Image generated using GROK AI
‘It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.’
So begins Dickens’s A Tale of Two Cities with a line that might apply as much to the modern-day state of British welfare as to the goings-on in Paris and London in the late 18th century. At the time of writing, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in tears in the House of Commons, the needle which describes such things appears to be pointing to the quadrant marked ‘worstest’.
For, like the fog that coils through the streets in Bleak House, confusion clouds the benefits system and, in particular, the Personal Independence Payment (PIP). For some, this is a lifeline; for others, a labyrinth as dark and winding as the alleys of Oliver Twist. For many, a straightforward scrounge as if the Great Expectations are of endless free money.
In Dickens’s book of that name (plot spoilers), the Pip of the storyline (NHRN, Philip Pirrip) has a mysterious benefactor. This turns out to be, not Lord Liverpool’s Tory government of the time, but Abel Magwitch, an escaped convict Pip helped as a child at a graveyard about the Kent marshes. Rather than wallow in Starmerian tax and debt, Magwitch amassed a fortune in Australia and, other than virtue-signal while paying him to do nothing, secretly dedicated his wedge to making Pip into a gentleman.
For years, Pip (not believing he was entitled to it) thought his benefactor to be the wealthy Miss Havisham, hoping to oblige him to marry her adopted daughter, Estella. The revelation that his true patron was Magwitch shattered Pip’s illusions and forced him to reconsider his values and identity. But, if I recall from O-level English, in a nod to the timelessness of human nature, he wasn’t thrilled about paying the money back.
In the modern day, the benefactor is the poor and long-suffering taxpayer, with many PIP claimants under the illusion they’re entitled to something for nothing and that the largesse can last forever.
How did we reach this point?
The Personal Independence Payment is a benefit meant to help with the extra costs caused by a long-term health condition or disability. It was introduced to replace Disability Living Allowance (DLA), which existed from 1992, to support those who needed assistance with care or mobility.
In 2010, Mr Cameron’s Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition government announced plans to reform such benefits. These changes were later enshrined in the Welfare Reform Act 2012. Unlike DLA, PIP payments were designed around a new points-based assessment, intended to measure how a person’s situation affects their ability to carry out daily activities and move around. With catastrophic consequences to the public purse, it did not focus only on medical diagnoses.
The roll-out began in April 2013 with the new benefit consisting of two components — Daily Living and Mobility — each paid at either a standard or enhanced rate depending on the severity of a person’s claim. From April 2025, the standard Daily Living component is set at £73.90 per week, and the enhanced Daily Living component at £110.40 per week. As for Mobility, recipients can receive £29.20 per week at the standard rate or £77.05 at the enhanced level.
In other words, PIP offers between £73.90 and £187.45 per week.
Since its introduction, the payment has seen a steady and significant rise in claimant numbers, with legal challenges broadening its criteria, not least in the area of mental health. According to gov.uk, by October 2020, 2.6 million working‑age people were entitled to PIP. From that point, numbers continued to ascend, driven not least by the pandemic. By April 2023, the caseload had reached 3 million in England and Wales, and then rose by 10% in less than a year to 3.3 million by January 2024.
By April 2024, that figure climbed further to 3.4 million, before increasing again to 3.5 million. The upward trend persisted into late 2024, with 3.6 million claimants by October 2024. As of the most recent quarterly release (30 April 2025), 3.7 million people are receiving PIP in England and Wales.
People can claim if they have a long-term physical or mental health condition or disability that makes everyday life or getting around difficult. However, it’s not only about having a medical diagnosis, but about how a condition affects someone’s ability to carry out daily tasks while safe and independent.
Many people claim PIP because no matter what the medical textbook definition of their condition, they struggle with mobility. This includes such as walking short distances, climbing stairs, or even planning and following journeys, especially if anxiety or other mental health issues make going out alone challenging.
Others claim because they have difficulties with daily living activities like preparing and cooking food, washing and dressing, managing medication, communicating with others, reading information, or needing supervision to stay safe. Conditions that often lead people to apply for PIP include arthritis, multiple sclerosis, chronic pain conditions like fibromyalgia, severe respiratory illnesses and mental health conditions such as depression.
Also; anxiety, PTSD, schizophrenia, as well as neurological or cognitive conditions like autism, learning disabilities, or dementia. Sensory impairments, including a significant sight or hearing loss, can be reasons for claiming. Because some of these conditions are difficult to define and diagnose, the temptation to exploit the system becomes evident.
Some claimants have cited difficulties caused by being unable to tolerate certain noises or smells – the sound of a vacuum cleaner or the scent of strong perfumes – which they say trigger anxiety or an overload of the senses. Others have claimed challenges related to “brain fog” or cognitive issues after minor head injuries or ‘long COVID’, describing an inability to concentrate or carry out simple mental tasks.
In some cases people cite struggles with everyday tasks because of extreme fatigue that isn’t obvious, or unpredictable and severe pain that flares enough to make even short walks or basic cooking impossible on some days. Some claimants have reported issues with temperature sensitivity, saying they cannot tolerate being too hot or cold, which affects their ability to go outside or manage personal care.
Applicants have claimed PIP due to phobias, such as fear of escalators or public transport, which limit their mobility. The newspapers have also uncovered claims based upon writer’s cramp and acne.
The temptation to swing the lead has been exacerbated by other changes to the welfare and tax system, added to the high-cost, low-wage, taxed-to-death, over-regulated, low-productivity nature of the UK’s moribund economy.
The now-defunct Tax Credits and the newer Universal Credits both contained means-tested elements designed to provide financial support to low-income individuals and families, but they differ in structure and delivery. Tax Credits, introduced in the early 2000s, consisted of two separate benefits: Working Tax Credit for people in work on low incomes, and Child Tax Credit to help with the costs of raising children.
These credits were calculated based on household income from the previous tax year and were paid separately from other benefits. In other words, they subsidised low-paid jobs and zombie or micro self-employment, not least in parts of the country with few other types of employment opportunity.
Universal Credit was designed to simplify and replace six existing benefits as well as Tax Credits. Unlike Tax Credits, which relied on annual income assessments, Universal Credit uses real-time income reporting with additional means-testing. Amongst other things, this takes into account savings, investments and property ownership, meaning many people on low pay or in self-employment don’t qualify for what used to be an income-based top-up.
Therefore, as the tightening of Unemployment Benefit rules in the eighties lowered the unemployment number, so sickness benefit claims rose; likewise, in the 2020s, changes to the Tax Credit system are nudging people towards PIPs. A situation made worse by Rachel Reeves’s extra National Insurance taxes placed upon employers of low-paid staff.
Can you blame the claimants for trying? As often in a welfare-based state, the mugs are those who don’t hold out the begging bowl towards authority and ask for more.
© Always Worth Saying 2025
