Shadow Chancellor Sir Mel Stride has said a Conservative government would axe PIP support for people suffering from mild anxiety and depression.
He told The Camilla Tominey Show on GB News: “What we need to do is we need to look at the whole basis of PIP, which is as a payment to compensate, at least in part, those additional costs that people with disability have.
“Now, at the moment, we have a system that is not fit for purpose because it is far too blunt, it’s far too expensive, and it’s growing very rapidly in terms of its budget.
“I actually, when I was Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, had enacted a consultation on PIP, which was interrupted by the general election, but looking at ways at how we address those kind of challenges and get on top of the welfare bill.
“And in fact, on the work capability assessment, which is the gateway into these long-term sickness and disability benefits, I had brought in reforms that the OBR said would mean 450,000 fewer people going onto those benefits. That’s the kind of action that we need to see from this government.
“Areas like mild anxiety, depression, mild depression, ADHD are areas where what we know, not that PIP is actually an in or out of work benefit under both circumstances, but what we know about those conditions is that work actually is central to people coping with those kind of challenges.
“It is that discipline of going into work, the fact that the people are able to have discussions and interactions with co-workers, those discussions at the water cooler, and so on. These are important approaches to actually addressing some of those conditions.”
He also said that he thought Rachel Reeves would not remain as Chancellor with Andy Burnham as Prime Minister: “If she is able to stand up and tell us that Andy Burnham has an economic plan and what that plan is [on Tuesday], then it will be a worthwhile event.
“If she simply stands up and talks about her record, for example, and trying to justify the many, many mistakes that she has made on our economy, then clearly it would not be appropriate for her to do that.
“But look, the main point that I would make on this, is that at the end of the day, whoever takes over from Rachel Reeves, or if it’s still to be Rachel Reeves, I think it’s very unlikely. But who knows? It won’t make any difference to some of the fundamentals here.
“The fundamentals are firstly that she’s left a terrible inheritance on the economy – an economy that’s very weak, overtaxed, low growth, high unemployment, very high youth unemployment, really pushing up the buffers of fiscal credibility generally.
“And secondly, you’ve got in Andy Burnham somebody who, to the extent that we actually know what he does believe, and he is a flip-flopper, seems to be leaning into more borrowing and higher taxes, which are just the mistakes that Rachel made.
“And the third thing, of course, that won’t change is the fact that the backbenchers, these Labour backbenchers, do not have the backbone to take the sometimes tough decisions of controlling spending, particularly around the welfare budget, such that we can get taxes down on businesses and get the economy moving at the same time as bearing down on the deficit and the debt.”