On the 24th of March, I wrote a letter to the government to express my deep concerns about the proposed changes to disability benefits, and to ask a number of questions. You can read it below:
Dear Secretary of State,
Re: Pathways to Work Reform Green Paper
Everyone agrees that the social security system is in desperate need of reform, not least those with personal experience of it. We have an opportunity to heed their calls and build a system that safeguards and empowers people, rooted in dignity and compassion.
Some of the Green Paper’s proposals are welcome: for example, the “Right to Try” which would guarantee that people who move into employment can return to their benefits without reassessment, and the announcement that people with lifelong conditions who cannot work will not be subjected to work capability reassessments. I would be grateful if you could set out how lifelong conditions not in need of reassessment will be defined?
However, any positive reforms are completely undermined by the £5 billion in benefit cuts. Disability Rights UK states that these amount to the biggest cuts in disability benefits on record, while the Resolution Foundation estimates that they will result in up to 1.2 million people losing support of up to £6,300 per year by the end of this decade. I am also disappointed that some of the most significant changes are not subject to consultation.
Disabled people’s living standards
As you will recognise, the situation for disabled people’s rights and living standards in this country is already dire, with nearly half of families in poverty including a disabled person.
This situation is so serious that in 2016, the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities found that ‘grave and systematic violations’ of disabled persons’ rights had taken place because of austerity measures and welfare reforms since 2010, which had ‘disproportionately and adversely’ affected the rights of disabled people. Earlier this month, the UN’s Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights concluded that welfare cuts implemented by Conservative governments have resulted in ‘severe economic hardship, increased reliance on food banks, homelessness, negative impacts on mental health, and stigmatisation of benefits claimants’. It called for more spending on social security; ‘corrective measures’ to address the impact of these welfare reforms, and for the levels of disability-related benefits to increase so that they ‘adequately cover additional disability-related costs’.
While the Government’s Equality and Impact Assessment and Poverty Impact Assessment are yet to be published, it is clear that the cuts proposed in the Green Paper will further deepen poverty and inequality.
Charities advocating for disabled people have been stark in their warnings. Scope has said that these plans will be “catastrophic for disabled people’s living standards” and that they should “shame the government to its core”. The MS Society has called these cuts “immoral” and “devastating”, stating that they will push more people into poverty and worsen people’s health. Disability Rights UK describes the plans as “brutal”, “reckless” and “dangerous”.
The government claims that it will continue to protect the most vulnerable, but these policies fall far short of this pledge.
PIP
Personal Independence Payment (PIP) eligibility changes would deny vital support to those who need it. PIP fraud remains almost non-existent at 0.2%. I do not think it is possible that there are up to 1.2 million people currently in receipt of PIP who do not require it.
The new eligibility criteria means that a person must score ‘4’ in at least one category under the Daily Living Activities assessment. This means that many people who score lower but across multiple categories will no longer be eligible. For example, if you need assistance to wash your hair or your body below the waist, this only scores a 2; as does requiring supervision to be able to use the toilet. Meanwhile, many of the tasks that require the use of aids or appliances score below 4. All of these are significant disabilities that will have a huge impact on people’s lives and living costs, yet they will no longer receive PIP. What is the government’s rationale for withdrawing these payments, and do you have evidence that those who do not score ‘4’ on any single activity incur significantly lower costs than those who do?
These changes may well be counterproductive to the government’s aim of supporting more disabled people into work. 1 in 6 people in receipt of PIP are currently in work but these changes may lead to many dropping out of employment. For example, Epilepsy Action highlights that lots of people with epilepsy need PIP to help them get to work. What evidence does the government have that cutting PIP will result in more disabled people working?
Citizens Advice Bureau has said that 29% of people it has helped with PIP have dependent children. It therefore expects the changes to eligibility to have a “significant” impact on child poverty.
These changes are also likely to affect carers’ entitlement to Carer’s Allowance, with over half of Carer’s Allowance awards tied to PIP. 28% of carers are disabled or have long-term health conditions, and caring is a risk factor in having to give up work. Around 150,000 unpaid carers also receive both Carer’s Allowance and PIP, relying on these vital benefits to get by.
Furthermore, lots of people access other benefits through their entitlement to PIP. For these claimants, what will happen to their eligibility for other benefits if they are no longer entitled to PIP?
Universal Credit
The government is right to increase the basic rate of Universal Credit, but I strongly oppose the decision to cut payments for those newly assessed as being entitled to the health component, and to freeze the rate for existing claimants. There can be no justification for making those whom the state considers less likely to be able to work poorer, nor will this help them into work. There is also no justification for denying these payments to every single disabled person between the ages of 18 and 21 solely because of their age. Again, I would ask what evidence the government has that this will make disabled people more likely to secure employment? What evidence does the government have that the reduced rate is enough to enable disabled people to meet essential living costs?
I am also concerned that more disabled people will now be subject to sanctions, including those under 22 years old under proposals that the department is consulting on. There is overwhelming evidence, from a number of studies, that sanctions do not help people into work. We should not be subjecting more disabled people to this punitive regime.
Further, I categorically reject the narrative of overdiagnosis of mental health conditions amongst young people. We are living through a youth mental health crisis, with a clear correlation between poverty and mental health conditions. At the same time, the underfunding of mental health services over many years has left huge waiting lists and young people without the support they need to recover. It is these root causes that we should be tackling, not taking away the money that is helping young people with mental health conditions to survive. The combined loss of no longer qualifying for PIP or UC health could mean that they lose at least £9,600 a year.
While I welcome that disabled people will no longer be expected to go through a Work Capability Assessment as well as an assessment for PIP, I am concerned about what this change will mean in practice. Will there be more resources for PIP assessment if the health component of Universal Credit is solely available through this system? Will the eligibility criteria to receive the health component of Universal Credit also require someone to score ‘4’ in a Daily Living Activity?
For all the reasons I have set out above, I am afraid that I must inform you that I will vote against government legislation to enact these changes. This is not a position I ever wanted to be in, but I must oppose measures that will make disabled people poorer and widen inequality in this country. I sincerely hope that the government listens to the deep concern and distress of disabled people, and the warnings from experts on disability and poverty, and drops these plans before a vote takes place. It is not too late to salvage the additional support that could help disabled people into employment, which has been universally welcomed, and shelve the cuts to benefits that will cause immense harm.
Yours sincerely,Nadia