The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) have been criticised over planned changes to the Personal Independence Payment (PIP), which will come into effect for all claimants except those aged 24 and under.
Disability charities have called the plans “deeply concerning”, adding that “young disabled people shouldn’t be penalised because of their age”.
The DWP confirmed to The Independent last month that it is moving to set PIP award reviews at a minimum of three years for new claims, rising to five years at their next review if the claimant remains entitled.
In most cases, this will reduce the frequency of award reviews for PIP claimants, with the uncertainty around reassessments often cited as a key issue of the system.
However, it has now been confirmed that these changes will not apply to claimants who are aged 24 or under. This marks a substantial policy shift by treating younger Pip claimants differently to others.
Urged to review the decision by the independent Social Security Advisory Committee, the DWP’s disability and health support director Bill Thorpe said the policy will avoid “avoids keeping young people on PIP longer than necessary”.
He added that “prolonged benefit receipt at this formative age can harm long-term employment prospects through income substitution and early life scarring effects.”
Although welcoming the wider changes, disability charities have reacted negatively to the decision to exclude younger claimants from the policy.
Harriet Edwards, director of influencing at the national disability charity Sense, said: “It is wrong and damaging for the DWP to link PIP with employment prospects. PIP is not an out of work benefit; it exists to offset the significant extra costs that come with being disabled such as public transport not being accessible or having higher energy bills.”
“In fact, Sense research found almost half of disabled people with complex needs under 25 say their PIP helps them access employment. Far from being ‘scarring’, benefits are a lifeline for disabled people with numerous social benefits.”
“Reducing the number of assessments disabled people face is a positive step which should be rolled out for all PIP claimants. The barriers young disabled adults face aren’t any fewer than their older counterparts; they should therefore be treated equally in the benefits system.”
Abdi Mohamed, head of policy at disability equality charity Scope, added: “PIP assessments can be highly stressful and degrading. Young disabled people shouldn’t be penalised because of their age and excluded from plans to extend review periods.
“Life costs much more for disabled people, including those under 25. PIP doesn’t stop young disabled people working, it helps level the playing field by supporting with their extra costs.”
Currently claimed 3.9 million people, PIP is intended to assist with additional expenses associated with managing a disability or long-term illness.
Disability minister Sir Stephen Timms is currently reviewing the health benefit to ensure it is “fair and fit for the future”. He has said Labour will hold off on any adjustment to the benefit’s eligibility criteria until after its conclusion later this year.
The payment was central to Labour’s plans to cutting welfare costs last year but proposals to adjust assessment rules to tighten eligibility faced intense backlash from campaigners and politicians.
Ministers abandoned the proposals after more than 100 Labour MPs warned they would oppose the measures. Sir Stephen confirmed the climbdown and subsequent review during the debate on the legislation.
A DWP spokesperson said: “Claimants aged 16-24 are more likely to see an improvement in condition and functional capacity than the general PIP population. The purpose of excluding under 25s from these changes is to avoid keeping young people on PIP longer than necessary.
“This important step to reduce the frequency of reviews will make the system more efficient by freeing up the capacity of health professionals to tackle our inherited assessment backlog, while removing unnecessary pressure from disabled claimants whose conditions rarely change at each review.”
