Benefit cuts proposal

[Charliechoosecarefully]

I just wanted it to have a specific thread:-

Kendall says government to consult on merging JSA and ESA benefits.

Kendall says WCA being scrapped, with Pip assessment process being used instead - will be scrapped in 2028.

Kendall says 'right to try' will let people on sickness benefits try work without immediately having benefits cut.

Kendall says UC payments being rebalanced, with standard rate going up, and some health top-ups frozen or cut.

Kendall says reassessments for people on universal credit with health top-ups to be beefed up

Kendall says universal credit claimants with most severe disabilities will not face reassessment

Kendall confirms Pip eligibility rules to be tightened, and assessment process to be reviewed - 4 pointed needed in one descriptor.

Kendall says under-22s could be prevented from claiming health top-up for universal credit

Sourced from the guardian.

I’ve already seen posts on other threads advocating for the prenatal screening for autism because of how much ‘these people cost us

Do you not believe in antenatal screening, or is it just autism that you think should be the exception?

If government was serious about getting people off disability benefits and into work, it would be investing more in health; it would be working with employers and on employment law

I don’t disagree with you, but where does that money come from. I’m in Scotland, the tax burden here is ridiculous. Everything the government invests in costs money, which ends up coming out of the wages of working people in one form or the other.

Ivan was profoundly disabled and died in childhood.

I really don't like penalising young people under 22, sure they should be better programs supporting them in education and training, my autistic daughter has an EHCP which can go up to age 25 but my LA fights tooth and nail to stop it at provision at 18.
She wants to work but is unlikely to manage full time and will need adjustments, flexibility and will have days when she just can't function - this is without notice.
So where are the employers who offer this kind of support and understanding? They are businesses.
PIP is a buffer if you can't manage full-time work and to blank ban people under 22 from claiming it is in wrong, they can get married, fight for their country, are legally adults.
Seems ridiculous that disabled young people can get DLA until they are 16, then nothing,a black hole, between16-22, then PIP from 22.
What the government should be looking at is why so many young people's mental health has declined and what timely intervention and services they can put in place to support them.
CAMHS is a joke.
I despair that Labour are using these vulnerable young people as scapegoats to balance their budget.

@Dutchhouse14i think you have that wrong. It’s the extra health bit of UC they can’t get until 22. Claiming PIP is fine

So many people on this thread don't seem to understand that the 'person on PIP' and 'the tax payer' can be the same person. I'm one of them.

Depends on circumstances, but it may well do. Also may result in the claimant being benefit capped.

There isn't a ban on PIP until 22. It's the health component of Universal credit. They could only claim basic UC, not the additional component.

The age related change to PIP being consulted in is that children would stay on DLA until 18, which is actually a positive change that could happen imo.

I think most people understand this but I think the problem is that you can't have it all ways.

There are posters who say they have well paid jobs and pay a lot of tax and claim PIP. The obvious question for many would be whether these people can't afford to cover the costs of their disability themselves in the same way that those with poor eyesight or need extensive dental work are expected to? It's obviously not exactly fair or equal but nothing in life is and when we have such limited resource are we in the position to be allocating PIP to relatively wealthy people when we are making cuts elsewhere? We simply can't afford everything or even close to everything.

Alternatively people will argue that they either don't work or work in low paid jobs and therefore rely on PIP to survive. Realistically any tax paid by this group will be low and almost definitely dwarfed by the amount of benefits they can claim. Technically they may be tax payers but it's obvious why people that pay more tax than they are ever likely to get out of the system view themselves as a different type of taxpayer. Someone that stands to contribute more than they will ever gain and wants to see their money spent well.

People who cannot work for an employer might want to try working for themself particularly if benefits are withdrawn. Eg some apps allow you to pick and choose work so if you are not feeling well you don;'t go in that day and as you are entirely self employed (as indeed am I) if you work you are paid and if not you aren't.

I understand but there are huge numbers of teens in your daughter’s position and each of them would cost hundreds of thousands to ‘treat’, and that treatment is far from a silver bullet. This profile of ‘anxious, autistic teen who seems fine from the outside’ has only really emerged in the last 5/10 years, so I think expecting there to be an up-and-running service on a mass scale is unrealistic.

The obvious question for many would be whether these people can't afford to cover the costs of their disability themselves in the same way that those with poor eyesight or need extensive dental work are expected to?

I guess the additional costs related to disability are constant and extensive. Specialist equipment or therapies don’t come cheap and if the NHS do offer them, it’s at a very basic often unsuitable level. My DD is still a child but her DLA allows access to supports and services simply not available through universal services but that make it possible for her to access education and the wider community. Her DLA doesn’t cover all the costs but it makes a big dent and actually makes it possible for her to live a productive, satisfying life.

Salaries are stretched enough, and accessibility for disabled people is difficult enough, PIP reduces some of those barriers to enable people to live and in many cases work.

The other obvious response is that those who need complex eye care or dental care often don’t get this because they can’t afford it.

I think a child is different than an adult. Children get free access to dental care, eye care and free prescriptions as it's recognised that they aren't in a position to fund their own care.

If your DD goes on to forge a successful career and earn a lot of money then I think there is a valid debate to be had about how much of her ongoing costs should be funded via PIP. I don't doubt that she will incur additional costs as a result of being disabled but I think there are many people that wouldn't qualify for PIP that have additional costs associated with their mental and physical costs. Lots of people need regular therapy, osteopaths, expensive ongoing dental work etc.

Nobody in my nuclear family unit is disabled but last year alone I had to pay over £1000 on costs associated with my eyesight to manage my extreme astigmatism and had to have thousands of pounds of dental work undertaken that the NHS wouldn't fund. My DH has to pay for skin audits every year due to inherited elevated skin cancer risks, had to buy an expensive ergonomic chair due to back pain and had to buy a few pairs of extortionately priced special shoes due to having an unusual gait. I had to pay for my son to have private speech therapy as the NHS therapy was proving ineffective.

My point is that the exact same arguments that you make about your DD needing PIP can be made for many non disabled people that suffer from physical and mental conditions. It's not fair and is totally dependent on the luck of the draw but can the state step in to equalise everything for everyone?

Yes, I spent £3000 on laser eye surgery as my short sightedness was getting extreme and disabling. Should this be reimbursed by the taxpayer?

No unfortunately not.

However, going by many of the benefit claims maybe you should go to the top of the queue!

Those who think there shouldn't be benefit cuts, where do you think the money should come from to finance it?

Yeah, I know. Are you going to tell me the Camerons needed the money now though?

I mean, if he was so concerned about the public purse as he went on to be, subjecting millions of others to a decade of misery, surely he wouldn’t have bothered claiming?

A lot of disabled people who fell into the trap of voting Labour last time out purely based on the brand name are probably regretting their decision to do so this morning.

I stopped voting for The Labour Party when Starmer completed his coup. ‘Left wing’ they certainly aren't.

"Seems ridiculous that disabled young people can get DLA until they are 16, then nothing,a black hole, between16-22, then PIP from 22."

The proposal is for DLA to continue to 18 then PIP from 18 onwards. It is the health related benefit ( the old ESA) that will not be available until 22. So PIP will still be available but other benefits will be less for those under 22 and not already on them by April 26.

Not really because who else would they vote for that had a real prospect of getting into power? At least Labour back benchers are more likely to rebel and soften some of the potential reforms that could have happened.

Ultimately whoever gets into power is going to have to do something in this space. There really isn't any alternative other than bankrupting the country. I think it's time we had a very serious and mature conversation about what we want to prioritise as a country. There are more wants and needs than we can ever fund so let's make an active decision about what we do rather than promising everyone the moon on a stick and then cack handedly trying to keep costs down.

We need to go back to first principles. What level of disability benefits are we willing and able to afford as a country? How should this money be distributed? How do we assist those that will experience cuts to cope and manage?

I really do think PIP should be binned and the NHS services should have to step in instead. They could always outsource to private psychologists etc. Far better than just handing people cash to spend on goodness knows what. Or PIP payments are wholly dependent on receipts being provided. Why should PIP claimants such as the autistic 41 year old be given a financial buffer to set against day to day costs that other low paid workers don’t?

I suspect the conversation here would be very different if the cuts were falling on child benefit or the payment of nursery fees. I agree that cuts need to be made. I just don’t agree that vulnerable sick and disabled people should bear the brunt of them every single time. Or have you failed to notice the benefit scrounging stories in the press and the media which always pre-empt cuts.

They’ve made a single cut to PIP which will automatically render those with low level disabilities ineligible. Scoring 4 points in any one category is very difficult unless you have significant disability — and it’s those with significant disability for whom thee benefits were designed. So hopefully this one cut will redress the balance and put PIP back in the hands of those who deserve it.

I think 18 is probably a better time to transfer to PIP in all honesty. I think DLA paid to parents till 18 is far more sensible. I’m baffled that young adults 18-22 won’t be able to access extra funding on UC though. It will leave parents even less time to save for their own retirement if they now unexpectedly have to make up the shortfall for an extra 4 years. Many parents only have 15 to 20 years work left to them after their work having been limited for a couple of decades. It’s a blow.

It’s to make the 18-22 have a meaningful look at work, rather than just hopping from one benefit to another. I think it’s good.

I think we can agreed that a 18 disabled 18 year old is highly likely to be living at home with minimal expenses. I’d like to see this factored into claims, so for instance care leavers don’t have restricted claims due to age, and others do.

I agree wholeheartedly with antenatal screening, but not with designing screening programmes predicated on the belief that some people cost too much. Where does that end?

Arf at the “minimal expenses”. You really don’t understand the additional expense in raising a disabled child or of living with disability do you? How wilfully ignorant. Parents will obviously pick up the additional costs (as they do now because most supplement their children if they can). The money wasn’t for luxuries. The benefit they’ve removed is for young adults who face huge obstacles to employment.