Get emergency foodPIP is paying for Universal Credit's failures
PIP is designed to support with additional costs of disability, not the costs of survival.
Our Senior Policy Manager, Lucy Bannister, explains that – to make PIP fair and sustainable – Timms needs to address the fact that Universal Credit is failing to cover the essentials.
After last year’s proposed PIP cuts, many disabled people are anxious about the final Timms Review recommendations this Autumn. After the backlash and political turmoil that followed, MPs will be too.
Reassuringly, the Timms Review’s interim report concluded what we know: a more sustainable and efficient system is a more compassionate and supportive one. This is reflected in our six practical proposals to improve PIP assessments, make better use of medical evidence, get decisions right first time and reduce the fear around reassessments. Proposals that will improve security and reduce hardship for disabled people, making it less likely so many will need to turn to a food bank.
The report also noted an important factor that is often overlooked in conversations about PIP: increasing spending on disability benefits in recent years has occurred alongside a reduction in expenditure on other working-age benefits (due to cuts and freezes to rates). It found that PIP is often needed for basic ‘survival’ rather than being reserved to the extra costs of disability or ill health.
Why is this happening?
Disabled people face many additional costs just to live their lives, for example, running equipment, taxis when public transport is inaccessible, higher insurance costs and hospital parking charges. These costs are highly individualised and quickly add up. PIP was designed to help with these extra costs, is not means-tested and is awarded regardless of whether someone is in or out of work.
Universal Credit (UC) is the income-replacement part of our social security system – there to protect any of us who lose our job, become too sick to work, find ourselves needing to care for others, or have lower earnings. Many people who receive PIP are working, but those whose health condition limits their ability to work are likely to also need UC.
As the interim report pointed out, UC has fallen significantly in value over the last decade. Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Trussell analysis shows that the standard allowance now falls well short of essentials such as food, bills and toiletries. The government acknowledged this is “contributing to hardship and destitution” and committed to above-inflation increases until 2029(i). But that will not be sufficient when the basic rate is now around its lowest ever level as a proportion of average earnings.
No one can make UC add up. People turn to food banks, get into debt and skip meals. For disabled people, many common ways of cutting costs are unavailable: dietary requirements can restrict cheaper food choices, walking or getting the bus might not be an option, and health needs can make it harder to reduce utility bills.
So, when UC has become so inadequate, are we surprised that more people have needed to turn to PIP? Analysis from the IFS concluded cuts to wider social security through the 2010s has been a driving factor of increased PIP claims, even if it can’t explain the continued rise post-pandemic(ii).
This does not mean people are accessing PIP when they don’t need it. The assessment process is incredibly difficult and only people whose condition severely affects their ability to function are eligible. It is a fact that more people are sick and disabled in our country. What is interesting is that a higher proportion are struggling to cope with the additional costs that come with that and are therefore needing PIP.
Of course, lower UC is far from the only driver of hardship. Disabled people have also faced the cost-of-living crisis and major barriers to work: lack of suitable roles, inflexible employers, discrimination, delays to Access to Work and insufficient employment support. However, until those issues are properly addressed, they make the adequacy of UC even more important.
But what does this tell us?
Firstly, the reality is that PIP has become part of the UK’s poverty prevention architecture, making changing eligibility very risky. Any changes to the assessment or criteria will likely mean some people lose support. Seven in ten people who receive PIP are in the poorest half of the income distribution(iii) and Trussell research shows families receiving PIP already experience hunger at three times the rate of those who do not.
Spending on PIP can be reduced, but by tackling the unmet needs of disabled people in our healthcare system, labour market and social care system, as well as better connecting these systems - not cutting financial support.
Secondly, PIP’s poverty prevention role further explains the huge fear that many people have of losing it. Disabled people are rightly entitled to support with the additional costs of disability, whatever their income. However, when losing PIP also means losing the ability to afford food, the risk calculation changes.
Traumatic and frequent reassessments, wrong decisions that people have to fight to overturn, and long delays all create a fear that is holding disabled back. People – not mistakenly – fear that attempts to improve their wellbeing, work or independence could be used against them at review. In ‘Making PIP work’, we explain how the government can make assessments and reviews more efficient and give disabled people the confidence and freedom to get on with their lives.
But finally, it also underlines once again how the rising inadequacy of Universal Credit has led to costs elsewhere in society. Trussell and Joseph Rowntree Foundation are calling for an Essentials Guarantee: a legally protected minimum level of support within UC that covers the cost of essentials such as food and bills.
There has never been any proper evidence-based process to ensure UC provides enough support to cover costs. This has allowed rates to erode over time. Following the Work & Pension Select Committee’s recommendation that the government explore independent advice to determine rates(iv), the All Party Parliamentary Group for Ending the Need for Food Banks is currently running an inquiry into the process for setting UC levels (call for evidence deadline 7 September!). We cannot make PIP fit for the future without fixing UC.
A strong social security system is critical to a functioning society and economy. None of us know when we might need it. Making it sustainable means addressing the drivers of increased need. Cuts will always only create problems elsewhere.
ii) https://ifs.org.uk/publications/do-disability-benefit-claims-rise-when-other-benefits-are-cut
iii) https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/publications/a-dangerous-road/
iv) https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/43979/documents/217876/default/