The Government withdrew the proposed changes to the criteria for receiving Personal Independence Payment (PIP) — under which a claimant would require 4 points, largely synonymous with assistance from another person, for at least one of the assessed activities to receive the benefit — at the last minute to get the bill across the line. It will be subject to further votes in both the Commons and the Lords before being made law.
The Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill now contains no provisions relating to the primary non-means-tested disability benefit for working aged adults. Any changes to PIP will now be made in separate legislation after the consultation process and impact assessment takes place.
We’ll need to see how Reeves will compensate for this in the Autumn Budget, but I think this is ultimately good news if you like the democratic process and evidence-based policy. Making such sweeping cuts, which were not advertised ahead of polling day last summer, before even going through the consultation process or waiting for an impact assessment is a poor basis for good democratic governance. Trying to twist the arms of your parliamentarians into supporting a policy so antithetical to the values of their core voters without full knowledge of the facts was always bound to backfire.
Worth mentioning that this vote was only legally and procedurally necessary if Starmer thought the courts would otherwise strike down the changes for breaching the Human Rights Act, thereby necessitating a change to statutory law. Present statute is that the PIP criteria are whatever the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions says they are in regulations she can bring into force unilaterally. They could make the test be an assessment of underwater basket weaving skills without consulting a single MP. However, the bill contains the usual declaration that the Government believes it to be compliant with human rights legislation, so it’s a bit of a question mark as to why they bothered consulting Parliament in the first place — assuming they weren’t intentionally misleading Parliament, that is.
The biggest question I have looking at this is whether Starmer is as good at politics as he seems to think he is. There were so many better ways to go about this, and now he’s just burnt a lot of political capital for very little gain.
cactus_toothbrush on
This is unbelievably bad politics from Starmer and Labour. At least the tories could cut things.
3 Comments
!ping UK
The Government withdrew the proposed changes to the criteria for receiving Personal Independence Payment (PIP) — under which a claimant would require 4 points, largely synonymous with assistance from another person, for at least one of the assessed activities to receive the benefit — at the last minute to get the bill across the line. It will be subject to further votes in both the Commons and the Lords before being made law.
The Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill now contains no provisions relating to the primary non-means-tested disability benefit for working aged adults. Any changes to PIP will now be made in separate legislation after the consultation process and impact assessment takes place.
We’ll need to see how Reeves will compensate for this in the Autumn Budget, but I think this is ultimately good news if you like the democratic process and evidence-based policy. Making such sweeping cuts, which were not advertised ahead of polling day last summer, before even going through the consultation process or waiting for an impact assessment is a poor basis for good democratic governance. Trying to twist the arms of your parliamentarians into supporting a policy so antithetical to the values of their core voters without full knowledge of the facts was always bound to backfire.
Worth mentioning that this vote was only legally and procedurally necessary if Starmer thought the courts would otherwise strike down the changes for breaching the Human Rights Act, thereby necessitating a change to statutory law. Present statute is that the PIP criteria are whatever the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions says they are in regulations she can bring into force unilaterally. They could make the test be an assessment of underwater basket weaving skills without consulting a single MP. However, the bill contains the usual declaration that the Government believes it to be compliant with human rights legislation, so it’s a bit of a question mark as to why they bothered consulting Parliament in the first place — assuming they weren’t intentionally misleading Parliament, that is.
The biggest question I have looking at this is whether Starmer is as good at politics as he seems to think he is. There were so many better ways to go about this, and now he’s just burnt a lot of political capital for very little gain.
This is unbelievably bad politics from Starmer and Labour. At least the tories could cut things.
It’s happening in Europe now too?