27/03/2017 House of Lords

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