No-one is going to see a reduction in their benefits because of the recent amendment to PIP legislation.
No-one who was assessed before the two recent tribunal decisions will see a cut in their payments. If the legislation hadn’t been amended then some of them might have seen their payments increase on reassessment. People who were assessed after 28 November may see their payments drop as a consequence of the amendment, as and when they are reassessed.
The government has “sneaked through” an amendment to legislation governing Personal Independence Payments.
The government didn’t formally consult the Social Security Advisory Committee, which it’s normally supposed to refer to on changes to social security regulations. But the government can do this if it’s a matter of urgency, which it claims was the case here.
“Last week the government sneaked out a decision to overrule a court decision to extend Personal Independence Payments to people with severe mental health conditions. [This government] seems unable to find the money to support 160,000 people with debilitating mental health conditions.”
Jeremy Corbyn, 1 March 2017
“...this is not a policy change, this is not a cut in the amount that is going to be spent on disability benefits and no one is going to see a reduction in their benefits from that previously awarded by the DWP.”
Theresa May, 1 March 2017
Two recent tribunal decisions widened the interpretation of Personal Independence Payments (PIP) legislation.
Over 160,000 people might have seen their PIP payments go up because of the tribunal decisions—or become entitled to them—according to estimates from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).
They won’t now that the government has amended the legislation.
Mr Corbyn is quoting the DWP’s estimates fairly and Mrs May is broadly right that people won’t see their payments reduced because of the amendment (compared to what they are now).
But a relatively small number of people who were assessed after the Tribunal decisions on 28 November may see their payments fall, as and when they are next reassessed. We don’t know how many, and the DWP told us that it hasn’t published estimates.
And there’s more than one way to interpret the government’s move.
The government says that the amendments are designed to “restore the original aim of the benefit”, focusing support on those who need it most.
Critics say that the government is “shifting the goalposts”.
There’s a second set of questions about whether the government followed the right process when it put through the amended legislation.
Critics say that the government was wrong to bypass the Social Security Advisory Committee, which is supposed to be consulted on changes to social security regulations.
But the Secretary of State can bypass the Committee if he or she thinks that it’s a matter of urgency.
The government says it was right to push through the amendment fast to avoid inconsistencies in how PIP claims are assessed.
Full Fact fights for good, reliable information in the media, online, and in politics.
Bad information ruins lives. It promotes hate, damages people’s health, and hurts democracy. You deserve better.