:00:00. > :00:07.that these house do now adjourn. As many of that opinion say aye. The
:00:08. > :00:10.ayes have it. In order, order. Wink-macro that is the end of the
:00:11. > :00:15.day in the House of Commons. We will now be going over live to the House
:00:16. > :00:20.of Lords. The members you can watch recorded coverage of all of today's
:00:21. > :00:28.business in the Lords after the day's politics tonight.
:00:29. > :00:32.I understand from Jane Hardy, the head of home support at Solent Mind,
:00:33. > :00:36.which supports people with mental health problems cost pole across
:00:37. > :00:41.Hampshire and Southampton, that she is in no doubt that the social
:00:42. > :00:45.isolation of many of her clients. Getting out of the House can be an
:00:46. > :00:49.extremely stressful experience for someone who suffers from paranoia,
:00:50. > :00:53.lacks confidence in social situations, or who feels unsafe in
:00:54. > :00:58.noisy, crowded environments such as on public transport. But the salient
:00:59. > :01:03.erections are also vital to their mental health and physical
:01:04. > :01:07.well-being, preventing them from becoming even more isolated and
:01:08. > :01:11.enabling them to be properly, pay their bills and attend important
:01:12. > :01:15.appointments. That is why it is so important that we seek to remove as
:01:16. > :01:19.many barriers to their mobility as possible through financial and other
:01:20. > :01:23.forms of support. And while it is so important that we do not differ it
:01:24. > :01:28.in a way that seems to be against people with mental health problems.
:01:29. > :01:31.His condition can be just as debilitating as someone with a
:01:32. > :01:35.physical disability. -- whose condition. I realise that many
:01:36. > :01:43.people with mental health problems have until recently missed out on
:01:44. > :01:49.being mobility equivalent of PIP. But the agreement is more in keeping
:01:50. > :01:52.with the original intent of the legislation than the amendment
:01:53. > :02:03.tabled by the Government, opening up additional support to allow and
:02:04. > :02:10.people with mental health problems. -- to around 160,000 people. We must
:02:11. > :02:20.be sure that the amendment is not undermining the intended aims.
:02:21. > :02:29.Those from the well form reform act of 2012. From the beginning it was
:02:30. > :02:34.intending not just to reset the threshold to determine who gets
:02:35. > :02:38.what, but to decrease the overall expenditure on benefits. By
:02:39. > :02:43.attempting to target them more effectively than the DLA and
:02:44. > :02:49.specifically to give more weight to mental health problems. The
:02:50. > :02:54.department said that of those with mental health conditions, receiving
:02:55. > :03:01.the mobility component within DLA, only 9% had been entitled to the
:03:02. > :03:06.higher rate. 27% of claimants receive the
:03:07. > :03:13.enhanced disability rate or 28% from the minister's letter of this
:03:14. > :03:18.morning. The Government's own consultee asked
:03:19. > :03:24.the permanent question, so what impairments do these 27% have? Are
:03:25. > :03:32.they are combination of physical and mental impairments? The department
:03:33. > :03:35.debated this question, saying that perhaps 27% was somewhat imprecise.
:03:36. > :03:41.So we don't know what will happen to any of those claimants who may be
:03:42. > :03:48.reassessed quite soon. But what we do know is that these new
:03:49. > :03:55.regulations undermine the welcome support given this those with mental
:03:56. > :03:59.health problems and I urge the Government to withdraw them for
:04:00. > :04:05.further consideration. I hope other members of the House will be as
:04:06. > :04:10.uneasy as I am at the Government immediately reaching for the statute
:04:11. > :04:16.book in order to negate a very careful decision of the upper tire
:04:17. > :04:23.tribunal. Ministers say it is to restore the original intention of
:04:24. > :04:26.the original, of the relevant descipor about planning, following a
:04:27. > :04:32.journey and insist the legislation is clear. But they got over the fact
:04:33. > :04:40.-- gloss over the fact that the Secretary of State himself said n
:04:41. > :04:47.the case in December, 2015, that and I quote, "Overwhelming psychological
:04:48. > :04:50.distress could, depending on its nature, frequency, duration and
:04:51. > :04:59.severity make a person unable to navigate and so to fulfil the terms
:05:00. > :05:03.of the ID 1 F. 1 F gives the higher rate." We are now told that the
:05:04. > :05:09.Secretary of State made a mistake and had to explain to the court the
:05:10. > :05:14.concession had erroneously been made. That is all very satisfactory.
:05:15. > :05:20.And leaves a particularly bad taste in the mouth. Whose hand is round
:05:21. > :05:25.the Secretary of State's throat? What he said sounds to me exactly
:05:26. > :05:33.what the original policy intention was. Why don't the Government come
:05:34. > :05:37.clean and say that they are changing the policy for enhanced rate
:05:38. > :05:43.mobility by not allowing psychological distress to be taken
:05:44. > :05:48.into consideration? And why the indecent haste in changing the law?
:05:49. > :05:51.As the Secretary of State is appealing the upper tribunal's
:05:52. > :05:57.decision, he could have used other powers he has to prevent the
:05:58. > :06:02.decisions of this tribunal from having immediate legal effect, by
:06:03. > :06:10.giving directions to decision makers and courts about how the descriptors
:06:11. > :06:15.should be interpretated. Why not wait for that outcome. The timescale
:06:16. > :06:20.is curious. If he was to wait three months from the judgment. Why not
:06:21. > :06:26.use that time to consult properly? The impact assessment estimates that
:06:27. > :06:34.71, 500 claimants in the current case load will go from standard rate
:06:35. > :06:41.to PIP, to nil. The same figure from enhanced rate to 0 and 21,000 from
:06:42. > :06:46.enhanced rate as standard. So, 143,000 claimants with an enduring
:06:47. > :06:52.health condition are east di mated to lose the benefit all together and
:06:53. > :07:00.as we have already heard, disorders likely to be affected, according to
:07:01. > :07:07.the DWP range from schizophrenia and autism to bipolar and cog native
:07:08. > :07:10.disorder. So much for esteem between physical and mental health. There is
:07:11. > :07:15.another aspect which must be considered. The Secretary of State
:07:16. > :07:19.is keen to say that no-one already getting an award under the old
:07:20. > :07:23.regulations will lose it. Presumably meaning that no-one will
:07:24. > :07:27.have their money clawed back, but some awards are only for a year
:07:28. > :07:33.before another assessment is demanded. Thousands of claimants are
:07:34. > :07:38.in this position. So the new assessment will presumably be under
:07:39. > :07:43.the new rules, meaning that many existing beneficiaries of standard
:07:44. > :07:47.or enhanced rate mobility will lose all entitlement. I accept that the
:07:48. > :07:52.reason the Secretary of State is making this change is not to make
:07:53. > :08:01.even more savings than have already been announced. But is it fair to
:08:02. > :08:06.tear up the carefully constructed mobility descriptors and the
:08:07. > :08:11.judgment which mix up case and without proper consultation. Is it
:08:12. > :08:17.not yet another tightening of the screw around the whole independent
:08:18. > :08:22.living pro-jectd, which is on every side? These regulations should be
:08:23. > :08:30.set aside to await proper consultation. I shall end with a
:08:31. > :08:37.word. I particularly address my friends and colleagues on the Labour
:08:38. > :08:44.benches. And I'm going to quote from the Cunningham committee report of
:08:45. > :08:49.2005, on the conventions of the UK Parliament. They say and I quote.
:08:50. > :08:56."The Government appear to consider that any defeat of an NI awards is a
:08:57. > :09:04.breach of convention. We disagree. It is not incompatible with the
:09:05. > :09:09.revising chamber to reject - since A, the Lords, rightfully or wrongly
:09:10. > :09:15.cannot exercise its amending role by amending this or in any other way.
:09:16. > :09:21.And B, they can bring it forward again immeadiately, with or without
:09:22. > :09:25.substantial amendment." My Lords, we should have the courage of our
:09:26. > :09:27.convictions and vote to annual these regulations.
:09:28. > :09:37.-- annul these regulations. I declare my interest as a recipient
:09:38. > :09:43.of Disability Living Allowance and therefore have an interest in this
:09:44. > :09:47.type of benefit. Two very simple and basic points make the case against
:09:48. > :09:52.these regulations open and shut, in my view. The first, is that it's a
:09:53. > :10:00.clear breach of faith with the disability community. Back in 2012,
:10:01. > :10:04.when PIP was first introduced, Mind and other mental health charities
:10:05. > :10:09.raised concerned that people with mental health problems would only be
:10:10. > :10:15.able to score points dun der the ci ter -- under the criteria of
:10:16. > :10:18.psychological distress. The Government gave the reassurance this
:10:19. > :10:23.was not the case. And that people could score points under a range of
:10:24. > :10:28.criteria if their condition meant they struggled to plan and follow a
:10:29. > :10:33.journey. On this basis, PIP, was welcomed by the mental health and
:10:34. > :10:37.wider disability sector. Because for the first time people with mental
:10:38. > :10:43.health problems felt they would be given access to disable support
:10:44. > :10:53.equal to that with people of physical dacts. -- disabilities.
:10:54. > :10:57.My Lord's, these commitments were underlined in statements by
:10:58. > :11:06.ministers in debates on the welfare reform will at the time. The noble
:11:07. > :11:12.Baroness Lady Bakewell as quoted the statements, so I do not need to
:11:13. > :11:16.repeat them. However, in practise, the DWP hasn't deemed people who
:11:17. > :11:21.experience psychological distress eible for the full range of points,
:11:22. > :11:25.regardless of how severely that distress affects them. This has
:11:26. > :11:29.meant that 164,000 people have received a lower rate than they
:11:30. > :11:35.should have been entitled to. This is the origin of the two cases which
:11:36. > :11:40.came before the upper tribunal at the end of 2016. The tribunal's
:11:41. > :11:44.rulings didn't extend the role of PIP, as the Government suggests. But
:11:45. > :11:48.clarified it. That's what tribunals do. They don't
:11:49. > :11:55.make the law. They clarify what the law is. It's the Government who are
:11:56. > :12:00.now seeking to restrict the scope of PIP from what it has always been
:12:01. > :12:08.understood to be by removing psychological distress from ci
:12:09. > :12:13.Terrion 1 -- criteria 1 F, to not follow a familiar route without
:12:14. > :12:18.assistance. So the claimant can only be awarded four points under a
:12:19. > :12:23.mobility descipor, 1 B. So the regulations are in clear breach, if
:12:24. > :12:27.not of manifesto commitment on this occasion, then certainly of pledges
:12:28. > :12:33.given to these with mental health problems in 2012. This change do the
:12:34. > :12:38.eligibility criteria also flies in the face of the statement in the
:12:39. > :12:42.work, health and dablingt green paper - Improving Lives, that the
:12:43. > :12:50.Government will not seek to make any further cuts to disability benefits,
:12:51. > :12:54.following the controversial cut to those receiving employment support
:12:55. > :12:59.from 1st April this year. My second point can be made even more briefly.
:13:00. > :13:02.The proposed changes would create a legal distinction between those with
:13:03. > :13:06.mental health problems and those with other kinds of impairment when
:13:07. > :13:11.it comes to benefit assessments, a distinction which flies in the face
:13:12. > :13:15.of the Government's commitment to clarity of treatment to people with
:13:16. > :13:24.mental health conditions. The Government has said a person with a
:13:25. > :13:28.cog anythingive impairment -- cgniative impairment will have the
:13:29. > :13:32.highest mobility rate. It is far from covering the full range of
:13:33. > :13:35.people with mental health problems. My Lords, I believe these
:13:36. > :13:39.regulations are trying to move the goal posts by excludeing people who
:13:40. > :13:45.experience psychological distress from being eligible for the higher
:13:46. > :13:51.number of points necessary for the higher mobility rate for the higher
:13:52. > :13:53.rate of mobility component. In doing so, effectively discriminates
:13:54. > :13:57.against people with mental health problems. This is clearly against
:13:58. > :14:02.the original intention of PIP and runs count tore the commitment the
:14:03. > :14:07.Government has made to people with mental health problems that they
:14:08. > :14:13.would be assessed in the same way as other disabled people. I support the
:14:14. > :14:19.motions before us this evening to oppose these regulations and if the
:14:20. > :14:25.noble Baroness Lady Bakewell moves for a vote, I will support it.
:14:26. > :14:28.My Lords, as ever I've had a huge number of e-mails on this debate
:14:29. > :14:37.tonight. After the last debate that was tabled by the noble Baroness
:14:38. > :14:40.lady Thomas of Winchester on rule I had many hundreds. I understand many
:14:41. > :14:45.charities have writ on the the Prime Minister on this issue. I am
:14:46. > :14:49.concerned over the way that this has been misunderstood, about who is
:14:50. > :14:53.eligible. It is suggested it is not a big change, but like other noble
:14:54. > :15:02.colleagues tonight, I have many concerns. Just to add on something
:15:03. > :15:06.that my honourable friend of Surbiton said impairments. If you
:15:07. > :15:09.take the use of a blue badge, there is misunderstanding about who can
:15:10. > :15:12.qualify for that and who should have one and who shouldn't have one and
:15:13. > :15:16.how people are treated if it is perceived they are not disabled
:15:17. > :15:21.enough to need one. That's something which is relatively simple, let
:15:22. > :15:26.alone when you get on to some of the intry Kaysies of the assessment
:15:27. > :15:28.forms. My Lords, I do have issues with the name Personal Independence
:15:29. > :15:33.Payment. In itself it is not accurate. It is a contribution
:15:34. > :15:37.towards independent living. It doesn't cover all the costs of
:15:38. > :15:43.someone with a disability living independently. I am a recipient of
:15:44. > :15:47.PIP. I was a recipient. I went through the process last year. It
:15:48. > :15:51.was an interesting and arduous process. Just the forms to tell you
:15:52. > :15:56.have to transform over are complicated enough. When I made the
:15:57. > :15:59.phone call to register I was left on hold for over 25 minutes. With each
:16:00. > :16:04.passing minute you are worried the phone call will drop out. And then I
:16:05. > :16:07.was asked a number of questions which could be construed as
:16:08. > :16:11.confusing. My Lords, I have some understanding in this area and they
:16:12. > :16:15.were really difficult questions for me to answer. I was asked the same
:16:16. > :16:23.questions repeatedly came back and forth. I was asked the name of the
:16:24. > :16:28.medical personnel who could best desciep my -- describe my
:16:29. > :16:33.impairment. I am disabled. Not ill. It came to the time I was doubting
:16:34. > :16:37.my own answers. I am not lacking in confidence in able to understand and
:16:38. > :16:43.explain the challenges I face in terms of being mobile. My Lords, I
:16:44. > :16:46.have said it before and I will say again, it is absolutely essential we
:16:47. > :16:50.have a better decision-making process. The cost of mandatory
:16:51. > :16:54.considerations and tribunals is simply too high.
:16:55. > :17:00.Scope have said 89% of applicants who have gone through repeal to a
:17:01. > :17:02.tribunal in the last quarter have resulted in a new decision. That is
:17:03. > :17:15.89%. If decision-making was better, how
:17:16. > :17:21.much money could be saved to plough back into the system? I've got so
:17:22. > :17:24.many examples of people who'd been through really appalling treatment
:17:25. > :17:30.through this process. One person has been writing to me for last 18
:17:31. > :17:33.months. I'm very happy to pass on the person's details. Everything
:17:34. > :17:38.that could have gone wrong through the process has, including lost
:17:39. > :17:42.files, cancelled dates, and it has a huge effect on the individual's
:17:43. > :17:46.mental health and well-being. How was this helping? The system is not
:17:47. > :17:51.working as well as it could. It's time to re-evaluate. I would like
:17:52. > :17:54.the noble Lord Minister to reassure me that the chaos around the system
:17:55. > :18:02.is not going to be used as an excuse to potentially stop supporting
:18:03. > :18:04.disabled people through Personal Independence Payments. One worry I
:18:05. > :18:08.have is that it has been seen as such a disaster that actually some
:18:09. > :18:12.people might think it would be easier to stop it. That would be
:18:13. > :18:15.absolutely appalling. Personal Independence Payments are really
:18:16. > :18:19.important to help many, many disabled people live and lead
:18:20. > :18:27.independent lives. It's time that this works properly. I should also
:18:28. > :18:32.begin by declaring an interest as a recipient of the higher rate
:18:33. > :18:42.mobility component of disability and living allowance, or DLA, which is
:18:43. > :18:49.being replaced by PIP. As someone with a severe, permanent and
:18:50. > :18:59.constant disability, I depend on DLA for my mobility. Because it enables
:19:00. > :19:05.me to lease a car through Notability. Indeed, it gives me
:19:06. > :19:17.great pleasure to put on record my profound personal thanks to
:19:18. > :19:24.Motability and my noble friend, the Lord of Preston, for the
:19:25. > :19:28.modernisation and has made disabled people's lives in its first 40
:19:29. > :19:40.years. Long may it continue. And my Lords, long may targeted support
:19:41. > :19:44.continue. For those whose need is greatest. For help with meeting the
:19:45. > :19:52.extra costs of living with a disability. The most help to those
:19:53. > :20:01.who need it most. That is surely a founding principle of our welfare
:20:02. > :20:10.state, and the enduring basis of public confidence in the system.
:20:11. > :20:16.Which unrepentant the public's willingness to front the welfare
:20:17. > :20:23.state so generously through their taxes. As the then Deputy Prime
:20:24. > :20:30.Minister Nick Clegg then rightly said in 2012, one of the things
:20:31. > :20:41.about government is that it forces you to confront the inconvenient
:20:42. > :20:48.truths opposition chooses to ignore. One of those truths is that
:20:49. > :20:56.sustaining the public's trust in the welfare system is crucial. To
:20:57. > :21:04.sustaining the system which I and millions of disabled people rely on.
:21:05. > :21:11.So it's vital that the money gets spent where it's meant, and is seen
:21:12. > :21:20.to do so. I believe the taxpayer does not have a problem with someone
:21:21. > :21:27.needing assistance as a result of difficulties. For example, if the
:21:28. > :21:33.blind. They surely understand that conditions such as visual
:21:34. > :21:39.impairments and learning disabilities, where these are severe
:21:40. > :21:45.and enduring, are much less likely to fluctuate ban, for example,
:21:46. > :21:52.psychological distress. Indeed, it makes sense that people who cannot
:21:53. > :22:00.navigate due to a visual or cognitive impairment are likely to
:22:01. > :22:09.have a higher level of needs, and therefore face higher costs. My
:22:10. > :22:14.Lords, some noble Lords seem to believe that the world would be
:22:15. > :22:25.different if only their party was in power. Yet where they are in power,
:22:26. > :22:34.running councils like Lambeth, their party is actually adding to the cost
:22:35. > :22:39.of living with a disability. One way in which they are doing this is by
:22:40. > :22:48.giving parking tickets to disabled people who come home late from work,
:22:49. > :22:52.to find there are no parking spaces available outside their home. And
:22:53. > :22:59.therefore they have two Park on yellow lines. Will the council give
:23:00. > :23:05.them a designated disabled parking space outside their home? As
:23:06. > :23:15.happened less than a mile away in Westminster. No. It's not council
:23:16. > :23:25.policy. So today Lambeth Council, in 2017, is penalising some disabled
:23:26. > :23:32.people and imposing extra costs on them for a need directly relating to
:23:33. > :23:39.their being disabled. What a policy! How do I know they're doing this? I
:23:40. > :23:46.know because I am the person who cannot find anywhere else to park
:23:47. > :23:50.after returning home late from your lordship's House. Yet my request for
:23:51. > :24:00.a designated disabled parking bay has been rejected. My Lords, in
:24:01. > :24:09.closing, this is just one example of why we urgently need to join the
:24:10. > :24:17.dots on disability, if more disabled people are, as we all want, to live
:24:18. > :24:26.independently and to work. Until the journos dots, I cannot in all
:24:27. > :24:33.honesty justify expecting taxpayers to be even more generous in helping
:24:34. > :24:40.to meet the extra cost of living with a disability when the state
:24:41. > :24:48.itself imposes such indefensible extra costs on disabled people. My
:24:49. > :24:55.Lords, despite my sincere and profound respect for the noble
:24:56. > :25:04.Baroness Campbell of Surbiton, and the noble Baroness of Winchester, I
:25:05. > :25:09.cannot support these notions. My Lords, I have been listening to this
:25:10. > :25:11.debate and I'm concerned that the nature of our discussion may not
:25:12. > :25:16.reflect the actions that the Government is taking.
:25:17. > :25:19.It is my understanding that the Government is laying these
:25:20. > :25:24.regulations in response to a court case which has broadened the
:25:25. > :25:30.eligibility criteria of the PIP assessment beyond the original
:25:31. > :25:35.intent of this house voted for, at a potential increase in cost of
:25:36. > :25:40.billion. I want to be clear that I'm pleased to be part of this house, a
:25:41. > :25:44.house that has done so much to ensure that the rights and needs of
:25:45. > :25:51.those with disabilities are upheld. It is why I have spoken on the
:25:52. > :25:58.importance of halving the disability employment gap. I believe that a
:25:59. > :26:04.decent society should always recognise and support those who are
:26:05. > :26:07.the most vulnerable. However, I have read carefully what the Minister has
:26:08. > :26:14.said in the other place, and I do not think that this is what is at
:26:15. > :26:22.stake. Despite the wording of this fatal blow should cover it is worth
:26:23. > :26:26.reflecting on a fact that we in this country spend more on supporting
:26:27. > :26:30.people who are sick and disabled than the OECD average. We rightly
:26:31. > :26:34.spend around ?50 billion per year to support people with disabilities and
:26:35. > :26:39.health conditions. However, if you listen to be speeches in the chamber
:26:40. > :26:41.this evening, you would think that these regulations were about to
:26:42. > :26:47.reverse this level of support and the protections that are in place.
:26:48. > :26:51.So I would ask my noble friend the Minister to confirm that this is not
:26:52. > :26:59.the case, and that the level of support that this house legislated
:27:00. > :27:02.for will be protected. The wording of the regret motion tonight suggest
:27:03. > :27:07.that the regulations discriminate against people with mental health
:27:08. > :27:10.problems. And could put vulnerable claimants at risk. But against is my
:27:11. > :27:14.understanding that the Government has laid these regulations to
:27:15. > :27:22.address the impact of the court case, which broadens the eligibility
:27:23. > :27:26.of PIP beyond the original intent voted for by this house. I would ask
:27:27. > :27:30.my noble friend the Minister to confirm that this is indeed the
:27:31. > :27:34.case, and that there are no further savings beyond those that were
:27:35. > :27:41.legislated for here in this house, that being sought. Both houses of
:27:42. > :27:46.parliament voted for the changes on the DLA to PIP, and one of the key
:27:47. > :27:49.reasons for this was a recognition that PIP focus to support precisely
:27:50. > :27:56.on those experiencing the greatest barriers to living independently. At
:27:57. > :28:00.the core of PIP's design is the principle that awards of the benefit
:28:01. > :28:05.should be made according to a claimant's overall level of need,
:28:06. > :28:10.regardless of whether claimants suffer from physical or nonphysical
:28:11. > :28:14.conditions. And it has been good to see that 28% of PIP recipients with
:28:15. > :28:20.a mental health condition get the enhanced rate mobility component,
:28:21. > :28:24.compared receiving the higher rate DLA component. -- compared to 10%
:28:25. > :28:32.receiving the higher rate DLA component. And 56% get the enhanced
:28:33. > :28:38.rate daily living allowance, compared to 2% receiving highest
:28:39. > :28:45.rate DLA car. Which is precisely because -- compared to 22%. It is
:28:46. > :28:48.precisely because PIP addresses a discrimination inherent in DLA that
:28:49. > :28:51.this house supported the legislation in the first place. I would ask my
:28:52. > :28:59.noble friend the Minister to confirm that this not only remains the
:29:00. > :29:03.intent of PIP, but also the reality, and that these regulations are
:29:04. > :29:09.restoring the original intention of PIP, which was to make sure that
:29:10. > :29:12.there is a sustainable benefit to provide continued support to those
:29:13. > :29:17.who face the greatest barrier - whether that is physical or mental -
:29:18. > :29:22.to living independent lives. Thank you.
:29:23. > :29:26.My Lords, I'm going to forego the right to speak as extensively as I
:29:27. > :29:30.otherwise would, just to do three things now. The first is to say I
:29:31. > :29:37.very much support the motion of my noble friend Baroness Sherlock and
:29:38. > :29:41.the manner in which it was new. I also wanted to ask the minister a
:29:42. > :29:48.question about the original policy intent. Because we've heard this as
:29:49. > :29:51.a justification for these regulations on a number of
:29:52. > :30:01.occasions. Can we be very clear on this - the Government praised in
:30:02. > :30:04.aid, the PIP assessment guide, as evidence to the original policy
:30:05. > :30:08.intent. But can we understand precisely when that and the detail
:30:09. > :30:14.was discussed in parliament. Not by officials, by Parliament, to be able
:30:15. > :30:20.to justify the claim that was made. When finally just make two points on
:30:21. > :30:24.the finances. We shouldn't forget in all of this that PIP was introduced
:30:25. > :30:29.against a backdrop of the predecessor, DLA, having a 20% cut
:30:30. > :30:36.in its budget. And when we talk about the implications of government
:30:37. > :30:46.costs of 3.7 billion, let's just remember that a cost for caring
:30:47. > :30:54.about -- foregoing that government will mean resources lost. 3.7
:30:55. > :31:00.billion is something which a government might save from this. The
:31:01. > :31:05.losers are the disabled community, to a massive extent. My Lords, I get
:31:06. > :31:12.the impression that the House would like me to move this debate to what
:31:13. > :31:16.close and I hope that I can deal with some of the points that have
:31:17. > :31:20.been made during the course of what has been wide-ranging, and at times
:31:21. > :31:28.a passionate debate all across the House. Could I say that I recognise
:31:29. > :31:31.the concerns that have been raised and I welcome the opportunity to
:31:32. > :31:34.respond on behalf of the Government. I hope to make matters clear and
:31:35. > :31:41.provide reassurances on a number of points. My Lords, I would start by
:31:42. > :31:45.saying that we are committed to ensuring that our welfare system
:31:46. > :31:50.provides a very strong safety net for those who need it. That was what
:31:51. > :31:57.all of our reforms over the last few years have been about. That is why
:31:58. > :32:02.we spend something over 50 billion a year, as my noble friend Baroness
:32:03. > :32:07.Stroud said, just on benefits which support disabled people with health
:32:08. > :32:11.conditions. Spending on the main disability benefits went up over the
:32:12. > :32:16.course of the last Parliament and the course of that last coalition
:32:17. > :32:20.government, I should remind the noble Baroness Lady Bakewell. It
:32:21. > :32:22.went up by more than 3 billion and is set to be at a record high of
:32:23. > :32:31.nearly 23 billion this year. Personal Independence Payment
:32:32. > :32:36.providing help towards the additional costs that disabled
:32:37. > :32:39.people face, providing them with greater opportunities to lead full,
:32:40. > :32:44.independent lives, something which we all agree is the point behind
:32:45. > :32:48.PIP. The core of PIP's design is the principal that awards should be made
:32:49. > :32:52.according to a claimant's level of need and not whether their condition
:32:53. > :32:59.is physical or nonphysical in nature. I will say more about
:33:00. > :33:05.clarity of treatment in due course. This approach, by design, ensures
:33:06. > :33:10.the focus of support is on those who have a higher level of need, greater
:33:11. > :33:13.limitations on their ability to participate in society and higher
:33:14. > :33:19.costs associated with their condition. But those recent legal
:33:20. > :33:24.judgments that have been referred to by noble Lords have interpreted the
:33:25. > :33:29.assessment criteria for PIP in ways that are different from what was
:33:30. > :33:34.originally intended by the coalition Government. Coalition Government
:33:35. > :33:41.that Lady Bakewell's party was a part of. We have therefore made
:33:42. > :33:50.amendments to collar if I the -- collar if I the criteria, used to
:33:51. > :33:54.decide benefit claimants receive. The policy agreed by Government,
:33:55. > :33:58.which followed extensive consultation and adds essential
:33:59. > :34:04.clarity to all of it. Now it is important at this stage that I
:34:05. > :34:12.emphasise what the changes are not. They are not a policy change. They
:34:13. > :34:16.are not, as the Bishop of Winchester, the noble Lord, seemed
:34:17. > :34:22.to imply inconsistent with the primary legislation. They are
:34:23. > :34:26.bringing clarity to that legislation. And to the regulations
:34:27. > :34:33.that we put forward as the tribunal asked for. And I can say to the
:34:34. > :34:37.noble Baroness, lady sher lock, in answer to her question, that they
:34:38. > :34:41.will not result in any claimant seeing a reduction in the amount of
:34:42. > :34:48.PIP previously awarded by the Department for Work and Pensions. As
:34:49. > :34:52.my Right Honourable friend the Secretary of State said in his
:34:53. > :34:58.statement in the other place, which I repeated to this House, and I
:34:59. > :35:01.think was responded, I can add there'll be no further welfare
:35:02. > :35:07.savings in this Parliament beyond those that are already legislated
:35:08. > :35:12.for. It is untrue to describe this as inaccurate to describe this as a
:35:13. > :35:17.cut. This is merely the reassertion of the original policy intention. It
:35:18. > :35:24.is entirely appropriate, I believe, for the Government to act to restore
:35:25. > :35:27.that clarity to the law, particularly as that was something
:35:28. > :35:32.sought by the tribunals. As Governments have done before and no
:35:33. > :35:35.doubt Governments, the noble Baroness supported and no doubt will
:35:36. > :35:40.continue to do in the future. It is the duty of the Government to issue
:35:41. > :35:44.these orders. It is the duty of the Government to make policy. It is for
:35:45. > :35:48.the courts to interpret it. Where there is a need for clarity, it is
:35:49. > :35:53.for us, therefore, to bring clarity to those. It is appropriate that we
:35:54. > :35:58.try to restore a policy aim where that aim has been forgot. Let us not
:35:59. > :36:02.forget that PIP and the regulations under it were developed and
:36:03. > :36:08.approved, as I made clear and I make clear again to the noble Baroness,
:36:09. > :36:11.Lady Bakewell, under the coalition Government, a Government which I
:36:12. > :36:17.believe the noble Baroness supported. And I am grateful to my
:36:18. > :36:23.noble friend for reminding us of the words of the Deputy Prime Minister
:36:24. > :36:26.at the time, Mr Clegg, about how decisions had to be made and how
:36:27. > :36:31.important it is to maintain the trust of those who have to pay for
:36:32. > :36:35.the benefit system as well as those who benefit from it. And I will
:36:36. > :36:44.repeat that the Government is not making any changes whatsoever to the
:36:45. > :36:48.original policy intent. That intent was subject to consideration debate
:36:49. > :36:52.when the original bill passed through both Houses. And noble
:36:53. > :36:57.Lords, noble Baronesses will remember those. Now, I am mindful,
:36:58. > :37:06.however, that many of those who have spoken today do wish to see a
:37:07. > :37:12.review. That is Lady Sherlock's motion is seeking. A review of these
:37:13. > :37:16.policies. We want to ensure they are working and being delivered
:37:17. > :37:20.effectively. Within the department we will continue to regularly review
:37:21. > :37:25.our policies, including PIP. I wish to remind the House that this
:37:26. > :37:35.Government has already introduced two formal stat Tory reviews of PIP.
:37:36. > :37:43.The review of 2017, by the end of this month in legislation. And the
:37:44. > :37:47.Government is looking forward to considering the latest findings from
:37:48. > :37:51.this independent review and we will provide a full response to that
:37:52. > :37:56.independent review, conducted by Paul Grey, later this year. Now, I
:37:57. > :38:00.am not going to speculate about what our response to that review will be
:38:01. > :38:05.before I have seen it. But I can give an assurance that the House
:38:06. > :38:09.will consider the latest findings once the report is published and
:38:10. > :38:13.very carefully will consider those very carefully, will provide a full
:38:14. > :38:19.response to those recommendations some time later this year.
:38:20. > :38:24.Now, my Lords, despite the report not having yet been published, we do
:38:25. > :38:27.remain committed to continuous improvement. For example, we are
:38:28. > :38:32.making improvements to the PIP assessment and to our decision
:38:33. > :38:38.making and improving the advice we provide to claimants to guide them
:38:39. > :38:44.through the process. If I can, my Lords, I'd like to move on u
:38:45. > :38:51.obviously to the concerns that noble Lords expressed about mental health
:38:52. > :38:55.and the assessments there of. My Lords, supporting people with mental
:38:56. > :39:02.health will continue to be a priority of this Government, despite
:39:03. > :39:06.what the noble lady expressed. That is why we are spending more on
:39:07. > :39:12.mental health than ever before. Something of the order of ?11.4
:39:13. > :39:17.billion a year. We are working the health service to join up the health
:39:18. > :39:21.system and the welfare system and society more widely so we focus on
:39:22. > :39:25.the strengths of people with disabilities or health conditions
:39:26. > :39:29.and what they can do. It is for that reason, in the summer of 2015, the
:39:30. > :39:34.work and health unit was created with the Department of Health and
:39:35. > :39:39.why in October 2016 we published improving lives, the work and health
:39:40. > :39:47.green paper to seek a wide range of views on how best to achieve that
:39:48. > :39:54.aim. And in PIP we have ensured a clarity of treatment. I can offer
:39:55. > :40:00.that assessment to Lady Bakewell, the Right Reverend Bishop of
:40:01. > :40:05.Winchester. Party of treatment between mental and physical
:40:06. > :40:09.conditions. And it achieves that by looking at the overall needs of an
:40:10. > :40:14.individual and not just what conditions they have. The whole
:40:15. > :40:19.point, if I can put it this way of the PIP assessment is to distinguish
:40:20. > :40:24.between those differing levels of need and there's no discrimination
:40:25. > :40:31.in that. This means there are more people with mental health conditions
:40:32. > :40:37.receiving higher rates of both PIP components than the DLA equivalents.
:40:38. > :40:42.If I can quote figures. 28% of PIP recipients with a mental health
:40:43. > :40:50.condition get the enhanced mobility rate. Compared to 10% receiving the
:40:51. > :40:55.DLA mobility. Throughout each draft and in the final version of the
:40:56. > :41:01.criteria, the department was clear, what was referred to as mobility
:41:02. > :41:08.one, was designed to assess the impact of mental, intellectual,
:41:09. > :41:16.cognative and mental conditions to follow a journey. The intention on
:41:17. > :41:27.this criteria was that psychological distress should be relevant only to
:41:28. > :41:33.those descrip the, orsB or E. -- descriptorsB or E. Psychological
:41:34. > :41:37.distress fluctuates. Where the impairment is severe and enduring,
:41:38. > :41:42.with conditions such as a learning disability, it is less likely to
:41:43. > :41:45.fluctuate. Someone with psychological distress may need
:41:46. > :41:51.reassurance and prompting whilst conditions such as is severe
:41:52. > :41:55.learning disability can lead to the need for supervision, physical
:41:56. > :42:00.intervention and support above and beyond simply the reassurance. But
:42:01. > :42:06.let me make it clear, someone with a mental health condition can score
:42:07. > :42:13.the highest points on mobility activity alone and receive the
:42:14. > :42:18.enhanced rate of PIP. I don't know whether the House would like it, but
:42:19. > :42:24.if they would, I could give examples at this stage. But perhaps I will
:42:25. > :42:32.just confine myself to one and particularly one relating to the
:42:33. > :42:34.points raised by my noble friend, Baroness Browning, where he talked
:42:35. > :42:44.about the problems of those with autism. And I can give an assurance
:42:45. > :42:58.that someone with such a development disorder, such as autistic spectrum
:42:59. > :43:02.disorder which affects this, if they have difficulty responding then they
:43:03. > :43:05.could score 12 points under F, on the basis they need to be
:43:06. > :43:09.accompanied for their own safety. Let me be clear. Our approach in
:43:10. > :43:14.developing PIP and the amendments we have made, it is not about the
:43:15. > :43:19.Government attaching a higher value to one condition over another.
:43:20. > :43:28.Again, I go back to that clarity of treatment. Nor is it, as the noble
:43:29. > :43:31.Baroness's notion has suggested, discriminatory or in conflict to
:43:32. > :43:36.people with mental health conditions over those with physical conditions
:43:37. > :43:41.and PIP will continue to ensure parity between mental and physical
:43:42. > :43:45.conditions by looking at the impact of all conditions on an individual
:43:46. > :43:52.and their level of overall need, not on what conditions they have. My
:43:53. > :43:55.Lords, I turn now, briefly, to the points raised about consultation.
:43:56. > :44:00.This again was dealt with by my Right Honourable friend when he made
:44:01. > :44:03.a statement in another place. I don't think it was raised
:44:04. > :44:08.particularly here when the statement was repeated. But I can give the
:44:09. > :44:14.assurance that in the light of the significant and urgent consequences
:44:15. > :44:18.of judgments, those amendments were presented to the social security
:44:19. > :44:21.advisory commission, after the regulations were made on the 8th
:44:22. > :44:24.March. We welcome the response received from the committee that
:44:25. > :44:27.they did not wish to have the regulations referred to them for
:44:28. > :44:32.public consultation. That is what the committee made clear. We have
:44:33. > :44:35.responded in full to the recommendations made by the
:44:36. > :44:41.committee. In particular, we've made it clear that we are committed to
:44:42. > :44:46.continuous improvements and as such recognise it is important in terms
:44:47. > :44:51.of quality and consistency to ensure that PIP policy is clearly
:44:52. > :44:55.articulated. We also made it clear we will ensure health professionals
:44:56. > :45:00.who carry out the PIP assessments fully understand what the amendments
:45:01. > :45:04.mean and if necessary we will clarify the policy intent in the
:45:05. > :45:08.next version of the PIP assessment guide, which is scheduled for
:45:09. > :45:14.publication later in the spring. Now, could I also touch on the
:45:15. > :45:20.concerns expressed that there was not a sufficient engagement or
:45:21. > :45:28.consultation with others. I can give an assurance that my Right
:45:29. > :45:35.Honourable friend did, has spoken to a large number of the particular
:45:36. > :45:41.organisations, who has seen representatives of mine, from the
:45:42. > :45:45.epilepsy, and the minister for disabled people has spoken to other
:45:46. > :45:53.stakeholders. My Right Honourable friend, as I think is now quite well
:45:54. > :45:58.known, did ring the opposition to warn them, to tell them about the
:45:59. > :46:01.amendments being laid. But unfortunately didn't receive a
:46:02. > :46:09.response to his call for four days because they didn't listen to their
:46:10. > :46:14.answering service. I similarly spoke to Lady Sherlock and Lady Bakewell.
:46:15. > :46:20.I am grateful for her reminding the House I did so from the streets of
:46:21. > :46:24.Copeland. But that's, the noble Baroness will remember what happened
:46:25. > :46:31.in Copeland. We did consult. . We did make it clear that we were
:46:32. > :46:37.putting these new regulations out. And we have continued to engage with
:46:38. > :46:40.all concerned in this matter and we will continue to do so in the
:46:41. > :46:52.future. Could I owned by reiterating what
:46:53. > :46:57.the regulations do. -- could I end by reiterating. They restore the
:46:58. > :47:00.original aim of the policy, debated at considerable length in both
:47:01. > :47:04.Houses of Parliament. To ensure that we are delivering at Union -- PIP
:47:05. > :47:09.with its original intent as discussed at this house and the
:47:10. > :47:14.other place. And they have clarity to the rules for all users. We've
:47:15. > :47:18.ensure that the changes have been done as soon as is possible, so the
:47:19. > :47:21.claimants were not left in the unenviable position of not knowing
:47:22. > :47:26.what would be happening to their claim. And I want to stress once
:47:27. > :47:29.again that the changes will not result in claimants seeing a
:47:30. > :47:33.reduction in the amount of PIP previously awarded by the Department
:47:34. > :47:40.for Work and Pensions. On that basis I'd asked the noble Baroness, Lady
:47:41. > :47:47.Bakewell, to withdraw her motion. And I trust that the lady Baroness
:47:48. > :47:51.Sherlock will not feel it necessary to remove her causal.
:47:52. > :47:55.I thank the noble Minister for his response and for all those who have
:47:56. > :47:59.taken part in this debate, and those not able to speak because of time
:48:00. > :48:02.limitations. Time prevents me from commenting in detail on all
:48:03. > :48:06.contributions, although I would wish to do so. I'm disappointed that the
:48:07. > :48:10.Government are reluctant to move their position to support people
:48:11. > :48:13.whose lives are blighted by psychological and anxiety disorders.
:48:14. > :48:20.This was not the original intention of a coalition government's move
:48:21. > :48:24.from disability living allowance to Personal Independence Payments. I do
:48:25. > :48:30.not believe that the changes being clarity. The role of PIP as the
:48:31. > :48:34.successor to the DLA is to support disabled people need the additional
:48:35. > :48:37.costs of disability. Unlike other aspects of the welfare system, PIP
:48:38. > :48:43.is not an income replacer or booster, but hot to tackle the
:48:44. > :48:49.financial penalty of disability. These regulations do not engender
:48:50. > :48:51.trust. A great many people in the community, and this charitable
:48:52. > :48:55.organisations which support people with mental health and psychological
:48:56. > :48:59.disorders will be bitterly disappointed by the Government's
:49:00. > :49:04.response. I understand the position of the Labour benches and commend
:49:05. > :49:09.Baroness Sherlock for her approach to this matter. However this is an
:49:10. > :49:12.extremely important matter which affects a whole range of those in
:49:13. > :49:15.society, including those suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder,
:49:16. > :49:21.panic attacks and psychotic disorders. The Minister may have
:49:22. > :49:26.spoken to charities, but he quite clearly did not convince them since
:49:27. > :49:33.Scope, the disability benefits Consortium Sense, citizens advice,
:49:34. > :49:37.Rethink mental illness and Mind have also be same - that this decision
:49:38. > :49:43.should be reversed. I would like to test the opinion of the House. The
:49:44. > :49:51.question is that this motion we agreed to. As many of that opinion
:49:52. > :52:50.say content. To the contrary, not content. Clear the bar.
:52:51. > :53:05.The question is that this motion be agreed to. As many that opinion say
:53:06. > :53:11.content. To the contrary, not content. The contents will go to the
:53:12. > :00:17.right, by the throne. Not contents, to the left, by the bar.
:00:18. > :00:33.My Lords, they have voted. Contents, 75. Not content, 164. The not
:00:34. > :00:36.contents have it. Baroness Sherlock? My Lords, I'm grateful for the
:00:37. > :00:41.support different benches, particularly Baroness Lady Browning
:00:42. > :00:45.and my noble friend Lord McKenzie. I thank the Minister for his and was.
:00:46. > :00:51.I wish they had only been the answers to the questions I asked, or
:00:52. > :00:55.those added by either committee. We've had a long debate tonight and
:00:56. > :00:59.there has been concern expressed on every single bench here that these
:01:00. > :01:01.regulations will damage people with mental health problems and go right
:01:02. > :01:09.against parity of esteem. The response was not acceptable and I
:01:10. > :01:24.wish to test the opinion of the House. The question is, for many --
:01:25. > :01:25.for those about opinion say content. To the contrary, not content. Clear
:01:26. > :04:36.the bar. My Lords, the question is the motion
:04:37. > :04:41.in the name of Lady Sherlock to be agreed to. As many as agreed, say
:04:42. > :09:42.content. The contrary, say not content.
:09:43. > :09:46.The question is that the motion in the name of the Baroness will be
:09:47. > :11:38.agreed to. My Lords, 162 contents. Not content,
:11:39. > :12:04.154. So the contents have it. Further consideration on report of
:12:05. > :12:08.the technical and further education bill, Lord Nash. I beg to move that
:12:09. > :12:16.this bill now be further considered on report. The question is that the
:12:17. > :12:21.bill be now further considered on report. As many as or of that
:12:22. > :12:29.opinion will say content. To the contrary, not content. The contents
:12:30. > :12:34.have it. Amendment 30 four. My Lords, I feel this may be something
:12:35. > :12:38.of an anti-climax after the previous excitement but nevertheless I wish
:12:39. > :12:45.to move Amendment 34 in my name and speak to Amendment 35 also. These
:12:46. > :12:52.have the support of the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Watson and my
:12:53. > :12:57.noble friend Lord story. As we set out in committee, there are quite a
:12:58. > :13:00.few questions to be asked around the Institute's power to issue technical
:13:01. > :13:04.education certificates. We understand that it will not be the
:13:05. > :13:08.institute but this will be delegated to the skills and funding agency,
:13:09. > :13:13.but it will be public time and money being used to locate a function
:13:14. > :13:16.which is already very well covered under existing systems. This
:13:17. > :13:21.proposal was not set out in the skills plan. It potentially removes
:13:22. > :13:25.any continuing link between the awarding body and the qualifications
:13:26. > :13:29.produced and we are here attempting to clarify the relationship between
:13:30. > :13:33.the issuing of the proposed certificates and the qualification
:13:34. > :13:36.certificates issued by awarding organisations. So if the Government
:13:37. > :13:41.proposing to issue these technical education certificates alongside the
:13:42. > :13:44.awarding organisation certificate? We've heard earlier from the
:13:45. > :13:48.Minister that employers would pay for this certificate and it would be
:13:49. > :13:52.helpful to your more of who makes the application. Does it come from
:13:53. > :13:56.the employer or from the training provider or from the awarding body
:13:57. > :13:59.or is it automatically triggered by attainment of qualification? And I
:14:00. > :14:04.do not think we have had an assessment of the resources required
:14:05. > :14:07.by the Institute or the S F eight to dedicate, print and send out the 3
:14:08. > :14:12.million apprenticeship certificates to meet the Government target. Will
:14:13. > :14:14.the Institute require the addresses of all the candidates or will they
:14:15. > :14:20.be sent to the employer or training provider to distribute? I Lords,
:14:21. > :14:23.there is such a simple solution. Government issuing certificates is
:14:24. > :14:27.not common procedure at qualification level in any other
:14:28. > :14:32.area of the education and training system. And would appear to be still
:14:33. > :14:36.unnecessary cost, dedication and complexity onto whichever body is
:14:37. > :14:42.tasked with carrying it out. Would it not be simpler if the certificate
:14:43. > :14:45.issued by the awarding organisation also carried the logo of the
:14:46. > :14:50.Institute or of the Department for Education? This has been common
:14:51. > :14:53.practice in the past, including the National vocational qualifications
:14:54. > :14:57.and would have the benefit of adding Government backing of status to a
:14:58. > :15:01.certificate which is already being validated and processed and issued.
:15:02. > :15:04.And I do assure your Lordships that awarding bodies can produce some
:15:05. > :15:08.immensely impressive certificates to meet immensely impressive
:15:09. > :15:15.achievements. I do hope this amendment will be seen as positive
:15:16. > :15:23.and helpful and I beg to move. The amendment proposed, page 31, line
:15:24. > :15:28.26. By Lords, I am grateful to the noble lady and the noble Lord Lucas
:15:29. > :15:30.for tabling these amendments. One of the reasons for introducing the
:15:31. > :15:37.technical education performances to tackle the weakness in the current
:15:38. > :15:42.education system caused by fragmentation and variation in the
:15:43. > :15:46.quality and value of qualifications currently provided by many
:15:47. > :15:49.individual awarding organisations. To address this, it is important
:15:50. > :15:55.that the certificates are issued in a consistent way by one entity and a
:15:56. > :15:58.consistent branding so that they are recognised and understood by
:15:59. > :16:02.employers, regardless of the qualifications or where it was
:16:03. > :16:07.undertaken. The bill makes provision from the Secretary of State to issue
:16:08. > :16:10.technical education certificates to any person who has completed the
:16:11. > :16:21.technical education qualification and any other steps determined under
:16:22. > :16:25.new section A2DB. Those completing either an apprenticeship or a
:16:26. > :16:27.technical education course will receive a nationally awarded
:16:28. > :16:31.certificate from the Secretary of State. This will confirm that they
:16:32. > :16:36.have obtained as many of the key skills and behaviours as the
:16:37. > :16:40.Institute has deemed appropriate for a particular occupation. A technical
:16:41. > :16:47.certificate will also recognise the other essential elements such as a
:16:48. > :16:50.and maps and England's -- English. The certificate will demonstrate
:16:51. > :16:54.that individuals have attained the knowledge, skills and behaviours
:16:55. > :16:58.necessary to understate their chosen occupation. It will provide clarity
:16:59. > :17:04.for employers and support the portability and
:17:05. > :17:11.As currently drafted, they will allow the Secretary of State to use
:17:12. > :17:15.the DFE logo and standard wording on technical certificates, which she
:17:16. > :17:17.may already do. It is right that the certificate should barely
:17:18. > :17:24.Department's logo and wording. This will ensure that this certificates
:17:25. > :17:28.are lying as closely as possible but certificates for apprenticeships.
:17:29. > :17:40.This will not affect any arrangements.
:17:41. > :17:48.We expect costs to be incurred in issuing the certificate and the
:17:49. > :17:51.Secretary of State should determine whether to charge for the first
:17:52. > :17:55.technical education certificate, and how much to charge. This is
:17:56. > :17:59.consistent with the procedure already followed for charging for
:18:00. > :18:03.the issue of apprenticeship certificates. Our reforms will
:18:04. > :18:09.ensure we operated system for the future, providing a national
:18:10. > :18:13.certificate understood by employers regardless of where the
:18:14. > :18:21.qualification is undergoing -- undertaken. I hope that clarifies
:18:22. > :18:28.things. The information will come via the awarding organisation to the
:18:29. > :18:32.Institute. Students have too applied to the Secretary of State for their
:18:33. > :18:36.certificate. But if I haven't answered all of the points that
:18:37. > :18:39.she's concerned about, I'm very happy to discuss this with her
:18:40. > :18:42.further and provide more information. I hope in that spirit
:18:43. > :18:48.the noble lady will feel very assured to withdraw her amendment. I
:18:49. > :18:51.thank the Minister for his reply. I'm slightly bemused because
:18:52. > :18:56.employers seem to understand very well the previous certificates which
:18:57. > :19:00.went out with NVQ logos. There wasn't a particular confusion about
:19:01. > :19:04.the standards that. And as I said, given that the awarding
:19:05. > :19:08.organisations already issuing certificates, it would just seem to
:19:09. > :19:10.be a much neater operation if it were combined into one certificate
:19:11. > :19:16.instead of having the confusion of two. But I thank the noble Lord for
:19:17. > :19:23.his offer to have a further discussion on this, and meanwhile I
:19:24. > :19:26.beg leave to withdraw. The amendment is withdrawn. Amendment 35, not
:19:27. > :19:29.removed. My Lords, I beg to move up the House