Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) (Urgent Question): To ask the
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to make a statement on the
recent ruling by the High Court over the judicial review on the
application of Personal Independence Payments to persons with
mental health problems. The Secretary of State for Work and
Pensions (Ms Esther McVey) After careful consideration, I
took the decision not to appeal the High Court’s...Request free trial
(Glenrothes) (SNP)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Work and
Pensions to make a statement on the recent ruling by the High
Court over the judicial review on the application
of Personal Independence Payments to persons with
mental health problems.
-
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Ms Esther
McVey)
After careful consideration, I took the decision not to
appeal the High Court’s judgment on this case. I informed the
House of my decision immediately by tabling a written
statement on Friday last week. The written statement set out
my decision and the steps that my Department will now take to
implement that judgment, although I welcome coming to the
House today in addition to that.
I repeat once again my commitment to implementing this
judgment in the best interests of our claimants and through
working closely with disabled people and key stakeholders
over the coming months. The Department for Work and Pensions
will undertake an exercise to go through all affected cases
in receipt of PIP and all decisions made following the
judgment in the MH case to identify anyone who might be
entitled to more as a result of the judgment. We will then
write to the individuals affected and all payments will be
backdated to the effective date in each individual’s claim.
In accepting the outcome of the High Court judgment, the
Department does not agree with some of the details in it. The
2017 amending regulations were introduced in response to an
upper tribunal case that broadened the interpretation of
eligibility for mobility 1—the ability to plan and follow a
journey. Our intention has always been to deliver the
original policy intent through clarifying how symptoms of
overwhelming psychological distress should be assessed. We
are not appealing the outcome of the recent High Court
judgment to provide certainty to our claimants.
Our next steps will build on the positive work that the
Government are already undertaking: spending on the main
disability benefits—PIP, the disability living allowance and
the attendance allowance—has risen by £4.2 billion since 2010
and real terms spending on disability benefits will be higher
every year to 2020 than in 2010. The Government have
commissioned two expert-led reviews and invested a record
£11.6 billion in mental health services. Access to Work’s
mental health support service has been expanded with a
two-year trial of targeted support for apprentices with
mental health conditions. We have also accepted all the
recommendations in the independent review by and Paul Farmer,
including establishing a framework for large employers to
voluntarily report on mental health and disability within
their organisation.
With regard to the next steps following this judgment, the
DWP will write to those who may be entitled to a higher rate
of PIP. Where relevant, all payments will be backdated to the
effective date in each individual claim.
PIP is a modern, dynamic and fairer benefit than its
predecessor, DLA, and focuses the most support on those who
are experiencing the greatest barriers to living
independently. At the core of PIP’s design is the principle
that awards of the benefit should be made according to the
claimant’s overall level of need, regardless of whether they
suffer from physical or non-physical conditions. The
Government are committed to furthering rights and
opportunities for all disabled people and we continue to
spend over £50 billion a year to support people with
disabilities and health conditions.
-
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for attending the
House today and welcome her to her recent appointment. It
seems that Secretaries of State for Work and Pensions change
with astonishing regularity, but the Government’s callous and
chaotic attempt to attack the rights of the poor, sick and
disabled continues unabated. Although the Secretary of State
said that she is pleased to come to the House to make this
statement, she did not take the two or three opportunities
she had over the past few days to do so, without waiting for
an urgent question. Instead, she waited for a month after the
High Court decision and then submitted a written statement on
a Friday morning, when she knew nobody would be here to read
it.
The High Court has ruled yet again that the Government have
been acting unlawfully in their incessant attack on the very
people the DWP should be seeking to protect. We now know that
up to 164,000 people will get higher disability payments—or,
to put it another way, that the Government have unlawfully
been seeking to withhold benefits from up to 164,000 people
who are not only entitled to them but who need them if they
are to have anything like the normal life that the more
fortunate among us take for granted.
This is not the first time the Government have bene
overturned in the courts. We have previously seen the courts
ruling against the Government on the imposition of benefits
sanctions, where the Government were acting unlawfully, and
before that on the iniquitous bedroom tax. That one is
particularly poignant for my constituents just now because
the man who stood up to the DWP over the bedroom tax and won,
Davie Nelson, a Glenrothes man through and through, sadly
died very suddenly last week. His family and friends will be
pleased that others are continuing the campaign for social
justice that Davie fought so bravely.
The Secretary of State has promised that her Department will
now seek to identify anyone who should be receiving higher
benefits. My office has estimated, on the basis of
preliminary constituency casework, that there could be 71
people in my constituency alone not getting the money they
are entitled to. Will she update us on how many people she
now thinks have been underpaid? How long will it take to
carry out the review? How much longer will these people have
to wait to receive the money that they rely on and which is
rightfully and lawfully theirs? Will she explain why her
Department is amassing such an appalling record of defeats in
the courts? Does that not tell the Government something about
how they are making these cuts to benefits? Finally, will she
now commit to delivering a social security system whose
fundamental principle is not to work down to a budget but to
protect and respect the dignity of those who rely on it, and
not continue to punish people for having disabilities?
-
Ms McVey
There have been changes in the DWP. Some people have come
back, having previously worked here and seen what the changes
were, and I am back here, several years later, and hence was
probably a good person to say that we would not be appealing
the court case.
On the timetable, I made the judgment just a week and a half
after being made Secretary of State. It took up most of my
time. It was a Friday—and could not have been any other
time—because that was the deadline I had to meet for the
legal judgment. At the same time, I made sure, following all
protocol, that there was a written statement on exactly what
had been done.
The benefit was always intended to be a dynamic benefit. Hon.
Members on both sides of the House understood that DLA was
focused on physical disabilities, and all parties decided
there needed to be a more dynamic benefit that reflected
invisible disabilities, which we all know are very difficult
to assess. The extra money and support went into
acknowledging that.
There has been massive change, and also massive
understanding, in terms of what is going on. When I stood
here all those years ago in 2013 talking about what the
budget would be, people said we were cutting it. I explained
the matter very clearly, though it fell on deaf ears, and I
was often vilified. People still said it was being cut, but
it was not. When I arrived, the budget was just over £13
billion, and it has gone up every year since, and will
continue to go up. That is in real terms. Much of the
vilification, therefore, was not only unnecessary but deeply
untrue, and that again is why I welcome the opportunity to
come to the Dispatch Box to explain what is going on.
Changing benefits is not always easy. Expanding support is
not always easy. We knew at the time we were taking on a very
difficult change and that there would no doubt be legal
challenges. When there are legal challenges, however, we must
look at them, make a true and fair judgment and carry on
along that path, and I believe that in this instance I made a
fair judgment. Today, the Glasgow Herald welcomed the
decision—although I accept that the piece in question picked
on various other issues—and it was also welcomed by Paul
Farmer, the chief executive of Mind. My hon. Friend the
Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work has met her
Scottish counterpart; they, too, welcome the decision and
look forward to establishing closer working relationships and
making plans for its implementation.
I hope that what I have said explains what we have done, and
I hope that what we have done is welcomed by Members on both
sides of the House. If the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter
Grant) would like to talk to me about a specific case or
constituent, my door is open, and I will meet him.
-
Mr (Chingford and
Woodford Green) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend to her post, and I welcome her
knowledge in making this decision. In supporting her, I
remind the House that it was our predecessor Labour
Government who put off changes in disability living allowance
deliberately before the election and that afterwards we were
faced with the decision to make those necessary changes. More
money is now spent on disability benefits year on year, and
more people, including those with mental health conditions,
will receive them. DLA never delivered that to those people
before.
-
Ms McVey
I thank my right hon. Friend. He spent many years working on
social issues and cases, and established the Centre for
Social Justice. The change that he brought about was not just
about changing the benefits, but about reaching out to people
who are sometimes left alone. Some of those people did want
to be helped to get back into work. They did want to talk
about their hopes and aspirations. There are now over 600,000
more disabled people in work, because they chose that path
towards self-determination and the fulfilment of their
ambitions and hopes.
-
(Oldham East and
Saddleworth) (Lab)
Thank you for granting the urgent question, Mr Speaker, and I
congratulate the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant).
Any disabled person who listened to what was said by the
Secretary of State will have been gobsmacked by the
suggestion that there is a commitment to disabled people. The
United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities has described the Government’s action as a
“human catastrophe”. The cuts that they have wrought on
disabled people are an absolute disgrace.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De
Cordova) said when she raised a point of order yesterday, the
Government sneaked out a written statement late on Friday,
announcing that they would not appeal against the High Court
judgment of 21 December, in effect reversing the emergency
PIP regulations that they had introduced in February last
year. Those regulations were introduced without a vote or a
debate, despite two urgent questions and an emergency debate,
and despite widespread concern about their impact. The
Government’s own Social Security Advisory Committee was not
consulted. I warned at the time:
“The move to undermine and subvert independent tribunal
judgments is unprecedented, and ... marks very troubling
behaviour by the Government on cases they lose that could
weaken such social security tribunal judgments’ reach,
influence and effectiveness in making independent
decisions.”—[Official Report, 28 March 2017; Vol. 624, c.
145.]
I am pleased that the Secretary of State and her Department
have finally seen sense, but there are a number of questions
that the Secretary of State must answer—questions that have
already been put by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea.
How many people does her Department estimate have been
affected? How quickly will her Department be able to identify
affected claimants, and by what process? Given the issues
relating to letters from that Department, it is a little
worrying if that is the only means.
How soon after identification will the Department make back
payments? Will there be an appeal process for PIP claimants
who are not contacted by the Department and who believe they
should receive such payments? Will the Department compensate
claimants who have fallen into debt and accrued interest
charges? Will applicants be entitled to a reassessment if
they were given the standard rate of the PIP mobility
component after the February 2017 changes to PIP regulations,
when the cause of the claim was “psychological distress”?
Finally, just how much public money has been spent by the
Department on lawyers and legal advice seeking to defend the
indefensible in the initial tribunal and the more recent
court case?
This sorry debacle should serve as a warning to the
Government of the dangers of seeking to undermine and subvert
the decisions of our independent judiciary and the House of
Commons.
-
Ms McVey
Can we start the dialogue on a firm and factual footing,
which I set out before, and dispel the myth about the spend
on disabled people? The facts speak for themselves: in real
terms, the money has gone up. In this place, we are
supposed to have the definitive facts of an argument, so I
seek to give those here.
This was not about a policy change; it was about
implementing the correct regulation after a court case. It
came about after taking advice from and working with
experts in the field on how to help people with severe
psychological disorders. It was about support by prompting
and by aid and assistance; at the time, it was not deemed
to be something for people with severe learning
disabilities, who might want a constant companion. That was
how the regulations were set down, after advice was sought
on the best approach, because this is a tailor-made
benefit. However, the judgment in the case went the other
way. We will work with MIND and with charities and
stakeholders in the field to implement this as quickly as
possible, but it is not just about speed; it has to be
right and effective and to work for the people it is made
for. That will take some time, but we will do it as quickly
as possible.
Up to 220,000 people could be affected. That is why we are
taking the process very seriously. We as a Department will
reach out to those people, once we know exactly what we are
doing. I reiterate that, according to figures from 27
October, 66% of PIP recipients with mental health
conditions get the enhanced daily living component,
compared with 22% who received the highest DLA care
component; and 31% of PIP recipients with mental health
conditions get the enhanced mobility rate, compared with
just 10% of DLA recipients. Those facts speak for
themselves. We know that this is a highly emotive issue,
but it would be helpful if all MPs when working with their
constituents offered them the help and guidance they need,
and not ramp up some of the rhetoric and incorrect
information we have heard here.
Finally, I was asked about legal costs. The cost in these
cases was £181,000, but a Department as big as the DWP
expects the costs of court cases to be that high, and they
are comparable with those of other Departments engaged in
similar judicial review cases.
-
(South Cambridgeshire)
(Con)
I am so pleased the new Secretary of State has decided to
accept the court ruling, and I thank her very much indeed.
As I and colleagues said last year, we should have listened
to the message the courts were giving us. Accepting their
ruling will be a significant step forward in achieving
parity of esteem for mental and physical health. The Select
Committee on Work and Pensions, of which I am a member, is
about to publish a report on PIP and employment and support
allowance. Will the Secretary of State seriously consider
our recommendations on how to improve both those benefits?
We all want the same thing—the best possible support for
people who need it.
-
Ms McVey
I thank my hon. Friend, who is a vocal champion of people
with disabilities, as is every other Conservative Back
Bencher—and Members in all parts of the House. That is why
this is sometimes such an emotive issue—everybody wants to
be heard. I will indeed listen to her and take on board the
recommendations of the Select Committee.
-
(Airdrie and Shotts)
(SNP)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this important urgent
question. I congratulate my hon. and assiduous Friend the
Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) on securing it.
The High Court ruled that the UK Government’s PIP
regulations were “blatantly discriminatory” against people
with mental health impairments. That follows the damning
report from the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities, which found “systematic violations” of
disability rights. Although I welcome the Secretary of
State’s acceptance of the High Court ruling—a position I
hope the Government will adopt more regularly in response
to High Court defeats on social security policy—I was
worried by an aspect of her written statement, which was
sneaked out on Friday. She said on Friday and again today
that
“Although I and my Department accept the High Court’s
judgment, we do not agree with some of the detail contained
therein.”—[Official Report, 19 January 2018; Vol. 634, c.
30WS.]
Will she clarify that she will implement the ruling in
full? Will she make an oral statement on the Floor of the
House, so that we can consider whether the response follows
the High Court ruling? Will she answer the pertinent
questions put by my hon. Friend regarding the timescales—a
matter she has not covered? Finally, in the light of the
ruling and other external interventions, will the
Government admit that their policies are causing harm and
commit to widescale review of the social security system in
the United Kingdom?
-
Ms McVey
We will implement the judgment in full, but we will work
with stakeholders and charities to understand and implement
what was said. When we said we did not agree with the
detail, it was a reference to the language and terminology
that went above and beyond a legal ruling and judgment, but
we saw through that to the facts and that is why we decided
not to appeal.
I reiterate that I am not the kind of person who sneaks
anything out. I have come to this House and answered every
question. I set out the timetable. The matter had to go to
the Court for a decision on Friday. The House was not
sitting by the time I made the decision, so I put out a
written statement. I hope that all hon. Members understand
that it is better to get a decision right than to rush just
to answer in a different way. Nothing was sneaked out.
Again, I reiterate the support the Government give and have
said they will give to people with mental health
conditions. The Prime Minister has made that a key issue
that she wants to deal with, and she and I came to that
decision to do so.
-
(Brentwood and Ongar)
(Con)
I strongly welcome the Secretary of State’s decision, which
will benefit a lot of disabled people. We all know that DLA
was a far worse benefit for people with mental health
problems than PIP. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that,
even before the ruling, far more disabled people were
receiving PIP than had ever received DLA?
-
Ms McVey
Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend, who knows a great deal
about this subject and is also a member of the Work and
Pensions Committee. He has given the correct facts. We as a
compassionate Conservative Government will do as much as we
can to help people who need our help.
-
(Birkenhead) (Lab)
I welcome the right hon. Lady to her place and I welcome
her statement. Given the size of the task before her, with
up to 220,000 people affected, may I again press her to
give some sort of timetable for meeting that objective?
Might she start by writing to the oldest claimants first,
and might she put a monthly report in the House of Commons
Library on progress to that end?
-
Ms McVey
The right hon. Gentleman is another champion for these
causes. As he suggests, this is a mammoth task, and I will
be working with experts in the field and doing things as
sympathetically and effectively as possible. I will listen
to all the advice that he has offered me.
-
And can we have a monthly statement?
-
Ms McVey
I will do the best I can to adhere to the right hon.
Gentleman’s requests.
-
(Shipley) (Con)
I very much support the Secretary of State’s decision, and
I am sure that she is delighted that the Opposition parties
called for an urgent question so that they could tell her
how much they support her decision on the court case. Or at
least I think that is what they were saying. I also very
much welcome the fact that we are now spending far more
money on people with disabilities than the last Labour
Government did, which probably explains the anger with
which the shadow Secretary of State gave her performance.
Will my right hon. Friend look at measures to try to get
the decision making on PIP right first time? In too many
cases, the right decision is not made the first time, and I
hope that she will look at that urgently, and early in her
time in office.
-
Ms McVey
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip
Davies) for his comments. He always likes to see things in
his own inimitable way, and he is quite right. Both sides
of the House are meant to be supporting this decision, but
listening to the tone and the noises coming from the
Opposition Benches, it is difficult to believe that. He
makes a fair point about getting the decisions right first
time and helping the decision makers to get it right. There
was an independent review—the Gray review—and we will be
taking its advice on board.
-
(High Peak) (Lab)
I, too, welcome the right hon. Lady to her post. I also
welcome the decision that she has made. Bearing in mind the
fact that many disability benefit claimants with mental
health issues struggle to get out of the house, does she
share my concern and that of the Work and Pensions
Committee about the great discrepancies between contractors
and between regions? There are discrepancies relating to
the number of people being allowed a home visit for their
benefits assessments. Will she please review this, to
ensure that those people can get the benefits they deserve
and not be sanctioned because they cannot leave their
house?
-
Ms McVey
The hon. Lady has raised a good point about how some people
are visited while others have to go in for assessment and
support. That was part of the freedoms of contracting, so
that we could get best practice. Were some people better
seen at home? Were other people better seen in their local
community? We constantly gauge and value that, and we will
continue to do so.
-
(North Swindon)
(Con)
Building on this very positive announcement, we all need to
do more to support people with mental health conditions,
and one of the biggest challenges is identifying people
with those conditions. The PIP process can play a crucial
role in that. Will the Secretary of State therefore bring
forward plans to enable us to signpost those identified for
the additional targeted support that is available across
all parts of the Government, so that they can get the
maximum amount of help?
-
Ms McVey
That is another good offer of support and advice from our
side of the House from someone who knows his brief very
well. We will look at the suggestion that my hon. Friend
has put forward.
-
(Birmingham, Selly Oak)
(Lab)
How many staff in the Department for Work and Pensions will
be directly deployed on the rectification process? I ask
because the evidence is that the number of staff in the DWP
used to complete any kind of task involving a complaint or
a rectification is directly relevant to how long it takes
them to complete the process.
-
Ms McVey
Again, we have to consider these key practical points. We
are actively recruiting hundreds of staff for this at the
moment.
-
Sir (New Forest West)
(Con)
As for the comments from the United Nations, how do the
figures that my right hon. Friend has given compare
internationally?
-
Ms McVey
My right hon. Friend raises another good point. The UK is
one of the most generous countries in the world when it
comes to supporting its disabled people. In the G7, only
Germany spends more. We spend what is deemed appropriate
and available, which is more than £50 billion. I reiterate
that we are one of the most generous countries in the
world.
-
(Ceredigion) (PC)
Vulnerable people with severe mental health problems in my
constituency have had to resort to a distressing appeals
process in order to secure the support they are entitled
to. This is wholly inappropriate. Pursuant to the answer
that the Secretary of State gave to the hon. Member for
Shipley (Philip Davies), may I ask when we can expect to
see some progress from her Department to ensure that
individuals are assessed for psychological conditions by
mental health clinicians in the first instance?
-
Ms McVey
We are constantly reviewing the numbers to support who is
coming forward if we need further decisions or
clarifications for people. That is part of the ongoing
day-to-day process to make sure that we get this benefit
right.
-
(South Dorset)
(Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend to her place. We are all
right behind her, whatever some people might say. From my
experience as an MP in South Dorset, I suspect that the
main problem relating to people slipping through the net is
the lack of home visits. I agree with the hon. Member for
High Peak (Ruth George) on this point. I suspect that such
visits are more expensive, but I think that they would save
money in the longer term because the assessment would be
more accurate. Will my right hon. Friend look into this, to
ensure that we hit the targets smack on, first time?
-
Ms McVey
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words and support.
Anyone in need of a home visit can have a home visit, and I
will be looking at the communications relating to this,
because perhaps people, including MPs, do not know that.
This is something else that we need to work on.
-
(Glasgow South West)
(SNP)
We on the DWP Select Committee heard some alarming evidence
and unconvincing answers from contractors about the number
of staff who had specialist knowledge of mental health. Can
the Secretary of State confirm that she will take this up
with the contractors and carry out a review of the
assessment process?
-
Ms McVey
I have indeed got a date in the diary to be on a PIP
decision-making process. I met the contractors last week. I
had obviously done that when I was last in the House, but I
need to be updated to see exactly what is going on. I have
had meetings on this, but the hon. Gentleman is right to
suggest that there is nothing quite like going through the
process myself.
-
(Cheadle) (Con)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her statement.
I recently visited my local jobcentre in Stockport and met
the great work coaches there who are doing so much to help
people back into work. Will she join me in congratulating
them, and perhaps explain how this is going to help us in
our quest to help a further 1 million people into work?
-
Ms McVey
My hon. Friend and neighbour rightly acknowledges the work
that the work coaches do in her constituency and right
across the country. The aim of the Government in carrying
out this transformation was to get a tailor-made benefit
service, whether through PIP or universal credit, so that
the work coaches know who they are dealing with and
therefore how they can help and support them in the best
possible ways. The Government should be proud of what they
are aiming to do.
-
(East Ham) (Lab)
This was an ill-advised attempt to reduce the amount of
benefit payable to people with mental health problems, and
I am glad that it has been abandoned. Will the Secretary of
State take steps to ensure that, in future, her Department
complies with its obligations under the Equality Act 2010?
-
Ms McVey
The right hon. Gentleman is very knowledgeable on this
subject, and we spent hours debating these issues across
the Dispatch Box when I was last in the House. He knows as
well as I do that we always aim to fulfil all obligations.
If we do not, this is what happens: we get a court case and
we have to deal with the consequences. I hope that I have
dealt with them correctly today and received support across
the House. I will not be seeking leave to appeal, and that
is right on this occasion.
-
(Mid Dorset and
North Poole) (Con)
I, too, warmly welcome the Secretary of State to her post.
I am visiting my local jobcentre in Poole on Friday, so
will the Secretary of State set out how our new jobcentres
will support my constituents and others across the country
with mental health challenges into work?
-
Ms McVey
As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mary
Robinson), this is about tailor-made and flexible support.
We are putting in place more training so that people
understand mental health conditions, and we are giving our
work coaches and mental health assistants as much support
as possible. As I say, this is about tailor-made and
flexible support.
-
(Newcastle upon Tyne
Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State talks about the unnecessary
vilification of her policies, but her Government were
responsible for the vilification of so many mentally
disabled people by presenting them as applying for benefits
to which they were not entitled. I have seen the misery
that such decisions caused many of my constituents,
including those suffering from post-traumatic stress
disorder as a consequence of sexual abuse. Will the
Secretary of State now confirm the maximum amount of time
that they will have to wait to have their cases reviewed?
-
Ms McVey
It is unfortunate when Opposition Members try to ratchet up
the level of emotion in the Chamber, especially when the
situation is as emotional as it is. Nobody has ever sought
to vilify anyone, and we should get it on the record now
that this is not about vilifying anybody—it is about the
giving the right support to those who need it. Surely all
of us want to focus resources and money on the most
disabled people and on the disabled people who need that
money. I hope that I can end on that note. The facts speak
for themselves: we have spent more than Labour ever did.
-
(Plymouth, Moor View)
(Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s decision. Does she agree
that it is simply nonsense to suggest that the Government
are not interested in this agenda? More money is going into
the programme than ever. The life chances agenda, which has
significantly challenged the welfare state that previously
kept a lot of people out of work, is fundamentally changing
our country, including communities such as Plymouth, for
the better.
-
Ms McVey
My hon. Friend hits on an important point. The Conservative
party and the law that it is bringing in are all about life
chances. That is how we view the world. Social mobility,
life chances, a foot on the ladder and a career ladder are
what we aim to provide all the time.
This will sound like a bit of an advert, but I want to
highlight the fact that the Minister for Disabled People
holds PIP sessions that all MPs can attend. If anybody has
anything that they want to bring to her, they can go to one
of those sessions. The sessions take place regularly, and
she is holding one today.
-
(Stoke-on-Trent
Central) (Lab/Co-op)
What we are hearing about today is a court judgment that
found the Government’s policy wanting, but the Secretary of
State has come to the House seeking plaudits for now not
appealing that decision, and that is frankly unacceptable.
While it is right for those who were not given the help and
support that they needed to get a backdated payment, that
payment does not remedy the trauma that they faced during
the years when they did not have support. Will the
Secretary of State offer an unequivocal apology from the
Dispatch Box for the consequences of her Department’s
policy? Whether intended or not, it was her Government’s
decision that led to people struggling at home, and that is
simply not right.
-
Ms McVey
That was another reason for making a written statement, as
well as the time constraints and what we had to do to
adhere to the legal ruling. I have not come here today for
plaudits. I have come here to do what is right and to
explain what is right. That is what I have done, and that
is the key thing for all our constituents and the people
who are watching this closely at home. We have made a
decision. I believe that it has been accepted on both sides
of the House, and we are going to get things right.
-
(North Devon)
(Con)
I warmly welcome this decision, and it is worth noting that
this new Secretary of State made it after only eight
working days in her role, which represents a decisive
course of action. Is it not the case that the entire focus
of the Department, which I know well, is on ensuring that
those with mental disabilities and challenges have
opportunities to access the workplace and lead independent
lives? In making this decision, the Secretary of State has
shown that that is her focus.
-
Ms McVey
My hon. Friend puts his point so eloquently that I do not
think that I can add much to it, but I reiterate that this
is about opportunity and allowing everyone to lead an
independent life.
-
(Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) for
securing this urgent question, but I also thank the
Secretary of State for her response and promise of action.
In my office, transfers from DLA to PIP occupy a large
proportion of my staff’s time. For people with severe
anxiety, depression and emotional and mental health issues,
some of whom are suicidal, the system has pushed them to
the very edge, even when there has been copious evidence
and information from consultants, GPs and family members. I
ask that the staff who process applications do so with more
knowledge, more understanding and certainly more
compassion.
-
Ms McVey
I said that the Minister for Disabled People holds meetings
for MPs, but she does the same for caseworkers, so MPs’
staff can attend those sessions, meet the Minister and ask
relevant questions.
-
(Lichfield)
(Con)
The shadow Secretary of State said that she was gobsmacked
by my right hon. Friend’s response. I am gobsmacked by the
vilification of my right hon. Friend on social media and by
the threats from Opposition Members to string her up, which
are more unacceptable. Just for clarification, will she let
the House know precisely by how much disability payments
have risen since this Government came to power?
-
Ms McVey
I am glad that “gobsmacked” has become part of the language
of the House. My hon. Friend is gobsmacked, but I was
obviously greatly dismayed by the comments from the
Opposition and by the personal attacks that I have
suffered. However, I know that people make personal attacks
only when they do not have workable policies to put
forward, so that shows that the Opposition have no workable
policies. We do not need to link politics with violence.
In answer to my hon. Friend’s question, the increase has
been £4.2 billion.
-
(Eastbourne) (LD)
I thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing this urgent question,
and I also thank the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter
Grant) for requesting it. The Government have decided not
to appeal only now, after putting many claimants with
mental health problems through a year of hell. Does the
Secretary of State really believe that that was a kind or
fair way of treating people with mental health issues?
-
Ms McVey
This is a key issue for the Government. The Prime Minister
has made supporting people with mental health issues a key
pledge, and we have put in an extra £11 billion. Coming to
the House with this decision is a step in the right
direction towards helping people as best we can.
-
(Corby) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s appointment, and my
constituents, including those who come to my weekly advice
surgeries, will welcome her announcement. Will she update
the House on what steps are being taken to disseminate
information about what all this means to local advice
services so that they can best advise their clients about
the next steps and the way forward?
-
Ms McVey
I thank my hon. Friend, because the point really is about
the practicalities of getting this right. It is about
engaging with stakeholders and charities. It is about
working with our Department to get this right. Mind has
welcomed the decision, as have other charities, and it is
working with us. Once we have worked through that,
obviously we will disseminate it through the whole system.
-
(Bermondsey and Old
Southwark) (Lab)
The Secretary of State says that the Department will now be
identifying the 164,000 disabled people who were wrongly
denied the help to which they are entitled. Her Department
also recently announced it is scrapping a target it
previously denied existed—that of upholding 80% of initial
decisions. When will the DWP be contacting the 83,000
disabled people who were potentially wrongly denied help
under that equally dodgy practice?
-
Ms McVey
We will do everything systematically and coherently. We
will get to people affected by any incorrect decision as
soon as possible.
-
Mr (Kettering)
(Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend to her post and congratulate
her on her response to the urgent question. My constituents
in Kettering would like to know whether there are more or
fewer disabled people in work in 2018 than in 2010.
-
Ms McVey
There are considerably more people with disabilities in work
than ever before, and particularly more than in 2010. That is
true not just for people with disabilities but for all sorts
of people, including young people and women. This Government
have fundamentally achieved what we set out to do on life
chances, social mobility and opportunities.
-
Dr (East Kilbride,
Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’
Financial Interests. I welcome both the judgment and the
response. However, this process has been extremely stressful
for my constituents, many of whom have been plunged into
poverty and absolute despair, with their mental health
problems exacerbated along the way. What will the Secretary
of State do to ensure that cognisance is taken of the opinion
of professionals such as psychiatrists, who know what people
are capable of doing and what support they need? How will she
ensure that any further process does not add additional
stress to those who have already been affected?
-
Ms McVey
As I have said in reply to many questions, we are actively
recruiting more people, and we are doing more training on
mental health conditions with our caseworkers. We have to
make sure that we understand the judgment and that we work
with partners to make sure that we can help people who come
forward. I have heard the hon. Lady and, again, I would be
happy to meet her if she would like to speak to me about
anyone in particular.
-
(Sutton and Cheam)
(Con)
It must be through gritted teeth that the Opposition have to
rely on citing the views on human rights of Saudi Arabian,
Russian and Chinese members of the UN Committee on the Rights
of Persons with Disabilities. Meanwhile, Conservative Members
do not want bluster; they want action and support. Will my
right hon. Friend confirm the proportion of PIP recipients
with mental health conditions who receive the higher rate of
benefit compared with the figure under the DLA regime it
replaced?
-
Ms McVey
I reiterate that 66% of PIP recipients with mental health
conditions got the enhanced rate of the daily living
component in October 2017, compared with 22% who were on the
highest rate of the DLA care component in May 2013. Some 31%
of PIP recipients with mental health conditions got the
enhanced rate of the mobility component in October 2017,
compared with 10% who received the higher rate of the DLA
mobility component in May 2013. I hope that that is clear.
-
(Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
Two hundred sufferers of motor neurone disease have been
interviewed by the Department in the past 18 months alone. In
addition to their physical disability, many will have mental
ill health, which is increased by the stress and anxiety of
the interviews. Some MND sufferers die within a year of
diagnosis. Will the Secretary of State prioritise this group
of sufferers when reviewing those cases?
-
Ms McVey
We will absolutely go via the people who are most in need.
-
(Solihull) (Con)
rose—
-
(Horsham) (Con)
rose—
-
Mr Speaker
I call .
-
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I had a one-in-two chance.
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State
to her place and welcome her talk of engagement. Will she
commit to providing specific guidance to MPs’ offices and
council contact centres at the earliest possible opportunity?
-
Ms McVey
That is another good point about how people are going to know
about the changes. We will indeed take that suggestion
forward.
-
(Inverness, Nairn,
Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
Many disabled people in the highlands, particularly those
with mental health conditions, are often refused PIP appeals,
despite overwhelming evidence from their doctors. Does the
Secretary of State agree it is wrong and
discriminary—[Interruption.] Does she agree it is
wrong—[Laughter]—to accept a private company’s decision over
that of highly trained medical professionals who know their
patients, and their conditions, well?
-
Ms McVey
I will keep to the word “discriminate”, and obviously we do
not want to do that. Ultimately we will be making the
decisions, but it is imperative that we get them right.
-
Mr Speaker
I call .
-
And finally, Mr Speaker.
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that PIP claimants,
including those who will benefit from her decision, which I
warmly welcome, will not be subject to the benefit cap in
respect of these payments, and that payments will continue to
be untaxed and, indeed, will rise by the rate of inflation?
-
Ms McVey
My hon. Friend is right that PIP is not subject to the
benefit cap. A person will get PIP irrespective of whether
they are in work. PIP is also not means-tested.
-
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department
for Work and Pensions (Baroness Buscombe) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat
as a Statement an Answer given to an Urgent Question in
another place by my right honourable friend the
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the High
Court judgment on PIP—Personal Independence Payment. The
Statement is as follows:
“After careful consideration, I took the decision not
to appeal the High Court’s judgment on this case. I
informed this House of my decision immediately by
tabling a Written Statement on Friday last week. This
Written Statement set out my decision and the steps my
department will now take to implement the judgment. I
repeat once again my commitment to implementing this
judgment in the best interest of our claimants and
through working closely with disabled people and key
stakeholders over the coming months.
The Department for Work and Pensions will undertake an
exercise to go through all affected cases in receipt of
the Personal Independence
Payment and all decisions made following
the judgment in MH to identify anyone who may be
entitled to more as a result of the judgment. We will
then write to those individuals affected and all
payments will be back-dated to the effective date in
each individual claim.
In accepting the outcome of this High Court judgment,
the department does not agree with some of the details
made in the judgment. The 2017 amending regulations
were introduced in response to an Upper Tribunal case
that broadened the interpretation of eligibility for
Mobility 1, which is the ability to plan and follow a
journey. Our intention has always been to deliver the
original policy intent through clarifying how symptoms
of overwhelming psychological distress should be
assessed. In order to provide certainty to our
claimants, we are not appealing the outcome of the
recent High Court judgment.
Our next steps will build on the positive work this
Government are already undertaking, including the
following. Spending on the main disability
benefits—PIP, DLA and attendance allowance—has risen by
£4.2 billion since 2010 and real-terms spending on
disability benefits will be higher every year to 2020
than in 2010. The Government have commissioned two
expert-led reviews and invested a record £11.6 billion
into mental health services. The Access to Work mental
health support service has been expanded with a
two-year trial of targeted support for apprentices with
mental health conditions. We have also accepted all the
recommendations in the independent review by the noble
Lord, , and Paul Farmer,
including establishing a framework for large employers
to voluntarily report on mental health and disability
within their organisations.
With regard to the next steps following this judgment,
the Department for Work and Pensions will write to
those who may be entitled to a higher rate of PIP.
Where relevant, all payments will be backdated to the
effective date in each individual claim.
PIP is a modern, dynamic and fairer benefit than its
predecessor, DLA, and focuses the most support on those
experiencing the greatest barriers to living
independently. At the core of PIP’s design is the
principle that awards of the benefit should be made
according to a claimant’s overall level of need,
regardless of whether they suffer from physical or
non-physical conditions. This Government are committed
to furthering rights and opportunities for all disabled
people and we continue to spend over £50 billion per
year to support people with disabilities and health
conditions”.
3.22 pm
-
(Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating that Answer.
I remind the House that these regulations were rushed
through after the tribunal specifically to deny the
higher-rate mobility component of PIP to people who were
claiming on grounds of psychological distress, affecting
people with Parkinson’s disease, schizophrenia or various
other mental health conditions.
In the High Court judgment, Mr Justice Mostyn said that
these new criteria were “blatantly discriminatory”
against those with mental health impairments and that
they “cannot be objectively justified”. Ministers should
have known that. On 27 March this House voted for a
regret Motion in my name objecting to these regulations
precisely because they discriminate against people with
mental health conditions. I then wrote to , with the support of
the right reverend Prelate the and the noble
Baronesses, and Lady
Bakewell, asking him to conduct a review mandated by that
Motion. He declined to do so, so we ended up in the High
Court.
I am glad that Ministers are not appealing the decision,
but it leaves many questions, of which I can ask only
two. First, will there be an appeal process for PIP
claimants who are not contacted by the department but who
believe they should receive back payments? Secondly, will
applicants be entitled to a reassessment if they were
given only the standard rate of the PIP mobility
component after the regulations came through, where the
cause of the claim was “psychological distress”?
If Ministers had, once again, only listened to this
House, this confusion and distress for claimants could
have been avoided. I dearly hope they do so next time.
-
My Lords, I shall respond robustly to what the noble
Baroness opposite has just said by making it absolutely
clear that this Government have been far more generous in
supporting people with mental health conditions than the
previous Labour Government, who put off any changes to
disability support, particularly in relation to mental
health conditions, until after the general election of
2010, which by then was too late.
This is not a policy change. We are going back to the
heart of the policy intent and relates to those in
psychological distress. We have accepted the
Stevenson/Farmer recommendations, which shows that we are
committed to supporting claimants with disabilities. We
are also working with a range of disability charities to
implement the judgment in the best way. We will look at
appeals, to which the noble Baroness opposite made
reference, but we want to make sure that we get the
process right. We have already spoken with the charity
Mind on how we implement the judgment. The Minister for
Disabled People, Health and Work in another place talked
only yesterday with a disability charity consortium to
discuss the decision and to hear its views on
implementation. We will reach out to claimants and look
at every one of them.
To be clear, we are spending over £50 billion on
disabilities. We are entirely committed to this
issue—indeed, it is one of the Prime Minister’s top
priorities. I can confirm that this was never a
cost-saving measure. The judge in the case made
references to cost saving but we do not agree with that.
Indeed, we have focused on being more generous through
the introduction of PIP and, as a result of the judgment,
we will rightly become even more generous in supporting
people with mental health conditions.
-
(LD)
My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister about the
process. I fail understand why, in March 2017, the
Government did not have recourse to the power available
to them under the Social Security Administration Act 1998
to suspend the implementation of adverse legal judgments
pending further and better particulars. If they had taken
that route they would have had recourse to the SSAC and a
proper consultation, which would have prevented this
adverse outcome from the High Court. Will the Minister
learn from this and give an assurance that in such future
circumstances, the Government will use the unique power
the DWP has to prevent getting egg all over their face
and causing adverse circumstances for many claimants who
do not deserve that kind of treatment?
-
I hear what the noble Lord is saying. This is one of the
reasons why the immediate response of my colleague the
Minister for Disabled People—and indeed the Secretary of
State—was not only to decide not to question the judgment
but to do everything we can to help claimants. That is
why we have already had early meetings with stakeholders
and organisations who can help us think through how to
ensure that we do not make mistakes going forward. It is
important to say that the 2017 amending regulations did
not represent a policy change. The distinction was based
on the considered advice of highly qualified medical
advisers, and the activities considered in PIP are used
as a proxy for assessing a claimant’s overall level of
need in daily life, which is what we were focusing on.
-
(Lab)
My Lords, the Minister on several occasions used the term
“generous” in describing the Government’s position. By
what yardstick is “generous” measured in these terms?
-
The noble Lord will understand that since 2010, spending
on the main disability benefits comprising PIP, DLA and
attendance allowance has risen by £4.2 billion.
Disability benefits are at a record high this year.
Indeed, as a share of GDP, the UK’s public spending on
disability and incapacity is higher than in all other G7
countries bar Germany.
It is important to focus on the components in terms of
spending on PIP and the DLA equivalence, which of course
was what we had under the Labour Government. As at
October 2017, 66% of PIP recipients with a mental health
condition received the enhanced rate daily living
component, compared with 22% receiving the highest rate
DLA care component as at May 2013. Some 31% of PIP
recipients with a mental health condition get the
enhanced rate mobility component as at October 2017,
compared with 10% receiving the higher rate DLA mobility
component as at May 2013. I could go on with more
figures. If one compares the percentage of spending by
this department with other departments within the
Government’s budget, we are, as we should be, strongly
focused on how we can help those with physical and with
mental health conditions to do a very dynamic thing that
PIP stands for: have the independence to cope with their
lives, whatever their condition.
-
(LD)
My Lords, the number of applicants who fail to qualify
run into the hundreds of thousands. Can the Minister say
what is being done to recruit enough staff to deal with
the backlog? I have seen a report which states that it
will take decades before they finally get up to date and
PIP applicants will receive their social mobility claims,
as they duly should. What is being done about the
backlog?
-
I can indeed respond to the noble Baroness because only
last week I had a meeting with officials who are closely
focused on this issue. I cannot give her the exact
numbers, but we are bringing on board many more work
coaches. We are training them and continually working to
improve our systems to ensure that any backlogs in the
waiting time for the initial assessment and reassessment
are cut down; I think they have been cut by at least half
over the past year. We recognised that the number of
people coming forward was greater than we had initially
judged, so we are responding to that as quickly and
efficiently as we can. At the same time, we have to make
sure that there is continuous improvement, that the PIP
benefits process is working fairly and effectively and
that it offers the best claimant experience possible. My
honourable friend in another place, the Minister of State
with responsibility for this issue, has given me a list
of the different things we are doing to improve the
assessment process and deal with any backlogs in the
system.
-
(Con)
My Lords, I would like to congratulate my noble friend
the Minister and my right honourable friend in the other
place on taking this decision. It is the right decision,
although I am sure it was a difficult one and will be
difficult for the department to implement. Nevertheless,
it is right and I welcome it.
-
I thank my noble friend for supporting us in what we feel
strongly was the right decision. It was a difficult one
because obviously, we need to take some time—not long,
but some time—to make sure that we can respond in the
right way and support a fair number of people whose
assessments we need to re-evaluate. We will do that to
the best of our ability, but very much at the forefront
of our minds is the need to work with stakeholders,
including Mind and other charities, to ensure that we get
this right. Again, I thank my noble friend.
|
