Discussing possible punishments for welfare rebels ‘not constructive'
Ministers are set to lay out the concessions they will make on Monday, in the hope that the climbdown will be enough to secure backbench votes this week.
Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall announced last week that changes to the personal independence payment will only apply to new claimants from November 2026, and ministers also rowed back on plans to cut the health-related element of Universal Credit after 126 Labour MPs signed an amendment that would have effectively killed the Government's Bill.
Although the changes are expected to get some of those rebels on board, there are still threats of revolt.
Baroness Jacqui Smith – who served as a chief whip under Sir Tony Blair – was asked on Sky News what the consequences should be for Labour MPs who vote against the Government on the matter.
She said: 'I don't think talking about punishments, even as a former chief whip, is the constructive way forward here.'
Baroness Smith later added: 'It's always the case in legislation that you introduce the Bill, you have a second reading on the principles, and then you think about the detail as you take that through all of its stages in Parliament. I'm sure that that will continue to happen.'
Asked on Times Radio whether rebels will have the whip removed, education minister Baroness Smith said that it is important to 'keep talking' to MPs.
The legislation is due to be voted on on Tuesday at its second reading, and the Government will amend the Bill at the Commons committee stage to put the changes in place.
The original plans restricted eligibility for the personal independence payment (Pip) and cut the health-related element of universal credit.
"I draw on the substantial evidence, the voices of those impacted and my conscience which determines that I cannot cross by on the other side and have no choice but to vote against the UC & PIP Bill."My full statement in comments👇#York #PIP #Welfare pic.twitter.com/x6BLdt4WNh
— 💙Rachael Maskell MP (@RachaelMaskell) June 29, 2025
The changes to Pip will now only apply to new claims from November 2026.
Plans to cut the health-related element of universal credit have also been altered, with all existing recipients to have their incomes protected in real terms.
Details of a review of the Pip assessment, to be led by disabilities minister Sir Stephen Timms and 'co-produced' with disabled people, will also be published.
The original amendment signed by 120-plus backbenchers is expected to be withdrawn after some MPs were appeased by last week's announcement. However, a new one is expected to be tabled by rebels on Monday.
Labour MP Rachael Maskell said she would sign the new amendment aiming to stop the Bill, saying it was not clear how the promised concessions would be brought in.
'There's no confidence … we're being asked to sign a blank cheque even with these changes,' she told the PA news agency.
Vicky Foxcroft, who quit as a Labour whip over the reforms, told The Guardian there were 'areas where I still think there's need for movement' and that she had not decided how to vote.
Olivia Blake, a Labour MP with a disclosed disability, told the paper the changes could create 'an unethical two-tier system that treats two people with the exact same injury or illness differently'.
Clive Efford, the MP for Eltham and Chislehurst, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that he will still not support the Government's measures.
'There are choices that the Government can make here; there are other places it can go to identify the resources. What we want to see, and fully support, is measures the Government is putting in the palace to assist people to move into work, the right to try, we support, but we can't guarantee the savings,' he said.
'When you're asking for £3.5 billion regardless of the impact of those changes, that can only adversely affect people who are in the benefit system.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
37 minutes ago
- New Statesman
Labour's rebel MPs are rubbish at maths
This evening, Labour MPs will have to decide whether to support the Government in a Second Reading debate. This would not normally be a moment of much significance. Big rebellions happen later in the legislative process. Not since April 1986 and an attempt to liberalise Sunday trading laws, has a Bill being defeated at Second Reading, whether in form of a 'reasoned amendment' being passed or otherwise. It is a record that would have been broken with the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Bill, until the Government announced a series of concessions late last week. Scores of Labour MPs had signed a 'reasoned amendment' that would have wrecked the Bill, which sought to reduce the cost to the taxpayer of disability benefits. In an attempt to salvage some of the savings, the Government conceded that those currently receiving benefits will not see their benefits cut. The less generous regime will apply to new claimants only, reducing savings by £3bn a year. A rebellion is still expected tonight, but the Bill should survive. It has, however, been a deeply uncomfortable time for the Government. The scale of the rebellion appears to have taken the Government by surprise, which reflects very badly on its political operation. Keir Starmer has been accused of being out of touch with his Parliamentary party; Rachel Reeves is portrayed as being politically tin-eared and insensitive; Morgan McSweeney is described as arrogant. Just as commentators write their assessment of Starmer's first year in office, the Prime Minister is forced into making humiliating concessions. There is plenty of blame to be distributed over this shambles, and the lion's share of it will go to Starmer, Reeves and McSweeney. There is a lack of a clear and convincing explanation for what the Government is doing. The argument that this is all about encouraging work is unconvincing when talking about Personal Independence Payments paid to those in-work. But the narrative that this is all about plucky MPs defeating heartless Ministers deserves to be challenged. The starting point is that the cost of health benefits for those of working age is rising at an extraordinary rate. Adjusting for inflation, this cost was projected to rise from £36bn in 2019/20 to £66bn in 2029/30. To put this in context, the cost of the increase (£30bn) is not far short of the budgets of the Home Office (excluding asylum costs) and the Ministry of Justice combined. The increase in cost (and the increase in the number of people saying they are unfit for work) is not happening at a time when there is a commensurate deterioration in the health of the working-age population according to the leading health surveys. What is driving the increase in claims for health-related benefits (and, presumably, people claiming to be unfit for work) is the gap in generosity between the value of those benefits compared to unemployment benefits and the lack of stringency in accessing those benefits. If we want to reduce the numbers claiming health related benefits, the options are to spend more on health (expensive, and there appears to be no clear relationship between waiting times and increases in health related benefit claims), increase unemployment benefits (unpopular and also expensive), reduce health related benefits, and make the requirements to access to these benefits more stringent. The Government is perfectly entitled to ask its critics how they would address the issue. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe What is not an option is to ignore it. Or, to be more exact, to ignore it without acknowledging that taxes will have to rise to pay for it. It is a familiar theme in these columns that the public finances are in a parlous state and that we are vulnerable to the bond markets moving against us. We are not prevented from spending more on welfare by the rigidity of Reeves' fiscal rules or McSweeney's desire to appeal to Reform voters but by fiscal reality. It is not a reality that the Labour rebels appear to be willing to accept. For 14 years, Labour activists had the luxury of blaming every tough and unpopular decision on the callousness of the Tories. It was a lengthy holiday from responsibility, which enabled them to ignore the inconvenient truth that the global financial crisis had made us poorer than we thought we were. Unless and until economic growth returned, whoever was in government was going to continue to make tough and unpopular decisions. To be fair to Starmer and Reeves, there was some attempt to persuade their party and the country of the situation, albeit unaccompanied by specific policies and tempered by unwarranted optimism that higher economic growth would result from a change in government. Perhaps Labour MPs never believed the rhetoric about tough choices. They are certainly not prepared to make them over welfare matters (see also winter fuel payments). They are likely to be in for a shock in the autumn when, contrary to their manifesto commitments, Labour may well be forced to put up one or more of the big taxes (and no, wealth taxes won't raise the money that is needed). If Labour MPs are worried about poll ratings now, wait until the winter. This rebellion has diminished the Prime Minister, left the public finances vulnerable to a bond market reaction, made higher taxes all but inevitable and left the Labour Party looking ungovernable. For all the talk of rebellious backbench Labour MPs holding their heads up high, this breakdown in discipline is no way to convince the country to give the party a second chance. [See also: Rachel Reeves must fear bond market vigilantes] Related
Metro
39 minutes ago
- Metro
Everything we know so far about the welfare bill vote
Later today, MPs will vote for the first time on plans to reform the UK's welfare system. It's not a moment government ministers are likely to be looking forward to. These plans, which will mainly affect recipients of Universal Credit and the Personal Independence Payment, have been controversial from the start. They were first unveiled by Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall in March, shortly before Chancellor Rachel Reeves made them a central element of her spring statement. Both argued cuts were badly needed to secure the future of the welfare state as costs continue to balloon, and that those on benefits needed to be encouraged into work. But many emboldened Labour MPs said they could not face voting to cut off support for those who need it. A rebellion of more than 120 backbenchers appears to have been staved off by a raft of concessions made last week, but Sir Keir Starmer is still facing one of the trickiest votes since he became PM almost exactly a year ago. Craig Munro breaks down Westminster chaos into easy to follow insight, walking you through what the latest policies mean to you. Sent every Wednesday. Sign up here. Here's all we know about the bill ahead of the second reading vote this evening. The full name of the bill that will be debated today is hefty: it's called the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill. That name, though, gets to the heart of the changes that are being proposed. If enacted, the legislation would make two of the headline changes announced earlier this year. In order to get PIP, which is meant to help pay for the additional costs faced by people with disabilities, would-be recipients are assessed on how much assistance they need for everyday tasks. The person is rated on a points scale of 0 to 12. At the moment, they would need a score of eight or more across the range of tasks to qualify. Citizens Advice has more information here. If the bill goes ahead, there would be an additional requirement that the person must score at least four on at least one of the tasks to qualify. That won't apply to everyone after changes announced by the government last week, though – find more on those details below. There are two parts to Universal Credit – the standard allowance, which is for all recipients, and the health element, for people with disabilities and health conditions that affect their ability to work. Under the new bill, the standard allowance would increase above inflation for the next four years. However, the health element would be halved for new recipients from April 2026 and then frozen for the next four years. The government argues this would 'support people towards work, address perverse incentives and to start to improve basic adequacy'. Facing the very real possibility of a Labour rebellion dooming a major government bill, government figures held crisis talks with MPs last week. The results of those talks were revealed in full yesterday. They include concessions on both the PIP and UC parts of the bill. First, PIP: the changes mean the additional requirement outlined above would not apply to current recipients, who would continue to get their payment under the old terms. Only new claimants from November 2026 onwards would be assessed according to the new requirements. A consultation into PIP would also take place, to be published next autumn. For UC, Liz Kendall told MPs yesterday that current recipients of the health top-up would see their income – combined with the standard allowance – rise at least in line with inflation for the rest of the Parliament. The same would also go for new claimants with severe lifelong health conditions and those at the end of life. Her announcement responded to concerns over the effects of a proposed freeze on the health top-up for current claimants – though Kendall did not explicitly say this freeze would not go ahead. Longstanding Labour MP Dame Meg Hillier led the first 'reasoned amendment' which aimed to stop the bill in its tracks, gaining a lot of traction last week. At its peak, more than 120 backbenchers from the party were signed onto it. That figure was enough to overturn the government's huge majority. Among them were seasoned rebels from the left of the party, including Richard Burgon and Nadia Whittome, as well as those who are typically more loyal, such as Sarah Owen and Dame Meg. The signatories also included one former government minister: former Transport Secretary Louise Haigh. More Trending Many of the rebels thought the vote today would be pulled, but instead the concessions outlined above were made. They appear to have won around enough MPs to ensure the bill will pass its second reading. But lots could still vote against, and several are also expected to abstain. The exact numbers will make a big difference to how things pan out. If the bill is rejected in today's vote – held on the first day of Disability Pride Month – the government will have to go back to the drawing board in its effort to reform the welfare system. But just as significantly, the leadership of Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves would take a massive hit and the government would be plunged into a serious crisis. Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@ For more stories like this, check our news page. MORE: Benefit cuts will push 150,000 people into poverty despite U-turn, government admits MORE: Streeting tells Israel to 'get your own house in order' over Glastonbury criticism MORE: I'll be watching Kneecap's prime time Glastonbury set – they deserve to be there
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Celebrities call for UK Government not to ban Palestine Action
On Sunday, from Glastonbury's Other Stage, singer-songwriter Nadine Shah read out a statement against the UK Government's decision to ban campaign group Palestine Action. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has published a draft order which would the group as terrorist organisations in the UK, meaning supporting or joining them could lead to up to 14 years in jail. READ MORE: Labour accused of 'breath-taking hypocrisy' over English oil refinery rescue In an open letter, leading artists including musicians Paul Weller, Massive Attack's Robert del Naja, Brian Eno and US artist Reggie Watts have joined Shah Actors Steve Coogan and Billy Howle are among those signing the statement which states: 'Palestine Action is intervening to stop a genocide. It is acting to save life.' Writers including Kamila Shamsie, Laline Paull and Pankaj Mishra have also signed, and said: 'Labelling non-violent direct action as 'terrorism' is an abuse of language and an attack on democracy.' They are joined by visual artists Jeremy Deller and Florence Peake, comedians Boyle, Francesca Martinez and Tez Ilyas. The open letter concludes: 'The real threat to the life of the nation comes not from Palestine Action but from Home Secretary Yvonne Cooper's efforts to ban it'. READ MORE: Protesters target Wimbledon over Barclays sponsorship links to Israeli arms firms In addition to the joint statement, Brian Eno said: 'On the one hand, 60,000 dead. On the other, a splash of paint on a plane. Which one are you most troubled by?' Poet Alice Oswald commented: 'Thank goodness for those who break minor laws in an attempt to uphold law itself". A spokesperson for Artists for Palestine UK said: 'Never before has a decision like this been challenged so immediately by artists and so widely across the country. If the Government persists with this ban, it will face anger and opposition on a massive scale.' The artists' statement in full "Palestine Action is intervening to stop a genocide. It is acting to save life. We deplore the government's decision to proscribe it. Labelling non-violent direct action as 'terrorism' is an abuse of language and an attack on democracy. "The real threat to the life of the nation comes not from Palestine Action but from the home secretary's efforts to ban it. We call on the government to withdraw its proscription of Palestine Action and to stop arming Israel."
