There has been widespread outrage amongst the UK’s disabled community following a statement from Reform UK claiming that if they were to come to power in the next general election, they would save about £50 billion a year from the welfare bill by 2030. The Institute for Fiscal Studies have claimed that this would imply that the majority of the savings that would be made would be from working age benefits. This is forecast to cost as little as £200 billion a year by then.

Reform’s main plans to make the savings would be to abolish the main benefits which help people maintain their independence and stability such as Personal Independence Payments. They would then replace this with a much narrower payment for those they consider to have the most severe needs. They would also redirect people towards equipment and locally administered support instead of the funding they may receive now.

These proposals would mean that almost three million people would lose some or all the financial support they may receive now. Some people would instead be offered equipment, aids or adaptations rather than money they can use flexibly.

Disability organisations argue this misunderstands what PIP is for. PIP is not an unemployment benefit and is not paid because somebody cannot work. It is intended to help with the extra costs of disability and long-term ill health, and people can receive it while working.

Reform frequently presents disability benefit reform as part of a plan to move more people into work. Removing PIP would not necessarily make work easier – for many disabled people it pays for transport, mobility equipment, extra heating, personal assistance or other costs that actually make employment and independent living possible.

Personal Independence Payments help to support people’s dignity, independence and choice as well as helping them take part in every day life activities with their friends and peer group. That’s according to the government’s own Timms Review into PIP. The report however concluded that the current benefits system is not fit for purpose and is in dire need of change and reform. This criticism focused heavily on poor assessments, stressful decision making and barriers which are put in place by the overall system its self. This was instead of claiming that some people should just lose their financial support.

Disability Rights UK said Reform’s view of disability benefits was ‘utterly breath-taking’, while the Disability Benefits Consortium, which represents more than 100 charities, warned the proposals would substantially increase poverty and worsen disabled people’s health.

Scope accused Reform of planning on ‘pushing disabled people into poverty and calling it compassion’. Campaigners argue that replacing cash payments with equipment or services removes disabled people’s ability to decide for themselves what support they need and assumes disability costs can neatly be reduced to a list of approved items.

Amnesty International UK said the proposals amount to a rollback of rights rather than welfare reform. It argued that removing disability support would not necessarily eliminate the underlying cost, but could shift it elsewhere through worse health, greater pressure on families and increased demand for public services.

There has been a lot of criticism in making people lose their cash support as if they are not able to afford the services they need in their everyday lives, the bill would instead fall on local councils, the NHS, and unpaid family and carers.

Campaigners have also warned that the plans could push hundreds of thousands of children into poverty because disability benefits and Universal Credit are household income, not payments affecting only the individual claimant. Cutting them can therefore reduce the income available to an entire family.

Another £21 billion of Reform’s proposed savings would come from removing most working-age benefits from foreign nationals, including some people with settled status. The IFS says the eventual savings are uncertain because people may respond by applying for British citizenship, while legal questions have also been raised about the position of EU citizens whose rights are protected by the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement.