DWP PIP claimants alternative support proposals, Digi Mart USA News (United Kingdom): Claimants of Personal Independence Payment (PIP) could face changes to their benefits as debate continues over whether certain conditions incur additional costs. The House of Lords discussed Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) PIP eligibility and payment rates last month.
On October 29, Conservative Party Baroness Jenkin of Kennington argued that 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 put forward five measures, “timely therapy, appropriate treatment, occupational support, workplace adjustments or other practical interventions,” that could prove more advantageous for PIP claimants than direct cash payments.
Non-affiliated Lord Hannan of Kingsclere raised the question: “How does somebody who has anxiety or depression have a more expensive lifestyle than somebody who is unemployed but does not have those conditions?” He further 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 upon research conducted by the Resolution Foundation, contended that certain less severe conditions should not automatically qualify for a PIP award. Tory 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.”
Lord Godson continued: “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 referred to PIP as “a lifeline, not a luxury,” adding: “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’s Lord Davies of Brixton stated: “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.”
