Labour's 'minor' U-turn will leave benefits system 'woefully inadequate'
Ian Greaves, who edits the Disability Rights Handbook containing in-depth information on the social security system across the UK, has hit out at Labour figures and the mainstream media for branding the climbdown 'massive' when the concessions are 'minor and technical'.
After more than 100 Labour MPs threatened to rebel against the government on cuts to disability benefits, the Labour UK Government has performed a partial U-turn on its proposals.
People who currently receive Personal Independence Payments (PIP), or the health element of Universal Credit, will continue to do so.
READ MORE: We investigate the state of the welfare state – read our new series
But planned cuts will still hit future claimants from November next year. It means anyone who does not score four or more points in one of the activities assessed for the PIP daily living component will not receive it if they apply after November 2026.
Staggering statistics supplied by the DWP show this would leave almost half of claimants who suffer with multiple sclerosis ineligible.
Greaves told The National he was expecting much more significant changes to be proposed and is surprised MPs like Meg Hillier (below) – whose amendment against the cuts was signed by almost 130 Labour MPs – are now suggesting the changes are a 'real breakthrough' and a 'good step forward'.
(Image: House of Commons/UK Parliament/PA Wire) 'I'm surprised that the concessions have been so limited, I was genuinely expecting something more substantial,' he said.
'I thought they'd move on the points. I thought the kind of concession they would make is to say if you get 10 or 12 points or more, that four-point rule doesn't apply to you anymore.
'It had been indicated to us they might be considering something like that and that would have been a significant concession.'
Asked if he would urge Labour MPs to still reject the legislation next week, he said: 'Absolutely. I would urge them to look at the reasons they rejected it in the first place.
'These are not concessions of any significance.
READ MORE: Will changes on disability benefit cuts affect Scotland?
'Fundamentally it is not fair and immoral to reduce the health-related support in Universal Credit by 50%. Already people with disabilities on Universal Credit are struggling to pay for their basic needs.
'Their debt is going to increase. How can you possibly justify doing that?'
Greaves, who is based in Edinburgh, said it was 'laudable' the Scottish Government has pledged not to replicate the cuts to PIP in its own Adult Disability Payment.
While the changes made by Labour will not affect ADP directly, they will impact on the Scottish Government budget and Scots will still be impacted by proposals to reduce the health-element of Universal Credit, which is reserved.
Greaves said the latest changes by Labour will create a 'two-tier system' which will make it more difficult for disabled people to get into work – the opposite to what Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall has been claiming.
Greaves said: 'They [Labour] have fiddled around the edges.
'To say to someone who, let's say, in four years time has a stroke, and consequently has mobility problems, that a benefit that has been afforded to someone in their position before, has been pulled away, is completely unfair.
'For new claimants, the new system will be woefully inadequate.'
He added: 'What Liz Kendall is saying about getting people back into work is disingenuous. Personal Independence Payments is not a benefit that's paid because you cannot work.
'Moreover, because of that, it's an extremely helpful benefit if you have a disability and you want to move into work. It's going to make it a lot more difficult for people to move into work.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
32 minutes ago
- Sky News
This week will haunt the prime minister after his most damaging U-turn yet
Why you can trust Sky News It has been a painful week to watch. A U-turn in slow motion, culminating in a midnight climbdown as Number 10 agreed to concede to defiant MPs on Thursday night. The concessions are considerable. They mean, among other compromises, that existing claimants of personal independence payments (PIP) and the health aspect of Universal Credit will be protected from welfare reforms. Some MPs, like Diane Abbott and Nadia Whittome, remain unconvinced, but they were never high on the list of rebels the government expected to persuade. Ministers now hope that with the backing of MPs like Dame Meg Hillier, the chair of the Treasury Select Committee, the bill will pass the Commons. Their problems won't end there, though. Firstly, there is the question of money. The Resolution Foundation estimates the concessions will cost £3bn of the £5bn the chancellor hoped to save from the welfare reforms. The prime minister 's spokesperson says the changes will be fully funded in the budget and there will be no permanent increase in borrowing. They won't comment on any potential tax rises to plug the gap in Rachel Reeves' finances. The bigger cost, though, is the political one. A year ago, when Sir Keir Starmer strode into Downing Street with a thumping majority, few could have imagined how the last few days would play out. More than 120 MPs, nearly a third of the parliamentary Labour party and more than the total number of Tory MPs, publicly prepared to rebel on a flagship policy. How did it come to this? How did the prime minister, and the people around him, not see a rebellion coming when there had been signs MPs weren't happy for weeks? Those are the questions being asked by senior Labour figures behind the scenes. Sir Keir's spokesperson says the prime minister consistently engages with colleagues, and parliamentary engagement takes many forms. But a lack of engagement with backbenchers has led to the prime minister's most damaging U-turn yet, and this week will haunt the prime minister beyond Tuesday's crunch vote.
Times
37 minutes ago
- Times
How Liz Kendall can stop this national sickness
The welfare trap has become so vast and bewildering — an incomprehensible maze of acronyms and despair — that it's easy to lose sight of those trapped inside it. Keir Starmer, like others before him, ended up losing his way in the institutional fog. The Treasury needed savings so welfare cuts were ordered to provide them. But no one seemed to ask the most basic question: what about the people? How would MPs explain the cuts to them, and others? And in what possible way would this be politically deliverable? Take Amy, a single mother in Keighley I met last year while filming a documentary. During childbirth, her pelvis fractured. Multiple surgeries have left her walking (with a stick) but in constant pain. Incapacity benefit lets her care for her eight-year-old son and provide something rare in her part of town: a stable home. Still only 30, Amy is bright and eager to train. She once wanted to be a barrister. But she has never worked and has no idea how to start, nor has anyone offered serious help. Starmer's welfare reform would cut payments significantly from next April: the promised 'employment support' looks paltry and unlikely to reach Amy. This is a Treasury raid, disguised as welfare reform. Official forecasts admit that the sickness benefit surge will continue apace: 3.3 million at the last count, 4.1 million within five years. So the obvious mission — reverse the rise — will not be accomplished. Labour rebels were right to reject this combination of penny-pinching, ineptitude and lack of ambition. People like Amy are the hardest cases: the longer you're on welfare, the harder it is to get off. So the first, easiest, most urgent task should be to reduce the rise in sickness benefit claimants. The old, shocking statistic was that 2,000 were being signed off every working day under the Tories. The figures were updated this week: under Labour it's now closer to 3,000 a day. Lives are being squandered on a scale that's hard to fathom and harder to forgive. Once on sickness benefits, claimants are unlikely to work again. This is especially tragic given how many under-35s are claiming: up 60 per cent in five years. It would be callous, if those in charge realised what was going on. Which, even now, they largely don't. Jeremy Hunt, a former chancellor, is a case in point. He recently claimed to be responsible for the sickness benefit surge because, as health secretary, he gave mental health the same status as physical health. But his mea culpa was wrong. A steady fall in sickness benefit claimants, which started under Blair, was suddenly and viciously reversed not following Hunt's 2014 Care Act but in 2019. Why? The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) has gone into this in detail. The answer lies in bureaucratic mistakes that were never spotted and lie uncorrected even now. During lockdown, in-person interviews for sickness benefits were replaced with cheaper phone interviews. The new system had a big, unexpected side effect. Assessors told me the prospect of a sit-down interview deters those who are, actually, not too sick to work. Large numbers of them dropped their claims at the last minute. But a phone call? Far less daunting, especially if it's a scripted process that can be easily gamed — and whose questions (and accepted answers) are now all online. Something dull and technical — a reduction in the pre-interview dropout rate — is responsible for a half a million extra sickness benefit awards since 2019. But that figure accounts for only half of the overall surge of one million extra awards in that time. Another factor is the rise in approval rates, now at 80 per cent, double the 2010 level. Why so high? Assessors are incentivised to get through as many claims as they can, and are paid an £80 bonus for every one over a certain minimum. The only way of speeding up is to assess someone as too sick to work. Do so and you can 'curtail' — end the interview — and move on to the next claim. You can be hauled up for rejections (in case the claimant appeals) but approvals are almost never checked. One assessor, a former NHS nurse, told me how appalled he was that the interviews are not recorded. This, he said, leaves the system wide open to abuse. Liz Kendall, the work and pensions secretary, could fix this now. Tell all applicants their interview will be in-person. Switch to a phone call last minute if needs be, but restore that deterrent effect. Record and spot-check all claims, not just rejected ones. Publish all sickness benefit data, daily. How many applied, and were approved? How many bonuses were paid? Such transparency could be transformative. A Covid-style live-data dashboard would focus minds more than any ministerial edict. Last autumn I met Gavin, a taxi driver on the south coast who told the DWP he did not need his sickness benefits any more. No, he was told: you must wait to be reassessed. Three years later, he was still waiting. What he didn't know was that reassessments were stopped in lockdown — and were never properly restarted. Once, 350 a day were moved back into work this way. Now, it's just 50 a day. Reassessments would not threaten people such as Amy, whose case is all too verifiable. No vote is needed in parliament. Kendall has been increasing them, but by nowhere like enough. She does not need new laws, just grip. And to rediscover a sense of urgency, a willingness to take on activists. This is about duty both to the taxpayer and to those stuck in the system. Not long ago, Britain led the world on welfare reform and it was Labour that started the process. The problem isn't a workshy population but a broken system, one that forgets its purpose, loses sight of the individual and now traps more than it helps. The real sickness is political: a kind of fatalism that says welfare is too big to fix, that no one can grip it and that any remedy must wait for some distant white paper. Reassessments, deterrents, scrutiny, transparency — none of these are radical ideas. They worked before and can be made to work again. This isn't about whether Starmer can pass legislation but whether he can govern. Whether he sees the likes of Amy not as costs to be reduced but as citizens to be helped. This was, once, the founding purpose of his party. If a prime minister forgets that purpose, then no majority, however large, will save him when the reckoning comes.
Western Telegraph
41 minutes ago
- Western Telegraph
Warnings of tax rises after Downing Street welfare U-turn
The Prime Minister said that the concessions strike 'the right balance', but think tanks have warned that the changes announced in the early hours of Friday morning have made Rachel Reeves's 'already difficult Budget balancing act that much harder'. Rachel Reeves's Budget is set to be much harder to balance following the U-turn (Owen Humphreys/PA) Downing Street declined to rule out the possibility of increases in the autumn, telling reporters on Friday that 'tax decisions are set out at fiscal events'.The concessions on offer include protecting personal independence payments (Pip) for all existing claimants, while all existing recipients of the health element of Universal Credit will have their incomes protected in real terms. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) said on Friday that the changes make tax rises in the budget expected in the autumn more likely. Associate director Tom Waters said: 'These changes more than halve the saving of the package of reforms as a whole, making the Chancellor's already difficult Budget balancing act that much harder.' Ruth Curtice, chief executive at the Resolution Foundation, said that 'the concessions aren't cheap, costing as much as £3 billion and more than halving the medium-term savings from the overall set of reforms announced just three months ago'. She added: 'This adds to the already mounting pressure to deliver fresh consolidation in the Budget this Autumn.' 126 The number of Labour backbenchers that signed an amendment that would have halted the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill in its tracks when it faces its first Commons hurdle on July 1 Asked about how the climbdown would be funded, Downing Street said on Friday that 'There'll be no permanent increase in borrowing, as is standard. 'We'll set out how this will be funded at the budget, alongside a full economic and fiscal forecast in the autumn, in the usual way.' Asked whether they could say there would be no tax rises, a Number 10 spokesman said: 'As ever, as is a long-standing principle, tax decisions are set out at fiscal events.' Some 126 Labour backbenchers had signed an amendment that would have halted the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill in its tracks when it faces its first Commons hurdle on July 1. The list of Labour MPs putting their name to the amendment had been growing throughout the week, as Downing Street said that they would be pressing on with next week's vote. After the late-night U-turn, Sir Keir said that 'the most important thing is that we can make the reform we need'. 'We talked to colleagues, who've made powerful representations, as a result of which we've got a package which I think will work, we can get it right,' he added. 'For me, getting that package adjusted in that way is the right thing to do, it means it's the right balance, it's common sense that we can now get on with it.' The Bill should be scrapped and we should start again and put the needs of disabled people at the centre of the process Dr Simon Opher, who represents Stroud While leading rebels believe the concessions are likely to be enough to win over a majority, some remain opposed to the plans in their current form. Dr Simon Opher, who represents Stroud, said in a statement that he is glad the Government 'are listening', but that the changes 'do not tackle the eligibility issues that are at the heart of many of the problems with Pip'. 'The Bill should be scrapped and we should start again and put the needs of disabled people at the centre of the process,' he said. It is also understood that talks are underway over rebel attempts to lay another amendment to seek to delay the plans, as reported by The Guardian. The fallout also threatens to cause lasting damage, with some backbenchers having called for a reset of relations between Number 10 and the parliamentary party. Speaking to the PA news agency, a number of Labour backbenchers expressed deeper frustration with how Downing Street has handled its backbenchers since last year's election. The Government's original package had restricted eligibility for Pip, the main disability payment in England, as well as cutting the health-related element of universal credit. Existing recipients were to be given a 13-week phase-out period of financial support in an earlier move that was seen as a bid to head off opposition. Now, the changes to Pip will be implemented in November 2026 and apply to new claimants only, while all existing recipients of the health element of universal credit will have their incomes protected in real terms. The concessions on Pip alone protect some 370,000 people currently receiving the allowance who were set to lose out following reassessment.
