PIP implementation nothing short of a fiasco say MPs

Public Accounts Committee: Personal Independence Payment - First Report of Session 2014

The DWP has rushed the introduction of Personal Independence Payment (PIP) and the non-piloting of the new benefit has led to long and unacceptable delays to disabled people who have claimed it, according to a scathing new Public Accounts Committee (PAC) report.

The cross-party committee of MPs slammed the PIP claim process as being inaccessible and cumbersome for claimants who it highlights are “some of the most vulnerable people in society”.

In addition, the MPs slam the DWP both for significantly misjudging the number of face-to-face assessments that providers would need to carry out and the time these assessments would take.

The PAC concludes that the overall result has been:

  • significant delays to benefit decisions and a growing backlog of claims;
  • an unacceptable level of service creating uncertainty, stress and financial cost for disabled people;
  • additional financial and other pressures on disability organisations; and on other public services, that support claimants.

Rather than making the financial savings it intended to make by introducing PIP, say the MPs, the DWP will instead now have to seek compensatory savings elsewhere.

Margaret Hodge MP, Chair of the PAC said:

"The implementation of PIP has been nothing short of a fiasco. DWP has let down some of the most vulnerable people in our society, many of whom have had to wait more than six months for their claims to be decided.

The Department’s failure to pilot the scheme meant that the most basic assumptions, such as how long assessments would take and how many would require face-to-face consultations, had not been fully tested and proved to be wrong. This resulted in significant delays, a backlog of claims and unnecessary distress for claimants who have been unable to access the support they need to live, and in some cases work, independently.

The personal stories we heard were shocking. We heard evidence of a claimant requiring hospital intervention as a result of the stress caused by the delays suffered, and another claimant who was unable to afford the specific diet required for diabetes and gastric problems while waiting for a decision.”

She added that:

“We are concerned that Atos appears to have included incorrect and potentially misleading information in its bid for the contract. Atos stated in its tender document that it had “contractual agreements” in place with a national network of 56 NHS hospitals, 25 private hospitals and over 650 physiotherapy practices to provide assessments. This turned out not to be true.

The Department should challenge claims made in bids, so that it can demonstrate it has not relied on inaccurate or exaggerated information when awarding contracts.

We would have expected the Department to have exercised particular caution in letting this contact, given the poor performance of Atos on Work Capability Assessments. The Department must take into account previous performance on similar work when running a procurement.”

The PAC make several recommendations as to how the DWP must move the introduction of PIP forward, including that the Department should:

  • ensure that new systems and policies are fully tested before they are implemented nationally, to provide evidence that assumptions made and any assurances received from third parties, are correct;
  • make the process easier for claimants by, for example, making paper claim forms available through recognised voluntary organisations, such as Citizens Advice while also ensuring that third parties supply information on claimants where relevant and do this in good time;
  • must speed up all stages of the process to ensure benefit decisions are made on a timely basis and tackle the backlog of cases that has arisen;
  • ensure that it, and its contractors, provide an acceptable level of service to claimants by minimising delays and travel times, making home visits when arranged, improving administrative processes, and providing better information to claimants; and
  • challenge inaccurate or exaggerated claims made in bids, so that it can demonstrate it has not relied on them when awarding contracts and have regard to previous performance on similar work when assessing contractors.

The PAC report into the introduction of PIP is available @ www.publications.parliament.uk

The latest report by Commons Public Accounts Committee, which brands the implementation of the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) a ‘fiasco’ comes as no surprise to Disability Rights UK.

In the past we have highlighted the fact that disabled people are waiting over 6 months for their PIP claims to be assessed with 75% of claimants not yet having received any decision on their claim (See ‘PIP stats show broken system’ at http://disabilityrightsuk.org/news/2014/june/pip-stats-show-broken-system).

We have also voiced concerns about avoiding a one size fits all approach which potentially excludes disabled people from a benefit to which they are legally entitled.

The money provided by PIP is vital in enabling disabled people to leading an independent life because they can use it to pay for much needed support. The Government’s poor track record in implementing PIP and the delays and misery it has caused suggests it needs to recognise this.

We welcome the recommendations made by Public Accounts Committee but recommendations are not enough. We call on the Government to act on them. PIP is broken and needs to be fixed.