Afternoon summary
Keir Starmer has been told that he faces “the mother of all rebellions” if he does not drop the plans to cut disability benefits announced yesterday. The Labour leftwinger Richard Burgon made the prediction after seeing Starmer challenged about the proposals at PMQs. (See 3.43pm.) In an article for the New Statesman, George Eaton says as many as 40 Labour MPs are threatening to rebel over the plans when they come to a vote in the Commons, which is expected in May. The row is also causing particular problems for the Scottish Labour party, where Anas Sarwar, the party leader, has said that the cuts don’t amount to a return to austerity, while one of his senior MSPs has said the opposite. (See 4.41pm.)
Some individuals currently getting sickness and disability benefits could lose almost £10,000 a year by the end of the decade under the plans announced yesterday, the Resolution Foundation thinktank has said. It has published a detailed analysis of the plans, which points out that some people could in effect lose out twice, because if they no longer qualify for Pip (the personal independence payment), they will also no longer be able to get the top-up universal credit payment (UC LCWRA). It says:
A single person who would have previously qualified for Pip standard daily living and UC LCWRA will now not qualify for Pip daily living if they do not score at least four points on a single criterion of the Pip assessment, and from 2028 they will also not qualify for the UC LCWRA element when the Pip assessment replaces the work capability assessment to determine eligibility. This amounts to an annual loss of £9,600 per year in 2029-30.
The Resolution Foundation also says the changes will affect poorer families the most, because seven-in-ten Pip recipients are in the lower half of the income distribution.
In its conclusion, the thinktank says:
Yesterday’s green paper marks a serious attempt by the government to tackle two major concerns: the growing spend on disability benefits, and the large number of people who are not working through ill-health.
But any gains risk being completely over-shadowed by the scale of income losses faced by those who will receive reduced or no support at all – irrespective of whether they are able to work. The irony of this green paper is that the main beneficiaries are those without health problems or a disability. Although it includes some sensible reforms, it is hard to escape the conclusion that many of the proposals in the green paper have been driven by the need for short-term savings to meet fiscal rules, rather than long-term reform, with some of the suggested giveaways or transitional protection being unconfirmed and subject to further consultation. The result risks being a major income shock for millions of low-income households.
Hancock dismisses criticism of 'VIP lane' for PPE procurement during Covid crisis as 'wholly naive'
Matt Hancock has described criticism of the so-called “VIP lane” that meant some PPE contract offers were prioritisied for Whitehall consideration during Covid as “wholly naive”.
Giving evidence to the Covid inquiry in a hearing held as part of its PPE module, the former health secretary was asked about evidence submitted by an expert describing the “VIP lane” process as “problematic”, in part because there was “no consideration given to the risk of de facto differential treatment”.
At a time when the government was desperate to acquire PPE, and inundated with offers from contractors largely unknown to Whitehall, the “VIP lane” enabled ministers to recommend offers from people who contacted them directly for priority consideration.
The government defended the scheme on the grounds that final decisions were always taken by officials. But the initiative continues to be mired in controversy, not least because it was used by the Tory peer Michelle Mone to obtain contracts that are now subject to an ongoing criminal investigation.
Asked about the expert’s comment criticising the scheme, Hancock replied:
What I would say about that particular paragraph that you read out is that it is wholly naive as to the circumstances that we face. The point about naivety is really, really important.
It’s fine having academics write papers about this stuff, and some of the academic analysis of how you could do better in a future pandemic is really, really valuable.
But it can only have any value at all if you understand what it was like. You know, you weren’t there. This professor wasn’t there. But you’ve got to understand what it was like.
The pressure to save lives is intense, but so is the reality that high-quality offers will come through and be sent through to senior decision makers, and you have to have a process for dealing with that.
Apologising for being “impassioned” in his evidence, Hancock went on:
I have been subject to enormous amounts of conspiracy theories about what went on here when, in fact, what happened was so many people working as hard as they could to save lives, and they bought more PPE as a result, and therefore people are alive who would otherwise be dead.
And frankly, I’m incredibly proud of the people who themselves have felt under attack because of the way that questions have been put, which does have a material consequence on future responses to a pandemic.
Hancock also said it was important to ensure that, in future, “more bureaucracy” did not get in the way of effective procurement in an equivalent crisis.
