Commons Sense

House of Commons · Ministers' Questions

Personal Independence Payment: Assessment Review

Monday 12 May 2025 · 5 questions

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

Answered 2 Partly answered 3 Not answered 0

Key points

  • Progress on reviewing the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) assessment system has been announced through a Green Paper.
  • Government's assessment of PIP cuts affecting up to 700,000 families in poverty does not account for expected employment support and future child poverty strategy impacts.
  • A constituent's PIP assessment experience, which deviated from Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) guidance, will be reviewed upon submission of information by the MP.

Topics (select to filter)

Questions & Answers

Q1 Richard Burgon Lab Leeds East
Benefits & Welfare
Context

The question addresses the government's plans to review the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) assessment system, introduced over a decade ago.

Question

What progress has been made on the Department's review of the personal independence payment assessment system? The hon. Member notes that there have been significant changes in disability and long-term conditions as well as societal shifts since PIP was introduced, which is why our Green Paper announced plans to review the PIP assessment with disabled people and their representatives.

Answer from The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)

It is over a decade since PIP was introduced and there have been significant shifts in the nature of disability and long-term conditions, as well as changes in wider society and the workplace. Our Green Paper announced our plans to review the PIP assessment system working with disabled people, organisations representing them, and others. We are starting this work today by inviting key organisations into discussions about the terms of reference which we will publish and keep the House updated as it progresses.

Answered
Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Get updates like this by email
Q2 Richard Burgon Lab Leeds East
Benefits & Welfare
Context

The hon. Member references a Government impact assessment indicating that the PIP benefit cut will push approximately 250,000 people into poverty and highlights new DWP figures obtained through freedom of information request showing an additional 700,000 families already in poverty will be affected.

Question

The hon. Member notes there has been a lot of focus on the impact of PIP cuts, with Government's own assessment stating that 250,000 people will be pushed into poverty by this cut but new figures show it could affect up to 700,000 families already in poverty. Why does this information have to come out through a freedom of information request? Will the Minister provide clarity on the true scale of poverty caused by these cuts and whether such policies align with Labour's mission to lift people out of poverty?

Answer from The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)

My hon. Friend will know that those figures do not consider the number of disabled people expected to find work through our biggest ever investment in employment support, Pathways to Work, nor do they factor the huge strides we will make with our forthcoming child poverty strategy. We are more open and transparent than any previous Government by publishing all poverty impact assessments because we want this debate in the House and to present our case. Our mission is to help as many people as possible into work for better choices and opportunities.

Partly answered

Not addressed: The full scale of poverty increase was not addressed, only countered with expected employment support impacts which were not quantified.

How: Under Review, Considering

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Get updates like this by email
Q3 Vikki Slade Lib Dem Mid Dorset and North Poole
Benefits & Welfare
Context

The hon. Member cites a constituent's experience with the PIP assessment process, where her conditions were deemed fluctuating but not properly accounted for during the assessment due to misinterpretation and disregard.

Question

A constituent with fluctuating and debilitating conditions experienced an over two-hour PIP assessment that ignored explanations, did not inquire about post-assessment status, threatened termination when words were misconstrued, contrary to DWP guidance. Will the Secretary of State review how such conditions are handled in assessments?

Answer from The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)

Yes, I would like the hon. Lady to send in that information so we can look at it carefully.

Answered
Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Get updates like this by email
Q4 Rachael Maskell Labour (Co-op) York Central
Social Care Benefits & Welfare
Context

The hon. Member raises concerns about the implications for public services like adult social care due to proposed changes in personal independence payments.

Question

In my local authority, adult social care is deeply concerned over additional costs and moving people into dependency as their independence diminishes with PIP changes. What assessments has been done on these impacts? Can figures be provided?

Answer from The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)

Our objective is to give disabled people more independence by ensuring those who can work receive support. We have evidence that employment benefits health. Extra social care funding includes £3.7 million this year, on top of the £26 billion increase for NHS. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend further discuss these issues.

Partly answered

Not addressed: The impact assessment's detail and figures were not provided, only mentions additional social care funding.

How: Under Review, Considering

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Get updates like this by email
Q5 Siân Berry Green Brighton Pavilion
Benefits & Welfare
Context

The hon. Member challenges the Prime Minister's statement that cutting back on PIP eligibility aligns with post-war Labour principles, noting a growing number of Labour Members find such policies cruel and unjust.

Question

Last Wednesday, the Prime Minister stated that balancing Government books on disabled people’s backs was in line with post-war Labour principles. However, more Labour MPs disagree, finding these policies cruel and morally wrong. Who is correct?

Answer from The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)

I do not recognise how the hon. Lady framed the Prime Minister’s response. We want a social security system protecting those who can never or will never work, but disabled people out of work are more likely than non-disabled to say they wish to work. If in work, they have half the likelihood of being poor compared to non-disabled. Our goal is shifting focus towards helping people work if capable and protect those unable.

Partly answered

Not addressed: The alignment with post-war Labour principles was not clarified directly; instead, a broad statement on system goals was given.

How: Under Review, Considering

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Get updates like this by email