
Starmer seeks to win round welfare rebels with promise of ‘fairness'
The talks ahead of Tuesday's Commons showdown come after 126 Labour MPs publicly backed a move to block it.
Sir Keir told MPs he wanted the reforms, which will restrict access to sickness and incapacity benefits, to demonstrate 'Labour values of fairness'.
The Prime Minister told MPs there was 'consensus across the House on the urgent need for reform' of the 'broken' welfare system.
'I know colleagues across the House are eager to start fixing that, and so am I, and that all colleagues want to get this right, and so do I,' he said.
'We want to see reform implemented with Labour values of fairness.
'That conversation will continue in the coming days, so we can begin making change together on Tuesday.'
The Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill has its second reading on Tuesday, the first opportunity for MPs to vote on it.
If the legislation clears its first hurdle, it will then face a few hours' examination by all MPs the following week – rather than days or weeks in front of a committee tasked with looking at the Bill – with a plan for it to clear the Commons a little over a week later on July 9.
Ministers have said they will listen to suggestions to improve the legislation, but opposition appears entrenched and the swift timetable for the Bill could add to critics' concerns.
Commons Leader Lucy Powell told MPs: 'As the House would expect, the Government actively engages with parliamentary opinion throughout a bill's passage, as we are doing intensively with the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill.'
Overnight, six more Labour MPs added their names to the rebel amendment that would halt the legislation in its tracks.
The reasoned amendment argues that disabled people have not been properly consulted and further scrutiny of the changes is needed.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer faces the most serious revolt of his premiership (Ben Stansall/PA)
The new names take the total number of Labour backbenchers supporting the amendment, tabled by Treasury Select Committee chairwoman Dame Meg Hillier, to 126 out of a total of 162 backers from all parties.
The plans restrict eligibility for the personal independence payment (Pip), the main disability payment in England, and limit the sickness-related element of universal credit.
The Government hopes the changes will get more people back into work and save up to £5 billion a year.
One backbencher preparing to vote against the Bill told the PA news agency: 'A lot of people have been saying they're upset about this for months.
'To leave it until a few days before the vote, it's not a very good way of running the country.
'It's not very grown-up.'
They said that minor concessions would not be enough, warning: 'I don't think you can tinker with this. They need to go back to the drawing board.'
The Daily Telegraph reported that potential concessions being considered include a commitment to speed up payment of support to help people back into work and offering assurances that reviews of policies in this area will be published.
Meanwhile, The Times reported some MPs opposed to the plans had blamed Sir Keir's chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney and suggested the time had come for 'regime change' in Downing Street.
Asked if Sir Keir had confidence in his chief of staff, the No 10 spokesman would not comment on Downing Street staffing matters.
Analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) think tank indicated that 800,000 fewer working-age people are expected to receive a Pip daily living award in 2029–30 as a result of the reforms.
The tighter criteria are set to lead to 430,000 new applicants – who would have received an award without reforms – receiving no award, and 370,000 existing claimants losing out following reassessment.
Most of the 800,000 losers will receive £3,850 per year less in Pip.
The 2.2 million existing claimants of the health element of universal credit who are expected to still be claiming in 2029–30 are estimated to see a £450 real decline in their support in that year because of the freezing of the payment.
There are also set to be 700,000 new claimants who will typically receive £2,700 a year less than they would have done under the current system, the IFS said.
NEW: Government's benefit reforms could reduce annual spending by around £11 billion in the long run – but still leave health-related benefit bill far above pre-pandemic levels.
Read @TomWatersEcon, @LatimerEduin and @matthewoulton's new report: https://t.co/8aP99eVQHS
— Institute for Fiscal Studies (@TheIFS) June 26, 2025
It will be well into the 2030s before the reforms are fully rolled out and, in the long-term, the savings could amount to around £11 billion a year, the IFS said.
A little over a quarter of the public are supportive of the proposed reforms, according to polling published on Thursday.
Of 2,004 people surveyed by More in Common over the weekend, just 27% said they supported the planned changes to the benefits system and half (51%) said they believe the cuts would worsen the health of disabled people.
A similar proportion (52%) said the cuts would increase pressure on the NHS while six in 10 said the Government should look at alternative cost-saving measures instead.
Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey said the Government should pull the Bill and 'go back to the drawing board' instead of 'cutting vital support from thousands of vulnerable people'.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Telegraph
29 minutes ago
- Telegraph
White House slaps down Britain over assisted dying ‘surrender'
The White House has accused Britain of 'state-sponsored suicide' over the passage of the Assisted Dying Bill. The US state department criticised parliament for passing the bill, which will make it legal for terminally ill people to end their lives. 'As the UK Parliament considers support for state-subsidised suicide, euphemistically called a bill for 'terminally ill adults' the United States reaffirms the sanctity of life,' the US bureau of democracy, human rights and labour said. 'The western world should stand for life, vitality and hope over surrender and death.' The Trump administration is proving increasingly willing to intervene in domestic British affairs, having previously admonished Sir Keir Starmer's government over threats to free speech. Last week the House of Commons voted narrowly to support Kim Leadbeater's assisted dying bill, and it will now be scrutinised in the House of Lords. The private member's bill was supported by 314 to 291 in the Commons, a majority of 23, paving the way for assisted dying services to be introduced by the end of the decade. Critics of the legislation have warned its safeguards are not strong enough and vulnerable people could be coerced or feel pressured into ending their lives early. The UK government is officially neutral on the bill, and MPs were given a free vote, which meant they did not have to vote along party lines. The bill is at odds with the values of Mr Trump's administration despite similar legislation existing in twelve US jurisdictions, including Washington, DC. While Mr Trump's position on assisted dying is not clear, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, two of the president's Supreme Court nominees, are both firm opponents of the act. Downing Street is thought to have been blindsided by the intervention, which was not raised with David Lammy, the foreign secretary, during his meeting with Mr Rubio last week. Sir Keir Starmer, a supporter of the legislation, said he will make assisted dying work, in a rebuke to his Health Secretary who claimed there was no budget for it. Asked whether the will of Parliament should be implemented and the budget found during his trip to The Hague the Prime Minister said: 'It is my responsibility to make sure the bill is workable, and that means workable in all its aspects. I'm confident we've done that preparation.' It is rare for the US state department, which is responsible for its foreign policy, to comment on laws of an allied country. Last month, The Telegraph revealed the US president dispatched officials to meet British pro-life activists over concerns their freedom of expression had been threatened. A five-person team from the bureau of democracy, human rights and labour spent days in the country and interviewed campaigners to feed back to the White House. Led by Samuel Samson, a senior adviser, they met with officials from the Foreign Office and challenged Ofcom on the Online Safety Act, which is thought to be a point of contention in the administration. Since then, the state department has also raised concerns over Lucy Connolly, the wife of a Conservative councillor, was jailed for 31 months in October after pleading guilty to a charge of inciting racial hatred. Campaigners flagged her case with Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, whose department in turn said it was 'monitoring' the case.

The National
29 minutes ago
- The National
Can Keir Starmer do anything that Anas Sarwar won't support?
When the quite literally loyal-to-a-fault Tory minister Nadine Dorries was asked that question about her prime minister Boris Johnson in 2022, she said: 'If he went out and kicked a dog, I would probably withdraw my support for him.' Dorries was known as one of Johnson's most fierce allies, defending him even after his ignominious downfall finally played out following an exodus of ministers from his UK government. In Sarwar, it seems Starmer has found a similar ally – right down to the photos which beg the question: 'Are they really looking at him like that?' Nadine Dorries looks at Boris Johnson (left), and Anas Sarwar and Keir Starmer pose for pictures at the 2024 Labour conference (Image: PA) But the extreme loyalty shown to Starmer by his Scottish deputy is becoming more and more of a rarity within the Labour Party. Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham – who Sarwar often cites as an example to be followed – London mayor Sadiq Khan, Treasury committee chair Meg Hillier, Scottish Affairs committee chair Patricia Ferguson, former transport secretary Louise Haigh. This is far from an exhaustive list of the senior Labour figures who have spoken against Starmer's plans to cut £5bn from disability benefits. Sarwar's name is predictably absent. READ MORE: New poll shows how every Scottish seat could vote – see your area While the Scottish Labour group leader shamelessly toes whatever line Starmer cares to draw, a direct comparison to the Scottish Welsh leader shows just how obsequious he is. Eluned Morgan, now the First Minister of Wales – a mirror of the role Sarwar so covets, has been far from a poodle on Downing Street's lead. In fact, the Welsh leader has made a virtue of putting 'clear red water' between herself and Starmer. While Sarwar described the stunningly unpopular cuts to the Winter Fuel Payment as an 'opportunity' for Scotland, Morgan called for a UK Government 'rethink'. Welsh First Minister Eluned MorganWhere Sarwar has U-turned on his opposition to the Tories' devolution-busting Internal Market Act, Morgan has openly called for more devolved powers – specifically around the Crown Estate. 'We saw them take our coal, we saw them take our water. We will not let them take our wind, not this time, not on my watch," she said last month. Can you imagine those words from Sarwar's mouth? And where Sarwar has backed the planned £5 billion disability cuts to the hilt – on Wednesday proudly declaring himself "consistent" on the issue – Morgan has joined the ranks of senior Labour figures to oppose them. But then, Morgan already has a life seat in the House of Lords – and the fancy title that comes with it. The not-yet-baron Sarwar surely doesn't want to jeopardise his chances of joining those ermine-robed crowds. But, ironically, if Sarwar fails to be his own person, of speak with from his own convictions, then he will have failed to earn any such accolade.


Evening Standard
35 minutes ago
- Evening Standard
Keir Starmer's welfare vote nightmare hides a bigger problem: Britain just can't go on like this
And many of the rebels don't have much to lose; they're more scared of their constituents and of Reform snapping at their heels than of Morgan McSweeney. Compare and contrast with the situation of Tony Blair in 1997 when it was all glad confident morning. He wasn't any more keen on getting to grips with individual backbenchers than Sir Keir is and was notorious for his proclivity for sofa government, but his administration had an undeniable vim and sense of direction; not least thanks to Alistair Campbell and Peter Mandelson. Sir Keir lacks almost every attribute of Tony Blair, other than them both being lawyers.