About: http://data.cimple.eu/claim-review/e47acb545c323d972ef82c0b0f8a51b6da1872ff0635b889cc274ede

Facets (new session)
Description
Metadata
Settings
- owl:sameAs
- Inference Rule:

About: http://data.cimple.eu/claim-review/e47acb545c323d972ef82c0b0f8a51b6da1872ff0635b889cc274ede Goto Sponge NotDistinct Permalink

An Entity of Type : schema:ClaimReview, within Data Space : data.cimple.eu associated with source document(s)

Attributes	Values
rdf:type	schema:ClaimReview
http://data.cimple...lizedReviewRating	not verifiable
schema:url	http://fullfact.org/economy/amendments-pip-legislation/
schema:text	“Last week the government sneaked out a decision to overrule a court decision to extend Personal Independence Payments to people with severe mental health conditions. [This government] seems unable to find the money to support 160,000 people with debilitating mental health conditions.” Jeremy Corbyn, 1 March 2017 “...this is not a policy change, this is not a cut in the amount that is going to be spent on disability benefits and no one is going to see a reduction in their benefits from that previously awarded by the DWP.” Theresa May, 1 March 2017 Two recent tribunal decisions widened the interpretation of Personal Independence Payments (PIP) legislation. Over 160,000 people might have seen their PIP payments go up because of the tribunal decisions—or become entitled to them—according to estimates from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). They won’t now that the government has amended the legislation. Mr Corbyn is quoting the DWP’s estimates fairly and Mrs May is broadly right that people won’t see their payments reduced because of the amendment (compared to what they are now). But a relatively small number of people who were assessed after the Tribunal decisions on 28 November may see their payments fall, as and when they are next reassessed. We don’t know how many, and the DWP told us that it hasn’t published estimates. And there’s more than one way to interpret the government’s move. The government says that the amendments are designed to “restore the original aim of the benefit”, focusing support on those who need it most. Critics say that the government is “shifting the goalposts”. There’s a second set of questions about whether the government followed the right process when it put through the amended legislation. Critics say that the government was wrong to bypass the Social Security Advisory Committee, which is supposed to be consulted on changes to social security regulations. But the Secretary of State can bypass the Committee if he or she thinks that it’s a matter of urgency. The government says it was right to push through the amendment fast to avoid inconsistencies in how PIP claims are assessed.
schema:mentions	Constitutional amendment Disability Jeremy Corbyn Theresa May Mental health Court Welfare dbpedia:Social_Security_Advisory_Committee
schema:reviewRating	The government didn’t formally consult the Social Security Advisory Committee, which it’s normally supposed to refer to on changes to social security regulations. But the government can do this if it’s a matter of urgency, which it claims was the case here.
schema:author	full-fact
schema:datePublished	2017-03-01 (xsd:date)
schema:inLanguage	English
schema:itemReviewed	http://data.cimple.eu/claim/880aea90088bfd89c11f307ec8ae20d6d4c12dfd754e687a7464afd3

Faceted Search & Find service v1.16.115 as of Oct 09 2023

Alternative Linked Data Documents: ODE Content Formats:

RDF

ODATA

Microdata

About

OpenLink Virtuoso version 07.20.3238 as of Jul 16 2024, on Linux (x86_64-pc-linux-musl), Single-Server Edition (126 GB total memory, 5 GB memory in use)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2025 OpenLink Software