Concessions have been made – but the Welfare Bill still risks long-term harm to disabled people
The concessions offered by the UK government to stave off a rebellion in their ranks are welcome, but fall short.
Listen to this article
On Tuesday, MPs will vote on the Universal Credit and PIP Bill. The government has now promised its MPs that this Bill will change substantially straight after the vote, but they will have to vote without seeing exactly how the promised changes will be made, and without a full impact assessment of either the original or the updated Bill.
They will then have only a few days to read, understand and if necessary, challenge the changes before being asked to rush into another final vote a week later.
The government has made this last-minute about-turn following pressure from disabled people, the charities that support them, MPs across parties, and after Trussell’s lobby day in Parliament, where more than 500 food bank volunteers met with MPs to share firsthand experiences of hardship in their communities and urge them to take action.
The concessions offered by the UK government to stave off a rebellion in their ranks are welcome but fall short. They help protect people who already rely on support from disability social security payments but leave untouched the threat to people who will become disabled or see their health worsen in the next few years. The amended bill (as reported) presents a bleak future for the next generation of disabled people and carers and still risks placing the UK government's commitments to end the need for emergency food and tackle poverty in serious jeopardy.
The government says it has listened, but deep concerns remain.
It makes no sense to rip away vital support from people who become disabled or face worsening health problems over the next few years. By the end of this parliament alone, nearly half a million people will miss out on thousands of pounds of vital PIP support simply because their health has worsened after an arbitrary date. Yet more will suffer due to cuts to the Universal Credit health element.
We will now face a system where disabled people’s level of support from our social security system will be determined by a lottery of time, not by need. If we agree disabled people need this support now, we must make sure it’s there for disabled people who need it in the future.
Food banks are terrified at the sheer scale of hunger and hardship they may see if these cuts go ahead. Even before these reforms were proposed, Trussell analysis found that the number of people facing severe hardship – a level of deep poverty which means people are at high risk of needing to turn to a food bank – was forecast to increase by 425,000. Pushing ahead with these cuts to support for disabled people can only make this reality worse.
Like our NHS, our social security system should be there for us all when we need it. This government was elected on a mandate of change, with promises to end the need for emergency food. Slashing support for disabled people is out of touch with what the public wants. Even in its amended form, the UK government risks leaving a legacy of increased hardship and food bank need as a result of this bill.
Our fears and the fears of food banks remain the same, and it is clear that key concerns of MPs still need to be addressed.
As it stands, we have a pledge to review the PIP assessment but no clear connection between the results of that review and planned cuts flowing from changes to eligibility criteria that still seem to have been pre-determined long before the review concludes. MPs will still be voting without a full picture of the impact on their constituents, particularly of the proposed '4 point rule' for new PIP claims.
MPs are now being asked to vote this Tuesday without seeing the updated version of the bill that has been promised, as it can only be amended after the second reading. The debate and scrutiny of the revised bill will be squeezed into just one day, the following week.
It is not an act of betrayal to vote against a bill that you know will cause pain and suffering, a bill which constituents up and down the country reject, a bill that will have avoided real scrutiny. That’s why we are urging MPs who stood against the bill to continue to do so and to protect the people these changes will affect in the near future.
________________
Helen Barnard is the director of policy at Trussell.
LBC Opinion provides a platform for diverse opinions on current affairs and matters of public interest. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official LBC position.
To contact us email opinion@lbc.co.uk