• Search
  • You are here:  
  • Home
  • News
  • Labour knowingly hugely discriminating against women for PIP cuts

News

Labour knowingly hugely discriminating against women for PIP cuts

Details

The Labour Party is knowingly hugely discriminating against women by using its 4 point or higher rule to reduce the number of personal independence payment (PIP) awards. Currently, daily living component award rates for males and females are just 0.7% apart, but from November 2026 under Labour’s plans, 32% of male claimants are likely to get an award, compared to 25% of female claimants, a ten times greater difference

The shock effect of the proposal that only claimants who get 4 points or more for at least one PIP daily living activity will be eligible for an award was revealed in the response to a Freedom of Information Act request by Winnie Clark.

The DWP’s answer shows that, of those who currently receive an award of the daily living component of PIP:

1,307,000 are male, of whom 39% (507,000) are awarded less than 4 points in all daily living activities.

1,584,000 are female, of whom 52% (818,000) are awarded less than 4 points in all daily living activities.

If these claimants all receive the same points scores on review, it will mean that the number of awards to males will reduce by 509,730 whilst the number of awards to females will reduce by 823,680.

The result will be that instead of 277,000 more women than men being in receipt of PIP, when all the reviews are completed 800,000 current male claimants will still be getting PIP daily living whilst only 766,000 women will have an award. 

Male PIP awards will outnumber female awards for the first time.

According to the DWP’s StatXplore tool, at present award rates by gender are almost identical:

Male: 47.77% of claimants get an award of the daily living component.

Female:  47.08% of claimants get an award  of the daily living component.

This is a difference of 0.7%

But from November 2026:

32% of new male claimants are likely to get an award of the daily living component.

25% of new female claimants are likely to get an award of the daily living component.

This is a difference of 7%, ten times larger

So, any MP who votes in favour of Labour’s 4 point rule will knowingly be creating a benefits system that puts disabled female claimants at a very significant disadvantage compared to disabled male claimants.

It would be a shocking outcome for any MP to choose to support.

Comments

Write comments...
or post as a guest
People in conversation:
Loading comment... The comment will be refreshed after 00:00.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Moose
    · 2 hours ago
    Not sure how this helps? Anyone losing their PIP because of the 4 point rule will be a victim of this travesty. The DWP hardly know which way is up on a day to day basis and for all their failings I can’t see them or the Gov setting out to specifically disadvantage one sex over another. I’m sure if you asked enough FOI questions you’d find other sectors of claimants at some further disadvantage. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    rookie
    · 3 hours ago
    I know it's the Torygraph, but could be the rebels are rising! First time I tried, I couldn't read the whole thing because of the pay wall, then it let me, so here are a few excerpts:

    "The rebellion is understood to extend into the Government, with a handful of parliamentary private secretaries (PPS), who hold the most junior ministerial rank, said to be wavering on the issue."

    "In a letter that will be sent to Alan Campbell, the Government’s Chief Whip, next week about 130 MPs have said Sir Keir must change course or risk defeat in the Commons."

    "One of the signatories, a backbencher, told The Telegraph: “There’s a lot of people who have children with quite profound disabilities and things like that. The under-22 thing has caused quite a lot of concern.

    “One of our colleagues has a child with a severe disability. Their condition isn’t going to get better from 18 to 22.”"

    "They described the welfare cuts as “Treasury capture”, adding: “This letter is something that quite explicitly says this isn’t good enough and as things stand we’re not going to vote for it from as large a group of people as possible."

    “They need to start listening. It’s as simple as that. No one’s paying any attention to the bigger picture and nobody will give us any credit if we’re mired in this kind of stuff.”

    “An independent and comprehensive analysis of all the proposals in the Pathways to Work green paper should be undertaken and made available to Parliament prior to any Bill being presented and any vote taking place

    “While these activities are undertaken, the Bill should be delayed such that it may reflect the findings."

    “We regret that we are unable to support a Bill before this has taken place.”


    https://www.google.co.uk/url?q=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/05/15/starmer-faces-benefits-rebellion-of-more-than-100-mps/&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjh9Yrwk6aNAxWVXUEAHRWsAhAQ0PADegQICBAD&usg=AOvVaw3g2VZpoEQXHj3E_jN8bWb8
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    The Dogmother
    · 4 hours ago
    https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/kendall-refuses-to-apologise-after-misleading-mps-four-times-in-23-minutes-about-pip-cuts/
    Not sure if anyone's interested in this or if ots already been shared 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Elizabeth Vidler
      · 2 hours ago
      @The Dogmother @The Dogmother, the point is that many cannot work, and this legisilation is not about getting people into work, but saving money end of.  Some work in anycase, and some may want to work, but none of the proposals seek to address these issues, I doubt any tailored help has been developed to assist people.  I have emailed my MP, a conservative to appraise him of this issue.  I asked him to raise it, and ask Labour what they have actually done, not alot of lies, I guess he will vote for it, and I guess it will pass.  This will be the second email I have sent on this issue.  The vote is apparently due in mid June, when I have a face to face appt with my epilepsy consultant I plan to raise it with him.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      keepingitreal
      · 3 hours ago
      @The Dogmother @The Dogmother, oh, we're interested. More they have to defend their nonsense, more they'll trip themselves up.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Pixelmum
      · 3 hours ago
      @The Dogmother She is an absolutely vile woman. The way she talks is viscious, there is no compassion whatsoever.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      (No) hope
      · 3 hours ago
      @The Dogmother Thanks. What does the penultimate paragraph actually mean? It seems every day just lately we’re bombarded with this nonsensical garbage. Maybe that’s part of the plan, to confuse us into submission.  Let us all find the strength to continue the fight back, and pray that good will triumph over this evil.

      Bert, is that tongue in cheek?
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Bert
    · 5 hours ago
    Maybe the NHS can patch everybody on this site up,now their making more appointments available. Then we can all look for work come November 2026.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Debbs
    · 5 hours ago
    I migrated from ESA support group last month to UC just received my payment breakdown it only shows standard allowance being paid nothing about limited capability for work related group ESA Support group. Sent message on my journal asking why the limited capability for work support group hasn't been put on. Had message back saying they are waiting for specialist team to transfer all my ESA information over and once they have any arrears will be issued. How long does that take living of fresh air at moment. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Alex
    · 5 hours ago
    This article is pointless, I wouldn't call this discrimination at all.  I doubt they looked at the statistics and decided to target women, they have just gone after everyone and made it harder to claim PIP. 

    It's like if I was a shop owner saying I'll close my shop at 10pm, and someone coming along and saying I'm doing it to discriminate against women because in this area there's more women that shop at 11pm.  When the real reason I'm doing it is to reduce my hours. 

    And in this case, the government just wants to reduce the bill.  The real discrimination is against disabled people in general, as they always scapegoat us every time they need money.  It's disgusting, and sickening to think of how we have been treated in recent years, and it keeps getting worse.  So please, don't try to divide us even more. 

    And as I said a few weeks ago, they have decided to use the time honoured tactic of divide and conquer.  They have already split us into several groups - people under 22 are now being treated worse.  And new claimants are being treated worse.  This IS discrimination, why should a disabled person that's 21, or someone that's just starting a claim, require less money?  There is no justifiable reason for this, they are again just doing it to DIVIDE us.  Oldest trick in the book. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Sam
      · 4 hours ago
      @Alex Discrimination doesn't have to be deliberate and calculated to be discrimination. As a result of these changes, if you are a woman you are less likely to get PIP than if you are a man, whereas at the moment men and women are equally likely to get it. How is that not discrimination at all?  It's the very definition of discrimination. 

      It's an extra reason to oppose the Green Paper, not only is it unfair on all disabled claimants and it's also discriminatory.  How is that dividing us?
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Bert
    · 5 hours ago
    I've already invested in a new memory stick,if I have too start looking for work come November 2026.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      robbie
      · 3 hours ago
      @Bert No harm in being prepared @Bert, but don't give up the fight!
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    SLB
    · 6 hours ago
    Thank you to all of you who commented on my post about tagging all Labour MPs in a social media post, trying to explain the benefits system in 3 minutes!  Thanks to everyone who has offered help or already produced some.   

    I've had a rather rough day with my mental health (it's been much worse since all of this started), and so I'm going to take a few days off from fighting DWP (or try to, at least).  

    On Sunday, I'll draft the extended X post (Musk has my £10 to allow 25,000 characters!) and then send it out on Monday.  If we want to attract the attention of Labour MPs on X (or elsewhere), then I think a weekday when they're in Westminster will be a good time.   It means it would be more likely that they would talk to each other, too.  We only need a couple of them to take note for word of mouth to take effect.  It probably won't happen, but it's worth a try.  At the moment anything is worth a go.  

    Have a good few days, and I'll be back on Sunday.  :)
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      The Dogmother
      · 3 hours ago
      @SLB Go easy on yourself. 
      I'm not eating nor sleeping even worse than usual too. My heads frazzled.so I get it totally. 
      Think we all need to try to be a bit  kinder to ourselves. I've not been on here much of late, but I do like very much to read what all the others including yourself comment. 
      A lot of the comments have helped me today and gave me hope. Thank you. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      keepingitreal
      · 3 hours ago
      @SLB You look after yourself @SLB xx
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    The Dogmother
    · 6 hours ago
    https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2025-05-06.50397.h&s=PIP+Assessments#g50397.r0
    Here's the link. To timms waffle. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      rookie
      · 3 hours ago
      @The Dogmother Well he has to come up with something. The longer we keep up our resistance the more he and the rest will have to say, and the more mistakes they will make and ridiculous they'll sound.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    The Dogmother
    · 6 hours ago
    Apparently, according to Timms,if you get 1,2,3 points in any activity, instead of the proposed 4 then you can be "helped" by "small" adjustments and aids. In other words minimising any conditions you suffer from. I just can't get my head around it all.
    I just read it on "They work for us".
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Gingin
    · 6 hours ago
    Carers UK have published an open letter to Starmer. I know many of you will have signed countless petitions and letters but PLEASE DON’T MISS this one. 

  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    SLB
    · 6 hours ago
    I've got to say that I think the whole male vs female, and North vs South divides are just a remarkably unhelpful distraction.  If you lose your benefits it doesn't matter how many other people share your gender or location.  A person is a person.   

    This report isn't talking about discrimination of any kind.  The 4 point system wasn't designed to hit one or another gender.  It just falls that way, partly because men and women are more or less likely to have certain conditions.   It would be discrimination if the eligibility rules were different for men and women.  They're not.  I know that we are trying to get attention from MPs and the public as much as possible, but in this instance it looks like desperation on our part, and we would be much better concentrating on what actually matters.  
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      keepingitreal
      · 4 hours ago
      @SLB Whether or not the 4 point system were intended to hit one group more than another, might it not be deemed discriminatory if the impact were ignored, though, now it is known? The outcome of the cuts would be discriminatory, hitting women more than men. The discrimination does not have to have been intentional. I think that is what B&W are saying:

      "It would be a shocking outcome for any MP to choose to support" what they now know would be discriminatory.

      The value in identifying discrimination is not to assert the rights of one claimant over another, it's to use a flaw in the proposition which gives us a chance to challenge the entire green paper.


    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Sam
      · 5 hours ago
      @SLB  How do you know "It just falls that way, partly because men and women are more or less likely to have certain conditions." rather than say, because assessors are more likely to assess men as having more serious needs than women and thus be more likely to award them four points?

      If it looks desperate to point out that this is discriminatory then why did the DWP do an impact assessment that looked at how the changes would affect claimants on the basis of gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability and many other issues? And why didn't they highlight this issue in their impact assessment?
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    AW
    · 6 hours ago
    To put it plainly then, the effects of a disability on a Man's life are being more highly valued than those same effects on a Woman's life. In other words, assessors and decision makers believe Men more than they believe Women. Same old story of medical gaslighting as weve always had. Hopefully this should open the door to further research as this cannot be left uninvestigated. It's clearly a breach of equality law.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    keepingitreal
    · 8 hours ago
    WorkshyLayabout As I have posted under the previous article: I don't think it is helpful to set one area of entitlement against another. IT ALL NEEDS TO BE STOPPED.

    However, I do think there is value in seizing any feature of the proposals which could expose them to a charge of discrimination. Anything we can challenge in law could build and take down the whole green paper.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Laura
      · 4 hours ago
      @godgivemestrength I agree, very suspect.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      godgivemestrength
      · 7 hours ago
      @keepingitreal I've always thought it interesting that the pm appointed so many women to senior roles - Rayner, Reeves, Cooper, Kendall, McGovern. Does Starmer think they are more likely to toe the line?
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Dave Dee
    · 10 hours ago
    Wasn't it Rosie Duffield who alleged that Keir Starmer has a problem with Women? She resigned the Labour whip only last year to my knowledge, there's no smoke without fire.

    Labour on the opposition benches hollered and cried about social justice, about equality and inclusion and when they go into government they suddenly go further than the Tories ever wanted to go on cuts. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    WorkshyLayabout
    · 11 hours ago
    The sex of claimants is totally unimportant. What is important is that many men and women are going to be worse off. We're not here to pit one against the other.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      WorkshyLayabout
      · 3 hours ago
      @AW
      1,307,000 men are currently receiving the daily living component of PIP. (As per the article.)


    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Bert
      · 5 hours ago
      @Gery Correct
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      AW
      · 7 hours ago
      @WorkshyLayabout You're very wrong there, it matters enormously. It exposes very clearly the health discrimination we all experience, Men are being given more weight to the seriousness of their disabilities than Women are and now we are set to lose much more support than Men, just as we already are being diagnosed and treated for illnesses unfairly all our lives. It's shocking to see it laid out so bare like this, and not a fact that can or should be dismissed. Bear in mind also that a lot of Women will also have responsibility for caring for children alone so the loss of income doesn't just affect them, it will also worsen child poverty.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Gery
      · 7 hours ago
      @WorkshyLayabout The government wants people to work so are going to stop people giving on benefits
      That's what will happen in the future but the present cohort will suffer badly
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    godgivemestrength
    · 11 hours ago
    It's a much repeated refrain from Westminster that

    "those people who have lifelong conditions, deteriorating health conditions, will no longer be reassessed because it is completely pointless, which recognises the dignity of those people.”

    But what about when those people don't score 4 points in any one descriptor? Many people with lifelong and deteriorating health conditions accrue points across the activities, to add up to either standard or daily living awards. This 4 point trick is just a cynical mechanism to disqualify lots of claimants, it's got nothing to do with how serious someone's condition is.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Frances
    · 11 hours ago
    Surely there could be a legal challenge to that.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    James
    · 12 hours ago
    Good news posting about the 4 point system and how it will also affect female claimants in a very discriminatory way. This only goes to show how ill thought out the so called 4 point rule is and how little thought has been given into the impact it will have on the disabled and sick. I personally believe that the withholding of the governments own impact assessment and the attempt to escape scrutiny before the bill is passed in parliament is a very devious and underhand attempt by Keir Starmer and show the depths he will stoop to. He has show us he has a long track record of appearing to be a friend to causes and then going back on his word and also people and using every underhand trick in the book. I hope the country wakes up that we have been following a pied piper whose word is not worth the paper it is written on -ie his manifesto

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

We use cookies

We use cookies on our website. Some of them are essential for the operation of the site, while others help us to improve this site and the user experience (tracking cookies). You can decide for yourself whether you want to allow cookies or not. Please note that if you reject them, you may not be able to use all the functionalities of the site.

Ok Decline
More about cookies