This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/10/disability-benefit-changes-law-challenged

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Has the government broken the law over disability benefit changes? Has the government broken the law over disability benefit changes?
(6 months later)
Three disabled people have this week launched a challenge in the high court against the government's new personal independence payment (PIP) regulations, which replace disability living allowance (DLA). In particular, the three are challenging the government's last-minute change to the PIP regulations. Up until Monday claimants who could not walk 50 metres were entitled to DLA. The new PIP regulations reduce the distance to only 20 metres.Three disabled people have this week launched a challenge in the high court against the government's new personal independence payment (PIP) regulations, which replace disability living allowance (DLA). In particular, the three are challenging the government's last-minute change to the PIP regulations. Up until Monday claimants who could not walk 50 metres were entitled to DLA. The new PIP regulations reduce the distance to only 20 metres.
The reason for the challenge is that the government may have broken the law in its consultation process by not informing people that the limit might be reduced to 20 metres. The new regulations may cause almost half a million (428,000) disabled people to lose their benefits. The high court must now decide whether the case merits being given permission to proceed to a full hearing.The reason for the challenge is that the government may have broken the law in its consultation process by not informing people that the limit might be reduced to 20 metres. The new regulations may cause almost half a million (428,000) disabled people to lose their benefits. The high court must now decide whether the case merits being given permission to proceed to a full hearing.
Currently, the DLA high-rate mobility component is the primary benefit that persons with severe mobility-related disabilities rely upon to be able to get around and lead an active life in their communities. It also entitles them to access other important schemes such as a subsidised car under the mobility vehicle scheme and a blue badge disabled parking permit to put on their car. So, without winning the high-rate mobility component a disabled person can be effectively housebound, losing access to their work and contact with their family, friends or the community.Currently, the DLA high-rate mobility component is the primary benefit that persons with severe mobility-related disabilities rely upon to be able to get around and lead an active life in their communities. It also entitles them to access other important schemes such as a subsidised car under the mobility vehicle scheme and a blue badge disabled parking permit to put on their car. So, without winning the high-rate mobility component a disabled person can be effectively housebound, losing access to their work and contact with their family, friends or the community.
In my own work at the Disability Law Service I have seen the difficulties that are faced by the disabled when they have had the high-rate mobility component stopped. If the government had made public during the PIP consultation that it was considering moving the goalposts of the PIP mobility criteria from 50 metres to 20 metres then it would have found out how severe an effect the decision could potentially have on the lives of those with mobility-related disabilities.In my own work at the Disability Law Service I have seen the difficulties that are faced by the disabled when they have had the high-rate mobility component stopped. If the government had made public during the PIP consultation that it was considering moving the goalposts of the PIP mobility criteria from 50 metres to 20 metres then it would have found out how severe an effect the decision could potentially have on the lives of those with mobility-related disabilities.
The question the court may find difficult is: why did the government bother to hold a consultation to find out the effect of the new PIP regulations but fail to mention the new 20-metre rule? This action alone brings the legality of the consultation process into question. This of course would be a big decision for any court to take against a DWP flagship policy.The question the court may find difficult is: why did the government bother to hold a consultation to find out the effect of the new PIP regulations but fail to mention the new 20-metre rule? This action alone brings the legality of the consultation process into question. This of course would be a big decision for any court to take against a DWP flagship policy.
The high court may also consider whether the actions of the government breach the public sector equality duty of the Equality Act 2010 as well as numerous articles of the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. On that basis alone one would expect such a case to have a high prospect of success. But there will be a great deal of pressure on the high court to fall into line with the government's welfare "reforms" in a climate of austerity.The high court may also consider whether the actions of the government breach the public sector equality duty of the Equality Act 2010 as well as numerous articles of the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. On that basis alone one would expect such a case to have a high prospect of success. But there will be a great deal of pressure on the high court to fall into line with the government's welfare "reforms" in a climate of austerity.
Should the judges decide that the consultation was unlawful then the court will have the difficult question of what, if anything, it can do about a policy that is already under way, however it is not beyond the realms of possibility that it could send the government back to the drawing board.Should the judges decide that the consultation was unlawful then the court will have the difficult question of what, if anything, it can do about a policy that is already under way, however it is not beyond the realms of possibility that it could send the government back to the drawing board.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.