Labour MSs criticise benefits plan in Senedd debate
Several backbench Labour MSs have criticised plans for cuts to disability and sickness benefits in a Senedd debate.
The Welsh government has come under pressure over decisions made in Westminster to change personal independence payments (PIPs).
It is the latest in a line of criticisms made by Labour Senedd politicians of the UK government in the last few days.
Plaid Cymru accused the Welsh Labour government of not going far enough in challenging its Westminster colleagues.
Earlier on Wednesday Finance Secretary Mark Drakeford said it was "wrong" Welsh public services faced a shortfall of £65m due to the National Insurance increases.
On Tuesday, the first minister appeared to publicly criticise the Welsh secretary for saying she had welcomed the benefits changes.
What are the Pip and universal credit changes and who is affected?
Voters take our policies for granted - first minister
FM criticises UK minister for saying she backs cuts
On Wednesday First Minister Eluned Morgan said she was "really worried" about the benefits changes.
She has called for a specific Wales impact assessment - a request that has not been fulfilled by her colleagues in Westminster.
The debate took place after Labour agreed on Tuesday to the Plaid Cymru proposal for the matter to be discussed in the Senedd.
Plaid Cymru MS Sioned Williams urged the Welsh government "to show leadership on this matter, which up to now has been conspicuous by its absence".
Alun Davies, Labour MS for Blaenau Gwent and a former minister, said the UK government was in "danger of repeating the same mistakes as the Liberal Democrats made in 2010, by accepting a Conservative economic analysis and then becoming the over-enthusiastic supporters of Tory austerity".
Davies said if people in his constituency are not able to receive support as a consequence of the decisions "then they will be the wrong decisions".
He suggested the UK government should have spoken to the Welsh government before the publication of the green paper which set out the proposals, and called for "the most vulnerable people in Wales" to be "protected from the damaging consequences of some of these decisions".
Jenny Rathbone, Cardiff Central Labour MS, said while a £3 increase in universal credit was welcome, it was "overwhelmingly overshadowed by the £5bn that the UK government is wanting to cut from these benefits".
Hefin David, Caerphilly Labour MS, said he was "happy to take" Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall "at her word when she said... the green paper is the beginning of the conversation and not the end point".
But he said he was concerned at "some of the language" in the document relating to individuals with mental health conditions, saying some people could be autistic and undiagnosed.
"If the level that they have to reach in order to qualify for a PIP is raised, yet they have an underlying condition, I would like the UK government to consider that those PIPs cannot be removed, or any support be removed, until they've gone through the diagnostic process."
Plaid Cymru leader Rhun ap Iorwerth said: "The last fortnight has been revealing in several respects: a Westminster Labour government announcing welfare changes that will penalise the most vulnerable - a Labour Welsh government silent in the face of a storm of protest."
Welsh Liberal Democrat Jane Dodds said cutting benefits "is a total false economy".
She said disabled people's medical needs "will increase, more people will be pushed into poverty".
The Conservatives in Westminster have said that the changes were "too little, too late" and needed to be "tougher".
But in the Senedd, Altaf Hussain of the Welsh Conservatives, said: "The pathways to work green paper is causing real and deep concern amongst those in receipt of health-related benefits across the length and breadth of Wales.
"This is just adding to the concerns for our disabled constituents, which will not be addressed by this debate today."
Jane Hutt, social justice minister, said she wanted to reassure people that the "Welsh government will make sure our voices, and most importantly, the voices of disabled people and their representatives, are heard by the UK government".
During her speech, ex-minister Lee Waters said: "Isn't the problem the feeling that the savings are motivated by a need to meet a notional cut in the Office for Budgetary Responsibility forecasts, not in a first-principles exercise about how to deliver an optimal welfare system."
He said the Welsh government "should say loud and clear that that is the wrong starting point".
"I think we have reserved judgment, haven't we," said Hutt.
"The first minister has made that very clear. What we do need to do is that we need to understand the evidence that is coming forward about the impacts of these proposals."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
an hour ago
- Hamilton Spectator
‘Let the chips fall': New B.C. party's leader vows to go where others won't
VICTORIA - The interim leader of B.C.'s newest political party says it will raise issues other parties won't dare to touch. Dallas Brodie said these included the effects of the 'reconciliation industry,' electoral reform, and ending mass immigration, and she will 'let the chips fall where they may' when it's time to run for re-election. The new One BC party went public on Thursday, with Brodie announcing herself as interim leader and Tara Armstrong house leader as they unveiled plans to combat what Brodie called 'the globalist assault' on B.C.'s history, culture and families. 'Tara and I are taking a principled stance,' Brodie said in an interview on Friday. 'We believe that there is room for the discussions that we are raising, and we will take our shots at the polls, and we will do our best to build (the party).' Conservative Party of B.C. Leader John Rustad kicked Brodie out of caucus in March following comments about residential schools, and Armstrong and Jordan Kealy followed her out. All three sat as Independents before the creation of One BC, and Kealy said he hasn't ruled out joining the new party, although he has doubts about its chances. Brodie said the party has four planks: major cuts to taxes and government spending; dismantling 'the reconciliation industry and ending racist laws like … the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act;' ending mass immigration, and introducing democratic reform that would see most B.C. residents vote on the same day with ballots counted by hand. The party's website also calls for the support of a 'broad array of life-affirming policies to increase birthrates, marriage rates, and life expectancy among other indicators of a healthy and vibrant society.' Brodie acknowledged that her former party had campaigned on many of those issues, when asked what her new party is offering that the Conservatives aren't. 'Also what we ran on was being strong on social issues, and that has been all watered down by the Conservative Party,' she said. '(There) is almost no difference between them and the NDP that I can see at this point — it's NDP and NDP Light.' Brodie said she believes there are other members of the legislature who will join her party, but she declined to identify them. Two sitting members in the house give One BC official party status, which Brodie said would make the party more 'interesting to other MLAs, who are still in the Conservative caucus.' Kealy said in an interview Friday that he questioned the new party's electoral prospects. 'I think they'll have a very difficult time getting re-elected, because I think that spectrum of (potential) voters is becoming disenfranchised, and in all honesty, I think talk is cheap.' Kealy said his role as an MLA is to fix existing problems in his riding of Peace River North, adding that his experience of seeing the Conservatives turn into a 'big tent party' has made him 'cautious' about joining another party. 'I have said that even before I joined the Conservative Party, that I am doing this for my region first and foremost, and I will not be whipped by a party.' Brodie said the door remains open for Kealy. Mark Marissen, a political strategist and former mayoral candidate in Vancouver, said on social media that the emergence of One BC is the birth of a 'new anti-First Nations political party.' When asked about Marissen's comments, Brodie said the effects of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act need to be discussed in open and her party is committed to repealing it. 'It's taking a lot of communities by surprise,' she said. Brodie, who represents Vancouver-Quilchena, said the legislature needs to be a place where 'there are no topics that are off limit.' She said few people want to discuss the law passed by the NDP government on the rights of Indigenous Peoples in an 'open' and 'transparent' manner. 'They (would) just rather call people names, and shut down the conversation, and that's not going to help B.C.,' she said. Armstrong is the MLA for Kelowna-Lake Country-Coldstream. Brodie has been criticized in the past for comments about First Nations. In February, she wrote on social media that the 'number of confirmed child burials at the former Kamloops Residential School site is zero.' Speaking at an election event in October 2024, Brodie said First Nations demanding autonomy must take responsibility for the problems of Vancouver's Downtown Eastside. '(When) a large percentage of your people are on the Downtown Eastside, it's important that you come take responsibility for that piece as well,' she said. 'It's not OK to leave your people dying.' Brodie said she doesn't deny what has happened at residential schools. The New Democratic Party said in a statement that the One BC members are 'fixated on spreading anti-Indigenous racism, attacking the LGBTQ+ community (and) stoking western separatism.' This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 13, 2025. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Axios
2 hours ago
- Axios
Names to watch in the race to replace U.S. Rep. Mark Green
U.S. Rep. Mark Green's upcoming retirement will trigger a special election and open the flood gates for potential candidates. Why it matters: A U.S. House seat is one of the most desirable jobs in politics. Green's solidly Republican district, which stretches from Clarksville to Williamson County, has a slate of contenders. State of play: One challenger has already thrown his hat in the ring. Matt Van Epps, a former cabinet member for Gov. Bill Lee, immediately announced his candidacy. The intrigue: Nashville is now carved into three congressional districts, and none of its current representatives live in the city. Former Nashville mayoral finalist Alice Rolli tells Axios she's thinking about running. What we're hearing: In addition to Van Epps and Rolli, here are some of the names making the rounds as potential Republican challengers: State lawmakers Bill Powers, Gino Bulso and Jody Barrett and former state Rep. Brandon Ogles are possible candidates. The race could garner some entertainment industry star power if John Rich from the band Big & Rich runs. Conservative operatives Mark Moore, Chris Burger and Brian Clifford are also viewed as possible challengers. The other side: Democrats will be primed to run as well.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
The ‘experts' you've never heard of inspiring Rachel Reeves's disastrous economic policy
A little like the Chagos Islands giveaway and, more recently, the apparent Gibraltar sell out, it's almost impossible to work out the motivations behind each and every idiotic decision this Labour Government takes. There's a palpable sense of incredulity spreading across Britain as the Prime Minister and Chancellor continue to insist that everything is going swimmingly despite most key markers showing precisely the opposite is true. Take the economy. In Wednesday's Spending Review, Rachel Reeves boasted that she had 'wasted no time' removing the barriers to growth. Less than 24 hours later, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) revealed that UK GDP had shrunk by 0.3 per cent in April. Labour continues to splurge taxpayers' hard-earned cash despite the national debt sitting at around 96 per cent of GDP, the budget deficit more doubling in the past seven years, and public spending being on a par with the profligate Labour government of the 1970s, which almost bankrupted the country. Back then, taxes as a share of GDP were around 33 per cent. Forecasts suggest that, by 2027, they could reach 37.7 per cent. Unemployment is at its highest level in four years, UK payrolls have lost 276,000 employees since the autumn Budget, and a millionaire is reportedly leaving the UK every 45 minutes under Labour. Still, no one in the Cabinet appears able to rule out further tax rises, with Paul Johnson, the outgoing chief of the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) concluding that 'council tax bills look set to rise at their fastest rate over any parliament since 2001-05.' Who is advising Reeves on tax policy, and her relentless assault on our wallets? Readers may not have heard of Arun Advani and Andy Summers, but these little known academics may have been the inspiration for Labour's seemingly never-ending tax grab. They run the Centre for the Analysis of Taxation (CenTax), which some credit for Labour's farm tax. Advani, who is associate professor in the economics department at the University of Warwick, called for inheritance tax 'loopholes' on farms to be scrapped in two reports for the Institute for Fiscal Studies, as well as writing a further report for CenTax making the same arguments for changes to both Agricultural Property Relief (APR) and Business Property Relief (BPR) last October. After Advani boasted at the Labour Party Conference that he was 'optimistic' because the Labour government is 'genuinely listening' to his ideas, Reeves announced in the Budget that the availability of 100 per cent relief for agricultural and business property would be capped at £1 million. So far, so predictable, you may argue. What's the harm in tapping up Left-wing think tanks for radical tax ideas? Do Conservative governments not rely on the research of free market institutes? Well, some have alleged the Treasury relied solely on CenTax's projection that the changes would raise £520 million, without doing its own calculations. As it conceded in response to a Freedom of Information request: 'H M Treasury does not hold a disaggregated cost projection for the revenue raised from the measure announced at Autumn Budget 2024 to restrict these reliefs. This is a combined policy across the reliefs, rather than separate policies for each relief.' Even more problematically, the £520 million figure has been challenged. The OBR itself said it was uncertain how much would be raised as a result of behavioural responses, whilst CBI Economics calculates that the new tax on both family firms and farms will actually cost the Treasury £1.9 billion over the next five years. Advani claimed that only around 500 farms would be affected by the tax. As the Adam Smith Institute points out, however, 'the government's much-quoted '500' a year is really 15,000 a generation.' The true number of farms could be more than 40,000. Separate research, commissioned by Ashbridge Partners, found that one in 10 farmers surveyed said they will face an IHT bill of more than £1 million due to the inheritance tax hike, with 31 per cent expecting to pay more than £500,000. Why didn't Labour listen? Treasury minister James Murray, who referenced back in 2022 how many Zoom meetings he'd held with Dr Summers, even hosted CenTax's official launch in Parliament last November when he declared his desire 'to make sure that collaboration between CenTax, Treasury and HMRC continues for many years into the future.' Advani and Summers also influenced Labour's pledge to scrap non dom status with Treasury ministers again seeming to unquestioningly swallow their claim that it would raise £3.2 billion, a figure repeatedly cited by the Government. The trouble is, that number was also based on some misguided premises, perhaps including Advani and Summers' quite ludicrous prediction that out of 70,000 non-doms, only 77 would leave. As other economists later pointed out, the projection did not take into account the impact of abolishing non-dom inheritance tax protections. Even the OBR assumed that the changes would likely lead to a loss of 25 per cent of non-doms with trusts, which could cost the UK more than £12 billion during the course of the parliament. Still the Government swallowed the £3.2 billion figure hook line and sinker despite some now estimating that 10 per cent of non-doms may have already left the UK. A report by the CEBR predicts the ongoing exodus could reach 40 per cent – costing the Treasury a self-defeating £7.1 billion over this parliament. This combined with the £1.9 billion revenue lost as a result of the farm and family firm tax could mean the Government is down £9 billion thanks to listening to these nitwits. CenTax also wrongly predicted that increasing the tax rate on carried interest to 45 per cent would raise additional revenue of £0.8 billion per year. Labour settled on 32 per cent – but a January 2025 estimate by the OBR suggests that only £100 million will be raised and since then Reeves has watered it down. Labour claim to be a 'party of business'. So why are they seemingly listening to two economists who are laying the intellectual groundwork for an expansion in taxation that could come to look like Corbynism on steroids. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
