Tis report is a comprehensive presentation o the most relevant evidence available on Disability Living Al-
lowance (DLA) and the proposals to replace it with a new benet, Personal Independence Payments (PIP).It gathers together existing inormation and analyses over 500 group responses to the Government’s Re-sponse to Disability Living Allowance reorm (obtained under FOI request 989).Te report is entirely written, researched, unded and supported by sick and disabled people, who came
together through social media to share their experiences, skills and talents. It was elt to be vitally importantthat with such sweeping reorm o every kind o support we rely on going through Parliament, there was aneed or a transparent, act-based analysis o available data that had been presented by us. We argue that reorm must be measured, responsible and transparent, based on available evidence and designed
with disabled people at the very heart o decision-making. Currently, we do not believe this to be the case. We nd that the Government’s response to the DLA consultation presented a highly misleading view o the
responses it received. Overall,74% o respondents were against the proposals or PIP;
19% had mixed views; and
Only 7% supported it ully.
We nd that the consultation process did not meet the Government’s own Code o Practice on consulta-
tion. It was two weeks shorter than recommended and took place over the Christmas holidays. Crucially,the Welare Reorm Bill was presented to Parliament two days beore the consultation ended, meaning thatresponses could not be taken into account when drating legislation or PIP. We nd that the evidence does not support a 30% rise in DLA claims relevant to PIP as claimed by the Govern-
ment throughout their consultation and Impact Assessments. Te gure is actually 13%. Tese gures were notmade clear to parliamentarians as they debated the bill, despite a Government report being signed o in May 2010. Government are still using the 30% gure despite admitting that it gives a “distorted view”. We cannot conclude that DLA receipt alone stops sick or disabled people rom working, as claimed by the
Government. With reerence to the specic questions asked in the Consultation on DLA reorm, we nd that there is
overwhelming opposition to most o the Government’s suggestions or reorm. Opposition is so clear inmany cases, that we believe that the Government must pause this reorm until it can be reconsidered.aking each question, the responses or and against are as ollows :
9Changing rates o “care” rom 3 to 2 92% Oppose / 8% Support
We nd this part o the Government’s response to be clearly misleading and that it ails to respond to the views and concerns o disabled people.
Should automatic qualications to DLA stop? 87% Oppose / 13% Support
We dispute the Government’s interpretation o the data in this section. Te Government response overrides the consultation.
Should the qualiying period be changed rom 3 months to 6? 98% Oppose / 2% Support
Tis is almost unanimously opposed. Te Government ails to take the views o disabled people into account and ar rom improving equality law as claimed, may be contravening their human rights.
Introduction o new Assessments 90% Oppose / 10% Support
We reject the Government’s interpretation o the data and ound overwhelming rejection o a WCA-style assess-ment. Tis section provoked the most responses and the highest concern in the entire consultation.
Change to the Review System 92% Oppose / 8% Support
Te Government ails to respond to the suggestions made by disabled people in this section.