
Flagship welfare reform plans to be introduced in Parliament
The Welfare Reform Bill will be introduced in the House of Commons, and its text will be published so MPs can begin scrutiny of the proposals.
The major reforms are set to include the tightening of criteria for the main disability benefit in England, personal independence payment (Pip).
I'll vote against these awful welfare reforms.
A Labour government should lift people out of poverty, not put people into it.
If you agree, then please write to your MP and tell them that. pic.twitter.com/9hvZfe9Cpf
— Brian Leishman (@BrianLeishmanMP) June 17, 2025
Ministers also want to cut the sickness related element of universal credit (UC), and delay access to it, so only those aged 22 and over can claim it.
The package of reforms is aimed at encouraging more people off sickness benefits and into work, and the Government hopes it can save up to £5 billion a year by doing so.
But ministers are likely to face a Commons stand-off with backbench Labour MPs over their plans, with dozens of them last month saying the proposals were 'impossible to support'.
The Bill is set to be introduced as the latest benefits data has shown that more than 3.7 million people in England and Wales are claiming Pip, with teenagers and young adults making up a growing proportion.
The latest data, published by the Department for Work and Pensions on Tuesday, showed there were a record 3.74 million people in England and Wales claiming Pip as of April this year.
The figure is up from 3.69 million in January and a jump of 200,000 from 3.54 million a year earlier.
(PA Graphics)
Data for Pip claimants begins in January 2019, when the number stood at 2.05 million.
Pip is a benefit aimed at helping with extra living costs if someone has a long-term physical or mental health condition or disability and difficulty doing certain everyday tasks or getting around because of their condition.
Teenagers and young adults account for a growing proportion of those getting Pip.
Some 16.5% of claimants in April this year were aged 16-19, up from 14.6% in April 2019.
The 30-44 age group has similarly grown, while the number of 45-59 year-olds has fallen.
The figure for 60-74 year-olds has risen slightly over this period, from 29.3% to 30.8%.
It was reported in recent days that Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall has agreed to include 'non-negotiable' protections in the Bill, including a guarantee that those who no longer qualify for Pip will still receive the payments for 13 weeks, rather than just four weeks.
Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall leaves Downing Street, London, after a Cabinet meeting (Stefan Rousseau/PA)
The concession is seen as a move to avert a rebellion by Labour MPs opposed to the overall reforms, but have been described as 'not very much really' by one such parliamentarian.
Downing Street insisted it was 'crucial to say we are committed to the reforms that we've set out'.
A No 10 spokesman said: 'You've heard that from the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, the Work and Pensions Secretary, on the principles behind this and the urgent need for this.
'You have the statistics, they show we have the highest level of working age inactivity due to ill health in Western Europe.
'We're the only major economy whose employment rate hasn't recovered since the pandemic.'
Pip will remain 'an important non-means-tested benefit for disabled people and people with long-term health conditions, regardless of whether they are in or out of work', he said, but added the Government would build a 'system that is fairer' through its reforms.
It is thought the restrictions on Pip would slash benefits for about 800,000 people.
Ms Kendall previously said there are 1,000 new Pip awards every day – 'the equivalent of adding a city the size of Leicester every single year'.

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

South Wales Argus
2 hours ago
- South Wales Argus
Trump says Iran's leader is ‘easy target' as Starmer calls for de-escalation
The US president abruptly left Sir Keir and allies at a major global summit amid the escalating conflict between Israel and Iran. The Prime Minister said 'nothing' he had heard from the US president suggested Washington was poised to get involved as western leaders continue to press for de-escalation between the two long-time foes. But within hours, Mr Trump said his patience was wearing thin with Iran and suggested Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was an 'easy target' who the US could 'take out' if it chose. Writing on his Truth Social platform, Mr Trump said: 'We know exactly where the so-called 'Supreme Leader' is hiding. 'He is an easy target, but is safe there – We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now. 'But we don't want missiles shot at civilians, or American soldiers. Our patience is wearing thin.' Without further explanation he also wrote 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!' on the platform. And he suggested the US had 'complete and total control of the skies over Iran'. Mr Trump left the G7 conference in Canada a day early to deal with what he called 'big stuff' and urged Iranian citizens to evacuate from Tehran, which triggered speculation that American forces might join Israeli strikes. The Prime Minister is holding talks on the conflict with fellow leaders of the G7 in Canada (Stefan Rousseau/PA) Asked whether the US could get involved as the conflict threatens to spiral into all-out war, Sir Keir told reporters with him at the conference in Kananaskis: 'There is nothing the president said that suggests he's about to get involved in this conflict. On the contrary, the G7 statement was about de-escalation.' In a statement on Monday before Mr Trump's departure, leaders had reiterated their 'commitment to peace and stability' but stopped short of calling for a truce between Israel and Iran. The Prime Minister said the wording 'faithfully reflects' the discussions of allies around the table. 'I don't think anything that the president said either here or elsewhere suggests that,' he said when pressed on the prospect of imminent US involvement. 'I think that the statement really speaks for itself in terms of the shared position of everybody who was here at the G7.' The Prime Minister was asked whether Britain would potentially support the US if it took action to limit Iran's nuclear programme, which leaders have condemned. US President Donald Trump left the G7 conference in Canada a day early for 'big stuff' (Suzanne Plunkett/PA) 'On nuclear, Iran's nuclear programme, I've been very clear. We are deeply concerned about the programme. I certainly do not want Iran to have a nuclear weapon,' he said. 'But the thrust of the statement is in accordance with what I was saying on the way out here, which is to de-escalate the situation, and to de-escalate it across the region rather than to escalate it.' In Westminster, not long after Mr Trump's Truth Social posts, Defence Secretary John Healey suggested the US president was 'leading the calls' for a diplomatic solution to the Iran-Israel conflict. 'I would say that you have seen the UK and the US, and other countries all calling for de-escalation, all calling for renewed diplomacy and you hear President Trump leading the charge and leading the calls for Iran to do a deal,' Mr Healey said at the Royal United Services Institute's Land Warfare conference. Hours after signing the Middle East agreement, Mr Trump has suggested that he was not interested in a truce while also attacking French President Emmanuel Macron, who had told French media that the US leader was leaving early to negotiate a ceasefire. Asked whether he was disappointed in the apparent US move to act unilaterally in relation to the conflict amid concerns the G7 could be sidelined, Sir Keir played down divisions. He told reporters: 'I think what (the president) said was he wanted to go beyond a ceasefire effectively and end the conflict. 'And I think he's right about that. I mean, a ceasefire is always a means to an end.' A joint communique from the summit was not expected as leaders struggled to find unity on issues like Ukraine, with Mr Trump indicating his reluctance to impose sanctions on Russia. Instead, host prime minister Mark Carney of Canada issued a 'chair's summary' insisting the group 'continues to demonstrate its value as a platform for advanced economies to… address issues of peace and security'. Mr Carney also said Ottawa would hit Russia with further sanctions, as the UK did on Tuesday, as well as providing 2 billion Canadian dollars in aid to Kyiv. As well as taking part in plenary sessions with the wider group , the Prime Minister also held face-to-face meetings with the leaders of Ukraine, Australia and South Korea on the fringes of the summit. Sir Keir and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky agreed to convene the next meeting over the so-called 'coalition of the willing', plans led by Britain and France to send peacekeeping troops to help protect Kyiv, in the coming weeks. Elsewhere, he and newly elected South Korean president Lee Jae-myung agreed to complete an upgrade to the free trade agreement between London and Seoul. 'Both leaders agreed to aim to complete the upgrade to the existing Free Trade Agreement between the two countries as soon as possible,' Number 10 said.


Scotsman
2 hours ago
- Scotsman
Pilot of ‘transformative' minimum income proposed after Scottish election
Charities, campaigners and academics call for 'fundamental change to the social contract' Sign up to our Politics newsletter 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... An expert group commissioned by ministers has set out a 'road map' to implementing a minimum income guarantee in Scotland, saying it will be a 'fundamental change to the social contract'. The group of charities, campaigners and academics say there should be a pilot of the policy following next year's Holyrood election. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad A minimum income guarantee would establish an income level below which nobody is allowed to fall, through reform to social security, work, and services. In a suite of recommendations, the group says the Scottish child payment should be doubled to £55 per week by 2031 and sanctions in the welfare system should be effectively ended. They say an interim minimum income payment could be established by 2036, in line with the relative poverty level. A homeless person and their dog on the Royal Mile in Edinburgh | PA Some of the group's welfare changes would cost £671 million per year by 2030/31, in today's prices. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad However these would require just over £300 million of additional spending if the UK Government scraps the two-child limit and ends the five-week wait for universal credit, the group said. The costs have led the Conservatives to describe the policy as 'bizarre and unaffordable'. Work on a minimum income guarantee was first committed to in the Scottish Government's 2021 legislative programme, under Nicola Sturgeon's tenure as first minister. Russell Gunson from the Robertson Trust chaired the expert group. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad He said: 'A minimum income guarantee could be transformative, putting in place a universal guarantee that's there for everyone in Scotland. 'Given the levels of poverty and inequality we see, we must act urgently. 'With technological change and an ageing population, we need to build security for all to make sure we can take the economic opportunities in front of Scotland. 'A minimum income guarantee could future-proof Scotland.' 'Affordable and doable' Addressing questions about the affordability, Mr Gunson added: 'The first steps we set out over the next five years are affordable in the current context, and doable within existing powers. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'We can't wait – and we don't need to wait – to begin to make the changes outlined in this report. 'We know poverty, inequality, and insecurity costs us dearly in financial terms and in lost potential.' However Conservative finance spokesman Craig Hoy was dismissive of the proposal. He said: 'The SNP have made no serious attempt to rein in wasteful public spending and a soaring welfare bill. Now this report shows that a minimum income guarantee would cost billions – when Scottish taxpayers are already footing the bill for spending that is simply unsustainable and unaffordable. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Recommendations include doubling the Scottish child payment to £55 per week by 2031 'The SNP's existing plans involve benefits spending £2 billion higher than other parts of the country by the end of the decade – and it's Scottish workers that will be saddled with the cost, when they are already paying the highest rates of tax in the UK. 'The SNP should immediately rule out this bizarre and unaffordable policy and reverse their reckless spending plans.' Social Justice Secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville said the Government would consider the group's report and respond in due course. She said: 'The legacy of the financial crash, Brexit, and more than 10 years of UK Government austerity has meant that living standards across the UK are stagnating – pushing households further from an acceptable standard of living. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'We are already taking action in a number of the areas highlighted by the Group, while operating within the limits of the devolution settlement and responsible management of the public finances. 'This includes providing the Scottish Child Payment, which is only available in Scotland and which it is forecast will support the families of around 330,000 children this year. 'Meanwhile as the UK Government refuses to act to end the Universal Credit two-child limit, the Scottish Government has committed to ending this limit next year.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad She continued: 'The Scottish Government is of course committed to ensuring that finances remain on a sustainable trajectory. 'We will continue to take forward our programme of work for doing this, which will be updated in the next Medium-Term Financial Strategy to be published later this month, alongside our fiscal sustainability delivery plan.


New Statesman
2 hours ago
- New Statesman
Keir Starmer's grooming gang cowardice
Photo by Lauren Hurley / No 10 Downing Street A prime minister who only acts when forced to do so by others inspires neither confidence nor respect. But this is something we have seen repeatedly with Keir Starmer and this Labour government. The latest – and arguably most egregious – example is the U-turn on holding a full national inquiry into grooming gangs. In January, Starmer accused politicians calling for such an inquiry of jumping on the 'bandwagon of the far right'. Robust debate, he said, 'can only be based on the true facts'. But the facts today are as they were six months ago; as they have been for years. Thousands of vulnerable girls have been groomed and raped by groups of men, disproportionately of Pakistani heritage. We knew from Alexis Jay's report in 2014 – 11 years ago – that 1,400 children were sexually exploited in Rotherham alone between 1997 and 2013. And that was a 'conservative estimate'. Stories first appeared in the media in 2007, by Julie Bindel in the Sunday Times Magazine. The late Andrew Norfolk of the Times published hundreds of articles from 2011 on child rapes perpetrated across England. Some of those closest to the Prime Minister privately warned him last year in stark, emotional terms about the scale of the collective failure to protect the most vulnerable girls; that some of the responsibility lay with Labour-run or Labour-dominated local authorities – in Rotherham, Rochdale and elsewhere; that this was one of the most shameful episodes of British history. And yet. As Louise Casey points out in her National Audit on Group-Based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse, released on 16 June, 'we are talking about multiple sexual assaults committed against children by multiple men on multiple occasions; beatings and gang rapes'. Earlier this month, survivors of the abuse spoke to BBC Newsnight. Kate (not her real name) was raped 'almost daily' by 'multiple men a day'. Fiona was plied with drugs and violently raped from the age of 14, shortly after she was taken into care. Chantelle was also in the care system when she was first abused and drugged at 11 years old. The perpetrators of these crimes were all gangs of British Asian men. That Starmer had to ask troubleshooter-in-chief Casey to decide whether a national inquiry was needed is cowardice. For the Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, to declare on the day Casey's report was published that the systematic rape of girls marked 'a stain on our society and a failure of those who were meant to protect them' – only after someone else gave the government permission to say so – was pure chutzpah. Even when confirming his change of heart, the Prime Minister made no compelling case of his own for why these crimes needed proper examination. Rather, Casey had 'come to the view there should be a national inquiry' and he would 'accept her recommendation'. But this shameful U-turn is part of a wider pattern of this government effectively subcontracting out difficult decisions to others. It looks weak, directionless and lacking in conviction as a result. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Having refused to take a consistent position on the clash between women's rights and the rights of trans people, it was left to the Supreme Court to rule that 'sex' in the Equality Act meant 'biological sex'. The official Labour line had been that no clarification was needed, even when the case was scheduled to be heard. Senior party figures saw the issue as a 'distraction'. The best Starmer could muster in response to the judgement was to say he was pleased it had brought 'clarity'. But what about the issue, Prime Minister? Where do you stand? Do you support the judgement, or does it prompt a rethink in the law? If Starmer and senior cabinet ministers think the ruling was wrong, they should say so. Stop hiding behind process. Lead. Into this mix of inaction, we can throw in the decision to return the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. Had the government not done so, the Defence Secretary, John Healey, said, 'Within weeks, [it] could face losing legal rulings.' Framing it this way – in effect, 'the courts made us' – hardly screams political conviction. It's the same on Palestinian statehood. Recognition of a Palestinian state is a manifesto pledge, but according to Sky News's Sam Coates, 'the UK will only recognise a Palestinian state once other countries also do so'. And then there's the cut to pensioners' winter fuel allowance: despite insisting it was the right thing to do – for 11 months – Chancellor Rachel Reeves later bowed to public pressure to reverse it. Politicians must be allowed to change their minds. Admitting you were wrong, being open-minded and receptive to new evidence are signs of strength. But that is not what's happening with this Prime Minister and his government. Time after time, they seem unable to make a positive argument for either action or inaction. Each Labour government since the war has made a strong moral case for its reforms. Attlee and Bevan with the NHS. Wilson and Jenkins on decriminalising homosexuality. Blair and Brown on international development and child poverty. When will this government do the same? The danger is that into the void come others – Reform especially – who seem more 'authentic', better in touch with what many Britons think and feel. With a big majority, Labour can afford to be bold and principled. To govern is to choose. But those choices should be choices of direction and policy – not of who to ask to make those decisions for you. [See more: Is Trump the last neoconservative?] Related