A request by a Labour MP to the government has revealed the extent to which disabled people have had specific benefits cut. It shows that nearly 200,000 people lost their support in the space of just over four years.
The Labour MP for Chesterfield, Toby Perkins, questioned then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions David Gauke in October and November 2017. He asked how many people who previously received the Disability Living Allowance (DLA) were not awarded its replacement, the Personal Independence Payment (PIP). This was for the period from 8 April 2013 to 31 July 2017.
The government finally released the full details on 15 January, after seemingly holding the information back. It revealed that 189,960 disabled people who previously got the DLA were denied PIP. This is 21% of all disabled people who were reassessed by private outsourcing firms Atos and Capita.
Perkins told HuffPost that:
These figures reveal the extent to which the new regime is impoverishing severely disabled people.
The DWP says…
The DLA was a non-means-tested benefit for disabled people who need support with their care and mobility needs. But the 2010 Coalition government replaced the DLA with PIP to reduce costs by 20%. Ever since, PIP has been dogged by controversy. This included the UN saying the government must “repeal” changes made to PIP in 2017 – an argument the High Court agreed with just before Christmas. So far, though, the government has not been willing to change PIP.
A DWP spokesperson told HuffPost in relation to Perkins’ questions:
We introduced PIP to replace the outdated DLA system. PIP is a better benefit which takes a much wider look at the way an individual’s health condition or disability impacts them on a daily basis. Under PIP, 29% of claimants receive the highest rate of support compared to 15% under DLA.
Decisions are made following careful consideration of all the information provided by the claimant, including supporting evidence from their GP or medical specialist. Anyone who disagrees with a decision can appeal.
“Twisted and nasty”
Co-founder of Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) Linda Burnip is unimpressed. She told The Canary:
The purpose of PIP was never to address the needs of disabled people. It was to cruelly slash the help that so many depend upon to be able to take part in society. Maria Miller, AKA ‘Miller the Killer’, announced way back in 2011 that the scrapping of DLA was to effectively remove eligibility from 20% of disabled people. And at the same time she may as well have announced they didn’t really need to wash daily.
Esther McVey/’McVile’ simply accelerated this twisted and nasty process. How can anyone place any credence in a failing assessment process when the two private firms involved in carrying out the assessment between them only employ four qualified doctors? The whole process is a gigantic farce and the fact that 65% of appeals are upheld simply illustrates this.
By denying 21% of claimants benefits they were previously entitled to, the government has essentially redefined disability. Because hypothetically, someone on the DLA in 2012 could have been deemed as needing support with cooking meals and using public transport. But from 2013, they might no longer have got that support. You could say the government seemed to think that such a person was miraculously cured and no longer needed the assistance.
In the world of the Conservative government, this may seem OK. But it must surely seem like the cruellest of cuts to the rest of us.
– Support DPAC in its fight for disabled people’s rights.
– You can also join The Canary, so we can keep holding the powerful to account.
Featured image via The Canary
We need your help ...
The coronavirus pandemic is changing our world, fast. And we will do all we can to keep bringing you news and analysis throughout. But we are worried about maintaining enough income to pay our staff and minimal overheads.
Now, more than ever, we need a vibrant, independent media that holds the government to account and calls it out when it puts vested economic interests above human lives. We need a media that shows solidarity with the people most affected by the crisis – and one that can help to build a world based on collaboration and compassion.
We have been fighting against an establishment that is trying to shut us down. And like most independent media, we don’t have the deep pockets of investors to call on to bail us out.
Can you help by chipping in a few pounds each month?