Labour is prepared to risk a backbench revolt by allowing a vote on cuts to Personal Independence Payment (PIP), in order to be sure it can breach claimants’ human rights without worrying about legal repercussions, Benefits and Work believes.
When the Pathways to Work Green paper was published, it contained the surprising information that the changes to PIP scores and the cuts to universal credit (UC) payments would be introduced by primary legislation – an Act of Parliament.
Surprising, because these changes would normally be done using Statutory Instruments (SIs). This is delegated legislation that does not require a vote in Parliament, just a signature from the secretary of state.
A vote carries real risks.
Given that the Tories will undoubtedly be in favour of the cuts, the risk is not that Labour might lose the vote.
But if a sizeable number of backbenchers revolt, real damage may be done to the Labour leadership and to party cohesion. A large enough uprising might even threaten the careers of Reeves or Kendall – perhaps even be the beginning of the end for Starmer himself .
In the face of overwhelming discontent, it seems likely Labour would abandon the whole plan rather than risk a showdown.
SIs, on the other hand, are extremely difficult to get a ballot on in Parliament. There is a process whereby MPs can “pray against” an SI and potentially vote on it. But it is a complex and seldom successful process. The last time an SI was overturned in this way in the Commons was almost half a century ago.
So, why give MPs and Lords a vote on a highly controversial issue when it isn’t at all necessary?
The argument that it is being done in the interests of democracy is not one that can be taken seriously. Not when Labour have refused to consult with the public, and particularly disabled claimants, over these changes which will have such a dramatic effect on their lives.
But there is a more obvious reason.
SIs can be challenged in court, usually by judicial review, and have some of their provisions removed or the entire instrument quashed. The Human Rights Act is often the basis of such challenges.
In truth, successful challenges are very rare.
One study found that between 2014 and 2020 there were just 14 successful challenges of delegated legislation using the Human Rights Act, in spite of thousands of SIs being enacted every year.
It’s worth noting, though, that four of those cases were in connection with regulations made under the Welfare Reform Act 2012.
The situation is very different where an Act of Parliament, rather than an SI, is involved.
In the UK, parliament is sovereign. Because an act has gone through the whole extensive democratic process of scrutiny and debate by both the Commons and the Lords, courts cannot overturn the provisions of an Act of Parliament.
The most they can do is inform the government that particular provisions of an act are in breach of, for example, the Human Rights Act or the Equality Act.
But the government does not have to do anything about the court’s findings. It can simply shrug its shoulders and carry on regardless.
Benefits and Work suspects that the DWP have very strong grounds to fear that both the changes to the PIP points system and the cuts to the LCWRA element of UC are in breach of the Human Rights Act and/or the Equality Act.
And that, we believe, is why they are to be made law via a single Act of Parliament that the courts can’t touch.
Once again, we remind readers that In the Green paper, the DWP claim that “We are committed to putting the views and voices of disabled people and people with health conditions at the heart of everything we do.”
Disabled people’s human rights, on the other hand, can be safely ignored.
Visit our What you can do page for at least eight actions you can take right now to challenge the Green Paper.
