Disability benefits: why we shouldn’t call it ‘welfare’ | Letters
Susan Randall discusses the Pip assessment written by Stephen Timms, which focuses on the situation of those living with long-term mental illness. Ruth Lister points out that the costs of social benefits should not be referred to as ‘welfare spending’. Randall supports significant changes to the Pip assessment process, as it is currently burdensome for those who are eligible. The article encourages the government to better support families who care for seriously ill individuals.
Susan Randall on Stephen Timms’ review of Pip and those with long-standing mental illness, and Ruth Lister on why social security spending shouldn’t be called ‘welfare’. Plus letters from Luke Howard and Katie Medd With reference to your editorial (The Guardian view on disability benefits: Pip must not become another route for cuts, 10 July), and speaking as someone who has contributed to Sir Stephen Timms’ review on behalf of family carers dealing with those with serious mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia, I fully support a substantial revision of the whole approach to personal independence payment (Pip) assessment. The assessment process is currently a daunting one for those who are justifiably applying for this much-needed support.
