I filled in my response to the Timms Review of Personal Independence Payments (PIP) today. The review closes to responses, at 11.59pm tonight (28th of May).
Like a lot of people, I had given much anxious consideration to my thoughts and feelings on the concept of changes to, essential, disability-income.
Like many disabled people, I had worked hard for most of my working life too, only taking early retirement when increasingly painful, restricted movement forced me to reconsider my options.
As carer for a husband with advanced dementia and chronic, worsening, arthritis just about everywhere, we both live with life-limiting conditions now.
What strikes me about the carousel of benefit ‘reforms’ though, is not just the possibility of further restricted assessment and/or reduced income.
This ongoing trend towards reducing ‘disability benefits’ appears to have, as its central premise, the belief that disability is a choice people are making, when, for the overwhelming majority, it absolutely isn’t.
There is a worrying dichotomy too, in living under the auspices of legislation meant to protect, from differential treatment, those with protected characteristics (in this instance disability) while simultaneously instigating a growing number of initiatives, seeking to minimise the very existence of disability, in order to target what is perceived to be ‘undeserved’ income.
This is the skewed basis many people, claiming PIP must overcome.
Let’s be candid, disability is not something that can be switched on and off at will, or made to fit neatly into ever more narrow boxes. And, for the vast majority it’s not a lifestyle choice, it’s a distressing reality.
You don’t grow out of progressive conditions. They aren’t usually something you recover from either. And yet, in our current ‘equal-rights-for-all’ twenty-first century, disabled people are still repeatedly required to fit the entirety of their disability, into ever more narrow, outdated disability markers.
The assumption appears to often be, that it is only the workshy, or fraudulent claimants who will be weeded out.
Unfortunately, the small number of PIP recipients who are fraudulently claiming, will not be caught in reform-nets. These people will fit their way around any number of changes. No, it will be the genuinely afflicted who suffer.
Official (DWP) statistics indicate the fraud rate for Personal Independence Payment (PIP) is though extremely low, with recent figures indicating the percentage of revenue lost to fraud and error is 0.0% or 0.2%.
It’s worth noting too, only an (undisclosed) portion of that figure emanates from fraud, the rest comes from the DWP’s own errors.
I wonder how much public money is lost to DWP error? How much is lost to wrongly assessed claims, mandatory reconsiderations and appeal processes too?
Will the Timm’s review look at this as well?
The ramifications of these reforms (a byword, let's face it, for cuts) for a section of society, it needs to be remembered, least able to supplement or uplift their income are significant.
The DWP’s own impact analysis, estimated that the combined changes to PIP and Universal Credit (UC) could result in 370,000 current recipients losing entitlement to PIP, and that the total package of changes could push an additional 250,000 people into poverty. That is staggering enough but, bear in mind these statistical forecasts are often way short of the mark!
How will the government assess/measure and mitigate impact?
What safeguards will it employ to ensure our vulnerable/disabled are not disproportionately singled out, or impoverished; as is required, by law?
The downgrading of need, necessary to reduce disability Income, will, it should be noted, have other far-reaching consequences, including: not just lost income but the loss of add-ons linked to PIP, like Blue Badge entitlement, concessionary entry, Freedom bus passes, transport and even funding for care packages.
So, with all this in mind, I finally clicked on the Timms review, call-for-evidence link.
The format was uncomplicated, with three to four boxes, in which to place your thoughts on suggested lines of questioning; though responders can elaborate and provide additional information, or attachments (via email) if they wish to. Accessible formats are also available.
My response then, was as follows:
Box 1:
If the intended purpose of PIP is to provide, non-means-tested funds for the vulnerable, disabled and terminally ill, to assist them with the added costs of their disability (ie home adaptations, vehicular access & upkeep, (extra fuel and energy costs, due to increased need) mobility aids, support options, carers, advocate services, accessing peer social events, specialised/adapted nutrition, health care requirements (some of which are no longer provided by the NHS, ie podiatry) continence aids & products, medicated creams, cleansing products (and the list goes on…and on …) then it fulfils it's purpose.
If, however, PIP is to be conflated with Universal Credit and seeks to manage disabled people 'back to work', this goes against the purpose of PIP, as a disability benefit.
A high percentage of people, on PIP, have progressive, life-limiting, terminal even, conditions that will not improve.
Therein lies the distasteful nub of disability ‘reforms.' Because disability is not something you can shrug off, or distance yourself from. Many disabled people would actually like to be neatly managed back into the workforce, were it realistically possible to sustain doing so.
The erroneous 'people who claim benefits are skivers' attitude affects not just public opinion but disabled morale too.
I have tried to encourage others to feed into this review, it’s not easy though. I do 100% get the reluctance.
Gaining engagement with these reviews is difficult because trust and confidence, in a system that frequently feels stacked against us, is at such a low ebb. Crucially, these 'reforms' rarely end well for us.
Box 2:
No, I don’t believe the PIP assessment/criteria ‘effectively’ captures the impact of long-term health conditions or disability because:
• The questions try to fit complex disabilities into narrow, restricted criteria.
• The questions are outdated; with advancing technology making many ‘activities’ easier (ie cooking: with the prevalence of pre-prepared food, Deliveroo, takeaways, microwaves etc, these all make this easier). This does not mean that someone’s disability has improved. The questions should evolve but they don’t.
• Assessment often feels like an attempt to catch people out (as seen in online videos, of former assessor’s entrapment mind-set). In my case, providing (necessary) fluids to my diabetic husband meant ‘I had no mobility restrictions!’ A concept I was able to challenge, at reconsideration/appeal.
• Assessors blatantly fail to follow their own DWP rulebook (ie the parts stipulating judgement should not be based on a brief snapshot but on whether recipients can perform relevant tasks repeatedly etc).
How can we make PIP fairer?
• Assessors should be properly-trained and have regular reviews of their decisions.
• Questions and points-based criteria should be updated.
• The DWP should weed out former assessors monetising benefit denials and advocating how to ‘catch’ people out. An unacceptably biased starting line.
• The DWP should rethink the whole PIP process, including award/denial/reconsideration/appeal numbers
• It should critically assess random claims decisions and act swiftly upon its findings; providing re-training, if necessary.
So, Sir Stephen, I would like to ask you please:
Does this, lets-catch-them-out mind-set really provide fair, impartial, empathetic access to the right level of support?
Does it always ensure the correct level of award is arrived at?
Does it sensitively and appropriately assess need, across wide, pertinent, equitable criteria?
From our side of the fence: No, it definitely doesn’t.
This is a deplorable attitude, in an allegedly enlightened society.
Being disabled is hard enough, claiming support shouldn’t be even harder.
What, we’d like to know, is the review going to do about that?
We look forward to your response, equitable recommendations and beneficial actions.
Thank you.
Sincerely … ..