Lord McKenzie has tabled an amendment which is as follows:
Page 60, line 23, leave out “meets the condition in subsection (2)” and insert “is an in-patient of a hospitalSo in the section on Entitlement and Payability of the Personal Independence Allowance that is set to replace Disability Living Allowance, McKenzie has proposed a change to the Clause 84 which governs 'people receiving certain services' and it involves removing an application of a subsection and replacing it with the rule that they are 'an in-patient of a hospital. You could read subsection 2 of that Clause to find out but I'll just tell you because this is something I've talked about before: recipients of the Mobility component for DLA(and now for PIP) in care homes.
The government announced a while ago that they would not press ahead on plans to take Mobility away from residents on the premise of some mythical 'overlap' in funding and service provision that doesn't really exist but they keep saying it does. Big cheers all-round, except for me because I'm very speffal. It didn't matter if the government said they would not press ahead and people should have been more suspicious that they made a very gradual retreat rather than a decisive U-turn as soon as the criticism gathered any traction. First they said they were taking it away, then they said they would delay taking it away, then they said it would be part of social care reforms instead then they said they wouldn't go through with it. No single event or set of events caused these save for the initial one. The government just kept backpedaling very slowly until the squealing stopped but here at The Files, we never stop squealing: it's a stim.
I warned all with my squealing annoying voice that it didn't matter because care home residents only ever got Mobility payments because of a case law precedent that said labeling them as 'hospitalised' to justify not paying was arbitrary to the point of being unlawfully discriminating. The rule changed but I won't go into that because it's complicated and I can't stop writing long posts. With DLA not being really reformed but replaced with an entirely new benefit, the case law history of two entire decades would effectively be erased and not transferred over to PIP. The government know this and it was plain to see from Clause 84:
The condition is that the person is an in-patient of a hospital or similarThe government knew they could class care homes as hospitals or lump them together now the legal precedents were going to be out of the way, that's why they're so important. They represent 20 years of work by Citizens Advice, charities, campaigners and claimants to make the system fair. Hell, subsection 4 even goes ahead and outright specifies what this includes and to me it seems to be even wider than it was when DLA came in:
institution, or a resident of a care home, in circumstances in which any of the
costs of any qualifying services provided for the person are borne out of public
or local funds by virtue of a specified enactment.
The following are “qualifying services” for the purposes of subsection (2)—
(a) medical or other treatment which the person is undergoing as an in-
(d) personal care;
(e) such other services as may be prescribed.
McKenzie's amendment was to basically stop Mobility recipients having the above subsection applied to them except where they actually were in-patients in hospital, but you can see that even *board and accommodation* are included, which could even mean Housing Benefit or living in support accommodation could get PIP taken away at the Secretary Of State's discretion. Also, when it says "such other services as may be prescribed", that means that when the government come to draft regulations they can include a whole bunch of other stuff with little scrutiny.
What about Freud? Well first compare his amendment to McKenzie's:
Page 60, line 25, leave out from second “is” to first “a” in line 26
Page 60, line 32, leave out paragraph (a)
Ok, so I just go to Clause 84 on Page 60(or 59 depending on what version) and find line 25(they're numbered every five lines), then I look for the second time 'is' is mentioned then the first time 'a' is mentioned and.... erase what ever text is between them? Amendments are hard enough to understand and research without people deliberately making them a chore. If you go back up you will see that I un-bolded the sections that Freud's amendment will remove: they relate entirely to hospitals.
In essence, what Freud's amendment does is reverse the effect of McKenzie's because McKenzie is going to make sure Mobility recipients are only affected by being hospital in-patients but Freud is going to then remove all mention of hospitals from the text McKenzie wants to change. Freud tried pretending his behaviour on Wednesday was down to confusion and 'procedural muddle' but really, it's deliberate and it appears it still is. Freud then has an amendment right after that which puts hospitals right back in there but he specifically inserts it 'after Clause 84' so McKenzie's amendment isn't going to affect it at all.
Freud is setting up amendments for a repeat of what he did on late Wednesday night. Everyone should be all over him on this. It is deliberate, not a mistake or him being confused. He can't use the same excuse a second time, especially not when he's doing the same thing twice in a row.
Development and correction: I appear to be right but the amendment interactions are MORE complicated than I initially understood and described. Freud does have amendments which conflict with McKenzie's but I need to establish chronology and what McKenzie intended so I'll be going back to the committee stage transcripts and see what McKenzie says about PIP(Done now).