:00:00. > :00:07.response. For today, we should leave it there. Thank you. Order. Urgent
:00:08. > :00:11.question, Richard Bergen. The prisons minister told the committee
:00:12. > :00:17.this morning that he has a number of the chair of the prison officers
:00:18. > :00:20.Association on speed dial. If the minister... The honourable gentleman
:00:21. > :00:26.is getting a little ahead of himself. What he needs to do is to
:00:27. > :00:33.put the urgent question in the very simple terms that it was put to me.
:00:34. > :00:37.To as the Secretary of State for Justice if she will make a statement
:00:38. > :00:46.on the prison officers Association to withdraw from voluntary tasks. I
:00:47. > :01:00.have done the honourable gentleman's job for him. He is ahead of himself.
:01:01. > :01:04.I thank you for the urgent question on behalf of the opposition. I am
:01:05. > :01:08.grateful for the chance to update the House on this important issue.
:01:09. > :01:16.Strike action is unlawful and we have seen this. It will seriously
:01:17. > :01:20.disrupt normal operations in prisons and whilst we will take any actions
:01:21. > :01:25.that we can to mitigate the risks and what we are clear that action of
:01:26. > :01:32.this nature poses a risk to the safety of prisons and prison staff.
:01:33. > :01:36.The duties that the prison officers Association referred to in their
:01:37. > :01:40.bulbs are not voluntary duty. These duties that are fundamental parts of
:01:41. > :01:45.a prison officer 's role and essential to running a safe and
:01:46. > :01:50.decent prison. They include assessment for those at risk of
:01:51. > :01:56.suicide, first aid, restraint training and intervention, postage
:01:57. > :02:01.negotiation. The instructions by the PO a are clearly designed to disrupt
:02:02. > :02:07.the safe and decent running of prisons. We have made a pay offer to
:02:08. > :02:13.all operational staff in prisons which was the maximum we could make.
:02:14. > :02:19.In addition, we offered a ?1000 retention payment to all operational
:02:20. > :02:26.staff and a reduction ageing pension -- reduction pension age from 65 --
:02:27. > :02:31.265 fully funded by the Government. We were disappointed that this offer
:02:32. > :02:37.was rejected by the POA membership. Despite being endorsed by the POA
:02:38. > :02:42.leadership. This year's pay award is now a matter for the independent
:02:43. > :02:46.prison service pay review body. It will take evidence from all parties
:02:47. > :02:53.and report to the Government in April. The POA has the opportunity
:02:54. > :03:04.to make their case to the pay review body. We are not waiting for the pay
:03:05. > :03:08.review body to respond. We have outlined progression opportunities
:03:09. > :03:15.for more than 2000 staff across the country that will take it to ?30,000
:03:16. > :03:20.a year. In addition, we introduced additional allowances in areas where
:03:21. > :03:29.the cost of living is higher, to take the basic prison officers to up
:03:30. > :03:34.to ?30,000 a year. We understand prison officers do a difficult job
:03:35. > :03:39.in very challenging circumstances and why we are making these moves on
:03:40. > :03:44.pay to recognise that effort in the hard work. In addition, the
:03:45. > :03:50.Government is investing ?100 million to increase the net number of prison
:03:51. > :03:55.officers by 2500 in the next two years. I urge the Shadow Minister of
:03:56. > :04:00.that if he has good sense and cares about the safety and order of our
:04:01. > :04:05.prisons, what he should be doing today is not put prison officers and
:04:06. > :04:10.prisoners at risk but condemn this unlawful strike action. The prisons
:04:11. > :04:15.minister told the Justice committee this morning that he has a number of
:04:16. > :04:19.the chair of the prison officers Association on speed dial and if the
:04:20. > :04:25.Minister is dialling, it is clear he is not connecting because this
:04:26. > :04:30.situation could have easily been avoided. Ministers could have spoken
:04:31. > :04:35.to the POA before imposing a pay policy which has proven to be so
:04:36. > :04:39.divisive and so unpopular. Ministers need to sit down and talk with the
:04:40. > :04:44.POA rather than threaten legal action and claim the action is
:04:45. > :04:49.unlawful before any court has made any such determination. To fix a
:04:50. > :04:56.prison system relying on staff doing extra work voluntarily but no extra
:04:57. > :04:59.money to keep our prison system running, ministers need to focus on
:05:00. > :05:04.the real problems. Conservative Party conference back in October,
:05:05. > :05:09.the Justice Secretary announced 400 more officers stop these were to
:05:10. > :05:13.working ten challenging prisons but the staffing shortfall are those
:05:14. > :05:19.prisons has grown in the last quarter. Since the White Paper
:05:20. > :05:25.announcement of 2000 -- 2500 additional officers, there has been
:05:26. > :05:31.a fall of 133 staff in the last quarter of 2016. That 2500 is now
:05:32. > :05:35.further away than it was in November. Where is the Justice
:05:36. > :05:40.Secretary? Why have some prisons with no recruitment and retention
:05:41. > :05:44.problems receive the pay award twice -- while some prisons struggling on
:05:45. > :05:47.that front receive nothing? How much additional money has been earmarked
:05:48. > :05:54.for this recruitment drive and what discussions have taken place with
:05:55. > :06:00.POA leadership today? To turn this mass, we need a Justice Secretary
:06:01. > :06:04.who is serious about working with prison officers and we need a
:06:05. > :06:06.prisons built which will deliver serious reforms. Sadly, at the
:06:07. > :06:19.moment, we have nothing. In relation to the additional
:06:20. > :06:24.allowances that were announced for staff last week but also the PM
:06:25. > :06:30.progression opportunity for 2000 prison officers across the estate,
:06:31. > :06:34.the POA were consulted and if the honourable member had read the press
:06:35. > :06:39.release in detail, the actually welcomed it. But they wanted it to
:06:40. > :06:48.apply to all of the country. It is not novel to have a violence in
:06:49. > :06:52.areas where it is difficult to recruit and the cost of living is
:06:53. > :06:57.too high. It is not novel in the prison service or the public sector.
:06:58. > :07:11.He talked about extra money going into the prison Service. 100 million
:07:12. > :07:15.for a net 200 officers. We made the announcement in November and he
:07:16. > :07:21.referred to data from December. Let me update you. We are on track to
:07:22. > :07:24.recruit the 400 new officers for the ten most challenging deals the
:07:25. > :07:28.Secretary of State announced in October. We have more people today
:07:29. > :07:36.in training to be prison officers than ever before. We also are
:07:37. > :07:42.investing ?4 million on marketing to attract new prison officers. The
:07:43. > :07:48.Labour Party is confused on prisons. Last year, they told us they wanted
:07:49. > :07:53.the prison population cut from 80,000 to 45,000. Last Sunday we
:07:54. > :07:56.heard from the shadow Attorney General is that actually prisoners
:07:57. > :08:03.should be allowed to keep mobile phones so they can carry on their
:08:04. > :08:13.life of crime in prison. Until the Labour Party has sorted out its
:08:14. > :08:21.position, if it is in no state to question us. With the Minister
:08:22. > :08:26.accept it is not helpful against efforts that are being made to turn
:08:27. > :08:30.around the situation, which takes time to achieve. It's not helpful to
:08:31. > :08:35.embark upon a course of action which legal or otherwise has the effect of
:08:36. > :08:39.creating further restrictions on the regime, therefore further tensions
:08:40. > :08:45.within the prison population. It makes it harder to deliver
:08:46. > :08:49.rehabilitation. And sadly his the effect of making the job of prison
:08:50. > :08:53.officers harder in the long term rather than easier. The chairman of
:08:54. > :09:04.the Justice committee makes an excellent point. We have made
:09:05. > :09:07.progress on pay and self -- and health and safety. Today, we were
:09:08. > :09:12.due to meet them to discuss pensions. The action today puts
:09:13. > :09:21.prisoners and prison officers who work very hard at risk. Prison staff
:09:22. > :09:25.in England and we'll is, as we have heard, have been demoralised through
:09:26. > :09:36.the understaffing, underpayment and overcrowding of prisons.
:09:37. > :09:44.The Minister does not address the issue of morale of across-the-board.
:09:45. > :09:53.This is a matter for England and Wales, but I am here today to look
:09:54. > :09:58.to what we have done in Scotland, making more use of community
:09:59. > :10:04.alternatives. Does he agree they should concentrate on those schemes.
:10:05. > :10:09.What will he do to ensure newly recruited prison office is our
:10:10. > :10:16.retained and the morale of prison staff is restored. This is a
:10:17. > :10:21.stressful occupation. She is right. Morale is important. Let me be
:10:22. > :10:27.clear. We have a pay deal that was endorsed by the prison Officers
:10:28. > :10:31.Association towards the end of last year that was rejected. It is now a
:10:32. > :10:37.matter for the independent pay review body. We have submitted
:10:38. > :10:44.evidence. We are taking action on pay for the Prison Service as a
:10:45. > :10:47.whole. Additionally, we have put in place additional allowances for 31
:10:48. > :10:53.deals where it is particularly hard to recruit. Further to that, we have
:10:54. > :10:58.created a new progression opportunity for 2000 prison office
:10:59. > :11:03.is across the country. Today, we were due to be in talks about
:11:04. > :11:07.pensions. We value prison officers and their work and we want to
:11:08. > :11:12.support them. Unlawful strike action is not the way to progress. It will
:11:13. > :11:20.achieve the opposite, which is put prison officers at risk. While
:11:21. > :11:26.strongly regretting the strike action announced by the POA. I
:11:27. > :11:35.welcome the reduction in retirement age to 65. In his further
:11:36. > :11:44.discussions regarding pensions, can I ask him to be in mind the
:11:45. > :11:53.comparison in the pension scheme for the police and armed services. I
:11:54. > :12:01.will bear that in mind. The pension deal that was made to the POA would
:12:02. > :12:05.have been fully funded by the government. Last year, 119 prisoners
:12:06. > :12:22.took their lives in one of our prisons. The POA instruction
:12:23. > :12:27.encourages members to withdraw. Can he tell us what impact this
:12:28. > :12:40.withdrawal will have on the already dismal mental health support in our
:12:41. > :12:46.prisons. As I said in my earlier remarks, I would encourage and urge
:12:47. > :12:52.all prison officers to carry on with their task as the shoot. Can I
:12:53. > :12:59.congratulate my honourable friend for the excellent work he is doing
:13:00. > :13:05.with a difficult pack of cards? A prison officer joins to serve. That
:13:06. > :13:10.means you serve in whatever guise without striking. I agree with my
:13:11. > :13:14.honourable friend. The legislation was introduced by the last Labour
:13:15. > :13:19.government, which is why I am surprised that the shadow minister
:13:20. > :13:23.would not condemn this unlawful strike action. When prisons are in
:13:24. > :13:28.crisis and staff are on strike, every available penny should be
:13:29. > :13:32.spent on making prisons safe. Is the Minister aware that half ?1 million
:13:33. > :13:36.of compensation was paid last year to serious criminals because they
:13:37. > :13:53.were released late from prison? When is the Minister
:13:54. > :13:56.going to get that under control and provide prison officers with a safe
:13:57. > :13:59.working environment and prisoners with a safe and drugs free
:14:00. > :14:01.environment in which to be detained? The Right honourable member will be
:14:02. > :14:04.aware that we published a White Paper last year and only last week
:14:05. > :14:10.introduced the first bill to cover prisons and 65 years. It was about
:14:11. > :14:15.improving safety and security. We are taking action. Could administer
:14:16. > :14:25.update the House and some of the measures within the bill to help
:14:26. > :14:29.resolve some of these issues? The central face of the bill is that it
:14:30. > :14:34.makes clear that a fundamental purpose of prisons is to turnaround
:14:35. > :14:38.offenders lights. If prisons are focused on turning around offenders
:14:39. > :14:43.lives, we will reduce reoffending and the 15 billion reoffending bill,
:14:44. > :14:53.and it will make our prisons places of safety. On the question of the
:14:54. > :14:57.independent pay review body, with the Minister, to avoid any doubt,
:14:58. > :15:03.say today that he will accept the recommendations that pay review body
:15:04. > :15:09.makes? I can say that we will obviously look at the
:15:10. > :15:15.recommendations of it. I'm not in a position. I will look at it. We
:15:16. > :15:20.value prison officers. We value the hard work they do. We have taken a
:15:21. > :15:24.lot of action to recognise that. You cannot ask me to commit to results I
:15:25. > :15:33.do not know about at the dispatch box. I agree with the Minister it is
:15:34. > :15:39.wrong for the strike to go ahead, given the facts. There were 6000
:15:40. > :15:43.assault on prison officers up until June 2016. What action is being
:15:44. > :15:50.taken to tackle this and to make sure those who commit these assaults
:15:51. > :15:54.are held to account? He is right. Prison officers work in a
:15:55. > :15:58.challenging environment. Our job is to keep them safe. We're looking at
:15:59. > :16:05.a number of things, including making sure that if there is a crying
:16:06. > :16:13.scene, it is preserved. Making sure the impact statements are admissible
:16:14. > :16:23.and well-prepared to be used in court. Also, where someone is
:16:24. > :16:27.convicted of assaulting a prison officer, their sentence is
:16:28. > :16:34.consecutive and not concurrent. It is important to keep prison officers
:16:35. > :16:39.safe. The Minister has had a lot to say about pay. You must realise that
:16:40. > :16:44.this is unhappiness that has been developing in the Prison Service for
:16:45. > :16:51.many years. It is principally about safety at work. The level of
:16:52. > :16:57.assaults on prison officers, of suicide and self harm, are
:16:58. > :17:00.unprecedented. Fixing that is how the government is going to resolve
:17:01. > :17:07.this in the long-term. When are we going to start to see safety in
:17:08. > :17:13.prisons improve? I have set right from the start that the levels of
:17:14. > :17:18.violence in our prisons is too high. We have been working closely with
:17:19. > :17:26.the Prison Officers Association on health and safety and have made
:17:27. > :17:36.progress on regime management plans that the POA accept. We want to add
:17:37. > :17:41.2500 officers to the front line. These problems were long in the
:17:42. > :17:47.making and it will take time to resolve. We have the resolve to do
:17:48. > :17:54.so and we are doing it. The job of prison officers is made more
:17:55. > :17:56.difficult by the presence in our prisons of drugs and mobile phones.
:17:57. > :18:15.Can Myra Bob Friend -- can he tell me when we will have
:18:16. > :18:22.one prison that is free of drugs and mobile phones? We introduced the
:18:23. > :18:29.bill last week to make it easier to test for drugs. On mobile phones, we
:18:30. > :18:35.are taking action. New legislation from last year has allowed us to
:18:36. > :18:39.turn over 160 mobile phones from jails in the last few months. We are
:18:40. > :18:44.working with mobile network operators to be able to switch off
:18:45. > :18:50.mobile phones in our jails. There is a lot of work being done, but it
:18:51. > :18:53.will take time. These are worrying developments. Does the Minister
:18:54. > :19:00.share with me concern that the action will have an impact on family
:19:01. > :19:07.visits? As he knows, prisoners meeting their families and seeing
:19:08. > :19:10.their children, of which there are 200,000, is extremely important for
:19:11. > :19:18.rehabilitation. Will he confirm this will not be affected? As I have
:19:19. > :19:22.said, strike action is unlawful. If prison officer to withdraw their
:19:23. > :19:27.labour, it will make the regime more restricted. The chairman of the
:19:28. > :19:32.select committee pointed to that. We urge hard-working prison officers to
:19:33. > :19:38.go back to work and make sure that prisons can carry on with regimes,
:19:39. > :19:44.carrying on the important rehabilitative work and making sure
:19:45. > :19:48.prisons are safe. It's concerning this action could lead to Tornado
:19:49. > :19:53.team is being withdrawn. Can he confirm contingency measures are in
:19:54. > :19:58.place to ensure prison order can be maintained at all times? I'm sure
:19:59. > :20:02.our prison officers will do what they always do in terms of their
:20:03. > :20:10.duty, if there is disorder in prisons, even at this difficult
:20:11. > :20:15.time. We are urging the PO aid to withdraw its pollutant. Also we want
:20:16. > :20:22.to ensure we have contingency plans for times like this. The Minister
:20:23. > :20:28.doesn't need me to tell him that staff morale is low and not helped
:20:29. > :20:35.by law staff numbers. In my constituency, Franklins has gone
:20:36. > :20:44.down by 20%. Durham by 15%. When does the Minister think he will be
:20:45. > :20:46.in a position to bring forward a pay offer to recognise the difficult and
:20:47. > :20:58.dangerous job that prison officers do?
:20:59. > :21:07.The independent pay review body will report in April. We will take action
:21:08. > :21:22.further to that. The government commitment to opening new prison
:21:23. > :21:26.places is welcome news. Having modernised fit for purpose prisons
:21:27. > :21:32.will have a huge impact on safety. The role not be corners for people
:21:33. > :21:38.to hide behind. It will be good for rehabilitation. Today we have opened
:21:39. > :21:46.the largest prison in Europe. It takes its first prisoners today. We
:21:47. > :22:00.are reducing overcrowding and improving safety.
:22:01. > :22:07.I have listened carefully. Does the Minister understand the reason why
:22:08. > :22:13.prison officers with roaring is because we have safe and decent
:22:14. > :22:21.prisons. Prisons that I wouldn't want to work on and I'm sure the
:22:22. > :22:27.Minister wouldn't want to either. I'll -- our prison officers do a
:22:28. > :22:32.difficult job. I know how hard they work. The POA has decided it is
:22:33. > :22:38.going to make a stand on pay with a bullet and we have seen today and
:22:39. > :22:41.I'm urging the POA to withdraw its bulletin because it will not do
:22:42. > :22:49.anything to improve safety in our prisons. Could the Minister outlined
:22:50. > :22:58.what steps he is taking in the last few months to improve career
:22:59. > :23:03.prospects of prison officers? In addition to a workforce strategy, we
:23:04. > :23:08.will be publishing later this year, the progressive and promotion
:23:09. > :23:14.opportunity we announced last week which will allow officers to do job
:23:15. > :23:22.search as safer custody roles, mentoring roles, hostage negotiation
:23:23. > :23:26.and get a pay rise is a huge step not just in professional lies in the
:23:27. > :23:30.workforce but allowing people to operate more senior roles and
:23:31. > :23:39.improve the pay packets of our hard-working prison officers? Will
:23:40. > :23:44.the Minister at that his action will be counter productive and any
:23:45. > :23:56.lockdowns will lead to more troubling prisons? The action is
:23:57. > :24:06.unlawful strike action which will do nothing to make our prisons safe. It
:24:07. > :24:11.will be easier to manage the prisoners in our jails if we didn't
:24:12. > :24:15.have to incarcerate 10,000 foreign nationals who should be imprisoned
:24:16. > :24:18.in their own country. Jamaica has rejected an offer from the
:24:19. > :24:22.Government to return its foreign nationals. What steps is the
:24:23. > :24:30.Government doing to get these people back to secure detention in their
:24:31. > :24:41.own countries? Since 2010, we have deported 33,000 prisoners to the
:24:42. > :24:46.home country, 5810 in 15 /16 alone. There is more work that we can do
:24:47. > :24:51.and I am engaging with governments and the foreign governments where
:24:52. > :25:00.the top ten prisoners are held in order to speed up their process. Our
:25:01. > :25:06.prisons are unsafe and dangerous and that present Minister has inherited
:25:07. > :25:15.this situation. We lost 7000 experienced prison officers. When
:25:16. > :25:19.spies came onto the market, we had prisoners going out and expanding
:25:20. > :25:25.their business on the next landing. The present steps taken are a
:25:26. > :25:30.sticking plaster rather than major surgery. We need recruitment of
:25:31. > :25:37.massive numbers, proper pay, proper skills, not adverts for 18 euros
:25:38. > :25:43.with no experience for our prison officers. We lost 7000 prison
:25:44. > :25:56.officers as the honourable member mentioned but we closed 18 prisons.
:25:57. > :26:01.The key change in our force is the advent of spice which has a huge
:26:02. > :26:06.member of values imprisons and they make them violent. The cohort
:26:07. > :26:12.prisoners has become more violent. Three fifths in our prisons are in
:26:13. > :26:18.for dangerous or document -- drug-related offences. More staff
:26:19. > :26:23.are part of the answer and they are doing with drugs and mobile phones
:26:24. > :26:27.and it is a key part of it also. Isn't part of the solution to the
:26:28. > :26:33.problem improving working conditions by prison officers and is in the
:26:34. > :26:39.Government right to close Victorian prisons and open modern ones such as
:26:40. > :26:43.the one in Wellingborough? He is right. The working conditions for
:26:44. > :26:47.prison officers and the estate in which we housed prisoners are all
:26:48. > :26:52.important to improve safety on our prisons. I look forward to the new
:26:53. > :26:59.prison in Wellingborough opening shortly. With 15 of the most
:27:00. > :27:03.dangerous prisoners being transferred from the beer Ming and
:27:04. > :27:07.-- Birmingham riot and with prison officers saying they fear that they
:27:08. > :27:13.safety and the prison being locked down in December, can the Minister
:27:14. > :27:17.understand why the morale of prison officers is so low, especially with
:27:18. > :27:20.the pay award not going to areas like hole-macro. Can the Minister
:27:21. > :27:27.tell me whether the Government will have the flexibility April two -- to
:27:28. > :27:34.give the prison officers that pay increase through his own decision?
:27:35. > :27:38.Prison governors will have control over their budget and they can make
:27:39. > :27:47.decisions around staffing and how they deployed their staff from April
:27:48. > :27:52.this year. We have to be clear that the POA says this unlawful strike
:27:53. > :27:57.action is about pay but only last week we announced not only promotion
:27:58. > :28:02.opportunities but also increased pay for vast numbers of prison officers
:28:03. > :28:05.across the country. Having had an in-depth conversation with the
:28:06. > :28:10.constituent who has just left his role as a prison officer,
:28:11. > :28:13.understanding from him that the prison population is getting younger
:28:14. > :28:21.and spices on the rise, mental health issues are on the rise and
:28:22. > :28:28.morale is rock bottom. Could the Minister, where he is asking for
:28:29. > :28:34.detached... What is he doing to reassure the families of people who
:28:35. > :28:41.are in prison who are vulnerable, that they will not suffer during
:28:42. > :28:47.this dispute? The best reassurance we can give to families of prisons
:28:48. > :28:50.is for the prison officers Association to withdraw its bulletin
:28:51. > :29:03.and not pursue unlawful strike action. That is the best
:29:04. > :29:07.reassurance. Urgent question. I want to as the Secretary of State to make
:29:08. > :29:17.a statement on the cuts to entitlement to Personal Independence
:29:18. > :29:21.Payment. Recent legal judgment have interpreted the assessment criteria
:29:22. > :29:25.the PIP in ways that are different to what was intended by the
:29:26. > :29:30.Coalition Government. We are now making amendments to clarify the
:29:31. > :29:34.criteria used to decide how much benefit claimants receive in order
:29:35. > :29:38.to restore the original aim of the policy as previously agreed by
:29:39. > :29:43.Parliament and which followed extensive consultation. I want to be
:29:44. > :29:47.clear what this is not. It is not a policy change or is it intended to
:29:48. > :29:51.make new savings. Want to reiterate my commitment that there will be no
:29:52. > :29:56.further welfare savings beyond those already legislated for. This will
:29:57. > :30:02.not result in any claimant seeing a reduction in the amount of PIP
:30:03. > :30:04.previously awarded by the DWP. Mental health conditions and
:30:05. > :30:08.physical disabilities which lead to higher costs will continue to be
:30:09. > :30:12.supported as has always been the case. This Government is committed
:30:13. > :30:16.to ensuring our welfare system provides a strong safety net for
:30:17. > :30:21.those who need it. That is why we spend ?50 billion a year supporting
:30:22. > :30:27.people with disabilities and health conditions and we are investing more
:30:28. > :30:29.in mental health than ever before, spending ?11.4 billion a year.
:30:30. > :30:33.Personal Independence Payments are part of that support and provide
:30:34. > :30:38.support towards the additional costs that disabled people face. At the
:30:39. > :30:43.core is the principle that support should be made according to need
:30:44. > :30:46.rather than a certain condition, whether physical or nonphysical. It
:30:47. > :30:55.is designed to focus more support on those likely to have higher costs
:30:56. > :31:04.with their disability. PIP works better for those with health
:31:05. > :31:09.conditions. This is about restoring the original intent of the benefit
:31:10. > :31:13.which has been expanded by the legal judgment. It is appropriate for the
:31:14. > :31:17.Government to act to restore clarity to the law as governments have done
:31:18. > :31:25.before and will no doubt continue to do in the future. In a written
:31:26. > :31:29.statement published without warning on Thursday, ministers announced the
:31:30. > :31:33.cuts the Secretary of State has been referring to and it will take effect
:31:34. > :31:38.in two weeks' time. Over the weekend, another minister said this
:31:39. > :31:44.was to stop the payment of benefits people and I quote, taking pills at
:31:45. > :31:49.home who suffer from anxiety. Why is so little notice being given with no
:31:50. > :31:57.opportunity at all the Parliamentary scoop -- scrutiny of these cuts?
:31:58. > :32:02.Will the Minister confirm, as stated in the impact assessment published
:32:03. > :32:05.with the regulation, that people suffering from schizophrenia, then
:32:06. > :32:12.disability, autism and dementia will be among the worst affected by these
:32:13. > :32:18.cuts? The cut is being achieved by taking benefit away from people
:32:19. > :32:22.whose mobility payments are the result of psychological distress.
:32:23. > :32:26.They will no longer be entitled to benefit according to the wording of
:32:27. > :32:29.the regulation. Doesn't that directly contradict the Prime
:32:30. > :32:37.Minister's commitment to treat mental health on a par with free
:32:38. > :32:43.vehicle health? I thought every part of that question was based in error,
:32:44. > :32:51.if I may say. Nobody is losing money from what they were originally
:32:52. > :32:56.awarded by. That part is simply factually incorrect. Froth from that
:32:57. > :33:01.far from being slipped out, we made a huge effort to let people know
:33:02. > :33:04.this was happening. I left a message for this shadow Secretary of State
:33:05. > :33:10.and I spoke to the chairman of the select committee. I know my
:33:11. > :33:14.honourable friend spoke to a number of colleagues. The idea that this
:33:15. > :33:18.was slipped out is simply ridiculous. He talks about
:33:19. > :33:25.individual conditions. I can only repeat what I said in answer to his
:33:26. > :33:29.original question that PIP is not awarded for conditions. It is
:33:30. > :33:34.awarded for the difficulty in living or mobility that results in those
:33:35. > :33:38.conditions and that all these regulations do is restore the
:33:39. > :33:43.situation to where it was in late November before we had these two
:33:44. > :33:48.court judgments. This is not a new policy, this is not a spending cut.
:33:49. > :33:52.This is simply restoring the benefit to what was intended when it was
:33:53. > :33:59.first introduced under the Coalition Government. Does my right honourable
:34:00. > :34:01.friend agree that any welfare payment, especially one that
:34:02. > :34:06.provides a tiered level of cash payments to people living with
:34:07. > :34:10.enormously diverse range of fiscal mental conditions does require clear
:34:11. > :34:13.assessment criteria, clarity of law and what these new regulations will
:34:14. > :34:20.do is restore that precision back to the law which will benefit audiences
:34:21. > :34:24.of the system? I completely agree with my honourable friend who has
:34:25. > :34:28.huge expertise in this area. We do need clarity, particularly be
:34:29. > :34:34.vulnerable people who are receiving PIP deserve clarity and I can
:34:35. > :34:40.reassure them and the House that all these judgments do, or the
:34:41. > :34:44.regulations do is restore us to the point which everyone knew they were
:34:45. > :34:52.at late last year and have been ever since PIP was introduced. We have
:34:53. > :34:56.heard on Thursday the Government issued these new regulations by
:34:57. > :35:00.which disabled people or people with a chronic condition would be
:35:01. > :35:04.assessed for eligibility to Personal Independence Payments. PIP helps
:35:05. > :35:08.disabled people to fund their living costs and the additional costs based
:35:09. > :35:15.by disabled people because of their condition. These regulations come
:35:16. > :35:20.into force in two weeks without consultation with Social Security
:35:21. > :35:26.advisory committee. This was because of the urgency of the issue. The
:35:27. > :35:29.Government is in effect overturning two tribunal rulings which allows
:35:30. > :35:34.chronic psychological distress to be included in the assessment. If the
:35:35. > :35:40.Secretary of State was so unhappy with the rulings, why did he not use
:35:41. > :35:48.his powers under sections 25 and 26 of the Social Security act and
:35:49. > :35:51.regulations 21 and 22 of the Social Security and child support
:35:52. > :35:55.regulations to challenge these rulings in the court? The effects of
:35:56. > :36:01.these actions not only undermine the judicial process but reduce
:36:02. > :36:04.eligibility to PIP supported by 164,000 people would develop a --
:36:05. > :36:08.debilitating mental health conditions including not being able
:36:09. > :36:11.to go outside their own homes. What discussion has the Secretary of
:36:12. > :36:15.State had disabled people's organisations ahead of bringing
:36:16. > :36:19.forward these regulations? What is his assessment of the effects of
:36:20. > :36:22.these cuts on the health and well-being of the people affected?
:36:23. > :36:26.Given that disabled people are twice as likely to live in poverty as
:36:27. > :36:29.non-disabled people as a result of the extra costs, how many disabled
:36:30. > :36:34.people will be driven into debt or face poverty as a result of these
:36:35. > :36:39.cuts? What is the Cuba to affect of these cuts would be cuts affecting
:36:40. > :36:44.half a million disabled people due to come into effect in April?
:36:45. > :36:51.Finally, why is the Government contradicting their own earlier
:36:52. > :36:55.argument in the 2015 Upper Tribunal case of HL versus the Secretary of
:36:56. > :36:58.State for Work and Pensions where they argued psychological distress
:36:59. > :37:06.should be included in PIP assessments?
:37:07. > :37:16.Prime Minister famously said they needed more support. Why want the
:37:17. > :37:22.government on their Let me deal with some of the points raised. We are
:37:23. > :37:32.appealing against a judgment as well. Because of the lack of clarity
:37:33. > :37:36.that would be caused by leaving the regulations in limbo after the
:37:37. > :37:41.tribunal decision, it is better to move quickly. Also, I should see the
:37:42. > :37:47.tribunal itself said that the assessment criteria were not clear.
:37:48. > :37:55.If they believe that, I am more than happy to accept that. I am taking
:37:56. > :38:01.the opportunity to clarify the regulations. She talks about the
:38:02. > :38:12.effect on disabled people. I agree with. That is the central core of
:38:13. > :38:21.what we are trying to do. Over two thirds of those with this component
:38:22. > :38:28.get the extra payment. That is why this is a better benefit than DLA.
:38:29. > :38:34.That is what was happening under the previous regulations which I am now
:38:35. > :38:39.restoring. Her questions were predicated on the questions that
:38:40. > :38:44.this was a cut. It is simply not a cut. It is not entirely honest of
:38:45. > :38:52.her to see it as a cut. If she looks at the fact of the case, she will
:38:53. > :38:56.recognise that people claiming PIP, specifically claiming people
:38:57. > :39:01.claiming PIP with mental health conditions are better off with PIP.
:39:02. > :39:08.What we are doing is making the benefit clear. Making the change
:39:09. > :39:12.that the benefit is being paid and that that is better for people,
:39:13. > :39:18.particularly with mental health conditions. There can be no
:39:19. > :39:37.accusation of dishonesty in this chamber. No further explanation is
:39:38. > :39:45.required. Rightly, the government is spending money on supporting those
:39:46. > :39:49.with long-term disabilities. This should be done in conjunction with
:39:50. > :40:00.charities and stakeholders, utilising their expertise. He is
:40:01. > :40:06.exactly right. There was extensive consultation when PIP was first
:40:07. > :40:12.introduced about the design of what is inevitably a very complex
:40:13. > :40:17.benefit. What we have seen, as I have just explained, is considerable
:40:18. > :40:21.improvement in the awards particularly to those with mental
:40:22. > :40:28.health conditions. What the government's changes do is restore
:40:29. > :40:37.that better situation than people knew in the past. These changes will
:40:38. > :40:41.exclude disabled people from vital financial assistance and sends a
:40:42. > :40:52.dangerous message to the public that people who suffer with mental health
:40:53. > :41:03.problems are less crucial than people with physical disabilities. I
:41:04. > :41:09.ask that the Minister clarify if this matter will be brought to the
:41:10. > :41:13.House. Finally, I ask if a debate can take place as a matter of great
:41:14. > :41:27.urgency to give the House the opportunity to scrutinise the
:41:28. > :41:33.proposals. Matters of what will be debated are matters for the usual
:41:34. > :41:40.channels. Her first question was based on the misapprehension that
:41:41. > :41:45.people with mental health conditions are doing worse under PIP as it is
:41:46. > :41:51.currently run. It is factually not the case. The government overall
:41:52. > :41:56.spending ?11.4 billion in people with mental health conditions. More
:41:57. > :42:02.than any previous government has paid out. And specifically also the
:42:03. > :42:06.overall we are spending ?50 billion a year on disability benefits. Every
:42:07. > :42:12.year in this Parliament, we will be spending more than was spent in
:42:13. > :42:18.2010. That is how we are meeting our commitments to disabled people,
:42:19. > :42:26.which I take very seriously and the whole government takes very
:42:27. > :42:29.seriously. Are there lessons for the framers of the regulations to avoid
:42:30. > :42:36.them being effectively rewritten by the tribunal is? There are always
:42:37. > :42:41.lessons for anyone who writes regulations. Benefits regulations
:42:42. > :42:46.are complex because the need to be very sensitive because we are
:42:47. > :42:49.dealing with vulnerable people, in this case were dealing with disabled
:42:50. > :42:58.people who have extra living costs or difficulties with mobility. It is
:42:59. > :43:03.one of the roles of the courts to point out where it has gone wrong.
:43:04. > :43:12.The courts have said they were not clear. The government is clarifying
:43:13. > :43:16.them. That is to everyone's benefit. The Prime Minister has said there
:43:17. > :43:21.should be parity of esteem between mental and physical health
:43:22. > :43:26.conditions. By overriding the court on this matter, 160,000 people who
:43:27. > :43:40.otherwise would have been getting support through PIP now will not get
:43:41. > :43:45.that support. Did the Prime Minister agreed to this? She is wrong to say
:43:46. > :43:52.that 160,000 people will not get PIP because of this. She knows that this
:43:53. > :44:01.is not whether you get PIP or not, this is a matter of their being two
:44:02. > :44:11.other descriptors. I am not the Prime Minister. She is simply wrong
:44:12. > :44:17.when she says that this will deny people PIP. As she knows, PIP is
:44:18. > :44:22.given for the difficulty in living costs or in mobility costs. There
:44:23. > :44:38.are 12 different attributes that are considered. Mise court cases were
:44:39. > :44:50.different. I would like to thank the Secretary of State for his
:44:51. > :44:52.clarification. Can he assure us that the government is committed to
:44:53. > :45:02.supporting people throughout the process? We are engaged in a PIP
:45:03. > :45:09.improvement project. She is right to ask the question about consistency.
:45:10. > :45:16.I know there is a concern across the House about delays. Because of the
:45:17. > :45:21.PIP improvement plan, claims are now been cleared at over five times the
:45:22. > :45:28.rate they were in January 2014. The delays that have been in the system
:45:29. > :45:33.are being reduced and we are addressing the issue of consistency.
:45:34. > :45:40.One of his predecessors resigned a year ago because of cuts to the
:45:41. > :45:44.disabled. It doesn't seem he understands be strong feeling
:45:45. > :45:50.amongst so many other vulnerable people, that they will be in the
:45:51. > :45:55.firing line again for cuts. We receive e-mails constantly from
:45:56. > :45:59.those affected and organisations over the way the disabled are being
:46:00. > :46:06.hit out time and time again. And happy to assure them and the
:46:07. > :46:12.honourable gentleman that what I'm talking about today is not a cut. We
:46:13. > :46:16.are not going to have any new welfare cuts this Parliament, apart
:46:17. > :46:24.from those that have already been legislated for. This decision we
:46:25. > :46:27.have taken is not a cut. It's clear that different medical conditions
:46:28. > :46:32.will have different impacts on people is living and mobility. Does
:46:33. > :46:36.he agree that we must recognise the simple fact if we are to continue to
:46:37. > :46:44.target resources on those who are most vulnerable and most in need? I
:46:45. > :46:48.do and that was the purpose of the original design of PIP. It's better
:46:49. > :46:52.than disability living allowance which it replaced precisely because
:46:53. > :46:57.it reflects the reality in individuals lives that some will
:46:58. > :47:02.have more difficulty in going about their daily business because of a
:47:03. > :47:07.disability and the PIP benefit is specifically designed in a very
:47:08. > :47:17.careful and complex way to achieve that and it does. At one of the
:47:18. > :47:23.things ministers have to do... The rules are clear. If everything is
:47:24. > :47:29.working so well, why are my advice surgeries full of people who are
:47:30. > :47:36.awaiting further assessments for a very long time who are being denied
:47:37. > :47:40.them when they have been long-term disabled, who are being caused
:47:41. > :47:48.massive amounts of distress by the process, and who feel utter despair
:47:49. > :47:53.at having to half anything to do it at? There is an improvement plan
:47:54. > :48:04.which let's us know that things need to improve. I hope the honourable
:48:05. > :48:12.lady can be reassured by the fact we are recruiting a team of health
:48:13. > :48:20.professionals to help us scrutinise this. We will be trialling audio
:48:21. > :48:25.recording of selected assessments from the beginning of next month to
:48:26. > :48:36.understand better how the assessments can be improved.
:48:37. > :48:50.From both providers? Bat point was made by a number of NGOs and by
:48:51. > :49:00.colleagues on both sides of the House. I have constituents who
:49:01. > :49:04.cannot leave their homes because of a physical disability or our mental
:49:05. > :49:10.disability. Why should one be entitled to receive support via PIP
:49:11. > :49:20.and not the other? They both will be entitled to PIP as it will be
:49:21. > :49:25.assessed. The only difference... Each individual has different levels
:49:26. > :49:30.of difficulty. It is often the case that cognitive impacts for people
:49:31. > :49:34.who are blind will not have a fluctuating condition, which is
:49:35. > :49:38.clearly less amenable to treatment than some other conditions. It is
:49:39. > :49:42.the level of some difficulty in someone's daily life, either they
:49:43. > :49:47.have a physical or mental health problem that matters in terms of the
:49:48. > :49:52.PIP assessment. The Secretary of State will be aware that since
:49:53. > :49:57.joining this place I have been a strong campaigner for parity between
:49:58. > :50:02.mental and physical health. It is not a binary discussion between
:50:03. > :50:07.mental and physical health, but the point of PIP is that it promotes
:50:08. > :50:09.targeted health for people with mental health conditions and is it
:50:10. > :50:16.not the case that more people are getting payments under PIP for
:50:17. > :50:22.mental health conditions than ever was the case for DLA? I pay tribute
:50:23. > :50:30.to him for the good work he has done in this House for mental health.
:50:31. > :50:35.Core tenant of the PIP design is the tenants between mental and physical
:50:36. > :50:40.health conditions. I think the whole house should welcome this move. It
:50:41. > :50:45.is a better benefit than DLA. Growing PIP out in the way we are
:50:46. > :50:50.and attempting to improve the assessment process is the best way
:50:51. > :50:54.we can help people with all kinds of disabilities, but specifically those
:50:55. > :51:04.with mental health conditions. I received an e-mail over the
:51:05. > :51:12.weekend. My constituent's rights, someone who has been diagnosed with
:51:13. > :51:16.PTSD, I am angry about his remarks. Considering the stigma mentally
:51:17. > :51:19.disabled people already had to suffer, this is beyond the pale.
:51:20. > :51:25.Does the Government recognise the offence these remarks make and
:51:26. > :51:30.doesn't it associate itself and apologise for them? It is the
:51:31. > :51:36.honourable men member for Mid Norfolk who has apologised for those
:51:37. > :51:41.remarks. He has also done a lot of work on mental health issues. He has
:51:42. > :51:46.a personal history and a family history which makes him particularly
:51:47. > :51:50.sensitive to mental health issues and since he has apologised, I would
:51:51. > :51:59.hope the House would access that apology. The for those who deal with
:52:00. > :52:05.vulnerable situations, it is horrible to hear these cuts when
:52:06. > :52:09.they are clearly not. Can I ask the Secretary of State to describe where
:52:10. > :52:16.from the ?15 million -- ?50 billion budget where it will be paid for
:52:17. > :52:21.this increase? Since the purpose of the announcement and the regulations
:52:22. > :52:26.that the Government is doing is not to have to look for cuts elsewhere,
:52:27. > :52:32.then I am happy to say to my honourable friend that we can avoid
:52:33. > :52:37.that. We have a welfare budget and we are spending more on disability
:52:38. > :52:43.benefits than any previous Government has done and we are proud
:52:44. > :52:47.of that fact. We have tabled a prayer on this to force the debate
:52:48. > :52:54.and I thank the Leader of the Opposition for supporting it.
:52:55. > :53:00.Constituent me about how the impacts -- amendments will impact on her.
:53:01. > :53:04.She receives low rate mobility and servers from ADHD, depression and
:53:05. > :53:08.social phobia. Her life is affected by her mental health. She cannot
:53:09. > :53:11.plan the route of the journey and followed the route of their familiar
:53:12. > :53:18.journey. Why does the Government want to deny her the mobility
:53:19. > :53:30.component of PIP? She is not having any changes to the rules that have
:53:31. > :53:41.been in place. These are rules that were passed by a Government of which
:53:42. > :53:45.he was a member. I am grateful to the Minister for offering some
:53:46. > :53:49.clarity on this issue. On one specific point, I wondered if he
:53:50. > :53:52.could confirm that people who need help managing their medication
:53:53. > :54:01.continued to receive the support to do so. Not only will they come under
:54:02. > :54:06.the appropriate descriptor for PIP, but one of the things that hasn't
:54:07. > :54:12.been mentioned yet is that they receive support from the NHS as
:54:13. > :54:17.well. We have a health care system precisely to advise people issues
:54:18. > :54:21.like medication, so the state is already doing something to help them
:54:22. > :54:32.and clearly that is necessary and it will continue to be a very important
:54:33. > :54:39.part of the system. The proposed changes will affect around 160,000
:54:40. > :54:43.people, could prevent people accessing the financial support they
:54:44. > :54:46.need to get to health or job appointments, get to pay for fuel
:54:47. > :54:51.and heating, take their children to school, see friends and family
:54:52. > :54:55.clippings that are essential for their daily lives and recovery. If
:54:56. > :55:02.the Secretary of State is so confident that he is right and mind
:55:03. > :55:06.is wrong, he meet with mind macro and discuss with them who is right
:55:07. > :55:19.and who is wrong and then we can come back to the Chamber and get an
:55:20. > :55:23.assurance. -- MIND -- to have one. I have spoke with MIND on this matter
:55:24. > :55:33.and mail coming to speak to us again soon. I pointed out to them before
:55:34. > :55:40.in the course of this urgent question. Nobody is losing any
:55:41. > :55:47.benefits that has originally been awarded to them by the DWP. That is
:55:48. > :55:57.the fact that perhaps most needs to be got across to those receiving the
:55:58. > :56:00.benefits. I read into the detail and to that end, the camera Secretary of
:56:01. > :56:04.State confirm my understanding that far more people with mental health
:56:05. > :56:13.issues will be eligible for PIP than ever were under the old DLA? He
:56:14. > :56:17.makes a correct point that I have made several times. PIP is a better
:56:18. > :56:23.benefit than DLA for many reasons but perhaps the most important is
:56:24. > :56:27.that it is more available to people with mental health conditions. It
:56:28. > :56:31.always has been and the rules we are putting emplacement sure that it
:56:32. > :56:38.continues in the way that it always done. Why is the Government
:56:39. > :56:44.contradicting their earlier arguments in 2015 Upper Tribunal
:56:45. > :56:47.case of HL versus Secretary of State the DWP when they argued that
:56:48. > :56:57.psychological distress should be included in PIP assessments?
:56:58. > :57:00.Psychological distress is included in PIP assessments. It always has
:57:01. > :57:08.done nothing changes as a result of these regulations. Can I thank the
:57:09. > :57:11.Secretary of State for the reassurances we have received so far
:57:12. > :57:15.given the correspondence I received, Minister confirm that these
:57:16. > :57:18.regulations will not result in anybody receiving less money than
:57:19. > :57:23.they were awarded by the deeply dug -- DWP and there is no intention to
:57:24. > :57:29.make new savings? Nobody will receive less money than they were
:57:30. > :57:34.originally receiving in their award from the DWP as a result of the
:57:35. > :57:40.regulations we have introduced. With learning disabilities,
:57:41. > :57:45.schizophrenia, autism highlighted by my honourable friend, I am -- they
:57:46. > :57:49.are more likely to be anxious about the assessment and have difficulty
:57:50. > :57:52.in conveying them edition and my constituents are telling me they are
:57:53. > :57:56.subject to a more aggressive assessment process. Does the
:57:57. > :57:59.Secretary of State Sharma considers that these people will be
:58:00. > :58:04.particularly vulnerable if these proposals are not reduced carefully?
:58:05. > :58:11.We are introducing them carefully and I agree that people who are
:58:12. > :58:14.likely to suffer anxiety should not be made unnecessarily anxious. That
:58:15. > :58:20.is why I am at pains to reassure them, the House and everyone else
:58:21. > :58:23.that this is not a policy change, a cut, nobody will receive less
:58:24. > :58:32.benefit than they were originally awarded by the DWP. I commend the
:58:33. > :58:39.Secretary of State for his response. Can he, through the improvement plan
:58:40. > :58:43.process of PIP, give assurances to Mike constituents who find it
:58:44. > :58:52.difficult to travel to assessments that they will be supported? I can.
:58:53. > :59:00.We already will visit people who need that particular service and we
:59:01. > :59:06.will continue to do so. The reality of the situation is the disability
:59:07. > :59:09.benefits system, whether PIP or its predecessor benefits have never been
:59:10. > :59:14.sufficiently sensitive or flexible to the needs of people with mental
:59:15. > :59:22.health illnesses and the court rulings in relation that we are
:59:23. > :59:25.discussing today was one small step of interpreting existing
:59:26. > :59:29.regulations, not new ones, to make that a little bit better. Does he
:59:30. > :59:32.not recognise that by rushing out these new regulations come he is
:59:33. > :59:37.changing and interpretation and existing one and in doing so he's
:59:38. > :59:40.going to make people with mental health problems and bonuses a lot
:59:41. > :59:48.more anxious and a lot more unfairly treated? He makes an important point
:59:49. > :59:55.but I don't agree with his assessment, particularly because
:59:56. > :59:58.what the tribunal said was that the regulations weren't clear enough.
:59:59. > :00:04.What we are doing is clarifying them. We are clarifying them in a
:00:05. > :00:07.way that restores the attention to the original intention that has
:00:08. > :00:15.always been there for the benefit. That should provide certainty to
:00:16. > :00:19.people, not uncertainty. I recognise the Government is returning the
:00:20. > :00:22.scope and funds but does not the focus on these vulnerable people
:00:23. > :00:30.were challenging needs highlight the need for more integration and more
:00:31. > :00:36.funds for social care? My honourable friend makes a good point on this
:00:37. > :00:41.and he's right about greater integration. It is why we have
:00:42. > :00:45.created a work and health unit so that the first time my department
:00:46. > :00:52.and the default of health working together on a daily basis for the
:00:53. > :00:57.very many people whose needs fall partly in health and partly because
:00:58. > :01:05.of the benefit system just we can provide a more integrated personal
:01:06. > :01:08.-- and sensitive service to them. So many of my constituents have had to
:01:09. > :01:12.go through the reconsideration process and all the way to a
:01:13. > :01:17.tribunal to be awarded the number of PIP points they should have been of
:01:18. > :01:20.awarded in the first place. Though -- does the Secretary of State had
:01:21. > :01:26.plans to introduce support for disabled people who are awaiting the
:01:27. > :01:32.outcome of tribunal decisions? He makes the point about people who
:01:33. > :01:38.appeal. Only 6% of PIP judgments are appealed, so the number is very low.
:01:39. > :01:43.We are seeking to improve the system by making sure that more health
:01:44. > :01:50.information is available earlier in the assessment process which I'm
:01:51. > :01:54.sure will help his constituents. I had been following the exchanges
:01:55. > :01:58.closely in much that my constituents want to know their MP has understood
:01:59. > :02:03.things correctly. Can he understand by understanding from what has been
:02:04. > :02:11.said that 25% of PIP claimants now get the highest rate compared to 15%
:02:12. > :02:19.under DLA and that more mental health conditions qualify for PIP
:02:20. > :02:24.than ever did before under the old DLA system? My honourable friend is
:02:25. > :02:30.correct. In both of those assumptions. I am happy that he can
:02:31. > :02:33.share them with his constituents. Harris Moss -- specifically, I can
:02:34. > :02:37.add that there were more PIP claimants with mental health
:02:38. > :02:43.conditions claiming the mobility component. 27% of PIP -- PIP
:02:44. > :02:53.claimants can better 9% on DLA which is another improvement. I have had
:02:54. > :02:59.surgery is faced with constituents who are increasingly anxious by
:03:00. > :03:02.these changes., Secretary of State confirm what assessment the
:03:03. > :03:06.Government has undertaken on the impact of these cuts on the already
:03:07. > :03:09.vulnerable mental health status and well-being of claimants and will he
:03:10. > :03:19.make that assessment available to the House? The analysis is available
:03:20. > :03:26.and I can only emphasise to the honourable lady's constituents and
:03:27. > :03:30.the Shadow Secretary of State who is chuntering that this is not a change
:03:31. > :03:37.in policy. This is not a cut. Nobody will receive less benefit than they
:03:38. > :03:43.were originally awarded by the DWP. I can hear people chuntering on both
:03:44. > :03:51.sides. Not something I remember doing when I was on the backbenches.
:03:52. > :03:55.You sat next to me on those benches and I remember. We have an excellent
:03:56. > :04:01.Secretary of State and one of the most caring in the Government and
:04:02. > :04:05.I'm sure what the Government is doing is correct. As the honourable
:04:06. > :04:10.gentleman opposite said, it does give members the opportunity to
:04:11. > :04:13.highlight that the process of assessment is not working for a
:04:14. > :04:16.number of our constituents. I am fed up with singer constituent every
:04:17. > :04:21.week who clearly should have been awarded it and not getting it. Can
:04:22. > :04:42.he say more on how we will improve that situation? I am grateful for
:04:43. > :04:45.your remarks. In terms of the PIP improvement service, we are trying
:04:46. > :04:51.to improve all aspects of it, but the accuracy of the assessments, the
:04:52. > :04:57.speed of the assessments and I think the early provision of more health
:04:58. > :05:01.information will improve the situation hugely, not least for his
:05:02. > :05:08.constituents and others. They find it a stressful process. I would
:05:09. > :05:12.challenge the assertion that PIP is back of the bit with mental health
:05:13. > :05:16.conditions as a constituent of mine has a diagnosis of bipolar disorder
:05:17. > :05:20.and used to receive DLA on the grounds of the need for continual
:05:21. > :05:26.supervision. It is not recognised under PIP and my constituent is not
:05:27. > :05:31.only losing her entitlement to PIP but her working tax credit which was
:05:32. > :05:40.past ported via DLI -- DLA. What reassurances does this give to my
:05:41. > :05:47.constituent and others like hers? I can only repeat the fax to the
:05:48. > :05:51.honourable lady that over two thirds of PIP recipients with a mental
:05:52. > :05:57.health condition get the enhanced rate daily living component. That
:05:58. > :06:05.compares to 22% who received the DLA care. As I explained on the mobility
:06:06. > :06:10.component, the relevant figures are 27% and 9%. The facts are
:06:11. > :06:12.incontrovertible. More people with mental health conditions are
:06:13. > :06:15.receiving PIP then used to receive DLA. It is a better benefit for
:06:16. > :06:22.people with mental health conditions than DLA was.
:06:23. > :06:30.My constituents will be relieved to hear what my boyfriend said about
:06:31. > :06:41.looking at the assessment process which goes on for far too long.
:06:42. > :06:47.Regarding a home visit, could they consider information from family and
:06:48. > :06:51.friends? We already do home visits. If there are cases where he thinks
:06:52. > :06:55.people should have had home visit and did not, then get in touch with
:06:56. > :07:04.me and we will look at the details of what is happening. Of the many
:07:05. > :07:13.constituents who have come to my surgery with problems regarding PiP,
:07:14. > :07:17.there is one which springs to mind. It was not somebody who wanted to
:07:18. > :07:21.sit at home and take pills, he simply was not able to get out
:07:22. > :07:25.there. How can the government possibly claim to want parity of
:07:26. > :07:31.esteem when it is enshrining disparity in this? It is obviously
:07:32. > :07:36.impossible for me to comment on an individual case where I have not
:07:37. > :07:41.seen the details, but the parity between mental and physical
:07:42. > :07:48.disabilities is embedded in PiP. That is the whole point of it. Far
:07:49. > :07:53.more people with mental health conditions are receiving PiP and
:07:54. > :08:01.used to receive DLA. It might be an uncomfortable truth, but it is still
:08:02. > :08:07.true. Can the Secretary of State firstly tell the House by the
:08:08. > :08:12.committee was bypassed in passing this recommendation? Can he tell us
:08:13. > :08:17.what consultations he has had with organisations that represent
:08:18. > :08:26.disabled people? People with mental health conditions who cannot follow
:08:27. > :08:32.the route of an unfamiliar route should be awarded the higher rate
:08:33. > :08:39.and not the lower one. I spoke to the chairman of the SSC and in front
:08:40. > :08:46.choir was invoking the procedure allowed. He and his committee still
:08:47. > :08:50.have the power to look at these regulations and make
:08:51. > :08:56.recommendations. They can do so. He will have observed that many people
:08:57. > :09:02.on all benches have spoken of the problems of uncertainty and how they
:09:03. > :09:05.affect many of those who have the mental health conditions we have
:09:06. > :09:14.spoken of. We are removing the uncertainty and meeting the desire
:09:15. > :09:21.to have clarity in the system. And restoring it to where it was before.
:09:22. > :09:31.It provides quick certainty for people. That is what many people
:09:32. > :09:38.won't. Port of or -- point of order. I wonder if you can guide the as to
:09:39. > :09:41.what is the appropriate step I should take? Last week at Prime
:09:42. > :09:45.Minister's Questions I asked a question to the Prime Minister about
:09:46. > :09:49.a petition being handed into Number Ten Downing St. The Prime Minister
:09:50. > :09:57.said she did not understand what I was talking about. My question is
:09:58. > :10:07.very specific. The petitioner said they had made an appointment to hand
:10:08. > :10:11.in the petition. I have subsequently been contacted by one of the
:10:12. > :10:15.petitioners to say they had made an appointment to go into Number Ten
:10:16. > :10:22.Downing St and were not allowed to hand position into Number Ten
:10:23. > :10:23.Downing St but outside the police officer took