Minister is asked why he expects disabled people to fund their own PIP review engagement events

The disability minister has been asked why he appears to have provided no funding for a plan to increase engagement among disabled people and their organisations with his review of the personal independence payment (PIP) system.

Sir Stephen Timms announced plans in April to provide a “workshop in a box” kit that would help disabled people’s organisations (DPOs) and other groups run their own events to capture “in-depth insights” about PIP that could be fed back to his review.

But Disability Wales (DW) has now written to Sir Stephen to ask why DPOs appear to be expected to fund these workshop events themselves.

It is also concerned that there is no funding to ensure that the workshops are accessible, through “fundamental requirements” such as providing interpreters, palantypists and other reasonable adjustments, and it has questioned whether the workshop resources will be provided in accessible formats such as “easy read” and British Sign Language.

In the letter, Dr Natalie Jarvis, DW’s policy and research officer, says her organisation has “significant concerns” about the apparent lack of funding.

She says: “Organisations are currently expected to absorb the costs associated with staff time, including planning, administration, outreach, and delivery, without any dedicated funding.

“For organisations already operating under significant capacity constraints, this presents a serious barrier to engagement.”

She adds: “We are concerned that the current approach places a disproportionate burden on DPOs to deliver engagement on behalf of the Review without the necessary support.”

In response, a DWP spokesperson told Disability News Service: “We thank Dr Natalie Jarvis for her letter regarding accessibility and funding for the Timms Review Workshop in a Box.

“We are reviewing the letter and will respond in due course.”

The spokesperson added: “The Timms Review is being co-produced with disabled people and their representative organisations – to make sure PIP is fair and fit for the future.”

Meanwhile, DW is among DPOs and grassroots organisations that have submitted their responses to the Timms Review’s call for evidence, which closed on 28 May.

In its response, DW said its research had shown that PIP “plays an irreplaceable role in enabling disabled people to live independently, maintain their health, wellbeing, and participate in wider society” and that it is seen as a “core form of finance” that helps them meet their additional costs of disability.

It said PIP is seen as a “lifeline” and that losing it would pose “a direct threat to their ability to function in everyday life”.

And DW says evidence shows that any tightening of eligibility criteria “risks excluding large numbers of disabled people whose needs remain substantial but do not fit narrowly defined thresholds”.

DW warns that removing or restricting PIP would have “direct consequences for physical health, mental wellbeing, and, in some cases, risk to life”.

Another response to the PIP review has been submitted by the disabled women’s organisation WinVisible, which says in its response that PIP is often used “to substitute for what councils, the NHS and government should fund but don’t”.

It says: “By offsetting our disability costs, PIP puts us on a more equal footing with non-disabled people who don’t incur added disability costs or barriers in day-to-day activities.”

WinVisible also says that disabled women who are part of its group describe PIP as a “lifeline” because it is the only money they control in an abusive relationship, and that any cut to benefits “accelerates violence against women as it undermines our financial independence and choices”.

It also says that it is “totally opposed” to merging the assessments for PIP and the work capability assessment because the current system means that “we can at least get some money for disability and survival needs if refused one or the other”.

Another response to the PIP review has come from Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) Cymru, which shares DW’s concerns about funding for the “workshop in a box” scheme.

In its 168-page response, DPAC Cymru makes clear its “strongest possible objection” to the review’s failure to deliver the “genuine co-production with disabled people and our organisations” that was promised to parliament.

It continues to call for an independent disability review that is much wider in scope than the Timms Review and is led by disabled people and their organisations.

Among its recommendations on PIP is to stop reviews of eligibility “arbitrarily reducing points when a claimant’s condition remains unchanged”, and for an end to private sector companies “profiteering from the assessment process”.

It also calls for a replacement for the “flawed and adversarial points-based assessment system”, and for PIP and other disability benefits to be excluded from the “unlawful and barbaric” rules for migrants who are subject to “no recourse to public funds”.