27/03/2017 House of Lords


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 27/03/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



that these house do now adjourn. As many of that opinion say aye. The


ayes have it. In order, order. Wink-macro that is the end of the


day in the House of Commons. We will now be going over live to the House


of Lords. The members you can watch recorded coverage of all of today's


business in the Lords after the day's politics tonight.


I understand from Jane Hardy, the head of home support at Solent Mind,


which supports people with mental health problems cost pole across


Hampshire and Southampton, that she is in no doubt that the social


isolation of many of her clients. Getting out of the House can be an


extremely stressful experience for someone who suffers from paranoia,


lacks confidence in social situations, or who feels unsafe in


noisy, crowded environments such as on public transport. But the salient


erections are also vital to their mental health and physical


well-being, preventing them from becoming even more isolated and


enabling them to be properly, pay their bills and attend important


appointments. That is why it is so important that we seek to remove as


many barriers to their mobility as possible through financial and other


forms of support. And while it is so important that we do not differ it


in a way that seems to be against people with mental health problems.


His condition can be just as debilitating as someone with a


physical disability. -- whose condition. I realise that many


people with mental health problems have until recently missed out on


being mobility equivalent of PIP. But the agreement is more in keeping


with the original intent of the legislation than the amendment


tabled by the Government, opening up additional support to allow and


people with mental health problems. -- to around 160,000 people. We must


be sure that the amendment is not undermining the intended aims.


Those from the well form reform act of 2012. From the beginning it was


intending not just to reset the threshold to determine who gets


what, but to decrease the overall expenditure on benefits. By


attempting to target them more effectively than the DLA and


specifically to give more weight to mental health problems. The


department said that of those with mental health conditions, receiving


the mobility component within DLA, only 9% had been entitled to the


higher rate. 27% of claimants receive the


enhanced disability rate or 28% from the minister's letter of this


morning. The Government's own consultee asked


the permanent question, so what impairments do these 27% have? Are


they are combination of physical and mental impairments? The department


debated this question, saying that perhaps 27% was somewhat imprecise.


So we don't know what will happen to any of those claimants who may be


reassessed quite soon. But what we do know is that these new


regulations undermine the welcome support given this those with mental


health problems and I urge the Government to withdraw them for


further consideration. I hope other members of the House will be as


uneasy as I am at the Government immediately reaching for the statute


book in order to negate a very careful decision of the upper tire


tribunal. Ministers say it is to restore the original intention of


the original, of the relevant descipor about planning, following a


journey and insist the legislation is clear. But they got over the fact


-- gloss over the fact that the Secretary of State himself said n


the case in December, 2015, that and I quote, "Overwhelming psychological


distress could, depending on its nature, frequency, duration and


severity make a person unable to navigate and so to fulfil the terms


of the ID 1 F. 1 F gives the higher rate." We are now told that the


Secretary of State made a mistake and had to explain to the court the


concession had erroneously been made. That is all very satisfactory.


And leaves a particularly bad taste in the mouth. Whose hand is round


the Secretary of State's throat? What he said sounds to me exactly


what the original policy intention was. Why don't the Government come


clean and say that they are changing the policy for enhanced rate


mobility by not allowing psychological distress to be taken


into consideration? And why the indecent haste in changing the law?


As the Secretary of State is appealing the upper tribunal's


decision, he could have used other powers he has to prevent the


decisions of this tribunal from having immediate legal effect, by


giving directions to decision makers and courts about how the descriptors


should be interpretated. Why not wait for that outcome. The timescale


is curious. If he was to wait three months from the judgment. Why not


use that time to consult properly? The impact assessment estimates that


71, 500 claimants in the current case load will go from standard rate


to PIP, to nil. The same figure from enhanced rate to 0 and 21,000 from


enhanced rate as standard. So, 143,000 claimants with an enduring


health condition are east di mated to lose the benefit all together and


as we have already heard, disorders likely to be affected, according to


the DWP range from schizophrenia and autism to bipolar and cog native


disorder. So much for esteem between physical and mental health. There is


another aspect which must be considered. The Secretary of State


is keen to say that no-one already getting an award under the old


regulations will lose it. Presumably meaning that no-one will


have their money clawed back, but some awards are only for a year


before another assessment is demanded. Thousands of claimants are


in this position. So the new assessment will presumably be under


the new rules, meaning that many existing beneficiaries of standard


or enhanced rate mobility will lose all entitlement. I accept that the


reason the Secretary of State is making this change is not to make


even more savings than have already been announced. But is it fair to


tear up the carefully constructed mobility descriptors and the


judgment which mix up case and without proper consultation. Is it


not yet another tightening of the screw around the whole independent


living pro-jectd, which is on every side? These regulations should be


set aside to await proper consultation. I shall end with a


word. I particularly address my friends and colleagues on the Labour


benches. And I'm going to quote from the Cunningham committee report of


2005, on the conventions of the UK Parliament. They say and I quote.


"The Government appear to consider that any defeat of an NI awards is a


breach of convention. We disagree. It is not incompatible with the


revising chamber to reject - since A, the Lords, rightfully or wrongly


cannot exercise its amending role by amending this or in any other way.


And B, they can bring it forward again immeadiately, with or without


substantial amendment." My Lords, we should have the courage of our


convictions and vote to annual these regulations.


-- annul these regulations. I declare my interest as a recipient


of Disability Living Allowance and therefore have an interest in this


type of benefit. Two very simple and basic points make the case against


these regulations open and shut, in my view. The first, is that it's a


clear breach of faith with the disability community. Back in 2012,


when PIP was first introduced, Mind and other mental health charities


raised concerned that people with mental health problems would only be


able to score points dun der the ci ter -- under the criteria of


psychological distress. The Government gave the reassurance this


was not the case. And that people could score points under a range of


criteria if their condition meant they struggled to plan and follow a


journey. On this basis, PIP, was welcomed by the mental health and


wider disability sector. Because for the first time people with mental


health problems felt they would be given access to disable support


equal to that with people of physical dacts. -- disabilities.


My Lord's, these commitments were underlined in statements by


ministers in debates on the welfare reform will at the time. The noble


Baroness Lady Bakewell as quoted the statements, so I do not need to


repeat them. However, in practise, the DWP hasn't deemed people who


experience psychological distress eible for the full range of points,


regardless of how severely that distress affects them. This has


meant that 164,000 people have received a lower rate than they


should have been entitled to. This is the origin of the two cases which


came before the upper tribunal at the end of 2016. The tribunal's


rulings didn't extend the role of PIP, as the Government suggests. But


clarified it. That's what tribunals do. They don't


make the law. They clarify what the law is. It's the Government who are


now seeking to restrict the scope of PIP from what it has always been


understood to be by removing psychological distress from ci


Terrion 1 -- criteria 1 F, to not follow a familiar route without


assistance. So the claimant can only be awarded four points under a


mobility descipor, 1 B. So the regulations are in clear breach, if


not of manifesto commitment on this occasion, then certainly of pledges


given to these with mental health problems in 2012. This change do the


eligibility criteria also flies in the face of the statement in the


work, health and dablingt green paper - Improving Lives, that the


Government will not seek to make any further cuts to disability benefits,


following the controversial cut to those receiving employment support


from 1st April this year. My second point can be made even more briefly.


The proposed changes would create a legal distinction between those with


mental health problems and those with other kinds of impairment when


it comes to benefit assessments, a distinction which flies in the face


of the Government's commitment to clarity of treatment to people with


mental health conditions. The Government has said a person with a


cog anythingive impairment -- cgniative impairment will have the


highest mobility rate. It is far from covering the full range of


people with mental health problems. My Lords, I believe these


regulations are trying to move the goal posts by excludeing people who


experience psychological distress from being eligible for the higher


number of points necessary for the higher mobility rate for the higher


rate of mobility component. In doing so, effectively discriminates


against people with mental health problems. This is clearly against


the original intention of PIP and runs count tore the commitment the


Government has made to people with mental health problems that they


would be assessed in the same way as other disabled people. I support the


motions before us this evening to oppose these regulations and if the


noble Baroness Lady Bakewell moves for a vote, I will support it.


My Lords, as ever I've had a huge number of e-mails on this debate


tonight. After the last debate that was tabled by the noble Baroness


lady Thomas of Winchester on rule I had many hundreds. I understand many


charities have writ on the the Prime Minister on this issue. I am


concerned over the way that this has been misunderstood, about who is


eligible. It is suggested it is not a big change, but like other noble


colleagues tonight, I have many concerns. Just to add on something


that my honourable friend of Surbiton said impairments. If you


take the use of a blue badge, there is misunderstanding about who can


qualify for that and who should have one and who shouldn't have one and


how people are treated if it is perceived they are not disabled


enough to need one. That's something which is relatively simple, let


alone when you get on to some of the intry Kaysies of the assessment


forms. My Lords, I do have issues with the name Personal Independence


Payment. In itself it is not accurate. It is a contribution


towards independent living. It doesn't cover all the costs of


someone with a disability living independently. I am a recipient of


PIP. I was a recipient. I went through the process last year. It


was an interesting and arduous process. Just the forms to tell you


have to transform over are complicated enough. When I made the


phone call to register I was left on hold for over 25 minutes. With each


passing minute you are worried the phone call will drop out. And then I


was asked a number of questions which could be construed as


confusing. My Lords, I have some understanding in this area and they


were really difficult questions for me to answer. I was asked the same


questions repeatedly came back and forth. I was asked the name of the


medical personnel who could best desciep my -- describe my


impairment. I am disabled. Not ill. It came to the time I was doubting


my own answers. I am not lacking in confidence in able to understand and


explain the challenges I face in terms of being mobile. My Lords, I


have said it before and I will say again, it is absolutely essential we


have a better decision-making process. The cost of mandatory


considerations and tribunals is simply too high.


Scope have said 89% of applicants who have gone through repeal to a


tribunal in the last quarter have resulted in a new decision. That is


89%. If decision-making was better, how


much money could be saved to plough back into the system? I've got so


many examples of people who'd been through really appalling treatment


through this process. One person has been writing to me for last 18


months. I'm very happy to pass on the person's details. Everything


that could have gone wrong through the process has, including lost


files, cancelled dates, and it has a huge effect on the individual's


mental health and well-being. How was this helping? The system is not


working as well as it could. It's time to re-evaluate. I would like


the noble Lord Minister to reassure me that the chaos around the system


is not going to be used as an excuse to potentially stop supporting


disabled people through Personal Independence Payments. One worry I


have is that it has been seen as such a disaster that actually some


people might think it would be easier to stop it. That would be


absolutely appalling. Personal Independence Payments are really


important to help many, many disabled people live and lead


independent lives. It's time that this works properly. I should also


begin by declaring an interest as a recipient of the higher rate


mobility component of disability and living allowance, or DLA, which is


being replaced by PIP. As someone with a severe, permanent and


constant disability, I depend on DLA for my mobility. Because it enables


me to lease a car through Notability. Indeed, it gives me


great pleasure to put on record my profound personal thanks to


Motability and my noble friend, the Lord of Preston, for the


modernisation and has made disabled people's lives in its first 40


years. Long may it continue. And my Lords, long may targeted support


continue. For those whose need is greatest. For help with meeting the


extra costs of living with a disability. The most help to those


who need it most. That is surely a founding principle of our welfare


state, and the enduring basis of public confidence in the system.


Which unrepentant the public's willingness to front the welfare


state so generously through their taxes. As the then Deputy Prime


Minister Nick Clegg then rightly said in 2012, one of the things


about government is that it forces you to confront the inconvenient


truths opposition chooses to ignore. One of those truths is that


sustaining the public's trust in the welfare system is crucial. To


sustaining the system which I and millions of disabled people rely on.


So it's vital that the money gets spent where it's meant, and is seen


to do so. I believe the taxpayer does not have a problem with someone


needing assistance as a result of difficulties. For example, if the


blind. They surely understand that conditions such as visual


impairments and learning disabilities, where these are severe


and enduring, are much less likely to fluctuate ban, for example,


psychological distress. Indeed, it makes sense that people who cannot


navigate due to a visual or cognitive impairment are likely to


have a higher level of needs, and therefore face higher costs. My


Lords, some noble Lords seem to believe that the world would be


different if only their party was in power. Yet where they are in power,


running councils like Lambeth, their party is actually adding to the cost


of living with a disability. One way in which they are doing this is by


giving parking tickets to disabled people who come home late from work,


to find there are no parking spaces available outside their home. And


therefore they have two Park on yellow lines. Will the council give


them a designated disabled parking space outside their home? As


happened less than a mile away in Westminster. No. It's not council


policy. So today Lambeth Council, in 2017, is penalising some disabled


people and imposing extra costs on them for a need directly relating to


their being disabled. What a policy! How do I know they're doing this? I


know because I am the person who cannot find anywhere else to park


after returning home late from your lordship's House. Yet my request for


a designated disabled parking bay has been rejected. My Lords, in


closing, this is just one example of why we urgently need to join the


dots on disability, if more disabled people are, as we all want, to live


independently and to work. Until the journos dots, I cannot in all


honesty justify expecting taxpayers to be even more generous in helping


to meet the extra cost of living with a disability when the state


itself imposes such indefensible extra costs on disabled people. My


Lords, despite my sincere and profound respect for the noble


Baroness Campbell of Surbiton, and the noble Baroness of Winchester, I


cannot support these notions. My Lords, I have been listening to this


debate and I'm concerned that the nature of our discussion may not


reflect the actions that the Government is taking.


It is my understanding that the Government is laying these


regulations in response to a court case which has broadened the


eligibility criteria of the PIP assessment beyond the original


intent of this house voted for, at a potential increase in cost of


billion. I want to be clear that I'm pleased to be part of this house, a


house that has done so much to ensure that the rights and needs of


those with disabilities are upheld. It is why I have spoken on the


importance of halving the disability employment gap. I believe that a


decent society should always recognise and support those who are


the most vulnerable. However, I have read carefully what the Minister has


said in the other place, and I do not think that this is what is at


stake. Despite the wording of this fatal blow should cover it is worth


reflecting on a fact that we in this country spend more on supporting


people who are sick and disabled than the OECD average. We rightly


spend around ?50 billion per year to support people with disabilities and


health conditions. However, if you listen to be speeches in the chamber


this evening, you would think that these regulations were about to


reverse this level of support and the protections that are in place.


So I would ask my noble friend the Minister to confirm that this is not


the case, and that the level of support that this house legislated


for will be protected. The wording of the regret motion tonight suggest


that the regulations discriminate against people with mental health


problems. And could put vulnerable claimants at risk. But against is my


understanding that the Government has laid these regulations to


address the impact of the court case, which broadens the eligibility


of PIP beyond the original intent voted for by this house. I would ask


my noble friend the Minister to confirm that this is indeed the


case, and that there are no further savings beyond those that were


legislated for here in this house, that being sought. Both houses of


parliament voted for the changes on the DLA to PIP, and one of the key


reasons for this was a recognition that PIP focus to support precisely


on those experiencing the greatest barriers to living independently. At


the core of PIP's design is the principle that awards of the benefit


should be made according to a claimant's overall level of need,


regardless of whether claimants suffer from physical or nonphysical


conditions. And it has been good to see that 28% of PIP recipients with


a mental health condition get the enhanced rate mobility component,


compared receiving the higher rate DLA component. -- compared to 10%


receiving the higher rate DLA component. And 56% get the enhanced


rate daily living allowance, compared to 2% receiving highest


rate DLA car. Which is precisely because -- compared to 22%. It is


precisely because PIP addresses a discrimination inherent in DLA that


this house supported the legislation in the first place. I would ask my


noble friend the Minister to confirm that this not only remains the


intent of PIP, but also the reality, and that these regulations are


restoring the original intention of PIP, which was to make sure that


there is a sustainable benefit to provide continued support to those


who face the greatest barrier - whether that is physical or mental -


to living independent lives. Thank you.


My Lords, I'm going to forego the right to speak as extensively as I


otherwise would, just to do three things now. The first is to say I


very much support the motion of my noble friend Baroness Sherlock and


the manner in which it was new. I also wanted to ask the minister a


question about the original policy intent. Because we've heard this as


a justification for these regulations on a number of


occasions. Can we be very clear on this - the Government praised in


aid, the PIP assessment guide, as evidence to the original policy


intent. But can we understand precisely when that and the detail


was discussed in parliament. Not by officials, by Parliament, to be able


to justify the claim that was made. When finally just make two points on


the finances. We shouldn't forget in all of this that PIP was introduced


against a backdrop of the predecessor, DLA, having a 20% cut


in its budget. And when we talk about the implications of government


costs of 3.7 billion, let's just remember that a cost for caring


about -- foregoing that government will mean resources lost. 3.7


billion is something which a government might save from this. The


losers are the disabled community, to a massive extent. My Lords, I get


the impression that the House would like me to move this debate to what


close and I hope that I can deal with some of the points that have


been made during the course of what has been wide-ranging, and at times


a passionate debate all across the House. Could I say that I recognise


the concerns that have been raised and I welcome the opportunity to


respond on behalf of the Government. I hope to make matters clear and


provide reassurances on a number of points. My Lords, I would start by


saying that we are committed to ensuring that our welfare system


provides a very strong safety net for those who need it. That was what


all of our reforms over the last few years have been about. That is why


we spend something over 50 billion a year, as my noble friend Baroness


Stroud said, just on benefits which support disabled people with health


conditions. Spending on the main disability benefits went up over the


course of the last Parliament and the course of that last coalition


government, I should remind the noble Baroness Lady Bakewell. It


went up by more than 3 billion and is set to be at a record high of


nearly 23 billion this year. Personal Independence Payment


providing help towards the additional costs that disabled


people face, providing them with greater opportunities to lead full,


independent lives, something which we all agree is the point behind


PIP. The core of PIP's design is the principal that awards should be made


according to a claimant's level of need and not whether their condition


is physical or nonphysical in nature. I will say more about


clarity of treatment in due course. This approach, by design, ensures


the focus of support is on those who have a higher level of need, greater


limitations on their ability to participate in society and higher


costs associated with their condition. But those recent legal


judgments that have been referred to by noble Lords have interpreted the


assessment criteria for PIP in ways that are different from what was


originally intended by the coalition Government. Coalition Government


that Lady Bakewell's party was a part of. We have therefore made


amendments to collar if I the -- collar if I the criteria, used to


decide benefit claimants receive. The policy agreed by Government,


which followed extensive consultation and adds essential


clarity to all of it. Now it is important at this stage that I


emphasise what the changes are not. They are not a policy change. They


are not, as the Bishop of Winchester, the noble Lord, seemed


to imply inconsistent with the primary legislation. They are


bringing clarity to that legislation. And to the regulations


that we put forward as the tribunal asked for. And I can say to the


noble Baroness, lady sher lock, in answer to her question, that they


will not result in any claimant seeing a reduction in the amount of


PIP previously awarded by the Department for Work and Pensions. As


my Right Honourable friend the Secretary of State said in his


statement in the other place, which I repeated to this House, and I


think was responded, I can add there'll be no further welfare


savings in this Parliament beyond those that are already legislated


for. It is untrue to describe this as inaccurate to describe this as a


cut. This is merely the reassertion of the original policy intention. It


is entirely appropriate, I believe, for the Government to act to restore


that clarity to the law, particularly as that was something


sought by the tribunals. As Governments have done before and no


doubt Governments, the noble Baroness supported and no doubt will


continue to do in the future. It is the duty of the Government to issue


these orders. It is the duty of the Government to make policy. It is for


the courts to interpret it. Where there is a need for clarity, it is


for us, therefore, to bring clarity to those. It is appropriate that we


try to restore a policy aim where that aim has been forgot. Let us not


forget that PIP and the regulations under it were developed and


approved, as I made clear and I make clear again to the noble Baroness,


Lady Bakewell, under the coalition Government, a Government which I


believe the noble Baroness supported. And I am grateful to my


noble friend for reminding us of the words of the Deputy Prime Minister


at the time, Mr Clegg, about how decisions had to be made and how


important it is to maintain the trust of those who have to pay for


the benefit system as well as those who benefit from it. And I will


repeat that the Government is not making any changes whatsoever to the


original policy intent. That intent was subject to consideration debate


when the original bill passed through both Houses. And noble


Lords, noble Baronesses will remember those. Now, I am mindful,


however, that many of those who have spoken today do wish to see a


review. That is Lady Sherlock's motion is seeking. A review of these


policies. We want to ensure they are working and being delivered


effectively. Within the department we will continue to regularly review


our policies, including PIP. I wish to remind the House that this


Government has already introduced two formal stat Tory reviews of PIP.


The review of 2017, by the end of this month in legislation. And the


Government is looking forward to considering the latest findings from


this independent review and we will provide a full response to that


independent review, conducted by Paul Grey, later this year. Now, I


am not going to speculate about what our response to that review will be


before I have seen it. But I can give an assurance that the House


will consider the latest findings once the report is published and


very carefully will consider those very carefully, will provide a full


response to those recommendations some time later this year.


Now, my Lords, despite the report not having yet been published, we do


remain committed to continuous improvement. For example, we are


making improvements to the PIP assessment and to our decision


making and improving the advice we provide to claimants to guide them


through the process. If I can, my Lords, I'd like to move on u


obviously to the concerns that noble Lords expressed about mental health


and the assessments there of. My Lords, supporting people with mental


health will continue to be a priority of this Government, despite


what the noble lady expressed. That is why we are spending more on


mental health than ever before. Something of the order of ?11.4


billion a year. We are working the health service to join up the health


system and the welfare system and society more widely so we focus on


the strengths of people with disabilities or health conditions


and what they can do. It is for that reason, in the summer of 2015, the


work and health unit was created with the Department of Health and


why in October 2016 we published improving lives, the work and health


green paper to seek a wide range of views on how best to achieve that


aim. And in PIP we have ensured a clarity of treatment. I can offer


that assessment to Lady Bakewell, the Right Reverend Bishop of


Winchester. Party of treatment between mental and physical


conditions. And it achieves that by looking at the overall needs of an


individual and not just what conditions they have. The whole


point, if I can put it this way of the PIP assessment is to distinguish


between those differing levels of need and there's no discrimination


in that. This means there are more people with mental health conditions


receiving higher rates of both PIP components than the DLA equivalents.


If I can quote figures. 28% of PIP recipients with a mental health


condition get the enhanced mobility rate. Compared to 10% receiving the


DLA mobility. Throughout each draft and in the final version of the


criteria, the department was clear, what was referred to as mobility


one, was designed to assess the impact of mental, intellectual,


cognative and mental conditions to follow a journey. The intention on


this criteria was that psychological distress should be relevant only to


those descrip the, orsB or E. -- descriptorsB or E. Psychological


distress fluctuates. Where the impairment is severe and enduring,


with conditions such as a learning disability, it is less likely to


fluctuate. Someone with psychological distress may need


reassurance and prompting whilst conditions such as is severe


learning disability can lead to the need for supervision, physical


intervention and support above and beyond simply the reassurance. But


let me make it clear, someone with a mental health condition can score


the highest points on mobility activity alone and receive the


enhanced rate of PIP. I don't know whether the House would like it, but


if they would, I could give examples at this stage. But perhaps I will


just confine myself to one and particularly one relating to the


points raised by my noble friend, Baroness Browning, where he talked


about the problems of those with autism. And I can give an assurance


that someone with such a development disorder, such as autistic spectrum


disorder which affects this, if they have difficulty responding then they


could score 12 points under F, on the basis they need to be


accompanied for their own safety. Let me be clear. Our approach in


developing PIP and the amendments we have made, it is not about the


Government attaching a higher value to one condition over another.


Again, I go back to that clarity of treatment. Nor is it, as the noble


Baroness's notion has suggested, discriminatory or in conflict to


people with mental health conditions over those with physical conditions


and PIP will continue to ensure parity between mental and physical


conditions by looking at the impact of all conditions on an individual


and their level of overall need, not on what conditions they have. My


Lords, I turn now, briefly, to the points raised about consultation.


This again was dealt with by my Right Honourable friend when he made


a statement in another place. I don't think it was raised


particularly here when the statement was repeated. But I can give the


assurance that in the light of the significant and urgent consequences


of judgments, those amendments were presented to the social security


advisory commission, after the regulations were made on the 8th


March. We welcome the response received from the committee that


they did not wish to have the regulations referred to them for


public consultation. That is what the committee made clear. We have


responded in full to the recommendations made by the


committee. In particular, we've made it clear that we are committed to


continuous improvements and as such recognise it is important in terms


of quality and consistency to ensure that PIP policy is clearly


articulated. We also made it clear we will ensure health professionals


who carry out the PIP assessments fully understand what the amendments


mean and if necessary we will clarify the policy intent in the


next version of the PIP assessment guide, which is scheduled for


publication later in the spring. Now, could I also touch on the


concerns expressed that there was not a sufficient engagement or


consultation with others. I can give an assurance that my Right


Honourable friend did, has spoken to a large number of the particular


organisations, who has seen representatives of mine, from the


epilepsy, and the minister for disabled people has spoken to other


stakeholders. My Right Honourable friend, as I think is now quite well


known, did ring the opposition to warn them, to tell them about the


amendments being laid. But unfortunately didn't receive a


response to his call for four days because they didn't listen to their


answering service. I similarly spoke to Lady Sherlock and Lady Bakewell.


I am grateful for her reminding the House I did so from the streets of


Copeland. But that's, the noble Baroness will remember what happened


in Copeland. We did consult. . We did make it clear that we were


putting these new regulations out. And we have continued to engage with


all concerned in this matter and we will continue to do so in the


future. Could I owned by reiterating what


the regulations do. -- could I end by reiterating. They restore the


original aim of the policy, debated at considerable length in both


Houses of Parliament. To ensure that we are delivering at Union -- PIP


with its original intent as discussed at this house and the


other place. And they have clarity to the rules for all users. We've


ensure that the changes have been done as soon as is possible, so the


claimants were not left in the unenviable position of not knowing


what would be happening to their claim. And I want to stress once


again that the changes will not result in claimants seeing a


reduction in the amount of PIP previously awarded by the Department


for Work and Pensions. On that basis I'd asked the noble Baroness, Lady


Bakewell, to withdraw her motion. And I trust that the lady Baroness


Sherlock will not feel it necessary to remove her causal.


I thank the noble Minister for his response and for all those who have


taken part in this debate, and those not able to speak because of time


limitations. Time prevents me from commenting in detail on all


contributions, although I would wish to do so. I'm disappointed that the


Government are reluctant to move their position to support people


whose lives are blighted by psychological and anxiety disorders.


This was not the original intention of a coalition government's move


from disability living allowance to Personal Independence Payments. I do


not believe that the changes being clarity. The role of PIP as the


successor to the DLA is to support disabled people need the additional


costs of disability. Unlike other aspects of the welfare system, PIP


is not an income replacer or booster, but hot to tackle the


financial penalty of disability. These regulations do not engender


trust. A great many people in the community, and this charitable


organisations which support people with mental health and psychological


disorders will be bitterly disappointed by the Government's


response. I understand the position of the Labour benches and commend


Baroness Sherlock for her approach to this matter. However this is an


extremely important matter which affects a whole range of those in


society, including those suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder,


panic attacks and psychotic disorders. The Minister may have


spoken to charities, but he quite clearly did not convince them since


Scope, the disability benefits Consortium Sense, citizens advice,


Rethink mental illness and Mind have also be same - that this decision


should be reversed. I would like to test the opinion of the House. The


question is that this motion we agreed to. As many of that opinion


say content. To the contrary, not content. Clear the bar.


The question is that this motion be agreed to. As many that opinion say


content. To the contrary, not content. The contents will go to the


right, by the throne. Not contents, to the left, by the bar.


My Lords, they have voted. Contents, 75. Not content, 164. The not


contents have it. Baroness Sherlock? My Lords, I'm grateful for the


support different benches, particularly Baroness Lady Browning


and my noble friend Lord McKenzie. I thank the Minister for his and was.


I wish they had only been the answers to the questions I asked, or


those added by either committee. We've had a long debate tonight and


there has been concern expressed on every single bench here that these


regulations will damage people with mental health problems and go right


against parity of esteem. The response was not acceptable and I


wish to test the opinion of the House. The question is, for many --


for those about opinion say content. To the contrary, not content. Clear


the bar. My Lords, the question is the motion


in the name of Lady Sherlock to be agreed to. As many as agreed, say


content. The contrary, say not content.


The question is that the motion in the name of the Baroness will be


agreed to. My Lords, 162 contents. Not content,


154. So the contents have it. Further consideration on report of


the technical and further education bill, Lord Nash. I beg to move that


this bill now be further considered on report. The question is that the


bill be now further considered on report. As many as or of that


opinion will say content. To the contrary, not content. The contents


have it. Amendment 30 four. My Lords, I feel this may be something


of an anti-climax after the previous excitement but nevertheless I wish


to move Amendment 34 in my name and speak to Amendment 35 also. These


have the support of the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Watson and my


noble friend Lord story. As we set out in committee, there are quite a


few questions to be asked around the Institute's power to issue technical


education certificates. We understand that it will not be the


institute but this will be delegated to the skills and funding agency,


but it will be public time and money being used to locate a function


which is already very well covered under existing systems. This


proposal was not set out in the skills plan. It potentially removes


any continuing link between the awarding body and the qualifications


produced and we are here attempting to clarify the relationship between


the issuing of the proposed certificates and the qualification


certificates issued by awarding organisations. So if the Government


proposing to issue these technical education certificates alongside the


awarding organisation certificate? We've heard earlier from the


Minister that employers would pay for this certificate and it would be


helpful to your more of who makes the application. Does it come from


the employer or from the training provider or from the awarding body


or is it automatically triggered by attainment of qualification? And I


do not think we have had an assessment of the resources required


by the Institute or the S F eight to dedicate, print and send out the 3


million apprenticeship certificates to meet the Government target. Will


the Institute require the addresses of all the candidates or will they


be sent to the employer or training provider to distribute? I Lords,


there is such a simple solution. Government issuing certificates is


not common procedure at qualification level in any other


area of the education and training system. And would appear to be still


unnecessary cost, dedication and complexity onto whichever body is


tasked with carrying it out. Would it not be simpler if the certificate


issued by the awarding organisation also carried the logo of the


Institute or of the Department for Education? This has been common


practice in the past, including the National vocational qualifications


and would have the benefit of adding Government backing of status to a


certificate which is already being validated and processed and issued.


And I do assure your Lordships that awarding bodies can produce some


immensely impressive certificates to meet immensely impressive


achievements. I do hope this amendment will be seen as positive


and helpful and I beg to move. The amendment proposed, page 31, line


26. By Lords, I am grateful to the noble lady and the noble Lord Lucas


for tabling these amendments. One of the reasons for introducing the


technical education performances to tackle the weakness in the current


education system caused by fragmentation and variation in the


quality and value of qualifications currently provided by many


individual awarding organisations. To address this, it is important


that the certificates are issued in a consistent way by one entity and a


consistent branding so that they are recognised and understood by


employers, regardless of the qualifications or where it was


undertaken. The bill makes provision from the Secretary of State to issue


technical education certificates to any person who has completed the


technical education qualification and any other steps determined under


new section A2DB. Those completing either an apprenticeship or a


technical education course will receive a nationally awarded


certificate from the Secretary of State. This will confirm that they


have obtained as many of the key skills and behaviours as the


Institute has deemed appropriate for a particular occupation. A technical


certificate will also recognise the other essential elements such as a


and maps and England's -- English. The certificate will demonstrate


that individuals have attained the knowledge, skills and behaviours


necessary to understate their chosen occupation. It will provide clarity


for employers and support the portability and


As currently drafted, they will allow the Secretary of State to use


the DFE logo and standard wording on technical certificates, which she


may already do. It is right that the certificate should barely


Department's logo and wording. This will ensure that this certificates


are lying as closely as possible but certificates for apprenticeships.


This will not affect any arrangements.


We expect costs to be incurred in issuing the certificate and the


Secretary of State should determine whether to charge for the first


technical education certificate, and how much to charge. This is


consistent with the procedure already followed for charging for


the issue of apprenticeship certificates. Our reforms will


ensure we operated system for the future, providing a national


certificate understood by employers regardless of where the


qualification is undergoing -- undertaken. I hope that clarifies


things. The information will come via the awarding organisation to the


Institute. Students have too applied to the Secretary of State for their


certificate. But if I haven't answered all of the points that


she's concerned about, I'm very happy to discuss this with her


further and provide more information. I hope in that spirit


the noble lady will feel very assured to withdraw her amendment. I


thank the Minister for his reply. I'm slightly bemused because


employers seem to understand very well the previous certificates which


went out with NVQ logos. There wasn't a particular confusion about


the standards that. And as I said, given that the awarding


organisations already issuing certificates, it would just seem to


be a much neater operation if it were combined into one certificate


instead of having the confusion of two. But I thank the noble Lord for


his offer to have a further discussion on this, and meanwhile I


beg leave to withdraw. The amendment is withdrawn. Amendment 35, not


removed. My Lords, I beg to move up the House


Download Subtitles