DLA & the questions that still need answering

People with mental illness are reacting to last night’s debate in the Lords on Personal Independence Payment (replacing Disability Living Allowance) with mixed emotions. Some are feeling deflated that an amendment calling for a one year trial period and independent review of the new benefit was defeated. Others are feeling even more determination after the Government made some concessions.

"So a saving of 20% would need to be come from somewhere else - but where?"

But the overall feeling is one of confusion. So many elements of the changes are not incomplete and the picture is further muddied by misleading media reporting. It is contributing to a lot of stress and anxiety among people who currently rely on Disability Living Allowance for their independence and quality of life.

Comments last night on Rethink Mental Illness’ Facebook page show how fearful and angry people are about the changes: ‘Can't watch it, all this coverage is making me unwell. Seriously’ - ‘It’s about saving money not providing extra help’

One area where there is inadequate information is the budget for PIP which is replacing DLA. The Government has said the reforms are necessary to make a 20% saving in the DLA budget but it is unclear where these savings will come from. Despite the impression many papers give the public, fraud accounts for only 0.5% of the current expenditure.

So a saving of 20% would need to be come from somewhere else - but where? How can we have a national debate about this when such a fundamental question remains unanswered?

Another incomplete area is how the new assessment process will work. Lord Freud, the Minister responsible for the Welfare Reform Bill in the House of Lords, did commit to staggering the introduction of the assessments and a review of the processes and the benefit after 2 and 4 years but shouldn't some of these questions be answered before we start a new system rather than after?

Traditionally many of these issues are covered in regulations rather than legislation. Perhaps we need to challenge this model for making decisions that affect millions of people. Freud's commitments will be in regulations which are debated in Parliament, but not in the same detail.

At Rethink Mental Illness, we will keep fighting for more concessions on the Bill and we will do our bit to decode information, so that whether we support the proposals or not our members can at least start to understand what the changes actually mean.