In July, the Government’s review into personal independence payments (PIP), a benefit to help people with long-term health conditions and disabilities cover extra living costs, found it is “not fit for purpose”. The bill is forecast to cost taxpayers more than £40bn by the end of the decade.

Critics say that people with some conditions shouldn’t be eligible, and that it’s unfair on those who need PIP to get by. Others say that without PIP, vulnerable people would be left unable to make ends meet.

So, should PIP be cut? Conservative councillor and personal finance expert give their perspectives.

The case for reforming personal independence payments (PIP) is clear. As of April, more than four million people in England and Wales were entitled to PIP. Spending is forecast to reach £41bn by 2030/31, with £34bn of it on working-age claimants.

Even the review being run by Welfare minister Sir Stephen Timms has concluded the system is “not fit for purpose”.

I know that PIP is a lifeline for many people with disabilities. I myself have been registered blind since I was 16. I’ve never claimed PIP, but I likely could. No one wants to see crude, across-the-board cuts that leave people in genuine need of help worse off.

Instead, reform should rest on two principles: PIP should be targeted more clearly according to the severity and persistence of disability; and the amount someone receives should take account of their ability to pay. That starts with looking at the eligibility criteria.

There are now 1.56m PIP claims where a mental health condition is recorded as the primary disabling condition. Since 2020, the share of total claims related to ADHD, autism, depression or anxiety has risen from around 16.5 per cent to 24 per cent. And this surge is not confined to the benefits system. NHS bosses are now warning that ADHD and autism services risk descending into what Rebecca Gray of NHS Alliance last week called “chaos”, as demand and spending spiral.

People with severe autism and ADHD which makes navigating day to day life more complex should still have access to PIP. Similarly, someone with a severe and enduring mental illness can be every bit as disabled as someone with a serious physical condition. They should continue to receive full support. But mild, transient or situational conditions should not ordinarily qualify someone for PIP.

Some charities will argue that this simply erects another barrier in front of people whose conditions went unrecognised for years. But that misses the point. A diagnosis should be a gateway to appropriate treatment and support, not automatically a gateway to money. Designing the system otherwise risks creating precisely the wrong incentive.

Once eligibility is reviewed, financial circumstances should also begin to be considered.

Currently, the same award is paid regardless of whether somebody has a low income or a substantial salary. With public money limited, it is reasonable to ask whether that is the fairest allocation of support.

Rather than an arbitrary income cut-off, the Government should consider a gradual taper covering daily-living and mobility payments at both standard and enhanced rates. Universal credit demonstrates the principle: as earnings rise, taxpayer support is progressively withdrawn.

Severity and income would remain separate tests. Someone with a severe and enduring disability on a low income would continue to receive their full award. As income rose, the contribution from the taxpayer would gradually decline. That is far better than the current cliff edge, where earning one additional pound could mean losing an entire benefit, incentivising many to not even try to work even if it could, in theory, help with their condition.

The obvious objection is that the additional costs associated with disability do not disappear simply because somebody earns more. That is true. But it does not automatically follow that the state must cover those costs to exactly the same extent at every income level. A taper recognises that the costs remain while asking those with greater means to meet a progressively larger share themselves.

Ultimately, the question of whether to cut PIP comes down to establishing what it sets out to achieve.

I strongly believe that we all want a system that helps those who are unable to live without support and provides a generous and dependable safety net for people whose disabilities impose substantial and unavoidable additional costs. But in order to help those most in need, it must be sustainable.

We need a PIP system that makes much clearer distinctions between severe, enduring disability and conditions that are mild or temporary; that focuses taxpayers’ money on those who need it most; and that recognises ability to pay without creating punitive cliff edges.

Reform inevitably means making difficult choices. The compassionate choice is not to preserve every element of the existing system regardless of cost. It is to build one we can afford for the long term, so that those with the greatest needs can always rely on it.