Asked by
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking in
response to the First Tier Tribunal overturning 70 per cent of
the decisions of the Department for Work and Pensions in respect
of Personal Independence Payments assessments between April and
June.
(LD) [V]
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on
the Order Paper and declare that I receive a disability
benefit.
(Con)
My Lords, in the majority of PIP cases, there is no appeal. From
April 2013 to March 2021, 4.4 million initial decisions following
a PIP assessment were made. By June 2021, 9% have been appealed
and only 5% overturned at appeal. We have recently made
improvements to our decision-making processes to ensure that more
disabled people and people with health conditions get the support
they are entitled to as quickly as possible.
(LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister and welcome that reply—as far as
it went. However, is it not high time that assessments right now
are improved, which would make most of these PIP appeals
unnecessary? If assessors need reports from GPs or other
healthcare professionals, they should ask for them at the
mandatory reconsideration stage. Does the Minister also agree
that there is no point in reassessing those with a progressive
condition?
(Con)
I agree with the noble Baroness’s second point, and that is what
we are doing. If a person has long-term health needs, they are
not being reassessed as they were. We are changing the way we do
things. Since 2019, we have had a holistic approach to
decision-making, particularly in the mandatory reconsideration
stage after the first assessment. That gives time for people to
talk to the claimant and get further evidence to support their
claim. This means that fewer people are now going to appeal.
(Con)
My Lords, I welcome the improvements my noble friend has referred
to in getting the decision right first time. However, she will be
aware that there have been delays in the hearing of appeals,
which have of course been aggravated by the pandemic. What steps
is my noble friend’s department taking to ensure that the appeal
time is brought forward in view of the stress that delays can
cause to some applicants?
(Con)
My Lords, the timings for appeal are difficult, because everybody
wants time to get evidence in, allow assessors to talk to people
and build a case. We are doing everything we can to make sure
that we are making the right decisions, and in a timely
manner.
(CB)
My Lords, personal independence payments provide essential
support for those who cannot meet their most basic needs. For
every case where the department has been overruled by the
tribunal, there is a desperate story of the person in need not
receiving the support Parliament judged necessary. That this
happens in so many cases speaks of a system that seeks to avoid
providing support wherever possible, not one intent on ensuring
it reaches those for whom it is meant. Can the Minister assure us
that every effort will be made to make such tribunal decisions
the exception rather than the rule?
(Con)
As I have said, we are doing everything we possibly can, first,
by having mandatory reconsiderations in-house with a separate
team, but also by providing holistic decision-making support so
that we can make sure we are working with people and that as few
as possible cases go to tribunal.
(Lab)
Why, according to the latest official statistics, were there
36,000 social security and child support cases outstanding at the
end of June this year and why did it take, as has already been
mentioned, a mean average of 39 weeks—a figure that is going
up—to dispose of them at tribunal? Does the Minister understand
that the removal of legal aid for welfare benefits advice has led
to fewer cases being sorted out and resolved well before they
reach tribunal? Will she advise her colleagues at the Ministry of
Justice to do something immediately to restore some modest legal
aid in this area?
(Con)
My Lords, legal aid was not available for representation before
the First-tier Tribunal ahead of its reform, anyway; it was only
available for advice and preparation. Tribunal proceedings are
designed to be straightforward and accessible to all. They are
inquisitory, not adversarial and the tribunal panel is trained
and experienced in dealing with a wide range of applicants with
individual needs. The DWP is supporting people—there is no need
for legal aid in these tribunals.
(Con)
My Lords, more generally, what are the Government doing to help
disabled people coming out of the pandemic, and what steps are
they taking to operationalise every element of the national
disability strategy?
(Con)
I thank my noble friend for that question. The national
disability strategy, which was launched this year, is exactly
intended to help the disabled, and the Government want to support
completely everything that is in it. At the moment, it is a bit
early for operational outcomes, but we are working across
government to make sure that disability is well understood by all
departments, which is important. The needs and experiences of
disabled people are central to policy-making and always taken
into account by frontline staff.
(Lab)
My Lords, to return to the Question, before you are allowed to
appeal, you have to undergo mandatory reconsideration by DWP.
That takes two months, so the cases we are talking about were
turned down by DWP, reviewed, turned down again by DWP and then
went to tribunal, which upheld 70% of them. That is a long
process, which is emotionally and financially stressful for sick
and disabled claimants. In fact, more than 1,000 died while the
process was still under way. Does the department accept that this
process is still not working as it should?
(Con)
The department accepts that there is more that it can do; there
is always more it can do. The disability Green Paper means that
we will talk to people—we have already gone out to
consultation—particularly claimants and disabled people, and find
out what more we can do. But the situation is not getting worse,
it is getting better.
(Con)
My Lords, many people with mental health problems have a
particular difficulty in negotiating the system and getting the
benefits they need. Can my noble friend tell me what help the
Government are giving this group of people?
(Con)
I thank my noble friend for that question. The consultation
period for the health and disability Green Paper, to which I
referred, has now run out and we are looking at the results.
Through that, the department conducted extensive stakeholder
engagement and talked to people with mental health problems and
their carers about how we could do more to help them when they
were being assessed, particularly for PIP. Interestingly, people
with mental health problems are the largest group of people who
now receive PIP.
(Lab Co-op)
Does the Minister not find it embarrassing, treating some of the
most disadvantaged people in society in such a penny-pinching,
niggling way when consultants are paid over £1,000 a day for work
on a test and trace scheme which is not even working?
(Con)
No, my Lords, those are two separate things. What we should be
doing is looking after disabled people in the best way we can. We
are looking after more disabled people and getting more disabled
people into work, which is where they would like to be, supported
by the Government. We are doing the best we can, but we will
never be complacent and will continue to do more.
(Con)
My Lords, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that
terminally ill people get the support they so much need?
(Con)
My Lords, under the special rules for terminal illness, people
nearing the end of their lives—as I would rather call them—have
their claims fast tracked. The average time from registration to
decision for a claimant under this new scheme is three working
days. I am sure noble Lords will think that is reasonable for
this group of people.
