Bid to reverse welfare defeats

The Government will move to overturn seven defeats on its welfare reforms including a bishops' amendment to change a planned £26,000 cap on benefits.

The controversial Welfare Bill is being returned to MPs after peers went through the Government's plan line by line.

The most prominent showdowns came over the Government's £26,000-a-year benefits cap and plans to charge parents to access the Child Support Agency. A bishops' amendment, backed byLabour peers, seeks to take child benefit out of the cap.

A Department for Work and Pensions spokeswoman said: "We have been very clear where we stand. The Lords' amendments will be overturned when the Bill comes back to the Commons."

Once MPs have finished considering the amendments the Bill will be returned to the Lords in a bid to agree a final text. The Bill could pass between each House several times in a process known as parliamentary 'ping-pong' as MPs and peers fight over the correct wording of the new law.

The Government's welfare reforms have
suffered a seventh defeat in the House of Lords

Speaking after the Welfare Bill cleared the Lords, welfare reform minister Lord Freud said: "I don't think we have seen the last of this Bill."

The Government suffered its seventh reverse in the Lords on Tuesday night over plans from crossbench peer Baroness Meacher to limit cuts to top-up payments made to the parents of disabled children.

The Government wants to introduce a slight increase to the weekly rate for the most disabled children, taking it to £77, while halving the lower rate to £27. Ministers argue the money saved will be spent on providing additional support to the most disabled adults.

Lady Meacher said the Government's plans would mean families with a child on the lower rate losing £1,400 a year.

Liam Byrne, Labour's shadow work and pensions secretary, responding to the latest Government defeat, said: "Once again the Government tried to cross the line of decency, kicking away help from children with disabilities, and once again the Lords have stopped them."

©Press Association

Welfare protesters plan occupation

Activists are to stage a "daring and disruptive" act of civil disobedience in opposition to the Government's controversial welfare reforms.

Direct action group UK Uncut will join members of disability campaign groups in occupying an area of central London, with the target being kept secret until the last minute.

The groups said they wanted to voice their anger at the impact of the Welfare Reform Bill, warning that hundreds of thousands of families will lose their homes or become "imprisoned" inside.

UK Uncut attacked the argument that savings were needed to help tackle the deficit, saying that far greater amounts of money were lost through tax-dodging.

Disabled activists from across the country are travelling to London to take part in the protest.

Richard Whitehurst of Disabled People Against Cuts said: "These vicious cuts have already led to at least 31 disabled people committing suicide and many more are now talking about it as they feel they have no future. In the 21st century, in one of the richest nations in the world, disabled people should not be forced to live in fear every day of their lives.

UK Uncut activists are staging a demonstration in central London

"Cuts to disabled people's benefits and services will not save money but will ultimately cost the taxpayer far more as pushing disabled people into destitution and withdrawing care services will lead to an increased demand for NHS care. With the cap on benefits, some single disabled people living in London will be left with only £25 a week to meet all their needs for food, heating and all other costs after paying their rent."

Laura Miller of UK Uncut said: "At least £25 billion of tax is avoided every single year by super-rich companies and individuals, far more than the Government hopes to save through this devastating Bill.

"The Government are choosing to inflict suffering on sick and disabled people rather than tackle rich tax dodgers, because they think the socially disadvantaged are invisible - that they won't or can't make a fuss - and the rest of us don't care. We're going to show them that they're wrong."

A Department for Work and Pensions spokesman said: "This Government is absolutely committed to supporting disabled people and we continue to spend more than £40 billion a year on disabled people and their services. Households where someone receives disability living allowance will be exempt from the benefit cap and we are giving local authorities an additional £190 million over four years to ensure vulnerable people are supported through the housing benefit reform, so we are not expecting people to become homeless."

Protesters plan welfare reform demo

Protesters plan welfare reform demo

Activists are to stage a "daring and disruptive" act of civil disobedience in opposition to the Government's controversial welfare reforms.

Direct action group UK Uncut will join members of disability campaign groups in occupying an area of central London on Saturday.

The groups said they wanted to voice their anger at the impact of the Welfare Reform Bill, warning that hundreds of thousands of families will lose their homes or become "imprisoned" inside.

UK Uncut attacked the argument that savings were needed to help tackle the deficit, saying that far greater amounts of money were lost through tax-dodging.

Sarah Evans of UK Uncut said: "British people are proud of the welfare state because it has provided for the 99% for over 60 years. This Bill will remove vital lifelines and force people into deeper poverty, making many prisoners in their own homes.

UK Uncut activists have already staged
 a series of high-profile demonstrations

"There are alternatives: we can afford a fair welfare system that provides for all.

"Instead of taking serious action against rich companies' tax-dodging and their fancy corporate lawyers, David Cameron is instead choosing to make the poorest and most isolated pay for the economic crisis they didn't cause.

"At least £25 billion of tax is avoided every single year by super-rich companies and individuals, far more than the Government hopes to save through this devastating Bill. The Welfare Reform Bill is cruel and unnecessary and it must be stopped."

©Press Association

IDS slams bishops on welfare reform

Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith has hit out at bishops trying to block his welfare reforms, accusing them of ignoring the concerns of ordinary people.

Mr Duncan Smith said the Church of England bishops, who are threatening to derail his planned £26,000 benefit cap, should think more of low-income families who try to do "the right thing".

In an interview with The Sunday Times, he acknowledged that his plans to limit the total payments any household can receive could face defeat in the House of Lords on Monday.

He urged the bishops, who are leading the opposition in the upper chamber, to rethink their objections, insisting they were not doing the poor any favours.

"The question I'd ask these bishops is, over all these years, why have they sat back and watched people being placed in houses they cannot afford? It's not a kindness," he said.

"I would like to see their concerns about ordinary people, who are working hard, paying their tax and commuting long hours, who don't have as much money as they would otherwise because they're paying tax for all of this. Where is the bishops' concern for them?

Iain Duncan Smith urged the bishops to think more of
low-income families who are 'doing the right thing'

"I would like to see a more balanced response from the bishops.

"It's all very well for the bishops to express a political opinion, but I would love them to ask about the poor people on low incomes who are working hard, whose families share rooms, who are doing the right thing."

With Liberal Democrat peers expected to vote against the plan in the Lords, Mr Duncan Smith acknowledged the result could come down to the independent "crossbenchers", including the bishops.

Former Liberal Democrat leader Lord Ashdown said later that he favoured a benefit cap but said the welfare revamp was currently "completely unacceptable

©Press Association

Concessions offered over disability benefit changes

Ministers are set to make further concessions over controversial proposed changes to disability benefits.

The government have agreed to halve the time seriously ill or disabled people will have to wait to be eligible for Personal Independence Payments (PIPs) from six to three months.

The move came after peers defeated the coalition over other welfare changes.

No 10 said the government had listened to disability groups' concerns but campaigners wanted further changes.

Peers are currently debating the government's welfare bill, one of its flagship pieces of legislation, which ministers want to become law by the end of parliamentary session in May.

Ministers say the changes will substantially reduce the multi-billion pound welfare bill - helping to cut the deficit - while also increasing incentives to work and targeting support for the vulnerable more effectively.

But the government was defeated three times in the House of Lords last week over proposed changes to eligibility for employment support allowance (ESA), formerly known as incapacity benefit.

And ministers are set to come under further pressure when peers discuss changes to disability benefits on Tuesday.

Lord Freud has added his name to the amendment
of the Welfare Reform Bill

Under current proposals, the qualifying time for PIPs - which are replacing the longstanding disability living allowance (DLA) - would be extended from three months to six.

But it emerged on Monday that Welfare Reform Minister Lord Freud has added his name to an amendment tabled by other peers that would revert the waiting period back to three months.

Lord Freud has tabled another amendment removing a clause that would have prevented disabled people living in care homes receiving a payment - worth £51 a week - to help with their travel and transport costs.

Ministers first signalled a U-turn on this policy in December. However, the mobility component of PIPs will still not be paid to people receiving treatment in hospital.

All 3.2 million people receiving DLA at the moment, both those in work and out of work, are due to be reassessed.

Ministers have insisted the benefit, introduced in 1992 to help disabled people cope with the extra costs they face in their daily lives, is complicated and inconsistent and needs to be simplified.

While the PIPS remain a non means-tested cash payment, ministers say they will be easier to apply for and administer.

The government says spending on DLA has risen by 30% in the past eight years and, even after the changes, projected spending in 2015-2016 would be equivalent to 2009-2010 levels.

Downing Street said the government had listened to concerns about aspects of its proposals but would continue with its central objective of reducing welfare spending.

"We are making some big changes to welfare policy and you would expect us to have discussions with the groups that are affected by these changes," a No 10 spokesman said

The Governments "change of heart" would
"protect the most vulnerable"

Macmillan Cancer Support said the government's "change of heart" would "protect the most vulnerable".

"Cancer patients experience the greatest costs in the first six months following their diagnosis," its director of policy Mike Hobday said.

"They will often have to give up work to undergo gruelling treatment and still find money to put food on the table. Extending the waiting time would have been devastating."

But disability charity, The Papworth Trust, said they were worried that people would now have to demonstrate they were likely to be afflicted for a further nine months - rather than six - to continue receiving the benefit.

"We believe it will be difficult for a disabled person or the new PIP assessment process to predict that they will be affected for nine months, especially for fluctuating conditions such as Crohn's Disease," said Matthew Lester, the charity's director of operations.

"This change to nine months means more disabled people will be unable to get financial support when they need it most, and risks pushing more people into poverty unfairly."


©BBC News

WELFARE REFORM: GOVERNMENT DEFEATED

The Government today suffered a defeat in the House of Lords on its controversial Welfare Reform Bill.

Peers voted by 260 to 216, majority 44, to allow young people unable to work because of disability to receive the employment and support allowance (ESA).

Putting forward the amendment, independent crossbencher Baroness Meacher said the Government's plan would mean disabled children who could never work would never be entitled to the benefit. She said it would leave them dependent on means testing and they would receive no income at all if their partner was earning.

Baroness Meacher: The Bill would disabled children who can not work will never be entitled to benefits

The defeat was on the first of a series of votes expected this evening as peers also consider extending the Government's proposed one-year time limit for receiving ESA for cancer patients.

Ministers may seek to overturn the defeat, which came at report stage in the House of Lords, when the Bill returns to the House of Commons.

Lady Meacher told peers: "These young people have conditions so severe that they are entitled to be supported.

"It really puts them in a completely different category from other people who grow up, are able to earn, able to build up capital, able to gain contributions. They are surely in a category of their own.

"The Government has said they will protect the most vulnerable. The Prime Minister himself made a very personal commitment to help these people. Is there anyone more vulnerable than a severely disabled young person who has never and will never have the chance of earning a living?

"The second Government argument is the abolition of these entitlements will simplify the system. I ask, simplify it for who?

"It may be simplicity for the Job Centre staff but it is certainly not simplicity for the claimant.

"And how much more difficult will it be for them to find a partner if that partner not only has to cope with their own situation but will also have the financial burden of this person who will have no entitlement of their own because their partner is taxed on their earnings?

"There will be very little saving by denying these people the dignity of an entitlement to some benefit. Why remove that dignity from this particularly disadvantaged group?

"There must be some way of providing this benefit which would preclude people from abusing the benefit.

"We should not be ignoring the real entitlement, in my view, of these young people, the most disadvantaged people in our society, from an entitlement to their benefit. It would put them on means- tested benefit for the rest of their lives."

Labour shadow welfare minister Lord McKenzie of Luton backed Lady Meacher's amendment, telling peers: "The abolition of the youth condition does seem particularly spiteful."

Addressing Government concerns that a European legal ruling might enable people to come to the UK to claim the benefit, Lord McKenzie said: "Of course none of us would support 'benefit shopping'. Indeed we would work with the Government to try and make sure it doesn't occur and is stopped."

But he argued that the Government should be clearer on the issue before taking the steps they were proposing.

Welfare reform minister Lord Freud told peers: "The move from an automatic payment system, which is what we have for these youngsters, to one that is based on their income needs, which pays them effectively the same amount, depending on the position of their disability, will actually cover 90% of the same people and will leave about 10% out who have their own means of one kind or another.

"That is the solution which works in terms of the European legislation."

He argued that it was wrong, for example, for people to continue to benefit from "scarce state resources" even if they had inherited a substantial amount of money.

Later analysis of division lists showed there were three Liberal Democrat rebels - Lord Roberts of Llandudno, Lord Taylor of Goss Moor and Baroness Tonge.

The amendment was also supported by 178 Labour peers, 68 crossbenchers, four bishops and seven others.

The Government was supported by 144 Tories, 61 Liberal Democrats, 10 crossbenchers and one other.

Added:1922hrs

The Government was later defeated by 234 to 186, majority 48, over a plan to limit to one year the time people can claim ESA.

Peers agreed a move to replace the one-year cap with the ability for the Government to introduce secondary legislation specifying a limit of not less than two years.

Leading medic Lord Patel, an independent crossbench peer, introduced the amendment and said: "I am sympathetic to cutting the deficit, but I am highly sympathetic to sick and vulnerable people not being subjected to something that will make their lives even more miserable."

Pushing his amendment to a vote, he said: "If we are going to rob the poor to pay the rich then we enter into a different form of morality."

He also spoke in favour of an amendment that would remove the time limit altogether for people while they were undergoing treatment for cancer.


Added:19.36

The Government suffered a third defeat when peers voted by 222 to 166, majority 56, to accept Lord Patel's second amendment, which removes the time limit on contributory ESA payments from people receiving treatment for cancer.

Added 20.18

Lord McKenzie attacked the Government's proposal as "fundamentally unfair" and called for a limit to be reached after "an evidence-based process" and not chosen as an "an arbitrary figure".

"Contributory ESA is a non-means-tested benefit but it is earned by having a National Insurance contribution record.
"The long-standing principle is that people pay contributions on the basis that if they fall out of work through ill-health or disability they have a degree of financial protection."


He added: "Being in receipt of a contributory benefit does not amount to having a life on benefits. The benefit is only payable for so long as someone is unfit for work.

"We have accepted with some reluctance that there could be a time limit on ESA but the time limit would have to reasonably reflect a sufficient time period for people to overcome their illness or disability, sufficient to be able to access employment."
He pointed to the "range of barriers" preventing people with cancer from returning to work.

"They are not, of course, the only ones in this position, but we should take this opportunity today to secure greater justice where we can," he said.

Lord Freud said the effect of increasing the time limit from one to two years would be £1.6 billion over five years.

He said the proposal to time-limit contributory ESA only applied to people in the "work-related activity group" and not those in the "support group" who were deemed incapable of work.

"Those in the support group and those claiming income-related ESA are unaffected by these proposals," he said.

"We will always provide a safety net for those with limited income and people will still be able to claim income-related ESA."
He said that other benefits such as housing benefit and council tax benefit would be available.

But he said it was right to time-limit contributory ESA in the same way that contributory Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) was time- limited.
He said the 365-day time limit was not "arbitrary" and was similar to limits imposed in France, Ireland and Spain and struck a "reasonable balance between the needs of sick disabled people claiming benefit and those who have to contribute towards the cost".

He said one year was the right balance between restricting costs and allowing people to adapt to their changed circumstances and was double the time allowed for contributory JSA.


Lord Freud said he understood the concerns of peers on the issue of cancer patients, but two-thirds of them would be placed in the "support group" so would not be hit by the time limit.
But he said there was a lot of "misinformation" and that many oncologists agreed that not all cancer patients should be exempt from working.

He added: "Our view and policy is that the right way to address cancer diagnosis and treatment is by ensuring that the WCA (the work capability assessment) provides an accurate and effective dividing line between the support group and the work-related activity group."


Analysis of division lists showed there were two Lib Dem rebels on the second division - Baroness Doocey and Baroness Tonge.
The amendment was also backed by 167 Labour peers, 57 crossbenchers, three bishops and five others. It was opposed by 133 Tories, 51 Lib Dems, one crossbencher and one other.

©Press Association 2012

MAYOR WARNS OVER WELFARE REFORMS

London Mayor Boris Johnson has objected to key aspects of Government welfare reforms - warning they could push disabled people "further into poverty".

The London Mayor has said reforms to DLA could  push disable people "further into poverty."

The senior Conservative politician detailed a series of objections to changes to Disability Living Allowance (DLA) in his response to a consultation.

His highly-critical analysis was among more than 500 submissions obtained from the Department for Work and Pensions by campaigners using a Freedom of Information request.

They said his views matched those of almost everyone who responded to the plans to cut the overall bill by 20% and accused ministers of failing to admit the scale of opposition.

Among the changes challenged by Mr Johnson - as part of replacing DLA with a Personal Independence Payment (PIP) - are reducing the qualifying period to three months from six.

The Mayor, in a detailed six-page argument, said while reform may be needed there was a risk it could be driven solely by a cost-cutting agenda and fail to recognise needs.

"Many will suffer additional hardship and isolation" if that was the case, he said.

Mr Johnson singled out several elements for particular criticism, including switching from having three rates of payment to two.

"The Mayor feels that the removal of one of the three care components will financially disadvantage disabled people and push them further into poverty," the City Hall submission said.

He also called for plans to reduce the qualifying period from six to three months, arguing that it would create serious difficulties for those suffering fluctuating conditions.

A similar argument was deployed by the Mayor against proposals that disabled people could be fined for failing to inform officials about changes in their circumstances.

"The Department of Work and Pensions statistics give the overall fraud rate for Disability Living Allowance as being less than 0.5%," he pointed out.

"For those with fluctuating conditions asking them to report every change to their condition would prove very stressful."

The disabled campaigners who obtained the responses - which had not been published by the DWP - showed 98% objected to the qualification period being raised, 92% opposed removing the lowest rate of support for disabled people and 99% were against a proposed new test.

Only 7% of organisations that took part in the consultation were fully in support of plans to replace DLA with PIP.

In a report - Responsible Reform - the group urged the House of Lords to impose a six-month "pause" on the legislation so that views could be properly considered.

And the group - which has the backing of several high-profile charities in the sector - accused the Government of breaching its own consultation rules.

The Disability Alliance has criticise the Government consultation response

A spokesman for Disability Alliance said: "The Government's mis-portrayal of the DLA consultation response is truly shocking and could represent a betrayal of the process of consultation and engagement with disabled people.

"The Government has refused to provide a justification for a 20% cut in DLA expenditure and we fear that the same faulty rationale, misunderstanding of disability and higher costs of living and poor judgment exposed in this report sadly underpin the basis of the entire reform plans."

Sue Marsh, the disabled activist who writes the Diary of a Benefit Scrounger blog, led the research and said most people saw the reform as a "costly irrelevance during a time of austerity.

"We urge members of the House of Lords - across party political boundaries - to take note of this research and the strength of opposition to the proposals. It is not too late for them to halt these deeply damaging reforms," she said.

The 523 submissions obtained by the campaigners were those from groups such as charities, councils and the Mayor's office.

In total more than 5,500 were received by the Government.

A DWP spokesman said: "Disability Living Allowance is an outdated benefit which fails to target support at those who need it most.

"Our initial consultation ran almost a year ago and our proposals have developed significantly since then.

"We have been working closely with disabled people and disability organisations on the introduction of the Personal Independence Payment and have listened to their views".

Neither of the main concerns raised by Mr Johnson were among those areas where changes had been made however, he said.

Richard Hawkes, chief executive of disability charity Scope, said DLA was a "lifeline for millions of people and families.

"It gives them the opportunity to meet the extra living costs they incur as a result of living with a condition or impairment and we know that people are genuinely worried about the impact these reforms will have on their quality of life.

"We urge the Government to listen and act on these concerns and to ensure its replacement takes into consideration all the barriers disabled people face in everyday life so they can live independently and play an active role in their local community."

Shadow Minister for disabled people Anne McGuire says the disability benefits should not be "an arbitrary top down cut".

Shadow minister for disabled people Anne McGuire MP said: "Disability benefits must be reformed fairly, not just with an arbitrary top down cut that shows no thought to how they affect disabled people's daily lives.

"There's now a clear consensus that these proposals are being cobbled together in haste, with no understanding of what they actually mean in practice.

"The needs of disabled people have not been at the heart of the Government's changes and we will continue to press them until they admit they are getting this wrong and think again."


PA 2012