Proceeding contribution from Lord Freud (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 17 January 2012. It occurred during Debate on bill on Welfare Reform Bill.
Welfare Reform Bill
My Lords, the government amendments are intended to support our plans for a sensible, achievable and measured approach to the introduction of PIP and to report on the effectiveness of the assessment. I went into detail on what we are planning earlier this evening, so I do not need to dwell on it too long. The first amendment will allow us to test the processes in a truly live environment and gives us the ability to control where those early new claims will come from. We are looking at which sites to use and developing the detail. The second is designed to support our programme of examining how PIP works against the assessment. In summary, as I said, I propose to put into the Bill a statutory duty to publish two reports to Parliament—the first within two years from the time that PIP starts, the second within four years of that date. I also made the commitment earlier this evening, which I repeat, that if there is a need for a third review and report because of ongoing issues identified in the second review, we undertake to do that. That is a commitment to ensure that the assessment and its processes are working. We have slightly adapted the idea of doing that annually, which is what happens under WCA, because that has led to a slightly piecemeal approach. We think that two-year reviews will be better and we have learnt from that. These are sensible and practical amendments. They are of course inspired by noble Lords in Committee, whose arguments convinced me. I have already put it on record that I think that Committee Members did a fantastic job and went through the Bill in an organised, diligent manner with astonishing energy. I have tried to take all the good ideas possible—some of them are not, but I am really pleased to be able to take this one. The Government consider Amendment 56ZB to be directly consequential on Amendment 56ZA, but do not consider Amendment 70 in this group to be directly consequential on Amendment 56ZA. Despite that, I beg to move.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 734 c568-9
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Disability Children Disability living allowance Care homes Benefits rules Carers Costs Autism Community care grants Hospitals Finance Expenditure Domestic abuse General practitioners Local government Medical examinations Mental illness Patients Pension credit Prisoners Mobility Social security benefits Social Fund Training Young people UN Convention on the Rights of the Child Crisis loans Employment and support allowance Carer's allowance Work capability assessment Personal independence payment
- Legislation
- Welfare Reform Bill 2010-12
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 18:14:15 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_801260
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_801260
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_801260