Personal Independence Payment

Baroness Sherlock Excerpts

Monday 4th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating that Answer. This refers to the fact that the First-tier Tribunal ruled that two claimants with chronic conditions were entitled to PIP. The Secretary of State appealed but withdrew the appeals shortly before the Upper Tribunal was due to hear them on 21 May. The appeals concerned the meaning of daily living activity 3. One claimant needed watching at night in case urgent treatment were needed to prevent him falling into a fatal diabetic coma. The tribunal decided that he should qualify for PIP. According to the lawyers representing him, the Government argued in the appeal that he should be awarded only one of the minimum eight points needed to qualify for PIP.

This is the second time in a year that we are debating a serious error of judgment by the DWP in lawfully implementing the benefit it created. Noble Lords will remember that the High Court previously ruled against the Government on mobility payments, and in January the Government said that they were no longer appealing that judgment, either.

Normally when we ask questions on the meaning of judgments—and in the past when I have raised questions—Ministers stand up and say, “We are really generous to disabled people”, and the same thing has happened in another place. That is not a conversation. So I urge the Minister today to listen carefully to the questions and to try to answer them as best she can, and to write to us if she cannot. I have two. First, will she tell the House how many other cases are potentially affected by this ruling, and over what period and by what means her department will identify these people and notify them? Secondly, have Ministers taken legal advice on whether the regulations rushed through in March 2017 are definitely lawful?

[Baroness Buscombe]

My Lords, it gives me pleasure to respond to the noble Baroness. First, let me make it clear that, in our amendments to the regulations in March 2017, we were responding not to an error in the policy or in the PIP system but to a lack of clarity. The March 2017 amendments clarify the department’s position going forward, and further litigation is therefore unnecessary. The Secretary of State made it clear when she first arrived at the department that she wanted to withdraw these appeals on the basis that she wanted to provide these claimants with certainty. I want to be clear that this Urgent Question relates to the withdrawal of two appeals on 18 May and is about two specific cases. Therefore, there is no question about how many other cases it is concerned with and over what period.

On legal advice, we always confer and consult with lawyers to ensure that we are, to the best of our ability, making the right decisions on the regulations. We are clear in our minds that the regulations as they stand are lawful.