Sorry the site fell over and missed out the quote when I got back - that reply was @PandoraSocks
Ok - the answer is a bit convoluted. Current legislation includes the criteria and the points awarded against each criteria. That is why this bill was needed - to change the points awarded. However, my friend suggests that this is something of an overkill, since the same result could have been achieved without the bill. It would have been a matter of ease, not even requiring secondary legislation, to tweak the assessment process itself by, for example, changing the evidence required or how evidence is assessed. Secondary legislation covers things like the amounts of money attached to awards...
I will give a practical example of what he means. And at the risk of playing the wrong card, but it's the only way I can explain it so it makes sense... I know one person who definitely lied in their PIP application. He said (amongst other things) that he could not get up stairs at all. I know this because I know him well enough to have been asked to write him a supporting letter, and when I read his form I refused because I knew he was lying (and I told him that too). If there had been a home based assessment, an assessor would have found that he lives in a small back to back terrace with very steep stairs - his bedroom and the bathroom are all on the first floor! So unless he has learned how to levitate...
Introducing new evidential requirements or ways of assessing claims requires nothing more than somebody writing them. To be clear - neither of us are advocating home based assessments (although in the right circumstances some people might find them easier - the process needs to be flexible to meet needs). The point is that they could have achieved the same results by tweaking things that pretty much nobody would have noticed.
That then raises the question as to why they decided to do it this way, which then appears to be the stupidest possible way of doing it (or not doing it, as the case may be). And the only obvious answer is misdirection - but misdirection from what is not clear. The legislation gives headlines and points - it doesn't tell assessors how to arrive at those points.
I don't know if that helps explain it any?