Discussing possible punishments for welfare rebels ‘not constructive'
Ministers are set to lay out the concessions they will make on Monday, in the hope that the climbdown will be enough to secure backbench votes this week.
Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall announced last week that changes to the personal independence payment will only apply to new claimants from November 2026, and ministers also rowed back on plans to cut the health-related element of Universal Credit after 126 Labour MPs signed an amendment that would have effectively killed the Government's Bill.
Although the changes are expected to get some of those rebels on board, there are still threats of revolt.
Baroness Jacqui Smith – who served as a chief whip under Sir Tony Blair – was asked on Sky News what the consequences should be for Labour MPs who vote against the Government on the matter.
She said: 'I don't think talking about punishments, even as a former chief whip, is the constructive way forward here.'
Baroness Smith later added: 'It's always the case in legislation that you introduce the Bill, you have a second reading on the principles, and then you think about the detail as you take that through all of its stages in Parliament. I'm sure that that will continue to happen.'
Asked on Times Radio whether rebels will have the whip removed, education minister Baroness Smith said that it is important to 'keep talking' to MPs.
The legislation is due to be voted on on Tuesday at its second reading, and the Government will amend the Bill at the Commons committee stage to put the changes in place.
The original plans restricted eligibility for the personal independence payment (Pip) and cut the health-related element of universal credit.
"I draw on the substantial evidence, the voices of those impacted and my conscience which determines that I cannot cross by on the other side and have no choice but to vote against the UC & PIP Bill."My full statement in comments👇#York #PIP #Welfare pic.twitter.com/x6BLdt4WNh
— 💙Rachael Maskell MP (@RachaelMaskell) June 29, 2025
The changes to Pip will now only apply to new claims from November 2026.
Plans to cut the health-related element of universal credit have also been altered, with all existing recipients to have their incomes protected in real terms.
Details of a review of the Pip assessment, to be led by disabilities minister Sir Stephen Timms and 'co-produced' with disabled people, will also be published.
The original amendment signed by 120-plus backbenchers is expected to be withdrawn after some MPs were appeased by last week's announcement. However, a new one is expected to be tabled by rebels on Monday.
Labour MP Rachael Maskell said she would sign the new amendment aiming to stop the Bill, saying it was not clear how the promised concessions would be brought in.
'There's no confidence … we're being asked to sign a blank cheque even with these changes,' she told the PA news agency.
Vicky Foxcroft, who quit as a Labour whip over the reforms, told The Guardian there were 'areas where I still think there's need for movement' and that she had not decided how to vote.
Olivia Blake, a Labour MP with a disclosed disability, told the paper the changes could create 'an unethical two-tier system that treats two people with the exact same injury or illness differently'.
Clive Efford, the MP for Eltham and Chislehurst, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that he will still not support the Government's measures.
'There are choices that the Government can make here; there are other places it can go to identify the resources. What we want to see, and fully support, is measures the Government is putting in the palace to assist people to move into work, the right to try, we support, but we can't guarantee the savings,' he said.
'When you're asking for £3.5 billion regardless of the impact of those changes, that can only adversely affect people who are in the benefit system.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
9 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Fury at 'unacceptable' waste as Parliament brings in new £150k-a-year 'commercial' boss after Lords shambles over £10m gates that don't work
Fresh fury has been aimed at Parliament's 'unacceptable and unnecessary' spending following the hiring of a new top boss on a bumper salary. The role of 'chief commercial officer' - based at the Palace of Westminster - has been advertised with a salary of around £150,000. But it has been claimed the total cost of the hire will be nearer £1million over the next four years, at a time when other budgets are being squeezed. This is once pension contributions and other costs, such as a headhunting fee, are factored in. Lord Hayward, the Tory peer, also used a letter to Parliament's management to hit out at 'obfuscation' as to whether it is an 'additional role'. The appointment comes amid plans to establish a joint commercial department between the House of Commons and House of Lords. 'In the private sector merging departments normally results in a reduction of staff but it would appear not in Parliamentary management terms,' Lord Hayward wrote. The former MP also highlighted other examples of eye-watering spending, including £9.6million on a new front door that doesn't open properly. Fresh fury has been aimed at Parliament's 'unacceptable and unnecessary' spending following the hiring of a new top boss on a bumper salary. Lord Hayward added: 'At a time when all aspects of government and individuals are having to cut expenditure severely... management of the parliamentary estate seem willing to spend money on costs which any ordinary person would find unacceptable and unnecessary.' There is a new front door at the main entrance to the House of Lords, known as the Peers' Entrance, following the approval of an upgrade in March 2022. It has since sparked anger after its £9.6million cost was revealed - a nearly 60 per cent increase from the original estimate of £6.1 million. Peers said earlier this month it is still not fully accessible for disabled peers and requires a permanent member of staff on site 'to press the button to open the door'. In his letter, Lord Hayward said the 'ongoing cost of security at Peers' Entrance appears to be... more than £2,500 per week'. 'Why is the taxpayer even covering for this?,' he added. Lord Hayward also criticised the ongoing cost of employing 'traffic marshals' on the parliamentary estate, when he claimed there were 'much cheaper alternatives'. 'The most public example of this ongoing cost which management appears willing to accept is the marshal at carriage gates,' he wrote. 'They have no role. The police and security control the vehicles and public going in and out of the estate. 'This individual position doing nothing costs at minimum £66,000 per annum. 'Can I please ask when parliamentary management is intending to acknowledge that it is spending unwarranted sums while individuals, the nation and government are short of money?' A House of Lords spokesperson said: 'Providing services that are value for public money is a key priority for the House of Lords Administration, as is ensuring effective systems of governance and financial management are in place to support this. 'Our approach is subject to rigorous oversight by the House Finance and Audit and Risk Assurance Committees and is set out transparently in our annual report and accounts.'
The Independent
15 minutes ago
- The Independent
The UK faces a deadly threat. It needs a new home guard
The government has set out what the UK needs to protect itself from direct attacks in an increasingly hostile and dangerous world. In short, the assessment is we need to be ready to go to war – and fast. State powers – Russia today, maybe China tomorrow – have the capability to cause major damage to the UK, its economy and way of life, and we currently have no viable plans or forces to protect the country. The Strategic Defence Review (SDR) recognised the threats, but did not address crucial facts, like that if faced with drone attacks of the type that Ukraine suffers almost nightly, the UK has absolutely no means of stopping them. The National Security Strategy that followed the review last week also talked about the need to bolster what it calls home defence. 'The UK is directly threatened by hostile activities including assassination, intimidation, espionage, sabotage, cyber attacks and other forms of democratic interference,' it noted. 'Meanwhile, critical national infrastructure – including undersea cables, energy pipelines, transportation and logistics hubs – will continue to be a target.' But neither of the reviews addressed, directly, the fact that the army cannot be deploying divisions into Europe while also defending the UK homeland – the two missions are contradictory. And neither acknowledged that the country is naked against any missile attack, so needs to actually buy something quickly. The police in the UK are not large enough or trained to undertake home defence outside of a very small range of missions. Protecting critical national infrastructure requires troops on the ground, patrolling, to provide physical protection as well as deterrence. In the Cold War, there were more than 35,000 Territorial Army troops tasked with home defence, backed up by regular army units, as well as Royal Navy and RAF units. In 1982, to increase numbers in the face of a growing Soviet threat, the Home Service Force was established, recruiting former Service personnel 'too old' to be in the TA, but still with decades of experience. I know of one HSF company in East Anglia that had a corporal who had served as a captain in the Korean War, where he had won the Military Cross – this was not uncommon. Priceless experience and knowledge, despite possibly creaky joints. Overall, in the 1980s, more than 60,000 Service personnel were tasked with defending the UK, and the US Air Force added thousands more to this mix. To put this into some perspective, the total strength, today, of the UK police forces is 170,000. So, military home defence forces would need to be at least a third of the size of the police to begin to be effective. And one has to recall that compared to the days of the Cold War, the number of vital infrastructure sites that need to be defended has grown – the internet and 5G didn't exist in the 1980s. Although the National Security Strategy suggests that the Army Reserve (the old TA) could be the centre of home defence, it is worth noting that in the late-1980s, the TA was 73,000 – today it is just over 20,000, a shadow of its former self. Elsewhere in Europe, home defence is better provisioned. In France and Italy, the Gendarmerie is over 100,000-strong, and the Carabinieri is around 110,000. Both have a range of automatic weapons, as well as some light armoured vehicles and many helicopters. Home defence in the Nordic and Baltic States is not just an adjunct to the 'real' military – it is the core of their defence policies. Finland has tested plans to mobilise up to 1 million troops, most for home defence, in time of war, and the aim is that this would be achieved in a week. The risks to the UK homeland and its infrastructure – but there is no real appetite to take the measures required to get close to protecting these Sweden doubled its home defence/resilience budget this year to £6bn by 2028 (aspects of military home defence are in the core defence budget, which has been rising as well) – the equivalent spend in the UK would be £15bn this financial year, and £30bn in 2028. What has hampered adult discussion of UK home defence is that as soon as anyone raises the idea, the first response is 'Dads' Army', with accompanying sniggering. But the Home Service Force was actually a success in the 1980s, getting thousands to come back into uniform, bringing their skills to the mix, in a very short number of months. The HSF didn't have to be as fit as Regulars and didn't have to have the full range of skills – this should be a model for the future, much as it is in the Nordic/Baltic States. The risks to the UK homeland and its infrastructure, bridges and internet, are accepted as real – but there is no real appetite to take the measures required to get close to protecting these. An anti-missile system to defend just part of the UK would be £10-15bn up-front. To get an Israeli-style anti-missile system would cost over £30bn. A Home Defence Force of, say, 30,000, would cost close to £3bn in equipment, pay, infrastructure, and training every year – a fraction of what the Nordics spend on this. The heavyweight boxer, Mike Tyson, famously said: 'Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth'. The 'punch in the mouth' for the UK, in the case of an attack on the homeland, would be the blacking out of lights, bringing down the internet, and food not getting to the supermarkets. It could also be a ballistic missile attack, causing levels of casualties not seen since the Second World War. Unthinkable? Look to Kyiv, Kherson – this is what 'normal life' is like there. Home Defence is not Dad's Army, it is about enhancing the protection of the UK's infrastructure and the lives of the inhabitants. But it comes with a cost, and a need for a portion of the UK's population to think very differently. Tough choices needed? Yes. Leadership required? Yes. Money essential? Yes. Getting these three through in the current climate will be very hard – but failure to do so leaves us all vulnerable.
The National
21 minutes ago
- The National
Changes to UK disability cuts will cost billions
Liz Kendall told MPs on Monday that the UK Government would be putting forward a number of changes to its welfare reform bill following a backbench rebellion ahead of a second vote in the Commons. Kendall pointed to 'real concerns' that had been raised regarding the changes and insisted that ministers were 'making positive changes' after over 120 MPs forced ministers into a partial U-turn. MPs are set to vote on the legislation on Tuesday, with 50 Labour backbenchers expected to vote against the Government. Speaking to MPs, Kendall said the Government is 'putting an additional £300 million into employment support for sick and disabled people'. READ MORE: Labour MPs call out Keir Starmer's 'rushed' disability cuts Kendall said 'We will be delivering a total of £600 million for support next year, £800 million the year after, and £1 bn in 2028/29, increasing our total spending on employment support for sick and disabled people to £3.8bn over this Parliament, because disabled people who can work shouldn't wait to have the same rights and chances to work as everybody else. 'And the measures we are announcing today will cost around £2.5bn in 2029/30.' She said 'the overall savings and costings' of the reform package 'will be certified by the OBR (Office for Budget Responsibility) in the normal way'. The Work and Pensions Secretary said that the welfare reforms will now only apply the four-point requirement for Personal Independent Payments (PIP) will only apply to those applying from November 2026, so no existing claimants will lose the benefit. 'Now, some people have said they're concerned it will create a two-tier system, but I would say to the House, including members opposite that our benefits system often protects existing claimants from new rates or new rules, because lives have been built around that support, and it's often very hard for people to adjust,' Kendall said. Kendall also told MPs that the new proposals will mean no existing claimants of the Universal Credit standard allowance and health top-up 'are put into poverty as a result of the changes' in the welfare Bill. (Image: House of Commons) It comes as the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) own modelling said that 150,000 people will be pushed into poverty by 2030 as a result of the UK Government's welfare cuts. A review of PIP will also be 'co-produced' with disabled people, Kendall said, adding that the Government had published the terms of reference for the review. 'The review will look at the role of the Pip assessment, including activities, descriptors, and the associated points, to ensure these properly capture the impact of long-term health conditions and disability in the modern world,' she said. 'And it will be co-produced with disabled people, their organisations, clinicians, other experts, and MPs, before reporting to the Secretary of State by autumn next year, and implemented as soon as possible thereafter.' Shadow work and pensions secretary Helen Whately said the changes showed a Government in 'chaos' and attempts to quash a rebellion led to 'un-funded U-turns costing billions and welfare plans that are not worth the paper that they are written on' READ MORE: Social Security Scotland is 'shining example of what independence can do' 'Their latest idea is a two-tier welfare system to trap people in a lifetime on benefits and deny them the dignity of work while leaving the taxpayer to pick up the ever-growing bill,' the Tory MP said. Whately said the increasing welfare budget was too high, as she said it will reach £100 billion by 2031. SNP MP Kirsty Blackman pressed Kendall on why the Labour party did not put the welfare cuts in their manifesto. 'Is it perhaps because she realised how deeply unpopular and wrong these changes would be?' Blackman asked. Kendall replied: 'I don't expect her to have read every line of our manifesto, but reforming the benefits system was in our manifesto, and so too is our commitment to tackling child poverty.' Earlier, Scottish Labour MP Johanna Baxter, Paisley and Renfrewshire South, asked Kendall what discussions she had had with the Scottish Government about the impact on Scotland. The Work and Pension Secretary said she hopes 'that the SNP matches our ambition to get more people into work'. Only one Scottish Labour MP, Brian Leishman, Alloa and Grangemouth, has publicly said he will vote against the welfare reforms. It has been widely reported that 50 Labour MPs are set to rebel during the vote on Tuesday.
