The current political drive to slash disability benefits is rooted in an assessment system that is fundamentally flawed. Much of the way the DWP assesses 'need' is centred on outdated forms and a narrow, damaging worldview known as the Medical Model of Disability.

The Medical Model views disability as a problem residing within the individual (e.g., "you are unable to walk"). This is the framework used by the Work Capability Assessment (WCA) and Personal Independence Payment (PIP), which attempt to force complex, multi-faceted impairments into neat, rigid boxes focused on individual deficits and functional tests.

In contrast, the Social Model states that disability is caused by barriers created by society (e.g., the inability to access a building due to a step, discriminatory attitudes, or lack of accessible public transport). When assessing the need for financial help, we must use the latter framework, as it provides a true understanding of why a person requires support to live independently. The reality is we do not, and this failure feeds the societal narrative that disabled people are a burden for seeking financial help.

PIP: Funding the Extra Costs of Inaccessibility

PIP is designed not simply to compensate for an inability to work, but to fund the extra costs of navigating those pervasive social barriers. The two components of PIP reflect this purpose: the Daily Living component and the Mobility component.

For both components, a claimant is assessed on a sliding scale of points for ten activities, with points awarded if a task cannot be completed safely, repeatedly, and within a reasonable time, or if supervision/assistance is required.

• Daily Living Component: This covers costs like specialist equipment, higher heating bills (due to certain conditions), or specific dietary needs—all of which are extra costs imposed by living in a world not built for them.

• Mobility Component: This exists not just because a person cannot walk, but because public transport is often inaccessible or unreliable, forcing reliance on more expensive options (taxis, adapted vehicles). The assessment for this component rightly considers 'moving around' as well as 'planning and following a journey' and the psychological distress involved.

The preconception that people claiming PIP are lazy or do not need it is an assumption often based on a person’s appearance or a misunderstanding of their invisible needs. PIP is, in fact, an essential reimbursement mechanism for the "hidden tax" of being disabled in an inaccessible society.

The Double Failure

What we are witnessing from the government is a dangerous double failure. They are neither removing the societal barriers (the Social Model solution) nor are they willing to continue funding the mitigation costs (the PIP solution). They echo comments like 'it pays to work' but refuse to implement policies that make work genuinely accessible, thereby maintaining the need for benefits like PIP.

Cutting the Mobility component confirms the government's refusal to fund the solution to a social problem. Losing an average of £4,500 per year is not just a budget cut; it's a forced decision between heating and eating, or between staying home and paying for essential medical travel.

The focus on "work capability" is a smokescreen. The real intent behind cutting PIP is simply to remove the government's financial obligation to support people navigating an inaccessible world, pushing the entire cost of disability onto the individual.