Ministers ‘pushed ahead too fast' on welfare reform, says Phillipson
Ms Phillipson told the BBC's Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg programme that she was 'not going to pretend that it hasn't been a tough or a challenging week' after ministers were forced to scrap their plans for the personal independence payment (Pip) in the face of a backbench revolt.
'I'd be the first to acknowledge that, both in the pace and the nature of what we set out, we didn't get it right, but we do need to reform the system we've got,' she said.
Asked about the Prime Minister's authority, the Education Secretary said: 'What the Prime Minister has said, and what I also believe, is that what we set out, we pushed ahead too fast, we didn't listen enough to people, including, I would say, including to lots of people who had concerns about the nature of that change.'
Ministers have warned MPs that there will be financial consequences to the decision not to reform Pip as planned.
Labour backbenchers have also been pushing for the Government to scrap the two-child benefit cap.
When asked if there was now less chance of the cap being scrapped given the costs that come with Tuesday's decision, Ms Phillipson told the BBC that ministers were 'looking at every lever and we'll continue to look at every lever to lift children out of poverty'.
Pushed on whether the likelihood of the cap going was now slimmer, Ms Phillipson said: 'The decisions that have been taken in the last week do make decisions, future decisions harder.
'But all of that said, we will look at this collectively in terms of all of the ways that we can lift children out of poverty.'
Meanwhile, shadow chancellor Sir Mel Stride had written to the budget watchdog asking whether a new updated fiscal forecast was in the works after Labour's U-turns on welfare and winter fuel.
I've written to the @OBR_UK seeking urgent clarity on the multi-billion pound hole created by Labour's unfunded spending commitments. When governments lose control of the finances and transparency is sidelined, confidence in our economy is put at risk.
Parliament and the public… pic.twitter.com/2jEzjC4vGa
— Mel Stride (@MelJStride) July 6, 2025
In his letter to the Office for Budget Responsibility, Sir Mel said: 'The public, Parliament and markets deserve clarity and transparency about the impact of recent events on the nation's finances and the Government's fiscal strategy.'
The Conservatives will try to change the Government's welfare Bill to tighten up access to Pip and universal credit by laying a series of amendments this week.
Tory leader Kemi Badenoch will also pledge that the Tories are 'now the only party committed to serious welfare reform' in a speech expected on Thursday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Powys County Times
an hour ago
- Powys County Times
No age limit on law, says Met Police chief as 83-year-old arrested at protest
The law does not have an age limit, the head of the Metropolitan Police said after an 83-year-old reverend was arrested when protesters gathered to show support for Palestine Action which has been banned as a terror group. The Metropolitan Police posted on X on Saturday afternoon saying officers were responding to the demonstration in Parliament Square, London, and later added that 29 people were arrested. On Sunday afternoon, the force said that all 29 have been bailed pending further inquiries. The protest started at about 1.10pm and officers were seen taking people away shortly after 1.30pm. Reverend Sue Parfitt, 83, who was sat in a camp chair with placards at her feet, appeared to have been taken away by officers. A woman seen lying on the ground in handcuffs was lifted by officers and put in a police van. Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley was asked on the BBC's Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg whether it was a good use of police time after the priest was pictured being taken away from the demonstration. He said: 'The law doesn't have an age limit, whether you're 18 or 80. 'If you're supporting proscribed organisations, then the law is going to be enforced. 'Officers, you could see, did it with great care and tried to preserve that person's dignity, but they're breaking a serious law. 'Palestine Action have over the last 18 months, I have to be careful what I say, because there's cases coming to trial, but some really serious criminal offences that they're accused of. There are millions of pounds worth of damage on multiple occasions. There are assaults, there are weapons used. 'It is not about protest. This is about an organisation committing serious criminality and obviously the Home Secretary was persuaded by the papers on her desk to proscribe them, that law has come into force, and if people want to defy that law, then we have to enforce it.' Palestine Action lost a late-night Court of Appeal challenge on Friday which sought to stop the protest group being banned, less than two hours before the new legislation came into force at midnight. The designation as a terror group means that membership of, or support for, Palestine Action is a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison. A group had earlier said it was set to gather in Parliament Square on Saturday holding signs supporting Palestine Action, according to campaign group Defend Our Juries. In a letter to the Home Secretary, protesters said: 'We do not wish to go to prison or to be branded with a terrorism conviction, but we refuse to be cowed into silence by your order.' The move to ban the organisation was announced after two Voyager aircraft were damaged at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire on June 20, an incident claimed by Palestine Action, which police said caused around £7 million of damage. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action on June 23, stating that the vandalism of the two planes was 'disgraceful' and that the group had a 'long history of unacceptable criminal damage'. MPs in the Commons voted 385 to 26, majority 359, in favour of proscribing the group on Wednesday, before the House of Lords backed the move without a vote on Thursday. Four people – Amy Gardiner-Gibson, 29, Jony Cink, 24, Daniel Jeronymides-Norie, 36, and Lewis Chiaramello, 22 – have all been charged in connection with the incident at RAF Brize Norton.
Scotsman
an hour ago
- Scotsman
How Labour's NHS reforms in England pose a real threat to the SNP
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Given the Labour government's performance in recent weeks, it was refreshing to hear some genuine vision in the Health Secretary's ten-year health plan for England and Wales. Don't get me wrong, I have questions about the deliverability. The lack of social care. The expense. But when Wes Streeting opened his speech by saying, 'there are moments in our national story when our choices define who we are', I knew we were about to hear something momentous. What I had not anticipated was that the 'Fit for the Future' Plan he was about to unveil for England would not only set out a new vision and direction for the NHS there, but throw down the gauntlet for the Scottish Government. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad On the anniversary of the announcement of a National Health Service by the Attlee Government, Streeting revealed what he claimed will be a reformed neighbourhood health service. That it was largely welcomed, sometimes cautiously, on all sides of the Commons speaks not just to the plan itself but to the widespread belief that major reform is needed if we are to safeguard one of our country's proudest achievements for the next generation. Getty Images Comparing waiting lists Of course, there were questions from the Tories on detail and from my own party, the Liberal Democrats, on how it will impact on social care specifically. We have long called for free personal care, based on the model introduced by the Scottish Liberal Democrats in government, better support for unpaid carers and help for those struggling with accommodation costs. But the general feeling was that this plan has the community-based approach and ambition which is required. And as Tory Shadow Health Secretary Ed Argar put it, we need it to stick. While that ambition might currently be contained within England by devolution legislation, there's surely no doubt it will invite comparison with Scotland as waiting times and other targets often do. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad It's also likely that the pressure faced by the current service and staff in Scotland and the SNP's abject failure to produce the same sort of ambitious vision will be a major issue in the 2026 election. Learning from England Given that importance, it was disappointing the only contribution from that party in the debate in parliament was an self-congratulatory comment on our medicines agency. Surely those of us who have benefited from a health service and staff coping with unacceptable under resourcing and often crumbling facilities are entitled to expect better of our Holyrood ruling party. The SNP would now do well to spend time reading what Streeting has laid out. I have a sneaking suspicion that Labour in Scotland will want to promote something similar. They may well see it as the key to electoral success, as well as the key to securing the future of the NHS. In times of crisis especially, there is nothing wrong with looking across the Border to see what is possible elsewhere. We have often examined the work of European or Nordic countries for examples of how to tackle issues with housing, education and beyond. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad To refuse to look to our nearest neighbours for a health service cure would be churlish at best. And this time, it might just be terminal for the SNP.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on the BBC's future: the broadcaster's independence and funding face challenges
The BBC will soon charge US users for full news access. In Britain, it may seem a distant prospect, but if universality can be dropped abroad, how long before it's tested at home? With the BBC's charter due for renewal in 2027, the funding debate is intensifying. What becomes of the licence fee will define the broadcaster's future. There is increased scrutiny of Auntie's independence and impartiality after political pressure was applied through censure, funding freezes and contentious board appointments. What the BBC should look like in a fragmented media landscape is uncertain. A big question is whether the licence fee levied on households should be replaced by subscription, limited advertising or public funding. The last option is surely a non-starter, opening the door to more direct political control. Carrying adverts would force the BBC to compete with other broadcasters for cash, and destabilise existing providers. A subscription-style BBC, even if technical hurdles were overcome, wouldn't be a national institution. Those most in need of public-service media – navigating disinformation, political alienation or regional marginalisation – would be left out. Once you charge, the question isn't how to inform, educate and entertain the public; it's who can afford to be included. Partial subscription might keep some core services – like news – free, while others are paywalled. This would entrench a two-tier public service. The BBC is a large organisation and not without its faults. But critics with vested interests often exaggerate them. What began as commercial pressure has been inflamed by culture wars. Success – from Peaky Blinders to Blue Planet – has not shielded it from attack. No wonder the director-general, Tim Davie, warned in May of a looming 'trust crisis'. It's now easier to list the political groups at war with BBC News than those who trust it. The row over Glastonbury – and the BBC's retreat – underscores the pressure on Mr Davie. But the broadcaster's fight isn't just with critics. It's also battling for attention in an ecosystem flooded by algorithmic noise. Since the last charter renewal in 2016, streamers, podcasts and AI have disrupted the landscape, collapsing trust in 'legacy' media. When outrage spreads faster than facts, and filter bubbles shape belief, the BBC's global stature as a respected public institution matters more than ever. Every government leans on the BBC – at a price. The BBC pulled a documentary, Gaza: Doctors Under Attack, citing vague concerns about 'partiality'. Channel 4 aired it instead. Meanwhile, Robbie Gibb, a controversial Johnson-era appointee, helps shape BBC editorial priorities as a board member. A former Tory spin doctor, he became the Jewish Chronicle's owner, appointing an editor who pushed a hardline pro-Israel stance and oversaw multiple scandals. He refused to reveal who was funding the paper. His role in guiding how the BBC reviews its Middle East coverage raises concerns about impartiality. More than 400 media figures last week called for his removal. His departure is long overdue. In 1977, the Annan committee reimagined broadcasting for a changing Britain. Channel 4 was the result. The culture secretary, Lisa Nandy, who has sensibly called for a modern Annan‑style review, is chary of backing Mr Davie. But broader reform is needed in a time of distrust and disruption. For the BBC, this could offer not just a funding fix but a democratic roadmap. The charter review must rebuild a trusted civic platform – a public good, not a private preserve.
