Asked by
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of
the impact on disabled people and their families of changes being
considered in the review of personal independence payments
announced by the Prime Minister on 19 April.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work
and Pensions () (Con)
My Lords, we will shortly publish a consultation on personal
independence payments. This will explore potential options to
reshape PIP, to ensure that support is focused on those with the
greatest needs, and will run for 12 weeks, ending in July.
Outcomes for disabled people will be considered before
implementing changes. There will be no immediate changes for
current PIP claimants. I encourage all stakeholders to input to
the consultation when it has been published.
(Lab)
I thank the Minister for his Answer. In his announcement, the
Prime Minister singled out people with mental health problems as
a particular group that could be excluded from personal
independence payments in the future. As we know, these were
introduced to help to meet the higher cost of daily living
associated with long-term disability and ill health. The Prime
Minister stated that people with mental illness would be better
helped by treatment and services, but he failed to admit that
there are currently 1.9 million people on waiting lists for NHS
mental health services in England; they simply cannot get the
treatment, because of chronic under- investment by the
Government. Mental health services are, frankly, on their knees.
Families living with disability are already disproportionately
represented among the millions of our citizens currently
struggling to meet the rising cost of living. If they are to be
denied access to personal independence payments, does the
Minister conclude, as I do, that these families would be pushed
even further into more severe hardship and poverty?
(Con)
We need to take a step back. It has been over 10 years since the
introduction of PIP, and we need to ensure that our system is
fair and accurately targeted at those who need our support most.
In the decade since PIP was introduced in 2013, the nature of
health and disability has changed. The noble Baroness mentioned
mental health, and she is right, but there may be better ways of
supporting people to live independent and fulfilling lives. This
could mean financial support being better targeted at people who
have specific extra costs.
(Con)
My Lords, only yesterday in Grand Committee, my noble friend the
Minister stated that the DWP is forecast to pay out nearly £300
billion in benefits by 2024-25, a sum which is completely
unsustainable if we are to have sufficient funding for any other
departments: defence, health, education and so on. Will he please
just remind us of the future cost of the personal independence
payment?
(Con)
My Lords, I reiterate that there are several reasons why we want
to bring forward this consultation, which will be launched in
coming days. Cost is one factor but not the only factor, as I
alluded to in my answer to the noble Baroness. Over the coming
four years, PIP spending alone is forecast to rise by 63% from
£21.6 billion to £35.3 billion. That is for the years 2023-24 to
2028-29. That is one of the reasons why we are reviewing PIP to
ensure that the system is fair, accurately targeted to those who
really need it the most, and delivers the right kind of support
for people with disabilities and health conditions.
(LD)
My Lord, PIP is not a general living benefit, unlike universal
credit. It is designed specifically to help fund the extra costs
that long-term severely disabled people have just to be able to
live their lives, and often to be able to get to work. The
Minister said just now that it is important to review all
processes. I entirely agree, so why is it that seven out of 10
PIP appeals are won on the same evidence that the DWP had
originally, which shows that this funding is desperately needed
for the most disabled in our community?
(Con)
I have already said that this Green Paper is a conversation that
we are starting to see how the costs are best targeted and how
people are best supported. The noble Baroness will know that some
claimants will have considerable extra costs relating to their
disability—quite right too—and others will have fewer costs or
minimal costs. That is why this Green Paper will look at whether
there are ways in which we can improve how we support people in
the right way and in a way that is fairer to taxpayers.
The Lord
My Lords, yesterday I visited National Star, an FE college that
serves young people with severe lifelong disabilities. Many of
them are being subjected again and again to reassessment
throughout their lives. That is not only traumatising but a
complete waste of time and resources. What will the Government do
to take this into consideration so that people with severe
lifelong disabilities are not subjected to reassessment again and
again, unless, of course, that disability is generative?
(Con)
The right reverend Prelate makes a very good point. It chimes
with what I said earlier, which is that we need to target our
resources in the right place and be sure that individuals are
looked after in terms not of the end result but of the process.
That is extremely important. I will make this point again: where
an individual has severe conditions, it must be right that we,
the state as a compassionate country, look after them, and we
need to be able to provide a better focus. This is, again, one of
the reasons why we are bringing forward this Green Paper.
(Lab)
My Lords, it is common ground among commentators that claimants
who have realistic work prospects should be offered high- quality
employment support. Why do the Government have so little
confidence in their own policy that they feel it necessary to
impose benefits cuts and the threat of sanctions, risking greater
poverty and even destitution, rather than the life of dignity
promised in the DWP press release?
(Con)
As the noble Baroness will know, you can claim PIP whether you
are in or out of work. More than 5 million disabled people are in
work. One of the aims is to continue to encourage those who are
disabled to take up some form of work. I say again that it is
incredibly important that this is done in a measured and targeted
way in line with the needs of the individual.
(Lab)
My Lords, the Minister mentions that this as a conversation but
that is not how the headlines read, is it? The headlines are that
the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State are all about
cracking down on young people, mental health problems, people who
are sick, and people who do not want to work. The Government
created PIP, so if there is a problem with PIP it is their
problem. Everything about it is the Government's responsibility.
We have had 14 years. We have a problem with record numbers of
people being locked out of work because of long-term sickness.
How much of that is to down to the NHS failing? How much is down
to lack of mental health services? How much is down to the fact
that the systems that the Government have created do not work? We
need change but, somehow, it is always jam tomorrow. I want to
hear the Government come up with ideas. I do not want speeches
that point out that we have spent 14 years buying no jam, then
saying that there is no jam, then saying that jamlessness is a
problem—but no actual jam comes along. Where is the jam?
(Con)
I am certainly not going to allude to any jam. It may come with
my tea later if I am allowed it. As the noble Baroness has
alluded to, this conversation is designed to consider what future
support for individuals should look at. That is why we are
bringing forward this consultation on PIP. As the Prime Minister
said on Friday morning, and I was there in person to see him
deliver what I thought was a brilliant speech:
“This is not about making the welfare system less generous”.
It is for a greater focus on those “with the greatest needs”, for
whom
“we want to make it easier to access”
support “with fewer requirements”. Those who need support will
continue to get the support that they need. The consultation will
explore changes to the eligibility criteria, the assessment
process, as alluded to earlier, and the types of support that can
be offered so that the system is better targeted towards
individual needs.
(Con)
My Lords, does anyone give any attention to the many millions of
trade unionists who are paying the tax bills for all this? We
keep on about the need to do things, which I am sure we need to
do, but we seem to forget who is paying the taxes to make all
this possible. We have to have a better balance. Tax has never
been higher for middle-income earners. It needs to be put under
control.
(Con)
My noble friend is right. I have been very careful to say—and it
is true—that we clearly need to continue to focus on those with
the greatest needs. As has been mentioned earlier, we are due to
spend £69 billion this year on benefits for people of working age
with a disability or health condition. This is not sustainable,
as the Prime Minister said himself on Friday morning.
