logo
The key change to PIP in the welfare bill that will affect your benefit payments

The key change to PIP in the welfare bill that will affect your benefit payments

Yahoo16 hours ago

PIP claimants will be given three months of payments if their next application is rejected to adjust to life without the benefit, according to the government's newly published welfare bill.
The first draft of the bill, published on Wednesday, includes a "transitional window" for claimants of the disability benefit totalling 13 weeks to soften the blow for those losing thousands of pounds as the government tightens the benefit's eligibility criteria.
It is one of a number of measures the government has introduced to soften its controversial welfare bill over a fear of backlash from its own Labour MPs.
However, the government has fallen short of making the qualifying for PIP less strict, which was meant to spare 195,000 fewer disabled people from losing out.
Both campaigners and MPs have voiced concerns over the damage the cuts could cause for vulnerable and disabled people, with at least 800,000 people claiming PIP expected to lose an average of £4,500 per year by 2029/30.
At the last count, a reported 170 MPs from Labour said they would oppose the bill during the parliamentary vote, which is expected later on this month.
The plans were outlined by work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall earlier this year, who proposed overhauling welfare system through a series of benefit cuts.
The move is expected to save the government £5bn as it restricts the eligibility criteria for PIP, as well as freezing the rate for the health component of universal credit.
The bill is expected to be voted on by MPs later on this month.
Yahoo News takes a look at what this means for PIP.
When a PIP claimant receives the benefit, they are given a set amount of funding, which lasts for up to ten years. The amount of time this claim lasts varies.
However, if a person's circumstances change, or their award expires, they need to apply to the department for work and pensions (DWP) to receive payments in the future.
Now, if a person's next PIP claim is rejected, their claim is stopped entirely and their financial support is cut immediately.
The only exception is if a person who has previously claimed youth disability benefit the disability living allowance (DLA), and applies for PIP when they turn 16 and has their claim rejected. Then, they are given five weeks of payments.
Now, the government wants to introduce a transitional period so those who claim PIP and have their next claim rejected have financial support to adjust to to life without the benefit.
This would also mean applicants have time to apply for another benefit and have it instated, if they qualify.
Campaigners and charities have argued that with around 1.2 million people now expected to miss out on PIP until 2029/30, it's the least the government can do.
James Watson-O'Neill, Chief Executive of the disability charity Sense, told Yahoo News: 'The government's proposed cuts to disability benefits will have devastating consequences for disabled people across the country - pushing thousands further into poverty, hardship, and isolation.
'Many disabled people already find themselves in debt because current benefits don't stretch far enough. Cutting support further at a time when the cost of living remains high is not only unjust — it is cruel.
'We urge MPs to listen to disabled people and reject this legislation. Our welfare system should support those who need it most — not abandon them.'
The second reading of the bill will take place on Thursday 19 June.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Britain's Third-Richest Person Says Government Is Killing Ambition And Growth
Britain's Third-Richest Person Says Government Is Killing Ambition And Growth

Forbes

time11 hours ago

  • Forbes

Britain's Third-Richest Person Says Government Is Killing Ambition And Growth

James Dyson at the WWD Beauty CEO Summit held at Cipriani South Street on May 07, 2025 in New York, ... More New York. (Photo by Katie Jones/WWD via Getty Images) Britain's Labour government is pursuing a 'vindictive' agenda that threatens the future prosperity of the nation, according to James Dyson, one of the U.K.'s best-known business leaders. 'There are plenty of ambitious young entrepreneurs in this country,' Dyson wrote in a column in The Sun newspaper. 'But if the desire to be successful is punished, with tax and red tape, the talented and aspirational will take their ideas and leave. Those struggling to stay afloat will give up.' He pointed out that his eponymous business is now based in Singapore, but it employs 2,000 people in Britain. In the last year on record, his company contributed £103 million ($139 million) in U.K. tax. Dyson, who was knighted in 2006, is famous for developing high-tech reinventions of gadgets like vacuum cleaners, hand dryers and fans that sell in 85 different countries or territories. Forbes estimates his current net worth at $15.3 billion, making him the third-wealthiest person from the U.K. on the World's Real-Time Billionaires ranking. But Dyson's success today is the result of an entrepreneurial journey characterized by resilience and determination. Before his first bagless vacuum cleaner was ready for the mass market, he produced 5,127 prototypes, each made by hand. The thousands of hours (and dollars) he spent perfecting his first product brought him to the brink of bankruptcy. And now he's worried that Britain 'no longer has the aspiration to create the Dysons of the future.' Since Labour came to power in July last year, the government has raised taxes by more than £40 billion ($51 billion) and adopted reforms to the U.K.'s employment law, prompting many business groups to warn that the additional costs would result in job losses and higher prices for consumers. Dyson said in January that the hike to the inheritance tax would destroy many family businesses and farms, a warning that he repeated in his latest opinion piece. 'Labour is out to destroy,' Dyson wrote. 'Those who aspire to create wealth and jobs, and those who grow our food, will all be punished. They hate those who set out to try, with hostility.' A Treasury spokesperson said in response: 'We are a pro-business government. Economic activity is at a record high with 500,000 more people in employment since we entered office. We are protecting the smallest businesses from the employer National Insurance rise, shielding 250,000 retail, hospitality and leisure business properties from paying full business rates and have capped corporation tax at 25%--the lowest rate in the G7. 'We delivered a once-in-a-Parliament budget last year that took necessary decisions on tax to stabilize the public finances, including the NHS which has now seen waiting lists fall five months in a row. 'We are now focused on creating opportunities for businesses to compete and access the finance they need to scale, export and break into new markets." Last week, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said the U.K. economy grew 0.7% in the three months to April 2025, compared with the prior quarter. But the nation's GDP contracted in April by 0.3% in the same month that Britain's higher employment taxes came into effect and Donald Trump unveiled his 'Liberation Day' tariffs. The ONS also announced last week that the number of employees on payroll tumbled 109,000 in May, the biggest decline in almost four years. The figures took the total number of jobs lost since the October budget to 276,000.

Supreme Court decision guide: The major cases to watch in 2025
Supreme Court decision guide: The major cases to watch in 2025

Yahoo

time13 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Supreme Court decision guide: The major cases to watch in 2025

The Supreme Court will issue a flurry of consequential decisions in the coming days and weeks before the justices adjourn for summer break. The high court on Wednesday issued an opinion in one of the most highly anticipated decisions, delivering a setback for transgender rights. In a 6-3 ruling, the justices upheld a Tennessee law that restricts gender-affirming care for minors. There are currently 27 states that have enacted similar laws to restrict gender-transition care, though some of those bans are tied up in legal challenges. Wednesday's ruling means those laws will likely survive those legal challenges. The decision does not have any impact on states that don't have laws banning gender-affirming care. The high court has also issued opinions in other bigger blockbuster cases this term: It upheld a Biden administration rule that regulates ghost guns; it blocked a contract for the nation's first religious charter school in Oklahoma; it allowed a lawsuit from an Ohio woman who alleges she was discriminated against for being straight to proceed; and it blocked Mexico's multibillion-dollar lawsuit from proceeding against U.S. gun manufacturers. Rulings on hot-button issues like President Trump's end to birthright citizenship, transgender rights, LGBTQ books in public schools and age verification for porn sites are some of the major issues the 6-3 conservative majority court has left to decide. Here are some major cases SCOTUS will decide on in the coming weeks. Yahoo News will be updating the list below as rulings come in; check back for updates. Case: Trump v. CASA Not yet decided Case argued: May 15, 2025 Read more: Supreme Court hears arguments on birthright citizenship — and whether judges have the power to block Trump's executive orders The issue: A federal judge in one district has the power to block a government policy nationwide, not just for the parties involved in the case. This is known as a nationwide or universal injunction. Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship hasn't been enforced because a few federal judges blocked the policy by issuing a nationwide injunction through lawsuits that challenged Trump's order. Trump is asking the Supreme Court to narrow the birthright citizenship injunctions so they apply only to the individual plaintiffs who brought the case. In this case, Trump wants the injunction limited to the people, organizations and potentially the 22 states that legally challenged his executive order. What's at stake: If the Supreme Court sides with Trump and narrows the injunctions so they apply only to the individuals and others who filed lawsuits, there will be different birthright citizenship rules for different people while litigation plays out. If the Supreme Court ultimately decides to limit national injunctions in general, the Trump administration would have a less challenging time implementing future policies going forward. Case: Mahmoud v. Taylor Not yet decided Case argued: April 22, 2025 Read more from Slate: One of the Most Complex Cases of the Supreme Court Term Is Also One of the Most Straightforward The issue: A group of Maryland parents whose children attend a public elementary school want to be able to have notice and an opportunity to opt their children out of lessons with LGBTQ-inclusive storybooks they feel violate their religious beliefs. The justices will decide whether a Maryland public school district unconstitutionally burdened parents' religious rights under the First Amendment when the school abruptly reversed a policy that provided notice and an opt-out option before the lesson without explanation. What's at stake: The justices could issue a broad ruling affecting how public schools manage their curriculums nationwide. If the justices side with the Maryland parents, the case could set a precedent for greater parental control over public school curriculum, particularly when it comes to gender and sexuality. Case: Louisiana v. Callais Not yet decided Case argued: March 24, 2025 Read more from USA Today: Supreme Court weighs racial gerrymandering claim, protections for Black voting power The issue: A congressional redistricting map in Louisiana has been ensnared in years of legal battles. Following the 2020 census, the Louisiana state legislature redrew a congressional map of the state's six House districts in response to population shifts. But the state of Louisiana was sued because it only included one majority-Black district, even though the state's entire population is one-third Black. The plaintiffs argued that the map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which bans voting practices or procedures from discriminating against a voter based on race or color. A federal district judge ordered that the maps be redrawn. The GOP-led state legislature redrew the maps to include a second majority-Black district. But Louisiana was sued again by a group of self-described non-Black voters who argued the new map violated the Equal Protection Clause. This time, a divided panel of three federal judges sided with the group. That's why Louisiana has asked the Supreme Court to intervene and decide whether the latest version of the state's congressional map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander that violates the 14th Amendment. What's at stake: The Supreme Court ruling could shift the congressional majority-Black districts in Louisiana. But it also has national implications. The balance of political power in the House of Representatives has frequently come down to razor-thin margins. The ruling could ultimately determine the balance of power in the House in future elections. Case: Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton Not yet decided Case argued: Jan. 15, 2025 Read more from Mashable: What the Supreme Court hearing about age verification could mean for you The issue: The justices will decide whether a 2023 Texas law that requires age verification for porn websites is constitutional. Users are required to submit some form of identification, like a driver's license or digital ID, in order to access the site. Free speech organizations and the porn industry are challenging the law, arguing that it burdens adults' access to content they are legally allowed to consume and it violates their First Amendment rights. What's at stake: Currently, 24 states have passed laws requiring some sort of age verification in order to access porn sites, with the goal of protecting minors under the age of 18 from accessing sexual content on the internet. The ruling by the justices will not just affect Texas, but it will have implications for these other laws as well. Case: Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic Not yet decided Case argued: April 2, 2025 Read more: South Carolina wants to ban Medicaid use at Planned Parenthood clinics. Here's what's at stake as the case heads to the Supreme Court. The issue: Medicaid consists of federal and state funds that help people with low incomes cover medical costs. Under federal law, Medicaid funds can cover abortion only in cases of rape, incest or to preserve the life of the pregnant person. At the state level, South Carolina does not allow for Medicaid funds to cover abortions, whereas some states like New York and California do. The state wants to block clinics like Planned Parenthood from being considered a 'qualified Medicaid provider' because the clinics provide abortion services. The Supreme Court will weigh whether states can remove providers like Planned Parenthood from their Medicaid program because they offer abortion services, regardless of the fact that the clinics also provide non-abortion-related services like gynecological and obstetrical care and cancer screenings. What's at stake: If the high court rules in favor of South Carolina, health care options will be jeopardized for Medicaid patients in the state, and could embolden other states to remove Planned Parenthood from the program, effectively defunding it.

Supreme Court decision guide: The major cases to watch in 2025
Supreme Court decision guide: The major cases to watch in 2025

Yahoo

time13 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Supreme Court decision guide: The major cases to watch in 2025

The Supreme Court will issue a flurry of consequential decisions in the coming days and weeks before the justices adjourn for summer break. The high court on Wednesday issued an opinion in one of the most highly anticipated decisions, delivering a setback for transgender rights. In a 6-3 ruling, the justices upheld a Tennessee law that restricts gender-affirming care for minors. There are currently 27 states that have enacted similar laws to restrict gender-transition care, though some of those bans are tied up in legal challenges. Wednesday's ruling means those laws will likely survive those legal challenges. The decision does not have any impact on states that don't have laws banning gender-affirming care. Advertisement The high court has also issued opinions in other bigger blockbuster cases this term: It upheld a Biden administration rule that regulates ghost guns; it blocked a contract for the nation's first religious charter school in Oklahoma; it allowed a lawsuit from an Ohio woman who alleges she was discriminated against for being straight to proceed; and it blocked Mexico's multibillion-dollar lawsuit from proceeding against U.S. gun manufacturers. Rulings on hot-button issues like President Trump's end to birthright citizenship, transgender rights, LGBTQ books in public schools and age verification for porn sites are some of the major issues the 6-3 conservative majority court has left to decide. Here are some major cases SCOTUS will decide on in the coming weeks. Yahoo News will be updating the list below as rulings come in; check back for updates. Nationwide injunctions (aka the birthright citizenship case) Case: Trump v. CASA Not yet decided Case argued: May 15, 2025 Advertisement The issue: A federal judge in one district has the power to block a government policy nationwide, not just for the parties involved in the case. This is known as a nationwide or universal injunction. Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship hasn't been enforced because a few federal judges blocked the policy by issuing a nationwide injunction through lawsuits that challenged Trump's order. Trump is asking the Supreme Court to narrow the birthright citizenship injunctions so they apply only to the individual plaintiffs who brought the case. In this case, Trump wants the injunction limited to the people, organizations and potentially the 22 states that legally challenged his executive order. What's at stake: If the Supreme Court sides with Trump and narrows the injunctions so they apply only to the individuals and others who filed lawsuits, there will be different birthright citizenship rules for different people while litigation plays out. Advertisement If the Supreme Court ultimately decides to limit national injunctions in general, the Trump administration would have a less challenging time implementing future policies going forward. Parents' religious rights vs. LGBTQ books in public schools Case: Mahmoud v. Taylor Not yet decided Case argued: April 22, 2025 Read more from Slate: One of the Most Complex Cases of the Supreme Court Term Is Also One of the Most Straightforward The issue: A group of Maryland parents whose children attend a public elementary school want to be able to have notice and an opportunity to opt their children out of lessons with LGBTQ-inclusive storybooks they feel violate their religious beliefs. Advertisement The justices will decide whether a Maryland public school district unconstitutionally burdened parents' religious rights under the First Amendment when the school abruptly reversed a policy that provided notice and an opt-out option before the lesson without explanation. What's at stake: The justices could issue a broad ruling affecting how public schools manage their curriculums nationwide. If the justices side with the Maryland parents, the case could set a precedent for greater parental control over public school curriculum, particularly when it comes to gender and sexuality. Drawing Louisiana's congressional maps is a balancing act Case: Louisiana v. Callais Not yet decided Case argued: March 24, 2025 Advertisement Read more from USA Today: Supreme Court weighs racial gerrymandering claim, protections for Black voting power The issue: A congressional redistricting map in Louisiana has been ensnared in years of legal battles. Following the 2020 census, the Louisiana state legislature redrew a congressional map of the state's six House districts in response to population shifts. But the state of Louisiana was sued because it only included one majority-Black district, even though the state's entire population is one-third Black. The plaintiffs argued that the map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which bans voting practices or procedures from discriminating against a voter based on race or color. A federal district judge ordered that the maps be redrawn. The GOP-led state legislature redrew the maps to include a second majority-Black district. But Louisiana was sued again by a group of self-described non-Black voters who argued the new map violated the Equal Protection Clause. This time, a divided panel of three federal judges sided with the group. That's why Louisiana has asked the Supreme Court to intervene and decide whether the latest version of the state's congressional map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander that violates the 14th Amendment. Advertisement What's at stake: The Supreme Court ruling could shift the congressional majority-Black districts in Louisiana. But it also has national implications. The balance of political power in the House of Representatives has frequently come down to razor-thin margins. The ruling could ultimately determine the balance of power in the House in future elections. Age verification for porn sites Case: Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton Not yet decided Case argued: Jan. 15, 2025 Read more from Mashable: What the Supreme Court hearing about age verification could mean for you The issue: The justices will decide whether a 2023 Texas law that requires age verification for porn websites is constitutional. Users are required to submit some form of identification, like a driver's license or digital ID, in order to access the site. Free speech organizations and the porn industry are challenging the law, arguing that it burdens adults' access to content they are legally allowed to consume and it violates their First Amendment rights. Advertisement What's at stake: Currently, 24 states have passed laws requiring some sort of age verification in order to access porn sites, with the goal of protecting minors under the age of 18 from accessing sexual content on the internet. The ruling by the justices will not just affect Texas, but it will have implications for these other laws as well. Defunding Planned Parenthood Case: Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic Not yet decided Case argued: April 2, 2025 The issue: Medicaid consists of federal and state funds that help people with low incomes cover medical costs. Under federal law, Medicaid funds can cover abortion only in cases of rape, incest or to preserve the life of the pregnant person. At the state level, South Carolina does not allow for Medicaid funds to cover abortions, whereas some states like New York and California do. The state wants to block clinics like Planned Parenthood from being considered a 'qualified Medicaid provider' because the clinics provide abortion services. Advertisement The Supreme Court will weigh whether states can remove providers like Planned Parenthood from their Medicaid program because they offer abortion services, regardless of the fact that the clinics also provide non-abortion-related services like gynecological and obstetrical care and cancer screenings. What's at stake: If the high court rules in favor of South Carolina, health care options will be jeopardized for Medicaid patients in the state, and could embolden other states to remove Planned Parenthood from the program, effectively defunding it.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store