A group of academics from Northern universities and health services have calculated how much income each Westminster parliamentary constituency may lose as a result of personal independence payment (PIP) cuts. Labour constituencies take 92 of the top 100 biggest losers places, with the North East and North West hardest hit, suggesting that PIP cuts are aimed squarely at Labour’s own voters.
The, report was funded and produced by Health Equity North and carried out by academics from the universities of Manchester, Newcastle and Sheffield, along with the Northern Health Service Alliance.
Researchers looked at how many PIP claimants in each constituency did not score four points or more for any daily living activity. They then calculated what the loss of PIP for those claimants would mean in total for each constituency as well as what the loss per head of working age population would be.
Researchers found that:
- The ten worst-hit constituencies are all Labour-held, and in “Red Wall” areas
- The impacts will disproportionately affect the constituencies which already have the lowest life expectancies in England.
- They found that the average loss per working age adult in England is £176
- The changes are set to have the greatest effect on regions such as the North East (£269 per working-age person on average), the North West (£231), Yorkshire and The Humber (£206), the West Midlands (£191) and the East Midlands (£185)
- The worst-hit constituencies are in Easington (£409 per working-age person), Liverpool Walton (£403) and Knowsley (£389)
- These three constituencies alone could lose an estimated total of £23.8m, £26.2m and £23.4m respectively per year by 2029/30
- The smallest difference is in Bristol Central (£62 per working-age person), Oxford and West Abingdon (£66) and Wimbledon (£67)
- The impact on these constituencies is £5m, 4.7m and £4.9m respectively per year by 2029/30
- The most-deprived constituencies will lose nearly three times the amount of the least-deprived (£265 per working-age person on average compared to £96)
In fact, because these calculations did not take into account the possible loss of other linked benefits and the loss of additional elements in other benefits, the actual figures could be very considerably higher.
One of the report’s authors, Professor Clare Bambra, said:
“Those areas that will lose most from this proposal were already decimated by austerity, COVID and the cost of living crisis. They have worse health than other regions and their local services and economies are already struggling. Losses of this magnitude risk worsening the situation for everyone living in these deprived constituencies.
“Parliament cannot risk rushing proposals like these through without fully considering how they affect local areas that are already struggling. We hope that research such as ours gives MPs more context, so they can make the most informed, forward-thinking and economical decision.”
Readers with a Labour MP, in particular, might want to drop them an email drawing attention to this report.
You can read more and download a copy of Local Economic Impact of the Proposed Changes to Personal Independence Payments (PIP) by Parliamentary Constituency
