Labour's welfare cuts consultation called a ‘sham' as PIP changes not up for discussion
The millions of benefit claimants affected by Labour's planned changes to welfare will soon be able to have their say on the controversial package, but with one crucial catch: they aren't allowed to talk about the planned cuts.
This is because several of the policies will not be included in the consultation, the Department for Work and Pension's (DWP) 'Pathways to Work' green paper reveals, prompting campaigners and charities to label the process a 'sham'.
Amounting to £4.8 billion in welfare cuts, Labour's proposed changes would scale back some of the key health-related entitlements in the UK.
The biggest cost-cutting measure in the package are the changes to the personal independence payment (PIP) – claimed by 3.6 million people – which make up 85 per cent of the savings.
Alongside this is a freeze to the rate the Universal Credit health element for existing claimants, and the move to nearly halve it for new claimants.
But neither of these measures will be included in the DWP's consultation, meaning disabled people will not be asked to discuss the changes at any of the sessions. In total, only half of the 22 policies proposed in the package will be in the scope of the conversations.
Those interested in sharing their views have been invited to attend one of 15 in-person or online sessions which will be taking place across the UK for 12 weeks, from April to June.
Announcing the start of the consultation on Monday, social security and disability minister, Sir Stephen Timms said: 'We inherited a broken welfare system, which incentivises ill-health, locks people out of work and isn't fit for a future in which so many of us will face long-term health conditions.
'We want a system that genuinely works for disabled people and those with health conditions, as well as the country and the economy, and we want to hear their views and voices at the heart of the new system.
'I encourage people to engage so they can have their say as we listen, learn and deliver support which will help millions into work, put welfare spending on a more sustainable path, and unlock growth as part of our Plan for Change.'
But a coalition of 21 groups called the Disabled People's Organisation (DPO) Forum has now written an open letter to work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall raising 'serious concerns with the human rights implications' of the consultation process.
The letter, signed by Disability Rights UK and Amnesty International, says the DWP has clearly already decided on some of the most substantial policies in the package, going against the Cabinet Office's own rules on consultations.
It adds that it is also concerned about its delay in publishing accessible versions of the paper, as well as the possibility that MPs will be voting on the policies without being able to see an analysis of how they will help people into work.
'In short, the consultation is essentially a sham – it removes our rights as Disabled people to take part in civic society,' the signatories say, adding that Labour must 'ensure that all proposals are open to consultation and public scrutiny, and reissue consultation questions which cover all policy proposals within the paper (not just those that DWP have chosen to include).'
In January, the High Court found that a consultation on changes welfare health assessments that were proposed by the previous Conservative government were unlawful due to being 'unfair and misleading.'
In his judgement, Mr Justice Calver said the eight-week consultation was 'rushed' and 'unfair,' finding it failed to reflect the 'substantial' loss of benefits many claimants would have faced as a result of the planned changes.
He added it gave the 'misleading impression' that the plans were about supporting people into work when cutting welfare spending was likely the 'central basis'.
Responding to the judgement at the time, Labour said it would 'address its shortcomings' at its own consultation. However, the DPO Forum writes that it notes'striking similarities to this process in the green paper with serious concerns.'
A DWP spokesperson said: 'We have set out a sweeping package of reforms to health and disability benefits to make urgent changes so people are genuinely supported into work, while putting the welfare system on a more sustainable footing, so that the safety net is always there to protect those who need it most.
'The publication of all accessible versions triggered the start of the official consultation, providing everyone with 12 weeks to respond.
'We encourage people to engage with the consultation, so a wide range of voices are reflected in the responses we receive.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
10 minutes ago
- Spectator
MPs vote to decriminalise abortion
MPs have voted to make the biggest change to abortion laws in 50 years this evening, backing the decriminalising of abortion for women at any point in their pregnancy. An amendment to the crime and policing bill was passed by 379 ayes to 137 noes after MPs were given a free vote on the issue this evening, with several cabinet ministers voting in favour of the change. Now women who end their pregnancy after 24 weeks gestation – or without the sign-off from two doctors, as has been the usual practice – will no longer face the threat of arrest and imprisonment for late-term abortion. The new amendment will not, however, change any laws regarding the provision of abortion care within a health service setting – including the existing time limit of 24 weeks and the requirement for two doctors to approve the request. It was Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi's amendment that was selected by Speaker Lindsay Hoyle today; the narrower of two rival amendments, it ensures criminal sanctions for doctors involved in late-term procedures would stay in place. Making her case, Antoniazzi claimed that 99 per cent of women who have abortions do so before 20 weeks, leaving 1 per cent 'in desperate circumstances'. Labour MP Stella Creasy put forward an amendment that was far broader – calling for full decriminalisation in all circumstances. Tory shadow health minister Caroline Johnson also put forward an amendment which would require a pregnant woman to have an in-person appointment with a doctor before being prescribed abortion drugs, in a move to stop 'pills by post' terminations. This didn't pass, however, with 379 MPs voting against it and only 117 in favour. Among the ayes tonight were many in the cabinet, including the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Pat McFadden, Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall, Defence Secretary John Healey, Science and Tech Secretary Peter Kyle and Net Zero Secretary Ed Miliband. Supportive ministers included the Foreign Office's Hamish Falconer, DHSC's Stephen Kinnock and energy minister Michael Shanks. Only eight Conservative politicians backed the amendment while no Reform UK MPs lent their support: four moved against it while leader Nigel Farage didn't register a vote. The next question is whether the amendment will pass through the Lords. It received the public backing of all the main abortion providers and a number of prominent healthcare organisations – such as the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists – but there remains considerable scepticism, with particular concern about a potential rise in coercive abortions. Antoniazzi has pushed back, dismissing fears as 'misinformation', but it is now up to peers to decide whether the law change will come to pass.
North Wales Chronicle
an hour ago
- North Wales Chronicle
‘Cruel' criminalisation of women over abortion must end, says MP ahead of vote
Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi said her amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill would remove women from the criminal justice system in relation to their own pregnancies, ensuring they could not face investigation, arrest, prosecution, or imprisonment. She said the UK's 'Victorian' abortion law is 'increasingly used against vulnerable women and girls' and that her amendment is the 'right change at the right time' and a 'once-in-a-generation' opportunity to bring change. Abortion in England and Wales remains a criminal offence but is legal with an authorised provider up to 24 weeks, with very limited circumstances allowing one after this time, such as when the mother's life is at risk or the child would be born with a severe disability. It is also legal to take prescribed medication at home if a woman is less than 10 weeks pregnant. Efforts to change the law to protect women from prosecution follow repeated calls to repeal sections of the 19th-century law, the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act, after abortion was decriminalised in Northern Ireland in 2019. Ms Antoniazzi said her proposed 'narrow, targeted' measure does not change how abortion services are provided or the rules under the 1967 Abortion Act. She said: 'This piece of legislation will only take women out of the criminal justice system because they are vulnerable and they need our help. As I have said it before, and I will say it again, just what public interest is this serving? This is not justice, it is cruelty and it has got to end.' She added that her amendment is backed by 180 MPs from across the Commons and 50 organisations including the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG). The MP assured her colleagues the current 24-week limit would remain, abortions would still require the approval and signatures of two doctors, and that healthcare professionals 'acting outside the law and abusive partners using violence or poisoning to end a pregnancy would still be criminalised, as they are now'. A separate amendment has also been put forward by Labour MP Stella Creasy and goes further by not only decriminalising abortion, but also seeks to 'lock in' the right of someone to have one and protect those who help them. Ms Creasy's amendment will also be debated but 'will fall' if Ms Antoniazzi's is passed by MPs, the Commons heard. Referring to Ms Creasy's amendment, Ms Antoniazzi said while she agreed 'more comprehensive reform of abortion law is needed', such change of that scale should take place through a future separate piece of legislation. Conservative MP and Father of the House Sir Edward Leigh, speaking against both amendments, described them as 'not pro-woman' and argued they 'would introduce sex-selective abortion'. DUP MP Carla Lockhart insisted 'both lives matter', saying the proposed amendments 'would be bad for both women and unborn children'. Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood, who is not present for Tuesday's vote, outlined her opposition to both amendments in a letter to constituents, saying while she believes safe and legal abortions are part of female healthcare, the amendments 'unnecessary' and 'dangerous'. The issue of women investigated by police over suspected illegal abortions has come to the fore in recent times with prominent cases such as those of Nicola Packer and Carla Foster. Ms Packer was cleared by a jury last month after taking prescribed abortion medicine when she was around 26 weeks pregnant, beyond the legal limit of 10 weeks for taking such medication at home. She told jurors during her trial, which came after more than four years of police investigation, that she did not realise she had been pregnant for more than 10 weeks. The case of Ms Foster, jailed in 2023 for illegally obtaining abortion tablets to end her pregnancy when she was between 32 and 34 weeks pregnant, eventually saw her sentence reduced by the Court of Appeal and suspended, with senior judges saying that sending women to prison for abortion-related offences is 'unlikely' to be a 'just outcome'. MPs had previously been due to debate similar amendments removing the threat of prosecution against women who act in relation to their own pregnancy at any stage, but these did not take place as Parliament was dissolved last summer for the general election. The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) has urged MPs to vote against both amendments, saying they would bring about 'the biggest expansion of abortion since 1967″. Alithea Williams, the organisation's public policy manager, said: 'Unborn babies will have any remaining protection stripped away, and women will be left at the mercy of abusers. 'Both amendments would allow abortion up to birth, for any reason. A separate amendment, tabled by Conservative MP Caroline Johnson proposes mandatory in-person consultations for women seeking an abortion before being prescribed at-home medication to terminate a pregnancy. She said her amendment aims to make sure women and girls are safe when they access abortion services. She told the Commons: 'I'm not trying to limit people's access to what is clinically legally available. I'm trying to make sure that people are safe when they do so.' She said the change she has proposed would be to protect women who have been trafficked and forced into sex work or those who have been sexually abused and where a perpetrator is attempting to cover up their crimes by causing a termination. But Ms Antoniazzi said remote access to abortion care was 'safe, effective and reduces waiting times', and that such a change would 'devastate abortion access in this country'. The changes being debated this week would not cover Scotland, where a group is currently undertaking work to review the law as it stands north of the border. On issues such as abortion, MPs usually have free votes, meaning they take their own view rather than deciding along party lines. The Government has previously said it is neutral on decriminalisation and that it is an issue for Parliament to decide upon.
Leader Live
an hour ago
- Leader Live
‘Cruel' criminalisation of women over abortion must end, says MP ahead of vote
Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi said her amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill would remove women from the criminal justice system in relation to their own pregnancies, ensuring they could not face investigation, arrest, prosecution, or imprisonment. She said the UK's 'Victorian' abortion law is 'increasingly used against vulnerable women and girls' and that her amendment is the 'right change at the right time' and a 'once-in-a-generation' opportunity to bring change. Abortion in England and Wales remains a criminal offence but is legal with an authorised provider up to 24 weeks, with very limited circumstances allowing one after this time, such as when the mother's life is at risk or the child would be born with a severe disability. It is also legal to take prescribed medication at home if a woman is less than 10 weeks pregnant. Efforts to change the law to protect women from prosecution follow repeated calls to repeal sections of the 19th-century law, the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act, after abortion was decriminalised in Northern Ireland in 2019. Ms Antoniazzi said her proposed 'narrow, targeted' measure does not change how abortion services are provided or the rules under the 1967 Abortion Act. She said: 'This piece of legislation will only take women out of the criminal justice system because they are vulnerable and they need our help. As I have said it before, and I will say it again, just what public interest is this serving? This is not justice, it is cruelty and it has got to end.' She added that her amendment is backed by 180 MPs from across the Commons and 50 organisations including the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG). The MP assured her colleagues the current 24-week limit would remain, abortions would still require the approval and signatures of two doctors, and that healthcare professionals 'acting outside the law and abusive partners using violence or poisoning to end a pregnancy would still be criminalised, as they are now'. A separate amendment has also been put forward by Labour MP Stella Creasy and goes further by not only decriminalising abortion, but also seeks to 'lock in' the right of someone to have one and protect those who help them. Ms Creasy's amendment will also be debated but 'will fall' if Ms Antoniazzi's is passed by MPs, the Commons heard. Referring to Ms Creasy's amendment, Ms Antoniazzi said while she agreed 'more comprehensive reform of abortion law is needed', such change of that scale should take place through a future separate piece of legislation. Conservative MP and Father of the House Sir Edward Leigh, speaking against both amendments, described them as 'not pro-woman' and argued they 'would introduce sex-selective abortion'. DUP MP Carla Lockhart insisted 'both lives matter', saying the proposed amendments 'would be bad for both women and unborn children'. Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood, who is not present for Tuesday's vote, outlined her opposition to both amendments in a letter to constituents, saying while she believes safe and legal abortions are part of female healthcare, the amendments 'unnecessary' and 'dangerous'. The issue of women investigated by police over suspected illegal abortions has come to the fore in recent times with prominent cases such as those of Nicola Packer and Carla Foster. Ms Packer was cleared by a jury last month after taking prescribed abortion medicine when she was around 26 weeks pregnant, beyond the legal limit of 10 weeks for taking such medication at home. She told jurors during her trial, which came after more than four years of police investigation, that she did not realise she had been pregnant for more than 10 weeks. The case of Ms Foster, jailed in 2023 for illegally obtaining abortion tablets to end her pregnancy when she was between 32 and 34 weeks pregnant, eventually saw her sentence reduced by the Court of Appeal and suspended, with senior judges saying that sending women to prison for abortion-related offences is 'unlikely' to be a 'just outcome'. MPs had previously been due to debate similar amendments removing the threat of prosecution against women who act in relation to their own pregnancy at any stage, but these did not take place as Parliament was dissolved last summer for the general election. The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) has urged MPs to vote against both amendments, saying they would bring about 'the biggest expansion of abortion since 1967″. Alithea Williams, the organisation's public policy manager, said: 'Unborn babies will have any remaining protection stripped away, and women will be left at the mercy of abusers. 'Both amendments would allow abortion up to birth, for any reason. A separate amendment, tabled by Conservative MP Caroline Johnson proposes mandatory in-person consultations for women seeking an abortion before being prescribed at-home medication to terminate a pregnancy. She said her amendment aims to make sure women and girls are safe when they access abortion services. She told the Commons: 'I'm not trying to limit people's access to what is clinically legally available. I'm trying to make sure that people are safe when they do so.' She said the change she has proposed would be to protect women who have been trafficked and forced into sex work or those who have been sexually abused and where a perpetrator is attempting to cover up their crimes by causing a termination. But Ms Antoniazzi said remote access to abortion care was 'safe, effective and reduces waiting times', and that such a change would 'devastate abortion access in this country'. The changes being debated this week would not cover Scotland, where a group is currently undertaking work to review the law as it stands north of the border. On issues such as abortion, MPs usually have free votes, meaning they take their own view rather than deciding along party lines. The Government has previously said it is neutral on decriminalisation and that it is an issue for Parliament to decide upon.
