Welfare Reform Bill

My Lords, the amendment seeks to enhance disabled people’s confidence in the new testing system and to ensure that limited government resources are not wasted on an ineffective or inappropriate assessment system. It dovetails well with the group of amendments we have just debated. We are well aware now—as the Minister has recognised —that there have been enormous inadequacies in the work capability assessment approach to incapacity benefit reform, which has seen thousands of disabled people unhappy and inappropriately found fully fit for work when they were not. The system wastes considerable public resources, and appeals alone cost £19.8 million last year. It is deeply worrying that the DWP estimates higher costs for correcting procedural or assessment failures this year. This is despite the assessment having run for three years already at an annual running cost of £100 million for the assessment alone and ignoring DWP costs. I am sure that the Government wish to avoid introducing another assessment system which invites such public controversy and which seems to represent such poor value for money. Trialling is absolutely necessary. It is somewhat ironic to suggest to disabled people receiving DLA that their needs are no longer affordable but that £675 million is available to pay for the new PIP assessment. As we have heard, this benefit helps with the basic essentials of living, including illness and impairment-related diets, heating and help with personal care and equipment. My amendment would ensure that money is not wasted on an ineffective test by providing an appropriate trial period for new claimants and a report to Parliament on the implementation of the new testing system. This approach offers a better chance to improve the process before disabled people currently receiving DLA are transferred to the new system. Let me explain in more detail what I propose. At this point, Baroness Grey-Thompson continued the speech for Baroness Campbell of Surbiton. This amendment would enable the new assessment to be tested for its practicality, introduce more flexible and evidence-based intervals for review of entitlement to the benefit, and put into practice the Government’s commitment to co-production. How would it test the practicality of the proposed assessment and reassessment system? For a start, it would enable the Government to test the administrative implications and related costs of the proposed requirements for independent medical evidence and face-to-face interviews. For example, if 2 million adults undergo an assessment and each makes a request for a GP or consultant’s medical notes, this will inevitably incur costs in both money and time for the NHS. Providing a proper trial period and review of the processes in year one will help to ensure that the new system is fully analysed for its impact on disabled people, their families and government spending overall, including any potentially unforeseen NHS costs. We must not miss the opportunity to get the system right or we will surely prove that lessons have not been learnt from the introduction of the WCA in 2008. The second benefit of this amendment is that it could save the public and the Government money by ensuring that the system for reviews is efficient and appropriate. We need to avoid a one-size-fits-all system that requires someone who is deafblind, for example, to undergo regular assessments at intervals that are entirely inappropriate for their needs and circumstances. At the same time, the system of reassessment must be flexible enough to recognise that some people’s support needs change over time. To propose a one-size-fits-all system of face-to-face assessments for every disabled person would be extremely expensive. A smarter approach, which identifies appropriate review intervals, is possible. The assessment process should estimate whether costs and needs are likely to change over the next five years. If the estimate is that they will not, no further assessment should be required for that period. However, as now, new assessments will be carried out if needs change and disabled people would still be required to inform the DWP of any such changes. This amendment would reduce the costs of a new system and the burden on disabled people of having to attend unnecessary assessments, while at the same time enabling the DWP to check that people remain eligible. At this point, Baroness Campbell of Surbiton resumed. Finally, this amendment would also allow for the involvement of disabled people’s organisations in the testing process. Yes, we are back to my hobby horse of co-production. However, I am very heartened by the Minister’s recent remarks that this is just the kind of involvement that the Government are keen to promote. Indeed, this approach is reflected by the Department for Work and Pensions, which is now studying the issue. From my own experience of working with the department, it is very keen to involve people at every step of the way, so why not involve them in the trial? I am also aware that potential bidders for the new assessment process are approaching disability organisations and are keen to work with them. Indeed, there is very good news for everybody, which is highly popular. Therefore, I hope my amendment will receive government approval. Having a commitment to the involvement of disabled people in the Bill will do much to offset the controversy that currently surrounds these proposals. Confidence is at rock bottom; this could do a lot to solve that. It would also send a very strong signal that the Government take ““nothing about us without us”” seriously and are prepared to demonstrate this in constructing new disability-related costs that are fit for purpose. In summing up, this amendment would represent greater value for money and would drive costs down in a tough economic climate and at a time when disabled people are being told that their support is being cut back due to lack of government resources. It would also enable the Government to demonstrate their commitment to working in partnership with disabled people and their organisations. Action speaks much louder than words for disabled people. They would like a bit of the action; why not put it in the Bill? I beg to move.