The electoral trap that awaits Labour if it doesn’t get welfare reform right - Jayne Dowle
More than four million people in England and Wales now claim Pip benefits and they could hold the fate of the government in their hands.
In more than half of Labour-held seats, the number of Pip (personal independence payment) claimants is higher than the sitting MP’s majority, meaning the burning topic of benefit reform could hit hard should the rumours of a snap General Election come true.
Labour could be facing a huge gamble - if a Labour MP votes in favour of reforming this ballooning benefit, would the maths lead to them losing their seat?
Even the Prime Minister is not immune. The margin, in his constituency of Ashton-in-Makerfield, is only 455 - his majority is 9,231 but 8,776 people here claim Pip, according to new research by The Times newspaper, which finds that 58 per cent of Labour 366 MPs in England and Wales are in similarly tricky positions.
Most exposed is Foreign Secretary Wes Streeting; there are 6,284 Pip claimants in his Ilford North constituency against his majority of 528. Some 89 Labour MPs have double the number of Pip claimants against votes in their majority, leaving them particularly vulnerable to electoral backlash.
Introduced by the David Cameron-led coalition government in 2013, Pip is a particularly controversial benefit because it is not subject to means testing.
Worth up to £194.60 a week for the highest level, which includes a mobility component, it can be claimed if a person is working or studying full-time. It’s meant to be used to help those with long-term physical or mental conditions cover their daily living needs, but much controversy surrounds the claiming criteria and process, with conditions such an ‘anxiety’ qualifying for support.
Sir Stephen Timms, the disability minister, is leading a review of Pip. His interim report in July found that the benefit was “no longer fit for purpose”. This was partly because of the ballooning number of claims for mental health and invisible disabilities such as ADHD. The recommendations from the final report, due this autumn, will pave the way for sustainable reform, according to the Department for Work and Pensions.
Whilst some claimants complain that application and assessment is a stressful and dehumanising experience, the biggest political hot potato is the soaring cost.
The Institute of Fiscal Studies says that the cost of funding Pip has surged from approximately £14bn in 2019/20 to about £25bn/£26bn currently.
According to the latest forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) and the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), this expenditure is projected to rise to between £41bn and £45bn by 2030, which is clearly an outrageous and unsustainable figure.
To tackle this spiralling situation, work and pensions secretary Pat McFadden has been put in charge of leading Pip reform. His seat, Wolverhampton South East, is relatively safe, with a majority of 9,188 - but still, he has more Pip claimants (11,646) than supporters, meaning a difference of 2,458.
All of this leads Labour ministers facing a tricky balancing act. They recognise that they face a real risk of rebellion by Labour MPs keen to cling onto their Pip-dominated seats, with the memory of Sir Keir Starmer’s humiliating backtrack over benefit reform last year still fresh in their minds.
Meanwhile, Andy Burnham has vowed not to be “squeamish” about reducing the welfare bill to fund extra spending on defence. However, he counters this with a warning against “crude cuts” and favouring a “preventative” approach that would provide the support people needed to ditch benefits and embrace work.
This, his critics argue, is far too woolly a stance and would do nothing to tackle the four million and rising Pip head count.
There are fears that brokering agreement between wildly differing wings of his party - especially the left-leaners arguing that benefits should not be undermined - will nullify any attempt at meaningful reform, meaning Burnham will end up in the same frustrating position as his predecessor, Starmer.
This challenge goes wider, with Helen Whately, Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, snapping at Burnham’s dragging heels. “Reform of welfare takes courage,” she warned earlier this week. “It also requires a mandate from the public.”
The question of “mandate” hangs heavy over Burnham’s anointment as PM, and it’s one made even more pressing and potentially dangerous by these startling new statistics laying bare the relationship between Pip claimants and Labour majorities.