Is it possible to have a sensible discussion about disability benefits?

[Pjnow]

According to Google 10% of working age people are in receipt of PIP and 6% of 0-15yos receive DLA.

I'm a proper lefty who believes absolutely in the welfare state, a safety net and that we should care properly for those with disabilities. A society should be judged on how it cares for its most vulnerable.

However 10% in receipt of disability benefits can't be sustainable. I know many people receiving PIP also work, it's not about that.

I'm just wondering what (if anything) can be done to make sure those who need support get it, without paying it to 10% of the population. I know not all disabilities are visble etc, but 10%?!

WHAT!

If you read any of the thread, you will see that posters have already given plenty of examples of what the money is spent on. What you are asking, has been answered on every thread concerning PIP.

Is it equally difficult to see their daily struggles, with their disability as well? Or do you not see that, and think that they are just given a 'free car' just because!

@Lougle

Thats exactly the problem that I have with my DD’s wheelchair situation. She’s 8 and can self-propel short distances hence does not qualify for an NHS motorised chair (some people will).
People really don’t understand the difference having “this” kind of child makes, cost or care wise, compared to, for instance, a child who cannot leave the house from extreme mental health problems.. and I for one don’t want to go around trying to cost the difference.

with my DD she is intellectually incapable of knowing that she would have to do x to get onto a pavement (she has no diagnoses so I won’t describe her as having x condition because I can’t) but her level of understanding is very baby like.
Even if she could comprehend it doesn’t change things like getting across stones (for instance) - this involves tilting the chair back and putting away the safety anti tip bars behind and underneath her, which no one actually in the chair could do.
The NHS can’t afford to give her a powered wheelchair and won’t because she can self-propel a tiny bit. Imagine the outcry if the NHS did fund it!
She’s also doubly incontinent.
Taking her anywhere without hoisting facilities is a big challenge but I can’t and won’t stop her trying to enjoy life.
I am going to have to get or try to get a specially adapted van (I don’t think I can on Motability so I will try elsewhere) to hoist her to change her.
I hurt my back lifting her off the ground yesterday (the literal ground) when I had to change her when we were out. No one can cost that risk to me and her. If I injured my back that’s a whole other set of problems..
The notion that DLA should cover her costs completely overlooks aspects like the above the “cost” of changing her is not only the risk (derived from her care needs which is what DLA uses to assess eligibility) and for things like mats to put below her (yet to obtain one I can carry with me along with her suction machine, pads, feeding pump etc) it’s the lifelong cost she’s facing - I will have to privately fund care for her and for me if I injure myself.

Those pp saying UC exists for loss of salary - not always.
In my case we don’t qualify for UC. My husband earns just enough to not qualify.

Even if we did - the cost of her wheelchair is obviously prohibitive for many families, not just us. But I somehow have to find the funds. but how? That’s my problem, not the government’s.

The loss of a salary is not covered by UC if the family/parent doesn’t qualify or does qualify so flipping it back to say it exists is not the point (even if a salary was just minimum wage it won’t match it).

My family (the 3 of us) has a child who - as far as predicting the future goes - will never work.
I have no chance at a full time job.
But..I will face very large expenses (like her wheelchair) on the reduced income that I cannot replace. She can’t contribute to her costs.

I do not expect the government to fill that gap but the point is that it does NOT.

The extra costs of disability might be covered in some cases. In many cases it is not (and I know the point is it isn’t meant to cover them completely), but there is no realistic way to penny count costs - often a person will overlook something that is a cost because they are so used to doing it, I know that from experience- I worked briefly for We Are McMillan assisting people with benefit applications.
People didn’t think of shoes with Velcro they had to buy or taxis to appointments or parking (for example) as additional costs and often only saw adaptations to a bathroom (handrails) as a cost.

It’s a depressing concept to wish that acquiring a disability or being born less able to be independent and self-supporting entitles the governing political party to the tiny details of one’s life. I mean the DWP gets all that on an application form for DLA and PIP at source and could reconfigure the award to tailor to specific needs if it chose - but it operates as it does because it’s the most cost effective and presumed efficient way to run disability benefits.

In 2023-2024 DLA cost the UK just shy of £7 billion.
Pensions were over £110 billion.
PIP was in the middle around £51 billion- as pp above have pointed out, PIP is being given to older people who have acquired disabilities more than younger people- just compare DLA figures to PIP and you can see the difference isn’t just a rise in mental health conditions- it’s aging people still working up to pension age contributing to that cost.

My ds has profound autism. He will never work. He's a teenager and we're getting ready to move from children's services to adult services. When this happens the council will take the majority of his benefits, leaving him with a small amount per week to live on. They do this to pay for day centre's, pa's, supported living (when that happens) etc. Most people who are so disabled that they require services from the LA are in this position. The removal of benefits to these will impact on the LA as these services will still be required. Unless other legislation like the care act and csdpa are changed also.

I mix a lot with other parents of children with disabilities, i know one woman who doesn't want her child's ehcp changing to remove that they can be violent in section b (child hasn't been for some time) because their dla renewal is comming up and this goes towards proving they require regular restraint for higher mobility.

I do also know a parent who thought her child had a disability because they had eczma and not a huge amount. Yes, this is true!

I think it's become more acceptable to use facilities and programmes etc that are specifically for the disabled. Blue badge parking where people without take the space and say "i'll only be a minute", the disabled toilet being used because there isnt a queue for it, even things like ride access at theme parks are abused. The sunflower lanyard to highlight people need more understanding is vastly overused and abused. The more these things are accepted the more acceotable people see it to claim disability.

I also agree with the pp who said that people are claiming everything they can because they have less.

Yes, people think free cars just cos and "it's not fair" !

@Overthemhills i think you will probably be aware but just incase. Keep an eye on this charity. Their waitlist is closed at the moment due to too much demand but hopefully they will reopen it soon.

https://www.whizz-kidz.org.uk/

It happens every time, without fail. The reams of posts, from posters outlining their personal struggles, seems to have little impact on those posters determined to see wrongdoing, where there is none. It is sad to see.

I am just highlighting that you can use the motability scheme to access electric wheelchairs not just cars. I assume its the same process where your mobility element goes to motability.

Just in case this is helpful to anyone thst doesnt need the adapted car, but is worried about the upfront costs of a suitable wheelchair.

It is sad to see, people so insular that they refuse to see past themselves.

@Perzival
Re the mother who thinks eczema is a disability.. do you mean the mother understands her child to have a lifelong condition and conflates this with being disabled and therefore hopes to obtain benefits?
If so there’s a bit of insight there - people may speak ( or be entitled to speak)as if any lifelong condition is a disability.. and perhaps most lifelong conditions do fulfil the criteria for being described as disabled for employment law purposes for instance.
The difference is that not every condition brings with it a CARE need which is what our current disability benefits system covers.
Hence the repeated refrains about it’s not cost it’s care needs, not every condition affects people the same way and so on.
The application for DLA and/or PIP makes it very clear that is being assessed ie how much does someone else have to do for you (the claimant) that would not have to be done if you did not have your condition..
Its apples and oranges saying one nonverbal person costs nothing because that’s a feature many ASD children will have, but the rest of the child, the entire person, will have different care needs from another. Maybe in 10 children who are nonverbal as the talked about feature for making a claim 8 will have no costs but multiple care needs beyond someone who is not nonverbal. That’s why they qualify
. It’s therefore not as stupid as it seems on the face of it for a mother to think eczema is a disability.. maybe her child’s case does.
I have no idea whether it could be, but her reasoning isn’t self-evidently “money-grabbing” - I know you know her and I don’t and perhaps it was like that but it’s part of the anti-disability benefit language on SM about getting benefits and cars for “acne and anxiety “…
It’s perhaps not as simple as it looks - even if in one case it is.

I don't think the problem is the amount of people on disability benefits, it is the ridiculous inflexibility of employers.

If you are disabled then you should get extra money to cover the extra costs incurred.

However, if employers were supported to make jobs more flexible where possible then more disabled people (and people with caring responsibilities) would be able to work, which would improve employment stats, improve the economy and improve health and wellbeing for people who are not able to work full time in a 9-5 job. The norm should be part time working with flexible hours. Or even full time hours but flexible times.

Obviously not all jobs can take this approach but lots can who aren't.

Sometimes illness/medical conditions/disability. Is so unstable and unpredictable that employers can't run the risk of employees being off work or be sent home mid way through a day, then the person loses disability benefit because they are employed. Then they might need to give up work or go on longterm sick before they can re claim. It is a horrible cycle to be in.

@Geneticsbunny
Amen!
But there’s no way to enforce that and business owners would be outraged I’m sure if it was introduced.
The current government’s option to try voluntary work to slide into employment while still receiving benefits is one move in the right direction- it just doesn’t get the same press coverage as potential income tax rises.
But there may be gaps opening in the rigid way that this system of being able to work versus not being able to work, which can only be a good thing.

@Perzival
Thsnk you. I do know the charity. Sadly the chair my DD needs is very high tech. I love that charity though - it’s great for smaller children.

Tell me more about that? What do you think of when you see the initials ASD? The range is huge. My 3 DDs all have ASD and they have wildly different needs. One of them will never live independently, has a Severe Mental Impairment certificate despite being superficially very verbal, and can't be left at home alone despite being an adult. One of them is cognitively able but her language disorder combined with her ASD means that she is regarded as complex and needs specialist education. The third has ASD along with 3 other conditions that mean she's functionally impaired despite being capable of grade 9 GCSEs.

Only 22% of adults with ASD are in employment according to official data, compared with 52% of the non-autistic disabled population, and 81% of the non-disabled population.

Frankly, being Autistic is frequently seen as an unattractive proposition for employers because they want all singing, all dancing, engaging, flexible and outgoing staff.

You're right you don't know her and i do. A small patch of eczma on the hand/ arm shouldn't qualify for benefits, at all. It's common sense. Claiming a small patch of eczma is a disability and it being defended in the way you did is part of the problem. People generally will hurt themselves, have illnesses/ conditions, varying personality traits. Not all of them should be classed as a disability, some of them are just part of being human. I believe a big part of the problem is the current trend to pigeon hole every little difference or normal feeling into a diagnosis.

I am very aware of how dla/pip works thanks. My ds has claimed it since hewas two years old.

A person who is non verbal because of their autism (not selectively mute) is usually going to have severe/ profound autism and require high levels of care their entire life. That sort of autism isn't a mental health need that may come or go or change it's a severe lifelong disability.

I also think the expanding of the autism dx has added to the bad feeling over disability benefits. When you have people actively claiming autism is a superpower and something that can be self id'd into people then may struggle to see it as a disability (which it is).

I think it's the spiky profile that fools people. DD1 can talk to you about how gimbap is made in Korea, weird and wonderful species of frogs and spiders, environmental issues and animal cruelty. She couldn't tell you what happened if something went wrong. She can't understand many verbal interactions without support. She can't cope in group settings. She has very poor impulse control. No useful sense of danger. Thinks that you dial 911 if there's an emergency.

@Lougle i get that. I just think with non verbal people it's pretty clear cut. I'm using the definition of non verbal as in non aac etc. It's quite clear cut that this group of people need substantial support.

I agree. There seems to be a rather suspicious correlation going on. If certain benefits are made available then certain people (whether they genuinely need them ir not) will available themselves of them.

100% everyone seems to want a label!

Does that include yourself, by any chance?

I think most people would rather not be disabled, and would give their “label” up if they could get rid of the disability with it.

But, as an employer, wouldn't you want someone who is 100% up to the job????! Seems a daft question. Not sure what we do with those "not up to the job" though... yes, it's discrimination but in which field are the disabled supposed to work? It's just box ticking and claiming to be "inclusive ".
If you're potato farmer are you going to employ people that pick slower? No.
We need a shake up of the system.

It's about as much of a label as asthma is