The outcome of the standoff between the government and more than 100 of its own backbenchers regardingnext week’s benefit reform voteis uncertain. Either the prime minister’s team will persuade enough MPs to pass the bill, or they won’t. A third option is some kind of compromise. But whatever happens next, thecampaign behind the “reasoned amendment”that could scupper the cuts, if the rebels hold their nerve, has dealt a blow to the authority of Downing Street and the Treasury. The MPs, including a group of select committee chairs, are right to resist the predicted damage to their constituencies and condemn the lack of consultation.
Liz Kendall, the work and pensions secretary, continues to promote her disability benefits bill with a barrage of statistics. Headline figures such as the £20bn rise in the disability benefit bill since the pandemic, and the fact that employment has not bounced back as in other countries, are undoubtedly concerning. Something has gone wrong with a system in which one in 10 working-age adults relies on sickness or disability payments. It is right to be troubled by the rise inyoung adultson benefits due to mental illnesses.
But the government’s critics do not deny any of this. There is broad acceptance that thesystem’s rising costsare problematic – if far from the national emergency that is portrayed by those opposed to welfare spending on principle. After an extremely rocky start, universal credit is now bedded in. But other Conservative changes have been revealed as fundamentally flawed. One problem was the policy of holding down the standard rate of unemployment benefit, which fell so farbelow an adequate standard of livingthat people who might not have claimed the health top-up were incentivised to do so. Another issue is the removal of financial support from people preparing for work. This appears to have had theunintended consequenceof disincentivising recovery.
Raising the standard rate, as Labour intends, isan important steptowards a more balanced system. Investment in employment support, and the “right to try” a job, are constructive approaches to the rise in long-term sickness. But other measures in this over-hasty bill seem certain to bring immiseration to parts of the country that are least equipped to manage it. The government’s own impact assessment says the bill will push 250,000 more people into poverty – a disgraceful statistic in a starkly unequal country.
Higher thresholds for personal independence payments, which are expected to save £5bn and reduce claims by around 800,000 by 2030, are causing panic in vulnerable households. Among the latest warnings is one from charities thatdisabled women will lose outdue to their higher personal care needs, including coping with menstruation, not being taken into account. Yet so far, the only concession from ministers has been an extension in the transition period for those losing benefits.
No wonder thatLabourMPs have had enough. Some of those who entered parliament less than a year ago must wonder what on earth they are doing. The “reasoned amendment” may be an arcane piece of parliamentary terminology. But what could be more reasonable than raising the alarm about a policy that is predicted to cause rising poverty, before ministers or MPs have had sight of three separate reviews of the context and consequences?