Starmer must drop ‘cruel’ Pip proposals or face ‘mother of all rebellions’, Labour MP says – UK politics live

6 hours ago 1

Starmer's failure to defend new Pip eligibility rules at PMQs show why 'cruel' plans should be dropped, Labour MP says

The Labour MP Richard Burgon has said that Keir Starmer’s failure to answer in detail a question about how the Pip (personal independence payment) entitlement rules will work under the reforms announced yesterday shows why the plans should be dropped.

In a post on social media, Burgon said:

The prime minister was unable to answer a simple question today about why a disabled person who needs help to eat, wash and manage toilet needs could no longer get Pip under his proposals.

The government must drop this cruel proposal or it’ll face the mother of all rebellions.

Burgon was referring to what happened when the SDLP MP Colum Eastwood asked Starmer to justify the new Pip rules. (See 12.54pm.) Eastwood said:

A lady came to see me recently who needed help. She had a disability. It meant that her children had to help her cut up her food. They have to help her wash beneath her waist. They have to supervise her as she goes to the toilet.

Under the Tory welfare system we were able to get that lady on Pip. Under the prime minister’s new proposed system, she will get zero, nothing.

And after 14 years of the Tory government – and many of us wanted to see the back of them – can the prime minister answer one question – what was the point if Labour are going to do this?

In response, Starmer said that lived with the impact of disability through his mother (who had Still’s disease and was in a wheelchair for much of his life) and through his brother (who had learning difficulties), but that he thought the current welfare system was “indefensible”. He did not say why Eastwood’s constituent should lose her Pip, but he said under the government’s plans “if you can never work, you must be supported and protected”.

On Newsnight last night the SNP MP Kirsty Blackman made a similar point about how the new Pip rules will work. She said:

If you, for example, can’t put on your own trousers, if you cannot get in and out of the shower yourself, if you are not able to go to the toilet without supervision, you still may not make the criteria [to keep getting Pip], because none of those things get you four points.

Blackman was referring to the change in the eligibility rules set out in the green paper yesterday. It says:

We will introduce a new eligibility requirement to ensure that only those who score a minimum of 4 points in at least one daily living activity will be eligible for the daily living component of Pip. This requirement will need to be met in addition to the existing Pip eligibility criteria.

This means that people who have lower needs only in the daily living activities (scoring 3 or less for each activity) will no longer be eligible for the daily living component of Pip. Meanwhile, people with a higher level of functional need in at least one activity – for example, people who are unable to complete activities at all, or who require more help from others to complete them – will still receive Pip.

Pip works on a points system, where points are awarded by level of disability in relation to various activities. There is a guide to the points here.

Key events

Show key events only

Please turn on JavaScript to use this feature

Afternoon summary

Keir Starmer has been told that he faces “the mother of all rebellions” if he does not drop the plans to cut disability benefits announced yesterday. The Labour leftwinger Richard Burgon made the prediction after seeing Starmer challenged about the proposals at PMQs. (See 3.43pm.) In an article for the New Statesman, George Eaton says as many as 40 Labour MPs are threatening to rebel over the plans when they come to a vote in the Commons, which is expected in May. The row is also causing particular problems for the Scottish Labour party, where Anas Sarwar, the party leader, has said that the cuts don’t amount to a return to austerity, while one of his senior MSPs has said the opposite. (See 4.41pm.)

Some individuals currently getting sickness and disability benefits could lose almost £10,000 a year by the end of the decade under the plans announced yesterday, the Resolution Foundation thinktank has said. It has published a detailed analysis of the plans, which points out that some people could in effect lose out twice, because if they no longer qualify for Pip (the personal independence payment), they will also no longer be able to get the top-up universal credit payment (UC LCWRA). It says:

A single person who would have previously qualified for Pip standard daily living and UC LCWRA will now not qualify for Pip daily living if they do not score at least four points on a single criterion of the Pip assessment, and from 2028 they will also not qualify for the UC LCWRA element when the Pip assessment replaces the work capability assessment to determine eligibility. This amounts to an annual loss of £9,600 per year in 2029-30.

The Resolution Foundation also says the changes will affect poorer families the most, because seven-in-ten Pip recipients are in the lower half of the income distribution.

In its conclusion, the thinktank says:

Yesterday’s green paper marks a serious attempt by the government to tackle two major concerns: the growing spend on disability benefits, and the large number of people who are not working through ill-health.

But any gains risk being completely over-shadowed by the scale of income losses faced by those who will receive reduced or no support at all – irrespective of whether they are able to work. The irony of this green paper is that the main beneficiaries are those without health problems or a disability. Although it includes some sensible reforms, it is hard to escape the conclusion that many of the proposals in the green paper have been driven by the need for short-term savings to meet fiscal rules, rather than long-term reform, with some of the suggested giveaways or transitional protection being unconfirmed and subject to further consultation. The result risks being a major income shock for millions of low-income households.

Dozens of Labour MPs have joined forces in an effort to steer young men away from “toxic influencers” and the manosphere with positive messages about fatherhood and the promise of better paternity rights, the Guardian has learned.

There is a realistic chance that one of the UK’s largest oil refineries can be converted into a hub for green chemicals, sustainable fuels and plastics, John Swinney, Scotland’s first minister, says.

Napier barracks, one of the first mass accommodation sites opened to house asylum seekers, is to be closed after years of controversy about conditions there, including a mass Covid outbreak, decrepit facilities and far-right protests.

Hancock dismisses criticism of 'VIP lane' for PPE procurement during Covid crisis as 'wholly naive'

Matt Hancock has described criticism of the so-called “VIP lane” that meant some PPE contract offers were prioritisied for Whitehall consideration during Covid as “wholly naive”.

Giving evidence to the Covid inquiry in a hearing held as part of its PPE module, the former health secretary was asked about evidence submitted by an expert describing the “VIP lane” process as “problematic”, in part because there was “no consideration given to the risk of de facto differential treatment”.

At a time when the government was desperate to acquire PPE, and inundated with offers from contractors largely unknown to Whitehall, the “VIP lane” enabled ministers to recommend offers from people who contacted them directly for priority consideration.

The government defended the scheme on the grounds that final decisions were always taken by officials. But the initiative continues to be mired in controversy, not least because it was used by the Tory peer Michelle Mone to obtain contracts that are now subject to an ongoing criminal investigation.

Asked about the expert’s comment criticising the scheme, Hancock replied:

What I would say about that particular paragraph that you read out is that it is wholly naive as to the circumstances that we face. The point about naivety is really, really important.

It’s fine having academics write papers about this stuff, and some of the academic analysis of how you could do better in a future pandemic is really, really valuable.

But it can only have any value at all if you understand what it was like. You know, you weren’t there. This professor wasn’t there. But you’ve got to understand what it was like.

The pressure to save lives is intense, but so is the reality that high-quality offers will come through and be sent through to senior decision makers, and you have to have a process for dealing with that.

Apologising for being “impassioned” in his evidence, Hancock went on:

I have been subject to enormous amounts of conspiracy theories about what went on here when, in fact, what happened was so many people working as hard as they could to save lives, and they bought more PPE as a result, and therefore people are alive who would otherwise be dead.

And frankly, I’m incredibly proud of the people who themselves have felt under attack because of the way that questions have been put, which does have a material consequence on future responses to a pandemic.

Hancock also said it was important to ensure that, in future, “more bureaucracy” did not get in the way of effective procurement in an equivalent crisis.

Matt Hancock leaving the Covid inquiry today.

Coming back to the new Pip eligibility criteria (see 3.43pm), the Resolution Foundation thinktank says claimants with musculoskeletal conditions, like back pain or arthritis, are the people most likely to lose out. It has published this chart in an analysis.

John Swinney claims Anas Sarwar's 'no austerity under Labour' pledge exposed as worthless by benefit cuts

John Swinney has said Anas Sarwar’s words “count for absolutely nothing” as he accused the UK government of a return to austerity – something the Scottish Labour leader had promised would not happen.

As PA Media reports, speaking to reporters in Grangemouth, the first minister said Keir Starmer’s government wanted to enact cuts that would punish “the most vulnerable in our society”.

During the general election campaign last year, Sarwar, the Scottish Labour leader, had told voters: “Read my lips: no austerity under Labour.”

The SNP claims the benefit cuts announced yesterday, among other measures, amount to austerity – something that has been rejected by Sarwar but echoed by a senior member of his team at Holyrood, PA says.

Carol Mochan, Scottish Labour’s public health spokeswoman, contradicted her boss in a social media post on the welfare cuts by saying:

Austerity has never been a sustainable path to growth. We cannot balance the books on the backs of people who require benefits just to have a passable standard of living.

These reforms are a mistake and should not go ahead.

Swinney said he “could not fathom what the Labour Government thinks it is doing”. He added:

I think it’s made a number of huge mistakes already. The winter fuel cut was a disastrous mistake for the Labour government to make.

That proposal was offered to the Tories on countless occasions and they never took it.

The Labour Party has taken that cut and they’ve now taken cuts to disability benefits, which even the Tories didn’t do.

Swinney also said he was “not surprised” the cuts led to Neil Findlay quitting the party. (See 11.13am.) And he claimed Sarwar had broken his pre-election pledge.

We now know that Anas Sarwar’s words count for absolutely nothing.

This is the return to austerity that I told everybody would happen unless some of the hard realities of the public finances were addressed.

Labour are interested now in returning austerity and punishing the most vulnerable in our society. What disgrace the Labour party has become.

John Swinney on a visit to Celtic Renewables in Grangemouth today.

In a Guardian column Frances Ryan says the plans for cuts to sickness and disability benefits announced yesterday are “rotten with contradictions and cruelty”. Here is an extract.

Even with the U-turn, the bulk of the cuts will fall on the Pip budget, despite the benefit having nothing to do with employment. Indeed, removing Pip – which is often used to pay for taxis, mobility aids and care staff – is more likely to push disabled people out of employment. Pip is also a “gateway benefit”, and ministers are yet to address whether those losing it could see their families lose vital carer’s allowance too.

Meanwhile, the plan to reduce UC for the whole “unfit to work category” will hit many severely ill and disabled people who will not be protected by the new premium. Ministers say this will “incentivise” people to stay in the work-search group, as if the reason a teacher confined to bed with ME quit her job is that she’s just not incentivised enough.

This is austerity dressed up as reform, where the government cuts the money disabled people need to live on in order to balance the books, while claiming it’s all being done to help them.

And here is Frances’ column.

After the Commons vote where MPs removed the Lords amendment to the NICs bill exempting care homes, hospice and other health-related businesses (see 3.07pm), there were five more votes rejected Lords amendments to the bill. The government won them all with three-figure majorities. These included Lords amendments exempting small charities from the NICs increase, and firms providing transport for children with special educational needs.

MPs are now debated a Tory opposition day motion urging the government to publish information about the impact the winter fuel payment cut has had on pensioner poverty.