13-week PIP transition period due to be confirmed
An MP has shed light on the government's Green Paper proposals for Welfare Reform, with the Department for Work and Pensions poised to unveil further details about the Welfare Reform Bill, including a "transitional period". This interim phase is designed to for people set to lose their Personal Independence Payments due to the reforms.
Dr Simon Opher, a GP and the MP for Stroud, disclosed on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, as reported by Daily Record, that a transitional phase will be introduced, allowing recipients to continue receiving payments for 13 weeks before their benefit is terminated.
This means that those affected by the benefit cuts will still receive their entitlements for 13 weeks beyond the initial cut-off date, offering them time to prepare and budget for the end of their benefits.
Carers, who are at risk of losing their Carer's Allowance when the person they care for loses PIP, will also continue to receive their allowance throughout the 13-week transition, until the PIP award ends.
Dr Opher expressed his intention "to rebel" against these proposals in an imminent vote, marking the first occasion he plans to oppose the Government. He indicated that several of his colleagues are contemplating similar actions.
He acknowledged that the proposed transitional period has been extended from an initial four weeks. But he remains critical of the planned changes, describing it as nothing more than "a slight delay in the disability cuts".
Explaining further, he added "It doesn't change the basic fact that they're planning to cut disability payments to quite a lot of people really. So not terribly impressed, but it's something at least."
Since Liz Kendall confirmed the reform in March, there's been widespread outcry from MPs, disability charities, and PIP recipients against the upcoming changes set for November 2026.
The Green Paper has launched a consultation period, urging the public to contribute their opinions on the undecided aspects of these reforms, pivotal among them being how benefits will be transitionally protected for those affected. In a bid to reduce costs while maintaining support through PIP for future claimants, the Government aims to save £5 billion each year by the end of this decade.
Government impact assessments have indicated that approximately 250,000 people, 50,000 of whom are children throughout England, Scotland, and Wales, are at risk of slipping into relative poverty after housing expenses as a result of these policy shifts.
This reformation will influence new applicants and current recipients undergoing reassessment for the daily living component of PIP. Under the new rules, claimants need to accumulate four points in any one of the categories to qualify during the assessment process.
The assessments comprise ten categories with scoring based on the type of help, supervision, or equipment individuals necessitate to perform activities promptly, effectively, and safely.
For instance, being able to prepare and cook a simple meal unaided is worth no points. But if you cannot prepare or cook food at all you could score up to eight points in that category.
The reform proposes several other changes including:.
Ending reassessments for disabled individuals who will never be able to work
Abolishing the Work Capability Assessment
Offering improved employment support to eliminate the barriers preventing disabled people from working
Introducing legislation to protect those on health and disability benefits from reassessment or losing their payments if they take a chance on work
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
35 minutes ago
- BBC News
Welfare U-turn makes spending decisions harder, minister says
Spending decisions have been made "harder" by the government's U-turn on welfare changes, the education secretary has said, as she did not commit to scrapping the two-child benefit Phillipson told BBC One's Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg programme that ministers were "looking at every lever" to lift children out of she said removing the cap would "come at a cost" and insisted the government was supporting families with the cost of living in other comes after a rebellion of Labour MPs forced the government to significantly water down a package of welfare reforms that would have saved £5bn a year by 2030. The climbdown means the savings will now be delayed or lost entirely, which puts pressure on Chancellor Rachel Reeves ahead of the autumn its retreat on benefits, the Labour government was considering lifting the two-child benefit cap, a policy that restricts means-tested benefits to a maximum of two children per family for those born after April asked if the chances of getting rid of the cap had diminished, Phillipson said: "The decisions that have been taken in the last week do make decisions, future decisions harder."But all of that said, we will look at this collectively in terms of all of the ways that we can lift children out of poverty."
Powys County Times
39 minutes ago
- Powys County Times
Shona Robison urges Prime Minister to follow Scotland on taxation
Scotland's Finance Secretary said Labour needs a 'new direction' as she called on the Prime Minister to look north of the border for a more progressive tax system to protect public spending. Ms Robison said that if Labour had followed the Scottish model, where higher earners pay more tax, Labour would not be in the 'complete fiscal mess that they are in now.' Her comments come after Sir Keir Starmer's Government was forced into a last-minute climbdown in order for welfare legislation to pass its first parliamentary hurdle earlier this week. In a late concession on Tuesday evening, ministers shelved plans to restrict eligibility for the personal independence payment (Pip), with any changes now only coming after a review of the benefit. These changes are expected to put pressure on other parts of the Government's finances. Ms Robison said: 'People voted for a Labour government last year because they wanted change from the Tories – but after a year of attacks on the incomes of pensioners, the poor and the disabled, they are rightly wondering exactly what, if anything, is different. 'When Keir Starmer took office, he could have chosen to ask people on higher incomes to pay a little more in tax in order to protect public spending. 'Choosing instead to target the vulnerable is not leadership – frankly, it is political cowardice. 'If Keir Starmer had done in England what the SNP have done in Scotland with taxation, Labour would not be in the complete fiscal mess that they are in now. 'After a year of mistakes, Labour needs a new direction – and they should look to Scotland. By asking people on higher incomes to pay a bit more in tax, we have ensured a majority of taxpayers pay less than they would elsewhere in the UK, and are able to unlock more spending for services like the NHS, as well as cut poverty by introducing a Scottish Child Payment, and ensure that everybody can benefit from important services like free tuition and free prescriptions.' She added: 'Labour used to tell Scotland that we didn't need independence and we just needed to get rid of the Tory government – but the last year has completely demolished that argument. 'No Westminster government will ever deliver the truly fair society which I believe the vast majority of people in Scotland want to live in – and that is why independence is the best future for Scotland.' Scottish Labour's economy, business and fair work spokesperson Daniel Johnson MSP said: 'SNP ministers have a brass neck to think they can lecture anyone after their atrocious financial mismanagement. 'The SNP use higher taxes on Scottish nurses and firefighters as a substitute for economic growth, waste billions on out-of-control prison and ferry projects, and have created multibillion-pound black holes in the public finances. 'Labour is delivering the largest funding settlement in the history of devolution, with £50 billion for Scotland's NHS, schools and public services this year alone. Despite that, the SNP are now gearing up to make cuts to fill their fiscal black hole. 'The SNP government has the money, they have the powers, but they are out of ideas, out of excuses and out of time. 'Next year, we have the chance to kick out this SNP Government that cannot be trusted with taxpayers' money.'
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
‘We've made progress': environment secretary is upbeat despite Labour's struggles
It was probably easier for Steve Reed to feel more cheerful about Labour's most torrid week in government while sitting on bales of hay in the blazing sunshine about 40 miles from Westminster. The environment secretary might have sympathised with Rachel Reeves and Liz Kendall – he has experience of bearing the flak for some of the government's most controversial decisions on family farm taxes – but at Hertfordshire's Groundswell festival, named the Glastonbury for farms, he may simply have been happy not to be pelted with manure by unhappy farmers. Reed said he remained relatively relaxed about Labour's struggles during its first year in government and that tangible change in people's living standards would start to make a difference to the party's popularity. 'Fundamentally, we won the election with a set of problems to solve,' he said. 'You're solving tricky problems so there are going to be bumps along the way. But on the whole, have we made progress? We've made significant progress.' It was obvious in hindsight, he said, that Labour in government would quickly become the target of people's anger about their living standards. 'People have lost trust in politics. So that moved to Labour when we went into government. We became the establishment,' he said. 'Politics has become more volatile and people have become more sceptical, so perhaps that was inevitable. 'When people feel that and see that change, that I think is how we counter the politics of the extremes, whether that's the right with Reform or the left with what the Green party is turning itself into.' Reed is one of the most experienced politicians in the cabinet – he recruited a young organiser called Morgan McSweeney during his time at Lambeth council and remains close to the man who is now his chief of staff and to Keir Starmer. Reed said he wanted the environment department to be part of tackling that discontent and that the anger and distrust went beyond issues such as the cost of living crisis and public services, and was also a disgust at the deterioration of the public realm and the environment, such as whether people felt safe taking their children to swim in the sea without swallowing sewage. He said he believed that reviving the delight people could take in rivers and seasides would go a long way towards restoring trust. 'The issue was not just the yuck factor about sewage in the water. It became a metaphor for what has happened to our country,' he said. 'So people remembered when they were younger, you could go and splash about in the sea or go in the local river and you wouldn't think twice. 'Whereas today, you take your children or grandchildren there and you worry about what contamination might be in there, or what illness they might get. And that says to you things have got worse, there's been decline, degradation and that told people a big story about our country and where it was going.' This was an issue that a Labour government could and would fix, he said. 'We've taken all of the actions necessary to stop that problem, reverse it and stop it ever happening again in just 12 months. We can turn that into a story of renewal.' He said there had been a disconnect in how politicians were able to relate to people about this frustration over the slow pace of change. 'Normal people never talk about 'delivery'. Delivery is what the postman does. We have to talk about them in the way that they talk … not just big strategies and big numbers. People need to perceive and experience this change.' In the rhetoric from Starmer and Reeves about boosting growth and housing, nature has sometimes seemed like a dirty word – the prime minister and the chancellor have both attacked environmental protections as one of the root causes of the slow progress in housebuilding. There has been a backlash from some Labour MPs on this issue – before the welfare rebellion, the biggest was 16 MPs voting for an amendment to add more protections to the planning and infrastructure bill. Reed said there were still significant protections for nature under the planning bill, where developers will pay into a nature restoration fund that will go to Natural England. 'That's a much better way than doing it patch by patch because ecosystems operate at scale,' he said. He suggested he regretted some of the more aggressive attacks on newts and bats as blockers to growth. 'I think the language ran away with itself a little bit around some of that,' he said. 'The bat tunnel [for HS2] cost £100m and didn't save any bats.' But the planning bill would, he said, 'secure the funding to genuinely support nature to recover at scale, while also promoting economic growth'. Reed has perhaps his riskiest moment on the horizon – years of mismanagement of Thames Water have put the company on the brink of collapse and facing a potential costly temporary nationalisation. Protests from farmers show no signs of dying down and there will be controversy, too, about the forthcoming land use framework, where farms in England could be incentivised to be taken entirely out of food production to make more space for nature. But Reed said the nature part of his brief is where the government can show demonstrable change: the department has been reintroducing beavers into the wild, banned bee-killing pesticides, planted millions more trees – more than in the previous 20 years – announced a new national forest, funding to restore peatlands, a ban on bottom-trawling in marine-protected areas, and passed legislation this year to ratify the high seas treaty. 'This is all in one year,' Reed said. All of that will take time for the impacts to be felt. 'As we get nearer to the next election, we'll be able to point to things that have changed in the real world that people can see. And that will give them, I hope, the confidence to come out and re-elect a Labour government.'
