Clause 75

Welfare Reform Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 10:30 am on 10 May 2011.

Alert me about debates like this

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Photo of Margaret Curran Margaret Curran Shadow Minister (Work and Pensions)

May I reiterate the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham? We missed you very much on Tuesday afternoon, Mr Gray, and I am sure that you are deeply disappointed to have missed our extended sitting.

I am keen, as others will be, to participate in the stand part debate on clause 75. It marks a critical stage in our proceedings, with the introduction of the personal independence payment, which is a substantial part of the Government’s programme. The payment will replace disability living allowance, and payment rates are outlined in subsection (2) under the headings of daily living and mobility components. I therefore thought that it was important for the Committee to have the opportunity to discuss the handling, key principles and concerns behind part 4.

There has been much focus on this part of the Bill. Disability living allowance reform has attracted much attention and provoked much controversy. It has perhaps not made the political headlines on the scale of the Health and Social Care Bill, but thousands of people will take to the streets around Westminster for the rally tomorrow. That may well trigger a wider debate on the reform. These changes are causing enormous concern among disabled people and their families, as well as among wider disability organisations.

There have been many debates, questions and representations, and it is incumbent on us to address them. I am sure that we have all read reports this week that Jobcentre Plus staff have been sent guidelines on how to deal with claimant suicide threats. It is quite extraordinary that they have to tackle that. We cannot underestimate the strength of feeling out there among some of the most vulnerable people on these big changes to the welfare system. Their feelings and concerns must shape our debate today. I hope we keep that in mind as we go through the various amendments in part 4, which is substantial and important. It is important that we place that discussion in the right and proper context.

Fundamental concerns need to be addressed in the framework of clause 75, including the objectives and outcomes of the personal independence payments—I will refer to the personal independence payments as PIP. How have the Government gone about that fundamental change? What is the Government’s approach to including important representations made by disabled people themselves and by their representatives?

A great many people will be affected by the reform, with the latest estimate from Disability Alliance projecting the figure to be some 800,000. Perhaps the Government will, at an appropriate point in our deliberations, address that figure so that we may understand it. Who will be affected by the daily living component, by the mobility component, and by a combination thereof? Who will gain, and who will lose? What is the Government’s objective in introducing the reform?

There is no doubt, and it has been plainly stated, that there is a case for reform. The Opposition and I are clear about that. How we go about making that change is important, and its underpinning principles need to be clarified. We need to understand the drive behind the reform. If we get that right, we could move towards more effective and long-lasting reform.

As I understand it, part of the Government’s argument is that there is a problem with the increasing uptake of DLA, but the Government have failed to look at the reasons for that increasing uptake. Undoubtedly the Government have an argument to make, and I will listen to it constructively. Disability living allowance was introduced in a different time, well before the Equality Act 2006 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. There have been various health and social care measures, education Acts, and other new legislation that have shaped our understanding, and shaped the principles underpinning our understanding, of disability.

Before we embark on fundamental change, potentially to the detriment, it is alleged, of so many disabled people, it is reasonable to argue that we should look at the evidence, the facts, the context and the grounds on which reform is based. What factors have led to an increase in the uptake of DLA, which has led to the argument for change? It could be changing demography. People are living longer with longer-term conditions. We have a better understanding of existing conditions and a greater appreciation of new illnesses and new disabilities. Mental health issues are emerging much more frequently now than they did 20 years ago. Our understanding of conditions such as autism is much improved.

Reflecting on the legislation, the definition of disability is changing and social care services are evolving. How do those changes interact and grapple with benefits? How do different benefits interact? It is reasonable and legitimate for the Government to say, “We now need to take stock. We need to look at how all these benefits interrelate and how we pay for social care services.” How does all that factor into a grand narrative? That would have been a much better and more effective basis for reform.

The Government have yet to make that argument—we certainly have not heard it. We believe that reform of DLA is necessary. Such reform is the next logical step in welfare reform after the reform of incapacity benefit, in which my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham played a significant role.

It is imperative that we learn the lessons from incapacity benefit reform and ensure that they are built into our current deliberations on DLA reform. Again, we are not at that stage yet. Particular lessons need to be learned from the work capability assessment, to which I do not doubt we will return when we discuss the details of the new assessment for PIP.

What could the principles of reform be? How do we introduce a proper system of entitlement and review? How do we avoid unnecessary and duplicate assessment processes, about which disabled people tell us they are deeply concerned? How do we gather evidence to make decisions on awards? That is critical to how we take the reform forward. How do we learn the lessons of the Harrington review, extrapolate them and apply them in a different context? That could have been the basis of reform. I would argue that, if one engages constructively with the disability organisations, many of them also see the need for reform. They will argue that DLA reform is necessary, but they would argue strongly that one should look at the evidence and the facts. That should be the basis of reform.

I am sorry to say that the Government’s approach, as illustrated in clause 75, has fallen far short of that method, and has alienated wider elements of the disability movement. That has sadly undermined the case for reform of DLA, and now many people have rolled back from that argument, because they are so terrified of the prospects.

Clause 75 is essentially the accumulation of a large consultation process entitled disability allowance reforms. I shall say a few words about that consultation. The period for it was cut short; it fell short of the 12-week recommendation for Government consultations, and the consultation period included the Christmas holiday and the new year break. Rushing such a fundamental reform is unforgivable. It was completely unnecessary to cut off a couple of weeks. It was particularly provocative to disabled people; anybody with engagement in the disability field will understand that. Those people need longer to go through standard consultation procedures, because they often need extra assessment and aids to go through the documents. Assistance is needed to submit recommendations and so on. I was particularly concerned about that. I know that the Minister has had his ears pinned back about that several times.

More significantly, the Government published the core of their welfare reform legislation while the consultation process was still under way. The process was not even closed when the Government said what they were going to do and what their proposals were. Of course, when the Government produced their response to the consultation, there were few changes from the original proposal, despite the fact that the Department acknowledged that it was one of the biggest responses to a Government consultation in recent years. We also know that a strong case for change was made during the consultation process, because many of the organisations published their consultation submissions. We know that many substantial questions were raised during that process. The fact that the Government produced their response—largely unchanged from their original proposals—before the consultation closed, was again provocative to disabled people. The Minister has had his ears pinned back about that, too.

That undermines the Government’s claim that they want to listen and work with disabled people. The organisations will tell hon. Members that they do not feel that they were listened to. I argue that there are some principles in the Bill that we want to engage with and look at. There are some big arguments, but it is not complete and there are big gaps. There are still fundamental questions to be asked, implications to be spelled out and the need to understand the impact on some of the most vulnerable members of the community before we go ahead. I am sure we will do so as we look at the amendments in detail.

We need to consider the underpinning issues. Some guiding principles are beginning to emerge in the Government’s approach, which we need to explore and extrapolate, to see how the argument goes. The Government are now clear that PIP will be available only to those with the greatest need. It is vital that we address the implications of that proposal for the current case load. We need to work out who will be the losers. Will the Minister spell out the underlying principles? For example, who currently gets DLA but will not get PIP? What kind of group are we looking at? The shift in prioritising PIP for those with the greatest needs raises fundamental questions about the Government’s overall approach to disability. It is of course an attractive argument in a time of scarce resources, but we always live in a time of scarce resources; that will always be the argument about welfare spending. There is never enough money to spend on welfare, so we are always trying to manage limited resources.

People will always say that of course such benefits should go to those with the greatest needs, but we will have to be clear about the implications of that. Does that mean that the Government intend to concentrate resources on those with the most severe disabilities? That term is used time and again in documents and papers, and the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller) has used the term again and again in her contributions and announcements, but it has caused concerns. Does it mean that there will be a hierarchy of disability? Where should the line be drawn in that hierarchy? How will “severest needs”, “severest disability” or “those in the greatest need” be defined?

What are the implications for people with autism, for example? Some people would say that those with the severest disabilities are essentially those with a physical disability, but most members of the Committee know that that is not adequate and that we need to move beyond that. Where does one draw the line? For example, one of the big questions that has emerged and is causing great concern is whether people with mild learning difficulties will essentially no longer receive financial support in recognition of the extra cost of their disability. We need to be honest and have that debate.

We need to look at the full implications of subsection (2). For example, how do we interpret the daily living component? How do we interpret mobility? Significant representations have been made about the Government’s proposals concerning aids and adaptations, because they seem to imply that if a person has some aids and adaptations that facilitate their daily living and mobility,  perhaps they no longer need PIP or financial support. If that is the Government’s argument—it is a reasonable argument—let us debate it and look through the implications thoroughly. People will ask, as they have asked me, whether they will no longer be eligible if they have a wheelchair that helps them to get about.

What if someone has a guide dog? I know that the Department has given us some briefing on that, which we will discuss later, but there is still some ambiguity. Like it or not, many people who have severe visual impairments are deeply worried that they will lose their benefits because of the Government’s proposals about aids and adaptations. If someone has a carer, will they still get PIP? We need some clarity about what circumstances will be included, what criteria will be used, and who will be affected by this.

We know that even if some aids and adaptations are assessed as necessary—when an assessment has clearly been undertaken and it has been recognised that a person needs and should get an aid or an adaptation—they will not necessarily be provided. Sometimes a local authority has agreed a person’s eligibility but does not have the resources to allocate to the necessary aid or adaptation. We know that that is happening more and more with cutbacks in local government. If people are cut out of benefit and they still do not get their aid or adaptation, they are in a particularly serious position. What happens if they get their aid or adaptation and they are cut out of PIP, but their aids and adaptations are affected by cutbacks in local government? They might not get the ramps or the necessary adjustments in their house, for example. Would PIP be reinstated in such circumstances?

In conclusion, there are fundamental issues about the principles behind clause 75. During our debate on the Bill, we will advance a number of detailed amendments that reflect the broad concerns that I have highlighted. We have concerns of substance about this reform, such as the six-month wait and the end to automatic entitlement. In this clause stand part debate, we have to highlight that there are fundamental concerns about the speed and scale of this reform. There has been no pilot and there will be no proper tiered approach to the assessment, so many people feel that they will have to go through this process reasonably quickly and are unsure of the outcome. Overall, the principle of reform is one for which support could and should have been garnered. It is an opportunity that the Government have lost.

There is a need to modernise benefits, and I would always support that. We need to address the current gateway, but I strongly argue that we could have mobilised and galvanised more support if we had taken an evidence-based approach, paced the reform properly, and worked alongside disabled people and disability organisations. The basis of the reforms should have been consulted on properly, and the gaps in the existing legislation could have been addressed. Sadly, I do not think that the legislation in front of us today is full and proper.

Photo of Sheila Gilmore Sheila Gilmore Labour, Edinburgh East 10:45, 10 May 2011

One of our concerns about the introduction of PIP is that the background to it seems to be legislation by assertion, rather than by evidence. A number of assertions have been made, and I am interested to hear the Minister’s response about what the basis of the evidence for those assertions is and what further research would hopefully be ongoing to back them up.

For example, it is frequently stated that—it was said in the consultation paper and it was repeated in the response to the consultation—DLA is out of date, that it needs to be modernised, and that things have changed since 1992. However, 1992 is not 1892, or even 1952. It is not so very long ago, and it is not clear in what way things are so different from 1992 that we need a fundamental overhaul of the system—not just an updating of parts of it or a modification of it. There is the idea that it all has to be thrown up in the air already, and I did not see anything in the consultation paper that ever really supported that. It was an assertion without evidence.

Clearly, people are concerned about the increased numbers of claimants and, therefore, about increased expenditure, but are we probing the reasons for those developments properly? We need to understand why those changes are happening, because a number of things can happen. First, people may lose benefit who need it, because there is an underlying assumption that if the numbers have gone up, it is not justified, and that in some way, people are getting benefit who do not need it. That comes through several times, certainly in the wording of the consultation. Secondly, if we have not probed why claims and expenditure are increasing, we might find that the same thing happens again with the new benefit, because there is actually a real need out there.

A number of things have happened, even in recent years, and they are still happening. There has been the de-institutionalisation of many people with disabilities. In my city, and I am sure in many other areas, for some 20 years, a programme of closing down large institutions and enabling people to live in the community has been ongoing. That has many advantages for individuals, and I think that we all accept that. In the bad old days, people, whether they had mental health problems or physical health problems, would be sent to the equivalent of Gogarburn in Edinburgh and would spend the rest of their lives, more or less, in that hospital setting. That was not good for them, or for society.

Although the term was always used in a rather negative fashion, the “reprovisioning” of such places—moving people into the community and enabling them to live independent lives—has depended in part on such things as DLA. If that financial support had not been available, it would have been far more difficult to set that up. It is not the only thing that has helped; many people have a whole spectrum of practical support that comes from the local authority, although that has a cost, too. However, the financial support from such measures as DLA has been very important in enabling people to live independent lives and to help them pay for the costs of doing that. That is just one aspect of why there may be more claimants now than there were at a time when people lived very differently. That was a cost, of course, to a different budget—the health budget. When people were institutionalised in that way, it was an NHS provision, so we have shifted that cost, but we need to understand why that has happened.

I stood down from my council in 2007, but in the years before that, we were becoming increasingly concerned about the number of young people who were entering adult life with disabilities. That was because of huge advances in medicine, predominantly. Increasingly, children who would not have lived out of infancy were living. There are conditions that used to be seen as so life  shortening that children would be unlikely to live into adulthood, but they are now able to do so. That means that there are individuals who need considerable support to lead independent lives. That is another, growing, group that did not really exist before. That concerned us as a council because it presented a cost which previously we did not face. It was seen as a major pressure on our council budgets and we expect that pressure to continue into the future.

Additionally, people are living longer in both adulthood and into older age. Some people with DLA will continue to receive it, even after they reach the end of their normal working lives. People are able to live longer, but longer life is not always healthier life and gives rise to issues about people’s health and disability needs. Those are the challenges we face. It would, therefore, be useful to be clear about the reasons for increases in expenditure and factor in such increases and new and increased real demands. That is not necessarily to allow a budget to overrun or to let people who do not deserve it make claims. Throughout this process, upon first reading the consultation paper, I have had concerns, which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East has referred to, about the increase in concentration on—

Photo of James Gray James Gray Conservative, North Wiltshire

Order. I have allowed a fairly general Second Reading-type debate, this being the first debate in part 4. Nevertheless, we are discussing clause 75 stand part. I wonder if the hon. Lady might come back slightly to the particular points. After all, there will be plenty of other opportunities in the remaining clauses in the part to discuss other matters. Perhaps she could focus her attention entirely on the issues in clause 75.

Photo of Sheila Gilmore Sheila Gilmore Labour, Edinburgh East

Thank you, Mr Gray. I would conclude by saying that, although the benefit will be called a new name and is put forward as a substantial change in clause 75, it is clear that in some respects there is not a great deal of difference. That poses the question of why the whole matter needs to thrown up in the air and reviewed. Daily living component and ability component are not very different from DLA. It remains to be seen, as we have discussed in the remainder of the clauses, how far they really are different and will make a substantial difference, and whether the entire reform, in the way it has happened, is justified.

Photo of Kate Green Kate Green Labour, Stretford and Urmston

Nobody would suggest that the existing disability living allowance benefit is perfect, but it is absolutely vital for many disabled people in terms of their quality of life and their ability to participate fully. In seeking to make changes, we must not underestimate its importance and the need to protect its achievements for disabled people. Therefore, I support the concerns my hon. Friends have raised this morning about understanding the Government’s purpose in introducing the changes. I welcome the clarity in clause 75 that DLA continues to be replaced by a benefit in PIP that is to meet daily living and mobility needs, but we are entering into unknown territory.

Will the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Basingstoke, address specifically a few issues about the philosophy and purpose of PIP and offer reassurances, as I hope she can, to disabled people today? We need to be clear that this is a benefit that will continue to be provided to disabled  people as a proxy for meeting the extra costs that they face in living with their disabilities and to enable them to fully participate in society as those of us who do not to experience disabilities are able to do. I would like absolute clarity from the Minister that it remains the philosophy of the Government, in introducing PIP, that this is a participation benefit and no other sort of benefit and that it is on that basis that the changes are being introduced.

I say that in the context of the recent introduction of the work capability assessment, which was introduced by the previous Labour Government and which had many teething problems, as we all accept. It is to the Government’s credit that they have commissioned a review of the introduction of that test, which was required under the Welfare Reform Act 2009, and that they have committed to making the changes recommended by Professor Malcolm Harrington. We also welcome the fact that he is conducting further reviews to improve that test.

There is significant confusion in disabled people’s minds, however, between the work capability assessment, including the many difficulties that they have experienced or heard about, and the forthcoming gateway test for disability living allowance. It is imperative that Ministers allay those fears and confusion and that they make it absolutely clear to disabled people that the personal independence gateway assessment is entirely different from the work capability assessment in purpose and, therefore, in design.

As we discuss the personal independence payment clauses, I hope that we will understand exactly how the Government intend to implement the gateway assessment, because there is certainly considerable concern about the potential for confusion in disabled people’s minds. An example of that might be the way in which the two tests need to look at the same person and their circumstances in different ways. A blind person might be able to pass the work capability assessment, because, with the aid of suitable adaptations either to the equipment that they use or to their workplace, they can work in paid employment. We have many encouraging examples of blind and partially sighted people who are able and keen to be in paid work. That is different, however, from saying that that person does not necessarily need financial support for their wider social participation. We need to be absolutely clear that the PIP gateway test is about that wider social participation and that failing to pass, as it were, the work capability assessment does not get bound up with or predispose an outcome on the PIP gateway test.

Photo of Harriett Baldwin Harriett Baldwin Conservative, West Worcestershire 11:00, 10 May 2011

Does the hon. Lady share my concern that the current 50-page assessment is extremely complicated and that many recipients of the DLA do not understand that it is not a means-tested award and that it is not an out-of-work benefit?

Photo of Kate Green Kate Green Labour, Stretford and Urmston

The hon. Lady has highlighted some important concerns about the DLA, which have existed for several years and which the previous Government  sought to address. A number of reforms and extensive consultation took place on exactly the issues that she has raised about take-up, particularly among people in paid employment, complexity of claiming and so on. Although many of the organisations that participated in the review three or four years ago were positive about the way in which the then Government engaged with them, I must say that, in terms of complexity of claiming, it actually led to a lengthening of the form. That was because the nature of the information that is needed to carry out a satisfactory, comprehensive and well-informed assessment requires that we gather all the relevant evidence. There is a real challenge, which I am sure that Ministers will be thinking about, about how to ensure that, on the one hand, information is appropriately collected from disabled people and, on the other hand, that it is not too burdensome or bureaucratic—insofar as that is at all possible.

How will the clarity that this assessment is different from and has a different purpose from any other assessment around work capability or otherwise be guaranteed and communicated to disabled people, to those who work with them and to their families? How, in due course, will the assessment process sit alongside other assessment processes, so that disabled people do not find themselves being constantly tested and retested for different benefits in a way that could cause them great stress if it is not handled well?

The second issue that I want to raise in this stand part debate concerns the introduction of the new benefit and the lessons that can be learned from the early months of the work capability assessment or employment and support allowance. I highlight the need for very clear communication to disabled people, their families and the organisations that work with them about when they are likely to be affected by the new assessment. The hon. Member for West Worcestershire and I were present in the Select Committee discussion the other day, in which we heard that a timetable of when assessments would affect different disabled people would be very much welcomed, particularly by those with mental health conditions, autism, learning difficulties and so on, who are likely to be anxious in a period of uncertainty.

I hope that the Minister will discuss communicating the process of transition and change. If she cannot do so in the stand part debate, I hope that she will discuss at a later stage of our consideration the nature of the assessment, the descriptors and characteristics that will be used to determine whether somebody is entitled to the new personal independence payment and the level of the payment. I hope that she will say something about the decision-making process, because there are some powerful and important lessons for us to learn from the experience of the work capability assessment.

I warmly welcome the changes that Ministers have introduced to the process of the work capability assessment as a result of the Harrington review. In particular, Ministers have put extra so-called touch points into the process, where a Jobcentre Plus official will be in direct personal contact with the claimant as their claim proceeds, and their entitlement taken, assessed and reviewed. Will the Minister tell us what sort of decision-making process, and design around that, has been carried out so far? What lessons are being learned about designing an appropriate decision-making process from the work capability assessment, though it is different in purpose?  Will she assure us that excellent decision-making processes will be in place; that staff will have the necessary training; that it will not be the sort of tick-box exercise that, regrettably, the work capability assessment has been in its early months; and that there will be absolute clarity that there will be a Jobcentre Plus decision, as there is now?

Those issues may come up in other clauses as we debate the personal independence payment, but I think that they are broad, ground-setting issues, on which I hope that the Minister will reassure us this morning. I look forward to her response.

Photo of Maria Miller Maria Miller The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

I join the hon. Member for Glasgow East in saying that this is an important stage of the debate on the Bill. It is also important that we have a measured debate, because, as the hon. Lady has said, this measure affects many, many thousands of people, and they will be looking at the tone of this debate to take a lead in how they respond to the issues put forward.

I want to set out from the start that the Government remain committed to providing unconditional support for disabled people who are unable to get into work and have problems with the costs that they incur in daily life. The DLA and its principles remain at the heart of what we are trying to do.

Many of the issues brought up today will possibly arise under more specific amendments further on, and I do not want to risk incurring—

Photo of James Gray James Gray Conservative, North Wiltshire

Order. It is perfectly in order to answer the general points that have been raised, bearing in mind that we should not get into detailed debates on the amendments that are coming up later this morning or on Thursday.

Photo of Maria Miller Maria Miller The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Thank you, Mr Gray, for you guidance. I will try to stick with it.

Photo of Stephen Timms Stephen Timms Shadow Minister (Work and Pensions)

May I pick up the Minister on the “principle” point that she was just setting out about the purpose of the new benefit? The DLA was always about helping to meet the additional costs of disability, as my hon. Friends have said; is that still the purpose of PIP, or is it slightly different?

Photo of Maria Miller Maria Miller The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

The right hon. Gentleman is right to pick up on that. There is a slightly different purpose; PIP is not simply about the additional costs of being a disabled person, but about trying to identify how we can help disabled people to participate in society. It is important to make that distinction, because that drives the assessment criteria that we are putting forward, and it goes to the heart of why PIP will provide stronger support for disabled people than the DLA, which is because it recognises that participation is what disabled people want support with. One of the key weaknesses of the DLA is that it does not pick up those participation issues, particularly around people with sensory impairments and learning difficulties. Rather than going into the detail of that now, however, perhaps I can draw back to some of the broader points.

All the main parties accept the need to reform the DLA. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), said in Prime Minister’s questions in October that the DLA is an important reform and that it needs to be done. Clearly, the debate we will have in Committee will be about the type of reform undertaken and the framework for that reform. I am sure that the hon. Member for Glasgow East and others will take the opportunity through amendments to set out their approach to reform.

Photo of Margaret Curran Margaret Curran Shadow Minister (Work and Pensions)

Will the Minister answer the specific point that I have raised? If I were Minister with responsibility for disabled people, I would not have closed the consultation early; I would not have published the response to the consultation before I had received all the submissions; and I would have engaged with disabled people. Will she directly address those comments?

Photo of Maria Miller Maria Miller The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

I intended to address the hon. Lady’s concerns in a moment. I will do so after I have set out the broad parameters. There must be a misunderstanding, because the consultation did not close early.

I hope that, where there is agreement between the Opposition and the Government, we can work together. Given the premise that there is a need for reform and that Opposition parties have had to grapple with the matter over the years, we will look to work together where we can.

Core to the Government’s principles and approach is that PIP remains the support that disabled people need to participate fully in society. It remains a non-means-tested, non-taxable benefit, not related to work. Hon. Members have said that there is confusion; there is confusion, particularly among some of the media when they conflate the role of DLA with some in-work benefits. I hope that today’s debate will provide clarity.

Photo of Kate Green Kate Green Labour, Stretford and Urmston

I am grateful for the Minister’s assurances that the purpose of the benefit is to assist people with daily living. Will she explain how she expects an objective assessment properly to understand and appreciate the particular pressures that an individual may face, and the adaptations that they may need to make to their daily living circumstances?

Photo of Maria Miller Maria Miller The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

The hon. Lady has drawn me into some of the details of the assessment criteria, which the Committee received last week. It is difficult to assess each individual’s needs on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, the assessment criteria are inevitably used as proxies for some of those barriers that people face. Rather than being drawn into a detailed debate on assessment criteria, I will refer to the broader principles outlined in clause 75.

Our philosophy is that PIP remains to support disabled people in their participation in daily life. It is equally important to treat disabled people as individuals, so that they are not labelled by their condition. Each person requires an individual approach. Disabled people are experts in their own conditions. We will continue to make that the core of our philosophy, and we will focus on giving disabled people the support they need to live more independently. Disability is one word with many meanings. I challenge the Committee to keep that  complexity in mind as we try to agree the architecture of a benefit that will successfully meet a multitude of needs. That is complex and difficult, but it must be tackled.

The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston set out an important challenge: communications. As with so much that we do in government, the way that we communicate with those affected is most important. I assure the hon. Lady that the task of communication is already under way. We are working in co-production with disabled people and their organisations on the design and architecture of the proposed benefit. For many months now, we have had a specialist group working with us on the design of the assessment, to make sure that we get that right from the start. We are doing some testing now, and there will be further testing during the summer. I am sure that we will talk more about that as we move forward.

The hon. Lady is right to emphasise that communication about what changes are being made, how they will affect people and when they can expect those changes to come into play, is most important. I hope that we can work with her and other Labour Members and disabled people’s organisations to make sure that those communications are strong and clear, because it is in the best interests of disabled people to know the facts, rather than some of the assertions that have been made in recent months.

The hon. Members for Glasgow East and for Edinburgh East questioned the evidence that is being used to shape reform and, indeed, whether there was evidence of the need for reform. There is clear evidence that the current structure of DLA is simply not working in the way that is in the best interests of disabled people. First and foremost, my key concern about DLA is that it fails to recognise many of the problems faced by people with sensory impairments and learning disabilities. It took some 10 years of debate and changes to primary legislation make a simple change to recognise that people who are blind have considerable mobility problems that were simply not picked up in the current architecture of the benefit. That shows how DLA is flawed at its heart and lacks the flexibility to adapt to the changing way that we want benefits to work to support disabled people.

Secondly, I cannot believe that the hon. Ladies think that a benefit that has no inbuilt method of reassessment is right for the 21st century. Why? Because we leave disabled people at risk of either being over-rewarded or under-rewarded. I certainly feel deeply uncomfortable about their condition not being regularly reassessed.

Photo of Kate Green Kate Green Labour, Stretford and Urmston 11:15, 10 May 2011

On that specific point, what are the Minister’s intentions in relation to people who currently have a DLA award for life?

Photo of Maria Miller Maria Miller The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

The hon. Lady makes an important point, which I believe was dealt with by one of my predecessors, but perhaps I will come back to her with the exact details. As the previous Government set out, there was some misinterpretation of the idea that an award was given for life; indeed, it was only ever the case that an individual would receive a benefit as long as their condition continued. I understand the point she  makes, though, and perhaps it comes back to her earlier communication point: we have to be clear with people about exactly what we mean. Perhaps some looseness of words in the past led people to believe that they were given a benefit that would not be subject to review.

Perhaps the hon. Lady makes my point for me: if we have an inbuilt review, disabled people can be confident that they will still receive that benefit if they require it, and that if their condition has deteriorated, that will be acknowledged. The Committee might be interested to know that 130,000 people who were awarded DLA in 1992 have not had their benefit either reviewed or reassessed since then. It is difficult to believe that absolutely nothing has changed for those people in the intervening period.

Photo of Kate Green Kate Green Labour, Stretford and Urmston

For absolute clarity, can the Minister confirm that every working-age adult currently in receipt of DLA will be subject to the new gateway assessment?

Photo of Maria Miller Maria Miller The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

The Government’s intention is to move working-age adults from DLA to the personal independence payment. Obviously, we are not currently looking at children and individuals who are past retirement age.

To return to the questions about why we believe reform is needed, I have already touched on the problems DLA poses for people who are blind, but I also draw the Committee’s attention to the problems faced by people with learning disabilities in terms of obtaining recognition of the barriers they face and the necessary support from DLA. The failure to recognise the very real problems that people with learning difficulties have with mobility should be of deep concern to Committee members. I hope they feel reassured that PIP will start to address some of those issues through its new, much more robust assessment criteria.

Photo of Ian Swales Ian Swales Liberal Democrat, Redcar

I have a further question of clarification: how does the Minister believe that the assessment process will deal with intermittent conditions such as ME, where the degree of disability experienced one day might be quite different from that experienced on another day?

Photo of Maria Miller Maria Miller The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, because I am sure many members of the Committee are concerned about people with fluctuating conditions. I assure him that ensuring that the assessment deals well with fluctuating conditions and picks up on them will be an important part of the development process. I am sure that we will discuss that further.

The purpose of clause 75 is the introduction of the new personal independence payment, a more transparent and sustainable benefit for the 21st century. The DLA system we inherited has become very confusing and complex, as members of the Committee have pointed out. Who qualifies can be unclear and the decisions about qualification can be deeply inconsistent and subjective. I am sure that none of us wants to leave those problems unresolved.

Photo of Margaret Curran Margaret Curran Shadow Minister (Work and Pensions)

On the question of qualification and further to the point I made earlier, how will the Government’s commitment to giving the benefit to those with the greatest needs be demonstrated in the distribution of the benefit?

Photo of Maria Miller Maria Miller The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

The hon. Lady is jumping ahead to the more detailed discussion. As we set out clearly in the papers given to Committee members, we are in the process of establishing the assessment criteria which we believe will give the best analysis of an individual’s need for support. The criteria have been developed not by the Government but by an independent group of experts to try to provide a proxy for the problems that disabled people face. As we test the assessment criteria, we will look at how they affect different people, and I assure the hon. Lady that a great deal of testing will be done before the arrangements are finalised.

Photo of Charlie Elphicke Charlie Elphicke Conservative, Dover

Is it not an incredible example of neglect that, since 1992, 127,000 or so people simply have not been seen? We do not know whether they still need DLA or their conditions have improved. Is that not fundamentally wrong and a betrayal of taxpayers’ trust?

Photo of Maria Miller Maria Miller The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. As well as taxpayers, that is a betrayal of disabled people. We are leaving some of the most vulnerable people in our society in a situation in which they may believe that they are still entitled to a benefit, but in fact they require more support than they are receiving, or indeed less, and there is no inbuilt means of reassessment. We believe that the PIP will be quite different from its predecessor because of its objective assessment and its transparency in how people’s needs will be assessed through the daily living or mobility criteria.

Photo of Stephen Timms Stephen Timms Shadow Minister (Work and Pensions)

May I ask again about the difference between DLA and PIP? The DWP website points out that DLA is to help with the extra cost of personal care, supervision or getting around. Is it correct to say that PIP is there to help with the extra cost of participation? Is that the purpose the Minister has in mind?

Photo of Maria Miller Maria Miller The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Yes, although the two things are described in slightly different ways. In revising the assessment criteria, I am trying better to reflect the reality of disabled people’s lives. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the current assessment of the need for mobility assistance, for example, he will see that it is focused on the physical needs or the physical problems that people face in terms of being able to walk a certain distance, whereas PIP is designed to pick up on the other mobility problems that disabled people frequently face, particularly in being able to plan a journey between A and B. Even if one can walk a certain distance, if one cannot plan that journey and undertake it independently one’s mobility is as severely undermined as that of an individual who cannot physically walk. That is a clear example of the deep flaw in DLA as it stands. In response to the hon. Members who challenged whether DLA needs to be reformed, I would assert that that is one of the many challenges that we face in reforming DLA to ensure that it is fit for the 21st century and how we understand disability now.

Photo of Stephen Timms Stephen Timms Shadow Minister (Work and Pensions)

That is a helpful answer, but I want to confirm that PIP is about meeting extra costs. The Minister is defining the extra costs in a slightly different way—they are about participation rather than the things that the DLA was about—but it is about meeting extra costs that disabled people incur.

Photo of Maria Miller Maria Miller The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

It would be difficult to analyse every single extra cost that a disabled person might incur. The administrative system required would be complicated and difficult to implement if we looked at every single extra cost. By definition, we have to look at proxies for some of those extra costs, which are set out in the assessment criteria.

I will make a little progress before I am waylaid again and asked for further detail. Entitlement to DLA depends on the extent to which somebody needs help with personal care, needs supervision or has difficulties walking. PIP will consider the impact of an individual’s impairment or health condition on their daily life, as I have outlined to the right hon. Gentleman. PIP will take account of changes in individual circumstances and the impact of disabilities, as well as reflect wider changes to society that have taken place since 1992—for example, our understanding of conditions such as autism and learning difficulties was not as well developed in 1992 as it is today.

Photo of Sheila Gilmore Sheila Gilmore Labour, Edinburgh East

As I am sure the Minister knows, a large number of applications for DLA are unsuccessful, albeit some appeals against the decisions are successful. The Minister has given examples of people who may not currently be eligible for DLA but who may be eligible for PIP. Is she satisfied that that will not lead to an increased demand? If it does, what effect will that have on her Department’s financial planning? It appears to me that we are talking about people who are not currently eligible.

Photo of Maria Miller Maria Miller The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 11:30, 10 May 2011

I am sure that the hon. Lady expects me to take a principled approach in the reform of any benefit, which is what we are doing. We will be led by what is right in terms of the support that needs to be put in place but, as with every other benefit, we will be mindful of our other budgetary requirements. Every Minister in every Government has to contend with that balancing act.

To return to PIP, I assure the Committee we will prioritise support for those individuals who face the greatest day-to-day challenges and are therefore likely to experience the highest costs. It will be non-contributory and non-means-tested, and the aim is to help people to live more independent lives in their community. PIP will not be linked to an individual’s impairment, but will focus on an individual’s ability to carry out a range of activities that are necessary for day-to-day life and the extra costs that arise as a result. It will be payable to people who are in work as well as those who are out of work.

Measures to deal with many of the issues that will arise are set out in the Bill. For Members who are interested in the challenges that we have to deal with, tests of residence and presence will be similar to those used for DLA and they will be set out in regulations. We intend to introduce an habitual residence test to bring PIP into line with other non-contributory benefits, instead of the ordinary residence test, which applies for DLA. Entitlement to PIP will be determined by a new objective assessment, which will enable us more accurately and consistently to assess individuals to determine who will benefit most from additional support.

The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston asked how what we propose will differ from the work capability assessment. The new test is a completely different way of assessing people. The two tests assess things differently. It is important to be clear that the personal independence payment will focus on the ability to carry out key everyday activities, whereas the work capability assessment looks at the capability to work, so any direct comparison between the two assessments is not strictly possible.

As the hon. Lady would expect, however, we are seeking to learn from our experience of delivering the work capability assessment. As part of that, we are looking at the findings of the first review carried out by Professor Harrington to see whether we can ensure that the design of the PIP claim and assessment process is as good as it needs to be. We recognise the need to ensure that the processes are transparent and empathetic, which is an important finding of Professor Harrington’s work. We are considering the scope for using mental, intellectual and cognitive champions to support the assessments for PIP, as Professor Harrington recommended for the WCA.

The hon. Member for Glasgow East asked about aids and adaptations. I am sure we will return to that later in our deliberations, but I want to make it clear—the hon. Lady mentioned guide dogs—that we do not intend that guide dogs be considered an aid or an appliance, nor do we intend to take them into account in the assessment process. Guide dogs do not help people to complete the activities considered in the assessment.

On the hon. Lady’s more general comments on aids and appliances, our approach is that support should be targeted at people who are least able to take part in everyday life. We believe that the assessment should take account of the successful use of aids and appliances, which can lessen the impact of health conditions. We recognise, however, that some aids and appliances, such as electric wheelchairs, that help individuals also attract significant costs. We have attempted to reflect that in the detail of the descriptors, and we will also seek to do that in the associated point scores. I assure the hon. Lady that we will get that right before finalising the assessment criteria and full testing will be carried out. If she has had an opportunity to look at some of the notes we have issued in support of our approach, she will be reassured that the aids and adaptations we are talking about are things with which she would feel comfortable.

The hon. Lady also touched on the consultation on the provisions before the Committee today. The consultation, which is the second largest that the Department has run, ran from 6 December to 18 February and some 5,500 responses were received. Importantly, in parallel to that we held a number of meetings with disabled people and their representatives and organisations before, during and after the formal consultation. We ensured that people had the opportunity to comment not only in the consultation, but in more detail in those discussions. I strongly refute the allegation that we somehow rushed the consultation and pre-empted its outcome. A response to the consultation was published in April and provided an explanation of our approach, which takes into account the views from the consultation.

Photo of Margaret Curran Margaret Curran Shadow Minister (Work and Pensions)

For the record, will the Minister confirm my clear recollection that the Bill was published before the consultation on that particular element was finalised?

Photo of Maria Miller Maria Miller The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

The hon. Lady well knows that the Bill provides a very broad framework for the reform of DLA, and in no way goes into the detail on which the consultation sought responses. I absolutely assure her that our response to the consultation was developed and published subsequent to the consultation’s closing, and will strongly inform our approach, as she knows that it already has. To imply in any way that we were not running that consultation properly was probably not her intention, but I hope that that sets the record straight.

Photo of Charlie Elphicke Charlie Elphicke Conservative, Dover

My understanding of the consultation is that it was to inform secondary legislation on the detailed design of the benefit, including requirements for the new assessment. It was not about the primary legislation—the bookcase—but the detail that is to follow. Is that not the case?

Photo of Maria Miller Maria Miller The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and of course he is absolutely right; we will set out this sort of detail in secondary legislation. I am sure that Opposition Members who have been involved in the reform of benefits will know that we are well down the track in developing draft regulations and policy advice notes, and that a great deal of detail is available to hon. Members. Of course, there is still much more work to do, but I am sure that hon. Members are grateful for the amount of detail that has been set out and very much informed by the consultation that we ran.

Photo of Kate Green Kate Green Labour, Stretford and Urmston

We expect a very extensive set of regulatory measures to implement the Government’s intentions. Will the Minister assure us that there will be every opportunity to scrutinise them appropriately? Has she given any consideration to seeking the advice of the Social Security Advisory Commission?

Photo of Maria Miller Maria Miller The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

I can assure the hon. Lady that we would expect all regulations to be available for scrutiny in the usual way. Perhaps we can cover that in more detail when we reach the relevant parts of the Bill.

Photo of Ian Paisley Jnr Ian Paisley Jnr Shadow DUP Spokesperson (Work and Pensions), Shadow DUP Spokesperson (Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)

Does the Minister accept that any consultation launched in the jaws of Christmas always raises suspicion that there is a deliberate attempt to make sure that three or four weeks of consultation are not actually usable, because most people’s minds are elsewhere, and that suspicion means that this consultation has not actually been long enough?

Photo of Maria Miller Maria Miller The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

I might understand the hon. Gentleman’s point if we had not received 5,500 responses to the consultation, of which only 500 were from organisations, and 5,000 were from individuals. It is clear that perhaps people who are interested in issues around disability do not find Christmas such a distraction.

Photo of Ian Paisley Jnr Ian Paisley Jnr Shadow DUP Spokesperson (Work and Pensions), Shadow DUP Spokesperson (Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)

I am surprised that there were only 5,000 consultation responses. I would have expected the figure to be tens of thousands of responses, given the tens of thousands of people that this affects.

Photo of Maria Miller Maria Miller The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I did say that this was the second largest response to a consultation ever, and perhaps if he were to look at other consultations he might see that the responses are often in the hundreds rather than the thousands.

Photo of Margaret Curran Margaret Curran Shadow Minister (Work and Pensions)

Will the Minister outline three issues raised in the consultation process that went on to change the substance of the Government’s proposals?

Photo of Maria Miller Maria Miller The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

I think that the hon. Lady would expect me to deal with that sort of detail in the context of amendments, rather than the clause stand part debate. To ensure that we get to those very amendments so that we can discuss things more fully, I encourage the Committee to support the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 75 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.