury and business more, not less. Much better, then, to delay a precipitate lifting of the lockdown for a few weeks, which would be sufficient to get infection rates down and put in place a test, trace and isolate regime capable of tracking and suppressing new outbreaks. Of course, no one can be sure how the virus will respond to raising the lockdown, or how people will behave in the event of a second wave, but arguably the risks of a second wave and a long, delayed recovery greatly outweigh those of a more cautious lockdown that will buy time for infection and death rates to come down and for test, trace and isolate to kick in.

The other thing to highlight is, of course, the interplay between Covid and Brexit. The big risk is that, under cover of our preoccupation with the pandemic and its economic impact, the Government will squander the opportunity of a trade deal with the 27 and default to what the ERG have always wanted: no trade deal and WTO rules by the beginning of next year. This would of course be an act of wilful self-harm when we need to do everything possible to stimulate post-Covid recovery, a point well illustrated by this week’s reminder from Nissan that its Sunderland plant will be unsustainable in the absence of a trade deal.

Covid-19: Restrictions

Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord True]

My Lords, I cannot give my noble friend a specific date. However, I underline not only that the matter is, as I stated, under continuous review but that Public Health England hopes to issue further guidance next month.

[Lord Low of Dalston (CB)]

My Lords, will the Government ensure that the steps to adjust restrictions for those isolating clearly allow for healthy individuals over 70 to be trusted to use their judgment regarding their personal safety and that of the wider community?

[Lord True]

My Lords, the guidance that is in place is advisory. We have no plans to make it mandatory for people aged 70 and over to follow advice beyond what is mandatory for all of us. However, I repeat that the scientific and medical evidence is clear that those in older age groups are in graver danger from the serious consequences of this virus.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL]

Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 7th September 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords, I defer to my noble friend’s greater understanding of these issues. However, it is not the case that an indirectly elected House that represented the nations and regions of this country would not be a powerful House. If my noble friend wishes himself to go and spend time in a university, he needs to go and study the operation of the Bundesrat in Germany, which is a substantially powerful institution, because it represents the elected state Governments of the Federal Republic of Germany. If my noble friend’s concern is about having a stronger second Chamber, any of these options would lead to a substantially stronger second Chamber than we have at the moment, and that would of necessity take power away from the House of Commons, which would be a very good thing.

These are issues which we should be debating as a country, and which the public wish to see debated, because they want to see more substantial power brought to them. It is a particular issue in the Midlands and the north of this country, where the sense of alienation is greatest and, I might add, if you look at the statistics, those regions are least well represented even within this nominated House. Eight per cent of the Members of your Lordships’ House come from the north of England; 15% of the population comes from the north. London and the south-east are almost twice overrepresented in this House if you compare the number of Members of this House with the population of those regions.

There are fundamental problems with the operation of this House, which will not be dealt with—I say with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack—by minute, incremental reforms. They require fundamental reform. The Brexit crisis that we are now going through puts fundamental constitutional reform on the agenda. The time is right to address it now and not to engage in tinkering reforms of this kind, which will simply entrench a nominated House.

[Lord Low of Dalston (CB)]

Instead of addressing us at some length on the rationale for his amendment, could the noble Lord possibly answer an important question about the process or the mechanism by which it would operate? As I read the amendment, it says that whenever a vacancy occurs by reason of the death—or, I suppose, the resignation—of a hereditary Peer, the whole panoply of a general election has to be mobilised to fill this one vacancy. Is that really what the noble Lord’s amendment suggests?

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords, this is such a well-crafted amendment that it would make a fundamental reform of this House unavoidable, which was the original purpose of the undertakings given by my noble and learned friend Lord Irvine of Lairg during the passage of the 1999 Act. He saw at the time, and we agreed, that this would be a poisoned pill in the composition of the current House of Lords that would make the creation of a democratic House unavoidable. That, alas, has not happened in the last 20 years. I greatly regret it and I accept some measure of responsibility for the fact that the Government of which I was apart did not succeed in carrying through its proposals for a fully elected House. But I am afraid that the party opposite did not succeed in it, and that the noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches, who claim to be most powerfully in favour of these reforms, also failed when they were in government. So in different ways, all the parties in this House have failed.

That failure, and the failure of wider constitutional reform of which it is a part, is a substantial part of the reason why we are going through the current Brexit crisis. We need to address it, and I would much rather do so by fundamental changes and improvements to the constitution of the United Kingdom than by wrenching this country out of the European Union.

These issues cannot be ducked, and we certainly cannot sweep them under the carpet with tiny, incremental changes of the kind which my noble friend Lord Grocott is proposing, so I beg to move.

House of Lords Reform: Elected Second Chamber

Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am not sure on what evidence the noble Lord makes that final statement. He is quite right that in the Parliament before this there was a majority of 388 on Second Reading for the Bill that he referred to—partly, perhaps, because I wound up that debate. Sadly, it was not possible to progress with a programme Motion, partly because of some dissent in my own party—I would not call them rebel reactionaries, as I think the noble Lord did—but, had the Labour Party joined the Government in the Lobbies, that programme Motion would have been passed. So I think the responsibility needs to be shared.

The noble Lord was right to remind the House that there is some discontent in the other place about the role of your Lordships’ House. There was a debate last week in the other place on the abolition of your Lordships’ House and some disobliging remarks were made. It was the view of one Member of Parliament that,

“it is about time the Commons decided who is an appropriate Member of the second Chamber … Select Committees are the obvious bodies to interview them”.

Another said:

“My final point is that whatever money we save from the House of Lords should be given to MPs—not in pay but to run our offices”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/6/18; col. 13WH.]


But I do not believe that there is a public appetite for the abolition of the second Chamber.

[Lord Low of Dalston (CB)]

My Lords, I do not favour election, but does the Minister not agree that it might constitute a worthwhile advance if Members of this House were still to be appointed, possibly by an appointments commission, but greatly strengthened by a system of nominations from the different branches of civil society, such as the law, medicine, the arts, sport, education, the armed services, business, trade unions, the third sector, and so on?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I agree that all those professions and interests should be represented in your Lordships’ House and that the Cross Benches have a good representation of those interests. I think there is a quota of Peers allocated each year to HOLAC in order to appoint more Cross-Bench Peers. All this is against a background of the Prime Minister exercising restraint on political appointments. The recent Dissolution Honours List was the smallest since 1979—and here I warmly welcome my noble friend Lord Haselhurst.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL]

Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts

Friday 23rd March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

That the House do now resume.

[Lord Low of Dalston (CB)]

My Lords, the business list for today indicates that after we have received the reply to the Urgent Question, the House will move into Committee on the conscientious objection Bill. As we have made good progress on the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, I suggest that we keep going on that to see whether we can get through the rest of that business today, rather than move on to the Committee of another Bill.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I understand the appetite to make progress on the Bill that we have been discussing. There have been discussions through the usual channels, including with the sponsor of the Bill, and it has been decided to split the day half and half between the Bill we have just been discussing and the conscientious objection Bill. I think that the House ought to stick to the arrangement agreed through the usual channels.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The Government will not be making time for the Bill. Its progress on a Friday is something that will need to be discussed with the Chief Whip.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, that is why I proposed that we should keep going on this Bill. We have made good progress on it and, as the noble Lord has indicated, there is no assurance of getting further time for it. I accept that an agreement has been reached through the usual channels but the House is sovereign on these matters and I would like to put it to the House that, after we have heard the Answer to the UQ—

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Although I personally have every sympathy for the Bill of my noble friend Lord Grocott, and I would like to hear whether he feels that there is a way of getting it through the House, the second Bill raises some very significant ethical issues which it is important to discuss. The conscientious objection Bill is not a trivial measure and it is right and proper that we discuss it in Committee, as arranged by the usual channels.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Low of Dalston]

I accede to what has been said: the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has reached an agreement through the usual channels. The House has sent a strong signal today that it wants to see further time made available for the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. In the hope that that request will be acceded to, I will not press the point that we take further time in Committee today on the noble Lord’s Bill.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Low, for being so eager to resume the House.

Universal Credit

Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts

Thursday 16th November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Low of Dalston (CB)]

My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, on securing this debate at such a timely juncture, and on introducing it with her customary authority. Everybody says that universal credit is a good idea in theory. If successfully implemented as originally conceived, it would bring six existing benefits together in a single system and ensure that work always paid. But in practice it has been dogged by nothing but problems. Implementation has been subject to severe delays, and it is now running some five years behind. It has been beset by IT problems, cost overruns and write-offs, and the Treasury has substantially eroded the value of the new benefit by cutting costs, in particular by raising the taper rate—the rate at which earnings are clawed back—from 55p to 65p in the pound; it was only slightly reduced, to 63p, in last year’s Autumn Statement. As is plain to see, rollout, and the time people have to wait before payment, is giving rise to major problems.

I want to talk about the impact on disabled people. I suspect I shall be making a good many of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, did not have time to make, so if he has discussions later with the Minister, I wonder whether I might possibly join those discussions.

To begin with, a number of design and implementation faults have caused problems for disabled people in accessing payments. There are concerns that processes and systems are inaccessible. Universal credit is normally claimed online, and Citizens Advice has found that people are struggling with the application process, including difficulties with the online system. The online application process must be made accessible, including the provision of information that is easy to understand. Disabled people should also be given the opportunity to make their claim in person and have access to appropriate support.

As for the financial impact, Citizens Advice estimates that 68% of households claiming universal credit will have an adult with a disability or long-term health condition. In her 2012 report Holes in the Safety Net, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, found that 450,000 disabled people would be worse off under universal credit. Certain groups would be particularly affected: 100,000 disabled children would lose up to £28 a week, and 230,000 severely disabled people who do not have another adult to assist them could lose between £28 and £58 a week. Up to 116,000 disabled people who work could be at risk of losing £40 a week.

The reality was made clear by a disability activist who wrote to me saying:

“One aspect of the universal credit system which to date no one has mentioned is the fact that when making a new claim for universal credit, severely disabled people lose £78.35 a week. This is due to the fact that two of the three disability premiums that were available under employment and support allowance are no longer available under universal credit. Under ESA there were three disability premiums. A basic disability premium of £32.55 a week is still available, but a severe disability premium, currently £62.45 a week payable to people receiving the mid or high-care component of DLA or PIP, and an enhanced disability premium, currently £15.90 a week payable to those in receipt of the highest rate of care component, are no longer available.”


She cited the case of a disabled man with severe mental health problems who stood to lose £77.75 a week. The stress occasioned by this potential reduction in his income, together with the hassle of the application process, had led him to make two attempts on his life.

The Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016 also saw a £30 a week cut in employment and support allowance for those in the work-related activity group. That was a particularly controversial cut. Despite much urging from the disability community, there is no sign of it being reversed. This cut is mirrored in universal credit by the removal of the limited capability for work component, also worth £30 a week. In many cases, this is likely to mean that for those disabled people in low-paid jobs, work will no longer pay, while for those not in work, it will be increasingly difficult to make ends meet.

The Disability Benefits Consortium, which represents 80 disability charities, is urging the Government to halt the rollout of universal credit for any further disabled claimants and urgently engage with disability organisations and disabled people to see how the dire consequences of universal credit for disabled people can be ameliorated. I earnestly beg the Government to heed its call.

Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) (Amendment) Regulations 2017

Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts

Monday 27th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Browning]

My Lords, it a great privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton. We heard from previous speakers why we are tonight discussing and debating the proposed changes to PIP. I refer to my interests in the register particularly relating to autism. It is about autism that I will speak in the context of PIP. I support particularly the regret Motion tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock.

Of course, autism is not a mental illness; it is a lifelong communication disorder. People with autism are born with it and die with it. It is also a spectrum, ranging from people who need 24-hour care for most of their life right through to a group of people capable of university degree-standard education and holding down demanding jobs. It is worth saying that only 15% of people on the autistic spectrum obtain paid employment. Perhaps that gives a clue as to why I want to raise their needs in the context of this debate.

An interesting but sad figure is that of people on the autistic spectrum in their 20s, some 7% are identified as committing suicide. The reason is not that autism is of itself a mental illness. Rather, as people with autism, particularly at the higher-functioning end, struggle to make sense of life, communicate with people and take their part in society as the rest of us do, they try and try but there is that glass wall that without help and support they never get through. That is what causes the mental illness to develop on top of the autism.

I was in this Chamber when the House debated the Welfare Reform Act 2012. As with others, I remember the assurances given in both Houses at that time. I particularly remember the assurances given to the late Lord Newton of Braintree who, colleagues will remember, rose from his hospital bed night after night, sometimes needing oxygen to support him. He made the case particularly for this group of people. When they walk into a room, it is not obvious that that have a serious disability, but they certainly have needs. That assurance that PIP would assess barriers that individuals face and not make judgments based on their impairment type was something we all clung to in the hope that that promise would be kept.

As far as the autistic community is concerned, another Act is very important to this Chamber: the Autism Act 2009. In both Chambers and across the House, Members agreed and put on to the statute book an Autism Act because it was recognised that people on the autistic spectrum fall through the gap. That gap is often about very simple, straightforward things that benefits such as PIP provide for them. It is about taking their place again in society. Anxiety and psychological distress are among the most common effects of being diagnosed with autism. People with autism experience levels of distress about things that the rest of us really never worry about. To them, they become huge problems.

I will share with the House a case study that came to my attention about somebody recently denied PIP. This is from a mum, Amanda, who has a 16 year-old son on the autistic spectrum. She says:

“My son recently failed his PIP assessment which we are now appealing. He has autism and dyspraxia which means he is highly anxious and has such poor spatial awareness that he can’t judge speed and distance for road safety”.


He can probably plan a journey but is actually quite at risk when he is out there on the journey. She continues:

“Currently he is unable to leave the house alone. He cannot attempt a journey as he is so anxious and scared of change and people that using public transport is out of the question. He is unable to speak to strangers and can’t even order a drink when out or sit alone when his carer goes to the loo. At the moment he’s very isolated because he can’t go out alone and can’t socialise with new people. Even for extracurricular activities at school he needs a parent to go and support him. For example on a field trip to Anglesey for three days he was not allowed to travel with the other pupils as he can be a danger to himself and others”.


It turns out that his dad was DBS-checked so he could take time off work to accompany his son so he could go on that field trip.

Educationally, that young man is potentially a university graduate, yet he has been denied PIP. This is why the Autism Act was brought in, because a lot of these people have huge potential, but if that potential is denied, your Lordships do not need me to spell out the consequences. I am very disappointed that we are having to have this debate tonight. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for bringing this to the attention of the House.

[Lord Low of Dalston (CB)]

My Lords—

[The Lord Bishop of Winchester]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD)]

My Lords, Winchester is well represented this evening. PIP’s broad design flows from the Welfare Reform Act 2012. From the beginning it was intended not just to reset the DLA thresholds to determine who gets what but to decrease the overall expenditure on benefits by attempting to target them more effectively than DLA, and specifically to give more weight to mental health problems.

The department said that of those with mental health conditions receiving the mobility component of DLA, only 9% had been entitled to the higher rate, whereas 27% of PIP claimants receive the enhanced mobility rate—or 28%, according to the Minister’s letter this morning. The Government’s own consultee, the SSAC, asked the pertinent question: so what impairments do these 27% have? Are they a combination of physical and mental impairments? The department evaded the question, saying that perhaps 27% was “somewhat imprecise”. We do not know what is going to happen to claimants who may be reassessed quite soon, but we do know that the new regulations undermine the welcome support PIP can give to those with mental health problems, and I urge the Government to withdraw them for further consideration.

That is not the only reason I think the regulations should not be proceeded with. I hope other Members of the House will be as uneasy as I am at the Government immediately reaching for the statute book in order to negate a very careful decision of the Upper Tribunal. Ministers say they are restoring the original intention of the relevant descriptor regarding planning and following a journey, and insist that the legislation is clear, but they gloss over the fact that the Secretary of State said in the case of HL in December 2015 that,

“overwhelming psychological distress could depending on its nature, frequency, duration and severity make a person unable to navigate and so to fulfil the terms of descriptors 1d and 1f”.

Descriptor 1f gives the higher rate. We are now told that the Secretary of State made a mistake and had to explain to the court that a concession had erroneously been made. This is all very unsatisfactory and leaves a particularly bad taste in the mouth. Whose hand is round the Secretary of State’s throat? What he said sounds to me to be exactly what the original policy intention was. Why do the Government not come clean and say that they are changing the policy for enhanced rate mobility by not allowing psychological distress to be taken into consideration?

Why the indecent haste in changing the law? As the Secretary of State is appealing the Upper Tribunal’s decision, he could have used other powers he has to prevent the decision of the Upper Tribunal having immediate legal effect by giving directions to decision-makers and courts about how the descriptors should be interpreted. Why not wait for that outcome? The timescale is curious. If he was going to wait three months from the judgment, why not use that time to consult properly? The impact assessment estimates that 71,500 claimants in the current caseload will go from standard rate PIP to nil, the same number from enhanced rate to nil and 21,000 from enhanced rate to standard, so 143,000 claimants with an enduring health condition are estimated to lose the benefit altogether. The disorders likely to be affected, according to the DWP, range from schizophrenia and autism to bipolar affective disorder and cognitive disorder. So much for parity of esteem between physical and mental health.

There is another aspect which must be considered. The Secretary of State is keen to say that no one already getting an award under the old regulations will lose it, presumably meaning that no one will have the money clawed back, but some awards are only for a year before another assessment is demanded. Thousands of claimants are in this position. The new assessment will presumably be under the new rules, meaning that many existing beneficiaries of standard or enhanced rate mobility will lose all entitlement.

I accept that the reason the Secretary of State is making this change is not to make even more savings than have already been announced, but is it fair to tear up the carefully constructed mobility descriptors and the Upper Tribunal’s carefully explained judgment with such haste and without proper consultation? Is it not yet another tightening of the screw around the whole independent living project, which is assailed on every side? These regulations should be set aside to await proper consultation.

I shall end with a word about voting on SIs. I am particularly addressing my friends and colleagues on the Labour Benches. I shall quote from the 2005 Cunningham report Conventions of the UK Parliament, which the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, dismissed:

“The Government appear to consider that any defeat of an SI by the Lords is a breach of convention. We disagree. It is not incompatible with the role of a revising chamber to reject an SI, since (a) the Lords (rightly or wrongly) cannot exercise its revising role by amending the SI or in any other way, (b) the Government can bring the SI forward again immediately, with or without substantive amendment”.


We should have the courage of our convictions and vote to annul these regulations.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a recipient of disability living allowance, the precursor to the personal independence payment. I therefore have an interest in this type of benefit. Two simple and basic points make the case against these regulations, open and shut.

First, this is a clear breach of faith with the disability community. Back in 2012, when PIP was first introduced, Mind and other mental health charities raised concerns that people with mental health problems would be able to score points only under the criterion which used the words “psychological distress”. The Government gave reassurances that that was not the case and that people with mental health problems could potentially score points under a range of criteria if their condition meant that they struggled to plan and follow a journey. On this basis, PIP was welcomed by the mental health and wider disabilities sector, because for the first time people with mental health problems felt they would be given access to disability support equal to that of people with physical disabilities.

The Government made clear commitments that people who experienced psychological distress would be eligible under the very criterion that is now being changed. These commitments were underlined in statements by Ministers in debates on the Welfare Reform Bill at the time—the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, has quoted the statements by Maria Miller and Esther McVey, so I do not need to repeat them. However, in practice, the DWP has not deemed people who experience psychological distress eligible for the full range of points, regardless of how severely that distress affects them. This has meant that 164,000 people have received a lower rate than they were entitled to.

This is the origin of the two cases which came before the Upper Tribunal at the end of 2016. The tribunal’s rulings did not extend the scope of PIP, as the Government suggest, but clarified it. That is what tribunals do: they do not make the law; they clarify what the law is. It is the Government who are now seeking to restrict the scope of PIP from what it has always been understood to be by removing psychological distress from criterion 1f as a reason for not being able to follow a familiar route without assistance, so that a claimant can only be awarded four points under mobility descriptor 1b. The regulations are in clear breach, if not of a manifesto commitment on this occasion, then certainly of pledges given to those with mental health problems in 2012. This change to the eligibility criteria also flies in the face of the statement in the Work, Health and Disability: Improving Lives Green Paper that the Government will not seek to make any further cuts to disability benefits following the already controversial cuts for those receiving employment support allowance in the WRAG, for new claimants from 1 April this year.

My second point can be made even more briefly: the proposed changes would create a legal distinction between those with mental health problems and those with other kinds of impairment when it comes to benefit assessments, a distinction which flies in the face of the Government’s commitment to parity of treatment for people with mental health conditions. The Government have said that a person with a cognitive impairment alone will still be eligible for the highest mobility rate, but the term “cognitive impairment” far from covers the full range of people with mental health problems.

I believe these regulations are trying to move the goalposts by excluding people who experience psychological distress from eligibility for the higher number of points necessary for the higher rate of mobility component. In doing so, they effectively discriminate against people with mental health problems. This is clearly against the original intention of PIP and runs counter to the commitment the Government made to people with mental health problems—that they would be assessed in the same way as other disabled people. I support the Motions before us this evening to oppose these regulations and if the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, moves for a vote, I will support hers.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, as ever, I have had a huge number of emails on this debate tonight. I had several hundred after the last debate tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, on the 20/50 rule, so I am expecting many more tonight.

I understand that many charities have written to the Prime Minister on this issue, and I am concerned about the way the question of who is eligible has been misunderstood. It has been suggested that this is not a big change, but like other noble Lords tonight, I have many concerns. To add to something that my noble friend Lady Campbell of Surbiton said about visible and invisible impairments, with something as simple as the use of a blue badge, there is huge misunderstanding about who can qualify for one—who should have one and who should not—and how people are treated if they are perceived as not disabled enough to need one. That is relatively simple compared to some of the intricacies of the PIP assessment forms.

I have issues with the name “personal independent payment”, because it is not terribly accurate. It is a contribution towards independent living but does not cover all the costs of someone with a disability living independently. I declare an interest in that I am a recipient of PIP, and was a recipient of disability living allowance. I went through the transfer process last year, which was interesting and arduous. Just the forms to tell you that you have to transfer are complicated enough, but when I made the phone call to register, I was left on hold for over 25 minutes. With each passing minute, you are worried that the phone call is going to drop out. Then I was asked a number of questions which could be construed as confusing. I have some understanding in this area, and they were really difficult questions for me to answer. I was asked the same questions repeatedly, back and forth. I was asked the name of the medical personnel who could best describe my impairment, which is really difficult because I am disabled, not ill—I cannot even remember the last time I went to the doctor. It got to the point where I was even doubting my own answers, and I am not exactly lacking in confidence when it comes to being able to understand and explain the challenges that I face with being mobile.

I have said it before and I will keep saying it: it is essential that we have a better decision-making process. The cost of mandatory reconsiderations and tribunals is simply too high. Scope has said that 89% of applicants who have gone to a tribunal for a mandatory reconsideration or appeal in the last quarter have received a new decision. Could the Minister say how much the mandatory reconsiderations and appeals are costing? If decision-making were better, how much money could be saved to plough back into the system?