Latest news with #CharlieDewhirst
Daily Mirror
14 hours ago
- Health
- Daily Mirror
DWP clarifies PIP rules after query over 20-metre walking test
A Labour minister has clarified the rules over PIP qualifications as concerns grow that claimants may lose out on payments due to a particular rule. PIP (Personal Independence Payment) is aimed at providing support for the extra costs faced by people living with a long-term health condition or disability. The system offers both daily living and mobility components, each available at standard or enhanced rates based on the impact of someone's health condition. Conservative MP Charlie Dewhirst raised questions in Parliament about how people could be affected by losing access to part of the mobility component due to a 20-metre walking test used for eligibility. He highlighted concerns regarding the "mental health and financial impact of losing entitlement". Beneficiaries receive weekly mobility payments of either £29.20 or £77.05 under this component. The 20-metre rule refers to the 'moving around' activity criteria, which along with another task contributes to points that calculate how much you get for the mobility element. To qualify for the standard rate, a person needs a minimum total of 8 total points across the two activities, with at least 12 needed for the enhanced rate. In order to score any points related to 'moving around', claimants must be able to stand and move more than 50 metres but less than 200 metres, with or without support, which would earn them 4 points. The 20-metre rule comes in with the next category, for those with further reduced mobility, who can stand and then move unaided for more than 20 metres but not exceeding 50 metres. These people are awarded 8 points, qualifying them for the lower rate. Those who can stand and move within the same range, but only with the assistance of an aid or appliance, are entitled to 10 points. Individuals with even greater restrictions, who can stand and move more than one metre but not more than 20 metres, either with or without aid, receive the maximum 12 points, entitling them to the upper rate. Additionally, those who cannot stand at all or cannot move more than one metre without aid or assistance also receive 12 points. DWP minister Sir Stephen Timms replied to the question to clarify the walking distance rule. He said: "For those with physical restrictions, the enhanced rate of the PIP mobility component is for those 'unable' or 'virtually unable' to walk. The 20 metre distance distinguishes between those whose mobility is significantly more limited than others and who face the greater barriers on a day-to-day basis, (those who have the highest need)." The minister also said that distance is not the only factor in assessing a candidate's eligibility for the 'moving around' activity, as another consideration is what he termed 'reliability'. Mr Timms explained: "This means individuals who can walk more than 20 metres can still receive the enhanced rate of the mobility component if they cannot do so safely, to an acceptable standard, repeatedly or in a reasonable time. "Whilst claimants can only reach an enhanced mobility award in activity 12 if they cannot reliably walk more than 20 metres, they may still qualify for a standard award should they satisfy another descriptor scoring a minimum of 8 points. Claimants can also reach a standard or enhanced mobility award by scoring 8, or 12 points respectively across activities 11 and 12 combined." Should you drop from the enhanced mobility rate of £77.05 weekly, totalling £4,006.60 annually, to the standard rate of £29.20 per week, or £1,518.40 per year, your yearly loss of income would be £2,488.20. Addressing the specific question posed, Mr Timms acknowledged that the DWP hadn't evaluated the mental health consequences of PIP recipients losing their benefit due to the 20-metre rule. Attempting to justify this oversight, he said: "It would be extremely difficult to objectively separate the specific impact of this on mental health from other contributory factors." However, the Labour Government is carrying out a review of PIP assessments, spearheaded by Mr Timms. He said: "The first phase of this work has now begun, which includes speaking to stakeholders to gather views on how best to approach the review, and the terms of reference will be published in due course."
Telegraph
14-05-2025
- Health
- Telegraph
Assisted dying Bill on verge of collapse
The assisted dying Bill is at risk of failing because MPs are considering pulling their support, The Telegraph can disclose. MPs voted 330 to 275 to legalise assisted dying last year in a historic vote, but just 28 need to switch sides for the Bill to fail. The Telegraph understands that at least 15 MPs from Labour, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats who either abstained or supported the Bill previously are now considering voting against it. The shift has emerged as the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is due to return to the House of Commons on Friday, when MPs will debate and vote on amendments. While a final vote is possible, MPs have put forward so many amendments to discuss that they are unlikely to get through them and progress to the next stage. Mounting backlash over policy Kim Leadbeater, the sponsor of the Bill, who has been fighting a mounting backlash over the policy, has tabled 44 amendments in an attempt to keep backers on side. Charlie Dewhirst, the Conservative MP for Bridlington and the Wolds, previously abstained from voting but has since decided to vote against assisted dying. Mr Dewhirst told The Telegraph: 'I am concerned now that the scope is very wide. There seems to be a lack of protections, for example, people with autism. And it really feels to me that it's far wider than we were assured it was going to be to start with. 'So for that reason, I can't support it in all good conscience.' Mr Dewhirst's Conservative colleague Sir David Davis, who previously voted for the Bill, said he is now reconsidering his position, citing concerns that GPs would be allowed to 'initiate' the assisted dying process. The Tory grandee, who remains undecided, said: 'If you think back to what happened during Covid, we had loads of Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) notices, and there was a strong feeling this was being done for managerial reasons, rather than humanitarian ones. So I don't trust that process.' He also urged that there needed to be 'full palliative care' available to all patients alongside assisted dying. Bobby Dean, the Liberal Democrat MP for Casterton and Wallington, also backed the Bill previously but told The Telegraph he is now 'deliberating'. 'I supported the Bill at the second reading and I feel broadly assured by how it has been strengthened in recent weeks. 'However, there have been some significant late interventions, from the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) and others, and I am going to take time to reflect before the next vote.' The Bill proposes allowing terminally ill adults with less than six months to live to receive medical assistance to die, following the approval of two doctors and a multi-disciplinary panel. However, interventions from medical bodies including RCPsych and the Royal College of Physicians have prompted more MPs to come forward with their concerns. Until now, only Lee Anderson and his former Reform UK colleague Rupert Lowe had publicly said they would switch sides. Dr Lade Smith, the president of the RCPsych, said the organisation remained neutral on the principle but had a number of concerns about the legislation in its current form. It found 'a number of issues', including the possibility a terminally ill patient could be suffering from a 'very treatable' mental disorder, and the fact that there was no requirement for someone who wanted to end their life to inform family members. Melanie Ward, the Labour MP for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy, who has voted against the Bill, said the RCPsych's intervention was a 'blow to its foundations'. She said: 'The expertise of psychiatrists is central to this new law and an essential part of the process and protections in the new panel system. If their Royal College feels as though the Bill does not provide the safety it should, we must take heed.' Opponents raised further concerns after a Government impact assessment published earlier this month said more than 4,500 people a year are expected to end their lives by assisted dying within a decade of the legislation being passed. The assessment also found that the law would save the taxpayer up to £90 million in healthcare costs, as well as benefits and pensions payments. It caused alarm among campaigners, who warned that the true death toll may climb higher if the lives of vulnerable patients are seen as 'expendable'. One Labour MP warned that the assisted dying policy was politically toxic, telling The Telegraph: 'One of the things that the Labour Party need to be aware of is that Farage will be first to say, 'First they took your winter fuel payments. Then they took your pensions. Now they're taking your lives.'' Ms Leadbeater, the MP for Spen Valley, has been fighting to allay concerns by tabling a swathe of amendments to the Bill, with eight put forward on Tuesday night bringing her total to 44. These include commissioning a new assessment of the state of palliative care and enabling more healthcare professionals who object to assisted dying to opt out. She has also proposed that advertising assisted dying services should be banned. Amendments worry MPs However, the flurry of amendments has provoked further criticism from opponents, who are worried that MPs will not have time to assess the further changes before the debate on Friday. James Frith, a Labour MP, said: 'It's disappointing but not surprising that yet again the Bill sponsor has tabled new amendments at the last possible moment to the assisted dying Bill, a bill which MPs are due to debate in just two days. 'For a change to the law of such profound significance this is unacceptable and flies in the face of assurances given to MPs that they would have adequate time to scrutinise the Bill.' The next stage of the Bill after Friday's debate – report stage – is the third reading, at which the Bill could be killed off. This is likely to come on June 13.
Telegraph
01-05-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Civil servants lose 3,000 phones and laptops in less than a year
Thousands of government phones and laptops have been lost or stolen under Labour's watch, The Telegraph can reveal. In just 10 months, more than 3,000 devices have been mislaid or lost to theft, equivalent to 10 per day, raising concerns over sensitive information 'falling into the wrong hands'. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) was responsible for most of the losses, misplacing nearly 1,000 items, followed by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and the Home Office. The MoD also had 15 USB sticks and 12 computers lost or stolen, while the Department for Transport mislaid four body-worn cameras, The Telegraph's analysis shows. The latest data suggest the problem is getting worse under Labour, with losses at a higher rate than those recorded in the year to November 2023. It prompted warnings over possible security breaches as well as a waste of taxpayer money. The Tories said the figures were 'deeply concerning', while the Lib Dems urged ministers to 'get a grip' on the issue. A total of 3,166 devices The Telegraph's findings, based on parliamentary questions submitted by the Tories, show that a total of 3,166 devices have been lost or stolen since Labour took power in July 2024. That includes 1,687 phones, 1,099 laptops and 380 other items such as iPads, USB sticks and cameras, with a third mislaid by the MoJ alone. There were 501 devices lost or stolen from the MoD, including 379 phones, 95 laptops, 12 computers and 15 USBs, while the Home Office misplaced 481 items. The total number could be even higher, with four government departments still not providing figures one week after the deadline for a response. It equates to roughly 10 losses per day or 315 per month, which suggests an increase in the rate under Labour. The Telegraph has been unable to find comparable figures for the previous nine months under the Tories. However, a similar analysis published in November 2023, when the Conservatives were in power, found just over 2,000 devices had been misplaced in 12 months, equivalent to roughly six per day or 170 per month. Charlie Dewhirst, the shadow Cabinet Office minister, said: 'It's deeply concerning that under Labour's watch, thousands of government-issued electronic devices have gone missing – including the Home Office, a department ironically charge of security – and are all having to be replaced on the taxpayer's dime 'The public deserves assurances from Labour that their money is being managed appropriately, not squandered on civil service negligence.' Sarah Olney, the Lib Dems' Cabinet Office spokeswoman, said: 'These phones and laptops cost the taxpayer money and may hold sensitive security information and private details that we wouldn't want falling into the wrong hands. 'It's worrying writing on the wall for the Government's resource security higher up the procurement chain, too. 'The Government must urgently get a grip on this rise in phone losses.' Some departments provided data only for 'lost' items, as requested by the Tories, while others specified that they had included stolen devices. In some cases, the figures included items that have since been recovered. Devices 'might be found later' In its response, the MoD said: 'It is important to note that not all of the above incidents have resulted in actual losses or thefts. On some occasions where devices could not be accounted for, they would be reported but may have subsequently been found. 'January and February figures are high due to two incidents submitted by one part of Defence regarding the mustering of assets. Although it appears likely that the cause is poor accounting, the phones are still recorded as losses as this has not been confirmed. 'The discrepancy came to light following the strengthening of accounting processes within that organisation. This new audit process will ensure record keeping and utilisation are carefully managed in future, minimising associated costs and wastage.' A government spokesman said: 'We take the security of government devices extremely seriously, which is why items such as laptops and mobile phones are always encrypted so any loss does not compromise security. 'As is the case in all organisations, a very small proportion of such devices can be reported lost or stolen every year, with all instances investigated.'
