Esther McVey MP

Minister of State for Disabled People

Department for Work and Pensions

Level 4, Caxton House, Tothill Street

London SW1H 9NA

Date: February 26^th 2013

Dear Esther,

I am writing to you on behalf of a number of my constituents, who have contacted me to express their concern and distress that some people with disabilities will not be sufficiently protected under the criteria for the new Personal Independence Payment (PIP).

My constituents are anxious that, under the draft regulations setting out who is eligible for different levels of payment, people with severe medical conditions—such as Parkinson’s, MS and cerebral palsy—will no longer have access to the funding they need to carry out their everyday activities. These include attending essential medical appointments, taking part in their community and travelling to work.

Several aspects of the draft regulations are particularly worrying. Many constituents have expressed anxiety about one in particular, namely that, despite the evidence provided to two government consultations on PIP, the mobility criteria are set according to a test that  assesses the ability to stand and move less 20m – compared to 50m previously. This reduction in eligibility will exclude many disabled people from receiving essential and legitimate support. This in turn will have on impact on their mobility and daily quality of life. Understandably, given the way this change has been introduced, my constituents are also anxious about the possibility of further changes to the funding they rely on being made without consultation or any opportunity for discussion.

It has also been pointed out to me many times, in writing and during surgeries, that while individuals may be able to move 20m, the effort involved in doing so is extreme. After moving 20m some disabled people would suffer such pain, fatigue or risk to their health that they would be unable to do so again within a reasonable time period. Another issue of great concern to many is that the qualifying phrase, ‘reliably, repeatedly, safely and in a timely manner’, which would provide some protection in such a situation, has been left out of the regulations. Leaving this phrase out of the guidance could result in assessors making decisions that are both unfair to individuals and also inconsistent between people with a similar level of disability.

My constituents and I would be extremely grateful if you would provide assurances that the new system will protect people with disabilities, especially those with severe medical decisions, and will not take away their independence or compromise their well-being. Please would you specifically provide me with information that I can relate back to constituents that explains why the Government has ignored evidence in making changes to the PIP criteria, as well as why the phrase “reliably, repeatedly, safely and in a timely manner” has been left out of the regulations.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Caroline Lucas MP, Brighton Pavilion

Read the ministerial response here.