Reading the news you could be forgiven for thinking a week of drama in Westminster had finally concluded on Friday morning, with a deal between the government and some of the Labour MPs who signed the proposed reasoned amendment to the universal credit and personal independence payment (Pip) bill.
No doubt the changes will be sufficient for some colleagues, but having considered the concessions offered, I’m afraid that as things stand I – and a large number of other signatories – cannot support what is being proposed when voting takes place on Tuesday.
This isn’t something I do easily. The Labour party is my home. I was born into a family of Labour activists and joined as soon as I was able. I was a student activist, a councillor and then an MP for Crawley. I have campaigned in every election from Neil Kinnock to Keir Starmer and I didn’t spend 14 years fighting to return Labour to government just so I could cause trouble.
However, 14 years in local government taught me a few things, not least the utter devastation to households and neighbourhoods directly caused by the Tories’ cuts to social security. I am loyal to my country, my constituency and my party – that is precisely why, on this bill, I cannot be loyal to the government.
I accept that the concessions are an improvement. By making it clear that those already in receipt of Pip will continue to receive it, there is a hope we can avoid the tragic loss of life that followed the last set of disability cuts. Yet at its core, the bill remains a cost-cutting exercise. No matter the level of involvement of disability groups in co-producing a scheme for new applicants, to save money the proposed changes will inevitably result in people with high levels of need losing the support necessary to wash themselves, dress themselves and feed themselves.
From the start, I have tried to use the routes available to MPs to improve what was on offer, beginning with the No 10 engagement meetings immediately prior to the publication of the green paper and ending last week with visits to very senior figures and the whips’ office. I made it clear to them that they did not have the numbers and that pushing the vote would only damage the government – and I proposed an alternative path.
So, what is the alternative? The government estimates Pip for working age people will cost by 2030. According to the latest statistics, 40% of recipients have psychiatric disorders, which include mental health issues such as mixed anxiety and depression. Waiting lists to diagnose and treat these conditions are huge. Research by the charity Rethink Mental Illness shows that people are eight times more likely to wait more than 18 months for mental health treatment than for physical conditions. The solution is obvious: a short-term boost in funding to clear the backlog. This would mean more social workers, psychologists, specialist pharmacists, psychiatrists, therapists and counsellors to treat people and in turn support them into work.
Of course, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) presents a challenge, having previously discounted the potential impact of various medical or employment support interventions in getting economically inactive people into the workforce. It explains that this is because the Treasury fails to provide it with the evidence necessary to justify savings conclusions, including for the £1bn of work incentives set out in the bill. In practice, this means that cuts rather than support are favoured in government policy.
The Treasury has to do better if public service reform is to succeed, working with the OBR to develop the evidence base that interventions will deliver outcomes, and factoring this into its economic predictions. To that end, they should make use of the Integrated Data Service, which includes information on what medical interventions are helping to support people back into work.
Throughout my many conversations with decision-makers, I have repeatedly set out the case for alternatives and had them ignored. As a Labour MP, if I am going to remove the support disabled people need to undertake the basic activities of life, I need the government to demonstrate why that is the best option available. So far, that case has still not been made.
-
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.