The Guardian view on disability benefits: head versus heart | Editorial
George Freeman is supposedly the government’s big brain, a Downing Street thinker tasked with ensuring policy reaches a port by sailing, not by drifting. So when he took to the airwaves last weekend to claim that welfare cuts would see money go to the “really disabled” rather than those “taking pills at home, who suffer from anxiety”, many must have wondered whether Mr Freeman had momentarily slipped his moorings. Today he apologised. That is a good move. But ministers should go further.
The government is attempting to stave off a potentially large bill caused by its flagship personal independence payment, paid to people who face costs because of a disability or long-term illness. The reason is that the courts, looking at the government’s own policies, have ruled that more 160,000 people who have a heart condition or who suffer overwhelming psychological distress when taking journeys should be eligible for bigger payments than ministers envisaged. Because of the numbers involved, the bill is large – more than £3.7bn. But the problem, for ministers attempting to frame the debate to gain popularity for unpopular decisions, is that the recipients could not be tarred as feckless scroungers. Those that get the payment are sick or disabled. They deserve help and understanding. This leads two trains of thought of modern Conservatism – the compassionate and the fiscally responsible – to crash. Last year the collision of these impulses saw the departure of the former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith, who resigned as work and pensions secretary, denouncing £4bn of planned cuts to disabled people as “indefensible”. Mr Freeman did not lose his job, he only lost his dignity and composure.
However, the tricky politics remain. The government has mistakenly opted for tactical management of backbenchers rather than overhaul its strategic vision for the benefit. So it attempted to obscure its proposals by slipping them out on the day of the Copeland and Stoke byelections. Not only was the timing questionable, but so was the exercise of power. Instead of taking on board the judgments of the tribunals, ministers chose to undermine the legal basis of the rulings by unveiling legislation to stop the broadening of the scope of the payment. Ministers didn’t even consult their own experts on the proposed new regulations, claiming it was “inexpedient” on grounds of “urgency”.
This rush is a political confection, aimed at thwarting and subverting tribunal decisions which go against the government. Rebel Tory MPs, wary of being tagged the nasty party, are joining hands with the opposition, and the House of Lords is gearing up for a fight. Theresa May has reaped political benefits by claiming to look after those who are struggling to get by. She must now also realise that there are political costs.
