radiofree.asia

The DWP has denied nearly half a million disabled people daily living PIP in just 21 months

Half a million claimants have tried and failed to qualify for the daily living element of the state’s Personal Independence Payment (DWP PIP) since November 2024, according to Freedom of Information (FOI).

Disability activist Lurgee Liz tweeted a Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) FOI response from 4 Aug 2025.

She warned that under new government plans, they would be subject to “Standard UC [universal credit] £417.53pcm” and “Full work search conditionality & sanctions”:

DWP plans to scrap the WCA will deny half a million people access to LCWRA

Liz warned that the government was:

expected to unveil plans in an autumn White Paper to scrap the Work Capability Assessment & make entitlement to the “Health Element” dependent on qualification for Daily Living PIP.

She added over the DWP PIP:

This will be voted on this autumn by Parliament BEFORE the Timms PIP review is completed!

Green Party disability activist @anonoccu1 responded:

Jeez, this reads like if you are not claiming PIP or you fail the PIP assessment you wont get UC health. No you UC health assessments and in addition, quote “and based on the impact of disability on daily living, not on capacity to work.

This basically means nearly everyone who is sick is a target for work except for extreme impacted conditions?

Nothing new, but these DWP PIP figures are nonetheless damning

The Canary and disability rights groups have been warning about the serious issues with this since the Tories first floated the idea. Notably, the concept of scrapping the WCA and aligning it with the PIP assessment is nothing new. In fact, it’s an option previous Conservative governments have considered in some form since as far back as 2019.

In May 2023, the Canary’s Steve Topple highlighted the devastating impact of this plan.

He explained how nonsensical it is to condition LCWRA on qualifying for DWP PIP:

The WCA and PIP criteria are completely different, as are the benefits. The DWP may be asking people for the same information about their illnesses or impairments. But the context is completely different. The WCA looks at what sick and disabled people can do regarding work. The PIP health assessment looks at what support people need. To combine both these assessments is simplifying people’s health. But more often than not, people’s health is not simple at all.

He also underscored that it would see the DWP stripping 632,000 people of their Support Group ESA or the health element of Universal Credit.

Moreover, when Kendall confirmed these plans in the government’s flagship Pathways to Work Green Paper in March, the Canary pointed out that:

The DWP’s current statistics don’t paint a rosier picture. As of August 2024, 780,250 Universal Credit claimants getting the health-related part also claimed PIP or DLA. There were around 1.4 million in the LCWRA group – meaning that just little over half of Universal Credit claimants eligible for the health part were also getting PIP or DLA.

In short, figures have little changed from this.

So now, these new PIP figures only cement what a complete and utter disaster the DWP’s move will be for chronically ill and disabled claimants. Crucially, just since November 2024, nearly 500,000 ESA Support Group and Universal Credit LCWRA claimants have failed to get PIP’s daily living component.

‘Major embarrassment’

Just two day ago, the Canary’s Hannah Sharland reported the the DWP had failed to consider how its planned PIP cuts would interact with Universal Credit households hit by the two-child limit policy.

Figures obtained by the Canary show that in combination, the two policies would have decimated tens of thousands of households.

As ministers seek to blame its row-back on PIP for its failure so far to commit to scrapping the two-child limit, the revelation should serve as a major embarrassment for the Labour Party government.

You can read Hannah’s full report here.

Featured image via the Canary

By Joe Glenton

This post was originally published on Canary.