Just about your editorial (The Guardian view on incapacity advantages: Pip should not develop into one other route for cuts, 10 July), and talking as somebody who has contributed to Sir Stephen Timms’ evaluate on behalf of household carers coping with these with severe psychological diseases, resembling schizophrenia, I absolutely assist a considerable revision of the entire method to non-public independence fee (Pip) evaluation.
The evaluation course of is presently a frightening one for individuals who are justifiably making use of for this a lot‑wanted assist.
We recognize the necessity for a programme of funding, which ends up in participation in work for the rising variety of younger individuals who have psychological well being issues, however inside this, consideration should even be centered on these with longstanding, severe psychological sickness who haven’t any lifelike hope of getting into the workforce.
Under no circumstances ought to their case develop into an space to restrict entitlement. Their award for Pip in its future kind must be computerized on receipt of the required medical proof.
They might like to be mentally unchallenged and to have the ability to be part of the workforce. Nevertheless, provided that this isn’t possible, they want all of the assist they will get to make the troublesome life they lead barely extra bearable.Susan RandallCambridge
You rightly argue for acceptance of social safety spending as “funding in independence and participation” to scale back present strain for cuts.
It is also, or must be, a method of making certain real monetary safety for all via social means. Therefore the time period social safety.
Nevertheless, the extra that you just and different journalists and politicians use the divisive American time period “welfare”, with its connotations of a depressing residual scheme for the stigmatised “different”, the tougher it’s to withstand cuts and the dominant false narrative of “ballooning” spending.
The minister of state for employment, Diana Johnson, lately described social safety as “the bedrock of our welfare state”. As such, a good social safety system reduces pressures on different arms of the welfare state by decreasing poverty. It must be a precedence for any authorities that’s dedicated to social justice.Ruth ListerLabour, Home of Lords
You say in your chief that Sir Stephen Timms, the minister for social safety and incapacity, “has seen the system from nearly each angle”. Nevertheless, he has not lined maybe crucial angle – he has by no means been depending on advantages to have the ability to afford to go to work or to fulfill the fundamental wants of his family.
“Nothing about us with out us” must be the defining characteristic of dialogue of the advantages system.
Sir Stephen’s view of Pip as an enabling profit is undoubtedly an enchancment, however till the construction and operation of the system is richly and meaningfully knowledgeable by the experiences of these depending on advantages, there’ll all the time be a hazard that procedural and bureaucratic obstacles will stop the funds from liberating recipients as they need to.Luke HowardLondon
Your protection of the Timms evaluate didn’t point out the hyperlink between Covid-19 infections and rising ranges of incapacity. Covid-19 is likely one of the largest mass-disabling occasions in fashionable historical past, and it isn’t going wherever.
The decades-long neglect and downplaying of post-viral diseases has led to a woeful lack of analysis funding, severe underestimation of the lengthy‑lasting (typically lifelong) devastation they wreak on victims’ lives, and no cures. We can’t afford to erase post-Covid situations from the narrative.Katie MeddDevon
Have an opinion on something you’ve learn within the Guardian at this time? Please e-mail us your letter and will probably be thought-about for publication in our letters part.
