See the full list of 108 Labour MP rebels on UK welfare and Pip cuts
Some 108 MPs' signatures appear on a reasoned amendment spelling out why they cannot support the Labour Government's Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill, which would cut back disability benefit payments by around £5 billion per year.
READ MORE: Cuts to PIP will plunge families further into poverty, research says
If passed – which it could do with support from Westminster's opposition parties – the amendment would block the bill from progressing to its second reading when it returns to the Commons on July 1.
The amendment notes that the UK Government's 'own impact assessment estimates that 250,000 people will be pushed into poverty as a result of [the bill], including 50,000 children".
Of the 108 Labour MPs who have signed the amendment, nine are from Scottish Labour. They are:
Patricia Ferguson
Tracy Gilbert
Scott Arthur
Kirsteen Sullivan
Richard Baker
Euan Stainbank
Lilian Jones
Elaine Stewart
Brian Leishman
Scottish Labour's nominal leader Anas Sarwar has supported the UK Government's plans to cut welfare.
Leishman, the MP for Alloa and Grangemouth, urged his colleagues to oppose the cuts.
He told The Record: "Labour MPs have a choice to make. Do they believe that the most vulnerable people should be looked after, or not? That's what the vote on these welfare reforms ultimately boils down to. This vote will define careers and this Labour Government."
There are 29 Scottish Labour MPs who have not signed the amendment, including those in the more right-wing faction the "Labour Growth Group". These include Blair McDougall, Johanna Baxter, Gordon McKee, Zubir Ahmed, and Melanie Ward.
Labour committee chairs oppose the UK welfare reforms
Ferguson, the MP for Glasgow West, is also chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee at Westminster.
A further nine Labour select committee chairs have also signed the reasoned amendment, underlining the scale of the challenge facing the UK Government. These are:
Tan Dhesi
Helen Hayes
Florence Eshalomi
Ruth Cadbury
Meg Hillier
Ruth Jones
Sarah Owen
Debbie Abrahams
Cat Smith
Other senior Labour MPs to have signed the amendment include former transport secretary Louise Haigh.
The Times reported that although the list does not include current ministers, as many as a dozen are said to be privately opposing the welfare reforms.
All the Labour MPs opposing the UK welfare reforms
Here is a full list of all the MPs to have signed the reasoned amendment against the UK Government's welfare changes:
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
34 minutes ago
- The Independent
Will Keir Starmer lose a fight with his own MPs over welfare cuts?
Some 108 Labour MPs – about a quarter of the parliamentary party – have signed up to an amendment to the government's welfare bill that could effectively stop planned cuts to personal independence payments (PIP). A rebellion on that scale could be enough to eliminate the usual majority, defeat the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill, and humiliate the government. A vote on the crucial second reading of the bill is due next Tuesday, and time is running out for ministers to salvage their policy. What's a 'reasoned amendment'? One that rejects a proposed piece of legislation, listing reasons. Despite the name, it wrecks the passage of a bill completely. Are these rebels just the usual suspects? No. There aren't enough of them on the left these days to cause serious damage to anything, and the fact that so many senior backbenchers, chairs of select committees and the like, plus new, usually loyal, members from the 2024 intake, are in open revolt indicates widespread disquiet. How big? The government might still win a vote on the bill, depending on how the opposition parties behave, and how many Labour rebels actually vote against it on the day (rather than abstain), but it would certainly slash the usual majority. However, any likely loss would be nowhere near the historic Commons defeats on Brexit that Theresa May suffered. Whatever the Commons voting, the resignation of senior ministers, maybe even in the cabinet, in protest, would be an even more significant moment. Why rebel? Politics and policy. The dissidents have been emboldened by the successful campaign to make the government U-turn on the pensioners' winter fuel allowance and, prospectively, removing the two-child cap on child benefit (subject of an unsuccessful revolt last year). Labour MPs are alarmed by the party's poor poll ratings and dismal performance in the local elections and Runcorn by-election, and so fear the rise of Reform UK. In policy terms, or principle, they also doubt the wisdom of the move to restrict PIP. In the words of the amendment, it is: 'Because the majority of the additional employment support funding will not be in place until the end of the decade; because the government's own impact assessment estimates that 250,000 people will be pushed into poverty as a result of these provisions, including 50,000 children.' But doesn't the government have a huge majority? Yes, but that can make it more attractive for an individual MP to rebel – if you think your vote won't matter anyway, or, as in this case, where the rebellion is so popular that the whips can't control it and punish the misbehaviour. You can't realistically take the whip off 108 government backbenchers and committee chairs, which would turn a government with one of the most commanding majorities in history into a minority administration. What are the government's options? It could simply abandon most of the PIP reforms, leaving only the cost-free popular items, such as the 'right to try' a job without having to risk losing benefits or reapply for PIP. That would probably be too big a step, if it can possibly be avoided, given various other U-turns in progress. If they did do this, Rachel Reeves would need to find £5bn, most likely in cuts elsewhere, and lose even more of her authority. Ministers will certainly try and compromise about the reductions in PIP eligibility, and could whittle away the size of the rebellion by delaying the implementation until, say, a successful pilot scheme, by publishing more impact assessments, and by better consultations with people affected. As a last, desperate resort, the government could appeal to the Conservatives to support the bill or at least abstain; Tony Blair had to resort to such tactics over the Iraq war and academy schools. Kemi Badenoch says she doesn't wish to alert Labour to her plans in advance. It's a possibility. What does the public think? It's more divided than on the winter fuel payments, but generally suspicious that restricting PIP isn't about helping people into work but simply saving money – a view shared by many MPs. Why has it come to this? Ministers have lost the argument. Keir Starmer, Reeves and Liz Kendall, the work and pensions secretary, have failed to persuade colleagues it's not mainly about the public finances, but intended to materially improve the lives of vulnerable people in every sense. Kendall says a 'fairer society' is one 'where people who can work get the support they need, and where we protect those who cannot' – but this all started in the context of a fiscal crisis. Pat McFadden, cabinet office minister, also makes the overarching argument that: 'I don't think we can sit back and just watch the number of people and the cost to the country increase year on year, without asking the question: 'Can we do more to help more of those people into work?''. Is this the return of 'chaos and confusion'? That's the danger – you look out of control of events. Labour in recent years made much of the indiscipline and indecision of the Conservatives, but since the general election, that has rebounded somewhat. The missteps and blunders over the last year speak for themselves. Voters tend not to be impressed by governments that can't get their policies implemented, and political parties that are openly divided don't win elections. With so much at stake, there must be a compromise. The question is how messy it will be. It wasn't supposed to be like this.
Powys County Times
an hour ago
- Powys County Times
Question marks over level of funding for Powys schools
A SENIOR councillor says work needs to be done to look into schools' funding needs as Powys council looks to recover from a scathing Estyn inspection report and improve exam results. At a meeting of Powys County Council's Liberal Democrat/Labour Cabinet on Tuesday, June 24, councillors received a received a report on the council's school standards improvement plan. This is partly a response to the scathing Estyn inspection report published in March into the education service. The document includes an integrated business plan (IBP) which explains the steps the council will try and take to improve education in the county over the next five years. The plan had been discussed by council's Learning and Skills scrutiny committee earlier this month and its chairman, Cllr Gwynfor Thomas (Conservative) who presented their views to Cabinet. Cllr Thomas said that the relationship of schools standards and funding needed to be thoroughly researched. Cllr Thomas said: 'I really do think a piece of work needs to be done on whether they have enough resource or are schools running too thin to provide a breadth of curriculum. 'We need to understand that.' Council leader, Cllr Jake Berriman (Liberal Democrat) said that the Cabinet had agreed to 'fully fund' the schools funding formula this year. Cllr Berriman reminded councillors of the need to provide a 'fair distribution' of resources to 'all areas' of the council. Finance portfolio holder Cllr David Thomas (Labour) said that the 'concern that funding is not meeting education needs' is a theme brought up by the committee 'constantly.' Cllr Thomas said: 'At the end of the day it's the responsibility of the funding formula working group. 'They should be working with scrutiny and the schools budget forum to put recommendations forward. 'If the formula is not fit for purpose, I would like to see some recommendations brought forward so it can be amended.' 'It's a bit unfair really to be saying we're not funding the needs of the curriculum as that's not something that is the responsibility of the finance department.' Earlier on, head of schools improvement and learning Anwen Orrells explained that the report compared how Powys schools perform against similar schools across Wales. This is done in 'families' of up to 10 schools. Mrs Orrells said: 'We've provided detailed data of the performance of Powys secondary and all age schools and highlighted areas that have declined over time. 'Based on Powys' level of free school meals and low level of deprivation it is an expectation that our schools should perform well above the national average, and this is not the case.' She explained that education chiefs have outlined what they intend to do to turn this around in the integrated business plan. Mrs Orrells said: 'These actions are designed to address the underlying factors that have led to the current situation and lay the ground for consistent and sustainable improvement across Powys.'
Powys County Times
an hour ago
- Powys County Times
Change measurement of school funding amid falling pupil numbers – ex-minister
School funding should no longer be judged on a per-pupil basis because of falling birth rates and pupil numbers, a former education secretary has said. Conservative MP Damian Hinds said the decline in the number of children in primary and secondary schools meant funding being measured on a per-pupil basis was no longer a good reflection of whether funding is increasing or decreasing. Mr Hinds said: 'Things are changing very significantly now in schools because of demographic change, and we have reached a point where I do not believe it is legitimate to use the measure of real terms per pupil as the yardstick for whether effective school resourcing is increasing or decreasing, and that is because the number of pupils is going to fall. 'We know already from the Times Educational Supplement that surplus secondary places have increased by some 50% in just two years. 'Now Labour MPs may well argue this, and I hope they do, and they will say 'obviously when you've got a smaller number of children there's going to be less funding', and there is of course some logic to that argument. 'But in a sense, it doesn't really matter what arguments Labour MPs make in this chamber, because back in their constituencies talking to head teachers they will hear something different. 'When pupil numbers are rising, if you hold real-terms per-pupil funding constant, that is a net increase in resourcing to the school. 'When they're falling, even if you increase real terms per pupil by a few percent that feels very much like a cut.' He used the analogy of a school class falling by two pupils from 29 to 27, it being equivalent to about £10,000 less in funding. 'The vast majority of your costs don't change,' Mr Hinds said. 'You're still paying the teacher the same, and so on.' The problem comes amid falling birth rates in recent years, which have hit primary schools. The issue has been acutely faced in parts of the capital, where high living costs have exacerbated the issue. Meanwhile secondary school pupils born during the late 2000s and early 2010s baby boom will move out of the system in the coming years. Mr Hinds said schools in urban areas had already closed, with others on the horizon. He said some could convert into nursery schools, or special schools. Some larger schools have reduced the number of entries into each year. Primary schools in parts of London have shut in recent years due to falling pupil numbers. Camden, which includes Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer's Holborn and St Pancras constituency, has seen the shutting of schools while a secondary school has reduced the number of pupils it expects to take in each year. Earlier this month data from the Government showed pupil rolls in England had fallen for the first time in more than a decade. Primary pupil numbers have been falling for several years; however, they have been balanced out by secondary school pupils born in the baby boom in the late 2000s and early 2010s. Other figures from the Department for Education (DfE) reported there were 611,000 unfilled primary places for 2023-2024, a 5.8% increase on the year before. Mr Hinds told the House of Commons that the problem could be felt just as sharply outside of towns and cities, saying: 'In a rural primary school neither of those things is an option. 'You have major, major indivisibilities. 'And right now, 92% of DfE funding for schools is driven by pupil numbers, and I just don't think that is going to work over the years ahead. 'So I ask ministers, what are you going to do to reform funding, so it is fair and effective at a time of falling overall pupil numbers.' Responding to the estimates day debate, education minister Catherine McKinnell said: 'This Government has – as Labour governments always do – prioritised education with the department's budget for day-to-day cash spending, increasing by almost £6 billion compared to last financial year, and within that, we have increased the overall core schools budget by £3.7 billion in 2025/26 compared to last year. 'This real-terms per-pupil increase in funding helps to underpin our ambition of achieving high and rising standards for all children in all of our schools.'
