In a desperate attempt to save face, the Government has granted concessions to the 130 Labour MPs threatening to rebel over the cuts to disability benefits contained within the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payments Bill.
But the haphazard and last-ditch nature of this deal demonstrates how ill-thought-through the original proposals were – and why the rebels were right in their initial call for the Bill to be withdrawn and rethought.
Their reasons were clear, as set out in their reasoned amendment: “because its provisions have not been subject to a formal consultation with disabled people”; “because the Office for Budget Responsibility is not due to publish its analysis of the employment impact of these reforms until the autumn of 2025”; and “the Government has not published an assessment of the impact of these reforms on health or care needs”. All of that still applies.
The changes, as laid out by Liz Kendall last week, mean that all existing claimants of Personal Independence Payments (PIP) will be exempt from the cuts to eligibility and the new qualifying requirements will be implemented from November 2026 for new claims only. This is not good enough.
PIP is paid to disabled people to help with the additional costs of living with disabilities. PIP is not an out-of-work benefit. Many disabled people who work receive PIP – and, without that additional support, some would simply not be able to stay in employment.
And that is what has been so frustrating and dishonest about the parade of government ministers in TV studios in recent weeks saying these cuts are about helping disabled people into work. PIP precisely does support many thousands of disabled people to be able to work. Cutting PIP risks pushing disabled people out of the workplace and, in many cases, into poverty.
The problem with only protecting existing disabled claimants is that there will be a disabled or ill person who will be in the exact same situation a few months down the line – and they won’t be protected, they won’t get support. Even though they have the same condition as someone getting support now. That cannot be right or just.
Even the protections for existing claimants are partial at best. Those reapplying for PIP, after losing it – perhaps because of a fluctuating condition – will not have the level of their previous award protected. It is also unclear whether those who lose PIP, due to a prolonged stay in hospital or hospice care, will also lose out should they recover and reapply. The implication is they will be treated as new claimants.
The current proposals are that support will be cut from people who need help cutting up food, help washing below the waist, help dressing their lower body, need supervision managing their toilet needs. In what moral universe can it be wrong to take away that support from people in need today, but not for those in the same need tomorrow?
In 2016, when Labour defeated the then Conservative government’s proposals to cut £4.5bn from disabled people on PIP, Keir Starmer branded the proposals as “unfair and unacceptable”. He was right. Cutting PIP was “unfair and unacceptable” when the Tories did it, and it is equally as unjustifiable when Labour proposes cuts to disability benefits too.
square ANDREW FISHER Cutting PIP benefits will be Starmer’s undoing
Read More
Outside the Palace of Westminster the cosy concessions that have been cooked up have not been received so well. The disability charity Scope is unimpressed by the concessions, saying, “The government must change course on these catastrophic cuts now”. The Trussell Trust, which runs food banks across Britain, says: “If we agree disabled people need this support now, we have to make sure it’s there for disabled people who need it in the future. We need MPs to vote against these cuts.” These disability and anti-poverty charities are not the ones who are out of touch. The public verdict on these cuts is a resounding no: polling for The i Paper shows just one in five voters wants to see disability benefits cut. Labour MPs should fear public opinion much more than the threats of Government whips dictated by a floundering and deeply unpopular Prime Minister and Chancellor. Many Labour MPs remain unconvinced: the Labour chair of the cross-party Work and Pensions Select Committee Debbie Abrahams has said: “There are still concerns about new claimants. It would not be right for me not to do anything just to spare the Prime Minister an inconvenience.” As is Olivia Blake MP, herself disabled, who points out “this could form an unethical two-tier system that treats two people with the exact same injury or illness differently,” and urges her colleagues to oppose the Bill. The Labour Mayor of Greater Manchester Andy Burnham has said the Bill, even with concessions, “simply can’t be justified”.Labour MPs should still vote against this indefensible and ill-considered Bill – it is still the morally wrong choice.
Andrew Fisher served as the Labour Party’s executive director of policy under Jeremy Corbyn between 2015 and 2019
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( No Labour MP should be voting for the benefits bill )
Also on site :
- ‘BBQ Brawl’ Shocker: Who Went Home After the Campfire Cowboy Feast Challenge?
- Today's Wordle Hint, Answer for 1472 on Monday, June 30, 2025
- Numbrix 9 - June 30