Welfare Reform Bill

Baroness Howe of Idlicote Excerpts

Wednesday 16th November 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

My Lords, I have not spoken much in Committee on these issues but, very briefly and in support of what has been said, I, too, should like to register my concern. Having had the benefit of reflecting on what has been said so far, there seem to be two underlying themes. The first is that there is a need for the system—that is, the Minister and his officials who are acting on the legislation that we are in the process of enacting—to proceed with a degree of humility. I do not mean fawning or trying to say that there are no problems, or that it is impossible for a Minister to take a decision. A Minister always has to take a decision, or officials must do so in his name. However, I detect in the Minister’s responses this afternoon a readiness to understand that past practice has often been defective and is often, if I may say so, seen to be penal by the individuals concerned when they are in this process as claimants. Therefore, the process needs to be more sensitive to their needs and more conscious of the limitations of the human who has the power to bestow or withdraw the benefit. There should also be more understanding of the fallibility of the system.

Of course, we have to reach a conclusion but the idea of at least some process of iteration, evaluation and progressive change is important. I read the assessment criteria for PIP again today. They say explicitly that trying to get it right is an “iterative process”. That is what we are all trying to do, including the Minister. We are all trying to get a sensitive response. It is important that the process is sensitive not only to the establishment of this situation but to its evolution and development, the representations that are made to it by interested parties and the light of experience.

That brings me to my second point, on flexibility. If we eventually say, “We’ve done an awful lot of consultation and this is where we are. That’s it”, we will get into the danger that the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, reported. That is, if it becomes the law of the Medes and the Persians, we could then find that we are overtaken by events or experience and that it is not good enough. We would then be creating unfair or penal situations, or we would have to tear up the legislation and start again.

All I should like the Minister to say—I think he will want to signal something like this—is that the Government understand that this is an extremely sensitive area, particularly in relation to people on the autistic spectrum, but also more widely. We need an understanding that the system is on the side of individuals who are involved in this process. It is not designed to leave them out, humiliate them or create embarrassment for them; it is designed to be fair to them. I think there is a wish to do that. Fallible officials who need training, and may need retraining or development in this process in the light of experience, should also understand that they, too, are part of this process of discovery. The more we move away from the conventional model of opposition—of advocates and a decision—that we have always enjoyed in the Anglo-American system, towards an understanding that we are trying to hammer out a process that is fair to individuals and reflects their genuine needs, the better and happier we shall be.

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

My Lords, I support this suggestion, which would solve an awful lot of problems. It would clearly give the Government time to catch up with their own aims and put them into practice much more clearly and in a way that other people will understand and be able to act on. There is a need for training and, from what we have heard from those who have practical experience, a need for retraining of some of the so-called experts. I am also slightly worried by what the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, said at the end of her contribution about huge sums of money being paid for “expertise” in this area. There was, almost inevitably, a comparison with the individual at the receiving end. Maybe we cannot afford to give them more but it is a small sum compared to what the expert gets. This is another opportunity to strike a better balance.

[The Earl of Listowel]

My Lords, I support the amendment. Does the Minister think that it might be worth while if he made a few comments on the issues of continuity and supervision of staff? I hesitate to ask because I am unfamiliar with this area but in the areas of the asylum and immigration process, which has some similarities, and in social work and work with vulnerable children and families, the two themes seem to be, first, continuity of relationship wherever possible and, secondly, good quality supervision.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

86ZC: Clause 79, page 57, line 26, leave out “every time in the previous 6” and insert “the majority of the time in the previous 3”

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

I will speak also to Amendment 86AB in my name and that of the noble Countess, Lady Mar, who sends her sincere apologies. Her absence is due to an unbreakable and important appointment. The amendments would ensure that people with fluctuating conditions, such as multiple sclerosis or some mental health conditions, are not unfairly denied PIP simply because their condition is fluctuating. As noble Lords will be well aware by now, such people may not necessarily have had a particular impairment at every point in the past six months but may well have experienced one at some point in the past six months.

To highlight the unpredictability with which people with fluctuating conditions have to live, I share an example from the MS Society of a man with multiple sclerosis. It highlights the unpredictability of a condition which can fluctuate not only month-to-month and week-to-week, but day-to-day and even hour-to-hour, as the right reverend Prelate mentioned earlier. The man states:

“Fatigue is where your body just shuts down. It doesn’t make an appointment with you to do so and you have to just rest immediately. I have to just lie down until it passes. I cannot even talk”.

Yet the current wording of the Bill could be interpreted to mean that a person must have been consistently unwell for the previous six months to qualify for PIP. The Bill states:

“whether, as respects every time in the previous 6 months, it is likely that if the relevant ability had been assessed at that time that ability would have been determined to be limited or (as the case may be) severely limited by the person's physical or mental condition”.

That wording suggests that people with fluctuating conditions will not qualify if they are not consistently ill for the required length of time, regardless of the severity of their condition. I do not know if that is its intended meaning, but given the context in which PIP is being introduced—a desire to save some 20 per cent of the budget, as has been referred to previously—and to reserve PIP for those with the greatest needs, we cannot afford to take that risk.

My amendment, therefore, changes the wording from “every time” to,

“the majority of the time”,

to allow for fluctuations in conditions and for people with fluctuating conditions to be supported accordingly through qualification for eligibility for PIP. My amendment also addresses the retrospective qualifying PIP period, which is currently set at six months—this has also been referred to. That means that a claimant must have been unwell for at least six months before they can apply for PIP. In my view, six months is too long to wait before receiving financial assistance, when the costs incurred during that time from impairment may be substantial and highly detrimental to an individual's quality of life. My amendment therefore changes the requirement from six to three.

Continuing with an “every time” approach that fails to recognise fluctuations would prevent the PIP assessment from accurately recording the severity and extra cost of a condition. If someone has a severe impairment that occurs only about 50 per cent of the time, they will not meet the qualifying condition; whereas someone who has a moderate impairment for most of the time will meet it. That seems extremely unfair. For example, if someone with MS or severe depression has had a few good days in the past six months and if the relevant ability had been assessed during those good days, it is conceivable that the assessment may determine that the relevant ability is not limited by their condition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

No, no, no. The Treasury is not a disability organisation, let me assure you. Those who know the Treasury well will be absolutely confident in that description.

As I said, it is not a cost matter. It is a matter where people’s sensitivities have been very clearly expressed. We will go away to look at that very, very closely. Some of the observations in this room today will help us in that consideration.

I do not know if there are any other points I really need to make. I just reassure or assure the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, that the required-period condition will not be a snapshot in time. The legislation makes that quite clear by talking about the likelihood of the assessment being met on any particular day. It means that if someone is likely to meet the conditions for the majority of the time, they can safely be taken as being more likely than not to meet them than if we were just randomly to pick a day.

The other issue I need just to touch on, which is often misunderstood, is that during people’s stay in hospital, when the cost of their disability-related needs are being met, individuals will already be fulfilling the required-period condition for personal independence payment. The noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, was concerned that filling in your DLA or PIP assessment form was not the first thing on your mind.

That means that when someone is able to leave hospital, perhaps with a care plan in place and further rehabilitation scheduled, they may well have satisfied some or even all of the qualifying period. That currently exists for DLA and is often misunderstood, with people thinking that they become entitled only after they have filled in and submitted the form. The qualifying date starts on the day that the needs arise—the day you have the accident that has caused a particular problem, for instance—not from when the claim form is submitted. I acknowledge that some conditions that arise gradually and it is very difficult to pinpoint the precise day.

With those observations and commitments to reflect, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

My Lords, it has certainly been a very interesting series of questions—and some answers—with different issues under the different amendments within this group. I will certainly want to reflect on what has been said about my amendments, as well as on some of the issues that have arisen, as to whether they have been as satisfactorily answered as they could be.

The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, made the point about parking costs and so on. We know that some hospitals have begun to make exceptions, but it is fairly appalling that it is going on at all. We would all like to know how widespread is the removal of the requirement to pay for parking if you are going in for a number of cancer treatments.

My other point is that we are not just talking about the actual sufferer but the effect on the entire family—the husband or wife who may very well be put in a position where their own finances are being appallingly hit. There is a lot more that we are going to want to talk about, perhaps on Report, but perhaps by then there will be rather clearer instructions that we will all be able to say meet our points. I hope so. Perhaps I am being a bit over optimistic. Under those circumstances I will, for the moment, withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 86ZC withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, I apologise to the Minister for being fractionally late and therefore missing his statement. Had I been here, I would no doubt have been pushing him on the questions I now want to raise.

Although we welcome and very much appreciate that the passporting arrangements will be with us before the start of Report, we also need to know the statistics, the numbers. In other words, to what extent will the existing case load of people on middle and higher-rate DLA go through into PIP? Will some of those on the lower rate now come into PIP? If carers are passported, as the Minister gave us hope to believe, from both rates of PIP, will that mean there will be more carers in future because some lower-rate carers will be joining them, or will some disabled people on what is currently the middle rate of DLA, which entitles their carer to receive carers’ allowance, fall out of PIP altogether?

Until we know the mapping of the numbers we cannot understand the implications of the very helpful information the Minister is going to make available. The crude fact is that any carer who is now on CA who finds that the person they are caring for will fall out of middle-rate DLA—therefore they may fall out of even a relatively supportive interpretation of the new PIP arrangements with both tiers entitling you on to it—will then find themselves suddenly excluded from having carers’ allowance. Because they are caring for someone for 35 hours a week, that will vanish. As a result they will be exposed to full, in-work conditionality even though the care needs of that person—35 hours a week—will not disappear.

We need to know those numbers and they are issues that we are going to have to reflect on in Committee before we get to the relevant clauses associated with DLA and ESA. Will the noble Lord kindly say whether he will be able not just to tell us before Report, as I hope, that both the upper and lower rate of PIP will entitle you to carers’ allowance but how those two populations rub on to the two existing populations? Will there be losers as well as possibly gainers among carers with all the possible implications they will be exposed to? The Minister may be able to tell us what happens to disabled people and the numbers coming into the PIP framework.

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

My Lords, I hope the Committee will forgive me for coming in at this stage. Earlier today, Carers UK asked me to ask a supplementary on this which is not dissimilar from what we have just heard. There are more than 560 carers receiving carers’ allowance and so on and they may well transfer over into PIP. The Minister has made it clear that decisions are going to be made and will be looked at in detail, but these are the questions Carers UK wanted me to ask. First, what assessments are being made on the impact of carers of the two options available—establishing eligibility through both rates or just through the enhanced rate of the daily living component? Secondly, if the Minister is unable to announce a decision—which he obviously is—on which rate will lead to eligibility for carers’ allowance, will he publish the assessments of the impact on both options so that the Committee can discuss their implications?

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, I start by thanking, I think, the Minister for his very helpful responses on three months rather than six. That was on residential and now we are to have this early announcement. It leaves those of us who prepared speeches throwing them away. There is a nice bucket here with all of them. Nevertheless, I am always delighted to be able to do that and we thank the Minister for what he has just said.

The amendment, which also stands in the name of my noble friend Lord McKenzie, would establish in the Bill that PIP will act as the gateway for the carers’ allowance and that both rates of the PIP daily living allowance would deliver eligibility. We welcome the fact and therefore do not need to go through all the reasons why we needed to have this. We welcome that we will have that information on passporting before Report, whenever that may be.