FOI reveals Anas Sarwar didn't raise welfare cuts with Rachel Reeves
On March 26, the Chancellor delivered her Spring Statement and announced a £5 billion package of welfare cuts, with a huge number of people now set to be denied the Personal Independence Payment (PIP).
Charities and health experts have since warned the cuts could risk lives, as the UK Government's own analysis indicates that an extra 250,000 people could be living in relative poverty by 2029-30 as a result – including 50,000 children.
But an FOI submitted by the SNP, which asked for any correspondence to Reeves from Sarwar and his frontbench spokesperson Paul O'Kane between March 1 and April 15 this year, received this response: 'We can confirm that the HM Treasury does not hold information within the scope of your request.'
READ MORE: 'That shouldn't be happening': Inside a chaotic Hamilton by-election hustings
Scores of Labour politicians have made clear their opposition to the plans over the past few months, including Manchester mayor Andy Burnham who has said "it feels like the wrong choice".
Scottish Labour leader Sarwar, meanwhile, has defended the cuts publicly, saying the impact assessment only considered the benefits changes, not a "package of measures" announced by the UK Government which could help tackle poverty.
SNP MSP Collette Stevenson said the FOI revealed that Sarwar 'will always stand up for the Prime Minister rather than stand up for vulnerable households in Scotland'.
She added: 'From adopting harmful Tory policies to copying Tory austerity, the priorities and values of this Labour Party are completely out of sync with those of the people of Scotland.
'However, it seems that Scottish Labour are on the same page as their Westminster bosses; content to stay silent while hundreds of thousands of families have critical support taken away by Rachel Reeves (above).
'Yet again, Anas Sarwar has shown he will always stand up for the Prime Minister rather than stand up for vulnerable households in Scotland.
'The SNP is taking action to ensure that Scotland remains the only party in the UK where rates of child poverty are falling, including providing support through the Scottish Child Payment and working towards abolishing Labour's two-child cap.
'But Labour's choices at Westminster are holding back Scotland's progress, and senior figures in Scottish Labour have nothing to say about it.
'While Anas Sarwar looks for his missing backbone, the SNP is putting Scotland first - and standing up to the cruel policies of the UK Labour Government."
Scottish Labour have been approached for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
27 minutes ago
- Telegraph
MPs using AI to polish speeches and prepare for PMQs
Politicians of all stripes have often been accused of sounding robotic as they seek to toe the party line. Now that claim might be taken literally, as MPs team up with machines to upgrade their parliamentary potential. The Telegraph has found that MPs across the political spectrum are expensing artificial intelligence (AI) tools to help with tasks like polishing speeches and grilling the Prime Minister. At least three are claiming for ChatGPT subscriptions, while others use AI-powered writing aids and video editing software. It is a sign that the centuries-old job is undergoing another revolution. Politicians are increasingly turning to the cutting-edge technology to boost their abilities as ministers scramble to balance innovation with regulation. An analysis of parliamentary expenses by The Telegraph has found at least 19 MPs have charged the taxpayer for AI tools, or programmes that have AI features. Sir Keir Starmer has actively encouraged the use of AI in Whitehall, saying he is determined to seize the 'golden opportunity' it offers. The Government has said it is throwing its full weight behind the industry to make Britain a world leader. However, there are concerns over the rapidly developing technology's transparency and reliability, as well as the potential for systems to 'go rogue'. Earlier in May, Labour was forced to row back on plans to force companies to opt out if they don't want their content used to train AI systems. The proposals had sparked anger from artists, musicians and filmmakers, who said it amounted to having their work stolen to feed AI models that could eventually replace them. Sir David Davis, the former Cabinet minister, is one of three MPs putting ChatGPT on expenses. The popular AI chatbot answers questions and solves problems by drawing upon a vast wealth of knowledge. The Tory MP, who describes himself as 'Mr Privacy', insisted he never uses the technology to engage with constituents or handle their data. But he said it is a huge asset for his policy work, getting taxpayers 'the value of maybe 10 members of staff from three'. On one occasion, he used the tool to prepare to quiz Sir Keir at Prime Minister's Questions, conducting masses of research far more quickly than any human could. By answering streams of queries in mere minutes that would normally take staff days to complete, he said the chatbot helped him to reduce the burden on his team and craft the most pertinent question possible. 'Half an hour's work on the AI' He said he 'wouldn't even have asked that question' if he had needed to get his staffers to do all the work, as it couldn't feasibly have been completed in time. However, he stressed the information still needed to be manually filtered and fact-checked. 'So it's about half an hour's work on the AI and probably about another half an hour's work checking it,' he said. He also insisted that ChatGPT could not replace his team as it lacked the 'human insight and wisdom' required to ask the right question. 'I'm pretty lucky. I've had a very, very good staff down the years,' he said. 'But they're human. They can't just sit down and read seven and a half million words in half an hour… So it's basically a force multiplier on them.' Sir David has used AI tools to help conduct research on the Lucy Letby case, which he has been campaigning on, and take notes from in-house meetings. He even attempted to get some AI writing aids to replicate his speaking mannerisms but found they couldn't quite match his style. Another MP to expense ChatGPT is Steff Aquarone, the new Lib Dem MP for North Norfolk. He also claims for an unspecified product from OpenAI, the creator of ChatGPT, and Otter, an AI transcription software. Writing tool can proofread His office said the AI tools were predominantly used for accessibility purposes by one of his staff members, who has a condition affecting his speech and coordination. Brendan O'Hara, the SNP MP for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber, also expenses ChatGPT on a monthly basis. However, he said he hadn't found it as useful as hoped. He told The Telegraph: 'We signed up to ChatGPT a couple of years ago when it first emerged, hoping that it could assist the office staff in their day-to-day operations. 'We have since discovered that it didn't do what we thought it might, and we really haven't used it very much since. We will probably look at it again before reviewing our £20-a-month subscription.' Amanda Hack, a Labour MP, and Paul Kohler, a Lib Dem MP, have both expensed Grammarly, an AI writing aid which can proofread and rewrite passages of text, as well as help the user 'strike the right tone'. Neither responded to questions about what they use it for. At least 11 MPs, including Darren Jones, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, have claimed for Veed, an AI video editor which promises to make content more engaging. Two MPs who use programmes with AI capabilities told The Telegraph that they do not make use of those features specifically. The revelations show how AI use is becoming increasingly normalised in Westminster. It emerged earlier tin 2025 that Peter Kyle, Science Secretary, has used ChatGPT to come up with policy advice. He had previously said he used the chatbot to learn on the job, telling Politics Home it can be a 'very good tutor' when 'there are things that you really struggle to understand in depth'. The Telegraph went on to reveal that five government departments had used AI to answer questions in Parliament, with Labour ministers accused of providing 'stock answers generated by a computer'. Civil servants have also been told to abide by the mantra that 'no person's substantive time should be spent on a task where digital or AI can do it better, quicker and to the same high quality and standard'.
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Yes to Flamingoland, no to National Parks: what is the SNP playing at?
Scotland's landscape dares best the poetry of the glens, rivers, mountains and loughs that run from Antrim's coast to the foot of Cork. We Irish pride ourselves on the natural splendour of our island, so it's quite the step for one of us to admit Scotland takes the prize. I've lived here 30 years, however, so that cauterises my self-inflicted wound somewhat. In a way, I feel as Scottish as I do Irish. It's this love that's grown in me towards the beauty of Scotland which makes me shake my head at the behaviour of the SNP government. Right now, I'm mystified that the custodians of this country behave so carelessly towards our landscape. Here's two events which demand that you question whether our government ministers take the same pride in Scotland's natural beauty as the rest of us. Read more on the Loch Lomond Shores / Flamingoland saga: Protesters warn Scottish ministers over Flamingo Land in Loch Lomond The SNP has a park problem. Both Flamingoland and Galloway First, there's the go-ahead for Flamingo Land at Loch Lomond despite local opposition and concerns among experts. Then secondly, there's the scrapping of plans for a new Scottish national park. It does seem that beauty, landscape and the environment aren't exactly top of the SNP's priorities. Let's look at Flamingo Land first and the refusal by the Scottish government to intervene to stop the development. The plans will see more than 100 lodges, a waterpark and a monorail built at Balloch. It's quite simply vandalism. There is overwhelming local opposition to this development. A Scottish government reporter has upheld an appeal from the Yorkshire-based theme park operator for the plans. SNP ministers rejected calls to step in and block it. The Balloch and Haldane Community Council is demanding the SNP reverse the decision to recommend planning permission. The Green MSP Ross Greer pointedly referred to SNP ministers stepping in to help Donald Trump build his Aberdeenshire golf course, despite the local council throwing out the application. 'Ministers have the power to reject and recall this decision but they won't do it despite having done so previously for developers like Donald Trump,' Greer said. 'They won't do it when it is Scotland's natural environment that needs protecting.' This article features as part of our Unspun newsletter, delivered nightly to your inbox and containing the best political insight and analysis from our writers. Sign up to Unspun for FREE here. He said the government seemed 'willing to stand up for American billionaires … but won't stand up for Scotland's communities'. The Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park Authority rejected the proposals. The Scottish Environmental Protection Agency, the National Trust for Scotland, and the Woodland Trust are also all opposed. Additionally, more than 155,000 citizens have registered their opposition. You can see why the government's position has been described as an 'anti-democratic outrage'. Residents in Balloch say the entire community is against the plan. Opponents are so incensed they have even gathered outside Holyrood to protest. One study showed that the development could lead to a net increase of just 61 full-time jobs. Meanwhile, John Swinney says he'll always 'cherish' Scotland's natural environment. SNP public finance minister Ivan McKee claims it's not 'appropriate' for him to comment as the application technically 'remains live'. Yet he found himself able to say: 'I do not intend to recall this appeal.' Further south in Scotland, plans for the country's third national park have been scrapped. Galloway would have joined the Cairngorms and Loch Lomond and the Trossachs. Rural affairs secretary Mairi Gougeon axed the idea. Labour's south Scotland MSP Colin Smyth says the area is a 'forgotten corner' of the country and worries it will become a 'dumping ground' for wind turbines. The camp opposed to the new national park hired what's been described as a 'large, slick PR consultancy' to fight their corner with the government. Kat Jones, director of Action to Protect Rural Scotland, said the decision to drop the plans was a 'tragedy'. Rob Lucas, chair of the Galloway National Park Association, called it 'a big loss'. Actions speak louder than words, right? We all know that. The SNP - the self-styled party of Scotland - can claim until the cows come home that they are committed environmentalists who cherish this country's natural beauty and wish to be good custodians of the land. However, it doesn't look like that. It looks like the government puts big business before the land and before the people who live on the land. Of course we need investment and development; of course we need job and wealth creation; and of course we need to improve our tourism infrastructure. But is this the way to go about it? What other country would take an area like Loch Lomond - known across the world for its beauty, celebrated in song - and allow a waterpark to be built there? A new national park in Galloway would have been a magnet for tourists, whilst still protecting the land. Government is about hard choices, and that inevitably means not everyone will be happy. But there's a pattern here, and it's a pattern which seems to reinforce the suspicion that the party which boasts most about loving this country of ours does far too little to back up its big but empty talk. In the end, you feel compelled to ask yourself: does the SNP really give a damn about Scotland's natural beauty? Neil Mackay is The Herald's Writer-at-Large. He's a multi-award winning investigative journalist, author of both fiction and non-fiction, and a filmmaker and broadcaster. He specialises in intelligence, security, crime, social affairs, cultural commentary, and foreign and domestic politics
New Statesman
an hour ago
- New Statesman
We have entered the Age of Electricity
Image:Like it or not, we're entering a new 'Age of Electricity', one which promises greater self-reliance amid geopolitical tensions, and a cheaper, upgraded future. But the central challenge facing Britain's electrification push isn't grid capacity or renewables rollout. It's cost. Specifically, how we charge for electricity – and how that system is actively making things worse. Labour's pledge to cut household energy bills by £300 a year this parliament grabbed the headlines but has fast become a political headache. The instinct is sound: UK energy bills are among the highest in Europe. But how you achieve that reduction is unclear, and the timeline implausible. Critics of clean energy are using this to go on the attack, blaming our high bills on renewables, Ed Miliband, and all manner of straw men. But the public are listening. With energy bills topping cost-of-living concerns, a perceived failure to deliver could be disastrous. We absolutely do need to build every last gigawatt of low-carbon power we can. But supply alone won't win the race. Without reforming the way we price electricity, demand won't keep up. The problem isn't the mission; it's the way the UK's energy bills are structured. And if that stays broken, Labour's clean energy vision risks unravelling. The short-term problem: unrealistic promises play into Reform's hands The public expects change – and when it doesn't arrive, they remember. In the Runcorn by-election, Reform's campaign persistently reminded voters of the government's £300 energy bill reduction pledge, casting it as emblematic of Labour's failure to deliver on cost-of-living promises. 'Can you afford to vote Labour?' is a slogan that will resonate as long as bills are high. The perception that electricity is expensive, and that clean power is to blame, is starting to stick. Energy bills are becoming shorthand for something deeper: the sense that Westminster doesn't understand – or can't – fix the pressures facing ordinary households. This is dangerous ground for any government to tread. In practice, a £300 bill reduction by 2030 is close to impossible. Structural reform of the energy system will take longer than five years to reach the average household. But the public is unprepared to wait. As long as the £300 target remains in the consciousness of the electorate, it will carry political cost. The most effective lever Labour has If rapid bill reductions are out of reach, what should the government do? There is a solution, but it requires honesty, not overpromising. Ministers need to be brave and make the case that reform will take time, that meaningful change beats quick fixes that could backfire. If (and when) they do, they only damage the wider mission. The way we charge energy bills is a huge problem. Electricity bills carry the weight of clean energy subsidies, fuel poverty schemes, and legacy system costs, making them artificially high. Gas – still the primary heat source for UK homes – bears a far smaller burden, making it artificially cheap. But because wholesale gas prices will set the price of electricity for some time to come, high gas prices drive up all energy bills – even for homes using solar panels, heat pumps, or other electric solutions. The result: electricity, the very thing we need more of, is more expensive than it should be. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe And the system is regressive. Everyone pays the same levies, regardless of their income. With public trust in government so low, sneaking levies onto bills is a one-way ticket to the 'they aren't governing for me' mentality that has set in across the nation. What's worse, people don't even know it's happening, and when they find out, they feel robbed. Robbed by government, by energy firms, let down by a system they believe is stacked against them. Tweaking around the edges won't fix this. Nor will it do anything for public trust. While the energy sector is mired in a needlessly messy debate over zonal pricing, policy cost rebalancing is an oasis of consensus. Rebalancing means shifting those policy costs away from electricity and distributing them more fairly – either across gas bills or into general taxation. Rebalancing won't break the gas link entirely, but it will help to level the playing field, making electrified heat and transport more affordable. More to the point, it is the best way for government to lower energy bills – by up to £400 for households already on electric heating, who today are more likely to be in fuel poverty. Done with the right support for gas users to avoid adverse effects, this is as close as policy gets to a silver bullet. Cheaper electricity drives demand. Demand drives up competition and drives down costs. The economic logic is simple. Why it matters If we want to ditch fossil fuels, electricity must be competitively priced. The current system guarantees the opposite. Unless the government fixes it, no amount of clean power investment will translate into truly affordable bills. This isn't just about the long term. Without rebalancing, Labour has little hope of delivering on its energy bill pledge. Even worse, new costs – for carbon capture, new nuclear, network costs, grid upgrades, and larger CfDs – are coming online. They too will be loaded onto electricity bills. Gains made elsewhere will be quietly eroded, just in time for the 2029 election. The public won't blame international markets; they will blame the government. Rebalancing alone won't deliver £300 savings for everyone. But it is the single most effective medium-term lever available. Combined with targeted support for gas users and the fuel poor, it would enable a smoother transition to low-carbon heating. The alternative? A worst-of-all-worlds compromise like the proposed 'Clean Heat Subsidy' risks exactly the kind of two-tier energy system which Labour has pledged to avoid: one in which the wealthier enjoy subsidised heat pumps and electric vehicles, while everyone else is stuck paying for a legacy gas system they can't afford to escape. This isn't a technical argument about net zero. It's about cutting bills, upgrading homes, and insulating the UK economy from global gas shocks. Electrification is inevitable. Rebalancing is how we make it affordable. The politics of timing But timing is everything. Today, policy costs are hidden in plain sight – loaded onto bills through a tangle of legacy levies. The result is a regressive system that charges consumers through the backdoor, opaque, unequal, and unfair. Public frustration is growing. This is fertile ground for populist opposition and makes bill reform urgent. There is a narrow window to get this right. Some of the older levies begin to fall away from 2027-2028. But others – backing new infrastructure – are just ramping up. If no change is made, these will simply add to bills, offsetting progress elsewhere. And unlike global gas prices, these are policy choices. Labour won't be able to pass the blame. If Labour is serious about electrifying and cutting costs, about cost-of-living relief, and about restoring public trust, it must deliver change. Change means addressing how energy bills are charged. Rebalancing is not optional. It's the foundation of a fairer system, and the clearest route to delivering on promises made. Anything less is just tinkering. What's needed is clarity, courage, and a willingness to break with the orthodoxy that is failing consumers and holding Britain back. Related
