Labour's welfare reform bill passes Commons despite 47-strong rebellion
The Universal Credit Bill cleared the Commons at third reading this evening after it received MPs backing by 336 votes to 242, a majority of 94.
The changes to the welfare system initially involved cutting Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment (PIP).
But faced with a rebellion, Starmer softened the bill by promising the changes would only apply to future applicants.
He also conceded by agreeing to only introduce the PIP changes after a review.
Rebel MPs like Rachael Maskell, for York Central, said: 'No matter what spin, to pass the Bill tonight, this will leave such a stain on our great party, founded on values of equality and justice.'
She warned making the changes to universal credit before a wider look at reform was putting 'the cart before the horse, the vote before the review', and branded the government's decision-making an 'omnishambles'.
After the vote, a new Living Standards group of 104 Labour MPs said the government also had to change the way it related to voters, speaking less about growth in the G7 and more about the cost of food.
In their letter to Starmer, the new group said there should now be a big effort towards lowering everyday costs.
'Our constituents will ask one question at the next election: did this Labour government make me better off?' it said.
The government will not try and introduce any more reforms to PIP until the Timms Review into the topic has been finished.
Minister Sir Stephen Timms said he wants to get his investigation finished by next autumn.
He said the government will not agree to limit it to 12 months as some MPs wanted.
He added that the government wanted to 'get on and tackle the disability employment gap' and said that the Bill 'addresses the severe work disincentives in universal credit, it protects those we don't ever expect to work from universal credit reassessment'. More Trending
New claimants who sign up for the 'limited capability for work and work-related activity' payment would receive a lower rate than existing claimants after April 2026.
This is unless they meet a set of severe conditions criteria or are terminally ill, which the same rebels also opposed.
Minister Stephen Timms did accept more safeguards for disabled people after Labour MP Marie Tidball's amendment to increase protections for PIP claimants was accepted.
The Bill will now undergo further scrutiny in the Lords at a later date.
Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@metro.co.uk.
For more stories like this, check our news page.
MORE: Date revealed when every phone in the UK is going to get an emergency alert
MORE: SEND parents are worried after more government chaos
MORE: I had a miscarriage – no one should be forced to work through it
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scotsman
an hour ago
- Scotsman
Why betting it all on offshore wind is a high-risk strategy for Scotland
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox 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... Zonal pricing, on which a remarkable number of instant experts have emerged over the past 48 hours, was always illusory as a route to cheaper electricity for Scotland or anywhere else. Harken, however, to Dave Doogan MP who is apparently the SNP's spokesman on the economy at Westminster, who tweeted: '[Energy Secretary] Ed Miliband has ruled out zonal pricing in the UK… Labour will never stand up for the people of Scotland. We need independence.' To emphasise his point, Mr Doogan accompanied his tweet with a crude montage of Mr Miliband wearing a Union Jack pith helmet. At least nobody can accuse Dave of subtlety – only of abysmal ignorance, not least about his own party's position on the subject. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Like many others, myself included, SNP ministers went through a learning curve on zonal pricing. It took them a bit longer due to the obvious attraction of any claim that Scotland is being done down. The fact opposition has been led by Scottish interests was a problem for that approach, though nobody seems to have told Dave. The lesson from the debate over zonal electricity pricing may be that building more wind turbines far away from population centres is not a good idea (Picture: William Edwards) | AFP via Getty Images SNP confusion about zonal pricing The case made by SSE, Scottish Power, Scottish Renewables, trade unions and many others was not all that complicated. If generators of power in Scotland were obliged to sell for a lower wholesale price because of location, they were less likely to attract the large-scale investment required to build offshore windfarms in the first place. Or, as Kate Forbes MSP – she's your deputy leader, Dave – put it: 'Zonal pricing is going to be hugely challenging as we could end up in the position where we don't get industrial opportunities and consumers don't get lower bills.' Asked directly if he still supported zonal pricing, John Swinney – being a bit more sleekit – refused to say yea or nay. But the Scottish Government's silence yesterday was deafening. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad While zonal pricing made headlines, there might have been greater significance elsewhere in Mr Miliband's statement on energy. The commitment to an overall review of wholesale pricing takes us to a starting point which should have been reached years ago. A coherent approach would have involved co-operation between Scottish and UK Governments, as well as the regulator Ofgem. None of that happened. The result is that we now have, particularly in Scotland, a catalogue of uncertainties, on which vast sums of money and dubious political assumptions depend. Zonal pricing would have added an additional uncertainty but taking it off the table does not mean the others have gone away. The need for reappraisal is urgent even if conclusions might be unpalatable. Importance of UK market I am a long-term supporter of renewable energy and when in government did my fair share to promote it. The Renewables Obligation was probably the most successful mechanism of its kind anywhere. Scotland was able to contribute disproportionately because of our onshore wind resource. But I also always argued for a balanced energy policy which is the crucial ingredient missing from current debate. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The blithe assumption that Scottish interests are best served by unlimited reliance on offshore wind needs to be challenged and scrutinised before further commitments are made. Mr Doogan and his ilk would do well to remember that Scottish renewables generation is based on the premise that there is an eager and willing market in the rest of Britain. That market has to be competed for, rather than taken for granted as one crucial sentence about the forthcoming review made clear: 'Reformed national pricing will send a clearer upfront signal ahead of the point of investment decision about the relative system value of investing in different locations, which can be accurately priced into those investment decisions.' Roughly translated, this points towards generating power closer to areas of highest demand. Or, as Professor Dieter Helm – a genuine expert – put it: 'Perhaps the real lesson from the zonal pricing debate is that some of the wind generation should not have been built in the north of Scotland in the first place, and perhaps not more should be built there now.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad That possibility cannot be dismissed lightly. Until there is a far clearer picture about the future pattern of generation, to serve the interests of net zero and lower bills, how much sense does it make to behave as if no such uncertainty exists? Turning Scottish backs on nuclear? Offshore wind developments on the scale envisaged only make sense if there is access to markets. Otherwise, we end up with billions in 'constraint payments' to generators who can't generate. Pump-storage hydro can mitigate that problem (and please let's get on with it) but only in part. Rationally, how much does the market actually need? Large-scale offshore wind is just as feasible around other parts of the UK which are far closer to population centres. As I write (albeit on a sunny day), solar is providing a third of Britain's electricity, which would not have been foreseen even a few years ago. A quarter of our power is coming in via interconnectors while wind accounts for just 2.3 per cent. My instincts tell me that much of the ScotWind programme may never be built because lower cost alternatives will emerge. We need to speed up these projects and also ensure recognition of their particular importance to peripheral areas where this is a one-off economic opportunity. Ofgem won't do that so politicians must. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad We must think again about whether it makes sense to run down gas or turn our Scottish backs on nuclear (in each case, the answer is 'no'). We still need a balanced energy policy in which Scottish renewables play a significant part.
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
A vote of no confidence in Labour council could happen
The dissatisfaction stems from the quality of the new civic leadership. To my mind, Portobello councillor Jane Meagher, only elected three years ago and now 73, doesn't seem entirely happy in the job. Her plaintive monologues at council meetings do nothing to dispel my notion that she would rather be doing anything than answering for a major local authority with a billion-pound budget and a perpetual crisis. Her deputy, the personable Morningside councillor Mandy Watt is the brains of the operation, but at times struggles to get her points across. Read more John McLellan: The inside story of the battle for control of Edinburgh What row over Edinburgh Tour de France bid shows - and it may not be what you think Edinburgh is held back by its can't do attitude. It should be more like Glasgow Those with the greatest regrets should be the Lib Dem councillors who were keenest for Cllr Meagher to take over, but it's a situation entirely resulting from their refusal to take over the administration when the opportunity presented itself, as this column explored last week. Remorseful or reluctant, it is the cause of much frustration amongst the Conservative group which can only watch helplessly as the Lib Dems are able to dictate budget priorities but then accept no responsibility for the outcomes, and Labour continuing to return reasonable levels of local support locally despite humiliation in Westminster and what they see as incompetence in delivering basic council services, particularly education and street maintenance. There is also what's been described as a ticking timebomb in social care, particularly residential care for young people, the subject of a damning report in 2022, and allegations that few, if any of its recommendations have been acted upon. Push is now coming to shove, and as the 14-strong Lib Dem group takes the summer to consider whether they will pull the plug on Labour's tenuous control, senior Conservatives are considering whether to force the issue by either tabling a motion of no confidence in the Labour administration or supporting a similar motion if proposed by either the SNP or Green parties. A plan to have Cammy Day voted in as planning convener could be the catalyst for change. (Image: Gordon Terris) The catalyst could be Labour's plan to have Cammy Day voted in as planning convener at the first council meeting after the summer recess, a move which does not command unanimous support in either the Labour group, never mind the Lib Dems or Tories. But even if the nomination is withdrawn, just the proposal could be enough to persuade enough councillors across the chamber that time should be called. Some in the Conservative group remain to be convinced, but after last week's column, one councillor spoke of fears that at current polling levels the group could be reduced from its current ten to as few as four or five at the 2027 elections. Whether it's because of a sense that something must be done, or there's nothing to left to lose, a Conservative-led vote of no confidence in the Labour administration is now a real possibility, and as it would almost certainly be supported by the SNP and Green groups, the administration would fall. Read more: Attempt to strip historic Vogue cinema's listed status thrown out Hospitality giant threatened with legal action for leaving Trainspotting pub 'to rot' Barrowland unveils 'ambitious' plans to alter famous facade The parties would then have until the next meeting in September to sort out new positions they could support, and if the Lib Dems insisted on refusing to take over, or Labour rejected a Lib Dem administration, the blame for letting in the SNP-Greens could not be laid at the Tories door, as some fear it might, forgetting that voters seem happy to support the Lib Dems despite facilitating the SNP budget at Holyrood.
Daily Mirror
an hour ago
- Daily Mirror
'Kemi Badenoch may hate the 1970s but Starmer should look to them'
The Tories are re-telling their favourite fairytale about the time a nasty wolf in left-wing clothing ate the heart out of Britain. At PMQs, Kemi Badenoch praised Norman Tebbit for rescuing this country from the Labour-run "chaos of the 1970s" before arguing that Keir Starmer wants to return us to that chaotic decade by flirting with a wealth tax. Well, seeing as you weren't alive in those bell-bottom days Kemi, let me give you some facts. Life was far from perfect in the 70s. Racism, sexism and homophobia were given free passes, the global oil crisis and shrinking post-Empire markets caused a run on the Pound, police corruption was off the scale and thanks to weak management, chronic underinvestment and powerful trade unions, industrial relations resembled a warzone. But it was, in many respects, a glorious time to be alive. There was a strong sense of community, belief in public services, free higher education, council houses aplenty, workers grafted for fewer hours in more secure jobs, The Clash and Sex Pistols ushered a new era of music, watching football was as cheap as chips and Thatcher had yet to turn Britain into a selfish, divided bearpit where only the strong survived. Plus, 1976 was officially the year when incomes in this country were at their most equal. Indeed, the only European country where the gap between rich and poor was narrower was Sweden. But Thatcher came to power at the end of the 70s and decreed this equality nonsense had gone too far. So she let the free markets rip and slashed higher rates of tax, helping the rich gorge on the nation's wealth and leaving the poor, the weak and the old industrial heartlands to rot. The gap between the top and the bottom in the UK has only carried on widening, which is why today we are the second most unequal G7 economy after America and the second most unequal nation in Europe after Bulgaria. The richest 70,000 people now take home 67 times more than the average worker, with CEOs like Tesco's Ken Murphy picking up £10 million last year, 431 times more than his company's mean wage. Recent research from The Equality Trust showed the UK's richest 50 families have more wealth than half the population and the billionaire count has soared from 15 in 1990 to 165 last year. We live in times of peak inequality making us an impoverished, unhealthy country where public services have stagnated, the economy has flatlined and a third of children live below the poverty line. Which is why the likes of Neil Kinnock is calling on Starmer to bring in a wealth tax on assets worth more than £10million and why this generation of Tories hate the idea almost as much as they hate the 1970s. Because equality is anathema to them. Whether it's Kinnock's tax on assets, a mansion tax, increasing capital gains tax, a new tax band for the super-wealthy or slashing relief on pensions for the richest, the government has to act. It's no longer a question of whether Labour's reputation can afford a wealth tax, it's whether, in the face of staggering debt and limited options, it can afford not to address the terminal dysfunction caused by a vampiric economy in which most of the wealth gets sucked up by the few at the top. It's about our country Stayin' Alive, as we used to sing in bell-bottom days.
