Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013

Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts

Wednesday 13th February 2013 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

At end to insert “but that this House is concerned about the impact of the replacement of Disability Living Allowance with Personal Independence Payment; is concerned about the lack of a full impact assessment on carers; regrets the lack of a cumulative impact assessment of all the changes hitting disabled people; regrets the fact that vital safeguards have not been introduced to ensure that additional pressure is not put on carers, that people do not lose their freedom to work and that they are not driven to already stretched NHS or social care services; believes that while Disability Living Allowance needed reform it should have been started with the needs of disabled people and not with a budget cut; notes that some 600,000 fewer people will be in receipt of Personal Independence Payment by May 2018 compared to those who would have been entitled under Disability Living Allowance; and further notes that some 25,000 disabled people could be forced to give up their jobs because they can no longer afford the extra costs of getting to work”.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, the regulations that the Minister has introduced come at the end of a protracted process whereby the Government, in their early tenure, signalled their intention to abolish disability living allowance and substitute it with the new personal independence payment. The proposal has not been without controversy ever since. The abolition of a benefit that aimed to support disabled people by making a contribution to the extra costs of disability has failed to gain full support among disabled people and their organisations. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the positive changes that have been made at various stages along the way.

The fundamental problem was the starting point of this process—not how best to design a new benefit that meets the needs of disabled people but a crude attempt to reduce the benefit bill. The change was then promoted in the context of suggesting that DLA was an easy touch for so-called cheats and scroungers, when the reality was that the fraud rate was only around 0.5%.

The first time we heard that there were going to be changes to DLA was in the 2010 Budget when the Red Book said that there would be a reduction in caseload and expenditure of 20%. That figure, I think we now realise, was plucked out of the air; no analysis, but a nice round figure that sounded definite. We now know that DWP’s latest projection indicates that the reduction in caseload and expenditure as a result of these changes will be 27% to 28% by the time the PIP assessments are completed in 2018. There will be more of this later, but we should acknowledge the hard work by officials during this process and the extensive consultations and engagement which have ensued. The Government have been pushed back on a range of important issues, whether through the Bill or the various rounds of consultation: the required period condition is now three months rather than a six-month qualifying period; the mobility component for care home residents has been retained; and they have introduced two-year linking rules, as well as substantive changes to the assessment activities. Furthermore, the agreement to switch into regulations the phrase,

“safely, to an acceptable standard, repeatedly, and in a reasonable period of time”,

is certainly a reassurance for some, as is the extended reassessment process. These are all to be welcomed. Whether the Government should be congratulated on their sensitivity in responding to these points or berated for the insensitivity of their starting position is perhaps a moot point. I shall put it down to the good sense and power of persuasion of officials.

At the last minute, after consideration in the other place, we have what part of our Motion calls for: an assessment of the impact on carers of the replacement of DLA. This is hardly the time to subject it to proper parliamentary scrutiny, but it seems clear from the DWP’s own analysis and the Minister’s introduction that the projected eligible PIP number for 60 to 64 year-olds in May 2018 at 1.6 million will be 600,000 below the number who would have been eligible for DLA. Of the reassessed DLA caseload, some 450,000 out of the 1.75 million will receive no award at all. In total, almost 1 million will receive a reduced award or none whatever. Is it the contention of the Government that these individuals who are to miss out on PIP have no significant additional costs associated with their disability? One of the quoted reasons for the change from DLA to PIP has been the Government’s wish to increase support for those with the greatest needs; we have heard it again this evening. How, therefore, does that oft-repeated assertion chime with the statement that the new PIP benefits rates will be exactly the same as those for DLA? The Government claim that a higher percentage of claimants will receive the highest rates of PIP than would be the case under DLA, but because the caseload under PIP is much lower, this amounts to approximately the same number of individuals. That is not helping the most severely disabled more; it is helping them at the same rate while taking away financial support from many other disabled people who also have additional costs to meet as a result of their disability.

This has not proved to be a good time for many disabled people. The shutting of the Remploy factories; the failure of the Work Programme to support disabled people; the impact of the looming bedroom tax; the failure fully to protect disabled people from the uprating caps; the loss of the severe disability premium in universal credit; and concerns over the protection from the benefit cap all mean that we need to be especially cautious about the change from DLA to PIP. We have not seen any comprehensive cumulative impact assessment of all of these measures on disabled people. Are we to expect one?

We know that for some, the receipt of DLA has proved a means to get to work. This raises the concern that anyone in these circumstances missing out on PIP may have to give up their job. What reassurances can be given that this will not happen? The Minister may pray in aid the Access to Work Programme, as did his colleague at the other end. Perhaps we can be given an update on the budget. Official statistics released in January this year show declining numbers of individuals being helped under this scheme. In 2009-10 it was 37,000, a year later it was 35,000, and in 2011-12 it was 30,000. What is happening with this programme?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, and I thank the Minister for his responses. In relation to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, I accept that the Minister cannot be very specific, but the answer must be that at least a significant number of people will miss out on their Motability arrangements as a result of these regulations.

Perhaps I may first address the process of holding this important debate at this hour, with little prospect of a vote. We probably bear some responsibility for not pressing hard enough through the usual channels to make sure that this debate was held on a separate day or was ordered in a different way. I should just say that further regulations will at least give us another chance for a debate around the issue. We would not want to defeat them because we would want them, but the House would be able to express its opinion, which I hope would be some comfort to all those people out there who are directly affected by the regulations.

We have heard some very powerful themes. On the importance of recognising the right of disabled people to live independently, we heard from the noble Baronesses, Lady Browning and Lady Grey-Thompson, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others. The noble Lords, Lord Touhig and Lord Alton, mentioned the risks around delivery. We understand that Atos will use subcontractors. I am not sure whether we should feel more comfortable; we will have to see. My noble friend raised an issue about a 30-day period and that was deemed to be enough. I am still struggling to see how long, on average, it is expected that a health professional will have to review every case. Some of the experience of the WCA and Atos is that the time spent is far too short and that is why we have problems.

We heard very directly from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, what it will mean to someone to lose their DLA and what it will mean in terms of their employment. I do not think we had an answer from the Minister to the question about the range of people likely to be affected by that. My noble friend Lady Lister asked about the number of carers. I think she posed a question about the assessment at 2018, when the reassessment process will be complete, and at 2015. The Minister is nodding that he did, in which case I apologise to him. We have had some specific questions about colons and colitis. We have also heard about the impact of all this on deaf people.

At the end of the day, there is no doubt that major concerns are articulated in relation to the 20-metre and 50-metre proposals. I remain confused. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, was comforted and thought that the 20-metre proposal was an extra; and that if you could not walk 20 metres you were assured of the enhanced rate and that did not preclude you from getting the enhanced rate if you could not walk 50 metres. I am struggling to see the difference. If the number of people affected by the 20-metre/50-metre proposals are going to be broadly the same under the existing arrangements, why is that? What is the purpose of the 20-metre rule? I am not just talking about the process by which that has come about, but why is it there and what difference does it make?

If the noble Lord is saying that the current 50-metre rule is creating an inconsistency because some people who are not able to manage 50 metres are getting the higher rate when perhaps they should not, we need to understand that a bit better. That seems to be the implication from what the noble Lord is saying. Unless there is clarity on that issue, a climate of fear will persist among many disabled people about the consequence of these regulations for them, their ability to work, and their ability to live independently.

Given the hour, I have no option but to withdraw the amendment. We need to return to this matter and have a fuller, more complete debate. The House needs a chance to express opinions on these regulations and what they mean for disabled people.

Amendment to the Motion withdrawn.