Spring Statement Discussion (link to documents here)
Comments
-
Ask your MP to back Diane Abbott's call for Welfare Not Warfare.
It only takes 30 seconds - lobby your MP and spread the word today!
0 -
On Benefits & Work News today.
No legal ‘silver bullet’ to stop PIP proposals
Benefits and Work and Inclusion London have obtained counsel’s advice on possible challenges to the Pathways To Work Green Paper proposals.
The advice suggests that at this stage there appears to be no clear or obvious route for challenge or ‘silver bullet’ regarding the ‘flagship’ elements of the policy. Instead, individuals and organisations should focus efforts on challenging elements of the Green Paper politically as much as possible.
Benefits and Work and Inclusion London asked solicitors Leigh Day to obtain advice from counsel about the potential legal challenges to the March 2025 welfare reform proposals. Leigh Day appointed barrister Tom Royston of Garden Court North Chambers to undertake the work.
Both Leigh Day and Tom Royston have a great deal of experience in social security law and we are grateful to them for the very detailed advice they have provided.
The advice addressed the following proposals in the Green Paper:
(I) ‘Focussing PIP more on those with higher needs’: the proposal to require at least one 4 point descriptor to be met to qualify for PIP;
(II) ‘Scrap the WCA’: the proposal to amend the process by which ill and disabled people can claim income replacement benefit, and the amount of money they receive;
(III) ‘New unemployment insurance’: the proposal to amalgamate contributory ESA and JSA into a single time limited contributory benefit;
(IV) ‘Delaying access to the UC health element until age 22’: not paying 18-21 PIP recipients any extra means tested element in UC.
Looking in summary at the above proposals, counsel told us that substantial challenges to central aspects of the envisaged legislation would ‘be likely to fall at various places along a spectrum from ‘hopeless’ to ‘challenging’.”
In other words, given the information currently available, the chances of preventing the proposals being made law or overturning them subsequently appear to be limited.
In relation specifically to PIP, a range of issues were considered, including - but not limited to -the decision not to consult on this measure, challenges under the Human Rights Act 1998 and challenges under the Equality Act 2010. But the probability of any challenge succeeding in relation to the PIP 4-point rule specifically was considered to be low and heavily dependent on circumstances.
Counsel did stress, however, that there may well be successful legal challenges in the future to elements of the above proposals, but these are likely to be to “contingent aspects of the proposals which emerge along the way, rather than to the elementary principles which were clear at the start.”
In other words, if the laws are enacted, then the courts may have a major role to play in examining the way they are interpreted and implemented but not in upsetting the basic foundations, such as the PIP 4-point rule. Benefits and Work will aim to support any such challenges in any way it can.
We are not able to publish the advice at present and we should add that it applies only to the four issues listed. The Green Paper contains many more proposals that were not covered.
In addition, we did not ask for advice on whether the current Green Paper consultation is lawful, because our initial enquiries are primarily about proposals which are not being consulted on.
We know that this news will be greeted with considerable dismay by many readers, who had hoped that the courts could prevent such clearly cruel and discriminatory proposals coming into force.
Sadly, there seems unlikely to be ‘silver bullet’ or straightforward legal answer.
Instead, by far the best hope of preventing these cuts is to persuade MPs to pledge to vote against them, as evidence grows that the Labour Party is struggling to contain a rebellion.
As one Labour MP, Neil Duncan-Jordan, who won his seat with a majority of just 18 votes but who has 5,000 constituents receiving PIP, told the Guardian “The whole policy is wrong. It goes without saying that if these benefits cuts go through, I will be toast in this seat.”
More facts about the effects of the cuts are being uncovered with each passing week.
Making MPs, especially those with slim majorities, aware of how dramatically the cuts will affect claimant’s lives provides the best hope that they will never come to pass.
1 -
⚠️ Government Phishing Alert!! ⚠️
If you see this on Facebook or anywhere else for that matter, don't fill it in!
1 -
I have read this just now after receiving the B&W's Newsletter, I was putting off reading it as I had a feeling, it would basically say we are stuffed.
I know we have to keep at it and we will, but its so very disheartening that even the courts have their hands tied when these policies could be life or death for some. I am truly appalled and exhausted that we have this draconian level of thinking, acting and policies being implemented, we live in 2025 for goodness sake, and all without so much as a by your leave from anyone or anywhere.
Sorry if this is a little convoluted, I am struggling to even get my thoughts onto paper as such, hope it makes sense. Even the tone of this newsletter by B&W is so transparently downbeat, something they strive to steer clear of usually by adding uplifting sections, you can feel their anguish seeping through. If I am feeling this way just now there must be millions of others feeling it too.
I really had hoped B&W would have, given the legal help onboard, brought us just a little bit of a ''yes, the legal team have said we can do this or that'' that there might have been a silver bullet even if, a very small one. Sorry for my depressive writing here, I don't want to bring anyone down with it, I am just deeply appalled by our Government, our country and its leaders.
1 -
Leigh Day and barrister Tom Royston have looked closely at the government’s welfare reform proposals. Their legal advice is that the core plans, such as the new PIP rules and changes to benefits, are likely to be legally sound under current laws. This means there is no clear legal route to stop them before they are passed.
However, they also said that if the proposals are introduced and then applied unfairly, for example, through poor assessments or discriminatory practices, there could be grounds for legal challenges at that point.
So while taking it to court is not an option right now, that does not mean we are powerless. The best solution for the time being is political pressure. MPs, especially those with small majorities, are already feeling pressure from people in their communities. If enough of us speak up, protest, and push back, we can still influence what happens and may be able to stop these proposals from becoming law, or get them watered down
The fight is not over, it has just moved to a different battlefield. For now, that means writing to MPs, raising awareness, and standing together.
2 -
It's fine pushing back but greed is the contributing factor that MP's surrender to. ....
Ie , they don't want to lose their 100K salary
1 -
That’s a fair point. Greed and self-interest definitely play a large part in politics, no denying that. But it is precisely because MPs want to keep their seats and salaries that public pressure can still work. Many care less about doing the right thing and more about not losing votes, and that gives us leverage!
They are already seeing backlash in some constituencies, especially the marginal ones. If we keep up the pressure, we can make a difference. It is not about expecting a moral awakening, it is about making them realise that ignoring us comes at a political cost they cannot afford.
Giving up guarantees that these proposals will go through unchallenged. If we stay silent, they will assume we do not care or will not fight back, and that is exactly what they are hoping for. But if we raise our voices, protest, write to MPs, and stand together, we at least force them to listen and think twice.
We might not be able to stop everything, but we have seen before that public pressure can delay, water down, or even stop harmful policies. The system is not perfect, but doing nothing leaves the door wide open for them to carry on.
2 -
The Devastating Human Rights Impact of Social Security Failures in the UK
Join Amnesty UK in-person or online for the launch of a campaign uncovering the realities of social security in the UK.
0 -
Please Sign and Share!! 👍
1 -
It's good news but time is running out.
1 -
Yes it is. All I can say is that we are still doing a great job of getting the situation over to MPs and others about just how devastating these cuts will be.
Many Labour MPs are now frustrated about ministers misrepresenting these cuts to them and that they won't wait until the MPs have seen the OBRs impact assessment in October before pushing these proposals through.
I've recently read that 55 MPs are going to vote against the cuts and 100 others are considering their position. Ministers have also recently decided that they are now going to let MPs abstain from voting instead of forcing them to vote for the proposals, under fear of being suspended, as this issue is now undermining the unity of the Labour Party and therefore government.
The fact that they are in that position and so many of them realize that they are going to get voted out at the next general election (if not sooner) by us is only a good thing and hopefully it may bring about the situation where they will bring about some serious modifications.
0 -
Hi are 55 mps voting against it going to be enough? I thought it had to be at least 100.
0 -
I don't know that one myself and can't find out if it needs to be a 100 MPs or not. All I do know is that 55 MPs voting against the proposals and another 100 considering their position is a big rebellion.
1 -
If you mean to lose the vote, neither number is enough, remember Tories will vote for it.
But the hope is that there is enough to rebel to make Keir worried about his leadership and then back out.
If that fails the next best thing would be to try to either get some form of TP for those who will lose PIP or a lower rate daily living on the old criteria, which will be better than nothing. Of course that would be a bit nonsensical you could have someone with 14 points on low rate and someone with 12 on high rate all because an idiot thinks a single 4 points must mean they are more disabled.4 -
I wonder about the meaning of transitional protection when there is no actual transition taking place, rather a removal of support. It's not transferring from one benefit to another, for some people it's absolutely shutting down access to all kinds of services :/ How do you transitionally protect that?
It seems like something thrown in to try and soften the blow because they've already decided that Reeves's rules are more important than protecting disabled people.
I also wonder why there are still people considering the Tories would be better right now given that the Tories have unequivocally said that the reforms don't go far enough, and that they will vote in favour of them without hesitation.
If Labour MPs do stage a rebellion, it will be the Tories who condemn us to the reforms. There are very likely as many Labour MPs having doubts about this bill as there are Tories (and probably Reform MPs) waiting to vote it through.
Food for thought.1 -
Yep, I only mentioned it, as its mentioned in the green paper as something they going to consider in the future. But I got no idea how it could work practically. I assume would either be a temporary extension, or a gradual reduction each year until it is gone.
Both the Tories and Labour support cuts, hence Labour being able to come in with some brutal one's knowing there wont be any sizeable opposition to it.
For UC, Labour is a bit softer than Tories plans in that they add a second pathway to the health topup after the WCA is gone, but Tory were softer in that were not going to reassess again on LCWRA.
For PIP Labour is being absolutely brutal and cruel, whilst the Tories never actually released their plan yet, but we know the ideas in the consultation were extremely cruel.
One thing is I think whatever this way ends, I think the Tories would have done similar, I think the parties are just way too similar now, even potentially some hidden figure manipulating them to do the same things.
Reform have nothing in their manifesto for this, but the size of the tax cuts they want to do, can only mean a massive destruction of the social security system would be unleashed.
Its all ideological, in 3-4 years when election is coming up Labour will be giving lots of tax give away's funded by whatever surplus they build up.Basically the country has pretty much decided that lower taxes for people working is preferable to looking after the vulnerable, a country of selfishness as horrible as it sounds. When a party gets in power, they are then drowning in it, and will do whatever keeps them in power for longer.
0 -
Amaya_Ringo, Neil Couling has admitted that the payment is compensation.
0 -
The assessors are not professional enough , back in 2016 I applied for pip and didn't get it , one of the descriptors I got 4 points for having to wear dark glasses , on my PIP award in 2023 I put the same thing down and scored 2 , I should have taken the 2016 pip refusal to tribunal , but I never knew I could , so i suffered without help until I got cancer in 2022 and macMillan helped me apply and I was awarded . I believe now I should have got enhanced daily living , but never , but this time I really hope I get enhanced on both I did get enhanced mobility as I am agoraphobic, I hope they don't change that either , my conditions cannot be cured , so fingers crossed they won't even want a phone call assessment , my last was paper based but I still got a random call , it caught me off guard which is intended , she even twisted my answer to one of the questions . She asked me if I could drive , I told her no because I don't , but she asked me why i don't drive , I told her because i have severe anxiety and driving would heighten it . Sneaky questions .
0 -
Maybe the transition from daily living is to prevent carers allowance being claimed which means still losing £333 a month .
I honesty cannot see how it can pass , most disabled pip claimants who lose daily living because of the 4 points stand to lose over £1000 a month , nobody can justify this , well anyone with a heart anyway .
1
Categories
- All Categories
- 15.9K Start here and say hello!
- 7.6K Coffee lounge
- 107 Games den
- 1.8K People power
- 162 Announcements and information
- 25.3K Talk about life
- 6.2K Everyday life
- 505 Current affairs
- 2.5K Families and carers
- 874 Education and skills
- 2K Work
- 587 Money and bills
- 3.7K Housing and independent living
- 1.2K Transport and travel
- 645 Relationships
- 1.6K Mental health and wellbeing
- 2.5K Talk about your impairment
- 883 Rare, invisible, & undiagnosed conditions
- 942 Neurological impairments and pain
- 2.2K Cerebral Palsy Network
- 1.3K Autism and neurodiversity
- 40.9K Talk about your benefits
- 6.1K Employment & Support Allowance (ESA)
- 20.3K PIP, DLA, ADP & AA
- 9.2K Universal Credit (UC)
- 5.3K Benefits and income