• Search
  • You are here:  
  • Home
  • News
  • Kendall's "concessions" letter to MPs

News

Kendall's "concessions" letter to MPs

Details

Liz Kendall's letter to Labour MP's announcing the "concessions" the government has offered to win over rebels has been published.

It leaves a great many questions unanswered.  And as amendments to the bill will not be published before Tuesday's vote, it means MPs will have to vote without actually knowing what they are ultimately agreeing to. 

On first reading, one of the most obvious question is whether the guarantee relating to PIP means that current claimants will also be protected from the "ministerial review of the Pip assessment, led by the minister for social security and disability [Stephen Timms], to ensure the benefit is fair and fit for the future." If not, and Timms introduces much harsher conditions for PIP from 2028, then the PIP guarantee is good for only around three years.

We are sure readers will have many more queries.  Please post them in the comments section below - we won't be able to answer them, but we can begin to collate them.

Dear colleague,

We have always said we are determined to reform the social security system so it is fair, provides dignity and respect for those unable to work, supports those who can, and is sustainable so it is there for generations to come.

The broken system we inherited from the Tories fails all of those tests.

These important reforms are rooted in Labour values, and we want to get them right.

We have listened to colleagues who support the principle of reform but are worried about the impact of the pace of change on those already supported by the system.

As a result we will make two changes to strengthen the bill.

Firstly, we recognise the proposed changes have been a source of uncertainty and anxiety.

Therefore, we will ensure that all of those currently receiving Pip will stay within the current system. The new eligibility requirements will be implemented from November 2026 for new claims only.

Secondly, we will adjust the pathway of universal credit payment rates to make sure all existing recipients of the UC health element – and any new claimant meeting the severe conditions criteria – have their incomes fully protected in real terms.

Colleagues rightly want to ensure that disabled people and those with ill health are at the heart of our reforms.

We will take forward a ministerial review of the Pip assessment, led by the minister for social security and disability [Stephen Timms], to ensure the benefit is fair and fit for the future.

At the heart of this review will be coproduction with disabled people, the organisations that represent them, and MPs so their views and voices are heard. The review will then report to me as work and pensions secretary.

These commitments sit alongside our raising of the standard rate of the universal credit – the biggest real-terms permanent increase of any benefit since the 1980s – the protection of the incomes of the most vulnerable who will no longer be reassessed and the introduction of “right to try”.

Our reform principles remain; to target funding for those most in need and make sure the system is sustainable for the future to support generations to come.

We believe those who can work, should, and those who cannot, should be protected.

We will front load more of the additional funding generated by these reforms for back to work support for sick and disabled people.

Taken together it is a fair package that will preserve the social security system for those who need it by putting it on a sustainable footing, support people back into work, protect those who cannot work and reduce anxiety for those currently in the system.

Thank you to colleagues for engaging with us on these important reforms to social security.

Comments

Write comments...
or post as a guest
Loading comment... The comment will be refreshed after 00:00.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    HL
    · 22 days ago
    Am I correct to assume that the concessions will not help those of us who have already applied for Pip - and are awaiting assessment?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      sara
      · 22 days ago
      @Fionn @HL Your claim, though, dates from when you send in your claim form, and that is what determines under which rules you are assessed, not the date of the decision.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Fionn
      · 22 days ago
      @HL I think your award dates from when the decision is made. As long as that's done before the changes come in (which seems very likely), you'd be treated under the current rules.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      John
      · 22 days ago
      @HL We will have to wait for the details to know for sure. But I would expect existing claimants (who will forever be exempt from the 4pt rule) will be anyone receiving PIP when the eligibility rules change in November 2026.

      Considering they are planning on changing the PIP assessment system again in 2028 how good this forever is remains to be seen. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Pat753
      · 22 days ago
      @HL If they stick to what they're saying at the  moment - never certain - then none of this happens until November 2026.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    D
    · 22 days ago
    From guardian live text just after 2pm:

    At least 50 Labour MPs still opposed to welfare bill, Starmer warned, amid claims Tuesday's vote could be very tight
    Ministers should not be confident that they will pass the welfare bill on Tuesday, despite the huge concessions welcomed by the MP who tabled the reasoned amendment to kill the bill, a backbencher told the World at One

    Cat Eccles, who was elected MP for Stourbridge last year, said that she was aware of around 50 to 60 Labour rebels who were still oppposed to the bill. But she said she could be more.

    Eccles is one of more than 120 Labour MPs who signed the reasoned amendment that would have blocked the bill at second reading. The government currently has a working majority of 165, which means that if 83 Labour MPs were to vote with all the opposition parties on a measure, the government would lose.

    Asked for her response to the U-turn, Eccles said:

    I’m glad that the government is finally listening, but it’s really disappointing that it is at the 11th hour. I and others have been raising our concerns since Liz Kendall first stood at the dispatch box to announce these policies back in March, so they’ve had three months to listen.
    So to say this week that they’re surprised that we’ve got these concerns is really disingenuous … I think they do need to start really being a bit more collaborative with their back benches, because we do have experience amongst us, we do have a lot of knowledge, and some of us really do know what we’re talking about, especially when it comes to the system.
    Asked if the changes were enough too get her to back the bill, Eccles replied:

    For me? No, it’s too little too late.
    We’re not going to be able to see the detail in advance … It’s not good enough for me.
    Asked if other Labour MPs felt the same way, Eccles replied:

    It’s quite mixed. Some people are feeling quite reassured by what’s been coming out since last night …
    But many of us still feel that it’s not OK – particularly around the Pip four points scoring criteria, saying that existing claimants will still get it, but new ones may not.
    There’s a worry there that we’ll create a two-tier system.
    And it’s looking like they’ll still be billions of pounds of brutal cuts.
    So it’s just too quick for MPs to be able to understand how these concessions will really work. And I think we should still be pressing pause and looking at this again.
    Eccles did not offer a firm prediction for how many MPs would vote against the bill. Asked how many backbenchers were, like her, still opposed to the bill, she replied:

    I know some, 50 or 60 that I’m aware of, but I think there’s a whole bunch of people that we’re not aware of who are feeling uncomfortable. We may not know what they will do until Tuesday evening.
    When it was put to her that the vote could be “really very tight indeed”, she replied: “Yes, I think so.”
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Peter
      · 22 days ago
      @D The BBC is also citing "at least 50" remaining rebels but add that "several" others are expected to abstain.    With the tories now gearing-up to actively vote against the bill, it is still THAT close to being defeating regardless of any bodged amendments from the government.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    A
    · 22 days ago
    And what if existing claimants get wrongly given a low or NO award during review, then they reapply and face the new rules anyway?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Cuckoo21
      · 22 days ago
      @A I don't think the new rules would apply because the claimant could if they wished to go through the mandatory reconsideration and appeal process. If they were to go through these stages they wouldn't be making a new claim. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      John
      · 22 days ago
      @A I expect they will need to go through the mandatory reconsideration and appeals process so the award decision to deny them PIP is overturned and a correct decision backdated to the original erroneous decision.

      If instead they lose PIP and reapply for PIP their claim would end and latter a new claim start. Losing their exemption from the 4 point rule. Unless the government creates bridging rules for PIP claims. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Cuckoo21
    · 22 days ago
    Sorry this is a bit unrelated but there is a petition for Ker starmer to tax the super wealthy if anyone agrees https://act.38degrees.org.uk/act/tax-the-super-rich-0924
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Rick4545
    · 22 days ago
    This whole bill is immoral. Creating a two tier situation for disabled claimants. People don't need this help for the fun of it.
    What will happen to existing DLA Claimants who are still waiting to be invited to apply for Pip? I have searched and AI has informed me that Existing DLA  persons who are waiting to be invited to apply for Pip.... ( DLA to PIP ) will be treated as though they  are new claimants. This whole saga is beyond wrong. People are not ill and disabled to go through life expecting concessions. This is a situation that help is needed. Life is still much harder than before, but the help with DLA or Pip makes it a little more bearable. No one chooses to be ill, or to live with disability and chronic conditions however manageable they might be, the help that these benefits enable are an essential lifeline. Meanwhile people's anxiety levels are increased at a time, they don't need them to be.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Rick4545
      · 21 days ago
      @Fionn Yes, those before a  certain date in 1948, who were 65 in 2010 when Pip was introduced were informed they need not do a thing, they could remain on life, the rest of us were told we would be invited to apply for Pip, we couldn't just remain. Fair enough, but people were in a quandary, did they apply for Pip or Attendance Allowance? We've been told we can re apply for Pip, as are still on DLA, I think we are given something like a week or month, once invited, I can't remember without checking, if   successful we then remain on it for however long.. like yourself, I'm just a B&W member, not an advisor, but very thankful to B&W, we are not on our own, meet others who have similar stories and the advice here, is so welcome. It is good to have somewhere to refer to, as these benefits are a minefield to look at, so to be able to look at it in a structured way is so very helpful. Thank you, B&W
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Rick4545
      · 21 days ago
      @CC I don't know how they work in the DWP, but they kept putting it back and there are quite a few of us who have not been ''migrated'' across, or rather given an invitation to apply. Most of us, still waiting,  probably all have indefinite awards and we were informed they had put it back... apparently until 2028, now it is  later this year or 2026...For those who have already moved across, you will remember what a trying time it is having this hanging over one's head... I would give my all not to live with this disability and now at 65 live with chronic condition and  constant breakthrough pain. It is what it is but to continually have to prove how it affects us be it ESA, those on this UC, is insulting. I worked full time over 30 years, this whole thing is an insult. We all have different conditions, but they are serious enough to warrant applying for this help. It's degrading to be treated this way, and everyone here has my sympathy, not to mention empathy. Living with disability and chronic ill health is  not a joke... to be made to feel ''second class'' like this is   not correct, especially when we see departments, the government has not cut back on, and fritter money. I think most of us have paid our dues workwise, and those unfortunate to have never worked are simply  being penalised. No one here is here for the fun of it. These benefits open passporting agreements and help with essential care needs or and mobility needs. I wish all here the very best.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      CC
      · 21 days ago
      @Rick4545 How come it has taken them this long to move people from DLA? PIP replaced it ages ago.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Fionn
      · 21 days ago
      @Ginny52 I don't think so, unless there's some kind of special rule? Normally people can't apply for PIP after state retirement age, though of course you can stay on it if you claimed before that date. I assume you'd stay on DLA for life, but I could be wrong. You'd need to ask someone more knowledgeable before doing anything – I'm just a B&W member, not an adviser!
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Ginny52
      · 22 days ago
      @Rick4545 Thanks Rick!🤞
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Neil Cook
    · 22 days ago
    What happens to those of us on UC/LCWRA are we safe or screwed like I'm scared stiff of being?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      John
      · 21 days ago
      @CC Ammendments to the bill are not made at the 2nd reading debate and vote. The 2nd reading vote is an agreement to the general principles of the bill.

      Ammendments are made later after the committee stage. At the reporting stage where the Commons debates the bill in detail and suggests and votes on ammendments. Which is then immediately followed by the 3rd reading with a short debate and vote on the bill as amended. Then the bill goes off to the Lords. Who can make further amendments if it is not a money bill. Then back to the Commons to agree with or reject the Lords ammendments. Which is either done by the government if within the Commons financial privilege or debated and voted on in the Commons if not. Then back to the Lords until both agree or Parliament uses it's primacy over the Lords. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      John
      · 21 days ago
      @Peter What parliament intended, thought it meant. Is the pertinent fact if the meaning of the legislation is contested in court. The court looks at not just the wording of the legislation but the debate, the parliamentary written questions and answers, and the statements made about the bill by the government. We are a parliamentary democracy the intent and understanding of parliament is what matters not what trick the government was trying to pull. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      CC
      · 21 days ago
      @Peter Yep I read about this, the actual bill they voting on wont have the changes, thats crazy.
      If I was an MP I wouldnt be voting for it until the amendments are in writing on the bill.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Peter
      · 22 days ago
      @SLB That's actually not the case.   

      As it stands, the ONLY item on the agenda for Parliament - the ONLY thing that MPs can  debate and vote on is the original bill, exactly as it was written and passed at the first reading.   

      Unless and until the government submits an amendment AND that amendment is allowed by the Speaker - NOTHING HAS CHANGED.   

      You can't vote on the bill, pass it - allowing the creation of a new LAW and then come back and say, "But my mate pinkie-promised and his mate even wrote me a note".  They can ONLY vote on the bill as it already exists - the one that caused the rebellion in the first place.

      So what happens now?   At some point between now and Tuesday, an amendment will be written and submitted to the Speaker - leaving VERY little time for that sack of weasel-words and legalise waffle to be fully scrutinised before MPs are forced to vote yay or nay on what they THINK it says.   The government will have teams of lawyers and other devious types to craft their amendment - MPs will have ten minutes to try to interpret and understand it.

      This is why the bill needs to be PULLED - there simply isn't time now for anyone to properly check this massively important and complex bill.  It makes absolutely NO DIFFERENCE what kendall scribbled down or what starmer or Rayner said over a coffee - ALL that actually counts is the vote ON THE BILL AS WRITTEN - and right now - that's the original bill - NOTHING ELSE.   ****IF**** and when an amendment is tabled AND accepted - then that becomes the bill being debated - and you have no idea WHEN or IF that is definitely going to happen.    This is HUGE - it can't be built around assumptions and a quick glance at three million words of "party of the first part" legalise.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      SLB
      · 22 days ago
      @Neil Cook There's nothing to suggest that you are screwed.  BUt the new eligibility rules for UC (via daily living PIP) are not included in this bill.  Another fight, another day. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Gawayn
    · 22 days ago
    I'm on UC LCWRA without being on PIP. Does continuing protection for people currently only on LCWRA still apply past the proposed merging/abolition of the WCA assessment in 2028? And will the PIP assessment be changed to take into account the descriptors for the WCA or will it just stay the same?

    Have to say the way this whole "reform" has been handled has been as disgusting as it is incompetent.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      tintack
      · 22 days ago
      @John
      "I think it is best to go by Liz Kendall's concession letter to MPs that states what the government has actually agreed to do."

      That letter is not clear either though. If it's definite that those of us on LCWRA but not PIP are still going to be thrown to the wolves in 2028 I'd expect B & W to say so, but even they don't seem sure. 

      Of course, it may be that the government will agree not to reassess current UC Health claimants under the new criteria when the WCA legislation comes forward, especially if they face another rebellion. But at the moment all we have are ministerial statements which are a masterclass in obfuscation and every time it looks as though there might be a glimmer of hope something else appears to snuff it out. Frankly, I don't know how much more of this I can take and I'm sure I'm not alone in feeling that way.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      John
      · 22 days ago
      @tintack I think it is best to go by Liz Kendall's concession letter to MPs that states what the government has actually agreed to do. Not try to interpret what MPs are saying about it as being more. MPs are seeking to take credit for the concessions and justify no longer opposing the bill and are talking it up as is the government. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      tintack
      · 22 days ago
      @John You could read it that way, but that certainly doesn't come anywhere close to being a "massive concession" and it also does not sit easily - to say the least - with the way that this is being reported, including by MPs who had intended to rebel, as "existing claimants can rest easy, they'll be OK". Even B & W, who are extremely on the ball on questions of detail like this, aren't sure what the situation is. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      John
      · 22 days ago
      @tintack Meg Hillier's statement I think is just referring to Liz Kendall's concession "Secondly, we will adjust the pathway of universal credit payment rates to make sure all existing recipients of the UC health element – and any new claimant meeting the severe conditions criteria – have their incomes fully protected in real terms."

      Which I think just means the freezing of UC health element will not make them worse off in real terms. Be that either due to UC health not being frozen. Or more likely a backstop in case UC standard allowance with above inflation uplift + UC health frozen is less than UC standard allowance +UC health both increased by inflation.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      SLB
      · 22 days ago
      @Gawayn We don't know for certain.  But perhaps you could try claiming for PIP between now and November 2026, so you at least get assessed under the old rules.  That won't affect your LCWRA entitlement.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    John
    · 22 days ago
    Labour rebels who are now saying they will not stop the 2nd reading of the Universal Credit and PIP bill. Are in effect saying I was worried about disabled adults losing their benefits blaming Labour protesting and not voting for me. I am not bothered about the fate of disabled children when they grow up or anyone who in the future becomes disabled. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      tintack
      · 22 days ago
      @John I cannot have any respect for any MP who is bought off with "concessions" which amount to saying "we're going to impoverish a huge number of people, just not as many as we originally planned to".
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    CC
    · 22 days ago
    While income related ESA is migrating to universal credit What is going to happen to contribution related ESA Will it just end as it can only be claimed for a year once the changes are in Or does this mean this will only be for new claimants ? As many on this type of ESA may not be entitled to universal credit So could still be a lot worse off after the new bill takes force Very little has been said about that and it is as clear as mud about the outcome
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      SLB
      · 22 days ago
      @CC Changes to UC eligibility are not due to come into force until 2028 - so anyone on a one-year award will have moved before then.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Peeved
      · 22 days ago
      @CC Article 54 of this suggests that the changes for contributory ESA only applies to new claimants, not that that makes it any better.



    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      John
      · 22 days ago
      @CC That is not part of the Universal Credit and Personal Independence bill. Part of this bill is the freeing of the uprating UC health element. Which will now have the concession that their UC will not go down in real terms / will at least be keep up with inflation. Which is being reported as existing UC claimants will get to keep their benefits.

      The abolishing of contributions based ESA and New Style ESA and creation of a new time limited contributions based Unemployment benefit. We will next find out about when the Pathways to Work white paper is published which is expected to be at the same time as the autumn budget. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Pat753
    · 22 days ago
    I strongly suspect they may weasel on some of these commitments, they are just 'rebel bait', if you like, and once on the statute books they can be rolled back quietly.
    Next up I'd suggest we'll see the folding of PIP into UC and the likely disappearance of the tribunal system.
    It really is the dismantling of the welfare state, the best thing ever in the UK, which my Dad's generation fought for for 6 years in WW2. I'm glad I'm not young - if I was, I'd be out of this country like a shot.





    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      MATT
      · 22 days ago
      @Pat753 I tend to agree - I dread the composition of the next Govt, although (luckily?) my next PIP review is not until May 2030.  As I'm employed i'm not on UC, thank God
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    clearwater
    · 22 days ago
    NONE of this should have happened in the first place.

    Starmer, Reeves, Kendal, Stephen Timms, J. Reynolds have all proved themselves as liars and totally untrustworthy.

    That said there are very many decent Labour MP's.   
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Del
    · 22 days ago
    I feel a stitch up coming.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Palemazy
    · 22 days ago
    Stephen Timms whould be fired, I do not under any circumstances trust him to lead a review of benefits, he is an abelist and would not "ensure the benefit is fair and fit for the future".

  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Ste
    · 22 days ago
    It's a magic show. Watch what this hand does while the other hand that no one is watching is doing all the trickery. I honestly don't believe starmer and his minions can be trusted. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Laura
      · 22 days ago
      @Ste I agree Ste, anything said or written by Labour concerning this needs to be heavily scrutinised though like you say they only let you see what they want you to, even the rebels I would say won't be privvy to the full picture in a desperate attempt to push things through.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    D
    · 22 days ago
    https://observer.co.uk/news/politics/article/keir-starmers-deep-regret-over-island-of-strangers-speech
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Bryan
    · 22 days ago
    So, am I understanding this correctly?

    As a current DLA recipient with a lifetime award, if I have not migrated to PIP before these new regulations take effect, my PIP claim will be assessed using the '4 point' criteria and I will have no transitional protection?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Fionn
      · 21 days ago
      @Bryan Yes, that's right. It's a new claim for a different benefit, and there's no link to the old onecurrent rules, not the new ones.

      I receive DLA mobility and low rate care for years, decided to apply for PIP because I'd recently acquired a new diagnosis, and ended up quite a bit better off. A lot may depend on how your particular impairments match the descriptors, however. I can't remember the details, but mine didn't really match the high rate care descriptors on DLA, yet they do for enhanced-rate PIP. It might be worth looking into it?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Bryan
      · 22 days ago
      @Slb Afraid not.  That was the uproar when PIP first came in. It's a new benefit, a new claim and no transition.

      They've revised this for a few health conditions, few being the word, but everyone will be reassessed.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Bryan
      · 22 days ago
      @Rick4545 Same here Rick. I've constantly fretted over receiving the impending letter to claim PIP fearing I'll get majorly stitched up. Now it seems we're going to get stitched up regardless.

      I'd contact my MP too but they're someone who tows the PM line regardless of their constituents and only gives interested when it creates headlines for him.

      Back to stress overload it seems
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      John
      · 22 days ago
      @Slb

      The eligibility criteria for DLA and PIP are different and different award levels can be given. And different award durations can be given while some people with lifetime DLA awards when the applied for PIP got ongoing/indefinite awards and some did not.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Rick4545
      · 22 days ago
      @Bryan  Hello Bryan,
      I too am in the same position, and there seem to be a few of us on here alone. I'm thinking about emailing my mp, but don't want to prompt an  earlier date. We need some clarity about this.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    D
    · 22 days ago
    So I guess we are on rebel watch to see who flip flops (aka sells out) and who stays firm

    Could benefit and work publish an editable news update piece with these 2 lists and add to lists as rebels make their position clear throughout the day?

    Bad news is rebel amendment author? Meg Hillier has jumped ship so I presume many will follow her

    Good news is that I doubt the tories will loan support for this version of the bill so we are back to needing about 90 rebel Labour MPs to sink the bill

    ‘2 tier Keir’ is earning that nickname today.

    The problem with these ‘concessions’ (Apart from the obvious) is that a huge chunk of pip claimants don’t get enough points in their reviews/reassessments and have to go to mr and tribunal stress and pressure with sky rocket (plus more ppl will be ‘encouraged’ to go to tribunal which will create more delays and queue and cost more money)

    Also current pip claimants will be even less willing to upset the apple cart and (at least officially - aka tell the dwp/jobcentre) try things like work, volunteering, studying, etc……. as we all know (and have real experience of) the dwp twisting things and triggering a review/docking of points.

    Ironically the Labour gov may of just trapped all current disabled claimants on the system (and working claimants may still quit their jobs as a precaution) whilst at the same time ensuring the future uk disabled receive little support and condemned to poverty and a life really not worth living

    It is essential that those disabled who are good at emails use this weekend to contact the original 126? Labour rebels and politely demonstrate why these concessions could in many ways create more problems and the only sane action is for the bill to get pulled, gutted and redrawn up slowly and carefully 
    (And yes it’s worth contacting those mp rebels who are now saying they’ll support the bill as if they can flip flop once they can do so again)

    We’ve got 4 days to make our case with intelligent argument points against these concessions - let’s leave everything on the table 


  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    tintack
    · 22 days ago
    Once again, we're left with a statement which different people are interpreting in different ways and which raises far more questions than it answers. Does anyone think that we might get a statement from a minister which actually lays out in clear terms exactly what we need to know?

    No, me neither.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Boo
    · 22 days ago
    “One rebel said on Friday they wanted further assurances on what Timms would be able to look at and when he would make his recommendations.”

    It was reported in the Guardian, and I agree we must know the full remit of Timms review and when we expect to receive his recommendations.

    It must allow disabled community to be able to participate and request data and be able to challenge the government’s or any of their chosen stakeholders assumptions, it should state clearly any and all reasons it fails to address claimants concerns and we should be given right to reply before it’s voted upon.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    MATT
    · 22 days ago
    From the contents of the letter I suspect she'll garner enough support to get the Bill through the second reading. Really not happy about the Govt ramming the Bill through the Commons in a day. surely this would be open to legal challenge in the future?  
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Peter
      · 22 days ago
      @MATT Maybe not - the tories are now angry because the revised bill isn't cruel enough so they look set to actively oppose it - meaning that it could now be blocked with just 80-odd Labour rebels voting against or even just abstaining.   At this stage, the tories will see that defeating starmer is their best opening to inflict maximum damage - not caring about the bill as such.

Free PIP, ESA & UC Updates!

Delivered Fortnightly

Over 110,000 claimants and professionals subscribe to the UK's leading source of benefits news.

 
iContact

Latest news