Labour MPs signal rebellion over welfare cuts
A number of Labour MPs have said they will vote against the government's proposed cuts to disability benefits.
Nine Labour MPs voiced concern over the government's plans to make it harder for people with less severe conditions to claim disability payments during a debate on Wednesday.
Calls to rethink the benefits cuts, as well as other policies, have been growing after Labour lost 187 council seats during the local election last week.
Disability minister Sir Stephen Timms told the MPs the goal of the reforms was to make sure the welfare system was "financially sustainable in the long term".
In March, the government announced a major welfare shake-up aimed at saving money and supporting people who can work to find jobs.
Ministers said changes to a key disability benefit called personal independence payment (Pip) and universal credit (UC) would save around £5bn a year by the end of 2030 and get more people into work.
Overall, the government spends £65bn a year on health and disability-related benefits. Before the government announced the Pip and UC changes, this was projected to increase to £100bn by 2029.
The government estimated that 3.2 million families could be worse off as a result of the reforms, while 3.8 million families will be better off by 2030.
The government is expected to pass a new law to make the welfare changes, giving MPs a chance to vote on the plans.
Backbench discontent
Speaking during the debate in Westminster Hall, Diane Abbott, the Labour MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, said the government was "making a conscious choice to balance its books on the backs of people on welfare".
Ian Byrne, who represents Liverpool West Derby, said he would "swim through vomit to vote against" proposed welfare changes.
Labour MPs Richard Burgon, Rachael Maskell, Andy McDonald, Cat Eccles, Nadia Whittome, Imran Hussain, Steve Witherden and Ian Lavery also said they would vote against the government's proposals.
They were joined by John McDonnell, an independent MP for Hayes and Harlington who had the whip removed by Labour for rebelling against the government over the two-child benefit cap.
A number of other Labour MPs have also indicated they are minded to oppose the benefits cuts in comments at events, in articles for local papers, as well as on social media.
Disability minister Sir Stephen Timms defended the proposals, saying it was not sustainable for welfare spending to rise at the current rate.
"The current system produces poor employment outcomes, high economic inactivity, low living standards, high costs to the taxpayer. It needs to change," he said.
"We want a more proactive, pro-work system that supports people better and supports the economy as well."
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has come under increasing pressure to change course on some policy decisions.
At Prime Minister Questions on Wednesday, Sir Keir defended the decision to axe winter fuel payments for millions of pensioners.
It came after a group of about 45 Labour MPs representing seats in northern England and the Midlands joined those urging the government to rethink the move.
The planned changes to disability benefits could become the next big political flashpoint, with legislation likely to be brought to the House of Commons in June.
The BBC has been told some potential rebels are being assured they won't lose the party whip if they abstain – or make themselves scarce – when the vote comes.
The government is not at risk of defeat, given Labour has a large majority, but a sizable rebellion could show the extent of the discontent within the party.
Senior minister Pat McFadden said "we have to win the fight for Britain's future" while speaking at the Parliamentary Labour Party's first gathering since the local elections, party sources said.
The Cabinet Office minister criticised Reform UK, including the new mayor of Greater Lincolnshire, Dame Andrea Jenkyns, who said her party would "reset Britain to its glorious past" in her victory speech.
McFadden said: "Labour is always at its best when we look to the future. This is the fight of our lives, this is the generational fight in this new political era.
"I want to tell you we have to take on this new fight for the future - and we have to win."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The winners and losers in Labour's first spending review
When Rachel Reeves publishes the government's spending review on Wednesday, the stories the Treasury will want to tell are the energy, transport and other infrastructure projects that will get a share of the big boost in capital funding – £113bn. They will argue that cash, freed up by the change to the fiscal rules in the budget, could only have happened under Labour and was opposed by the Tories and Reform. But the capital spending cannot stop expected cuts in day-to-day spending, meaning extremely tight settlements for departments, with savings expected from policing budgets, local government, civil service cuts, foreign aid, education and culture. Treasury sources said they would still spend £190bn more over the five-year parliament than the Conservatives' spending plans – meaning more than £300bn will be distributed among departments. Real-terms spending will grow at an average of 1.2% a year over the three years that the spending review period covers, a significant drop from the first two years when it will be 2.5%. Even that figure does not tell the full story because of the disproportionate boost being given to defence and the NHS – and has led the Institute for Fiscal Studies to warn that the spending commitments will require 'chunky tax rises' in the autumn, when coupled with other expected priorities such as restoring the winter fuel allowance to more pensioners and action on child poverty such as ending the two-child benefit limit. Here are some of the key offers from the spending review – and the rows over cuts. The biggest row of the spending review has been between Reeves and the home secretary, Yvette Cooper, over policing, which one source describes as being a 'huge headache'. Cooper has brought out the big guns to make her case, first with a letter from six police chiefs who warned that without more funding the government would not meet its manifesto promises on crime. Sir Mark Rowley, the head of the Metropolitan police, and other senior police officers have also written to the prime minister to warn him that investment was need to prevent some crimes being routinely ignored. It is understood the policing budget will not face real terms cuts but the level of spending is still under discussion. The Home Office is under strain as a major spending department that is key to some of the most ambitious manifesto pledges – including halving knife crime, police recruitment, reducing violence against women and girls as well as dealing with monitoring offenders who will be released earlier due to sentencing changes. The other major spending review row is over deep dissatisfaction from Angela Rayner – the deputy prime minister and housing secretary – with the level of funding for social homes in the spending review, making her one of the last remaining holdouts in negotiations with the Treasury over departmental spending settlements. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has been battling for more funding for the affordable homes programme as well as trying to preserve cash for local councils, homelessness and regional growth initiatives. The Treasury had previously put £2bn into affordable housing, described as a 'down payment' on further funding to be announced at the spending review, which Reeves said would mark a generational shift in the building of council homes. However, the next phase of funding has caused a major rift with Rayner – and more so because capital spending on infrastructure such as housing is meant to be a priority. The environment secretary, Steve Reed, is said to have been holding out for a big capital injection to fund flood defences. The autumn budget said the government was facing significant funding pressures on flood defences and farm schemes of almost £600m in 2024-25, and that those schemes would have to be reviewed for their affordability. Sources at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) confirmed a post-Brexit farming fund would be cut in the review. Labour promised a fund of £5bn over two years – from 2024 to 2026 – at the budget, which is being honoured, but in the years after that it will be slashed for all but a few farms. The energy secretary, Ed Miliband, had a long fight to keep cash for a major programme of insulation, which was a key part of the government's net zero strategy. However, there are reports suggesting other schemes could be scaled back to protect the insulation programme. At the October budget, Reeves announced £3.4bn over three years for household energy efficiency schemes, heat decarbonisation and fuel poverty schemes. The government responded to concerns expressed at the time calling the sum the 'bare minimum' and promising a spending uplift at the review. Miliband's department is expected to get significant capital investment in energy infrastructure including nuclear – with the government poised to give the go ahead to the Sizewell C nuclear plant. The chancellor has already announced £15bn in transport spending across the north of England, funds which she said fulfil promises made by the Conservatives to the country but which the party had no way to pay for them in its own plan. Wes Streeting's department is set to be one of the big winners of the spending review and it will lay the groundwork for the NHS 10-year plan, which will be published imminently after the spending review. The department will get one of the biggest boosts to funding as others face real-terms cuts. The funding for the plan prioritises three key areas, moving care from hospitals to communities, increasing the use of technology, and prioritising prevention. No 10 and Streeting hope that the 10-year plan will contain major commitments and a positive story that the government will finally be able to tell properly on improvements to the health service – though any good news could be scuppered by the ballot for strike action by resident doctors. Still, Streeting's department was one of the last to settle formally with the Treasury due to negotiations over drug prices, though departmental sources downplayed any specific row. Any child in England whose parents receive universal credit will be able to claim free school meals from September 2026, the government has said. Parents on the credit will be eligible regardless of their income. The government says the change will make 500,000 more pupils eligible. A Department for Education (DfE) source said it was the best measure outside welfare changes to address child poverty and that the education secretary, Bridget Phillipson, had consistently fought to protect school food programmes through each round of spending negotiations. But schools budgets will be squeezed. Teachers will get a 4% pay rise next year, with additional funding of £615m. But schools will still have to fund about a quarter of the rise themselves – a total of £400m from their current budgets. Phillipson has tasked the DfE with finding savings in schools budgets, such as energy bills. Savings will also come as the government is removing public funding for level 7 apprenticeships, which has drawn criticism from skills experts. The justice secretary, Shabana Mahmood, was one of the first to reach her settlement to allow her to announce a £4.7bn plan to build three new prisons starting this year, part of a 'record expansion' as the government attempts to get to grips with the prison crisis. The early announcement was essential because it came alongside an announcement that the government would put a limit on how long hundreds of repeat offenders can be recalled to prison amid Whitehall predictions that jails will be full again in November.
Epoch Times
an hour ago
- Epoch Times
Paternity Leave in UK One of Worst in Developed World, Committee Finds
The UK has 'one of the worst leave offers in the developed world for fathers,' according to a report by the Women and Equalities Committee (WEC). The WEC It also found that the UK's rate of statutory paternal pay is 'completely out of kilter with the cost of living' and has not kept pace with inflation. WEC Chairwoman and Labour MP Sarah Owen She said the system is 'in urgent need of an overhaul to fit with the reality of working parents' lives,' and that reform must start with longer and better paid paternity leave. The report came ahead of the government's review of paternal leave entitlement and as the Employment Rights Bill moves through the House of Lords. International Comparisons The committee examined evidence from other models for parental leave around the world, finding that Nordic countries in particular have far more generous paternal leave terms. Related Stories 6/9/2025 5/30/2025 Norway, for example, introduced four weeks of non-transferable leave and pay for fathers in 1993. Today, parental leave for mothers and fathers is paid at 100 percent of earnings for 46 weeks, or 56 weeks at 80 percent, both with an upper cap. Spain has transformed its system in recent years after starting in a similar place as the UK. The country introduced 13 days of paid paternity in 2007, and between 2017 and 2021, gradually increased this to 16 weeks, equal to maternity leave and paid at 100 percent of earnings. Spain also made six weeks of that leave compulsory for mothers and fathers. The WEC said they heard from experts who recommended that the UK should similarly consider making a period of paternity leave compulsory, 'as a way of shifting the culture and challenging gendered stereotypes around family responsibilities.' Day 1 Paternity Leave Rights The WEC has called on the government to draw on lessons from Spain's reform of paternal leave, and incrementally increase the period of paid leave for fathers to six weeks over the course of this Parliament. The committee also urged ministers to remove the requirement that men must be employed for at least 26 weeks before being entitled to paternity leave, saying it should be available from the first day of employment. Commuters on London Bridge on Jan. 22, 2024. Victoria Jones/PA Wire Lack of paternal leave provision for self-employed fathers was also deemed 'deeply unfair,' with MPs calling for the introduction of a paternity allowance, similar to maternity allowance for self-employed mothers. The report also highlighted the flaws of Shared Parental Leave (SPL), which allows for parents to share up to 50 weeks of leave, so one or both parents can decide when to take leave in a more flexible way. The committee said SPL was 'extremely difficult for most parents and their employers to understand,' and called for it to be simplified and made more financially attractive to boost uptake. Reform Needed The WEC chairwoman said, 'It's essential the Government's proposed review addresses the system's fundamental failings, including low statutory pay, inadequate leave periods for fathers and others, exclusion of many working parents and guardians, plus design flaws and unnecessary complexity in the Shared Parental Leave scheme.' Owen called on ministers to commit to meaningful reforms in the medium term, 'with a view to going further towards a more gender equal parental leave system.' She said: 'Tinkering around the edges of a broken system will let down working parents. While much-needed substantial change to our paid parental leave system will require considerable financial investment, this would be outweighed by wider societal and economic benefits.' Responding to the recommendations of the report, a government spokesperson told The Epoch Times: 'This government is committed to making sure parents receive the best possible support to balance their work and home lives as part of our Plan to Make Work Pay. 'We know the parental leave system needs to be improved and will be carrying out a review to ensure it best supports working families, and through our Employment Rights Bill we will remove the 26-week continuity of service requirement for paternity leave.' The government said that as part of its review, it will consider all current parental leave entitlements, including paternity leave and pay and the length of leave available to fathers.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Voices: Wes Streeting has won the spending review – but will he blow his winnings?
If Rachel Reeves did the spending review like a game show, she could invite her cabinet colleagues to 'come on down' the catwalk between the two red lines in the Commons, to music and strobe lights, to take their seats on the front bench. She could announce the winners of the competition for public funding over the next three years in reverse order, with David Lammy, the foreign secretary – who has lost a big chunk of his foreign aid budget – going first, followed by Heidi Alexander, the transport secretary, and Steve Reed, environment. The last to be summoned, as the ABBA soundtrack switches from 'Money, Money, Money' to 'The Winner Takes It All', would be Wes Streeting, the health secretary, who has been allocated spending increases of 2.8 per cent a year more than inflation over the three years from next year to 2029. Arms in the air, in a sequinned jacket, as glitter falls from the ceiling, Streeting would take his place next to John Healey, the defence secretary, at the top of the line of winners and losers. Sadly, the announcement of spending plans for the rest of this parliament will be less showbiz. Reeves will try to generate a bit of excitement, and maybe even some waving of order papers, by spinning the big and welcome increase in capital investment – although she has already cannibalised some of her good news stories with her transport infrastructure announcement last week and the go-ahead for Sizewell C nuclear power station today. The problem with the capital projects, though, is that they will not start until 2027 at the earliest, so they won't have delivered anything except feelgood press releases before the next election. Whereas the big increase in day-to-day spending on the NHS is the kind of vote-winning largesse for which Labour MPs are desperate. In the absence of glitter and balloons, the waving of order papers will be compulsory on the government benches at this point. But wait: who is this, coming to spoil the party? It is the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), performing its constitutional role of puncturing inflated government claims. Labour, having used the IFS to attack the Conservatives at fiscal events over the previous 14 years, will find that the tables have turned (even if the Treasury insists that this is not a 'fiscal event' – it is merely allocating a spending total set at the Budget). Max Warner and Ben Zaranko of the IFS have written a paper for the Oxford Review of Economic Policy entitled 'Future challenges for health and social care provision in the UK'. It contains some startling facts, such as that, by the middle of the next decade, the NHS will employ 10 per cent of the entire workforce of England. It also contains a striking table showing the increase in the number of doctors and nurses employed in the NHS since 2019, and the increase in treatments. There are 18 per cent more consultants, 32 per cent more resident doctors (who were called junior doctors in the old days, a year ago) and 23 per cent more nurses and health visitors, which are huge increases in just five years. But the outputs from such dramatic increases have been disappointing. Hospital admissions have risen by just 9 per cent (except A&E admissions, up 2 per cent), and outpatient appointments have increased by just 12 per cent. The IFS authors comment: 'The large fall in NHS hospital productivity since the start of the pandemic complicates the picture.' They say there are two scenarios for the future: 'The optimistic view is that there is substantial scope for 'catch-up' improvements in productivity: merely returning to pre-pandemic levels would represent a considerable improvement. The more pessimistic view is that the pandemic has permanently lowered NHS productivity, because of the ongoing impacts of Covid-19 on patient health and complexity and changes to working practices or expectations.' They tentatively conclude that there are recent signs that NHS productivity is recovering, but the loss of capacity is still alarming. Despite the huge amounts of extra spending devoted to the NHS since the election, and promised for the next three years, no one in the think tanks that specialise in the health service thinks that Labour's targets will be hit by the next election. Will Streeting, the lucky winner of the spending review showdown, be able to convince the voters that he has spent their money well?
