The Chair of a crucial committee is demanding answers from the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) about disability benefit changes. Debbie Abrahams, who heads up the Work and Pensions Committee, has written to the DWP chief to, among other things, find out who will be making the final decisions on the Timms Review.
Abrahams’ email was sent following McFadden giving evidence in front of the committee on Wednesday, 19 November. It also includes sections on safeguarding vulnerable claimants, the child poverty strategy and WASPI compensation. This also focused on benefit cuts and the push to get people into work.
DWP grilled on Timms Review
At the evidence session in November, McFadden was grilled by Lib Dem Steve Darling who is disabled, about the Timms review on Personal Independence Payment (PIP) reform. Specifically, he asked about why the Terms of Reference now state that the Timms DWP Review will:
operate within the OBR’s projections for future PIP expenditure
Darling asked:
There is a risk that those who have engaged with this process may fear that they are aiding the axeman in respect of PIP. What words of reassurance would you give to them? What was the rationale behind the
refreshed terms of reference?
To this, McFadden didn’t really reassure anyone at all. Instead, he blustered on about how the review will be co-produced with disabled people:
The Timms review is an important exercise. We have two co-chairs appointed with Stephen. We are assembling a panel of people from various organisations who represent disabled people or are disabled themselves.
Is 12 whole disabled people really co-production?
Of course, this panel is made up of 12 whole people. Anyone can see that it can’t possibly be representative. He also went on to say the review cannot come up with more expenditure and had to operate with what they were already given, like this was obvious.
At this admission, Darling quickly jumped on the chance to ask if it was really being co-produced with disabled people:
The Social Security Advisory Committee advised against using the term “co-produced” because of concerns that it may not truly be co-produced. Why did you continue to use it?
At this, McFadden gave an incredibly spin-doctored reply that basically blames disabled organisations for not wanting to be complicit in DWP cuts:
We want to work with disability organisations. It is right that they have a voice in policy. Of course, it is also true that at the end of the day the Government have to make their decisions.
He went on to say:
It is important to work with disabled people’s organisations and with all the interested groups. We want to give them a proper voice. I believe that Stephen [Timms] and I and the Department are committed to this, but again, in a spirit of candour with the Committee, I say that in the end, the Government have to make the decisions on policy, financial resources and so on.
Timms Review committee is nothing more than a tick-box exercise
This, more than anything, truly proves just how much the Timms Review committee will be a tick-box exercise around the DWP. When asked if he could rule out any cuts to PIP, McFadden said he was “not ruling anything out”.
In her letter, Abrahams highlights this:
When asked to rule out cuts to PIP, you replied that you were “not ruling anything out”. At the same time, we asked about the commitment to co-produce the review with disabled people and pointed out that the Social Security Advisory Committee (SSAC) had told us it had advised against using the term on the grounds that disabled people would not “be in the room” when the final decisions were being made. You, too, made this point, when you said the final decision would have to be the Government’s, since it was only the Government that had to consider policy and expenditure in the round.
To this end, she and the committee are seeking clarity on what this actually means:
What is the process by which final decisions will be made concerning the Timms Review, and who will be involved in this?
It’s a valid question, because if you’re going to spend all this time to make it look like you care about including disabled people, what’s the fucking point if they don’t get to make any decisions? It’s also about just who in government will get to make the decisions. Will MPs get a vote? Judging by the terms of reference, it doesn’t look like it, but then who exactly will be making these monumental decisions?
At the end of the day, the DWP doesn’t give a fuck
Let’s be honest, the Timms Review was, essentially, Stephen Timms ‘ last-minute Hail Mary to stop the Labour PIP cuts rebellion. This means the DWP has spent the last few months desperately trying to come up with an actual plan that won’t stir up dissent in the ranks again.
But they’re also doing this whilst at the same time appeasing the far-right by coming up with policy based on the whims of Twitter trolls. So there’s no way anyone with a vested interest in disability welfare should ever believe that the DWP ever want to genuinely help disabled people when it comes to PIP reform.
As usual, the DWP is only looking out for the DWP; that’s why Abrahams and the Committee cannot let them get off easy.
Featured image via the Canary
From Canary via This RSS Feed.