logo
DWP benefits U-turn leaves £4.8 billion hole in the budget

DWP benefits U-turn leaves £4.8 billion hole in the budget

The concessions, including the last-minute shelving of plans to restrict eligibility for personal independence payments (Pip), were enough to head off the Government's first Commons defeat.
But they also removed a key plank of Sir Keir Starmer's welfare reform agenda, delaying changes to Pip until after a review of the benefit not due to conclude until autumn 2026.
Disability groups have shared their concerns
Many disability charities were unhappy with the result," despite some concessions.
James Watson-O'Neill, Chief Executive of the national disability charity Sense, said: "Today's vote in Parliament is deeply distressing. By choosing to advance this bill, MPs have voted for measures the government's data say will push 150,000 disabled people into poverty. This is not the right way to reform our welfare system — it's a move that has already caused significant fear and anxiety within the disabled people's community.
"We're incredibly grateful to all those who spoke out against the bill. Their efforts helped secure important government concessions, which mean some disabled people will retain the support they rely on. However, this creates a deeply unfair two-tier system — protecting some while leaving new claimants facing serious financial hardship. And the government's latest concession, to delay the tightening of the criteria for PIP, doesn't change the fact that it will eventually become harder for new claimants to access this vital benefit.
"Looking ahead, we urge the government to immediately reconsider their proposal to remove the health element of Universal Credit from young people until they turn 22. We also want to work constructively with them to expand the eligibility criteria for additional support for those who will never be able to work, to ensure no one is left behind."
PIP IS NOT AN OUT-OF-WORK
BENEFIT
PIP is an allowance that helps disabled people with the extra costs incurred by having a disability. You can claim it whether you work or not.
The media and government narrative about PIP is incorrect and must be challenged
KILL THE BILL!… pic.twitter.com/oOulXW1CWm — Atlanta 🦹🏻‍♀️ #DisabilityRebellion (@areyoflight) June 30, 2025
But Mark Rowland, Chief Executive of the Mental Health Foundation, shared these concerns: 'Tonight's concessions by the UK government are a victory for not just the millions of people across the country who are disabled, but for every single one of us who may find ourselves disabled one day. Removing Clause 5 is clearly the right decision given the lack of evidence these measures would encourage anyone with a mental health problem to return to work, and the very clear risk of pushing people into poverty, worsening their mental health. Despite this, this bill remains deeply flawed.
'We remain concerned by the measures in this bill which both reduce the amount paid to recipients of the health element of Universal Credit, and limits its eligibility to those over the age of 22. These measures are discriminatory, and will do little to support people back into the workplace. The UK government should drop the implementation of these measures too."
What will happen next?
Ahead of a crucial vote on cuts to disability benefits, our new evidence casts doubt on whether jobs are even available for disabled people facing cuts 📢
The analysis found that the parts of the country among the hardest hit by the cuts have fewer job opportunities 1/3 pic.twitter.com/4XAgKq3OoL — Joseph Rowntree Foundation (@jrf_uk) June 24, 2025
With no clarity on when the changes will be enacted or what they might entail, the Chancellor now faces a fiscal headache as a forecast £4.8 billion in welfare savings have been whittled away to nothing.
Economists at the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) and Resolution Foundation think tanks warned that Tuesday's concessions meant Ms Reeves could now expect no 'net savings' by 2029/30 – a key year for meeting her fiscal targets.
IFS deputy director Helen Miller said the move had effectively halved the Chancellor's 'margin of error' against her main fiscal rule, once again raising the possibility of tax rises in the autumn.
On top of that, a stuttering economy and global instability could mean she has even less room for manoeuvre than expected.
I am going into the Commons Chamber to speak against & vote against the Government's appalling Bill to cut disability benefits. I urge all Labour MPs to do so. I was elected to protect disabled people not harm them. pic.twitter.com/Qc1TA0e90n — John McDonnell (@johnmcdonnellMP) July 1, 2025
Ms Miller said: 'Since departmental spending plans are now effectively locked in, and the Government has already had to row back on planned cuts to pensioner benefits and working-age benefits, tax rises would look increasingly likely.'
The Resolution Foundation's Ruth Curtice agreed that there would be no savings in 2029/30, but suggested changes to universal credit – almost the only part of the Government's proposals still standing – could save money in the longer term.
On Wednesday morning, the Conservatives accused Labour of making billions in unfunded spending commitments, including both the U-turns on welfare and the partial reinstatement of winter fuel payments.
In a letter to Ms Reeves, shadow chancellor Sir Mel Stride demanded to know where the money was coming from, asking: 'Will you raise tax or increase borrowing?'
Ministers have repeatedly insisted that Labour will not raise taxes on 'working people', specifically income tax, national insurance or VAT.
Recommended reading:
But Ms Reeves also remains committed to her 'iron clad' fiscal rules, which require day-to-day spending to be covered by revenues – not borrowing – in 2029/30.
Meanwhile, Sir Keir himself will face a grilling from MPs on Wednesday as he attempts to repair relations with his backbenchers.
The weekly session of Prime Minister's Questions comes just a day after 49 of his own MPs voted against his welfare reforms – the biggest rebellion of his premiership so far – while several backbenchers described the Government's handling of the issue as 'chaotic' and 'a shambles'.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

John Swinney isn't bothered 'in the slightest' by SNP legal battles... paid for by YOU
John Swinney isn't bothered 'in the slightest' by SNP legal battles... paid for by YOU

Daily Mail​

timean hour ago

  • Daily Mail​

John Swinney isn't bothered 'in the slightest' by SNP legal battles... paid for by YOU

John Swinney has been accused of being cavalier with public money after claiming he is not bothered 'in the slightest' about two high-profile law suits against SNP ministers. The First Minister said being sued for apparently ignoring the UK Supreme Court and by Alex Salmond 's widow were 'part of the fabric of government life in Scotland'. Speaking to STV's Scotland Tonight, Mr Swinney refused to comment on the substance of the actions as 'live proceedings' were involved. But asked if he was 'bothered about them', he said: 'Not in the slightest. They're part of the fabric of government life in Scotland, and I've got to deal with them all.' His comments coincided with claims Scotland's public sector has 'squandered' £406million on legal services in just the last three years. Scottish Conservative finance spokesman Craig Hoy said: 'John Swinney might arrogantly be dismissing the prospect of this latest legal action, but he will not be the one footing the bill. 'The SNP and their army of quangos have blown over £400million in legal fees in recent years and the First Minister doesn't seem bothered about wasting yet more taxpayers' money. 'If they finally just implemented the Supreme Court verdict, then at least one of these cases would be avoided.' For Women Scotland, who beat the Scottish Government in court earlier this year, have launched fresh legal action against John Swinney's government Alex Salmond's widow Moira is reviving a £3 million claim her late husband began in 2023 For Women Scotland (FWS) last week took legal action against SNP ministers for failing to enforce April's Supreme Court ruling on gender. The group, whose previous challenges led to the judgment, wants a judge to strike down policies on the housing of trans people in jail and transgender pupils using single-sex school toilets. The Supreme Court ruled biological sex, not gender choice, determines a person's rights under UK equality law. But Mr Swinney has failed to act, claiming he has to wait for updated advice from the UK Equalities and Human Rights Commission. Critics accuse him of playing for time to avoid a row within the SNP before May's Holyrood election. A motion to the SNP conference in October claims the 'reductionist' ruling 'rolls back progress for all women'. It also emerged on Sunday that Alex Salmond's widow Moira is reviving a £3million compensation claim her late husband began in 2023. The ex-First Minister took the action over the Scottish Government's botched 2018 in-house probe into sexual misconduct claims. The investigation was later ruled unlawful, unfair and 'tainted by apparent bias'. Meanwhile, figures from 168 public bodies revealed £406million was spent on legal services over three years. The Scottish Government had the largest bill, at £89million, followed by NHS Scotland at £62million. Tory MSP Stephen Kerr, who obtained the costs under freedom of information, said the total sum was 'staggering' given the state of public services. A government spokesman said: 'The Scottish Government and NHS Scotland are required to take legal advice on a range of issues.'

Nature is not the enemy of housebuilders
Nature is not the enemy of housebuilders

Times

timean hour ago

  • Times

Nature is not the enemy of housebuilders

The government appears to have gone to war against nature and beauty in its attempt to get Britain building again. We should stop worrying about the environment, get rid of the bugs, spiders and bats and focus instead on what matters: creating more housing, employment and renewable energy. That means prioritising solar farms over wildflowers and faster transport links over forests. The thinking seems to be that these are elitist luxuries we can no longer afford. Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, summed it up when she said last month she cared more about getting young families on to the housing ladder than 'protecting some snails'. She is evidently considering a second planning bill that would make it far harder for environmentalists to hold up infrastructure projects, limit protection for many species and curtail judicial reviews to block projects. Ed Miliband is also determined that his quest for net zero will not be dragged down by farmers being subsidised to grow food locally and create wetlands when they could be installing solar panels. And earlier this year, Angela Rayner removed the word 'beautiful' from the national planning policy framework to speed up construction. • Rachel Reeves to cut 'bats and newts' in boost to developers They have a point. You only have to mention the £100 million 'bat tunnel' for HS2 and everyone agrees it was an egregious waste of money. The green lobby has at times appeared out of control, prioritising hazel dormice over our children's future; the nimbys seem selfish for wanting to preserve their woodlands and views; and, as 40C summers in Europe become the new norm, we need more energy-efficient solutions. Yet does Labour really need to turn nature into the enemy? Why this supposition that in order to grow we have to bulldoze beauty and sacrifice wildlife, or that getting to net zero in 2050 matters more than supporting a green and pleasant, environmentally friendly countryside? Travelling in Uzbekistan last week, a central Asian country whose economy is booming, it was clear in Tashkent that they are determined to backtrack on years of pummelling nature in the Soviet era. They are focused on rebuilding the capital, creating offices and housing for the country's burgeoning population, but also ensuring that the city is covered in trees, parks and neatly tended flower gardens. The result is stunning. The city is shaded from the ferocious sun, there is barely any litter among the flower beds and people want to walk to work and socialise in the greenery in the evenings. In Samarkand, tourists are flocking back as beauty is prioritised. Yet nature and beauty in the UK are increasingly seen as obstacles. Conservation charities insist the 'builders versus blockers' narrative wrongly frames wildlife as being in conflict with economic growth. Bats and great crested newts are a factor in only 3 per cent of planning appeals, they say. The Home Builders Federation claims a lack of planning staff in councils causes worse delays. • Emma Duncan: Planning regulation is bogged down by newts This system isn't helping housebuilders, nor is it protecting the most valuable elements of our landscape. We have lost half of our biodiversity since 1970, according to the most recent State of Nature report, birds, pollinators, micro-organisms and flora bearing the brunt. Native dormice are now threatened with extinction. 'Clean energy' is this government's mantra but dirty rivers may be its heritage, destroyed by untreated sewage and factory farming. Yet ministers appear to care as little as the last lot, despite the Labour manifesto stating that Britain 'is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world'. Ironically, before this government's latest interventions, environmentalists and construction companies had been edging towards consensus. The Wildlife Trusts' chief executive, Craig Bennett, is a surprise supporter of housebuilders, businesses and investors struggling with so many changing and contradictory schemes, such as demanding that housing developments factor in biodiversity net gains (BNG), then scrapping that for small sites, which cover 70 per cent of new builds. 'Thriving ecosystems and wildlife provide multiple co-benefits, promote solutions to climate challenges such as flooding and drought, improve health and wellbeing and create new jobs,' he says. If smaller developments are exempt from BNG, an area the size of 35,000 football pitches of nature-rich planting will be lost. A new report by the think tank Policy Exchange shows that building beautiful, harmonious council estates intertwined with nature is the best way forward. They encourage community pride, discourage crime and are often more cost-effective. The world's first council estate, the Boundary Estate, built in the 1890s in east London, was made up of tree-lined avenues and is, unsurprisingly, still more sought after than grey, dense housing and tower blocks. Nimbys are far less likely to reject any characterful additions that enhance their neighbourhood and provide new green spaces, such as Camley Street Nature Park, once a coal drop between King's Cross and St Pancras but for the past 40 years a haven for birds and insects. Beauty shouldn't be the preserve of rich Cotswolds estates. Great crested newts don't need to be eliminated and ancient woodland hacked down in this government's desire for a great leap forward. Nature is not the enemy; incorporate it into a simplified planning code with high environmental standards and it may be the solution. It could encourage better mental health, boost our listless productivity, prevent nimbyism, counter climate change, promote community adhesion and nurture us all, including the dormice.

Donald Trump can still stop Starmer's shameful Chagos surrender
Donald Trump can still stop Starmer's shameful Chagos surrender

Telegraph

timean hour ago

  • Telegraph

Donald Trump can still stop Starmer's shameful Chagos surrender

In a recent meeting with a cross-party group of British MPs in Washington, I was struck by the outright defeatism on display over the Chagos Islands surrender. I was told that Sir Keir Starmer's shameful agreement in May to hand over the British Indian Ocean Territory to Chinese ally Mauritius was a done deal, and it was pointless to even discuss it. Several of the MPs agreed that the Labour Government's decision was absolutely awful, but the overriding feeling was that nothing could be done to stop it. Thankfully, there is hope that the deal can still be torpedoed at the twelfth hour. As the Chagos agreement is a treaty that cedes sovereign British territory, legal experts note that it must be ratified first by Westminster. And it would surely be extremely difficult for the Prime Minister to defend the agreement in Parliament if Britain's closest friend and partner stepped in to oppose it. The US President's upcoming state visit to London on September 17-19 has added a new sense of urgency, with growing concerns in the United States over the implications of the deal for the future of the vital Anglo-American military base at Diego Garcia, which is capable of hosting America's long-range B-2 bombers. Diego Garcia sits at the heart of the Indian Ocean, and will play an increasingly important role for the United States in combatting Communist China in the Indo-Pacific region, a huge strategic priority for the Trump administration. A growing number of US policymakers fear that the Chagos deal will hand Beijing an unprecedented win at the expense of the United States and the United Kingdom, undermining the long-term future of Diego Garcia and significantly weakening the strategic position of the West in the region. Indeed, the Chagos issue is far from over in Washington, and major red flags are being raised in the US, despite a large-scale PR offensive waged by the Foreign Office earlier this year. The stakes are incredibly high. There is a very real possibility that Mauritius could, a few years from now, break the agreement with the UK over Diego Garcia under pressure from Beijing, find a reason to end the lease with London, and cut an even more lucrative deal with Communist China. What if the Chinese offered Mauritius double or triple what the British Government is offering to pay? This would be a nightmare scenario for the US, resulting in the loss of an incredibly vital American base. Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana has been a prominent opponent of the UK giving the Chagos Islands away, and other Members of Congress are now weighing in. In a highly significant development this month on Capitol Hill, the powerful Republican-led House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations directly raised the issue of the Chagos Islands deal between the UK and Mauritius, urging the US Secretary of State to engage further with the British Government on assurances that vital US strategic interests are protected. In the 'National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill, 2026', the Committee recognised 'that with the growing challenge from the PRC the military facilities on the island of Diego Garcia are central to Anglo-American power projection and relative control of the Indian Ocean. Recognising the invaluable strategic importance and geographic relevance of Diego Garcia to the United States, the Committee encourages the Secretary of State to engage with His Majesty's Government of the United Kingdom to ensure our long-term access to the facilities and that they remain integral to allied security.' Meanwhile in the UK, the full cost of the Chagos deal to the British taxpayer is only now seeing the light of day. As The Telegraph recently revealed, the total cost to the British taxpayer to lease the Diego Garcia military base from Mauritius will be almost £35bn if fulfilled, 10 times more than the Labour government originally claimed. This is one of the biggest deceptions by a British government in modern times, and also one of the most dangerous, with massive implications for US and British national security interests on the world stage. In the weeks ahead, we can expect significantly increased scrutiny of the Starmer Government's Chagos Islands deal on Capitol Hill as well as from the administration, especially in advance of the upcoming presidential state visit to the UK next month. Significantly, the US State Department backed the Chagos deal in a statement in May, but there has never been an official declaration issued by the White House. A last-minute intervention against the deal is not out of the question. President Trump still has an opportunity to weigh in directly on the issue, and can and should send the Chagos deal to the depths of the Indian Ocean where it clearly belongs. By doing so, he would be defending vital American strategic interests, denying China a major long-term victory, and protecting a crucial military base at the heart of the US/UK Special Relationship Nile Gardiner is Director of The Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at The Heritage Foundation in Washington, DC

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store