Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab) I beg to move, That this
House has considered Personal Independence Payment and other
disability benefits. It is a pleasure to serve under your
chairmanship, Mrs Latham. I am grateful to the House authorities
for allowing me to secure this important debate on an issue of huge
concern to many across our country, including in my constituency.
Often, constituents have come to my advice surgeries with tears
streaming from...Request free trial
(Slough) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Personal Independence Payment and
other disability benefits.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs
Latham.
I am grateful to the House authorities for allowing me to secure
this important debate on an issue of huge concern to many across
our country, including in my constituency. Often, constituents
have come to my advice surgeries with tears streaming from their
eyes, in absolute despair at the predicament they face,
especially when they are struggling to make ends meet in the
midst of a cost of living crisis.
This evening, I stand before the House to draw attention to the
state of disability benefits in our nation. Those in our society
with disabilities and other health conditions that often prevent
them from working are valuable members of our society. They
cannot be summarised by statistics, nor by how much they cost the
public purse. Behind every such figure is a disabled person.
Successive Conservative Governments have again and again
undermined social security in our country, whether through
cutting support, a punitive culture towards disabled applicants,
or—perhaps most disappointingly—divisive rhetoric about the most
vulnerable in our society from none other than senior Government
Ministers. My belief is that how we treat the most vulnerable is
a benchmark of how healthy our society is.
I am proud to say that under a Labour Government, every stage of
the social security system will be supportive and accessible.
Labour understands the importance of every person with
disabilities being treated with the respect and dignity that they
deserve. Unfortunately, that is not a view shared by everyone in
our society. Under the Conservatives, many disabled people feel
that the Department for Work and Pensions is failing them, with
an assessment process that does not understand their needs.
(Newport West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech on a very important
subject. Elinor, one of my constituents, got in touch with me
recently. She had a young child and was pregnant; she was
reassessed, her money was dropped—she found out just before she
had her second child—and then the money was reinstated on appeal.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the assessment process is mad at
the moment? It is crazy. It is not sensible. We need to change
it, and fast.
Mr Dhesi
I thank my hon. Friend for making the case for Elinor in her
constituency. Indeed, my hon. Friend is a strong champion of her
constituents, and no doubt she and other hon. Members in this
place will have helped constituents to regain thousands of pounds
in support that they are due. I agree that the assessment process
is something that needs to be looked at, and I hope the Minister
will give us some good news at the end of this debate.
(Oldham East and
Saddleworth) (Lab)
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. We
have unfortunately had some tragic cases in recent years,
including people who have gone through the transition from the
disability living allowance to the personal independence payment.
One person in particular sticks in my mind: Philippa Day, who
took her own life because of the appalling transition process and
all the mistakes that were made. We need to ensure that we have
policies and systems in place, for health assessments and
elsewhere, that protect vulnerable people and do not make things
worse. I am sure he agrees.
Mr Dhesi
My hon. Friend speaks with a great deal of experience, having
served previously as a shadow Secretary of State. The word to use
is indeed tragedy. There have been countless tragedies. That is
why the likes of me have been calling on the Government to deal
with issues with compassion and empathy. These are real people
that we are talking about and often, unfortunately, they have
lost their lives or been put in a state of such despair that they
do not know how to get out of their predicament.
My Slough constituent, Monika, told me about her struggles being
assessed for PIP. Monika was informed that she was required to
have a health assessment to extend her PIP. After appealing
against 27 pages of discrepancies and outright untruths in the
report from her previous assessment, she was predictably very
worried about how she would get through the process again. Her
assessment ended up being delayed for a month and taking place
when she was suffering particularly ill health. Monika was again
left in the lurch by the DWP and faces another appeal, which she
is dreading.
Unfortunately stories like Monika’s are, as my hon. Friends have
already eloquently explained, not news to any of us. We all have
constituents who are failed by the system and by the DWP. Labour
has a plan to replace the Government’s current flawed system of
work capability assessments with a system that can support people
to live with security.
Many benefit claimants are aspirational, but fearful that if they
go back into work and find themselves unable to cope, they will
be left high and dry—assessed as being able to work, but finding
themselves unable to work full-time. Labour’s plan was born out
of a desire to deliver for disabled people, helping those who can
work back into work.
Too many disabled people say the current system does not work for
them. Labour has pledged to introduce the “into work guarantee”,
which I hope the shadow Minister will explain at length. That
will allow claimants to agree with their benefits adviser that,
if they try paid work and it does not work out, within a period
of a year, they can go back to the exact benefits that they were
on without fresh health assessments. With 288,000 PIP claims
outstanding in October 2023, does the Minister agree that
Labour’s plan will help to reduce the number of disabled people
who want to work, but do not want to risk having their benefits
reassessed?
This January, the latest statistics from the House of Commons
Library found that the most common main disabling conditions
among claimants of PIP were psychiatric disorders. Nationwide,
37.7% of PIP claims were due to those. With mental health waiting
lists ballooning under the Conservatives, it is unfortunately not
a surprising statistic. When the Government leave suffering
people for far too long—people often see their condition worsen
before being able to access treatment—it is no wonder that the
number is so unacceptably high. I believe that begs a question:
will the Minister admit that her party’s policies on mental
health over the past 14 years have significantly contributed to
the PIP backlog?
The latest numbers from Macmillan Cancer Support show that
claimants are still waiting 15 weeks on average for their PIP
claim to be processed. Unacceptably, that is higher than it was
at the same time last year. Four in five people living with
cancer are facing an increased financial impact from their
diagnosis, even before the pandemic and the cost of living
crisis. It is unacceptable that the Government have failed to fix
those issues, which affect our constituents at some of the most
difficult periods in their lives. The Government announced extra
funding for processing disability claims in the Budget, but can
the Minister clarify how exactly that will be used to reduce
delays?
Among PIP claimants in my Slough constituency, 16.3% of claims
are due to musculoskeletal disorders. MS Society research found
that the current disability assessment system is not fit for
purpose for those living with multiple sclerosis, a condition
that significantly varies in its impact from day to day. A
staggering three in five people with MS have reported being
unable to explain adequately the effects of their condition on
the standard application form. That figure highlights a systemic
failure to capture the true extent of disabilities that are not
constant, but fluctuate, and underscores the Government’s failure
to create a nuanced system that understands the lived realities
of those with MS and other conditions.
Furthermore, based on its findings, the MS Society urges the
Government to consider the elimination of the 20-metre rule used
in mobility assessments, and to seek a more flexible approach
that accurately reflects the variable nature of MS. Current
criteria fail to accommodate the day-to-day changes in symptoms
that people with MS experience. On one day, walking 20 metres is
achievable; on others, it is downright impossible. That clearly
leads to assessments that do not reflect disabled people’s actual
needs.
Incorporating those changes into our approach to disability
benefits would not only make the system fairer, but ensure that
individuals with MS and similar fluctuating conditions receive
the support that they truly need. I am proud that Labour is
committed to delivering a system that works for disabled people,
ensuring that every person with a disability receives the
respect, support and dignity that they deserve.
In conclusion, I thank the constituents who have asked me to
share their stories. I am also grateful to various voluntary
organisations that make such an enormous impact to help those in
dire need. As we conclude this debate on personal independence
payments and other disability benefits, let us remember the
essence of what we are discussing: the lives and wellbeing of
some of the most vulnerable members of our society.
The accounts we have heard serve as a stark reminder of the
critical work that lies ahead. It is evident that our current
system, in its rigidity and lack of understanding, falls short of
providing the necessary support to those living with conditions
such as MS. The call to reform, to dismantle barriers such as the
20-metre rule and to embrace a more nuanced approach to
disability assessment is more than just policy revision; it is a
moral imperative.
We stand at a crossroads where the choices we make can
significantly enhance the lives of thousands. By advocating for a
system that truly understands the variable and complex nature of
disabilities, we advocate for a society that places dignity,
empathy and support at its heart. This is not just about
adjusting guidelines or streamlining processes; it is about
ensuring that every individual feels seen, heard and valued. Our
commitment to reforming PIP and other disability benefits is a
testament to our dedication to justice and equity for all
citizens, regardless of their physical or mental health
challenges.
Let us leave this room with a renewed dedication to serving those
within our constituencies and beyond, ready to enact the changes
necessary for a fairer, more compassionate benefits system.
Together we have the power to transform lives. Let that be our
guiding principle in the days ahead.
4.44pm
(Hayes and Harlington)
(Lab)
I will try to be as brief as possible, so that others can
contribute. Before I come to the general topic, I want to make
one specific point to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member
for Slough (Mr Dhesi) said.
I am a champion for Action for ME, the myalgic encephalomyelitis
campaign. The organisation has written to a number of us to
emphasise its concerns about how narrow PIP assessments are. ME
sufferers are losing the ability to access the relevant benefits
themselves as a result. They are simply asking the Minister to
commit to what the previous Minister committed to, which was to
meet them so that they can work to co-produce a system that
enables them to have full access. I dealt with my first ME case
about 25 years ago, when ME was not recognised and there was a
lot of stigma attached to it. These people have suffered on the
quiet. It behoves the Government to sit down with that group and
work through the process.
I want to take the debate up where my hon. Friend left off: on
the impact of the system on individuals. Those who were at the
Select Committee might recall the evidence that was provided with
regard to Michael O’Sullivan. I dealt with his case 10 years ago;
I met his family, the lovely Anne-Marie and Declan. He had
suffered mental health difficulties and had attempted suicide
already. He was then assessed; he was declared fit for work, and
he could not cope with it. He committed suicide. That was 10
years ago.
Some Members will know John Pring from the Disability News
Service, who performs an excellent role monitoring cases and
providing information to many of us. He has particularly
monitored recent cases that relate to people coming under
pressure when seeking to apply for universal credit. He gave
three examples from the past couple of years. I will give brief
details; I will not use any names.
A disabled woman who was left traumatised by the daily demands of
universal credit took her own life. Days earlier, she had been
told that she would need to attend a face-to-face meeting with a
work coach. She would shake and cry every time she had to log on
to her universal credit journal, which she had to do every
weekday to check whether she had received instructions and to
avoid a sanction. She had already had a six-month sick note from
her doctor explaining that she was not fit to work, but she was
expected to go through the whole process, and she could not cope
with it. The DWP was told about her mental distress, her suicidal
thoughts and her fear of the Department. She took her own
life.
There was another suicide months later. Someone had a long
history of depression and anxiety and had been engaging with
mental health services. He had been detained under the Mental
Health Act 1983; he was then discharged. A psychiatrist who saw
him two days before he took his own life told the inquest that he
believed that the anxiety had been exacerbated by the whole
process of the universal credit application.
Another person died a month after taking an overdose that caused
irreversible damage to her liver. The coroner did not believe
that she intended to take her own life, but nevertheless the
coroner wrote a prevention of future deaths report to the DWP
highlighting how the DWP had failed in its duty to maintain
protection.
I raise those cases because John Pring and others had to put in a
freedom-of-information request to get a report that was produced
by the Prime Minister’s implementation unit on the harm caused by
the process and the suicides that were taking place. It was four
years before that report was produced. It had been covered up in
the PMIU, and publication was prevented. Some of us have been
calling for that report on the Floor of the House of Commons, but
we have been denied access. We were calling for it because there
were recommendations in it about the duty of care that the
Department owed to people identified as vulnerable, and specific
actions needed to be put in place. There is a further report that
should be produced with full openness and transparency. I commend
Disabled People Against Cuts, which has run a campaign year in,
year out about the issue.
When it comes to disability benefits for PIP, the work capability
assessment, the application process for universal credit and the
pressures that people are put under, the system is putting lives
at risk. What Anne-Marie called for, which I think is right, is a
statutory duty of care to be placed upon the Department, with
particular regard to vulnerable people. I also agree with
Anne-Marie and others that there should be an independent public
inquiry into the harm the Department has done over the last 14
years through the brutal way benefits have been administered,
particularly for those who are vulnerable with mental health
problems.
Several hon. Members rose—
(in the Chair)
Order. I must impose a time limit of five minutes on each
speech.
4.50pm
(Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) for his persistent
and thorough questioning of the DWP on matters pertaining to
disability benefits. I support him in these debates in
Westminster Hall and the main Chamber. This word is often used,
but it is good to have a champion on this side of the House. His
work has been excellent.
There will not be one engaged Member of the House who does not
have an awful story of someone being turned down for help when
they are so much in need of it. I have a constituent who is a
plasterer. I will not mention his name; I will just tell the
story. At 50 years of age, he had many years of work ahead of
him. He had never been out of work, because he had done a good
job all his life. That was his plan, but he has had a number of
strokes and has been in the intensive care unit. He has been told
that he will never regain enough strength to work and that he
will struggle with daily life. His wife is a care assistant in a
special needs school, and she has been able to help him in many
ways; he never dreamed that he would need that sort of help.
He has been turned down for the personal independence payment.
For the life of me, I cannot understand how someone who needs
help or daily care from his wife, mother-in-law and daughter has
been given no points in that assessment. The system has clearly
let him down. I can see the difference, because I know the guy. I
have known him all his life. My staff will assist him in his
appeal, of course, but I always thought that the idea of the
benefits system was to help those in need; the right hon. Member
for Hayes and Harlington () referred to people who need
help.
Looking at this issue really depresses me. The recent Supreme
Court judgment has shown that assessments have not been carried
out in the correct way, meaning that 250,000 cases are to be
reopened to ascertain whether the correct assessment criteria
were used. I am not boasting, but I fill in benefits forms
regularly for people and I know the system very well. I have a
staff member who does nothing but look after benefit queries, so
we are on the frontline. She is incredibly overworked.
It is clear that the criteria have never followed the spirit of
the law. The spirit is to ensure that those who need help with
daily life can get it, but the reality is that incredibly ill
people are being made to feel like liars, spongers or fakers.
They are made to feel that they have no right to help and that
the world is judging them. From grown men with cancer who require
their wives to catheterise them multiple times during the day to
those who are severely affected by lifelong learning difficulties
and are forced to have their awards renewed and their routines
disrupted with assessments, the system lets people down
regularly. It needs to be changed. It needs to understand, with
compassion, the issues that our constituents face. Yes, I
understand that we need to ensure that those who claim are
entitled to the system, but the way in which that is assessed
needs to change now.
We say this to the Minister beseechingly and with honesty, on
behalf of our constituents. We want to ascertain how quickly
these changes can be made so that men like my constituent, who
feel worthless and embarrassed to claim only to be told that they
are not deserving of help, will actually be assessed on the needs
that they have now. It is not about the needs that my constituent
had five or 10 years ago, but about the needs of the man he is
today—the man who needs care for life. He has worked for 34 years
of his life in a physically demanding job. When he needs help, he
should have a social welfare system that does the job. It should
deliver for him when he has a dire need, with changes to his
health and personal life.
This debate is so important and necessary. We need an assessment
that takes people’s health conditions into account and that
understands with compassion why they need help. It should
understand the evidential base from their doctor, medical expert,
wife, carer, mother-in-law or daughter. That is all the
evidential base we need. I cannot for the life of me understand
why it is not taken on board.4.55pm
Sir (East Ham) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) on
securing the debate. There are two points that emerge from the
recent work of the Work and Pensions Committee. First, PIP
assessments should routinely be recorded. We know that the
assessments very often go wrong—we have heard lots of examples of
that already—but we do not know why. They should routinely be
recorded, with an opt-out available for claimants who do not want
a recording to be taken. All the providers agree with that
proposal, but for some reason the Government will not accept it.
The Minister’s predecessor gave a number of reasons, which were
all valid but all surmountable. Because we do not record the
assessments, we do not know what is going on, so the problems
just carry on and will not be fixed.
Secondly, the cash provided by PIP is designed to cover the extra
costs arising from people’s disabilities. Of course, the amounts
will vary from one person to another, but during the Select
Committee’s recent inquiry on benefit levels, the New Economics
Foundation told us that on average PIP covers only just over a
third of the additional income that a disabled person requires to
afford a decent standard of living. I welcome the Government’s
commitment, in last month’s disability action plan, to set up an
extra costs taskforce that will assess those extra costs. Can the
Minister tell us when that taskforce will start its work? One
practical proposition is to increase the number of levels in
PIP—there were more in DLA—so that a better proxy for people’s
extra costs could be provided.
4.56pm
(North Swindon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate; I congratulate the
hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) on securing it. All speakers
have made some important points, although, as is often the case,
many different strands get mixed up because there is a confusion
between WCA, PIP and Access to Work support. That is not a
criticism: it is a very complicated system. Before universal
credit was rolled out, people—often some of the most vulnerable
people in society—typically missed out on £2.7 billion-worth of
benefits to which they were entitled, because the system was far
too complex. Frankly, someone would have needed a nuclear physics
degree to understand it. About 700,000 families were missing out
on the support that we all agreed they should get.
I recognise that there are real challenges, which is why this
debate is important. That is why the Minister is here and why she
was at the Select Committee this morning—a busy day! I welcome
the fact that in real terms we have increased by £11.3 billion
the support to people with disabilities and long-term health
conditions. We must not lose sight of the fact that both PIP and
WCA, which are predominantly what we are talking about, were
introduced by the former Labour Government.
I pay tribute to all the stakeholders and to all the independent
reviews that have taken place. They have delivered hundreds and
hundreds of improvements, which have made a difference, but there
is still a considerable way to go. Under the old system, just 16%
of claimants got the highest level of support; that figure was
32% a couple of years ago, and I imagine it has continued to
increase. On mental health in particular, people are now six
times more likely to get the highest level of support under PIP
than they were under DLA, which often under-recognised the issue.
We can also all celebrate record disability employment.
When it comes to making improvements, I have a few asks of the
Minister. I apologise, because I asked this at oral questions,
but I do not think I was very clear, because I got a different
answer. First, when somebody has been assessed for PIP, they get
a level of financial support—we can debate whether that is
enough—but we do nothing else. If we identify somebody who has a
primary health condition, we never signpost them to formal or
informal support in their local area. We all know of different
groups in our constituencies that support people, but often those
who would benefit most are unaware of them.
Secondly, has there been any progress on mandatory
reconsiderations? We did a pilot where we proactively reached out
to the claimants and asked them to tell us, in their own words,
why they were challenging the decision. More often than not, it
was because they were unable to get the supportive evidence from
their GP or whomever, which we would then assist in securing. Has
that progressed? Is it still double? Is it higher? That was
certainly an area that we thought would make a significant
difference.
Covid fast-tracked our use of telephone and video assessments. We
were looking at piloting, testing and introducing them over a
decade; instead, we had to introduce them over days. Stakeholders
warmly welcomed them, because people did not necessarily have to
travel long distances to, in some cases, inappropriate assessment
centres. The other advantage is that because the person is no
longer tied to a geographical location, they can in theory have
their assessment with somebody who has specialist knowledge of
their primary condition. Is that what is happening, and are
stakeholders involved in training and updating the skillsets of
the specialists who would recognise those?
I was delighted when finally we got the special rules for
terminal illness over the line; that nearly broke me when I was a
Minister. Is there an update on how that is working? By matching
the definition in the NHS, we took the period from six months to
one year, so we removed the double assessment that was happening.
Is there any progress on convincing Scotland that, although it
likes to be different—often for the sake of being different—in
this area it should have mirrored our view, which was the one
shaped by the stakeholders?
I pay tribute to the work the hon. Member for Oldham East and
Saddleworth () has done regarding
vulnerable claimants. Have we made any progress on asking the
person at the beginning of their application to provide the name
of a trusted colleague, so that if they drop out or stop
responding for whatever reason, we have a trusted point of
contact to whom we can say, “The claimant is no longer
responding. Are you aware of an issue?” In most cases, it is
because their circumstances have changed, but in the absolute
worst cases, it would allow us then to chase up support for them
rather than them being left behind.
5.02pm
(Leeds East) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) on
securing this crucial debate. To boil the debate down to its
essence, the situation that disabled people in our constituencies
and across the country are facing can be summed up like this: too
often, disabled people are scapegoated. Too often, they are
treated like dirt. The social security system does not give
disabled people the financial support that they not only deserve
but so fundamentally need, and that needs to change. Benefits are
simply too low.
As we have heard, last week the Work and Pensions Committee
published its report considering benefit levels for working-age
people and whether they are meeting the needs of claimants. We
need to look very closely at three issues arising from that
report. First, shortfalls in the support provided through health
and disability benefits are found to have a negative physical and
mental health impact on claimants, which could in turn affect
their ability to work. Secondly, the Committee recommends that
the DWP set out a new benchmark for benefits that actually
considers living costs. Thirdly, it suggests using the
methodology in the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Trussell Trust
essentials guarantee. Those charities estimate that, even after
benefits are increased in April, universal credit will fall short
of the money needed to survive by £30 each week.
In relation to the situation facing disabled people in our
country, in our society, we need to look very closely at the
breaches of the United Nations convention on the rights of
persons with disabilities. During the hearing on 18 March, the UN
Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities accused the
UK Government of demonising disabled people and treating them as
“undeserving citizens” by preparing to fund tax cuts through
slashing disability benefits.
(Ceredigion) (PC)
The hon. Gentleman is making an important point. I have a
constituent who until 2016 was in receipt of disability living
allowance. She was then told to apply for PIP and was rejected.
She then went to tribunal and had the decision overturned, and
her payment was increased on review. Now, however, in 2024, she
has been told that she was never entitled to it and is being
pursued by the Department for Work and Pensions for £49,000.
The hon. Member has eloquently set out an excellent example of
how the system puts disabled people into an appalling situation,
as we see in our constituency surgeries.
The United Nations special rapporteurs described the UK’s current
policy and practice as
“a pervasive framework and rhetoric that devalues disabled
people”,
which tells disabled people that they are “undeserving citizens”
and makes them “feel like criminals”, particularly those who are
trying to access the social security system. The committee
members also cited examples of how the Government had continued
to breach their obligations under the UN convention on the rights
of people with disabilities, and pointed to a benefits system
that traumatised claimants, leading to some even taking their own
lives, increasing rates of institutionalisation, and a
disproportionate number of disabled people who are now too poor
to heat their homes or buy food.
A survey by the disability charity Euan’s Guide found that 50% of
respondents in this country—one of the richest on Earth—were
concerned about their energy bills, while 51% were worried about
grocery bills. The Government reported in the autumn statement
that there would be a consultation on a social tariff on energy,
but that was quietly shelved. A social tariff would have helped
financially vulnerable consumers and disabled people with higher
energy usage. We need to go back to that.
We should all be shamed by the way that disabled people are
treated in our country. A real change in direction is needed. We
must move completely against the scapegoating and demonisation of
disabled people that we see in much of the right-wing media.
Disabled people deserve respect, support and a social security
system that works for them. We need to move forward in a way that
is inclusive, empathetic and supports everyone in our society.
After all, we are all equal.
5.07pm
(Motherwell and Wishaw)
(SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first
time, Mrs Latham. I thank the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi)
for bringing forward this important debate.
The rationale for PIP and other disability benefits is to create
parity between disabled people and their non-disabled
counterparts, but we all know that that is not the case. Sense
has called on the UK Government to increase PIP so that it truly
reflects the extra costs that disabled people feel and face, and
to increase universal credit and the employment and support
allowance so that disabled people can reach a minimum living
standard.
The hon. Member for Leeds East () referenced the social
tariff on energy and I hope he will support my private Member’s
Bill to that end, because I am not giving up on that either. The
UK Government continue to short change the disabled community. I
think he was reading my speech because I was going to use the
same quotes from the UN rapporteur, but I will not for the sake
of brevity. It is shaming for the UK that the rapporteur thinks
that is how disabled people are treated by the Government.
In my casework and my engagement with disabled people and
organisations, I hear all the time that disabled people feel
disrespected, devalued and demonised by the Government and the UK
media, which is utterly shameful. One in five people in the UK
have a disability and we could all be disabled tomorrow—a point
worth remembering. It is time that disabled people had the
recognition and support they deserve. We do not even have a
disabilities Minister, as has been raised many times; I mean no
disrespect to the Minister, but we need a disabilities Minister
to focus on this part of the portfolio.
With good reason, there is little trust between the disabled
community and the DWP. According to Z2K, since the introduction
of PIP in 2013, 76% of claimants have ended up with a better
outcome following an appeal, either via lapse or in an
independent tribunal. That compares with just 28% at mandatory
reconsideration, where the DWP marks its own homework.
This lack of trust in the DWP is why there is so much worry about
the health and disability White Paper proposals. The abolition of
the work capability assessment is welcome, but it comes with
grave risks; it means that there are much higher stakes for
people. Half a million people who are not well enough to work but
are not receiving PIP are at risk of losing out altogether. It is
imperative that the White Paper proposals are halted until PIP
can be trusted to deliver reliably the correct decisions. Since
2018, more than 200,000 people have been awarded no PIP at the
initial decision, only to be awarded some at the mandatory
reconsideration or tribunal. In more than 70,000 of those cases,
the individual subsequently received at least one higher or
enhanced element. The system does not work.
This is indicative of a system that is not fit for purpose—it
forces disabled people to endure gruelling assessments that have
huge mental health impacts. It is about time the Government
started treating those with disabilities better. I had a
constituent who was diagnosed with terminal cancer and who put
herself through gruelling trials. When she was reassessed for
PIP, they more or less said to her, “Oh, you are still alive. You
are supposed to have died.” The mental health impact on all
disabled people undergoing this cannot be underestimated.
The hon. Member for—I am so sorry.
North Swindon.
The hon. Member for North Swindon () referred to the Scottish
Government. This is why they started a system different from the
one in Westminster—a system that is based on fairness, dignity
and respect. They collect the information from doctors and others
about the case of the individual who is claiming the adult
disability payment. Is that not a better way of doing things?
They have VoiceAbility, which helps people to fill in the forms
correctly so that, more often than not, they get the right
decision at the first point of contact. It really defies belief.
I have said this and I keep repeating it: look at what is
happening in Scotland. People who have worked for Social Security
Scotland that came from the DWP say the difference in how they
have to treat clients, how they have to treat people, and how the
system works, is like night and day.
The Scottish Government have made a difference with interventions
such as the adult disability payment, the child disability
payment and the carer support payment. They ensure that both
disabled people and carers get all the financial support they are
entitled to, which allows them to live with dignity.
I hold quarterly poverty action network meetings. I held the last
one on Friday, at which there was a representative from the
Scottish social security system. They come every quarter and they
are there to help local organisations who work in Motherwell and
Wishaw to improve people’s lives—
(in the Chair)
Order. You are only supposed to speak for five minutes.
Will the Minister please look at what is happening in Scotland
and reform this outdated and unworkable system?
5.13pm
(Lewisham, Deptford)
(Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Latham. I
congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) on
securing this debate. When he was a member of the shadow
Transport team, he joined me in meeting disabled people to
discuss accessibility, and he continues to champion their rights
in his constituency and beyond. He spoke passionately about
stories of his constituents in tears. My hon. Friend the Member
for Newport West () spoke of the challenges that
her constituent, Elinor, faced when finding that her benefit had
been cut, before being reinstated; this causes multiple problems
all the time. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and
Saddleworth () spoke about the
consequences of an inhumane transfer from DLA to PIP and how
Philippa Day sadly took her own life because of it.
I am shadow Minister for disabled people, so it is no surprise
for Members to hear me say that PIP and other disability benefits
are a regular feature of the conversations that I have with
disabled people, and disabled people’s organisations and
charities. I can assure the House that even a brief mention of
the phrases “PIP assessment” and “work capability assessment” is
enough to strike genuine fear into the hearts of many. Disabled
people tell me they feel demonised and humiliated by having to
explain their conditions over and over again.Quite simply, as
many have said, they do not trust the DWP to make the right
decisions.
It is not difficult to see how we got to this point. Welfare
reforms brought in during the coalition years, coupled with
austerity, seemed to have been based on the premise that disabled
people are undeserving and out to defraud the system. These
moves, coupled with the fact that disabled people have been
disproportionately affected by the pandemic and the cost of
living crisis, have led to a regression in disabled people’s
rights over the last 14 years. That is not just my opinion. As my
hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East () so passionately put it, the
UN agrees. I am ashamed to say that eight years ago, the UK
became the first country ever to be found to have breached the UN
convention on the rights of disabled people.
As has been referenced, Rosemary Kayess, the chair of the UN
committee said:
“We find a pervasive framework and rhetoric that devalues
disabled people and undermines their human dignity. Reforms
within social welfare benefits are premised on a notion that
disabled people are undeserving and skiving off and defrauding
the system. This has resulted in hate speech and hostility
towards disabled people.”
Put simply, the current system is flawed. It is little wonder
then that we see so many desperate constituents in our advice
surgeries who are afraid that the DWP will take away their
income. Quite frankly, we should all be ashamed.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington () asked the Minister to meet
the ME community to look at how we can reform the system. I
really hope that she remembers to respond to that point. I know
that issues with the benefits system cannot be fixed overnight,
but as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir ) said—I have heard him say
this many times—why do we not just make sure that assessments are
recorded as standard? That is a simple thing that can be done
straightaway.
A future Labour Government will provide a reliable safety net for
people who lose their job or cannot work due to ill health or
disability. Where appropriate, we will help people on their
journey back into work by allowing them to try paid work without
the need for reassessments if it does not work out. We will also
replace the current system of work capability assessments with a
system that supports people to live with dignity and security. In
doing so, Labour will work with employers, trade unions and other
stakeholders to support the wellbeing of workers and their
long-term physical and mental health. Most importantly, a future
Labour Government are committed to working with disabled people
to break down the barriers they face in everyday life. We know
they are the experts by experience.
5.18pm
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work ()
I am grateful for the opportunity to close the debate, and it is
a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Latham. I thank
all hon. Members for their invaluable and insightful
contributions this afternoon, and in particular the hon. Member
for Slough (Mr Dhesi) for bringing this timely debate to the
Chamber.
Collaboration remains vital as we address the critical matters
that we have discussed today, essential for supporting many in
our communities. I appreciate that people are passionate, but the
perception of a punitive, divisive culture, and the rhetoric used
this afternoon, does not reflect an approach that I or my hon.
Friend the Member for North Swindon () have ever taken or would
ever take in our time and commitment doing this job. I want
anybody watching this debate this afternoon to feel reassured
that whether they come to us through a complaints procedure, or
into an MPs’ surgery, or work with one of the charities in this
area, they will get the support they need. We at the DWP, as much
as anyone else, strive to give the most vulnerable the right
support. We have the right policies and the right system in place
so that we can be fair to those in need and be fair to the
taxpayer, but always listen to disabled people’s voices. I have
absolutely been striving to do that in the full-time role that I
hold. I am not going to disagree that I have not looked at
housing and youth alongside that, but many of the transitions and
challenges apply to disabled people as well.
I am very happy to meet the gentleman from the ME community who
the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington () says needs to meet me. I am
also keen to look at Monika’s case, at the case raised by the
hon. Member for Ceredigion (), and at other cases that have
been raised this afternoon. I say to hon. Members, “Please share
these cases with me. It’s no good you only having them in your
constituency. It’s really important that we look at them and
learn from them at the DWP, so we can get beyond the perception
and the feeling that people have.”
I am determined to ensure that I work with disabled people and
listen to them speaking about their everyday lives. I was
recently in Hastings to discuss our new trauma-informed approach.
I will be at the new health model office in Gosport on Thursday
to make sure that compassion, empathy and understanding are at
the heart of what we do.
I am grateful that the Minister has offered us all the chance to
share our cases with her, but I hope she realises how many there
are. Some of us have raised one or two cases today, but I have
literally hundreds and hundreds of examples of things going
wrong.
I am very happy to look at specific cases. Only recently, I met
one of hon. Lady’s colleagues, with members of the blind
community and people with a visual impairment, to discuss how we
can learn directly from their experiences. My hon. Friend the
Member for North Swindon made exactly that point.
I have a speech to make, but first I want to respond to some
points that Members have raised. On vulnerable people and
vulnerable groups who need specific support, will they please
look at this morning’s Work and Pensions Committee sitting, at
which the Lords Minister and I covered the topic of safeguarding?
We have a vulnerable claimant champion; safeguarding concerns are
rightly referred to social services.
I am happy to write to my hon. Friend the Member for North
Swindon on the point about end of life. The point that he made
about appointees was covered this morning, in recognition of the
work that we need to do to ensure that people have the suitable
voice that they need and that there is progress in this area. As
we speak, we are growing our visiting officers team to 700 to go
out and support people in the way that my hon. Friend described,
and we are making sure that we go to the people we need to hear
from. On the mandatory reconsideration trial, it is too early for
definitive results, but there was a very pertinent reminder for
me to be dialled into it.
The Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for East
Ham (Sir ), asked about audio
recording. We have taken an opt-in approach, but I am happy to go
away and look at the specific point that he raised.
The Minister talks about compassion. The medical evidence that
has been presented is very clear in what it says. May I ask
respectfully whether the staff looking at these matters are
trained to understand the medical evidence?
We have a new chief medical adviser and 4,000 clinicians in this
area, with a statutory duty and an understanding that is very
much among the learnings that we have gained. I hope that that
reassures the hon. Gentleman, but if there is more to say, I will
write to him. Questions have been raised about how the evidence
is looked at and how it works; I am asking those questions
myself, individually, and am happy to continue to do so.
Sir
I am grateful to the Minister for picking up my point about
default recording and for her offer to look into it. When she
does so, will she bear it in mind that all the companies that
provide these assessments favour default recordings?
The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The companies want
to get it right and they are keen to do what is right. I am very
happy to look at that, feed back to him my thoughts and pick that
issue up in the Department under my tenure.
Of course we aim to make the right decision as early as possible.
We recognise that the numbers are high. By the very nature of
things, anybody who comes to an MP’s constituency surgery has
invariably had a very poor experience; they would not come to us
otherwise. That is why I want to take away the particular cases
that have been raised today. However, those cases must be seen in
the context of overall decisions—
Mr Dhesi
Will the Minister give way?
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman shortly.
With PIP, there were three million decisions from October 2018 to
September 2023; 8% were appealed, with 5% cleared at tribunal and
3% overturned. However, I appreciate that the hon. Member for
Slough made the point, of which I am very mindful, that none of
these statistics are just statistics; they are individual people
with individual needs, and we should be very mindful of that.
Mr Dhesi
I thank the Minister for giving way. Given the time, I would like
an answer to one of my various questions. The Government
announced extra funding in the Budget for processing disability
claims. Can she clarify exactly how that will be used to reduce
the huge delays?
Yes—I am keen to try to come on to that. There were many
questions this afternoon and I am trying to get through as many
of them as I can.
The chance to work guarantee was mentioned, which will
effectively remove the work capability assessment for most
claimants; they are already assessed without work-related
requirements. That will remove the fear of reassessment and give
the group the confidence to try work within the existing
permitted work rules in employment support allowance and work
allowance rules in universal credit. I am absolutely delighted
about what we have done around disability employment. I am keen
to do and say more around it, which should feed in again to the
process of trying to allay some of the concerns that have been
expressed this afternoon.
The proportion of those people in receipt of PIP with a mental
health condition who are getting top rates is actually six times
higher compared with DLA—PIP is at 41% and DLA is at 7%. I will
just point out that customer satisfaction for PIP customers was
77%, with different scores according to different providers;
again, I will go away and have a look at that. People being
treated with dignity and satisfaction with how they are treated
is extremely important to me. Indeed, this morning I raised the
issue of disability services complaints. The number has decreased
from 2,690 in 2021-22 to 2,330 in 2022-23. I am very mindful
again that all of this is about individual experience.
Let me quickly try to canter through a couple of other questions
before I close. The hon. Member for Slough talked about PIP
clearance times. We have increased the number of case
managers—health professional assessment providers—to deal with
the increased demand and we have addressed the blend of phone,
video and face-to-face meetings, to ensure that it is more
centred on service users and is suitable. We have also empowered
case managers, where they have robust evidence, to make decisions
on award reviews, without referral to an assessment provider, so
that decisions are quicker and we can avoid claims going out of
payment. I am very much looking at that myself, and the
end-to-end claim process for new claims has been reduced from 26
weeks in August 2021 to a current wait of 15 weeks. We are in a
better position than we were before the pandemic. That is an
achievement that I am proud of. Is there more to do? Absolutely,
yes, but again I want those who are watching or listening to this
debate to see that this is a big focus.
We are fully committed to delivering on the issues that matter to
the British people. This is delivering for disabled people. It is
an absolute mission for me in this role to make sure that the
most vulnerable members of our society lead decent, fulfilling
lives and I will use my time in this role to make sure that I can
make the changes that everybody would wish to see.
(in the Chair)
The question is, That this House has considered personal
independence payment and other disability benefits.
On a point of order, Mrs Latham.
(in the Chair)
There is not time—there is no time.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered personal independence payment and
other disability benefits.
|
