logo
Welfare bill vote: Keir Starmer braced for revolt despite concessions

Welfare bill vote: Keir Starmer braced for revolt despite concessions

Times8 hours ago
Peter Kyle, the science and technology secretary, has admitted the government should have reached an agreement earlier with MPs threatening to rebel against the welfare bill.
Kyle told Times Radio: 'As Keir Starmer, the prime minister said, there have been lessons learned. There have been lessons learned from our 11 months and I think that people will see that having learned those lessons that we'll be putting [them] into action going forward.
'For those MPs across the Labour Party who have worked constructively with Liz Kendall, the DWP secretary, and the prime minister, to improve the bill, we are extremely grateful and they will see the rewards of the constructive relationship that has been built in recent days.
'Should we have got there earlier? I think the answer is probably yes. But we are there, where we need to be now and I think you'll see the benefits of that later on today and certainly into the future of this government.'
Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, refused to reaffirm that she would not change her 'ironclad' fiscal rules when pressed to do so by Mel Stride, the shadow chancellor.
Stride said that the U-turns on winter fuel and concessions on welfare have added to the 'unfunded Labour black hole' and asked her to 'reconfirm that commitment' to her fiscal rules, or admit that the government are 'heading for yet another U-turn'.
Reeves responded: 'Well I would take it a bit more seriously if the party opposite were actually voting against the welfare reforms this evening, and if they hadn't committed to fully reversing the winter fuel changes which is going to cost a further £400 million that they can't explain.
'I'll give him this — he knows a thing or two about welfare spending. Because under his watch, the UK became the only country in the G7 with an employment rate below pre-pandemic levels.'
• Backbenchers have warned the government's plans would lead to a 'three-tier' benefits system in which people with the same disabilities receive different payments. They have urged the government to reconsider the legislation• Official modelling suggested that more than 150,000 people could still be pushed into relative poverty by the welfare measures, despite the concessions to MPs, down from 250,000 in the original assessment• MPs were initially concerned that the changes would lead to a spike in child poverty, but in an impact assessment written after the U-turn officials said there would now be a 'negligible' rise• Rebels raised concerns that a review of the policy, led by the social security minister, Stephen Timms and 'co-produced' with disabled people, would not be implemented before the change in the eligibility criteria came into force
The work and pensions secretary, Liz Kendall, made a statement to the House on Monday that outlined the concessions being put forward to the bill by the government.
She admitted that 'making changes is never easy' but said she believes the government 'must make sure those who can work get the support they need'.
After the statement Kendall faced a fierce set of questions from backbenchers, who were particularly concerned that the review into the welfare system is set to finish as the reforms come into practice.
Debbie Abrahams, chair of the work and pensions committee, said that the government 'should not predetermine' the results of the Timms review. Connor Naismith, Labour MP for Crewe and Nantwich, said the lack of clarity meant he could not vote for the bill 'without reassurance'.
The original bill tabled new eligibility requirements for PIP. New claimants would have to score a minimum of four points in at least one daily living activity, such as preparing food or washing, to qualify.
The changes were met with widespread opposition amongst Labour MPs, who raised concerns this could see people who need support to wash or dress lose their benefits.
126 MPs signed a reasoned amendment tabled by Dame Meg Hillier, chair of the Treasury select committee, which called to reject the bill entirely.
Last week the government made concessions that mean all current PIP claimants will not lose their eligibility. Hillier withdrew the amendment as a result, but some rebels are still concerned that the eligibility rules will create a two-tier system by only applying to future applicants.
A new rebel amendment was signed by 39 MPs and published this morning. Although this is a significantly reduced number, one senior rebel warned a defeat for the government is 'in the balance again'.
Personal Independence Payments, or PIPs, are the main benefit available to people with disabilities.
The payments are intended to help people with everyday tasks and mobility. These benefits, which are worth between £1,500 and £9,600 a year, are paid irrespective of whether someone is in work because they are designed to foot the bill for the additional cost that comes with being disabled.
More than 1,000 extra people are claiming them every day. The government says the system is 'broken' and is insistent that there is 'broad consensus' on the need for reform.
MPs will head to the Commons this afternoon for the second reading of the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill.
It will set out plans for a review of the welfare system, back-to-work payments, a freeze to the highest rate of incapacity benefits and most controversially changes to the eligibility for personal independence payments (PIP).
The bill has been met with opposition across the House but most notably from within the Labour party itself, as Sir Keir Starmer faces the largest rebellion of his premiership over the reforms.
Despite the government's concessions in the last few days, it's still looking to be a tricky day for Labour.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Arsenal ‘close to Viktor Gyokeres transfer with Gunners in advanced talks with Sporting after ruling out Benjamin Sesko'
Arsenal ‘close to Viktor Gyokeres transfer with Gunners in advanced talks with Sporting after ruling out Benjamin Sesko'

The Sun

time33 minutes ago

  • The Sun

Arsenal ‘close to Viktor Gyokeres transfer with Gunners in advanced talks with Sporting after ruling out Benjamin Sesko'

ARSENAL are in advanced talks to sign Viktor Gyokeres after honing in on the Swede over their other target Benjamin Sesko, according to reports. The Gunners have been weighing up their options for a new centre-forward and it would appear they are now focusing on Gyokeres. 3 3 According to Belgian journalist Sacha Tavolieri, Arsenal feel like they are "touching the final line" when it comes to agreeing a deal for the Sporting Lisbon star. While it's also claimed they have already agreed a five-year contract with Gyokeres himself. Gyokeres has found himself trying to force a move away from Sporting this summer after claims that a gentleman's agreement to leave for a cut-price fee between him and the club has not been honoured. Sporting president Federico Varandas has claimed the club are happy to let Gyokeres leave for less than his release clause, but will stand firm when it comes to getting a fair price for the Portuguese league's top scorer. Citing the prices paid for some other players this summer, Varandas told O Jogo: "Sporting does not need to sell him, but we remain sensitive to the dreams of Viktor and any of our athletes. "After weeks of meetings, we are not asking for the release clause and will be reasonable regarding the price we ask for Viktor. Today, I believe there is a strong probability he will leave. 'We have been watching the market and I saw [Martin] Zubimendi, who is six months younger than Viktor, leave for €65million. "I saw Matheus Cunha and Bryan Mbeumo, both forwards but who, in my opinion, do not have Viktor's market value or quality, being negotiated for around €75million. "Given the demands we consider fair, I believe Viktor could leave – unless he has the worst agent in the world, which is hard for me to believe, because he is one of the best footballers in the world." Adding: "I'm not going to say what the price is, the player knows what it is. Arsenal Plot Big Double Transfer For Eberechi Eze and Hugo Ekitike! | Transfers Exposed "I can tell you that Viktor won't leave for €60million plus €10million he won't, he just won't." Meanwhile Fabrizio Romano has claimed that the club's stance has left Gyokeres feeling "betrayed and tired". It's been claimed that Gyokeres has informed Sporting that he won't be returning to the club and has no intention of playing for them again. Gyokeres scored 39 goals in 33 league appearances last season, more than any other player in Europe's top 10 leagues. Arsenal have also been linked with a move for Sesko, but advancements in the Gyokeres deal would likely spell an end to those talks. The Gunners today announced the arrival of Kepa Arrizabalaga from Chelsea on a £5m deal, with the Spanish goalkeeper set to play backup to first choice shot-stopper David Raya next season. While deals for Brentford 's Christian Norgaard and Real Sociedad's Martin Zubimendi are also thought to be on verge of completion. 3

EUAN McCOLM: Harsh reality has failed to penetrate Swinney's armour, but it's time he reconnected with reality over gender turmoil
EUAN McCOLM: Harsh reality has failed to penetrate Swinney's armour, but it's time he reconnected with reality over gender turmoil

Daily Mail​

time33 minutes ago

  • Daily Mail​

EUAN McCOLM: Harsh reality has failed to penetrate Swinney's armour, but it's time he reconnected with reality over gender turmoil

Anas Sarwar's U-turn on self-ID for trans people was humiliating but entirely necessary. Having whipped his MSPs to support the SNP Government's crackpot plan to dismantle women's rights and allow anyone to enter the single-sex spaces of their choosing, the Scottish Labour leader later came to his senses. Interviewed on the Holyrood Sources podcast in February, Mr Sarwar said that, had he known at the time of the gender reform vote in December 2022 what he later learned, he would not have backed a change in the law. The Labour's boss's volte face coincided with public outcry over the case of nurse Sandie Peggie, who was subjected to a disciplinary procedure by NHS Fife after she complained that she should not have to share a changing room with trans-identifying doctor, Beth Upton. After two weeks of tribunal hearings in February, Ms Peggie's claims of discrimination and harassment against the health board and Dr Upton will resume on July 16. Former Conservative Scottish Secretary, Alister Jack, has already saved MSPs from themselves on the issue of self-ID. In 2023, he blocked reform of the Gender Recognition Act in Scotland on the grounds that such a change in the law would negatively impact with the UK-wide Equality Act of 2010. But First Minister John Swinney remains solidly convinced that the failed law - which would have destroyed women's sex-based rights - was wise. Appearing last week on the Holyrood Sources podcast, Mr Swinney was asked about Mr Sarwar's U-turn. Would the First Minister have supported reform of the Gender Recognition Act in 2022 if he'd known what he does now? Harsh reality cannot penetrate the First Minister's armour. 'Yes, I would,' said Mr Swinney. And then he used a line favoured by weasels who reject the idea that allowing men to identify as women might bring with it come complications. The First Minister told the podcast that he was 'trying to improve the lives of a very small number of people in our society who I think have an incredibly hard time.' Gender activists have long focused on the relatively small number of trans-identifying individuals as if this fact makes their ideology any less dangerous. The fact is the demands of these activists impacts everyone, particularly women. Take women's sport, for example. The entry into a women's race or boxing tournament of a biological male disadvantages every female participant. Likewise, every time someone born male is permitted to take a woman's place on a protected short-list or to enter a single-sex space such as a changing room or a domestic violence shelter, others pay a heavy price. But the pernicious effect of gender ideology is felt far beyond 'flashpoints' such as arguments over single-sex spaces. In fact, it has seeped into every aspect of modern life. Organisations across the public and private sectors have ignored their legal responsibilities in order to permit self-ID, despite the law being quite clear that, when it comes so single-sex safe spaces, biology trumps all else. The publication, today, of a new report into the impact of gender ideology on the world of academia shows just how deeply the 'trans women are women' mantra of gender activists has penetrated universities across the country. Professor Alice Sullivan of University College London was commissioned by the UK Government to examine the effect of gender ideology on academic freedom. Her findings make for deeply disturbing reading. Professor Sullivan's report - 'Barriers to research on sex and gender' - was commissioned by the UK Government's Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. The academic found that the last decade has seen the emergence of a culture of hostility towards anyone who shares so-called 'gender critical' views. Across 17 categories, including 'self-censorship' and 'bullying, harassment and ostracism', Professor Sullivan found academics had been silenced on issues of sex and gender. John Swinney may be able to content himself that to acquiesce to the demands of trans activists is to do no more than offer assistance to a few vulnerable people, but Professor Sullivan's report shatters that idea. In the course of her research, the academic - who previously published a report exposing the damage caused by inaccurate recording of sex by UK institutions - found that vital scientific research, including studies on the effects of medical interventions like puberty blockers, and data collection on sex - has been undermined by universities' failure to address coordinated campaigns to silence academics deemed guilty of such wrong-think as 'a woman is an adult human female.' Professor Sullivan says her research raises 'stark concerns' and highlights cases where researchers investigating vital issues have been subjected to sustained campaigns of intimidation simply for acknowledging the biological and social importance of sex. Among the many academics interviewed by Professor Sullivan was Sarah Pedersen, Professor of Communication and Media at Robert Gordon University, who was targeted by activists after expressing the perfect rational view that biological sex is real. Professor Pedersen says the 'cancellation' of high-profile gender-critical academics has damaged the entire higher education sector. 'My personal experiences of disruption, no-platforming and personal attacks,' she adds, 'have impacted not just my academic career but also my work for third-sector organisations, who were warned away from working with me, meaning they could no longer benefit from my expertise.' Professor Sullivan has made a list of 20 recommendations to the UK Government and to academic institution which she hopes will defend research and protect individual academics from both professional and personal attacks. These include such simple steps as agreeing to prioritise the search from truth over adherence to political agendas and enabling 'genuine' academic debate. The Scottish Government should pay attention. In a fortnight, Sandie Peggie's tribunal will recommence in Dundee. The devastating impact of gender ideology on the lives of ordinary people will, once again, dominate the news agenda. John Swinney is a fool if he thinks voters still buy the line that reforming gender laws will impact a tiny proportion of the population. Ms Peggie's case shows clearly the harms done to women by the removal of long-established boundaries. In workplaces across the country, the demands of trans activists have made the lives of women miserable. Those same campaigners have been allowed to destroy the careers of dedicated academic and wreck important research, all in the name of making life easier for 'a very small number of people.' It's time for John Swinney to reconnect with reality and stop pandering to activists whose demands do nothing but harm.

The British political class have shown themselves at their worst
The British political class have shown themselves at their worst

Telegraph

time34 minutes ago

  • Telegraph

The British political class have shown themselves at their worst

The result should never have been in doubt. That whips and ministers were nervous at all should be testament enough as to how badly this government is being run. The welfare reform Bill was finally passed with a majority of 75, about 100 less than Labour's notional majority. But there is something missing from ministers' and MPs' reactions to this 'victory': the cheers, such as they were, sounded forced. The smiles were wan. The congratulations looked half-hearted. Because this is a Bill whose passage means many losers and zero winners – a rare achievement in parliamentary politics. Of course, the real losers are those future claimants of Personal Independence Payments (PIP) who, depending on the detail of the latest concessions granted by Keir Starmer, will find it much more difficult to have their claims approved. But there are many more political losers. There are the rebels themselves, at least some of whom might have hoped for personal advancement in their political careers and who must now face years of being nominated for the crummiest, dullest standing committees – the traditional punishment for those who won't take their whips' advice. Then there are the Conservatives, who voted against a measure many of them clearly supported. There was even a shadow cabinet meeting last week at which Kemi Badenoch asked each member how the party should vote. That such a question even needs to be asked suggests there was at least some support for a more principled, less cynical stance. Then of course there is the Government, which, before this debate and vote, was in a slightly stronger, slightly more popular position than this evening and which now has achieved the passing of a measure that even ministers can no longer see the point of. It has spent a lot of its political credibility in securing a Bill that was originally sold as a genuinely reformist measure (it is not) and which would save the Treasury billions (it will not). Not the Commons' finest moment. A damaged legislature, a damaged government and, most importantly, a damaged prime minister. Happy anniversary, Sir Keir.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store