Welfare Reform Bill

My Lords, as we all know, at last we have the second draft of the PIP criteria, with the responses to the consultation analysed and with the Government's response. We now have to call aids and adaptations ““aids and appliances””, although aids and adaptations was the phrase in the consultation. I declare an interest in that I use a huge number of aids and adaptations, as I expect my fellow Peers along this Bench do too. The confusion about the name reflects a bit of confusion about the whole issue in the DWP. I must say that I am not much the wiser having read both ““The approach to aids and appliances”” on page 32 of the explanatory note and ““How aids and appliances should be considered””, on page 17, but I start on page 6. Under the heading, ““Refining the draft criteria to produce a second draft””, the sixth bullet point states: "““To ensure that the assessment does not unfairly penalise individuals who choose to use aids and appliances to improve their independence, the assessment now also considers cheap, widely available aids and appliances which can ‘reasonably be expected’ to be used, in a similar way to Disability Living Allowance. We also recognise that aids and appliances do not necessarily remove barriers and may attract costs; therefore descriptors which refer to these normally attract a scoring descriptor””." The last thing we need is for those who make the most of every aid and appliance they can find to be unfairly penalised; or for those who do not even try to find suitable aids and appliances which might help them to be rewarded. Aids and appliances should be complementary to benefit entitlements, not in competition with them. Many respondents to the consultation, we are told, argued that the use of an aid or an appliance does not necessarily remove a barrier to participation, and they are quite right. We cannot be certain that the Government believe that. They state at paragraph 4.25: "““Some respondents felt that we should not take the use of aids and appliances into account in the assessment. We do not feel that this approach is appropriate as we want entitlement to Personal Independence Payment to be based on an individual’s level of participation in society. As such, if individuals are participating well with the help of aids or appliances, we believe that this should be reflected””." What does this mean? There is no useful ““for instance””. However the next paragraph goes on to say that it is recognised that, "““barriers and costs may not be removed by the use of support aids and so descriptors describing the use of an aid or appliance to carry out activities will usually attract a score in the assessment””." These two sentences must be read together so that the first is at all times qualified by the second, although we do not know what score might be given in the assessment. I have been wondering, in the circumstances of limited mobility, which aids or appliances would mean that a person did not need extra resources through PIP. A walking stick or frame may help someone to walk about locally on a flat pavement with no steps but may not get them much further. They may still need money to help fund either a car or taxis for longer journeys. Similarly, a guide dog or support dog may help a blind or visually impaired person in their home area but not necessarily in the wider world, as we hear from Mr Phillips who is deafblind. He says: "““I am very concerned about aids and adaptations possibly removing or reducing entitlement. For a start, I have a guide dog. Does this mean because my mobility has been improved in a very discrete specific home area, that my need for the mobility component is reduced? And how would having a long cane affect entitlement?””." He goes on, "““It’s almost as if the DWP will reward the loneliest, most stop-at-home isolated disabled person but if you engage with the world, and use your DLA/PIP to facilitate this, then your benefits will be reduced or removed. In short, if you use your DLA/PIP for the purpose for which it is intended, by doing so you might then remove your entitlement. It’s a rather worrying and illogical and circular argument””." Then there is the cost of aids and appliances, which can be substantial. Even a walking frame costs upwards of £90, while a mobility scooter can cost more than £2,000 and an electric wheelchair more than £7,000. There are specialist beds and chairs, and hundreds of other appliances to help with daily living. There are stair lifts of various sorts and the cost of an adapted car. Being disabled is extremely expensive and not knowing what the PIP assessor is going to do to take account of aids, appliances and adaptations is extremely worrying. It must never be overlooked that DLA, and now PIP, is an in-work as well as an out-of-work benefit. Disabled people in work are going to use every aid and appliance they can and it would be truly appalling if their determination to stay in work by any means possible was penalised because of their successful use of an aid, adaptation or appliance. I have spoken before about people in manual wheelchairs who are no longer automatically entitled to ESA. However, I hope my noble friend will agree that a person who uses a manual wheelchair, in or out of work, should not be denied PIP if they apply for it. My reading of the whole aids, adaptations and appliances section is that we may be back where we started—that there will not be any change from what happens now—but I fear that having put several contradictory sentences in the various explanatory documents we have received, the Government may be spreading confusion rather than clarity and decision-makers may end up not interpreting this section as consistently as they should. The DWP must make its position clearer. The crucial question I have for my noble friend is: who will lose out in future under PIP who would now qualify for DLA as a result of using an aid or appliance? I beg to move.