Welfare reforms will lead to ‘appalling poverty'
Labour MP Andy McDonald asked for further evidence on how many people will lose out on Personal Independence Payments (Pip) as a result of the welfare reform Bill.
In the Commons, Labour's Richard Burgon also claimed anyone supporting the reforms is voting to take away benefits from disabled people who need help 'to cut up their food, wash themselves and go to the toilet'.
Work and pensions minister Sir Stephen Timms said the reforms will 'open up opportunities for people who have been denied opportunities for far, far too long'.
It comes after Labour's Vicky Foxcroft resigned as a Government whip over the proposed cuts last week.
The Government has previously said the reforms could save up to £5 billion a year.
The Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill will be debated on July 1, when it receives its second reading in the Commons.
Speaking on Monday, Mr Burgon, Leeds East MP, said: 'Isn't the simple and sad truth that any MP who votes for this upcoming welfare Bill is voting to take Pip from disabled people who need assistance to cut up their food, wash themselves and go to the toilet?'
Sir Stephen replied: 'No. What people will be voting for is reforms to open up opportunities for people who have been denied opportunities for far, far too long. We're putting that right.'
Mr McDonald, MP for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East, said: 'Ministers have highlighted the scale of Pip recipients expected to lose payments make up one in 10 of the total Pip caseload, suggesting the impact of the cuts will be limited, but that's still 370,000 current recipients expected to lose on average, £4,500.
'But these numbers rest on a set of assumptions that the OBR has described as highly uncertain. DWP data shows there are 1.3 million people currently receiving Pip daily living payments who would not meet the new criteria.
'So before MPs are asked to vote on imposing such appalling poverty, will the DWP or the OBR provide further evidence underpinning these claims?'
Sir Stephen replied: 'Well, the OBR has published its assessment. (Mr McDonald) is absolutely right, their assessment is that one in 10 of those who are receiving Pip in November next year will have lost it by 2029/30.'
He added: 'Following that, we will be able to introduce the biggest investment there has ever been in employment support for people out of work on health and disability grounds, because we don't want any longer to track people on low income for years and years and years, we want people to be able to enter work and fulfil their ambitions, and that's what the investment will allow.'
Pip is a benefit aimed at helping with extra living costs if someone has a long-term physical or mental health condition or disability and difficulty doing certain everyday tasks or getting around because of their condition.
Data for Pip claimants begins in January 2019, when the number stood at 2.05 million.
An impact assessment published alongside the Bill confirmed previously published estimates that changes to Pip entitlement rules could see about 800,000 people lose out, with an average loss of £4,500 per year.
Shadow work and pensions secretary Helen Whately said the reforms will get 'a grand total of zero people into work, according to their own impact assessments'.
Liberal Democrat MP Helen Maguire said cuts to Pip could make it harder for people to live independently, thus negating the point of the benefit.
The Epsom and Ewell MP said one of her constituents feels that Pip is treated as a 'pity payment rather than a benefit designed to offset the extra costs of disability'.
She added: 'Does the minister agree that cutting Pip payments simply pushes more disabled people further from living independently and also from employment?'
Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall said reforms were needed to preserve the system in the long term.
She said: 'I do not recognise the attitude that she described there. Quite frankly we feel precisely the opposite.
'This is a vital benefit that makes a crucial contribution towards the extra costs of living with a disability.
'That is why we want to reform it, to protect it for generations to come because we do not think it's sustainable to have a doubling of the number of people on Pip over this decade from two to more than 4.3 million.'
Elsewhere in work and pensions questions, Ms Kendall said the child poverty task force will look at 'all the levers that we need' to tackle the issue, when pressed on the Government's plans for the two-child benefit cap.
Tracy Gilbert, Labour MP for Edinburgh North and Leith, said: 'I absolutely agree… with a number of charities that removing the cap alone is not a silver bullet to tackle child poverty, but it will make a difference.
'Can (Ms Kendall) confirm if the tackling child poverty task force is considering the removal of a two-child cap?'
Ms Kendall replied: 'I can absolutely confirm that the child poverty strategy will be looking at all the levers that we need to tackle this really important issue, including in terms of social security.
'She is impatient for change for her constituents, as am I. We have already put in place a fair repayment rate for universal credit, we are increasing the standard allowance for the first time in universal credit, for the first time in its history, and rolling out free school meals.
'But I will, of course, take her representations forward and make sure they're heard by the task force.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
11 minutes ago
- Spectator
Brits don't want digital ID cards
The vexed issue of compulsory ID is, once again, on the cards. 'BritCard' is being billed as a 'progressive digital identity for Britain' by Labour Together, the think tank that put forward the scheme earlier this month. The digital ID card has been endorsed by dozens of Labour MPs, and No. 10 is said to be interested in the scheme, which is being touted as a way to crack down on illegal migration, rogue landlords and exploitative work. But concerns about privacy appear to have gone out the window. Tony Blair has been at the digital ID game a long time Perhaps it is no surprise that Keir Starmer's government appears to be warming to a rollout of digital ID cards. Tony Blair has been at the digital ID game a long time. He's argued it's necessary for public health, to save taxpayers' money and to control migration. According to Blair, 'digital ID is the disruption the UK desperately needs'. On the face of it, all this presents a puzzle. Britain's lack of appetite for compulsory ID is so marked that you could almost consider it a national characteristic, like a predilection for queuing or tea. Hence the pronouncement by Boris Johnson in 2004 that he would 'take that (ID) card out of my wallet and physically eat it in the presence of whatever emanation of the state has demanded that I produce it'. Boris is not alone in being so vehemently anti-ID cards. So why does the spectre of digital ID keep reappearing? Perhaps the answer lies with an informal Labour establishment working behind, or alongside, the government. Labour Together was set up in 2015 by a group of MPs – including Steve Reed, the now-Environment Minister – who wanted to get the party back into power. The BritCard report's lead author Kirsty Innes' previous job was at the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change. In 2021, she wrote a report making the case for vaccine passports. It looks as if the reason digital ID won't go away is that, far from there being a groundswell of public demand for it, this half-hidden group really, really wants it. That might explain another puzzling thing: the extraordinarily poor quality of the public discourse about the subject. Take Labour Together's opening gambit in the report's foreword by MPs Jake Richards and Adam Jogee: 'This is your country. You have a right to be here. This will make your life easier. It is at the heart of the social contract'. Such disjointed statements belong more to a speech by a propagandist than a serious policy document. A vague appeal to nationalist sentiments is followed by the promise of 'convenience' which seems to accompany so much of the sales talk around the expansion of the digital state. The claim that digital ID somehow fulfils the social contract – the democratic concept which makes political authority conditional on respect for fundamental rights – is baffling. Baffling until you read further and discover the link is an attempt to convince the public that digital ID might be the solution to tackling illegal immigration. In a poll which forms the basis for the main argument, respondents were asked to what extent they would support digital ID if used by employers, landlords and public service providers to check a person's legal status. Some 80 per cent replied they would support such checks. And so Labour Together concluded that digital ID would be 'immensely popular'. But when asked about the 'most significant benefits' of digital ID, only 29 per cent thought it might deter illegal immigrants from coming to the UK or accessing public services. Meanwhile, 40 per cent feared that digital ID could be misused by government; and 23 per cent thought it could increase the black economy. The disparity illustrates something well known in the polling world: question is all. Frame something a particular way and you'll get one result; frame it another and you'll get something quite different. Polls have become tools of political persuasion. Too often, those commissioning them appear to have decided what outcome they want. As a result, they can be used to create the impression there's public support for something. That feeds into a lazy 'we might as well – everyone else is doing it' kind of thinking, a line children often use on their parents. Polly Toynbee, writing in the Guardian, uses it in her comment piece on the Labour Together proposal. We might as well agree to digital ID, she suggests, because privacy is already lost: 'Some will protest at the apparent loss of a romantic freedom, the right to vanish and start life anew, the call of the open road. But that's a fairytale, a fantasy of a bygone era. Everyone knows everything already'. Algorithms throw up personalised adverts, ergo, she concludes, 'better to control everything from one government-run base'. This kind of unthinking deflection makes civil liberty campaigners put their heads in their hands. Privacy became a basic right in modern democracies for a reason: why are policy people proposing to casually abandon a core principle? And why are they disregarding very real concerns about putting huge amounts of personal information into a leaky centralised system? Writing in the Daily Telegraph, Andrew Orlowski points out that One Login, which links our personal identification documents to other government bodies and third parties, has a terrible track record on data security. 'An insecure system has serious consequences,' he says. 'It not only puts individuals at risk of identity theft and impersonation, but also makes defrauding the government much easier…An ID system like One Login is where criminal gangs would go first, and BritCard will forcibly enrol you into it'. Politicians and policy wonks throwing lines out until they finally get a bite from enough of the public won't do. In a functioning democracy, public reasoning has to be of a certain standard if it is to lead to workable policies underpinned by genuine public consent. Shouting 'yay! Disruption!', as Blair appears to, won't cut it – nor will Toynbee's absurd claim that digital ID might help see off Nigel Farage. Radical departures from core values need proper consideration to ensure they serve the common good, not partisan interests. The Home Affairs Committee has launched an inquiry into the potential benefits and risks of digital ID. Let's hope that, as the parliamentary body charged with the scrutiny of domestic affairs, it will take a long hard look at both principles and consequences. The truth is that Brits don't want, or need, ID cards.
Daily Record
16 minutes ago
- Daily Record
Macron labels Trump's Iran air strikes 'illegal', pressures Starmer to take a stand
Emmanuel Macron has hit out at Donald Trump's air strikes on Iran, branding them 'illegal' and deepening the row over whether the US action broke international law French President Emmanuel Macron has strongly condemned the US air strikes on Iran, deeming them "illegal" and fuelling the debate over whether the American action violated international law. Macron stated that while targeting nuclear facilities posing a threat may be seen as "legitimate", the recent strikes by the US and Israel lacked a valid legal basis. Macron's comments came as UK Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer and senior government officials refrained from explicitly endorsing or condemning US President Donald Trump's decision, despite growing pressure for the Prime Minister to take a clear stance. The UK Prime Minister had been cautioned by Attorney General Lord Hermer that participating in a US-led attack could put Britain in violation of international law. Unlike Macron, Starmer has not denounced the bombing, seemingly aligning with the Attorney General's advice. Starmer appeared to appreciate the outcome of the US bombing, stating it would "alleviate" the Iran nuclear issue, prompting accusations of accepting the consequence of the bombing while not endorsing the method itself, reports the Express. The US strikes came after European leaders spent a week publicly and privately urging Trump to avoid unilateral action. Instead, the US conducted a surprise stealth attack on three Iranian nuclear sites, which Trump hailed as a mission that left all targets "obliterated." The decision has sparked serious concerns about the potential influence of Sir Keir and other Western leaders on President Trump's global strategy. This follows the US president's abrupt departure from the G7 summit in Canada last week, with another confrontation anticipated at the upcoming Nato summit in The Hague on Wednesday. Speaking to journalists, Mr Macron remarked: "It may be considered legitimate... to neutralise nuclear facilities in Iran, given our objectives. "However, there is no legal framework, no. And so we must say it as it is: there is no legality to these strikes. "Even though France shares the objective of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, we have consistently believed from the outset that this can only be achieved through diplomatic and technical means. "I say this because I hear many commentators who basically accuse you of inefficiency when you defend the diplomatic route on these issues. But when you are consistent, you can claim to be effective." He continued: "We continue to believe that it is through negotiation and re-engagement that we can achieve our goals." Norway's Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store supported this view, stating: "International law has some clear principles on the use of force. It can be granted by the Security Council or it can be in pure self-defence," thus indicating that the US attacks fall "outside the realm of international law". Mr Macron's stance contrasted sharply with the views expressed by Germany and NATO chief Mark Rutte, who maintained that the preemptive US intervention was lawful. When queried about how the scenario equates to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Mr Rutte asserted: "My biggest fear would be for Iran to own and be able to use and deploy a nuclear weapon to be a stranglehold on Israel, on the whole region and other parts of the world. "This is a consistent position of Nato: Iran should not have its hands on a nuclear weapon," he added. "I would not agree that this is against international law - what the US did." Similarly, Friedrich Merz, the Chancellor of Germany, supported the actions of the US and Israel stating there was "no reason to criticise" their tactics, arguing that it wasn't feasible to leave Iran's nuclear progress unchallenged. Back in Westminster, Ministers echoed Mr Macron's prudent approach. Numerous ministers sidestepped giving a direct endorsement of the bombings as either lawful or substantiated, opting instead to convey relief that Iran's development towards a nuclear armament was hindered. Questioned about the strikes' legal status on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Foreign Secretary David Lammy responded: "Well, we weren't involved, it's for the Americans to discuss those issues."
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Banning a protest group as authoritarian as it gets
It has been a defining catchphrase of his leadership: denigrating protest movements and using it to criticise any form of solidarity or direct action from Labour members and elected representatives – up to and including banning his Cabinet members from joining striking workers on picket lines. It's all part of this right-wing Labour Government's attempts to erode the basic democratic right to protest, whether through its refusal to repeal authoritarian anti-protest and anti-trade union laws brought in by the Conservatives, or their use of these laws – and even anti-terrorism laws – to silence and restrict pro-Palestine voices who are speaking out against our government's complicity in Israel's genocide in Gaza. The latest escalation came yesterday when the Home Secretary set out plans to ban Palestine Action as a proscribed terrorist organisation, after its protests attempting to disrupt the supply chain of the military-industrial complex complicit in genocide. READ MORE: Iran announces it has attacked US forces stationed at air base in Qatar For the Government to use anti-terrorism laws to ban any peaceful protest group which makes life inconvenient for them is as authoritarian as it gets and should scare us all. It may not be a cause you agree with being banned today, but who knows what they'll ban tomorrow? And for this to come from a Labour Government is simply extraordinary. Labour's detestation of protest isn't just morally wrong, it's also deeply foolish. The framing of protest vs power is a false dichotomy – the most radical societal improvements came about due to protest movements. The women's suffrage movement used both peaceful and violent protest methods to fight for their right to vote. Basic employment rights, from the five-day working week to the creation of the minimum wage, came after years of co-ordinated campaigning by the trade union movement. Even the NHS didn't just pop into the government's head without prompting. A number of campaigning organisations including the Socialist Medical Association and the National Union of Students campaigned for a national health service long before it was founded by Aneurin Bevan. (Image: File) It is only because in each of these cases the governments of the day had no choice but to listen to the voices of the people they were elected to represent that we now have rights, freedoms and public services we today take for granted. More recently, we have seen the impact protest movements can have by working alongside political parties to deliver genuine improvement here in Scotland. The Housing Bill making its way through Holyrood contains measures for the implementation of rent controls in the private rented sector, and though the bill is imperfect, we wouldn't even be discussing rent controls let alone being close to implementing them were it not for the tireless efforts of tenants' union Living Rent. It's also true that the bill in its current form wouldn't exist were it not for the Scottish Greens, who were able to amplify the voices of renters across the country by taking the demands of Living Rent and including rent controls as part of the Bute House Agreement. Similarly, free bus travel for under-22s was an issue campaigned for by a number of organisations including student groups and the Scottish Youth Parliament, while the recent commitment for free bus travel for asylum seekers came about after campaigns by the Maryhill Integration Network, the Scottish Refugee Council and others. Both of these campaigns were amplified by the Scottish Greens and won as a result of both on-the-ground protest and campaigns, and political negotiations by elected politicians. Simply put, all of these transformational policies came about because the Greens recognised the need to be both a party of protest and a party of power – whether that is power within government or the power that comes from constructive opposition. Greens uplifted the voices of campaigners and protesters – in many cases with Greens among the ranks of protesters themselves – and helped win genuine, tangible change as a result. In some of these cases, such as free bus travel, the adoption of the policy by the Greens came about as a result of grassroots campaigns by internal groups like the Scottish Young Greens. All of this is to say that any politician – Starmer or anyone else – who denigrates or minimises the role that protest has to play in our politics, either doesn't understand where power lies in a democracy, or they do and they are scared of it. It's no wonder governments in Westminster have sought to attack and minimise the ability to protest – they know it works. The UK Government continues to be complicit in Israel's genocide in Gaza despite it being both morally reprehensible and deeply unpopular among the general public. A YouGov poll last week found that a majority of the UK public opposes Israel's actions in Gaza, with just 15% supporting them. And 65% want the UK to implement the International Criminal Court's arrest warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu should he visit the UK. It makes sense then, for a deeply unpopular Labour Government elected on just 33.7% of the vote to aim to criminalise direct action against its complicity in this genocide by proscribing Palestine Action and cracking down on other forms of protest. They know that if the people of the UK were free to voice what we really think, and act in the moral interest, the Government simply wouldn't stand a chance. Protest is, and always will be, a vital part of our democracy, no matter how much Labour and the Tories try to erode it. It reminds politicians that power in this country belongs to the people – we merely lend it to them at the ballot box. It's the reason for so many of the vital rights we hold today and it'll be the reason for more in the future, not least Scotland's independence. Politicians of all colours would do well to remember this.
