Welfare Reform Bill

My Lords, I owe my noble friend Lady Thomas an apology and a clarification. I incorrectly attributed her question about reconsiderations in the previous group to ESA, when of course it applied to PIP. The new provisions on reconsiderations contained in Clause 99 will make a difference, but I suggest that we have a separate debate on that later clause, as it is a wider issue than just in relation to PIP. As to the matter in hand, I hope that I will now be able to remove confusion, introduce clarity and solve the conundrum posed by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. As I have already said, a personal independence payment will contribute towards the increased extra costs that individuals are likely to incur because of their health condition or impairment in order for disabled people to be able to live independently. Under the personal independence payment we want the greatest support to be targeted at those individuals who are most affected by their impairments. This is why we have designed the assessment in the way that we have by looking at people’s wider ability to participate in society. This is why I cannot support the noble Baroness’s amendment. Many disabled individuals have a greater level of participation because of the help of aids and appliances. By disregarding the use of aids or appliances within the assessment we would be failing to meet our objective of targeting the benefit at those least able to participate. Such an approach would be unfair to other individuals, such as those who have a health condition or impairment that would not be helped by the use of an aid or appliance, as they may receive the same or less priority for the benefit than those using aids even though their level of participation may be lower. We do not think this is right. However, we recognise the noble Baroness’s important point that aids and appliances do not eliminate needs or costs and we have sought to deal with it, sensitively and proportionately, throughout the assessment criteria. I wish to make it absolutely clear that we are not assuming that a need has been removed because an aid is being used or that an individual is suddenly able to carry out an activity. This is why, in recognising need, we will be awarding points in the assessment where aids or appliances are needed and why it will be possible for people needing such aids to qualify for the benefit. Meanwhile, we are dealing with different types of aids in different ways within the draft criteria, recognising that even with these aids the costs and barriers for particular disabled people are greater. For example, in the getting around activity we distinguish between the use of aids or appliances such as sticks and frames and the use of wheelchairs and similar devices. Picking up on the example used by my noble friend in relation to guide dogs, we do not consider guide dogs to be aids. We have dealt with them separately in the assessment, awarding substantial points to recognise the significant barriers that people with guide dogs face. While we are seeking to take aids and appliances into account in an appropriate way, we ultimately believe that the greatest support should go to those least able to participate. Someone who can get around with the help of an aid such as a walking stick or frame definitely faces considerable barriers and is likely to have some increased costs. We will seek to recognise this in the assessment by awarding points where aids are needed. For example, in considering activity 2—moving around—the assessment clearly recognises that someone who requires a wheelchair for short distances will get at least 12 points, and someone who requires other aids such as a frame to travel short distances may receive 10 points.