DWP PIP claimants alternative support debate in House of Lords, Digi Mart USA News (United Kingdom): Personal Independence Payment claimants could see changes to their benefits as debate continues over whether some conditions carry costs that cash payments are designed to cover.
The House of Lords debated Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) PIP eligibility and payment rates last month. On October 29, Conservative Baroness Jenkin of Kennington argued the DWP benefits system and welfare department should “identify the additional costs people actually face and determining what form of support would be most beneficial.”
She suggested that five things, “timely therapy, appropriate treatment, occupational support, workplace adjustments or other practical interventions,” could prove beneficial for PIP claimants instead of cash payments.
Non-affiliated Lord Hannan of Kingsclere asked how someone with anxiety or depression could have a more expensive lifestyle than someone who is unemployed but does not have those conditions. Hannan added: “Perhaps the key point is this: for those who really suffer from anxiety, depression or related mental health conditions, are we helping them when we encourage them to stay home taking pills?”
Lord Willetts, drawing on research by the Resolution Foundation, argued that some less severe conditions should not automatically lead to a PIP award.
Conservative speaker Lord Godson said: “As Prager correctly puts it, there is sometimes a reductive quality to our desire to protect disabled people. Protection, although always well intentioned, can become a form of infantilisation at times, overlooking the great economic and creative potential of disabled people.
Our disability benefits system embeds this paternalism in its architecture.” Godson went on: “Policy Exchange has recommended that the Government review PIP criteria every two years to ensure they remain an appropriate proxy for the additional costs that disabled people face.”
Liberal Democrat Lord Palmer of Childs Hill described PIP as “a lifeline, not a luxury.” The Liberal Democrat peer added: “We need fewer unnecessary reassessments, particularly for people with lifelong or degenerative conditions. Repeatedly asking someone to demonstrate needs that have not changed serves neither the claimant nor the taxpayer.”
Labour Lord Davies of Brixton said: “Extra costs can be difficult to identify and even harder to quantify. Many are indirect, intermittent or hidden.
People with disabilities know best what support they need and any move towards non-cash provision should therefore be optional and claimant led.”
The source was a single publisher article and has not been independently verified.
