Why Reform’s PIP plans would punish disabled people
Recently, Reform UK laid out plans on how they intend to reform the PIP (Personal Independence Payment) given to disabled people. In order to slash the welfare budget. The aim is to overhaul the system to raise £50 billion.
A simple Wealth Tax (a 2% levy on people with over £10 million) would raise £24 billion a year. And most are happy to pay it (the interest in bank accounts would cover the cost in most cases).
So in 2 years they could get to this figure, without harming disability benefits.
But no, instead they tend to hammer the most vulnerable in society. Reasons given (and the Tories are in on this too) is that people who receive PIP must not receive it anymore, if they are ‘gaming the system’ for having conditions like ‘mild anxiety’ or in the words of TV presenter Jeremy Kyle ‘tennis elbow’.
There should be laws to prevent such misinformation, which just seeks to demonise people who are in pain and struggling financially.
Citizens Advice Bureau has an excellent article on what PIP is and how it works (in far clearer language than the government website).
YouTube political commentator Thomas Harries (who has cerebral palsy) has created a video on how these changes will affect disabled people.
What is PIP and how does it work?
PIP is not a normal benefit that people get like sickness benefit. It is only given when people find it difficult to do tasks, that would mean they could not work.
So if a person has mild anxiety, he or she would only be receiving PIP if this was alongside other conditions (like a severe learning disability, being wheelchair-bound, not being able to use the toilet independently, not being to wash themselves etc).
The condition must have lasted for 12 months before applying. And all those who apply say the forms are so difficult, they often have to get charities involved to help them pass the tests.
One man with no upper arm was asked if he could raise his arm up and down, and perform certain tasks with it. He replied ‘No, because I have no arm’.
You can’t ‘game the system’, as the rules are so strict it would be impossible. In fact, the general fraud rate for PIP is – zero.
PIP is not for ‘medical conditions’
PIP is not based on a medical condition. It’s based on the help you need to function in daily life. Someone who receives PIP is likely to need help to eat, drink, prepare food, take a bath, visit the toilet, dress or undress or even communicate with other people.
Many people on PIP also have learning difficulties, so need help to manage money. So if they get thrown off PIP, they could well die as they won’t know how to respond.
Robert Jenrick responded with the line that ‘those who really need help will be protected’. But if the current fraud rate is practically zero, who is he planning to throw off PIP?
One person online said this sounds like he has nabbed Count Binface’s policy, adjusting it to:
I will raise/keep your PIP, but remove everyone else’s.
PIP removal does not encourage work
Say you have someone who is physically disabled in a wheelchair:
- Nigel Farage does not want people to work from home, because he says it’s ‘not productive’. It is, he just wants rich landowners to keep earning from big buildings.
- But Reform UK does not want people to sit at home, and not work.
- It also does not want people to sit at home, on benefits.
- So what’s the alternative? Ah, go out to work!
But Reform UK favours cars over public transport. Most disabled people don’t have money to buy a car (being disabled is far more expensive, due to extra costs for heating and water etc). And a lot of public transport is not accessible or regular enough to reach an office or shop.
And then – Reform UK wants to scrap the Equality Act. So then said disabled person can legally be kicked out of their job anyway. If the boss doesn’t want to install say an accessible toilet.
The party says their model is based on the Dutch system. But in The Netherlands, the government has an alternative to the Equality Act, which Reform UK would remove.
You don’t fix a welfare system. By punishing the people who need it most. Amnesty International
