Labour MPs Urge Liz Kendall for Clarity on Upcoming Benefit Changes: What You Need to Know

Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall has been in the spotlight lately as she responds to questions from Labour MPs about changes to the benefit system. This comes amidst a government strategy aimed at calming down backbench rebels within her party.

Recently, the government announced that stricter eligibility criteria for the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) will only affect new claimants starting in November 2026, protecting existing ones for now. They also promised a review of the assessment process, collaborating with disability organizations, set to wrap up by autumn 2026. Despite these steps, many Labour MPs expressed concern about introducing changes before the review is complete.

Kendall assured that any recommendations from the review, led by disability minister Sir Stephen Timms, will be implemented promptly. She emphasized that the review isn’t about making budget cuts but ensuring that the PIP remains fair and useful for those who need it. PIP assessments involve evaluating people’s ability to perform daily tasks, with scores ranging from 0 (no difficulty) to 12 (severe difficulty).

Under the proposed changes, new claimants need to score at least four points for one activity, rather than qualifying based on a broader range of tasks. Debbie Abrahams, chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, expressed worries that this plan might limit the scope of the review, suggesting it should determine the new scoring system as well.

Labour MP Sarah Owen questioned the logic behind altering criteria for future claimants before the Timms review is complete. In a Parliamentary debate, MP Connor Naismith indicated he could not support the changes without reassurances that existing claimants would not be adversely affected.

After facing backlash from over 120 Labour MPs who threatened to block the bill, the government made some adjustments. Still, about 50 Labour MPs are expected to oppose it in the upcoming vote. It would take 83 Labour MPs, alongside other opposition parties, to defeat the government.

Kendall stated she was listening to concerns, highlighting the government’s commitment to not push any existing claimants into poverty. She defended the necessity of reforms, explaining that the welfare system has been struggling and needs to balance support for those in need with taxpayer burdens.

Initially, the government expected to save around £5 billion by 2030 with its original changes. Now, due to the adjustments, that figure has been reduced to a projected £2.5 billion. Critics like Conservative shadow work and pensions secretary Helen Whately characterized these changes as a “chaotic compromise.” Whately suggested that more savings could come from increasing face-to-face assessments and addressing the rise in mental health claims.

The Liberal Democrats also criticized the government’s approach, asserting that relying on the poor to balance the budget was misguided. Concerns were raised about creating a “two-tier” benefits system with the new eligibility rules.

Kendall defended the changes, noting that the current system often protects existing claimants from new criteria, making it difficult for them to adapt. Earlier, the government estimated that about 150,000 people could fall into poverty due to these welfare cuts by 2030, a lower figure than the previously anticipated 250,000.

A Downing Street spokesman remarked that the modeling might not fully capture the situation and highlighted ongoing initiatives to improve living standards through employment opportunities.

This debate unveils a critical look into the future of welfare in the UK, where the balance between support and financial sustainability remains a major concern. The outcome of this legislation could shape the lives of countless individuals relying on these vital benefits.



Source link