Warrington: Town's MPs abstain from welfare bill vote
Ministers had already said people currently receiving Pip, the main disability benefit, would not be affected by the new rules, but the 11th hour pledge now also delays their introduction for future claimants pending a review.In a joint statement, the Warrington MPs said changes meaning no existing claimants would lose Pip were "a step forward", but they said it was "still not enough".Hall and Nichols said there was now "an opportunity to amend and improve the bill" as it goes through the next stages, before its final vote.They added they wanted to see changes so 18-22 year olds "do not fall through the cracks as we fear they currently do".The government won the vote by 75 votes, although 49 Labour MPs still voted against the bill.In March, the government announced plans for a shake-up of the benefits system, including measures to limit eligibility for Pip and freeze the health-related element of universal credit.It promised a £1bn package of support to help disabled people and those with long-term conditions into work.It said there had been a steep rise in claimants and the changes were needed to ensure the system remained sustainable. Hall and Nichols said there were "positive" elements of the bill around helping people into work, but the original details were "not acceptable to us".Mid Cheshire's Andrew Cooper and Connor Naismith from Crewe and Nantwich also signed the amendment last week.
'Dignified system'
Cooper and Naismith both voted for the bill following the concessions.Cooper said: "I want to be absolutely clear, I did not vote for cuts. I did not vote to remove support."I voted to protect the gains we've secured so far, and to keep fighting for a benefits system that is fairer, more flexible, and rooted in dignity."Naismith said he had received "cast iron assurances from the top of government" that there would be no cut off of current support before a review of Pip eligibility was completed."These assurances had been hard fought for, and I am immensely proud of every colleague who has supported efforts to get here," he said. Hall and Nichols said: "Our loyalty will always be first and foremost to our constituents, and we are committed to getting the best legislation we can."There can be no decisions about disabled people without including disabled people, and we will fight for a supportive, dignified and sustainable welfare system."Cheshire Labour MPs Samantha Dixon, Justin Madders, Tim Roca and Sarah Russell voted for the bill, while Conservatives Aphra Brandreth and Esther McVey, and Reform's Sarah Pochin all voted against the bill, which will return to the House of Commons on 9 July.
See more Cheshire stories from the BBC and follow BBC North West on X. For more local politics coverage, BBC Politics North West is on BBC One on Sunday at 10:00am and on BBC iPlayer.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
16 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Reports suggest Chancellor may reduce pension tax for higher earners
By Updated: Previous Chancellors have shied away from slashing generous pension top-ups, but Rachel Reeves is short on easy options to fill a black hole in the country's finances. A raid on millions of better-off pension savers could raise billions of pounds, though the practical obstacles would be daunting and the move would inevitably provoke a storm of protests. The huge cost of subsidising pension savings via tax relief will always make it a tempting target when the Treasury looks for cost cuts. Recent official figures show the total bill rose to £52.5billion in 2023/24, up from £50.1billion the year before, and most of it went to higher and additional rate taxpayers. So, despite the big challenges involved, there is always a risk that any Government is going to become so desperate for cash that it demolishes the present pension tax regime and rebuilds one far less favourable to many savers. How does the Government currently boost pensions via tax relief, and what would an overhaul of the long-established system mean for savers. What is pension tax relief? The major perk of saving into a pension is that you do it out of untaxed income. You receive rebates, effectively free cash from the Government paid into your pension, based on your income tax rate of 20 per cent, 40 per cent or 45 per cent ( Scotland's tax rates are different ). The tax relief you get on contributions makes pensions a very efficient way to save, especially as many people are being pushed into higher tax bands due to Reeves already freezing thresholds until 2028 at the earliest. The system is tilted in favour of the better-off because they pay more tax - see below. Speculation about possible changes usually revolve around the introduction of a flat rate, where higher and additional rate taxpayers receive a reduced level of relief, and basic rate taxpayers either get the same or a bit more than now. The Government would be stingier in setting a new single rate if it was trying to save more money, and afterwards could probably move it up and down pretty much at will. Will pension tax relief be raided in the Budget? Overhauling pension tax relief would be a major endeavour rather than a quick cash-raiser, or it would have been done long ago. There are objections based on fairness, before you get started on the practical difficulties. Critics say it would punish younger savers who wouldn't get the same boost to their pension fund that older generations enjoyed. With more working people moving into higher rate tax bands due to frozen thresholds causing 'fiscal drag', an increasing number would see their savings stymied by smaller top-ups than were previously handed out. The move would also run counter to two other major Government objectives: getting people to save more into pensions, which it has just launched a Commission to address; and ramping up pension investments to boost the economy, on which it has also launched high profile initiatives. Meanwhile, speculation about slashing pension tax relief always prompts a flood of extra money into retirement funds, which causes a spike in the Government's bill until the changes fail to materialise. This happened again last summer and autumn, even though Reeves had reportedly cooled on the idea some time before the Budget. John Havard, a consultant at tax adviser Blick Rothenberg, says: 'Rachel Reeves has taken all her easy choices for increasing tax revenue off the table by sticking with her manifesto promises [on income tax, NI, VAT and corporation tax]. But one option that remains open to her is targeting pension tax reliefs. The Government's argument will likely be that as a disproportionate percentage of relief goes to fund the retirements of the "better off", it is not fair for "ordinary working people" to be subsidising the retirement of the "wealthy". But Havard says auto enrolment has added large numbers of workers to the pool of individuals benefiting from tax relief on pension contributions, and changes by the Coalition government in the earlier 2010s greatly restricted how much relief can be claimed by the highest earners. 'The Chancellor could restrict pension tax relief to the basic rate of tax. But lots of "ordinary working people" pay the higher 40 per cent taxation rate. 'If the imperative is to collect lots of money quickly, it might be necessary to make those paying 40 per cent tax losers as well as those who are paying the 45 per cent rate.' Tom Selby, director of public policy at AJ Bell, says: 'Younger workers who already, on average, benefit from less generous workplace pensions than their parents and grandparents would now also miss out on the potential benefit of higher-rate pension tax relief as they progress through their careers.' He adds that the £50billion-plus cost of pension tax relief can be misleading. 'A huge chunk of that money relates to National Insurance relief on employer contributions, meaning it is mainly firms, rather than individuals, who are benefiting. Given employers have already been clobbered by National Insurance rises at the last Budget and the Government has put economic growth at the centre of its strategy, it is hard to imagine lumping extra costs on the businesses who will ultimately deliver that growth will be particularly appealing.' Selby adds: 'Those who repeatedly push for radical tax relief reform have yet to spell out exactly how it would be applied practically.' Why is it so hard to reform pension tax relief? In the run-up to the last Budget, finance experts explained that moving to flat rate tax relief would require radical changes to the entire pension system. The downsides include a clash with salary sacrifice contributions, and complications with final salary pensions - which could even spark public sector strikes. Salary sacrifice: These schemes allow employers and their staff to cut their National Insurance payments. You agree to a cut in salary and your employer boosts its contributions to your pension in exchange. New administrative arrangements would be needed under a flat pension tax relief system. Here's an explanation of how the mechanics of salary sacrifice would change. Just banning the practice would be unpopular and probably would not work over the longer run because employers could give incoming new staff bigger pension contributions and lower salaries. Final salary (defined benefit) pensions: These generous pensions which pay out a guaranteed income until you die have been almost entirely phased out unless you work in the public sector. These value employer pension tax relief in a different, more complicated way than the defined contribution pension schemes that prevail in the private sector. Fixing this to work under a flat rate system could either upset the higher earners or the lower earners within the same scheme, depending on how the issue was tackled - which is why some experts predict this could lead to strikes. Simply exempting public sector schemes from flat rate pension tax relief would not go down well with huge swathes of workers either. Money experts explain how pension tax relief works in defined benefit schemes here. See the final section: Will the Chancellor take axe to pension tax relief for higher earners?
STV News
an hour ago
- STV News
Councillor who groomed and sexually abused teenage girl to be sentenced
A Fife councillor will be sentenced on Tuesday after being found guilty of sexual offences against a teenage girl over seven months in 2023. David Graham, who was suspended from the Labour Party two years ago, was convicted last month following a trial at Kirkcaldy Sheriff Court. According to the indictment the offences involved sexual activity with a girl aged between 13 and 15. The offences took place between February 11 and August 21, 2023, and were committed at a variety of locations in the Fife and Edinburgh areas. The 43-year-old was found guilty by a majority of one charge under the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009. Commenting after Graham's conviction, Fife Council leader David Ross said the revelations at the trial had been 'truly shocking'. The Labour councillor went on: 'This is appalling behaviour by anyone, let alone an elected councillor – and the sentence will reflect the seriousness of this case. Our sympathies go out to the young person involved. 'It is impossible to express how badly David Graham has let down his colleagues and the people he was elected to represent.' A Labour Party spokesperson said: 'The party is taking immediate action to exclude David Graham from membership of the Labour Party following his conviction.' Police Scotland detective inspector Graham Watson said: 'Graham is a manipulative individual who groomed and sexually abused his teenage victim. 'He was well-known and in a position of power when the offending took place. 'I would like to thank the female for her assistance in bringing him to justice. 'We remain committed to investigating all reports of sexual crime and would encourage anyone affected to report it. 'Every report is taken seriously and will be fully investigated, no matter how much time has passed, with support from our specially trained officers and partner agencies.' Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
SoftBank invests $2bn in Intel; proposed new UK property tax ‘could cut cost of buying expensive homes'
Update: Date: 2025-08-19T06:46:18.000Z Title: Introduction: SoftBank invests $2bn in Intel; proposed new UK property tax 'could cut cost of buying expensive homes' Content: Good morning, and welcome to our rolling coverage of business, the financial markets and the world economy. Japan's SoftBank has agreed to invest $2bn (£1.48bn) in Intel, the struggling US chip company, while the Trump administration is reportedly considering a 10% stake in the business by converting Chips Act subsidies into equity. That would make Washington Intel's largest shareholder. The Japanese technology investor announced its multi-billion dollar deal, amounting to a 2% stake in Intel, on Tuesday, describing Intel as a 'trusted leader in innovation'. Intel shares fell by 5% while SoftBank shares were down 4%, retreating from all-time highs. Masayoshi Son, SoftBank's chairman and chief executive, said: Semiconductors are the foundation of every industry. For more than 50 years, Intel has been a trusted leader in innovation. This strategic investment reflects our belief that advanced semiconductor manufacturing and supply will further expand in the United States, with Intel playing a critical role. All eyes were on Washington yesterday, where Donald Trump met with Volodymyr Zelenskyy and seven European leaders to discuss a peace deal in Ukraine. According to Trump, Vladimir Putin wants to do face-to-face talks with the Ukrainian president, although Moscow has not confirmed the meeting. (Trump called Putin during his meeting with the Europeans, but some experts are sceptical.) Traders are cautious, with most Asian stock markets slightly lower. Japan's Nikkei fell by 0.4% while Hong Kong's Hang Seng dropped by 0.3%. Here's some reaction to our scoop yesterday that the UK Treasury is considering a new tax on the sale of homes worth more than £500,000 as a step towards a radical overhaul of stamp duty and council tax. David Fell from Hamptons told the Times: Who is better off will come down to how closely the government chooses to follow any recommendations. But I think in response to the general principle, the shift would probably cut the cost of buying the most expensive homes, but add to the annual cost of ownership, particularly given the artificially low levels of council tax charged by many places that have the most expensive house prices. The impact of a change to the system would probably depend on the level at which the rates were set, and the length of time it takes for the higher ownership charges to outweigh existing stamp duty and council tax bills. The Agenda 1.30pm BST: Canada inflation for July 1.30pm BST: US Housing starts for July
