This is a petition regarding the proposed changes to the PIP assessment whereby to qualify for PIP you will now need to score at least 4 on one descriptor regardless of your overall score.

We demand that the government:

• Scrap the requirement to score at least 4 points on one descriptor to qualify for PIP.
•  If they insist on this change, revise the descriptors to reflect the importance of aids and not just physical assistance from another person.

The government has proposed changes to the PIP assessment process without consulting those most affected or the charities that represent them. The online consultation includes only leading questions, such as asking how to support those who lose PIP due to the new 4-point requirement.

The changes ignore the importance of aids, assuming that unless you need physical support from another person, you don’t face additional costs. This disregards the reality that many people with severe disabilities rely on aids to maintain independence. Carers providing 35 hours of support weekly could also lose benefits simply because their help isn’t physical.

These proposed changes unfairly target people with chronic health conditions, mental health issues, and neurodivergence, among others. Someone who scored 2/3 across all descriptors indicating some level of support is needed will no longer be entitled, even those who currently receive enhanced daily living, simply because they do not score highly in one area.

The descriptors are inconsistent and contradictory. For example, needing help to get into a shower scores 3 points, but needing help to wash between the shoulders and waist scores 4 — despite the clear connection between the two (how can you wash if you can't get in the shower without someone?).

These changes discriminate against disabled people, violating the Equality Act 2010 - they assume that those not needing physical help don’t face increased costs, which is inaccurate. The proposal to remove support for those under 22 is also unlawful.

The changes are based on the false assumption that all PIP recipients are unemployed. In reality, many people on PIP continue to work, and the support enables them to stay employed. However, many others are denied PIP because assessors wrongly conclude in their reports that working means they don’t qualify. If these changes are implemented, unemployment, job quality, poverty (including for children), and suicide rates are likely to rise.

The government promises fewer reviews for those with the "highest levels of a permanent condition," but offers no clarity on how or who will decide what these conditions are. This contradicts PIP’s core principle of assessing how a condition affects someone rather than the diagnosis itself.

The government has been quick to outline plans to cut benefits and support, but the only reassurance offered is the vague promise of a "right to try" regarding work and benefits, with no clear timeline beyond saying they aim to introduce legislation "as soon as possible." There’s also no concrete plan for how NHS services will fund the aids and support people will no longer be able to afford due to these changes or how it will manage with increased demand for an already failing mental health and social work service.

PIP fraud rates are extremely low — just 0.1% according to the DWP’s 2024 report — yet the government spends £4 million annually investigating it. Treating disabled people as a "cost-cutting" measure dehumanizes them and disregards their genuine needs.

More face-to-face assessments will increase costs and worsen backlogs, especially with more frequent reviews for those not deemed to have the "most serious conditions."

Real-life examples highlight the impact: A neurodivergent person needing coaching may be unable to find work without it, yet coaching is not widely available through the NHS. Someone with vision impairment who relies on talking aids to cook safely could lose independence without PIP support. Someone needing informal support from family — because professional support isn’t available — wouldn’t qualify for points under the new system.

These proposals are discriminatory and based on flawed assumptions. The government must reconsider and protect those who rely on PIP to live independently and with dignity.