The campaign against reforms to the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) system is one of them and it’s starting to get interesting. Yet two Members of Parliament (MPs) have stated very different things about the necessity and effect of these proposed cuts. David Pinto-Duschinsky MP for Hendon in north-west London. To him, the solution is to place limits on PIP to keep the program financially solvent. And now fellow MP Cat Eccles is sounding alarm bells on the impacts these cuts will directly have. She’s concerned about the emotional and practical impact they’ll have on her constituents.
David Pinto-Duschinsky, who has a history of working in the Labour government under Alistair Darling, emphasized the urgency of reforming the welfare system. He added that over 1,000 people are currently filing for PIP benefits each day. Further compounding the issue, costs have increased by an eye-watering 50 percent since 2018. He continued, “More than 1,000 people are filing PIP claims every day. Since 2018 the costs have increased by 50%, and that just isn’t sustainable.” Pinto-Duschinsky pointed out that almost one out of every ten working-age adults in the UK is unemployed. This unfortunate circumstance with federal disaster assistance further highlights the need for reform — and fast.
For Pinto-Duschinsky, there’s no question that reforms are necessary. They are key to combating low incomes and poverty among people with health impairments. He stated, “If we are serious about tackling low incomes and poverty amongst people with health conditions we have to tackle those issues.” He made the case that as much as economic considerations matter, “the heart of the case for change is moral.” He argues that welfare reform is necessary to protect the long-term future of the program.
Cat Eccles has personal experience of the alternatives to welfare, having survived a year off benefits. Her passion for her constituents that rely on PIP was evident. She speaks on behalf of the more than 8,000 people living in her constituency who depend on PIP. Their response to the proposed changes is reactionary with the sense of panic that she painted. Eccles articulated a heartfelt and tremendous concern for the devastating and ongoing challenges faced by so many people with disabilities. He called attention to the ignorance among those not directly touched by these battles.
“If I hadn’t have had family and friends to support me, I wouldn’t have been able to eat,” Eccles expressed, emphasizing how pivotal support systems are for individuals relying on benefits. She went on to discuss how the existing system does not recognize the day-to-day realities for people with disabilities. She pointed out that others have never had to experience some of these life milestones. As a result, they can become less able to understand the hardship of others.
These PIP restrictions, indeed much of the entire initiative, is an effort to save £5 billion over the next seven years, through 2030. In regard to the replacement for DLA, Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall promised a three-month transition period for whoever becomes ineligible for PIP. This call has sparked outrage among MPs – including Eccles. They contend that, from their constituents’ perspective, the human cost is immeasurably greater than the economic factors ever could be.
Sure, there are some serious economic considerations as well, but the status quo is failing people out there. There’s nothing kind or compassionate about a system that’s getting almost three million people tossed on the scrap heap,” Eccles said. She thinks we should roll the threshold for applying for PIP back down to its initial level. Rather than digging in her heels with stricter eligibility requirements, she even invites a more inclusive approach.
Pinto-Duschinsky is adamant that reform is needed not only to protect the rights of disabled people but to open up attractive, long-term employment options for them. There’s a compelling and urgent call for change, he explains, as employment rates for disabled people are almost 30% lower than their non-disabled counterparts. It’s an issue I started to try and address over 25 years ago. There was a time when I was on the New Labour government’s New Deal Task Force. His time in government gave him the lived experience to inform his current views on welfare reform.
The fight continues as both MPPs continue to disagree with one another on the topic. They dig deep into the bureaucratic labyrinth of the PIP system and its impact on disabled people across the UK. To Pinto-Duschinsky, reform is a moral imperative that ensures long-term sustainability and spurs new job growth. In contrast, Eccles focuses on the emotional toll that these potential cuts would take, pleading for a humane treatment of those who rely on these benefits.
