Lords rebuff Tory plan to cut ESA for second time

Good for the Lords.

They are quite right to tell the Conservative Government there is no evidence to support the claim that cutting ESA for people in the Work-Related Activity Group will provide an “incentive” for them to find a job.

In fact, that claim is an insult to people who are claiming the benefit because they are too ill to work.

And the move will force Tory MPs who spoke against the cut to put their own money where their mouths are.

Heidi Allen, for example, spoke up against the cut in the Commons last week – but voted with her party in favour of it.

Will she do the same, now the matter must return to the Commons again?

The House of Lords has defeated the government again over welfare reform and work bill proposals to cut £30 a week from the benefits of ill and disabled people who have been found unfit to work.

Peers passed an amendment that calls on ministers to deliver a formal assessment of the likely impact of the cut on the health, finances and work prospects of hundreds of thousands of claimants, who will see their unemployment benefits reduced by £1,500 a year.

The 286-219 vote repeats the government defeat on planned cuts to employment and support allowance (ESA) in January, sending the proposal back to the Commons and prolonging the “ping-pong” over the issue between the two houses.

MPs voted down the original Lords amendment in the Commons last week, despite a handful of Tory MPs speaking out against the bill.

Source: Lords rebuff Tory plan to cut ESA for second time | Politics | The Guardian

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

7 thoughts on “Lords rebuff Tory plan to cut ESA for second time

  1. Mr.Angry

    One must wonder how much this ping-pong game is costing the taxpayers.

    These Tory gangsters just can’t get it into their thick skulls their reforms will have an extremely damaging affect on people too ill to work, but do they really care?

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      I’m not sure it’s costing the taxpayers any more than normal – this is, after all, what Parliament does.

  2. Barry Davies

    Fully agree Mike there are not enough jobs for everyone to be employed and given the chance to take an able bodied person or someone who will take time off for various reasons quite often who would you employ ?? This is just a vicious attack on the most vulnerable in society by a government that thinks austerity is the only way forwards or in other words tax cuts for the rich.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      I saw a piece very recently that corroborates your viewpoint. It was saying that employers were unwilling to install equipment that would help employees keep their job after becoming disabled or starting to suffer a long-term condition, because of the extra cost involved; they would rather lay that person off and get an able-bodied employee instead.

  3. Joan Edington

    Much as I agree with the Lords on this, I wonder what the point of it all is. These scum simply growl about unfairness (hypocrites) and ignore any amendments.

  4. Samuel Miller (@Hephaestus7)

    I’ll be writing Lord Freud and the other DWP ministers regarding the ESA (WRAG) cuts and Cc’ing senior UN officials.

    The peers failed to mention food insecurity when they debated the government’s plans to cut disabled people’s ESA (WRAG) benefits by £30 a week. Researchers at the Disability Benefits Consortium surveyed 500 people in the WRAG found that 28 per cent of people had been unable to afford to eat while in receipt of the the benefit. Moreover, 38 per cent of respondents said they had been unable to heat their homes and 52 per cent struggled to stay healthy.

    None of Lord Freud’s concessions address the issue of food insecurity, nutrition, and fuel poverty for WRAG claimants.

  5. John

    How on earth anyone or any group of people in their right mind can come to the conclusion that cutting someone’s much needed benefits like this, acts as an “incentive” to find work, is just completely beyond me! All it does is just put more stress and pressure on people, which of course often has knock on effects in other areas as well.
    Anyway, I think all these cuts is just the Tories trying to kill more people off.
    As for Heidi Allen, I’m not quite sure what planet she’s on? If you don’t agree with something, DON’T vote for it!

Comments are closed.