Starmer abandons key welfare reforms in face of Labour revolt
The climbdown came just 90 minutes before MPs were due to vote for the first time on the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill.
It will cause a major headache for Chancellor Rachel Reeves as the welfare squeeze was originally meant to save £4.8 billion a year, which was subsequently reduced to £2.3 billion when the Bill was first watered down last week.
Postponing any changes to the eligibility criteria for Pip means it is now uncertain how much the reforms will save from the soaring welfare bill.
Tory leader Kemi Badenoch accused ministers of 'utter capitulation' and said the legislation was now 'pointless'.
She said: 'They should bin it, do their homework, and come back with something serious. Starmer cannot govern.'
A Labour rebel attempt to halt the Bill in its tracks was defeated by 328 votes to 149, majority 179.
Rebel ringleader Rachael Maskell, who was behind the failed attempt, said: 'The whole Bill is now unravelling and is a complete farce.'
A previous effort to kill the Bill had attracted more than 120 Labour supporters, but was dropped after the first partial U-turn on the legislation last week, which restricted the Pip changes to new claimants from November 2026.
That date has now been abandoned in the latest climbdown, with any changes now only coming after disability minister Sir Stephen Timms' review of the Pip assessment process.
Sir Stephen announced the climbdown in the middle of the debate on the legislation.
He acknowledged 'concerns that the changes to Pip are coming ahead of the conclusions of the review of the assessment that I will be leading'.
He said the Government would now 'only make changes to Pip eligibility activities and descriptors following that review', which is due to conclude in the autumn of 2026.
The concession came after frantic behind-the-scenes negotiations in Westminster involving the Prime Minister, his cabinet and wavering Labour MPs.
It appeared to have won round some Labour doubters.
Josh Fenton-Glynn, who was one of the 126 Labour MPs who signed the original rebel amendment to the welfare reform Bill last week, described the move as 'really good news'.
He said he wanted to support the Government at 'every opportunity' and was glad changes to personal independence payment eligibility would be delayed until after the Timms review.
But other Labour MPs appeared exasperated, with one telling the PA news agency that no-one 'knew what they were voting on anymore'.
Charlotte Gill, head of campaigns and public affairs at the MS Society, said: 'We thought last week's so-called concessions were last minute. But these panicked 11th hour changes still don't fix a rushed, poorly thought-out Bill.'
But Jon Sparkes, chief executive of learning disability charity Mencap, said: 'The last-minute change relating to the review Sir Stephen Timms is leading sounds positive and we are pleased that the Government has listened.'
He added: 'Disabled people should not have to pay to fix black holes in the public finances.'
The Government's concessions have effectively removed a major plank of its welfare reform, leaving only parts of the current Bill still on the table.
Proposals to cut the health element of universal credit by almost 50% for most new claimants from April 2026 remain in place, along with an above-inflation increase in the benefit's standard allowance.
In an earlier climbdown, Ms Kendall said existing recipients of the health element of universal credit, and new claimants with the most severe conditions, would have their incomes 'fully protected in real terms'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
39 minutes ago
- The Independent
Welfare reform has been postponed, but it isn't going away
In a human sense, it was impossible to watch Rachel Reeves fighting back the tears as she sat, as usual, next to her friend and ally Sir Keir Starmer during Prime Minister's Questions, and not to feel for her. Nonetheless, and with the best will in the world to her personally, there are some legitimate questions that arise from the welfare bill fiasco, in which she has played a key role. One of those questions, thrown at Sir Keir by Kemi Badenoch, is whether he will keep his chancellor in place for 'many years to come', as he said he would in January. Sir Keir, for whatever reason, declined to confirm that, which must have dented Ms Reeves's confidence; certainly, it didn't help the markets, which saw borrowing costs rise, gilt yields spike and the pound plunge amid speculation over the chancellor's future. Of course, Sir Keir should never have made such a remark in the first place, as prime ministers shouldn't limit any of their personnel options, but his reluctance to repeat it at the despatch box was deafening. We do not yet know the full details of Ms Reeves' role in this latest damaging policy U-turn, but it is plain that, as chancellor, she must carry her share of the responsibility, just as she must for the decision to restrict the pensioners' winter fuel payment, a universally hated move that inflicted disproportionate electoral damage on Labour. One of the obvious reasons why this welfare reform failed was because it was so clearly not an attempt at welfare reform at all but a traditional raid by the Treasury looking for some savings in a hurry. If, as the secretary of state nominally in charge, Liz Kendall, pleaded, it was really all about getting people with disabilities into work – a laudable aim – why was there so much talk about saving a very specific sum of money in the process, some £5bn? Why the rush in such a sensitive field? Why, if it was to help some of the most vulnerable in society break through a wall of discrimination and towards a secure living, did the government's own assessment suggest it would push 250,000 people, later 150,000 people, with disabilities into poverty? Ms Kendal's plans suffered greatly from being associated with plugging a hole in one of Ms Reeves' spreadsheets, and once this was twigged by Labour backbenchers, the policy was in grave trouble. A half-baked attempt to fool the Labour rebels by promising a review of the personal independence payment (PIP) points system was immediately rumbled when it was soon discovered that the review, a co-production with disability rights group, would probably only be ready after the already-planned changes to PIP entitlement were implemented. That revelation, made so late in the day of the crucial vote, only made matters worse. To save anything, the bill had to be gutted. In the end, what's left of the welfare bill will cost Ms Reeves more money. Given that the disability rights groups have now also been given an effective veto on welfare reform, along with the numerous Labour rebels, it is perfectly possible that no serious attempt to reform the social security system will be made in this parliament. That cannot be allowed to happen. The pressure on the public finances caused by ever greater numbers of people claiming PIP, and the welfare system generally, has the capacity, bluntly, to bankrupt the nation. What should have happened is for two comprehensive reviews to be undertaken properly, and urgently, by the government. One would be into the social security system as a whole. The second, also in an area neglected for too long, would be into paying for adult social care. They are of course related, and both would seek to be fair to vulnerable people and the taxpayer. A great reforming government, as this one should aspire to be, could have produced a Beveridge Report for the 21st century, and a modernised welfare state that commanded wide public, if not cross-party, consent. The landslide Labour majority should cement it in place. Instead, the Commons majority has suffered a major landslip towards Corbynism. In the long run, it may mean welfare reform will be forced through by the radical Right, either under Ms Badenoch or Nigel Farage – the ultimate calamity. Such are the dangers, and the challenges remain. Welfare reform remains unavoidable – a 'moral imperative', as the prime minister said last week. The public demands it. The rate of outright social security fraud remains relatively low, but there is public disquiet about whether the funds are being put to best use, and whether all the criteria attached to schemes such as PIP are well designed. In-person assessments, for example, would help build confidence in the system, as would a more transparent Motability scheme. There is as yet no satisfactory consensus on whether mental health conditions, among the young especially, are being over-diagnosed. One system that tries to cover everything from ADHD to arthritis needs a great deal of work. Hence the review of PIP now being led by the respected welfare minister Sir Stephen Timms, which should always have preceded the welfare bill. He will need to listen to groups representing disabled people, but he must, as an overriding priority, produce a plan for a system that cannot expand beyond the nation's ability and willingness to support it, economically and politically. Welfare reform may have been postponed, but it isn't going away.
The Herald Scotland
40 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Interim finance chief at cash-strapped university quits after days in post
Dundee University is grappling with a financial crisis which has resulted in the Scottish Government using special powers to award a further £40 million to the institution. Faced with a £35 million deficit, the university is looking to cut hundreds of jobs. Professor Nigel Seaton, Dundee's interim principal and vice chancellor, confirmed Mr Reilly's departure in a message to staff – saying the institution is 'moving quickly' to replace him. Prof Seaton, who himself only took on the role after the previous interim principal quit last month, said Mr Reilly's replacement would help take the university through the 'next steps' of its recovery plan. Previous interim principal Professor Shane O'Neill quit the post in June after a report by former Glasgow Caledonian University principal Professor Pamela Gillies was critical of him and other former senior Dundee University figures for their actions before the scale of the crisis became public. That report found members of the university executive group, which included the 'triumvirate' of Prof O'Neill, former principal Professor Iain Gillespie and ex-chief operating officer Jim McGeorge, had 'failed' to 'properly respond to the worsening situation' with the institution's finances in 2024.
Western Telegraph
42 minutes ago
- Western Telegraph
House of Lords votes to block expulsion of hereditary peers
Peers supported by 280 votes to 243, majority 37, an amendment to the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill that would instead see a gradual reduction of bloodline peers. The amendment, put forward by shadow culture minister Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, would abolish the aristocratic by-elections, meaning the number of hereditary peers would decrease as individuals die or retire. There are currently 92 seats reserved for members of the Lords who are there by right of birth, but there are only 86 currently sitting. This is because by-elections were suspended after Labour won the election last year and six hereditary peers have left the House since then by death, retirement or moving on. Lord Parkinson argued that current sitting hereditary peers have 'served here with distinction and, in many cases, with more conspicuous industry than those who have been appointed'. He told peers: 'I hope, through this modest amendment, we can applaud their diligence and their public service and seek to harness it for the benefit of the nation for a while longer.' There have been numerous attempts to end the hereditary by-elections since their inception 26 years ago, including from Labour peer Lord Grocott. Lord Parkinson said: 'The formulation he (Lord Grocott) has proposed in every parliamentary session since 2016, apart from this one, is exactly the same as the one we advance today. 'Just as with peers who proposed private bills under the last Labour government, he has found it difficult to make progress with his bills under Conservative governments.' However, he said: 'On this, we give in… We yield to the mandate that they've won at the ballot box and take it at their word that further reform will follow.' The Tory frontbencher concluded that, in return, he asks for 'clemency and generosity' to those hereditary peers currently sitting in the Lords to allow them to remain for the rest of their life if they wish. Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Gareth Fuller/PA) Meanwhile, Lord Groccot said: 'I'm finding it difficult to compute exactly what's going on today because Friday after Friday, bill after bill, to a three-quarters empty House, I have been faced with substantial opposition, not just from individual members – not exclusively from the Tory Party, but overwhelmingly – but also from the Government, and the bill's got no further. 'And here we are now with a pretty full House all agreed that these by-elections are farcical.' He said his motive in bringing forward his bills were to 'stop this absurdity' and lamented that 'time and time again' his bills were rejected and filibustered. Lord Grocott said he had thought that no-one in the upper chamber could think a by-election to get into the House should be exclusively for men, or that it is feasible to have 'an electorate of three when you've got seven candidates'. The Labour peer added: 'I'm flattered, I suppose, to find that suddenly everyone seems to be agreed on this. We could have saved ourselves so much time when I brought this in first in 2016.' However, he said he prefers plans to expel the hereditary peers over ending the by-elections because it's 'better' and 'does the job more effectively', allowing the conversation to move on to further reform. Lord Grocott concluded: 'Thank heavens that we are removing the hereditary principle as a mechanism for membership of this House. It's long, long, long overdue. 'It could have been dealt with much earlier, but let's not cry over spilt milk, let's just get on with this and get on with it quickly.' Leader of the House of Lords Baroness Smith of Basildon said she is sure the Tories 'regret' not taking up her offer to ensure Lord Grocott's bill passed through the House. She said: 'We could have done that and that opportunity was lost. It's a shame it was lost, but that's where we are now. We now are debating a manifesto commitment from the Labour Party… 'The principle of this was established 25 years ago that the hereditary principle would not be a route into this House. 'That does not decry any individual member who's arrived by that route, but the time has come to an end.' It is expected that the House of Commons will reject this amendment to the Bill. Before the vote, former senior diplomat Lord Kerr of Kinlochard warned that ping-pong between the two Houses would be 'poison' and 'disastrous' for the image of the Lords. Later, peers rejected a move by the Liberal Democrats that would have forced the Government to bring forward proposals for an elected House of Lords. The bid to secure 'a democratic mandate' for the upper chamber was defeated by 263 votes to 84, majority 179.
