Benefit cuts show welfare state is not safe in Labour Government hands
When Keir Starmer became Prime Minister a year ago this week, we were all looking forward to seeing the back of the some of the worst Tory policies.
There had been years of attacks on the welfare state and some of the most vulnerable people in our society – whether that was the humiliating assessment processes, the bedroom tax, the two-child cap, the rape clause and much more besides.
Twelve months on, people are entitled to wonder exactly what has changed.
Following Labour's winter fuel payment debacle – which has caused so much anguish and distress for millions of older people - this week MPs will vote on the UK government's disability cuts bill.
This is a bill straight out of the Iain Duncan Smith playbook - a classic case of pretending to help people while actually causing them significant harm.
Despite what Labour are claiming, this is not about getting people into work. Disability payments are designed to support people with the extra living costs they face as a result of their disability or their long-term condition – regardless of whether they are in employment.
Nor will this ultimately save the public purse money. Restricting living support for people may actually make it harder for them to get into sustainable employment – and increase the pressure on public services, like the NHS.
What these cuts will actually do – as many charities and independent experts are warning – is push tens of thousands more people, including thousands of children, into poverty.
Following an outcry from his backbenchers, the Prime Minister announced watered down plans last week – but this panicked half u-turn has actually made the cuts even more unjustifiable.
Making the cuts apply to new claimants will create a two-tier system, where new claimants get less than existing ones for the same conditions. That is completely unfair.
Despite many senior Labour figures such as Sadiq Khan, Andy Burnham, and the Welsh Labour government finding their voice on these cuts, Labour's Leader in Scotland Anas Sarwar has stood beside Keir Starmer all the way.
The SNP government will not cut Scotland's Adult Disability Payment and we will reject the UK government's attack on disabled people's rights.
SNP MPs will this week vote against Labour's welfare bill – and we are calling on all MPs to do likewise.
Fundamentally, issues like this speak to our values as a society.
None of us know what will happen to us in our lives – any one of us could require financial help because of a disability or illness.
I want people in such a situation to know that they are valued, and that there is a safety net there for them – not to be treate d as some kind of fiscal inconvenience.
But it's clear that whether it's Labour or Tories in power, the welfare state is not in safe hands at Westminster.
CHILD POVERTY
The Big Issue magazine's latest report into child poverty across the UK makes for sobering reading.
It found that since the SNP Government introduced child poverty reduction targets in 2017, the number of children in relative poverty in Scotland has fallen by 12%. That is around 21,000 fewer children. In stark contrast, numbers in England and Wales have grown by an astonishing 320,000 over the same period.
The SNP Government is putting our money where our mouth is. Scotland is the only part of the UK with a child payment for families on low incomes, and we are the only part of the UK getting rid of the two child cap. That's on top of the work we're doing to expand free school meal provision and access to childcare for working families.
But there is so much more to do. Eradicating child poverty is a personal priority for me. It is not only morally the right thing to do, but I also believe that there is no greater long-term investment that we can make in Scotland's future success than by ensuring every young person has the opportunity to thrive.
FREE SCHOOL MEALS
it was great to visit Springburn Academy last week to unveil the SNP Government's latest expansion to free school meals provision. We know the positive impact that a nutritious meal can have on learning and achievement, and I'm pleased that, from August, an additional 6,000 pupils in S1-S3 across Scotland will benefit from healthy lunches.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
19 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Chagos deal cost is ‘going rate for best defensive real estate', says ex-FO boss
The independent crossbencher, a former ambassador who headed the Foreign Office from 2015 to 2020, spoke in support of the agreement in the face of strong objections at Westminster, with opponents branding it a 'surrender' and 'gross folly' funded by the public. The deal signed last month after long-running negotiations, started under the previous Tory administration, returns sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, but will see Britain lease back the strategically important military base on Diego Garcia. It follows a 2019 advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice, which said the UK should cede control. As well as establishing a £40 million fund for Chagossians expelled from the islands, the UK has agreed to pay Mauritius at least £120 million annually during the duration of the 99-year agreement, a total cost in cash terms of at least £13 billion. The Government, however, estimates the bill will be lower at around £101 million a year, while critics argue it will be much higher. The deal could also be extended in the future for an extra 40 years, provided agreement is reached. In a recent report, the House of Lords International Agreements Committee (HLIAC) said although 'not perfect', the treaty must be ratified to avoid legal challenges that could threaten UK control of the military base. Its members warned Mauritius was 'likely' to resume its campaign to secure a binding judgment on sovereignty against Britain unless the agreement was approved and concluded the Government 'cannot ignore' the risk of an 'adverse ruling' putting Britain's right to run the joint UK-US site in jeopardy. Speaking at Westminster as peers debated the controversial accord, Lord McDonald said: 'The most damaging blow to any country's international reputation is a justified charge of hypocrisy. 'The United Kingdom stands for the rule of law in all circumstances. We lose credibility when we seek exceptions to this principle for ourselves.' He added: 'Opponents dislike the expense of the deal. 'Well, we're paying the going rate as a tenant for a base in the wider Indian Ocean, somewhat more than the French in Djibouti, but we're getting more for more. 'Diego Garcia is the best defensive real estate in the whole Indian Ocean. 'Even though £101 million per year is a lot, it's a lot less than the Americans pay to run the base. 'It's a joint base, and we're paying our way in the joint effort.' Lord McDonald also disputed the agreement would bolster China's presence in the Indian Ocean, arguing that 'our partner in Delhi looms much larger in Mauritian calculations than our challenger in Beijing'. He went on: 'Confronted by a charge of double standards, some opponents of this agreement shrug their shoulders. They think they can get away with it, tough it out. But that is what the powerful and unprincipled do. That is what Russia does.' The peer added: 'It gives the UK and our American allies a secure presence in the archipelago for the next 140 years. 'It enhances our security and restores our reputation as a country respecting international law, even when inconvenient and costly.' But Tory shadow foreign minister Lord Callanan said: 'This agreement amounts to a retreat, a surrender of sovereign territory that serves as a linchpin of our defence architecture at a time when authoritarian threats are rising and alliances matter more than ever. 'Handing control to a government who align themselves ever more closely with Beijing – a regime that actively undermines international norms and our national interests – is not only unwise, it is positively dangerous. 'To compound the error, the British taxpayer is being made to foot the bill.' He added: 'This whole affair has been a gross folly. There is no strategic gain here, no credible guarantee for the future of Diego Garcia and no reassurance for our allies. 'Instead, we send a message to adversaries and allies alike that British sovereignty is indeed negotiable. It is capitulation and we must reject it.' Pointing out the Tories in office had opened negotiations to cede sovereignty, Liberal Democrat Lord Purvis of Tweed said: 'The treaty is a consequence of now completing the previous Conservative government's policy.'
South Wales Argus
21 minutes ago
- South Wales Argus
Speed limits to be removed on parts of A4042 in Torfaen
The Welsh Government has issued a public notice of its intention to reinstate the national speed limit on five stretches of the A4042 between Cwmbran and Mamhilad. The decision will revoke the existing restrictions imposed by The A4042 Trunk Road (Llantarnam Bypass, Cwmbran, Gwent) De-restriction Order 1996. The affected sections are: - From 238 metres southeast of the Croes-y-Mwyalch Roundabout to 150 metres north of the same roundabout, including the roundabout itself. - On the northbound carriageway, from 155 metres south of the Crown Roundabout to 36 metres south of the Pontypool Roundabout, including all roundabouts in between. - On the southbound carriageway, from 40 metres south of the Pontypool Roundabout to 155 metres south of the Crown Roundabout, including all roundabouts in between. - On the northbound carriageway, from 213 metres northeast of the Pontypool Roundabout to 18 metres northeast of the Mamhilad Park Estate Roundabout, including all roundabouts in between. - On the southbound carriageway, from 18 metres northeast of the Mamhilad Park Estate Roundabout to 45 metres south of the Court Farm Roundabout, including all roundabouts in between. The notice, published on June 24, invites members of the public to inspect the full details of the proposed changes. The documents are available at Cwmbran Library during normal opening hours and can also be viewed online at the Welsh Government's website. The consultation period runs until July 15. Objections must be submitted in writing, either by email to TransportOrdersBranch@ or by post to Orders Branch, Transport, Welsh Government, Cathays Park, Cardiff CF10 3NQ. All objections must specify the grounds on which they are made. The Welsh Government has stated that, as part of the consultation process, it may be necessary to share information, including personal data, with third parties to address issues raised. Anyone submitting objections who does not wish for their personal data to be shared should make this clear in their correspondence. In such cases, the Welsh Ministers will remove names and addresses before forwarding representations to third parties. However, the government has warned that representations may be given less weight if personal data is withheld, particularly if there is a local public inquiry. The full notice can be viewed on the Welsh Government's website. The proposed changes are part of ongoing efforts to review and update traffic regulations across Wales. The A4042 is a key route in south-east Wales, connecting Newport to Abergavenny and serving as a major link for commuters and businesses in the region. The public consultation is open until July 15. All representations must be submitted by this date.
North Wales Chronicle
22 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Chagos deal cost is ‘going rate for best defensive real estate', says ex-FO boss
Hitting out at critics who argued the UK should ignore a legal ruling to hand over the archipelago to Mauritius, Lord McDonald of Salford argued this was what 'the powerful and unprincipled do', such as Russia. The independent crossbencher, a former ambassador who headed the Foreign Office from 2015 to 2020, spoke in support of the agreement in the face of strong objections at Westminster, with opponents branding it a 'surrender' and 'gross folly' funded by the public. The deal signed last month after long-running negotiations, started under the previous Tory administration, returns sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, but will see Britain lease back the strategically important military base on Diego Garcia. It follows a 2019 advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice, which said the UK should cede control. As well as establishing a £40 million fund for Chagossians expelled from the islands, the UK has agreed to pay Mauritius at least £120 million annually during the duration of the 99-year agreement, a total cost in cash terms of at least £13 billion. The Government, however, estimates the bill will be lower at around £101 million a year, while critics argue it will be much higher. The deal could also be extended in the future for an extra 40 years, provided agreement is reached. In a recent report, the House of Lords International Agreements Committee (HLIAC) said although 'not perfect', the treaty must be ratified to avoid legal challenges that could threaten UK control of the military base. Its members warned Mauritius was 'likely' to resume its campaign to secure a binding judgment on sovereignty against Britain unless the agreement was approved and concluded the Government 'cannot ignore' the risk of an 'adverse ruling' putting Britain's right to run the joint UK-US site in jeopardy. Speaking at Westminster as peers debated the controversial accord, Lord McDonald said: 'The most damaging blow to any country's international reputation is a justified charge of hypocrisy. 'The United Kingdom stands for the rule of law in all circumstances. We lose credibility when we seek exceptions to this principle for ourselves.' He added: 'Opponents dislike the expense of the deal. 'Well, we're paying the going rate as a tenant for a base in the wider Indian Ocean, somewhat more than the French in Djibouti, but we're getting more for more. 'Diego Garcia is the best defensive real estate in the whole Indian Ocean. 'Even though £101 million per year is a lot, it's a lot less than the Americans pay to run the base. 'It's a joint base, and we're paying our way in the joint effort.' Lord McDonald also disputed the agreement would bolster China's presence in the Indian Ocean, arguing that 'our partner in Delhi looms much larger in Mauritian calculations than our challenger in Beijing'. He went on: 'Confronted by a charge of double standards, some opponents of this agreement shrug their shoulders. They think they can get away with it, tough it out. But that is what the powerful and unprincipled do. That is what Russia does.' The peer added: 'It gives the UK and our American allies a secure presence in the archipelago for the next 140 years. 'It enhances our security and restores our reputation as a country respecting international law, even when inconvenient and costly.' But Tory shadow foreign minister Lord Callanan said: 'This agreement amounts to a retreat, a surrender of sovereign territory that serves as a linchpin of our defence architecture at a time when authoritarian threats are rising and alliances matter more than ever. 'Handing control to a government who align themselves ever more closely with Beijing – a regime that actively undermines international norms and our national interests – is not only unwise, it is positively dangerous. 'To compound the error, the British taxpayer is being made to foot the bill.' He added: 'This whole affair has been a gross folly. There is no strategic gain here, no credible guarantee for the future of Diego Garcia and no reassurance for our allies. 'Instead, we send a message to adversaries and allies alike that British sovereignty is indeed negotiable. It is capitulation and we must reject it.' Pointing out the Tories in office had opened negotiations to cede sovereignty, Liberal Democrat Lord Purvis of Tweed said: 'The treaty is a consequence of now completing the previous Conservative government's policy.'
