Labour's welfare cuts 'to cost 300,000 Scots £500 per year'
Trussell, the anti-poverty charity which runs some 1400 food banks across the UK, also told MPs that new claimants for the health element of Universal Credit would be £3000 per year worse off if Labour's proposed changes go through.
The UK Government is aiming to cut disability and sickness benefits by £5 billion annually by cutting back who is eligible for Personal Independence Payments (Pip), as well as freezing the health element of Universal Credit at the current rate and halving it for new claimants.
The UK Government's own analysis has found that the cuts would push 250,000 people into poverty, including 50,000 children.
READ MORE: SNP minister hits out at Labour Government's welfare cuts
Labour are facing a major rebellion from more than 120 MPs over the controversial plans, which could be stopped dead if opposition parties unite behind a 'reasoned amendment' against the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill, which is due to be voted on on July 1.
In a briefing to MPs reported by the Daily Record, Trussell estimated that there are around 300,000 Scots in receipt of the health element of Universal Credit and associated benefits facing cuts.
"All would stand to be affected by the freeze which by 2029/30 amounts to [a] real terms cut of £500 per year,' the charity said.
It further added: 'Nine in ten new recipients to UC health in Scotland from April 2026 will experience a cut of £3000 per year by 2029/30.'
Prime Minister Keir Starmer has insisted he will not change course despite outcry over planned cutsSNP MSP Collette Stevenson said: 'This analysis delivers a damning verdict on the Labour Party's planned cuts to disability benefits which will hit the most vulnerable in our society hardest.
'With over 100 Labour MPs now confirming that they will join the SNP in voting against the cuts if Labour press ahead with them next week, it is imperative that Keir Starmer does yet another U-turn and scraps his plans immediately.
'To press ahead with the cuts would have a devastating impact on families across Scotland, pushing thousands of more people into poverty, and people would never forgive Keir Starmer.'
Speaking from The Hague at a Nato summit on Wednesday, Starmer said he would not back down.
'We have got to make the reforms to our system. It isn't working as it is,' he said.
READ MORE: EU, taxes, and Labour 'out of step': What we learned in John Curtice's polling report
'It doesn't work as it stands for people who desperately need help to get into work or for people who need protection. It is broken.
'We were elected in to change that which is broken, and that's what we will do, and that's why we will press ahead with reforms.'
Mayor of Greater Manchester Andy Burnham has added his voice to the senior figures calling on the Government to reconsider.
He told BBC Newsnight: 'When the PLP [Parliamentary Labour Party] delivers its collective wisdom in such numbers, it is invariably right. And it is right on this.'
His London counterpart, Sadiq Khan, has said ministers 'must urgently think again' about the plans, while Labour's First Minister of Wales Baroness Eluned Morgan has also called for a rethink.
Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar has previously spoken in support of the reforms, but is facing unrest within his group. So far, 10 Scottish Labour MPs have put their names to the reasoned amendment which would block the welfare cuts.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
29 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Britain's mad planning system is becoming more and more absurd
Across the political spectrum, we don't agree on much. But we can all agree that the UK needs more homes and must start building in earnest. So why is Labour-run Birmingham City Council demanding that Mark Jones rip down the £180,000 two-bedroom 'granny flat' he built in his back garden for his dying father? With bin strikes, rat plagues and near bankruptcy, one might imagine that this particular local authority would have different matters on its mind. Mr Jones said he believed the building complied with planning laws and lodged a retrospective planning application. But the council's officious officers found that the Sutton Coldfield IT engineer has fallen foul of their regulations as it was 'over-intensive', and have ordered it to be demolished by the end of the month. The case shows in microcosm what is wrong with Britain's planning system. Like so much that is wrong on our island, from the NHS to the post-war explosion in council housing, its origins lie with the 1945 Clement Attlee Labour government. The 1947 Town and Country Planning Act established our system of planning permission, as well as the modern system of needing consents to build on land. It also meant that all planning authorities had to come up with a comprehensive development plan. Green belts, the listing of buildings and the anathematising of building in the open countryside can all be dated back to this legislation. In some regards, we should be grateful for Attlee's innovation. Anyone who has taken the seven-hour trip from Boston to Washington DC on the Acela Amtrak train will see why. Apart from a stretch along the Connecticut coastline, the prospect out of the windows is of virtually unending urban sprawl. Or contrast the west coast of Ireland with the west coast of Scotland. While the Irish views are endlessly interrupted by the tackiest imaginable McMansions, complete with fake colonnades and naff statuary, the Caledonian vista is virtually uninterrupted. Our planning system has made large-scale developers hugely powerful to a far greater extent than in most other developed countries. Building your own house is straightforward in much of the United States. But then America is a large country with plenty of space, as defenders of the British status quo might point out. The rules in much of Europe, however, are also vastly more flexible. In France, for example, it is relatively straightforward to buy a plot of land on the fringes of a village and build a family home on it. By contrast, in the UK, to build a new single dwelling in the isolated countryside is extraordinarily difficult. One of the very few routes is via what is now called Paragraph 84 consent. This is a rule, first introduced in 1997 in the dying days of John Major's government, allowing for new country houses to be built, but only if they are of 'truly outstanding' design and 'reflect the highest standards of architecture'. We would all, I am sure, like to live in such houses – but to meet such benchmarks requires money, plenty of it. It is not something that rural Mr Joneses, middle-earning IT engineers and their like, will ever be able to afford. The British system places all the cards in the hands of the vast corporate builders, with their new housing developments. Angela Rayner's Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which is now being pushed through the House of Lords, will only make this problem even worse. It will make development easier, and that is indeed a worthy goal. It will make it easier to overrule Nimby-style objections, but its mechanisms are not there to help people who want to do their own projects. It is all about pushing through large-scale plans in the face of local opposition, be they for new homes, wind or solar farms or the latest railway wheeze dreamt up in Whitehall. It is not about allowing Sir Keir Starmer's much-touted 'working people' to realise their own building ambitions. Our planning system might seem to have been more of a success if our post-war homes were exemplars of design. But that is far from the case. Probably the only country in Western Europe that has uglier townscapes than those found in much of Britain is Germany. Walk through Cologne, and outside of its Cathedral and Romanesque churches you would be hard put to find an uglier city with less inspiring buildings. Colognians have a very good excuse. When their city was rebuilt in the 1950s from the ashes the RAF had reduced it to, beauty was not foremost on their minds. We have no such excuse for some of the horrors that urban planning has imposed on our towns and cities. And our planning laws did little to protect us from these missteps. When Nick Boles was housing minister in the Cameron government, he was evangelical about relaxing planning rules in urban and suburban areas. He wanted to allow thousands upon thousands of Mr Joneses to do pretty much as they pleased with their own land and property, and thought this would make a huge difference to our housing shortage. It would also empower local people. Such an approach would clearly be a disaster if applied to, say, the Victorian garden square of London or the Georgian terraces of Bath. They would soon be scarred with endless glass boxes and extensions which would now be on trend, but soon look very dated. If Labour really wants to empower working people, allowing the Mr Joneses to build on their back gardens could be just the thing. But don't hold your breath.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
‘They didn't think we'd have the guts': How Labour rebels forced the government's welfare U-turn
The Conservative shadow cabinet minister looked more cheerful than at any point in the 12 months since the general election. 'How did they get into such a mess?', they asked. 'What are they going to do?' The answer was revealed a couple of days laterwhen Keir Starmer and his ministers made a series of emergency concessions on their flagship welfare reform programme, to prevent the otherwise far-greater ignominy of the programme being voted down in the House of Commons. U-turns of various sorts are an inevitability in government; the skill lies in how elegantly you can perform them. And this week's eventual cave-in to backbench Labour pressure – formally announced by a Downing Street statement after midnight on Thursday – was very, very messy indeed. To return to the shadow minister's gleeful query, how did it end up like this? The narrative will depend on who you ask. But a common thread, even among some in No 10, is the idea of a government worryingly disconnected from its own MPs. From the moment in March that Liz Kendall, the work and pensions secretary, first set out consultative proposals to overhaul welfare payments, it was evident that a large number of backbenchers had worries about elements of the plan. Notably, the green paper set out a significant tightening of the eligibility for personal independence payments (Pips), which help those with long-term illness or disability, causing concern not only among MPs but also numerous charities. But armed with a 150-plus Commons majority – and what felt to some MPs like an almost messianic insistence on turning around an increasingly unaffordable social security system – Downing Street ploughed on. 'This has happened because of an arrogance from the top,' one veteran Labour MP said. 'On the day of the green paper, the whips were saying they thought a maximum of 10 people would actually rebel. They were laughing at us. 'They didn't think anyone would have the guts from the new intake. But they [new Labour MPs] have been doing their own organising.' As it turned out, there was a lot of organising, from all sides of the parliamentary party. With Starmer largely preoccupied with other subjects – including the G7 summit in Canada and a change of course over a national inquiry into grooming gangs – MPs were taking action. The crunch point arrived on Monday with the publication of an amendment intended to kill off the welfare bill at its second reading in the Commons on 1 July. Initially signed by 108 Labour MPs, it soon had the backing of more than 120. These were not the perennial malcontents primarily from the Labour left – the 'maximum of 10' so dismissively summed up by the party whip. Signatories included a string of senior backbenchers who chair select committees, and numerous 2024-intake MPs. How did dozens of hand-picked, newly arrived backbenchers, once thought so loyal they were dubbed 'Starmtroopers', find themselves within a year on the brink of a rebellion that could have defeated the government? For many, the problem dates back to the very early days of the parliament and a kind of vicious discipline that resulted in seven MPs being suspended from the Labour party over a vote on the two-child benefit cap. Three of those MPs remain exiled today. Even loyal MPs were under orders never to submit amendments – or to make their views known publicly on any subject. 'It was like student politics,' said one. 'Keep your mouth shut and maybe we'll let you on the entertainment committee.' 'Arrogant' is the word MPs are using most of all. It was the blithe assumption by whips and No 10 that any rebellion would fold that sent many over the edge. 'They tried to treat the PLP [parliamentary Labour party] like naughty children,' one MP said. 'They all did what they were meant to do and raised the issue privately, and then got totally ignored.' Another repeated charge within the party is that even when its hierarchy did recognise the disquiet, the response tended to be either complacency or high-handed, bungling menaces. MPs described outreach to them as having been limited to presentations and charts showing the growing size of the welfare budget and increases in numbers going on Pip. 'We asked to see the prime minister or the chancellor and we got a presentation from officials,' one said. 'They were very, very dismissive.' MPs say they received a litany of threats, including the possibility of a general election. Those on the right of the party were warned their actions could bring about a leadership challenge that would be won by Angela Rayner. The same threat was made to those on the left, but with Wes Streeting as the looming spectre. Others say they have received veiled threats of deselection, or that their funding for the next general election would be decided on the basis of whether or not they toed the line. One party official allegedly rang a rebellious MP's husband in order to get her to back down. 'I don't even think some of this is sanctioned by No 10,' one MP said. 'Until Wednesday they had their fingers in their ears. But those who are responsible for party management have been absolutely losing it.' After the implications of Monday's amendment became clear, outreach efforts finally began. Even Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, made a rare appearance on the Commons terrace on Wednesday evening to try to persuade MPs over a glass of rosé. 'She doesn't want to be £5bn out of pocket,' one MP said. Yet the number of rebels continued to grow, and No 10 finally bowed to the inevitable. On Thursday morning, the prime minister used a Commons statement ostensibly about international affairs to promise a welfare rethink. Until that point, Starmer had seemed oddly detached from the issue, surfacing intermittently at summits to bat away questions about the revolt – or 'noises off' as he termed it – as a distraction from the vital task of transforming welfare. Some MPs view this as indicative of a prime minister more than usually disconnected from the everyday grid of parliamentary business, as illustrated by the statistic that since winning the election he has voted in the Commons just seven times. A few have begun to openly speculate about what the situation means for Starmer's leadership. 'It is very bad for Keir. It is one in four of his MPs [that intended to rebel]. He is toast,' one MP said. A lot of the ire, however, has been directed at Morgan McSweeney, Starmer's chief of staff, and what one rebel called the 'overexcitable boys' in the PM's team. Inside No 10, there had been a determination to force through the reforms in part because of internal polling and focus groups that suggest the public backs the reforms when the context is explained – even wanting them to go further. One adviser, a close ally of the prime minister, said they had been so determined the vote had to go ahead – concessions or not – because the symbolism of being able to get the government's agenda through the Commons was so important. 'This is a fairly moderate reform,' the adviser said. 'If the government cannot make this modest saving – in a change that will not affect nine out of 10 people already on the benefit – then how can we pursue the political programme we need, to make the tough decisions the country needs us to take? It's impossible.' Other advisers are furious about the situation they have found themselves in. 'It's absolutely outrageous these people are prepared to throw away a historic majority because people were a bit mean to them on Twitter,' said one. Another said: 'Just wait and see what happens if they depose Morgan. It is over, then. Finito. Then we might as well hand the keys to Farage.' But other advisers in government say they can see how No 10 has played it wrong. One called it 'a staggering failure of political management from the people who supposedly had an iron grip on the PLP'. For many Labour MPs, however, it is about nothing more complicated than a government machine that forgot how to listen. 'Everything the government is now realising is something MPs have been saying for months,' one MP said. 'The fact that you cannot defend these cuts on the basis they will get people into work. The fact that you cannot guarantee the most disabled people won't be worse off. 'MPs are not idiots. We deserve to be listened to. We anticipated this failure. They are in this mess now because they were too arrogant to listen.'
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Starmer faces fresh MP rebellion over farmers' inheritance tax
Sir Keir Starmer is facing a fresh rebellion from Labour MPs over his inheritance tax raid on farmers. The Telegraph understands that more than 40 MPs are considering mounting an attempt to water down the policy, which threatens to bankrupt family farms by landing them with large inheritance tax bills. Rebels have been emboldened after forcing the Prime Minister to climb down on welfare cuts this week, in the third about-turn for the Government in two months. The U-turns – on benefits, winter fuel payment cuts and a national inquiry into grooming gangs – have added to a £40 billion black hole Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, needs to fill at the next Budget. In a sign of fraying party discipline, MPs are plotting further rebellions on immigration and the two-child benefit cap, alongside the farming revolt. A senior rebel told The Telegraph: 'It's obviously a Government in crisis and the back benches are feeling ignored. The whole strategy is not working and we've got to change direction.' The fresh threats to Sir Keir's authority come after more than 100 MPs publicly broke with the Government over its disability benefit cuts, leading to a Number 10 climbdown this week. Backbenchers are considering using rebel amendments to exempt small family farms from changes to inheritance tax announced in the October Budget. Farmers have historically been able to pass down their land tax-free. But from April 2026, full tax relief will be capped for estates at £1 million, above which just 50 per cent tax relief will be available. A so-called 'rural growth group' has proposed that ministers consider the impacts of substantially raising the planned £1 million cut-off point at which estates lose valuable tax reliefs. The back-bench group has suggested estates receive full tax relief on the value of agricultural properties up to £10 million, 50 per cent to £20 million, and nil thereafter. This higher threshold would probably exempt almost all small family farms from inheritance tax, with only the richest paying the levy. The changes will be enacted in a Bill due to be voted on by MPs later this year, when they could be challenged by rebels. Sam Rushworth, Labour MP for Bishop Auckland, who is a member of the group, said they would 'consider what amendments to put down'. Mr Rushworth said: 'We are all keen to avoid amendments. I don't want it to get to that point. I am a Labour MP and I broadly support the Government, [but] I would like to see them bring forward different recommendations in the Bill.' A handful of Labour parliamentarians have publicly criticised the so-called 'tractor tax' plans. Markus Campbell-Savours, Labour MP for Penrith and Solway in Cumbria, a rural seat, said in December that he would vote against the Treasury's plans, telling the House of Commons: 'Let me be clear, if today was the real vote, I would vote against the Government's plans.' Sir Keir is also facing opposition to some of his new immigration rules which are expected to be voted on after the summer break, The Telegraph understands. Many of the immigration changes announced by the Prime Minister last month, including changes to visa routes, can be brought into effect without a vote in the House of Commons. However key parts of the proposals, including a new levy on international student fees, will require the endorsement of Labour MPs. A leading rebel told The Telegraph that the Government should spend the summer recess 'reflecting on an evidence-based approach as to how to build effective policies on immigration'. Another said: 'The leadership have to seriously look at their actions on this policy regarding the lack of consultation with backbench MPs.' A number of refugee charities have been lobbying parliamentarians over the changes after their repeated requests for meetings with Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, were turned down. 'Biggest mistake to date' MPs opposed to the changes were encouraged this week by the Prime Minister's apology for using the term 'island of strangers' in his speech announcing the immigration changes. One rebel Labour MP said: 'Of course it was right for the Prime Minister to apologise for the language that he used and understand the distress that it caused, but similarly, if the Government listened more on policy, this would be stronger'. This week Sir Keir apologised for the language in the speech, saying he had not read it properly before delivery because he had been distressed by an arson attack on his family home. But he gave no indication that the Government would U-turn on any of its immigration reforms. Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, said the apology was Sir Keir's 'biggest mistake to date'. He said: 'This is absolute proof that Keir Starmer has no beliefs, no principles and just reads from a script. 'Only a year into his premiership and he has already made his most fatal error. He has no intention of clamping down on immigration, both legal and illegal. 'This is his biggest mistake to date and one he will not be able to recover from – the public voted for change, instead they're being given more mass immigration and a spiralling crisis at the border. 'We need a leader that has vision and unwavering principles, that man is clearly not Keir Starmer.' Some Labour MPs on the party's Right wing were bewildered by the Prime Minister's sudden apology. One told The Telegraph 'that row-back is the most staggering of all' and said it would further erode discipline. Labour MPs are also bracing for a fight with the Government in the autumn over the two child benefit cap, which many want to see scrapped. The Prime Minister has reportedly committed to scrapping the cap but no announcement has yet been made. In a speech next week, Kemi Badenoch is set to mock Sir Keir's growing roster of U-turns. 'Now that his backbenchers smell blood, there's almost certainly another climbdown on the two-child benefit cap in the offing,' she is expected to tell the Local Government Association on Wednesday. 'Labour told us 'the adults were back in charge', but this is actually amateur hour. The Prime Minister is incapable of sticking to a decision.' A senior Labour party figure said that Downing Street's loss of control over MPs constituted 'an absolute s--- show'. The source said: 'This is an outburst beyond the welfare bill that has broken out. It is from loyal, moderate people who have defended the winter fuel cut for months and then had the rug pulled from under them with the U-turn. 'These are moderate MPs getting constant lobbying from disabled groups and constituents and now they've been told there is money available after all. Those frustrations are largely with Rachel. But they're also with No 10.' 'Now they have lost their patience. It's an absolute s--- show.' Labour MPs have described the past week as a 'deep crisis' with senior government figures forming 'circular firing squads'. One Labour MP said of the Chancellor: 'It's already clear that Rachel Reeves has lost because her whole economic and fiscal strategy is failing on numerous counts. The PM is reversing everything that she wanted to do.' A Government spokesman said: 'Our reforms to agricultural and business property relief are vital to fix the public services we all rely on. 'Three quarters of estates will continue to pay no inheritance tax at all, while the remaining quarter will pay half the inheritance tax that most people pay, and payments can be spread over 10 years, interest-free. 'We're investing billions of pounds in sustainable food production and nature's recovery, slashing costs for food producers to export to the EU and have appointed former NFU president Baroness Minette Batters to advise on reforms to boost farmers profits.'
