Personal Independence Payment: Assessment Review

6. What progress her Department has made on its review of the personal independence payment assessment system.

As I said in response to an earlier question, it is over a decade since PIP was introduced and there have been significant shifts in the nature of disability and long-term conditions in this country, as well as changes in wider society and the workplace. That is why our Green Paper announced our plans to review the PIP assessment, working with disabled people, the organisations that represent them, and others. We are starting that work today, inviting key organisations representing disabled people in to discuss the terms of reference, which we will publish, and we will continue to keep the House updated as our work progresses.

There has rightly been a lot of focus on the 250,000 people the Government’s own impact assessment says will be pushed into poverty by this cruel disability benefit cut, but the true impact on poverty will be even worse. New DWP figures, obtained from a freedom of information request, show that 700,000 families already in poverty will be hit even harder. It is wrong that that has had to come out through a freedom of information request, so will the Minister come clean today about the true scale of poverty that this disastrous policy will cause? Does it not fly in the face of what a Labour Government are meant to do—lift people out of poverty, not push them further into poverty?

My hon. Friend will know, as we have been very clear with the House, that those figures do not take into consideration the number of disabled people who we believe will find work through our biggest ever investment in employment support, Pathways to Work. Neither do they take into consideration the huge strides we will make with our forthcoming child poverty strategy. We have been more open and transparent than any previous Government, publishing all the poverty impact and other detailed assessments, because we are very happy to have this debate in the House and to put forward our case. Our mission is to get as many people as we can into work and on in their careers, with more income and better choices and chances: that is what a Labour Government are for.

My consistent, Louisa, wrote to me about her PIP assessment. She suffers from a number of debilitating fluctuating conditions. Her assessment took over two hours and the assessor ignored her explanations, did not ask how she felt afterwards and threatened to end the call when her words were misinterpreted, which goes against DWP guidance. Will the Secretary of State undertake to review how fluctuating and invisible conditions are handled in the assessment process?

Yes, and I would really like the hon. Lady to send in that information and we will go through it with a fine-toothed comb.

I would be interested to hear from the Secretary of State about what assessments she has made of the impact on public services, particularly adult social care, of the move to change personal independence payments. In my local authority, the director has said to me that she is deeply concerned about the additional costs and about moving people into dependency, as their independence is removed. Can the Secretary of State set out what assessment has been made and provide figures to demonstrate that?

Our objective is to give disabled people more independence by ensuring that those who can work have the support to do so. We have clear evidence that being in work is good for people’s health: good work is good for people’s physical and mental health. We are investing extra money into social care, including an additional £3.7 million this year, on top of the £26 billion extra for the NHS. I would be more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss these issues further, as I know she is passionate about ensuring that people have the help, care and support that they need and deserve.

Last Wednesday, the Prime Minister told me that cutting back on PIP eligibility was in line with post-war Labour principles, but more and more Labour Members are saying that that policy—balancing the Government’s books on the backs of disabled people and those who care for them—is cruel and wrong in principle. Will the Secretary of State tell us who is right?

I do not recognise the way the hon. Lady framed the Prime Minister’s answer. We want a social security system that protects those who can never and will never work, but disabled people who are out of work and economically inactive are more likely than non-disabled people to say they want to work, and if they are in work, they are half as likely to be poor. We want to shift the focus of the system to do more to help people who can work to do so, and to protect those who cannot, because that is the way that we give people a better future.