The interim report of the Timms review of Pip is a walking contradiction. With the cost of the Personal Independence Payment expected to rise by £41 billion by 2030, the review by Stephen Timms, a minister at the Department for Work and Pensions, was supposed to establish whether the disability benefit was ‘fair and fit for the future’. But rather than examine ways of reducing the cost of Pip, every part of the Timms review points in the same direction: expanding eligibility and expanding entitlement. Taxpayers are footing the bill for a system that is unable to say no.
Across 240 paragraphs, the enormous cost of Pip is mentioned just four times. And what’s Timms’s response? Nothing. ‘The current level of spending is not a great concern’, he told Radio 4 after the report’s launch. ‘What would be a concern would be if it carried on going up forever more.’ Despite acknowledging that Pip spending is rising every year and that more people are claiming the benefit, the system is still repeatedly denounced for being too tough.
Timms’s conclusion is hardly surprising. His review draws overwhelmingly on submissions from people who either currently receive the benefit or think they should be entitled to it, and the groups that represent them. Of course they will argue that support should be increased, eligibility should be expanded and checks should be further relaxed.
What is striking is the attack on the basic elements of any disability benefit system. The stated purpose of Pip is to contribute towards the extra costs of disability. This inevitably means establishing whether a relevant condition exists and whether it affects someone’s life in a way that results in extra costs. Yet this minimum requirement is repeatedly portrayed as an unreasonable imposition.
Having to fill out a form describing how disability affects daily life is presented as unfair to people with lower levels of literacy. Basic questions such as ‘does your condition affect your washing and bathing?’ and ‘tell us about the difficulties you have with washing and bathing and how you manage them’, are apparently too technical and rigid.
It is not enough that face-to-face assessments have been effectively abolished. Even assessments over the phone are now too much. They can result, of course, in sensory overload, distress and exclusion. Questioning how a person’s condition affects them is described in sensational terms such as ‘dehumanising’, ‘soul destroying’, and ‘degrading’. Those who have been rejected say that to appeal a decision they have to submit additional evidence, as if that were an unacceptable burden rather than obvious and routine. Those who succeed say that being reassessed once every 3-5 years is ‘gruelling’. The system, they say, is too focused on verification.
It is hard to see what kind of functioning disability benefit system could satisfy these demands. No robust process can avoid being, to quote the report, ‘cognitively burdensome’. If that is the test, then almost any attempt to verify a claim can be dismissed as too demanding, and the direction of travel will be towards a system where claims are accepted by default. This is not hyperbole. Campaigners have already developed proposals for replacing Pip, including the ‘Additional Costs Disability Payment’ which would shift the burden of proof to taxpayers to disprove claims.
The interim report barely engages with the possibility that some applicants should not qualify for disability benefits. Instead, it appears to treat every failed claim as evidence that the rules are flawed. This backwards approach means that the criteria are being redesigned to fit cases, undermining the point of having eligibility criteria in the first place. Only a few brave MPs – such as Conservative Joy Morrissey – have shown the courage to push in the other direction and ask if Pip should, in fact, not be expanded but means-tested.
A system that is unable to say no is no system at all
If someone says that they feel they need to lie in order to qualify under the current rules, as mentioned in the report, the solution is not to change the rules. If someone fears that checks revealing activity inconsistent with their claim might cost them their award, the solution is not to remove those checks. A serious review should start by asking who taxpayers can afford to support and design the system from there. It is unfortunate that key questions such as whether Pip should be means-tested, which the TaxPayers’ Alliance’s submission to the review advocates, remain unaddressed.
Ultimately, a system that is unable to say no is no system at all. Without robust checks, costs will continue to rise and public confidence will continue to decline. Expanding eligibility and entitlement is not difficult. Anyone can find new ways to spend money and be praised by those receiving it. The challenge is being willing to set limits, defend them and make the case for when resources could be better deployed elsewhere. Unfortunately, the Timms review does not seem up to this task.
Comments