The key PIP changes and what they mean for your benefit payments
Disabled people will miss out on vital disability benefits after the government announced it would be overhauling the welfare system on Tuesday.
Personal independence payments — PIP — will undergo a series of changes that will limit who will be eligible for the payments.
The government said the reforms are part of its plan "sets out decisive action to fix the broken benefits system". It added that those with the most severe disabilities will be protected.
Read our live coverage of reaction to Labour's cuts to disability benefits here
The Disability Benefits Consortium, an umbrella body representing more than 100 charities and organisations, condemned the 'cruel cuts'. and said they would push more disabled people into poverty, and worsen people's health.'
PIP eligibility criteria tightened for those claiming daily living support will be tightened
Assessment overhaul: Assessments will be now recorded to "establish trust" as part of an overhaul of the assessment system
PIP voucher plans scrapped. These had been potentially mooted as part of a government consultation
PIP will not be frozen or means-tested, as per previous reports, and will instead rise with inflation
Here's a more detailed breakdown of what this could mean for claimants.
From November 2026, those claiming the daily living element of PIP will need to score a minimum of four points during their assessment for the benefit in one single activity to qualify for support.
Currently, claimants need to score a minimum of eight points across multiple activities to reach the threshold for support.
Kendall has said this will only affect the daily living element of PIP, not the mobility element.
According to i news, the new thresholds will exclude, among others, many autistic people, those with ADHD and mental health difficulties
The charity Sense has called the cut "draconian", and said it is "deeply concerned" about the plans.
"Personal independence payment (PIP) was never designed to help people find work," the charity's chief executive James Watson-O'Neill told Yahoo News. "It's about helping disabled people cover the extra costs of living with a disability, which often enables them to stay in employment."
The PIP assessment is used to figure out how much financial support someone claiming PIP needs.
The process has been a bone of contention for a lot of claimants, who find it undignified, inaccessible, and sometimes inaccurate.
In response, the government will review the assessment to make sure "it is fit for purpose", and to "re-establish trust". It will also record assessments to "give people the confidence they're being done properly".
In addition, if you claim PIP and universal credit, you will only need to go through one assessment in the future after the government confirmed the work capability assessment (WCA) for universal credit will be scrapped from 2028.
Currently, PIP payments are made as direct bank transfers to a person's account.
The Conservatives considered changing these payments to vouchers, so that people would have to use them in certain shops as a replacement for cash.
At the time, the Disability Poverty Campaign Group branded the vouchers 'dehumanising' and said it would 'use all possible avenues to challenge the implication that disabled people eligible for PIP lack the capacity to manage cash-based income'.
The Labour government has refused to rule out whether it will be continuing with those plans, up until this point.
Now, it has said it will be scrapping the plans to make these voucher payments.
Charities have repeatedly emphasised that PIP is a benefit that helps people with the extra costs of living with a disability, whether they have a job or not.
The government has scrapped its plans to freeze or means-test PIP, which means the amount claimants receive will still rise in line with inflation. The amount you receive will also not be linked to how much you earn.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
an hour ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Carney government's ‘nation-building' bill becomes law despite Senate criticism
OTTAWA — Prime Minister Mark Carney's controversial legislation to fast-track 'nation-building' development projects received royal assent and became law after the rushed passage of Bill C-5 through the Senate on Thursday. But the legislative accomplishment — the first government bill to pass in both chambers under the minority Liberal administration elected April 28 — was marred by expressions of outrage from some senators, who criticized the legislation's creation of 'so-called Henry VIII' powers that allow the federal cabinet to override laws and regulations to approve development projects. Some also condemned what they saw as the bill's lack of consultation and requirements to respect Indigenous rights, suggesting the new process could get bogged down in the very opposition and delay that it is designed to avoid. 'Bill C-5 is not reconciliation. It's a betrayal of it,' said Sen. Paul Prosper, a Mi'kmaq lawyer from Nova Scotia, who told the red chamber his office received a deluge of 'racist vitriol' after he spoke about his desire to slow down the legislation that sped through the House of Commons last week with the support of opposition Conservatives. Yet some in that party still had concerns about the legislation. Mary Jane McCallum, a Conservative senator from Manitoba, argued Thursday that the bill gives too much power to the federal cabinet to choose projects, and to decide which laws and regulations are relevant to how they are approved. 'Canada is not a dictatorship, yet the so-called Henry VIII clauses in Bill C-5 bring us dangerously close to the precipice,' she said. After two days of debate, the Senate voted down several amendments that would have sent the legislation back to the House, and passed it as written without a recorded vote Thursday afternoon. It received Royal Assent from Gov. Gen. Mary Simon a short time later. Since introducing and pushing to pass the bill before Canada Day, the Carney government has defended the legislation as a necessary framework to boost economic growth and reduce reliance on the United States that has imposed steep tariffs that Ottawa deems illegal and unjustified. Last week, Carney also promised to host summits with Indigenous leaders in July to ensure there is participation on which proposed projects — from pipelines to ports and mines — are chosen for the fast-track process under C-5. The legislation gives the cabinet wide latitude to fast-track a development project based on 'any factor' it deems relevant. Although it's not written in the legislation, the government has pledged to finish the approval of fast-tracked projects so construction can begin within two years, while the special powers the bill creates are set to expire after five years. On Thursday, Sen. Hassan Yusseff, a former labour leader who advocated for the bill in the upper chamber, echoed the government's rationale that the special process to fast-track major projects — and a separate, less contentious part of the bill to lift federal barriers to trade and labour mobility inside Canada — are necessary because of U.S. President Donald Trump's trade war. His voice breaking with emotion, Yusseff made the case that the legislation is needed quickly to bolster the Canadian economy and help workers in the industries targeted by Trump's tariffs, from steel and aluminum to the auto sector. 'The men and women who build this country of ours are watching very closely,' Yusseff said. Throughout the day, senators debated the merits of the bill, with some arguing it forces Indigenous groups and environmentalists to trust the government to respect rights and standards, rather than force the government to do so. Some senators, however, said the bill's references to Indigenous rights in the Constitution, as well as the government's insistence it won't fast-track projects without provincial buy-in and Indigenous consultation, mean these concerns can't be addressed through amending the legislation. 'There's no bill we can pass that will guarantee the honour of the Crown,' said Alberta Sen. Patti LaBoucane-Benson. 'I don't think there's anything more we can do to the text of the bill to protect Indigenous rights.' Others, like Ontario Sen. Bernadette Clement, argued Parliament should take more time to improve the legislation and address concerns raised by environmental groups, Indigenous communities, and organizations like the Assembly of First Nations. 'Growing our economy, nation-building — yeah, that's urgent. It requires a timely an efficient response. But it doesn't require the trampling of Indigenous rights and our environmental protections,' Clement said. Marilou McPhedran, a senator from Manitoba, expressed shock that Conservatives and Liberals in the House voted en masse to surrender 'parliamentary sovereignty' to the cabinet under the bill. 'As we watch the results of the C-5 juggernaut roll out and roll over Canada, please remember this key question: are the constitutionally guaranteed rights to equality, to Aboriginal and treaty rights, the first to go with Bill C-5?' she said. The House of Commons made several amendments to the bill that some senators welcomed, including new reporting requirements on how projects are selected, and the creation of a parliamentary committee to oversee how the legislation is being used. The House also added a requirement to publish details of a project at least 30 days before it is named in the 'national interest,' and introduced limits so no projects can be added to the new process while Parliament is prorogued or dissolved. The legislation also requires the minister responsible for the law — currently Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Dominic LeBlanc — to consult with provinces, territories and Indigenous Peoples whose rights 'may be adversely affected' by a project. The Commons inserted a clause that requires the government to get 'written consent' from a province or territory — but not an Indigenous community — if a project falls within an area of its 'exclusive' jurisdiction. Sen. Marc Gold, the government representative in the chamber, said the bill is 'fundamentally about trust' that all groups — including the government — will act in the best interests of Canadians during a time of crisis after an election he said gave the Liberal minority government a clear mandate to pursue rapid economic growth. 'C-5 is indeed extraordinary, and indeed it entails unprecedented trust,' Gold said. 'This is not about any partisan interest, but in the interest of our country.'
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
The taxes Reeves could raise to pay for Labour's about-turns
Rachel Reeves faces another black hole in the public finances. This time she can blame her own MPs: the revolt by more than 120 Labour backbenchers has forced the Prime Minister to back down on his proposal to slow the growth in the benefits bill. Sir Keir Starmer's reforms were supposed to save £5bn per year. But now that he has performed another about-turn, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) estimates the scheme will only save £2bn, thus blowing a fresh £3bn hole in the Chancellor's numbers. '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,' says Tom Waters, at the think tank. It comes weeks after the policy reversal on winter fuel payments for pensioners, which will cost more than £1bn. To make matters worse, the economy is slowing – in part because of Labour's record-breaking tax raids – which will undermine the tax revenues on which Reeves's plans relied. Ruth Gregory, at Capital Economics, estimates the combination of higher benefits spending and lower growth will cost the Chancellor £22bn compared to the Office for Budget Responsibility's forecasts at the Spring Statement. If MPs will not allow the Government even the most modest restraint on spending, and if the Chancellor will not again rewrite her own 'iron-clad' borrowing rules, that means more tax rises are on the way in the autumn. Here are the options Reeves will be looking at. The Government's biggest revenue-raiser, income tax, raked in £310bn last year – almost precisely matching the £313bn spent on benefits. Adding a penny to the basic and higher rates of income tax would bring in just over £10bn extra per year, according to HMRC estimates. That means at least 2p would need to be added to come close to repairing Reeves's Budget. If it were not for Labour's manifesto pledge not to raise the tax, this would be an obvious place for the Chancellor to turn. But the manifesto is hardly a meaningful constraint. The vaunted document also promised not to raise National Insurance contributions (NICs), but the Chancellor did just that in her first Budget. The Government argued that the manifesto promise only applied to the NICs paid directly by workers, not the much larger share paid by their employers. Income tax does not lend itself quite so easily to such a ruse, but the Chancellor could extend the Conservatives' long freeze on thresholds. A classic stealth tax, this method means that as workers receive pay rises they are pulled more quickly into higher tax brackets – even if inflation means the spending power of their pay packets is not actually growing. The freeze on thresholds, which is currently set to last until 2028, is already expected to bag the Chancellor nearly £50bn per year by the end of the decade. Extending it by another two years would bring in an extra £10bn per year, the IFS estimates. Given the sums involved and the fact that stealth raids do not affect workers in an obvious way, this is seen as a likely option. The Chancellor is unlikely to whack businesses with another raid. She has promised hostile bosses that she will not pull the same stunt on National Insurance contributions again. Andrew Bailey, the Governor of the Bank of England, has also warned that last year's tax raid is now weighing on the economy, meaning increasing the rate again could be counterproductive. But that does not mean the tax, which is set to bring in £200bn this year, has to go untouched. One option is to raise the rate paid by workers. This would breach even the revised version of the manifesto pledge, but could be framed as reversing reckless Tory tax cuts – under Jeremy Hunt, Reeves's predecessor in No 11, the rate was chopped from 12pc to 10pc and then down to 8pc. Each of those two percentage point moves cost more than £10bn, so reversing the cuts could help Reeves considerably. Increasing the rate of capital gains tax (CGT) is popular in Left-wing circles. Unfortunately, jacking up the tax paid on profits made from the sale of assets comes with a range of downsides, which can result in a higher tax rate in fact costing the Treasury revenue. A large share of CGT is paid by a very small number of people. If the higher rate means they simply decide not to sell their assets, then the tax take will plunge in short order. HMRC estimates that a one percentage point increase in the top rate ends up costing the Treasury £30m per year. A 5p increase costs £870m per year. A 10p jump loses a staggering £3.6bn per year for the public purse. As a result, increasing the rate of CGT seems unlikely. Another option ruled out in the manifesto, this levy on a large share of the things people buy is on track to bring in £200bn per year by the end of the decade. Currently charged at a rate of 20pc, increasing VAT might not be the most popular measure when households are already reeling from a cost of living crisis. None the less, it could be a tempting option when a 1p increase brings in £9.6bn per year. Alternatively, the Chancellor could slap the tax on items that are currently exempt – as she did with private school fees this year – or those that attract the reduced rate of 5pc, such as energy bills. Reeves has maintained the accounting wheeze employed by successive Conservative chancellors: freeze fuel duty year after year but pencilling in extra revenues from future increases. About half of her headroom comes from the official assumption that the tax on petrol and diesel will rise in future – yet few expect she will actually jack up the cost of driving. The fuel duty escalator has been frozen for a decade and a half, making it politically difficult to unfreeze. Most economists believe it will be kept frozen. It would be a shock to voters, but Reeves may find it an attractive revenue-raiser: reintroducing inflation-linked increases in fuel duty would raise an estimated £5bn a year. It is not just the big taxes that are on the table. Angela Rayner, the Deputy Prime Minister, wrote to Reeves with a raft of proposed tax increases ahead of the Spring Statement. Suggestions included: a higher bank surcharge, raising up to £700m from lenders; scrapping inheritance tax relief on Aim-listed shares, for anywhere between £100m and £1bn; removing the dividend allowance to bag £325m, as well as raising the tax rate on dividends; and further freezing the threshold at which high earners pay the additional rate of income tax. Raising the tax on enveloped properties, which are largely owned by companies, could raise another £200m, while closing a commercial property stamp duty loophole could net £1bn. Reinstating a lifetime allowance on pensions contributions might gain close to £800m per year. Rayner also suggested clawing back more child benefit from higher-earning households, for £600m, and tightening migrants' access to benefits. Together those measures could increase the Treasury's haul by £4.6bn or more. That would be useful, but is barely enough to cover the cost of Starmer's latest about-turns, let alone cover the other costs. The scale of spending commitments mounting up means Reeves is facing unpalatable choices when it comes to the Budget. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more. 擷取數據時發生錯誤 登入存取你的投資組合 擷取數據時發生錯誤 擷取數據時發生錯誤 擷取數據時發生錯誤 擷取數據時發生錯誤
Yahoo
14 hours ago
- Yahoo
This week will haunt the prime minister after his most damaging U-turn yet
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. 👉 Follow Electoral Dysfunction on your podcast app 👈 Some MPs, like 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 hoped to save from the welfare reforms. The '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. Read more: More than 120 MPs, nearly a third of the parliamentary 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.
