Universal Credit (Exceptions to the Requirement not to be receiving
Education) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 Motion to Annul 19:33:00
Moved by Lord Storey That a Humble Address be presented to Her
Majesty praying that the Universal Credit (Exceptions to the
Requirement not to be receiving Education) (Amendment) Regulations
2021 (SI 2021/1224), laid before the House on 4 November, be
annulled because (1) they will remove vital support for disabled
young people,...Request free trial
Universal Credit (Exceptions to the Requirement not to be
receiving Education) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
Motion to Annul
19:33:00
Moved by
That a Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that
the Universal Credit (Exceptions to the Requirement not to be
receiving Education) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 (SI 2021/1224),
laid before the House on 4 November, be annulled because (1) they
will remove vital support for disabled young people, and (2) Her
Majesty’s Government have not sufficiently assessed the impact
the regulations will have.
Relevant document: 21st Report from the Secondary Legislation
Scrutiny Committee
(LD)
My Lords, disabled young people need all the support and help
that our society can give them. Those disabled young people who
have become students—who are learning and want to progress in
education and who want to go to college and university—should not
be facing barriers. They should not be facing checks and
counterchecks, making it as difficult as possible for them to get
the financial support that they need. It strikes me as strange
that we hear from the Government so many times that there should
be no barriers to learning or supporting young people, when these
very young people have barrier after barrier against them.
Tomorrow, sadly, the new regulations come into being, and that
will have dire consequences for disabled people in education, as
they will be prevented from claiming crucial universal credit.
The new regulations will prevent disabled people who are
receiving education accessing a universal credit claim if they
have not established what is called a “limited capacity for work”
status before they started receiving education. This effectively
means that many disabled people will be unable to receive
universal credit if they are in education, which creates the risk
that certain groups of young people will be unable to finish
their education, limiting their employment opportunities in
future.
Of course, this is not the first time that the Department for
Work and Pensions has misinterpreted the needs of disabled
people. Disability Rights UK stated that 30,000 disabled students
could have been affected by the DWP’s misunderstanding of the law
which prevented thousands of disabled students from claiming
benefits essential for their cost of living in the past seven
years. Testimony of numerous disabled students has described
cases where education has been put beyond their reach.
In 2013, around 8.6% of higher education students were disabled,
yet in an NUS survey from that year, 59% of disabled respondents
agreed or strongly agreed that they had been worried about not
having enough money to meet basic living expenses, compared to
47% of non-disabled respondents. Only 33% agreed or strongly
agreed that they were able to concentrate on their studies
without worrying about finances, compared to 45% of non-disabled
students, and 55% have already seriously considered leaving their
course, compared with 35% of non-disabled respondents. Among
those, 54% reported that it was because of financial problems,
36% because of a health problem, and only 20% that it was because
of a disability issue.
Although this data is from 2013, it shows important patterns in
the difficulties that disabled students have faced in the past
and continue to face today in financing their studies. The
current proposed changes will only exacerbate obstacles faced by
disabled students in accessing high-quality education, forcing
certain disabled students to choose between staying in education,
but without being able to access crucial resources in sustaining
themselves, and dropping out altogether, which will create
immeasurable strain on their current well-being as well as future
prospects. Overall, cutting off access to universal credit for
many disabled students who are currently in education would
create additional obstacles and severely impede the Government’s
objective of empowering and supporting disabled people across the
UK.
Even before the regulations come into force tomorrow, the current
rules make it difficult for disabled people in education to claim
universal credit, and the new rules will restrict access even
further. Students are caught in an impossible situation; they
need a work capability assessment to get a “limited capacity for
work” status, but the main way in which to access that assessment
is by starting a claim for universal credit, and they need
“limited capacity for work” status before they can get universal
credit. It is not clear how refusing disabled people means-tested
support through universal credit, because they do not have
“limited capacity for work” status before receiving education,
would support them in achieving their potential or starting,
staying and succeeding in employment.
This is not an area of strength for me, and I have struggled to
understand many of the issues—so God help those poor students who
are trying to work their way through this. In reality, the
regulations will force many young disabled people who cannot go
without financial support from universal credit to drop out of
education altogether. What the Government are doing is, frankly,
appalling: disabled students already face so many barriers to
engaging fully in education, and now the Government plan to
callously rip away the additional support offered by universal
credit. This truly is penny-pinching of the worst kind. As Child
Poverty Action Group has warned, this change in the rules will
close off the only route for young disabled learners, meaning
that many could be forced out of education altogether. We need to
support and empower everyone living with a disability to achieve
their full potential, not pull the rug out from underneath them.
I beg to move.
(LD)
My Lords, during this year, I have been chairing the Youth
Unemployment Committee. The day after the publication of our
report Skills for Every Young Person a couple of weeks ago, I
received some comments on the sections relating to disabled young
adults concerning the impact of this statutory instrument on the
report’s objectives. The context of our report was that, while
there was a range of mechanisms in place to support young people
with additional needs, the recent Plan for Jobs had no targeted
support for people with disabilities. We said that, as part of
their forthcoming consultation on strengthening pathways to
employment for disabled people, the Government should consider
grant funding for a jobs guarantee for unemployed disabled young
people.
Meanwhile, quite separately, this statutory instrument has been
tabled, and it is very worrying because it is not a minor change.
The assessment for a limited capability for work determination
now must be made before the young person becomes a student. Only
then are they entitled to universal credit. That, as my noble
friend has made clear, is a
significant change. I hope that the Government will reflect on
how this position has been reached, not least because this
proposed change in benefit entitlement has not been subject to
parliamentary scrutiny.
Those affected are, first, young disabled people aged 16 to 19
and those with long-term health conditions who previously would
have been able to claim universal credit in their own right.
Secondly, it affects those young disabled people or those with
long-term health conditions who are in advanced education:
typically 18 to 23 year-olds attending university. Thirdly, it
affects those who continue in non-advanced education but who
cannot qualify for help because of their age. There has been no
published impact assessment, but because individual circumstances
can be complex, there might be a wide variety of impacts that
should have been properly analysed and still should be, and the
information shared. I regret very much that this has not been
done. As my noble friend said, young disabled people
face multiple barriers, and these regulations should not be
adding to them.
(GP)
My Lords, this important Motion really deserves attention: the
noble Lords, and , have set out the case very
clearly. The Government often express great concern about
productivity and unemployment, and stress their belief in the
importance of education. Of course, we talk very often in your
Lordships’ House about the skills shortage and how we have to
fill it in; but what we have here is a change carried forward, as
has been outlined, in an utterly inappropriate way. It will
deprive people—mostly young people—who are seeking to make the
most of their skills, talents and abilities of the means to move
forward; they will be put in a position where that is simply no
longer possible. It is worth thinking about how incredibly
dispiriting that is for each individual affected. They will find
themselves in this situation when they thought they were doing
everything right—everything that society had been telling them
that they were supposed to be doing—and now face the
disappointment of their parents and families, who see this
opportunity being snatched away.
I have put this in the Government’s own terms: what will this do
for the economy and for GDP? However, I would also put it into
broader, green terms. We face economic, social, environmental,
political and educational crises. We have a huge shortage of
human resources capable of solving all those problems that are
facing us. We need to ensure that every individual in our society
is allowed to develop to their full potential.
19:45:00
The Government would possibly be disappointed if I did not point
out that, if we had a universal basic income, this situation that
would not arise. If people had the chance to meet their basic
needs so that they could decide for themselves how best to use
their skills and talents, we would see a far more healthy and
productive society, because individuals would be far better
placed to decide how they could best use their time. I would have
thought that the Government might agree that it is not the state
that should determine how individuals should spend their time and
talents. It is disappointing that we are not going to see a
larger debate here: it certainly deserves it, but I repeat my
thanks to the noble Lords, and , for setting out the case.
(Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, , for introducing his Motion and
all noble Lords who have spoken. I reassure the noble Baroness,
Lady Bennett, that while this may not be a large debate, with my
help it may be slightly longer than it might otherwise have been.
The reason for that is, as the noble Lord, , said, that this is a very
complicated area. I want to set out what I think has got us to
this point and invite the Minister to correct me if I am wrong,
because it is important that we get that down on the record. I am
grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which
noted that the concept behind these regulations had been “poorly
explained” in the first version of the Explanatory Memorandum,
and asked the DWP to reissue it. That has helped us.
The rules specify that, to claim universal credit, there is a
broad condition that you must not be receiving education—but
Regulation 14 of the Universal Credit Regulations 2013 says that
there are some exceptions. They include young people living
independently doing A-levels or the like; those who are
responsible for kids; and some disabled people who get attendance
allowance, disability allowance or PIP and have limited capacity
for work. All Regulation 14 does is remove the blanket
requirement that you must not be in education to get universal
credit. It does not stop people in those groups from facing
conditionality, but disabled people in that third category—with
limited capability for work—were able to get universal credit
while studying.
However, there was a judicial review last year, instigated by two
disabled students on the grounds that, before rejecting their
claims for universal credit, the DWP should have determined
whether they had limited capability for work. In the end, the
Government did not defend the claim. What they did instead was to
introduce the Universal Credit (Exceptions to the Requirement not
to be receiving Education) (Amendment) Regulations 2020. Those
regulations amended the 2013 regulations so that a disabled
student would be eligible for universal credit only if they were
classed as having limited capability for work before they started
education; or if they were already in education before they made
a claim for universal credit. What is happening here is that the
DWP now says that those regulations were deficient because they
permitted a workaround: namely, that if a disabled student makes
an application for new-style ESA—contribution-based employment
and support allowance—and supply medical evidence, they will
automatically be referred for a work capability assessment, which
could lead to them being classed as having limited capability for
work. They would then be entitled to claim universal credit. The
Government therefore brought forward these regulations to stop
that workaround as well.
I have some questions. First, will the Minister say whether that
is an accurate description of where we are? He can nod if he
wishes. I can see him nodding: that might be a gesture of trust
on his part, but I definitely note his nodding. I am sure the
cavalry will arrive to reverse that nod should it prove to be an
ambitious and premature nod.
Secondly, can we establish the size of the problem we are dealing
with in this workaround? How many such cases were there last year
or in the latest period for which figures are available? I tried
to find this out myself, but the data do not seem to record
student status. However, using age as a proxy—it is not a bad
proxy for this population—I went poking around on the data on
Stat-Xplore, and I think that the answer is that there are very
few cases indeed. If I read it correctly, in the quarter to May,
there were only 39 people aged 21 or under in the support group
of new-style ESA. Can the Minister say if that seems right?
Thirdly, what is the effect of this latest tightening? If I have
understood it aright, these latest regulations mean that no
disabled student will be entitled to claim universal credit
unless they have been deemed to have limited capability for work
before they start their course of education. Even someone in that
tiny category—someone who claimed new-style ESA and was classed
as having limited capability for work—would be entitled to
universal credit only if that happened before they started their
course.
What will that mean? Like other noble Lords, I have had
representations, particularly about the position of young
disabled people. The Child Poverty Action Group says that the
current workaround is used by some young people who are over 19
but still in basic education. Their parents can get support and
universal credit for them, but that stops at the September
following their 19th birthday. If this workaround is removed, the
only option for these young disabled people would be to apply for
universal credit in their own right. There is then a risk that
they would not be allowed to carry on with their studies, unless
their work coach decides that carrying on studying, even in basic
education, is their best chance of getting a job.
The charity Contact says that some young people who have reached
the September after their 19th birthday and are on
non-traditional courses, such as life skills, may be able to
convince their work coach to treat them as though they are not
receiving education and thus get universal credit. However,
Contact is worried that those who have not reached the milestone
of the September after their 19th birthday are now at risk of
being shut out of universal credit altogether. Can the Minister
say what will happen to them?
I will give one brief example from Contact of a woman called
Doreen, who said:
“Our grandson is 21 and lives with us, his grandparents. Our
grandson is in full time education at an autism specialized
college with an EHC plan. He’s been getting Universal Credit
since he was 17. That’s his financial income to enable him to
stay in full time education to get the qualifications he needs
for possible future employment. Without Universal Credit he
wouldn’t have been able to continue his education at his
specialist college.”
Can the Minister say what would happen to someone in those
circumstances?
CPAG warns that the regulations could stop disabled people moving
from college or school to university. It takes four months on
average to get a work capability assessment, so how could people
do that before starting university? Or is the intention that they
should not, because they should rely on loans and grants?
Finally, if the Government are legislating again simply to
deliver on the original policy intention of the 2013 regulations,
which they say they are, why has it taken eight years, judicial
review and three sets of legislation to get to that point? How
confident is the Minister that we will not be back with a fourth
set of regulations next year? There is of course another JR
making its way through the system at the moment.
This is the latest iteration of an issue that crops up often,
most recently during the passage of the Skills and Post-16
Education Bill, which a number of us were involved with. It is a
tension between the DWP and DfE as to who supports certain
categories of people going through education. Here, the DWP is
claiming that disabled students are just like any other students
and that, if they want to go into education, they should get
grants, loans and bursaries like any other student.
However, as CPAG points out, many students now have to work to
supplement any grants or loans they receive to get through their
education. Many disabled students would find it much less easy to
work alongside their course. Treating people the same does not
always leave us in the best position.
Given the state of the disability employment gap, surely we all
want to do everything we can to help disabled people get the
education they need to get on and get a job in the future. The
noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, is absolutely right: we should
invest in all our people to enable them to fulfil their
potential.
I think the Minister is unlikely to accept the Motion in the name
of the noble Lord, , given that it is a fatal
Motion and the convention in this House is that we do not support
Motions that will annul regulations. However, it is crucial that
he looks carefully at the issues facing disabled students. Will
the Government agree to review all the support provided to them,
to see whether it really is possible for them to move on to
education and develop as they should? I look forward to his
reply.
(LD)
My Lords, we have heard from noble Lords today that a great
injustice is about to be perpetrated on young people with
disabilities. As we have heard, many young people still in
education will be ineligible for universal credit unless they
have had a work assessment and been assessed as having limited
capability for work
“before they started receiving education”.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, has explained the background
to this sad state of affairs.
Disability Rights says:
“The new regulations are really bad news for disabled students …
Unfortunately they put a legal stamp on what has been the actual
operational practice of the DWP that places them in a Catch 22
position.”
The position has been to reject a universal credit claim made by
a full-time disabled student who was not previously in receipt of
educational support allowance
“on the grounds that they have not been determined to have a
LCW”,
or limited capability for work, and then for
“the Universal Credit section to refuse to arrange a work
capability assessment to determine if they have a LCW … Even
though they may clearly meet the Universal Credit means test if
found to have a LCW.”
As the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, explained, the way round
this is for the disabled student to make a claim for contribution
based on new-style ESA, for which they will not meet the national
insurance contributions entitlement conditions, having not been
in employment and therefore not contributing.
Despite this, the student will get a work capability assessment
but, as Disability Rights explains only
“if a LCW decision is made can any means tested Universal Credit
entitlement be awarded.”
It continues:
“This torturous route is absurd. Worse, it undoubtedly has the
effect of deterring Universal Credit claims by some disabled
students. Some will not know to claim NSESA ‘workaround’ … and
some may even not pursue their higher education course.”
This is a significant change from the previous system in which
disabled people in receipt of disability living allowance or
personal independence payments were automatically determined as
having limited capability for work.
Furthermore, as others have said, these new regulations were not
subject to review by the Social Security Advisory Committee or
any equality impact assessment before being issued. As Disability
Rights notes, they
“cast doubt on the Government’s commitment to ensure disabled
people’s access to education. In addition, they will in turn cast
doubt as to the Government’s commitment to increase the number of
disabled people in employment.”
It is worth reminding ourselves of extracts from Shaping Future
Support: The Health and Disability Green Paper, in which the
Government say:
“Our first priority is to support disabled people and people with
health conditions to live independently and achieve their
potential. This means that people should be provided with the
right amount of financial support, given the opportunity to make
their own choices, have equal access to services, be supported to
access healthcare and treatment, and be able to participate in
society on the same basis as other people.”
How can these new regulations support these objectives and why
were they not scrutinised by the Social Security Advisory
Committee? Why was no equalities impact assessment carried out? I
hope the Minister can help us with answers to these
questions.
This change will severely affect disabled young people who reach
the age of 19 before finishing non-advanced education and those
continuing to higher education. Many young people with
impairments will take much longer to finish their full-time
education and will be forced to make an impossible choice between
trying to continue without access to the benefits they need or
dropping out of education and losing out on future employment
opportunities. The reality is that these regulations will force
young disabled people who cannot continue their education without
financial support to drop out. This also affects families and
care givers, as their care responsibilities increase if the
disabled young person they care for is not in education.
As many noble Lords have said, this measure is unfair and unjust,
and it severely restricts the life chances for young people with
disabilities. I hope, although I am not confident, that the
Government will think again. We need to give a fair deal to young
disabled people who only want the chance to achieve their
potential, as the Government say, with the right amount of
financial support, as the Government say, and to participate in
society on the same basis as other people—as the Government say.
I am not confident, but I hope the House will support this
Motion.
20:00:00
(Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this
debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Janke, mentioned scrutiny and I
will just deal with that quickly. These regulations were subject
to scrutiny by the Social Security Advisory Committee on 15
October this year.
In closing, I assure all noble Lords that the Government are
absolutely committed to supporting disabled people and are
determined that support should be focused on people who need it
most. These new regulations do not reduce the existing support,
which is correctly available to disabled students, but rather
ensure that this support continues to come from the appropriate
source of government funding, which for disabled students, as for
all students, is the student support system of loans and
grants.
These new regulations do not remove entitlement to universal
credit from any existing disabled student currently receiving it,
nor from any future claim to universal credit from a person
entitled to a qualifying disability benefit, such as PIP, who is
subsequently determined to have a limited capability for work and
wishes to start a course of education.
I should mention that the Government’s support for disabled
students does not end on them completing their education. In our
national disability strategy, we have committed to improving
disabled people’s everyday lives. We have committed to make
available the access to work adjustments passport for all
disabled students, including those receiving disabled students’
allowance, when they leave university.
To support the transition from education into work, the
Department for Work and Pensions is piloting the adjustments
passport. We currently have two universities —Wolverhampton and
Manchester Metropolitan—piloting the adjustments passport with
the aim that a third will come on board in January.
The adjustments passport will provide students with a disability
or health condition with an up-to-date record of the adjustments
they are using and any future in-work support needs they may
have. It will reduce the need for the student to repeat details
of their disability and how it could affect them in work and
reduce the need for a holistic assessment where the needs are
documented.
The adjustments passport will provide a clear gateway of
adjustment support by raising the visibility of support available
for each stage of the transitions journey. It will also provide a
transferable record of adjustments that can be used to support
the adjustments journey and reduce the need for assessments. In
addition, it will include a communication tool to support
discussions with employers. It also gives visibility of in-work
support if an employer employs a disabled person, and assurances
and support to progress in work. It will also support potential
employers by documenting the in-work support the student requires
and the possibility of support the student could receive. It will
also help to raise awareness of the Access to Work scheme and the
support it can provide.
We recognise that talking about workplace adjustments can be
difficult. To support and empower the student, the passport can
be used as a communication tool to enable them to have a more
structured and confident conversation about their disability and
the adjustments they need with employers. Knowing what support is
available for every stage of the transition journey will help to
empower young disabled people to have confidence that their
support needs are captured and aspire them to achieve their goals
and chosen career rather than limiting their choices.
Once in employment, the passport would continue to add value by
supporting progression and enabling disabled people to transfer
between job roles more easily by increasing portability of
support and reducing the need for reassessment where job roles or
needs are similar.
Furthermore, a range of other DWP initiatives is supporting
disabled people to prepare for, to start, to stay and to succeed
in work. These include the Work and Health programme, the
Intensive Personalised Employment Support programme, the Access
to Work scheme, Disability Confident and support in partnership
with the health system, including employment advice in the NHS
Improving Access to Psychological Therapy service.
In 2021, the health and disability Green Paper, Shaping Future
Support, explored how the welfare system can better meet the
needs of disabled people and people with health conditions now
and in the future to build a system that enables people to live
independently and move into work where possible. The national
disability strategy aims to ensure that all disabled people can
play a full role in society. The strategy takes into account the
impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic on disabled people, with focus
on the issues that affect them the most, including
employment.
I turn to the points raised by noble Lords. I will do my best to
answer all the queries and if not, will of course write to noble
Lords and put copies in the Library. The noble Lord, , and the noble Baroness, Lady
Sherlock, talked about the closed-off route to universal credit.
While closing the NSESA route leaves no direct path to claim
universal credit for some disabled people who are already in
education, in doing so this recognises that all students,
including disabled students, have access to the support system,
which includes support that recognises a person’s disability,
such as the disabled students’ allowance for those in higher
education, and discretionary bursaries and grants if undertaking
further education. Disabled students also have access to other
funds from their colleges. I will need to clarify that point.
The noble Lord, , was basically saying that the
regulations were a regressive change. This amendment to the
regulations simply maintains the current policy intent: to allow
those entitled to personal independence payments or disability
living allowance who are already assessed as having limited
capability for work to take up or continue in education, with the
intention that it may help them into work in the future. The new
regulations do not reduce the existing support currently
available to disabled students, but simply ensure that this
support comes from the appropriate source of funding, which is
the student support system of loans and grants. These new
regulations do not remove entitlement to universal credit from
any existing disabled student who is currently receiving it, nor
from any future claim to universal credit from a person who is
entitled to a qualifying disability benefit, such as personal
independence payments, who is subsequently determined to have a
limited capability for work and who wishes to start a course of
education.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, asked why the Government did
not do a full impact assessment. An equality analysis was
completed and shared with the Social Security Advisory Committee
for its consideration. The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, also
looked at the impact on students in further education with
special educational needs and disabilities. Although the maximum
allowed duration of a course is 12 weeks, if the work coach
considers that the course is compatible with the person’s
work-related requirements, they are referred for a work
capability assessment and, if subsequently determined to have
limited capability for work, there is then no limit to the
duration of any subsequent course of training or study which a
work coach considers will give the person the best chance of
securing work. Additionally, if the person is entitled to a
qualifying disability benefit, such as the personal independence
payment, they will continue to be entitled to universal credit,
as they will now meet the disabled student exception.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, also mentioned the position of
those young people. The condition of entitlement to universal
credit is not to be receiving education. Moreover, there are some
exceptions, for example, the responsibility of a child entitled
to DLA/PIP and already having a determination of LCW. Therefore,
most young people, such as those in sixth form colleges, will not
be entitled to universal credit as they are already in full-time
education. To be entitled to universal credit, disabled students
must not be receiving education, already be entitled to a
qualifying disability benefit, and already have a determination
of LCW through a WCA.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, mentioned that there had been
a number of SIs relating to this and a number of amendments. The
Government are committed to supporting disabled people. These
regulations ensure that disabled people get support from the
correct source of funding—mainly from student finance, as I said
earlier.
The noble Baroness also asked about the numbers involved. It is
difficult to give any firm evidence through the data. The data on
how many disabled students have been using the new-style ESA
workaround to meet the entitlement conditions for UC is very
limited, but numbers are considered to be relatively small. I
cannot go any further on numbers than that at the moment but, if
there is anything more I can add, I will of course write to the
noble Baroness.
In summary, while it is the case that the amending regulations
will close the workaround and end an unintended route to
universal credit that a relatively small number of disabled
students have been using, the new regulations do not reduce the
existing support currently available to disabled students. The
new regulations ensure that support continues to come from the
appropriate source of government funding, namely the student
support systems of loans and grants, which includes support that
recognises a person’s disability. I therefore ask the noble Lord,
, to withdraw his Motion.
(LD)
I thank all Members for their careful, considered comments, and
particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, for her thorough
explanation of what young disabled students face. Her invention
of the ministerial nod is something we should perhaps use in
future.
I was very interested in the comments of my noble friend as chair of the Youth
Unemployment Select Committee, which has just produced its
report, and of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, about that
impact assessment. We need to see that and understand it in
future deliberations. My noble friend Lady Janke of course talked
about the injustice we all face.
This matter is so important, as education would improve disabled
students’ employment prospects but also their feeling of
well-being and of being part of a community. Of course, it also
has some unforeseen consequences. For example, it affects the
ability of family care givers to work, as their care
responsibilities increase if a disabled young person they care
for is not in education. Both the carer and the disabled young
person will be worse off as a result.
The Minister said in his closing comments that disabled people
will get the funding support they need and that new regulations
do not reduce existing support. Those are very powerful words. I
am minded to test the opinion of the House on this. However, if
the Minister can give me one of these new-found ministerial nods
to say that we can perhaps review the situation and see how his
comment that every young person will not get their funding
reduced is working out, I am happy to have that opportunity to
have a proper discussion and debate about this. I am a little
disappointed that so few people were able to be in the House for
this important debate.
In June 2021, Flinn Kays, a disabled psychology student who
receives the enhanced rate of both the mobility and daily living
components of the PIP, which the Minister talked about, was
granted permission to apply for judicial review of the 2020
regulations. He calculates that he may be entitled to around £900
a month in universal credit but, due to the 2020 regulations, his
universal credit claim was refused and he was not invited to a
work capability assessment. There is no date yet for the judicial
review, but when that reports it might be a good time for us to
come back and debate this whole area, so that we see that, as the
Minister said, every student gets the funding they need.
Motion withdrawn.
|
