New DWP changes to PIP will only be brought in after review of assessments next year
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has announced no changes will be made to Personal Independence Payment (PIP) until a review of the current assessment process has been completed. Minister for Social Security and Disability Sir Stephen Timms will co-produce the review with disabled groups and charities, which is expected to be completed next year.
Sir Stephen announced the climbdown in the middle of the debate on the legislation in Parliament on Tuesday. He acknowledged 'concerns that the changes to PIP are coming ahead of the conclusions of the review of the assessment that I will be leading'.
Sir Stephen said the UK Government would now 'only make changes to PIP eligibility activities and descriptors following that review', which is due to conclude in the Autumn of 2026.
However, the move will cause a headache for Chancellor Rachel Reeves, who has seen a forecast £4.8 billion saving from the welfare budget whittled away through a series of concessions, leaving her to seek extra money through spending cuts, tax hikes or borrowing to balance the books at the Autumn Budget.
The Resolution Foundation's chief executive Ruth Curtice said the concessions meant the reforms would now make no 'net savings' in 2029/30 - a key year for Ms Reeves's fiscal targets - even if they did reduce costs in the longer term.
The decision to remove the PIP changes from the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill was announced just 90 minutes before MPs voted on Tuesday night.
The legislation cleared its first hurdle by 335 votes to 260, majority 75. Despite the late concession, there were 49 Labour rebels, the largest revolt so far of Sir Keir Starmer's premiership.
Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall insisted the Labour Party was '100 per cent' behind the Prime Minister, but acknowledged there were 'lessons to be learned' after the rebellion.
She also appeared to express regret over the handling of the issue, saying: 'I wish we had got to this point in a different way.'
But Ms Kendall also insisted it was 'really important we passed this Bill', saying: 'We need to make changes, because too many people have been written off, are left to a life on benefits, when being in good work is so important.'
The UK Government must abandon its 'unfair' welfare reforms in the wake of its late climbdown on a key plank of the proposals, Scotland's Social Justice Secretary has said.
Adult Disability Payment
Under Scotland's devolved social security system, PIP is currently being replaced by the Adult Disability Payment.
Reacting to events at Westminster, Social Justice Secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville reiterated the Scottish Government's pledge not to cut that benefit.
Ms Somerville said: 'Despite the panicked, last-minute concessions they have made, if the UK Government presses ahead with cuts to disability support they will plunge more people into poverty. That is unconscionable.
'Their approach also risks creating a deeply unfair two-tier system, pushing the impact of cuts onto future applicants for disability benefits.
'The UK Government needs to stop balancing the books on the backs of some of the most vulnerable people in society.
'They need to properly listen to the overwhelming criticism their proposals have generated and do the right thing by disabled people by abandoning this bill entirely.
'I want to reassure disabled people in Scotland, that the Scottish Government will not cut Scotland's Adult Disability Payment, we will not let disabled people down as the UK Government has done.'
Charlotte Gill, head of campaigns and public affairs at the MS Society, said: 'We thought last week's so-called concessions were last minute. But these panicked 11th hour changes still don't fix a rushed, poorly thought-out Bill.'
But Jon Sparkes, chief executive of learning disability charity Mencap, said: 'The last-minute change relating to the review Sir Stephen Timms is leading sounds positive and we are pleased that the Government has listened.'
He added: 'Disabled people should not have to pay to fix black holes in the public finances.'
The Government's concessions have gutted the reforms, leaving only parts of the current Bill still on the table.
Proposals to cut the health element of Universal Credit by almost 50 per cent for most new claimants from April 2026 remain in place, along with an above-inflation increase in the benefit's standard allowance.
In an earlier climbdown, Work and Pensions Secretary Ms Kendall said existing recipients of the health element of Universal Credit, and new claimants with the most severe conditions, would have their incomes 'fully protected in real terms'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scotsman
43 minutes ago
- Scotsman
Onshore wind is cheapest form of energy by far. Here's why bills are still high
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Scotland's clean-energy transition is at risk of losing hearts and minds. The latest Scottish Climate Survey , published in April, highlighted an interesting contradiction that strikes at the heart of the issues facing governments and renewables developers when it comes to decarbonising energy generation. Almost three-quarters of Scots believe that climate change is an immediate and urgent problem; yet, less than half think the net-zero transition will improve their quality of life by 2045, the Scottish Government's target. In short, people have yet to be convinced of the benefits that a move to cleaner energy will bring to them and their families. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Cheaper household energy bills would go a long way towards persuading them that the net-zero transition is more than an arbitrary concept imposed upon them. Far from what many believe, it is already cheaper to generate energy from renewable sources than from fossil fuels and nuclear. Nonetheless, the growth in renewables has not yet translated into lower household bills. Wind turbine technology has come a long way since the opening of the Whitelee Windfarm near Eaglesham in 2009 (Picture: Danny Lawson) | PA Farcical A significant factor behind this is the – quite frankly – farcical reality that UK electricity prices are based on more expensive fossil fuel prices. That is why electricity market reform is vital if we are ever to unlock the potential of renewables to lower bills. The UK cannot afford to lose sight of the fact that the most effective way to achieve a long-term transition to clean and affordable energy is to build more renewable generation into the UK's energy mix. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Onshore wind might not immediately come to mind when considering the cheapest form of energy generation. Yet advances in technology, driven by a burgeoning global market, have significantly reduced the costs of onshore wind and it is now by far the cheapest form of energy generation. Guaranteeing a healthy supply of these projects over the long term is essential to ensure competitive tension and provide the UK Government with flexibility should other forms of generation prove more expensive or slower to develop than anticipated, such as floating offshore wind. Renewable energy firms are working diligently to develop this pipeline of high-quality onshore wind projects in a manner that directly engages communities and respects the surrounding environment. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Planning problems, slow grid connections Developing wind farm projects does not come without its challenges; an unnecessarily strict planning regime and slow National Grid connections for projects increase costs and uncertainty for developers. These issues must be addressed if we are to reap the benefits of the renewables transition – maintaining the status quo would be an act of self-sabotage. The industry faces considerable uncertainty following a proposal in the UK Government's Clean Power Plan to cap the supply of onshore wind projects at the level of the 2030 target, plus 700 MW. Many in the business – including myself – believe constraining the number of projects could have the unintended consequence of reducing competition, which would drive up prices in Contract for Difference auctions and increase energy bills. For an industry where long-term certainty is vital, we need to understand whether there is sufficient flexibility for onshore wind to connect from 2030 to 2035. That Scotland is at the forefront of the UK's clean energy revolution is not enough. Government – and developers – must work to ensure that Scots see and feel the benefits.
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Plan to scrap two-child benefit cap ‘dead in the water' after welfare U-turn
Sir Keir Starmer will not scrap the two-child benefit cap after his U-turn on welfare cuts left a £5bn hole in Labour 's spending plans. Senior Labour figures have reportedly warned that tax hikes are on the horizon after the benefits climbdown, with a change in the controversial cap, introduced when George Osborne was chancellor, now thought to be off the table. 'My assessment is that is now dead in the water,' a No 10 source told The Sunday Times. A source close to the chancellor added: 'MPs will need to acknowledge that there is a financial cost to not approving the welfare changes, whether that's tax rises or not scrapping the two-child benefit cap. They need to understand the trade-offs.' The prospect of Labour keeping the two-child benefit cap in place will provoke fresh unrest among Labour backbenchers, who have a taste for rebellion after forcing Sir Keir's hand on cuts to the personal independence payment (Pip), the main disability benefit. Sir Keir is believed to have told his cabinet he wants to scrap the two-child cap - first imposed by Osborne in 2015. Critics of the policy, which restricts parents from claiming certain benefits for more than two of their children, say it pushes children into poverty. Charities frequently cite the £3.4bn move as one of the most cost effective ways of alleviating child poverty. Asked on Thursday whether he still wanted to scrap the two-child cap, Sir Keir said: 'The last Labour government drove down child poverty and it's one of the proudest things that we did. 'Sadly, the last government allowed child poverty to go back up again. 'I'm determined that this government will drive it down, just as the last Labour government did. 'We've got a strategy and a task force working on this and will lay out the details of that. I personally don't think there's a silver bullet that if you do this one thing, it will deal with child poverty.' Pressure on the PM over the two-child benefit cap will likely increase in the run up to this autumn's Budget, in which Rachel Reeves has been warned she must raise taxes or put Labour's agenda at risk. Jim O'Neill, a former Goldman Sachs chief turned Treasury minister who quit the Conservatives and later advised Ms Reeves, said she faces no choice but to abandon key parts of her economic policy – including her commitment not to raise income tax, national insurance contributions for employees or VAT. 'Without changing some of the big taxes, welfare and pensions, they [Labour] can't commit to things like Northern Powerhouse Rail, small modular nuclear reactors, and various other things that will make an investment and growth difference,' he told The Independent.
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
Proscription of organisation won't end the debate around terror laws
This proscription has sweeping consequences – not only for activists formerly associated with the group, but for anyone expressing supportive views about its activities, sceptical feelings about its proscription, or displaying logos associated with the group. All of these activities can potentially expose you to significant criminal liability and risk of punishment under the Terrorism Act. In defence of this decision, Yvette Cooper argued that 'proscription is ideologically neutral', and that the UK Government is only 'demonstrating its zero-tolerance approach to terrorism, regardless of its form or underlying ideology'. READ MORE: More than 20 people arrested at protest in support of Palestine Action This is reflected, she said, by the simultaneous bans imposed on two neo-Nazi groups, including a group describing itself as the Russian Imperial Movement and another called the Maniacs Murder Cult. But you might well think that one of these organisations is not quite like the others. Founded in July 2020, Palestine Action describes itself as a 'grassroots, direct action network' committed to disrupting arms sales from Britain to Israel. One of the founders of the organisation, Huda Ammori, made an emergency application to the High Court last week, asking for the proscription order to be suspended. Ammori's application for interim relief failed, and as of yesterday, Palestine Action is now a proscribed terrorist organisation. In her evidence, Ammori characterised the organisation's aims as 'to prevent serious violations of international law by Israel against the Palestinian people, including war crimes, crimes against humanity, apartheid and genocide, and the aiding, abetting and facilitation thereof by others, including corporate actors' and 'to expose and target property and premises connected to such crimes and violation'. This disruption has most recently extended to RAF property, with the group claiming responsibility for gaining access to the Royal Air Force Base at Brize Norton last month, taking the opportunity to damage the engines and exteriors of two Voyager jets with red paint and crowbars. The Home Secretary also cites Palestine Action's 2022 at Thales UK in Govan as justification for the proscription. A small group of activists scaled a roof wearing red overalls, unfurled banners, and set off smoke bombs at the military equipment manufacturer. They have since been convicted of public order and property offences in Glasgow Sheriff Court, without any need to mobilise the Terrorism Act at all. Terrorism may be conventionally understood as the use of violence, especially against civilians, to pursue ideological ends, but as the High Court pointed out this week, UK law adopts a much broader definition of who can properly be classified as a terrorist. Blair-era legislation provides that actions taken for the purpose of advancing a political cause can be sanctioned as terrorism, 'if it involves serious damage to property, even if it does not involve violence against any person or endanger life or create a risk to health or safety'. 'In this respect,' as Mr Justice Chamberlain observed on Friday, 'the statutory concept is wider than the colloquial meaning of the term.' This gap has potential consequences. While Chamberlain emphasised that it is not the 'court's function to comment on the wisdom of the use of the power in this case,' it is difficult not to detect a degree of judicial scepticism in the reflection that the Home Secretary's decision to exercise this power 'in respect of a group such as Palestine Action may also have wider consequences for the way the public understands the concept of terrorism and for public confidence in the regime of the 2000 Act'. This point was picked up in the evidence of Professor Ben Saul, reflecting on the international context. Saul is the Challis Chair of International Law at the University of Sydney and the UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while Countering Terrorism. In his submission to the High Court, Saul pointed out that 'most responsible States globally have limited terrorism designations to extremist actors engaged in grave large scale atrocities' and 'treating 'direct action' against property interests as 'terrorism' seriously over-classifies the nature of the conduct, and is fundamentally contrary to best practice international standards on the nature and scope of terrorist acts'. Doing so, he suggests, puts the UK 'out of step with comparable liberal democracies,' where 'mere property damage has seldom been a sufficient basis for designating groups as terrorist'. The Home Secretary – and the overwhelming number of MPs who voted on the proscription order – disagreed. READ MORE: David Pratt: The shadowy figures behind US-Israeli aid operation Because it is now an offence for anyone to 'belong or profess to belong' to Palestine Action, exposing anyone who does so to a fine or prison term of up to 14 years. 'Inviting support' for the organisation is now also a criminal offence. So too is expressing any 'opinion or belief that is supportive' of Palestine Action in a way which is 'reckless' and might be interpreted as encouraging an audience to support the proscribed organisation. As civil liberties organisations Amnesty International and Liberty pointed out in their High Court intervention this week, 'there is a real risk that advocacy for the de-proscription of Palestine Action could amount to one or more offences under the 2000 Act.' The consequences don't end there. The Terrorism Act and the police officers charged with enforcing it are also going to have a new interest into what you are wearing. Once an organisation has been proscribed by the British state, wearing a T-shirt, wearing a badge, or carrying a banner 'in such a way' as to 'arouse reasonable suspicion' that you support Palestine Action becomes a crime. This restriction also extends to selfies or social media posts, picturing banners or signs which could be interpreted as sympathetic to the organisation. Under section 13 of the Act, publishing an image which arouses 'reasonable suspicion that the person is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation' can attract a prison sentence of up to six months or a fine – not to mention the wider stigmatic consequences of carrying a conviction under the Terrorism Act around with you. Anyone who organises an event after this weekend which supports a proscribed organisation, which 'furthers its activities', or which is 'addressed by a person who belongs' to such an organisation will also now commit a terrorism offence. Section 14 of the Terrorism Act defines 'terrorist property' as including any resources of a proscribed organisation. Contributing resources or donations to the organisation could now land you up to 14 years imprisonment, transforming what would have been a crowdfunding donation on Monday into 'fundraising for the purposes of terrorism' today. I came to political consciousness as an adult during the 'War on Terror' of the early Noughties. I can all too clearly remember the circular debates about how the concept of terrorism should be defined in law, concerns about ambiguous definitions, government insistence that public safety and security demanded the state and law enforcement agencies should be given more and more unstructured power above and beyond the ordinary criminal law, undiscouraged by concerns about the dangers of draconian enforcement and executive overreach. Last week's decision is guaranteed to revive these debates – but at least in terms of Palestine Action, under the long shadow of the criminal law.
