Meeting documents

To consider the following motion submitted in accordance with Standing Order 17.  Unless determined otherwise by the Chairman the maximum time to be allowed to present each motion shall be 10 minutes.

Cllr Pauline Batstone (County Councillor for Blackmore Vale): Personal Independence Payments

The motion is seconded by: Cllr David Harris (County Councillor for Westham)

‘That the County Council express its extreme concern to the Secretary of State for the Department of Work and Pensions in respect of the significant distress being caused to Dorset residents as a direct consequence of poor administration of the Personal Independence Payments process; as evidenced by the Dorset Citizens Advice Bureau.  We call on the Secretary of State to urgently review the process to ensure improved outcomes for all residents.

Should this motion be supported that a copy be sent to all Dorset MP’s.’

To provide context, an extract of the Safeguarding Committees minutes from its 19 January 2017 meeting and the Citizens’ Advice Bureau’s report which was also presented to the Committee at the same meeting are attached.  Minute 26 of the Safeguarding Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting held on 6 July 2017 also refers to this topic, and the minutes are attached to this agenda at item 12.

Personal Independence Payments (PIP)

The Council considered a motion submitted by Cllr Pauline Batstone regarding Personal Independence Payments(PIP).

The Chairman explained that she would allow the motion to be debated by the Council under her discretion as the matter had already been considered by the Safeguarding Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 19 January and 6 July 2017.

Cllr Batstone introduced her motion and reminded members that PIP was a financial benefit which helped people with an illness, disability mental health condition or terminal illness to cope with everyday life. This benefit had replaced the Disability Living Allowance (DLA) and anyone in receipt of DLA had now to apply for PIP and this could be refused.  The change could have a significant impact on the Council's Adult Care Services.

Locally the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) contracted ATOS to undertake PIP assessments.  The Citizens' Advice Bureau (CAB) report had been considered by the Safeguarding Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the key findings were that: the test for PIP was more difficult than that for DLA and refusal meant that claimants lost their cars, their independence and their ability to socialise; that there were long delays in the process which led to payments being delayed; there were problems with medical assessments; claimants had to travel long distances for assessments; assessors were inadequately trained, did not listen and had an uncaring and punitive attitude; the process for mandatory reconsideration did not appear to be working effectively; additional medical evidence was being ignored; claimants were having to take their cases to tribunals which was costly in time and money; the majority of cases involving the CAB were successful with the difference between the initial assessment and the appeal judgement being significant; and the DWP were now increasing staff training but this was to improve performance in defeating appeals.

Cllr Batstone asked the Council to consider her six recommendations that the DWP:-  should review the criteria for receiving the mobility element of the PIP; should ensure that there were enough trained staff to process PIP applications in a reasonable timescale; should have clearly stated service standards for all stages of the process and these adhered to; should ensure that ATPS used health care professionals who were appropriately trained; that ATOS provided sufficient assessment centres and, where necessary, undertook home visits; should review its procedure for Mandatory Reconsiderations and took more account of medical evidence provided.  She asked the Council to support the motion that the Secretary of State be asked urgently to review the process to ensure improved outcomes for all residents.

Many members then spoke in support of the motion.  Comments included reference to the consequences of PIP decisions not being realised; councillors' role to ensure that people's views were heard; councillors were having to become experts in the process in order to support their residents; the need for the new contract to be better managed; delays in processing applications, particularly for those with terminal illnesses, could have a profound effect on their limited life expectancy; the wording of the motion should be strengthened; increased administration and the lengthy process could be seen as a means of making fewer awards to reduce costs; the impact on claimants quality of life; that assessment centres should be more accessible; some claimants were so ill they could not cope with the assessment process; and that the CAB were supporting claimants whilst their funding was reducing.

In view of the level of concern raised, the Chairman suggested that a strongly worded letter be sent to the Secretary of State from Group Leaders and herself to sign, with copies being sent to all Dorset MPs and elected members.  The matter would also be reviewed in October 2017.  On being put to the vote this was agreed unanimously.

Resolved (unanimously)

1.   That a strongly worded letter be sent to the Secretary of State to reflect the Council's views.

2.   That the letter be signed by the Group Leaders and Chairman of the Council and be copied to Dorset MPs and elected members.

3.   That the matter be followed up in October 2017.