Kendall tells MPs she'll press ahead with welfare cuts, despite fierce opposition from backbenchers
Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall has told concerned MPs she'll press ahead with planned welfare cuts, despite fierce opposition from many backbenchers.
Responding to a letter from the Work and Pensions Committee urging her to delay the changes, Kendall wrote "we will not avoid or delay the decisive action needed to transform the system".
MPs on the committee had said there needs to be a pause in implementing the reforms while the government carry out a full impact assessment.
But Kendall insisted there will be no delay, because the bill needs final sign off from Parliament by November this year for the changes to be in effect from 2026.
The government plans to make it harder for disabled people to claim Personal Independence Payments (Pip), and to freeze universal credit incapacity benefits for existing claimants, while cutting them by 50% for new claimants.
The reforms are expected to save £5bn from the ballooning welfare budget, but critics warn the move will push vulnerable people into poverty.
ITV News revealed the details of the letter from the Work and Pensions Committee last month.
The cross-party group of MPs, led by Labour MP Debbie Abrahams, said that alongside a comprehensive impact assessment, disabled people must also be consulted before MPs are asked to vote on the reforms.
After hearing from a series of experts, the group warned of possible unintended consequences.
The letter warned: "The legislative changes might not incentivise work as the government hopes, but rather push people deeper into poverty, worsen health, especially in more deprived areas, and move people further away from the labour market."
Abrahams told ITV News that she understood the financial strain facing the government, and the need to reform welfare to support disabled people into work.
But she also cited expert evidence that cutting benefits could increase the risk of suicides.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves also confirmed on Thursday that the government is "not going to be changing" the planned cuts, despite speculation they could be softened.
The U-turn on winter fuel and reports the government could be poised to lift the two-child benefit sparked hope from backbenchers the government could be more likely to change course on welfare.
But in an interview on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme, Reeves insisted: "No, we're not going to be changing that. It is important that we reform the way the welfare state works, so that there is a welfare state there for people.'
But the rebellion among backbench Labour MPs doesn't seem to be abating. "I don't think they're listening to us on welfare reform at all", one MP said.
"The government just aren't taking the size of this rebellion seriously", said another.
"The free school meals and winter fuel allowance announcement and signals on the two child benefit cap are great, but not cutting it when it comes to the welfare changes."
Cat Eccles, Labour MP for Stourbridge said she was "disappointed" by Kendall's response to the letter from Debbie Abrahams, accusing her of a "tunnel-vision approach of rushing forward" to get the plans signed off by parliament by November.
"Many are rightfully concerned that ignoring this will push some of our most vulnerable in society into unnecessary poverty and hardship.
"The response from the Secretary of State appears to ignore this evidence-based advice entirely, focusing rather on a tunnel-vision approach of rushing forward to gain Royal Assent by November this year, so these reforms can be implemented for 2026/27."
She called on Kendall to "reconsider" her response, insisting: "Our welfare system must be a safety net to catch and support those who need it.
"Do not pursue reckless changes that result in the holes of that net widening, with more of our most vulnerable falling through."
There are reports up to 170 Labour MPs have raised concerns about the cuts with the government.
ITV News understands that includes some senior backbenchers who work as Parliamentary Private Secretaries (PPS) to ministers, and even one junior minister.
The legislation needed to bring in the changes is due to be introduced to Parliament on Monday 16th June, with a vote expected in the week of the 30th June.
It's unclear exactly how many MPs will vote against the plans, but it's likely to be the biggest rebellion of Starmer's premiership.
The government's own impact assessment on the reforms estimates that that in 2029-30,
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Leader Live
6 minutes ago
- Leader Live
Pensioners who challenged winter fuel payment decision in court lose case
Peter and Florence Fanning, from Coatbridge, North Lanarkshire, raised the petition in the Court of Session in Edinburgh following the announcement last July from Chancellor Rachel Reeves of plans to cut the allowance. The couple lost their entitlement to the financial assistance and became worried about their ability to afford their heating bills. They brought the legal action with the help of ex-SNP MP Joanna Cherry KC, who represented them as senior counsel. In April 2024, the provision of a winter fuel-related payment was devolved to Scottish ministers who proposed a new benefit – the pension age winter heating payment (PAWHP) – causing an adjustment to the block grant funding provided to the Scottish Government by the UK Government. Scottish ministers proposed the payment would be universal, and not means-tested. After Labour swept to power at Westminster in July 2024, Ms Reeves announced the WFP would no longer be available to those not in receipt of pension credit or other means-tested benefits, resulting in a reduction to the block grant estimated to be around £160 million. The court heard Scottish ministers considered they had no option but to replicate the decision of the UK Government with regards to the PAWHP. The Fannings, who received the WFP in 2023 but were not eligible for PAWHP in 2024, challenged both decisions, claiming neither government had considered the Equality Act 2010 and had both 'failed to consult' with pensioners. They sought to quash the decisions of both governments, and sought a finding they both acted in a way which was 'irrational and unreasonable'. The Fannings also sought a finding that both decisions were unlawful under the Human Rights Act 1998. However, Judge Lady Hood rejected all six requests. In a U-turn earlier this week, the UK Government announced the vast majority of pensioners in England and Wales will again receive the winter fuel payment this winter, and the Scottish Government said it is 'working through the options' in the wake of that decision. In her decision, published on Friday, Lady Hood found neither government had failed to exercise their duties under the Equality Act 2010, and neither government was under a duty to consult. She also held the decisions were neither 'irrational nor unreasonable' and did not breach the Human Rights Act 1998, and she ruled they were 'in pursuit of a legitimate aim'. In a written judgment, Lady Hood said: 'In this case, the decision which each respondent faced as to whether the payment of WFP, or PAWHP, should be made on a universal or means-tested basis fell within the field of socioeconomic policy. 'It was a policy decision involving questions of the allocation of resources, and practical and political assessments that this court would not be well-placed to judge. 'That the policy decisions could result in hardship for those falling on one side of a brightline rule is not enough to render it irrational in the legal sense.' Lady Hood said: 'The petitioners asserted that elderly people suffering from disabilities rendering them vulnerable to cold temperatures constituted a group in our society which has suffered considerable discrimination in the past… However mere assertion is not enough to bring a group within that definition, and the petitioners did not sufficiently demonstrate to the court that this cohort of the population did do so.' She added that 'in the absence of any evidence of past widespread discrimination against elderly persons by the government having been put before the court by the petitioners, the categorisation could not be applied to elderly people as a cohort'. The petition was refused on all grounds. Lady Hood wrote: 'In respect of each of the respondents, the rules as to eligibility for payments of WFP and PAWHP were set out in terms of the legislation implementing the respective respondents' policy decisions. 'In these circumstances, and standing the decision reached above on the public sector equality duty and the issue of consultation, the schemes are in accordance with law. 'They are in pursuit of a legitimate aim.' Lady Hood's judgment concluded: 'I shall therefore repel the petitioners' first to eighth pleas‑in‑law, and refuse the petition.' The Govan Law Centre, which acted for the couple, said the pensioners should be 'commended for their courage in pursuing this litigation'. A spokesperson added: 'While our clients have lost their case, we have no doubt that this has been influential in securing the partial U-turn made by the Scottish Government last November and the major policy U-turn confirmed by the UK Government earlier this week. 'We hope the Scottish Government will now restore the pension age winter heating payment in full for people such as our clients. 'Even had the petitioners won, the most the court could have done would have been to order each government to go back to the drawing board to reconsider the cuts. The fact they have already reconsidered vindicates our clients' decision to bring litigation.'
Leader Live
7 minutes ago
- Leader Live
Defections are ‘good thing', claims Badenoch
Nigel Farage's Reform – which claimed to have 11,000 members north of the border – has taken a steady stream of councillors from the Tories in Scotland in recent months, most recently on Thursday when Aberdeenshire representative Lauren Knight made the move. The shift comes after the party surged in the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse Holyrood by-election, rising to third and coming close to the SNP in the seat, won by Labour's Davy Russell. But despite the perceived threat to the Tories from Reform, Ms Badenoch said she did not have an issue with people leaving for the party. 'Reform are not a centre-right party,' she told journalists at the Scottish Tory conference. 'This is a party that's talking about nationalising oil and gas. 'This is a party that wants to increase benefits at a time when the benefits bill is so high. 'So if Nigel Farage is taking out of the Conservative Party the people who are not Conservatives, then I'm quite fine with that. 'One of the things that we ned to do is make sure that people see an authentic Conservative Party, we don't want people who want nationalisation and more benefits.' She later added: 'If offering a very, very clear kind of conservatism is now sending out the people from our party who don't believe in our values in the long run, that's a good thing. 'There is no point in us just accumulating lots of people who don't believe in conservatism just so we can win, then when we get into government, we can't govern. 'That's what we saw happen before, that's what we're seeing with Labour, they don't have a plan. 'They just had a plan to win elections and now they're going round and round in circles. 'We want to have people who believe in our agenda, not just people who want to be politicians.' The Tory leader also hit out at former Tory MSP Jamie Greene – who defected to the Lib Dems earlier this year, attacking his support for the Scottish Government's controversial – and ultimately blocked – gender reforms. 'How anyone could have supported what was obviously a mad piece of legislation and think themselves a Conservative is beyond me,' she said. Former party leader Jackson Carlaw and current health spokesman Dr Sandesh Gulhane both also backed the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill. Speaking as she made her first appearance at the Scottish Tory conference since taking over as leader, Ms Badenoch declared Nigel Farage a 'threat to the union'. 'If he wants the SNP to have another five years, then that is a threat to the union,' she said. She pointed to an interview Mr Farage gave to the Times earlier this year where he suggested his party could side with the SNP ahead of Labour, but he added that Scotland was 'not going to leave the United Kingdom, it's not going to happen in a month of Sundays'. In her speech, the Tory leader said: 'In April this year, Nigel Farage said he would be fine with the SNP winning another five years in power. 'He's fine with another five years of higher bills, longer waiting lists, declining school standards, gender madness, and ultimately, independence.' Addressing members of the party, she said 'Scottish people deserve better' than another five years of the SNP – the party currently leading in the polls ahead of next year's election – while also announcing her party would scrap the windfall tax on oil and gas if it wins back power at the next UK-wide vote. While the SNP may be in the lead, some polls suggest Reform could beat Labour to second place and push the Tories to fourth. A pleasure welcoming @KemiBadenoch to Scottish Tory conference. Together, we're fighting for a common-sense future for our country 🇬🇧🏴#SCC25 — Russell Findlay MSP (@RussellFindlay1) June 13, 2025 'In April this year, Nigel Farage said he would be fine with the SNP winning another five years in power,' she said in her speech. 'He's fine with another five years of higher bills, longer waiting lists, declining school standards, gender madness, and ultimately, independence.' Addressing her first Scottish conference since taking on the top job, Ms Badenoch claimed: 'Reform will vote to let the SNP in, Conservatives will only ever vote to get the nationalists out.' Part of her 'positive vision of the future' includes 'standing up' for the North Sea oil and gas industry, with Mrs Badenoch claiming that by increasing the energy profits levy – also known as the windfall tax – the Tories had introduced, Labour is 'killing the oil and gas industry'. Speaking about the levy, she said: 'Frankly if it is allowed to remain in place until 2030, as is Labour's current plan, there will be no industry left to tax. 'Thousands will have been made unemployed and all the while we import more gas from overseas – from the very same basin in which we are banned from drilling.' She called on the UK Government to remove the energy profits levy, as she added that the Tories would also 'scrap the ban on new licences' for oil and gas developments that has been imposed since Labour came to power. 'We will champion our own industry,' Mrs Badenoch told supporters. 'We will let this great British, great Scottish industry thrive, grow and create jobs – ensuring our energy security for generations to come and making Scotland richer in the process.'
North Wales Chronicle
19 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Pensioners who challenged winter fuel payment decision in court lose case
Peter and Florence Fanning, from Coatbridge, North Lanarkshire, raised the petition in the Court of Session in Edinburgh following the announcement last July from Chancellor Rachel Reeves of plans to cut the allowance. The couple lost their entitlement to the financial assistance and became worried about their ability to afford their heating bills. They brought the legal action with the help of ex-SNP MP Joanna Cherry KC, who represented them as senior counsel. In April 2024, the provision of a winter fuel-related payment was devolved to Scottish ministers who proposed a new benefit – the pension age winter heating payment (PAWHP) – causing an adjustment to the block grant funding provided to the Scottish Government by the UK Government. Scottish ministers proposed the payment would be universal, and not means-tested. After Labour swept to power at Westminster in July 2024, Ms Reeves announced the WFP would no longer be available to those not in receipt of pension credit or other means-tested benefits, resulting in a reduction to the block grant estimated to be around £160 million. The court heard Scottish ministers considered they had no option but to replicate the decision of the UK Government with regards to the PAWHP. The Fannings, who received the WFP in 2023 but were not eligible for PAWHP in 2024, challenged both decisions, claiming neither government had considered the Equality Act 2010 and had both 'failed to consult' with pensioners. They sought to quash the decisions of both governments, and sought a finding they both acted in a way which was 'irrational and unreasonable'. The Fannings also sought a finding that both decisions were unlawful under the Human Rights Act 1998. However, Judge Lady Hood rejected all six requests. In a U-turn earlier this week, the UK Government announced the vast majority of pensioners in England and Wales will again receive the winter fuel payment this winter, and the Scottish Government said it is 'working through the options' in the wake of that decision. In her decision, published on Friday, Lady Hood found neither government had failed to exercise their duties under the Equality Act 2010, and neither government was under a duty to consult. She also held the decisions were neither 'irrational nor unreasonable' and did not breach the Human Rights Act 1998, and she ruled they were 'in pursuit of a legitimate aim'. In a written judgment, Lady Hood said: 'In this case, the decision which each respondent faced as to whether the payment of WFP, or PAWHP, should be made on a universal or means-tested basis fell within the field of socioeconomic policy. 'It was a policy decision involving questions of the allocation of resources, and practical and political assessments that this court would not be well-placed to judge. 'That the policy decisions could result in hardship for those falling on one side of a brightline rule is not enough to render it irrational in the legal sense.' Lady Hood said: 'The petitioners asserted that elderly people suffering from disabilities rendering them vulnerable to cold temperatures constituted a group in our society which has suffered considerable discrimination in the past… However mere assertion is not enough to bring a group within that definition, and the petitioners did not sufficiently demonstrate to the court that this cohort of the population did do so.' She added that 'in the absence of any evidence of past widespread discrimination against elderly persons by the government having been put before the court by the petitioners, the categorisation could not be applied to elderly people as a cohort'. The petition was refused on all grounds. Lady Hood wrote: 'In respect of each of the respondents, the rules as to eligibility for payments of WFP and PAWHP were set out in terms of the legislation implementing the respective respondents' policy decisions. 'In these circumstances, and standing the decision reached above on the public sector equality duty and the issue of consultation, the schemes are in accordance with law. 'They are in pursuit of a legitimate aim.' Lady Hood's judgment concluded: 'I shall therefore repel the petitioners' first to eighth pleas‑in‑law, and refuse the petition.' The Govan Law Centre, which acted for the couple, said the pensioners should be 'commended for their courage in pursuing this litigation'. A spokesperson added: 'While our clients have lost their case, we have no doubt that this has been influential in securing the partial U-turn made by the Scottish Government last November and the major policy U-turn confirmed by the UK Government earlier this week. 'We hope the Scottish Government will now restore the pension age winter heating payment in full for people such as our clients. 'Even had the petitioners won, the most the court could have done would have been to order each government to go back to the drawing board to reconsider the cuts. The fact they have already reconsidered vindicates our clients' decision to bring litigation.'
