The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Victory for sick and disabled as Lords reject welfare reforms

Peers have voted against reducing support for cancer patients and young disabled people. Where next for the government's flagship welfare reform bill?

By Samira Shackle Published 12 January 2012 10:31

Cuts to sickness and disability allowances were resoundingly rejected by the Lords last night, as government proposals faced three embarrassing defeats.

As my colleague George Eaton blogged yesterday, Iain Duncan Smith's welfare reform bill would restrict the period that the sick and disabled could receive Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) to just 12 months, and would means-test it.

The amendments, brought by crossbench peers Lord Patel and Lord Listowel, mean that:

Young disabled people who are unable to work are automatically eligible for ESA (this was passed 260 to 216)
Claimants are reassessed after two years, not 12 months (234 in favour)
Cancer patients are exempt from the time limit between reassessments (passed 222 to 166)

This marks the fourth defeat for the government on the flagship legislation, following a vote before Christmas on housing benefit cuts. It is a big success for disability campaigners, who have been lobbying hard against the changes.

So, what next for the welfare reform bill? The government maintains that the changes are necessary in order to meet its targets on bringing down the deficit. Welfare Minister, Chris Grayling, was defiant on the Today programme this morning, signifying that this is not the end of the road:

We have said very clearly that we will seek to reverse the amendments in the Lords when it comes back into the Commons. We are dealing with some extraordinarily difficult economic times financially.

It is difficult to see exactly how the government will get its way after three heavy defeats in one night, but it is likely that ministers will fight hard for the 12 month time limit. Officials claim that extending the limit from one year to two would cost £1.6bn over five years. Lord Freud argued that the one year time limit strikes "a reasonable balance between the needs of sick, disabled people claiming benefit and those who have to contribute towards the cost".

Yet, clearly, the counter-argument -- that the books must not be balanced on the backs of society's most vulnerable -- prevailed in the Lords. Patel said:

If we are going to rob the poor to pay the rich, then we enter into a different form of morality.

All of this suggests that peers are willing to fight, and bodes well for upcoming votes on further controversial measures such as changes to disability living allowance. The vote is not the end of the road on the battle for welfare, then, but was a significant victory for fairness and compassion.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Welfare

More from Samira Shackle

16 comments

Thu, 2012-01-12 11:46 — Robert Taggart

Those of us scroungers who have nothing to lose will continue to 'harass' the government of the day - we will continue to claim, counter claim, re-claim, appeal, re-appeal... !
The political class have created a system (designed to save money) that be costing more to operate because of the nonsense of Work Capability Assessments (carried out by duplicitous quacks) and a mountain of subsequent appeals !!
Just pay us the money - we will live quietly !!!

Thu, 2012-01-12 12:00 — Sir Michael (not verified)

Nathaniel - I would agree, had the government making these changes actually been democratically elected on this platform of tearing the poor to pieces to pay for the failure of unrestrained corporatism.

The fact is the Lib Dems aquired such a large share of the vote at the last election because they were presenting themselves as an alternative to just this sort of slash-and-burn approach to public services while Labour and the Conservatives were arguing about just who would cut the most savagely. They are now doing the precise opposite of what they promised in their manifesto and in their election campaign, disenfranching millions of voters.

In a time when democracy has been thrown to the four winds, I don't think it matters how these heartless and vicious policies were blocked. All that matters is that they were blocked at all.

Thu, 2012-01-12 12:22 — Acamar (not verified)

Sir Michael says it all.

Thu, 2012-01-12 12:31 — Des Demona (not verified)

Agree with Sir Michael. This is not the Government that most people in this country voted for. £1.6 Billion over 5 years to give some dignity to sick people or £32 billion to knock 40 minutes off the journey time to Birmingham with dubious economic benefit. In tough times surely it is a case of prioritising.

Thu, 2012-01-12 12:35 — super huey (not verified)

If they wanted to be fair and save money then means testing would be a good idea. Sure it'll cost more money but the system needs to be updated so we don't get people taking advantage of it.

Thu, 2012-01-12 15:12 — Fraziel1

Some cuts are required although these would seem harsh. Means testing sickness benefit seems a sound and sensible idea to me.Benefits should not be for the wealthy after all. The left need to properly debate these issues rather than screeching hysterically at the very mention of benfeit reform. Some of it is crucial and definitely required.

Thu, 2012-01-12 15:33 — Trevor (not verified)

The immortal words of Theresa May and Aneurin Bevan spring to mind; namely, that the Tories are forever the nasty party and lower than vermin.

Thu, 2012-01-12 15:55 — Mrs.Josephine Hyde-Hartley (not verified)

Surely a true benefit must be provided to everyone without fear or favour of inappropriate intrusion and unnecessary loss of privacy and dignity. ordinary members of the public as well as whole societies and governments should be mindful of personal security and data control these days. This is probably because of the interconnectivity of risk - something that's concerning the insurance industry, apparently.

Benefit provision is getting too complicated in my view to be going under the name of a benefit.Personally I don't consider a credit or loan to be a true benefit. When mistaken as credit or loan type payments benefits automatically become a burden ie too easily corruptible, too laborious and too expensive to put right when things go wrong.

What's safe for everyone concerned, fair and probably the most cheap, cheerful and efficient in my opinion, is plain vanilla, universal welfare benefits ie not complex and not means tested.

Thu, 2012-01-12 18:09 — Mr Danger

"In tough times surely it is a case of prioritising."

Yes. What kind of country are we going to have in the long term if we invest in infrastructure rather than just handing out billions in benefits year after year?

Thu, 2012-01-12 18:54 — Sir Michael (not verified)

A country with an actual society Mr Danger, not a free for all greed-fest with those deemed to have a Lebensunwertes Leben are left to die.

We should look after the sick and the poor first. If we also need infrastructure - fine. We need more taxes. Life, and the dignity of citizens, come before things though.

It looks like people are mounting a fightback this week.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/nov/16/young-jobseekers-work-pay-...

Sat, 2012-01-14 21:50 — Terrence Henderson (not verified)

Well a person I berated for years, Lord Kinnock, has spoken for his parties leader with respect.

Hang on, I see the Tories are shooting themselves in the foot, and hope when they and their 'Alliance' partners are crippled they get the same lack of decency off Labour.

I can now see Labour doing better in time to come and hope this biscuit barrel of political miss-shapes will get their due come the next election. I hope that Labour will give some thought to a level of improved border control as that is the only thing many parents and workless (they the ones that cannot get work and are hit as the self-made workshy have done for years, also going to be offered jobs that are non-existent and then on the scrap-heap of reduced living standards).

I see Brazil has better management than our country and is not in economic decline.

It seems that I as a former liberal Community Councillor for Machen, in the Davies and Kinnock heartlands I will be tempted the next election to vote Labour for the first time in years. I fear the alliance are feeding the disabled and the pensioner fascism and that I am against.

Thu, 2012-01-12 11:01 — Mizar (not verified)

The government are truly in the sewer. How can they sleep at night? Probably because they are stupid, and evil. Thank you to those peers who have a bit of decency.

Thu, 2012-01-12 11:01 — Nathaniel Myers (not verified)

Are we not mentioning the democratic scandal of legislation proposed by elected MPs being blocked by unelected peers? Yes, the result was desirable for many, but in a democracy, that's not what gives legitimacy. Legitimacy is derived from the process used to achieve a result, not from the quality of that result.

Legitimacy is procedural, not performative.