Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Lord Low of Dalston and Baroness Thomas of Winchester

Wednesday 16th November 2011 Grand Committee

[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 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?