Context
A constituent with epilepsy responded to the 'Pathways to Work' consultation, highlighting that PIP is viewed as a benefit offsetting disability costs rather than a pity payment. The constituent emphasized that without such support, disabled individuals are less able to live independently and pursue employment.
Question
My constituent with epilepsy responded to the ‘Pathways to Work’ consultation, highlighting that the questions implied the Department views PIP as a pity payment instead of a benefit designed to offset disability costs like seizure alert devices or accessible transport. Without such support, disabled people are less able to live independently and seek employment. Does the Minister agree that cutting PIP payments pushes more disabled individuals further from living independently and gaining employment?
Answer from The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)
I do not recognise the attitude that the hon. Member describes—quite frankly, we feel precisely the opposite. This vital benefit makes a crucial contribution towards the extra costs of living with a disability. That is why we want to reform it to protect it for generations to come, because we do not think that it is sustainable to have a doubling of the number of people on PIP over this decade from 2 million to more than 4.3 million.
Not addressed: The Minister did not directly address whether cutting PIP payments would push disabled individuals further from living independently and seeking employment.
Was this summary accurate? Tell us
How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)