The rise in numbers claiming DLA are not all that they appear, and are being used by ministers in a potentially misleading way
Today the DWP released an ad hoc statistical publication looking at claimants of Disability Living Allowance between 2002-03 and 2010-11. It showed that the numbers of people claiming has increased by 29%. Alongside this came a statement from Ian Duncan Smith decrying the fact that people had been left on benefits for years. The new benefit replacing DLA – the Personal Independence Payment – would end all that, he said.
But as with most government figures related to disability these days, one needs to look a bit closer.
Firstly, 6% of the 29% figure can be attributed to the maturing of the benefit. Introduced as it was in 1992, the rules regarding DLA eligibility state that, as long as someone claims DLA before age 65, they can continue to do so after 65. In 2002-03, the oldest DLA claimant would therefore be 75 – but by 2010-11, they would have reached 84, whilst thousands of septuagenarian DLA claimants follow on behind.
So some of this increase is due to disabled people getting older, claiming longer, and adding to the overall number of claimants. A further 7 % can be put down to demographic change – the population getting larger – ergo, a larger percentage of disabled people.
So the figure is already cut to 16%. We should also take into account the fact that, through advances in modern medicine, lots more disabled babies and children are surviving. This, like out ageing population, is something to be celebrated – even though it comes with a price tag. It seems, however, that whilst the government has accepted this fact in health and care spending, it has not done so in benefits.
Perhaps it is cynical to suggest that this 'ad hoc' statistical release about how much DLA is costing the tax payer has been timed to coincide with the piloting of the new PIP assessments. But one can’t help suspecting that, faced with growing concerns from the disability sector regarding the accuracy of the new PIP test, the government is trying to carry the plan through on a wave of populism, rather than measured scrutiny.
The fact is, the DLA does need to be reformed. The assessment process is cumbersome, and it is difficult to know who will be eligible for what. But is PIP the answer? Duncan-Smith implies the government is worried that people are claiming DLA for too long, when their conditions may have improved. So why not scrap the self-reporting system and repeat the DLA test annually, excluding those with lifetime impairments. Problem solved, without too much fuss.
So why the administrative upheaval (and cost) of a new benefit? The government has stated it wants to reduce DLA costs by 20%. So the test must, by default, find a lot fewer people eligible. The new PIP test is in fact medical in nature, examining the functional impact of a person’s disability, to restrict funds to only those most 'in need'. But there is a flaw in this plan. The DLA’s original purpose was to compensate people for the costs of disability, but research carried out by Demos and Scope last year found almost no correlation between the functional impact of a disability and living costs. Other factors - like living in unsuitable accommodation and being unemployed – were more important.
It is clear we need constructive discussion of such evidence, to make sure that PIP gets money to the right people – those with the highest living costs, not just those with the most complex conditions. Better targeting will reap its own cost efficiencies, but in a fairer way. And it won’t need to rely on media stories to gain public support.
Claudia Wood is head of public services and welfare at Demos
