A House of Lords debate on PIP at the end of October has shown that the claim that some conditions are cost-free is starting to take hold, as support for PIP awards based on additional costs grows. Benefits and Work has produced a new resource to help readers who wish to challenge these ideas make their voices heard in the upper chamber.
Identify additional costs
The debate on 29 October was opened by Conservative Baroness Jenkin of Kennington, who argued that for conditions such as anxiety, depression or ADHD, the assessment system should be “identifying the additional costs people actually face and determining what form of support would be most beneficial.”
She suggested that “timely therapy, appropriate treatment, occupational support, workplace adjustments or other practical interventions” might improve quality of life more than a cash award.
Non-affiliated Lord Hannan of Kingsclere asked “How does somebody who has anxiety or depression have a more expensive lifestyle than somebody who is unemployed but does not have those conditions?”
Hannan went on to wonder “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?”
Other Conservative peers also questioned current PIP eligibility.
Lord Willetts, drawing on research by the Resolution Foundation, argued that some less severe conditions should not automatically lead to a PIP award. He supported a package of reforms which he said could save £4 billion to £5 billion, although he also acknowledged the benefits PIP provides.
Baroness Spielman went further, suggesting that awarding PIP to young people with anxiety could discourage them from becoming more independent and entering work.
The Prager connection
Another Conservative speaker, Lord Godson, declared his interest as director of Policy Exchange, which employs Jean-André Prager.
Prager is a member of the Timms review steering group and the author of a report calling for savage cuts to child DLA.
Godson argued that “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 reminded peers that “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.”
Voices defending support
Some Lords took a very different view.
Liberal Democrat Lord Palmer of Childs Hill described PIP as “a lifeline, not a luxury” and insisted that “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 warned that “Extra costs can be difficult to identify and even harder to quantify. Many are indirect, intermittent or hidden.”
He also warned against replacing cash with services: “People with disabilities know best what support they need and any move towards non-cash provision should therefore be optional and claimant led.”
New ‘Contact a member of the House of Lords’ resource
Benefits and Work believes it is time to start engaging with members of the House of Lords, even before the release of the Timms review final report. So, we have created a resource to make it easier for members to do so. It gives information about 74 peers who have an interest in PIP - whether they support or oppose changes - including all the members mentioned in this article.
You might choose to use it to thank a peer who has defended support, explain something a speaker has overlooked, or challenge an argument for cuts.
Please keep your message polite, brief and personal.
For example, you could explain one or two practical things PIP makes possible, the costs you face, and what losing support would mean. Ask the peer to raise those concerns when scrutinising future proposals.
The question of whether mental health and neurodevelopmental conditions involve additional costs is one we have already covered in Readers reveal the real extra costs of ADHD, autism, anxiety and depression.
Our survey of over 5,000 readers also showed overwhelming opposition to the idea of costs-based assessments: Only one in ten readers supports costs-based PIP awards.
If you get a response from a member of the House of Lords, please consider coming back and sharing it.
