MPs demand scrapping of controversial welfare reforms

MPs have condemned some of the coalition's most controversial plans for welfare reform and called for them to be scrapped in two early day motions (EDMs).

The motions note MPs "extreme" and "deep" concerns about some measures proposed and suggest the government is "misguided" in its expectations for the new Personal Independence Payment (PIP).

They specifically attack plans to time-limit and means test Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) and the replacement of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) with PIP.

EDM 1755 targets the restrictions set to be imposed on ESA saying it has "extreme concern" for the provision to limit contribution-based ESA to 12 months and the subsequent means-testing for income-related benefit which will be denied if the claimant has a partner or spouse working 24 hours or more per week.

It explains: "time-limiting ESA is a serious disincentive to work for the partners and carers of ESA claimants, leading to a situation where unemployment is more financially sustainable than work".

It adds: "time-limiting ESA punishes working families where one member claims ESA" and urges the removal of this prior to the Bill's Third Reading.

EDM 1756 notes MPs "deep concern" for the abolition of DLA and its replacement with the (PIP) and claims the government has not made a convincing case for reform, as observed by academics, campaigners and the Social Security Advisory Committee.

It draws attention to the proposed new face-to-face interviews which will "disadvantage some claimants and mean that specialist evidence is not given due priority".

The motion adds: "the government is misguided in its claim that PIP will be better targeted than DLA as the reforms involve a simplification of the benefit rates of payment which reduces the ability to personalise payment according to need."

It also criticises the government's target of a 20% reduction in DLA expenditure that it claims will result in up to 620,000 disabled people being denied support with no justification of this policy.

It concludes by urging all DLA reform to be shelved.