Liz Kendall tried to use her Commons statement on the government’s U-turn on some of the disability benefit cuts to persuade her colleagues that the changes made the legislation worth supporting. Not all of them sounded very convinced: there were repeated complaints about a ‘two-tier system’ whereby two people with the same needs would get completely different levels of support. MPs were also concerned they were signing ‘blank cheques’ by voting on the bill tomorrow when full details of the changes won’t be available until later in the year. And there were suspicions that the changes won’t be as meaningful as ministers have suggested.
The Work and Pensions Secretary gave a very forceful opening statement about the importance of reforming the welfare system, which she said was ‘failing on all fronts’, and was in danger of falling over entirely as the number of claimants increased. She argued that ‘MPs on this side of the House have welcomed many aspects of our reforms’, listing some of those changes such as the ‘right to try’ which will allow people to attempt to get back into work without fear of losing their benefits. She added: ‘There have also been real concerns about our initial proposals. We have listened carefully, and we are making positive changes as a result.’ It was the classic language of a U-turn, but it was probably also easier for Kendall to sound positive about making the changes given most of her colleagues lay the blame for the cuts at the door of the Treasury, rather than her.
She said she ‘fully’ understood that the changes had ‘caused deep and widespread anxiety amongst existing claimants’. She then explained that the new requirement for someone to score a minimum of four points on at least one aspect of the assessment for personal independence payment would only apply to new claims from November 2026, meaning no existing claimants would lose money.
The Conservative front bench was critical, as you’d expect, but that was of far less interest than the reaction from Labour backbenchers. Debbie Abrahams, one of the main signatories to the reasoned amendment against the Welfare Bill, said that while she agreed the government ‘must reform our social security system’, she didn’t understand why the review of PIP being carried out by welfare minister Stephen Timms was reporting at the same time, pointing out that:
‘Surely the PIP review should determine the new process – if this is being truly co-produced with disabled people and their organisations – the review should determine both the new process, the new points and the new descriptors and we shouldn’t determine it at four points at the moment.’
Similarly, Meg Hillier, who tabled the amendment, thanked Kendall ‘for the movement made in the last week’, but added that ‘it would have been good to have had those conversations earlier’. She asked for ‘the rationale for settling on those four points in one category prior to the Timms review’. Kendall’s argument was that the government needed to focus the benefit on those with higher need so that it was sustainable for the future.
Throughout the question and answer session with MPs, Kendall kept emphasising that existing claimants would now not be affected by the changes, and that it was quite common for the benefit system to have different levels of payment which maintained old benefits.
Neither argument seemed to fully satisfy Labour backbenchers, who sounded very cautious and sceptical. One of the problems is that Kendall wasn’t able to explain why the four-point requirement had been designed in this particular way, underlining their suspicions that this isn’t so much about reform as it is about cutting. The minister argued that it was a good thing to be able to listen and change course, which it undoubtedly is, but the question still remains of whether ministers really know why they’re on this current, slightly adjusted, course anyway.
Comments