End assessments and consider disability benefit claims on medical advice alone
The Parliament petitions site records 29,048 signatures for this petition, which closed on 21 January 2023. The Government responded on 21 December 2022. MPs debated it in Westminster Hall on 4 September 2023.
The petition
The petition's creator is not named in the Petitions site's published record. Quoted in full from the UK Parliament petitions site.
End assessments and consider disability benefit claims on medical advice alone
The Government should remove the requirement for people claiming disability benefits, such as the Personal Independence Payment (PIP), to have to go through an assessment process. Claims should be based solely on evidence from medical professionals, such as a letter from a GP or consultant.
We are concerned about how the disabled, with conditions such as inflammatory Arthritis. Heart disease, lung disease, respiratory diseases, poor mental health etc, are treated by the benefits system. Claimants with medical evidence of their condition should not to be subject to degrading assessments.
These delays in assessing claims risk deterring genuine claims. It has to stop.
The Government's response
The Government published its response on 21 December 2022; the petitions site lists the Department for Work and Pensions as responsible. Its summary:
Benefit assessments ensure people get the support they are entitled to. Evidence from claimants’ medical professionals alone is usually insufficient to ensure that claimants get the right support.
The opening 380 words of the 784-word response:
The Government has no plans to assess eligibility for all disability benefit applications based on medical evidence alone. DWP uses assessments to help determine entitlement for a number of benefits, including Personal Independence Payment (PIP); Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit (IIDB); Employment and Support Allowance (ESA); and, for those claiming due to a disability or health condition that affects their capability for work, Universal Credit (UC). These benefits were designed for specific purposes, be that support with additional costs associated with long-term ill-health or disability; compensation following a work-related accident or illness; or income replacement. Each benefit has its own assessment criteria, to ensure that those who meet the entitlement conditions get the support they are entitled to.
The Work Capability Assessment, which assesses entitlement to ESA and the additional health-related amount of UC, ensures that people receive appropriate financial and tailored work-related support. This supports those who can work to do so. It assesses people’s functional ability over a range of physical and mental/cognitive criteria, as well as several non-functional criteria covering circumstances such as cancer treatment and kidney dialysis.
PIP contributes to the extra costs of disability or long-term ill health regardless of whether someone is in work. The PIP assessment looks at the impact of a disability or health condition on someone’s ability to do a range of day-to-day activities, e.g., washing; using the toilet; communicating; and mobility needs.
IIDB provides non-contributory benefit for people who become disabled because of an accident at work or due to certain prescribed diseases caused by their job. The aim of the IIDB assessment is to establish the causation of the illness or disease and a percentage disablement.
For all benefits, we encourage people to provide any relevant evidence at the outset of their claim. This includes letters from their outpatient clinic or specialist; or information from other professionals involved in their care, e.g., support workers or carers. Healthcare professionals who carry out the assessment are expected to seek further evidence if it may help them to provide advice without requiring the claimant to attend a face-to-face, telephone, or video assessment. Whenever it is possible to assess a claimant on the basis of paper evidence alone, we will do so. Increased use of paper assessments is also helping to reduce waiting times.
Read the full response on the petitions site.
Where the signatures came from
Signatures came from 650 constituencies on the boundaries used until the 2024 general election. The largest number, 108, came from Huntingdon.
28,935 of the signatures were from the UK and 113 from elsewhere, by the location signers gave.
| Constituency | Signatures |
|---|---|
| Huntingdon | 108 |
| Wallasey | 91 |
| Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport | 85 |
| Birmingham, Erdington | 84 |
| Derby South | 81 |
| Bootle | 80 |
| Blackburn | 79 |
| South Cambridgeshire | 79 |
| Bradford East | 77 |
| Corby | 77 |
| Region | Signatures |
|---|---|
| North West | 3,884 |
| South East | 3,220 |
| London | 2,722 |
| Yorkshire and The Humber | 2,684 |
| West Midlands | 2,610 |
| South West | 2,566 |
| East of England | 2,535 |
| Scotland | 2,370 |
| East Midlands | 2,272 |
| Wales | 1,739 |
| North East | 1,441 |
| Northern Ireland | 755 |
Debate in Parliament
MPs debated the petition in Westminster Hall on 4 September 2023. Read the debate in Hansard. House of Commons Library debate pack.
Source and receipt
- https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/619481.jsonUK Parliament Petitions API · read 2026-10-15 · SHA-256
5f49f594d2b36bd5… - The petition on petition.parliament.uk
The petition's words are its creator's and the response is the Government's; this site quotes both and gives no view on either. Signature counts can still change while a petition is open. To report an error, send a correction request.