‘Worse than anything under the Tories': changes to welfare bill anger disability campaigners
'As a community we feel totally let down and these last-minute concessions do nothing to make up for that,' Andy Mitchell, a disability campaigner and a member of Unite Community, says. 'My friends are scared. Some have spoken about suicide. This is worse than anything that happened under the Tories.'
With the government offering major concessions to the welfare bill, ministers will be hoping critics have at last been appeased. But many campaigners have reacted with anger and concern over the changes.
Disabled people's organisations, such as Inclusion London, WinVisible and Long Covid Advocacy, have told the Guardian that plans to exempt only existing claimants from the cuts will create a 'two-tier' benefit system that 'condemns' future disabled people to poverty.
'Protecting entitlements for current recipients is the right thing to do and if it's right for current recipients then it has to be the right thing for future claimants too,' says Tracey Lazard, CEO of Inclusion London.
'Even with these concessions, the bill before parliament is not a reform – it's still rationing. There is no moral or economic case for balancing the books on the backs of disabled people. MPs must not condemn future disabled people to the poverty and indignity these devastating planned cuts will cause.'
Claire Every, spokesperson for Long Covid Advocacy said: 'A last-minute napkin deal will not assure safety for disabled people. The concessions create an unfair two-tier system – it is unethical to only throw some people under the bus.
'These changes will negatively impact people with long Covid as they discriminate against those with fluctuating disabilities and will see those who contract the illness in the future receive less support than those who fell ill earlier in the pandemic,' she added.
Some campaigners warn that a system that treats new and old claimants differently could lead to future legal challenges against the government.
'How can you justify someone with the same impairments getting two different rates of social security payments based solely on [when they applied or how long they've been ill]? Is it even legal?' says Linda Burnip from Disabled People Against Cuts. 'The concessions are ridiculous and [effectively mean] anyone not already ill or disabled in Britain can't become ill or disabled and expect to have enough money to live on in the future.'
Others have accused the government of trying to sow division within the disabled community to quell opposition to the bill.
'We refuse the government's divide-and-rule between old and new claimants, and MPs should keep voting against the horrendous cuts they are planning,' says Claire Glasman from WinVisible. 'We won't stop campaigning – new claimants lose out massively across Pip and universal credit, especially women with invisible and fluctuating conditions. Labour is still going after sick and disabled people.
'These offers of concessions are a glimpse into the window of the soul of the government; that they think people are protesting these cuts for their own gain not the wellbeing of all disabled people,' says Cherylee Houston, co-founder of the #TakingThePIP campaign.
It is still unclear whether the concessions will protect eligibility for the connecting benefits to Pip, such as carer's allowance, she added. 'We don't agree to anything which doesn't safeguard future disabled people from abject poverty and despair. How can they draw a line to which people who become disabled after a certain date will not receive the support they need?'
The government has pledged the entire criteria system will be reviewed in conjunction with disabled people, but disability groups told the Guardian they are concerned any changes from the review will not be made before the bill passes, while MPs will not have sufficient time to consider proposals.
'MPs are going to be voting on these concessions without people having a decent enough time to look and understand them,' says Mitchell. 'One of the points from the amendment was that disabled people hadn't been properly consulted, so how can it be right when these concessions have not been consulted on at all?'
'If concessions are possible, so is proper reform,' added Lazard. 'Fast-tracking a bill with such major consequences is irresponsible and cruel. It denies parliament, disabled people and the public real scrutiny. We urge MPs to stand your ground, stop this dangerous bill and demand better for everyone.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
6 minutes ago
- Times
‘Tell me what to ask about' — MP faces cash for questions claims
A former Conservative minister allowed a company that paid him £60,000 a year to effectively write several of his parliamentary questions, leaked emails have revealed. George Freeman submitted queries to Labour ministers about the sector the firm operates in, potentially handing the company a commercial advantage. He also asked a director at the environmental monitoring company to tell him 'what to ask about', in exchanges that may have breached ethics rules and are likely to see Freeman accused of taking 'cash for questions'. In one exchange, he asked if they could help him 'get the wording right', which he could then 'convert into parliamentary language'. In some examples, the phrases used by the company's director are copied word for word by Freeman in his submitted questions to ministers. The Mid Norfolk MP is also alleged to have held virtual business meetings using his office in Portcullis House. An email appears to show that in one of these meetings he discussed various business objectives with the firm. Freeman, 57, who was first elected as an MP in 2010, resigned as science minister from Rishi Sunak's government in November 2023. He later complained he could not afford to pay his £2,000 a month mortgage on a ministerial salary of £118,300. In April last year, he began acting as a paid adviser to GHGSat Limited, which uses satellites and aircraft sensors to measure greenhouse gases, including methane, from industrial sites and helps businesses monitor and reduce their emissions. Freeman appears to have broken multiple rules set out in the MPs' code of conduct, including lobbying on behalf of a private company he was paid by and using the parliamentary estate for his private business interests. He also appears to have failed to follow the advice issued to him by the advisory committee on business appointments (Acoba), the watchdog that regulates the private sector roles ex-ministers and civil servants can take up after leaving office. Approached on Saturday, Freeman said that, while he did not believe he had done anything wrong, he was immediately referring himself to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, the watchdog responsible for policing MPs' conduct. As science and space minister, Freeman was heavily involved in the sector that GHGSat operates in, although he does not appear to have dealt with the firm while in office or presided over policies, regulation or commercial decisions that would have benefited it. He is now a member of the Commons science and technology committee, as well as a UK trade envoy. The company paid him £5,000 a month for eight hours of work between April last year and March this year. Leaked emails suggest that, while on the payroll, he tabled written parliamentary questions to government departments with the help of the managing director, Dan Wicks. Written parliamentary questions are seen as a vital tool for MPs, allowing them to seek data or information not in the public domain, or press the government to take action. They are only supposed to be tabled as part of their parliamentary duties and not their private business interests. At 11.35am on November 27 last year, Freeman emailed Wicks to notify him that 'following our latest catch up I'm preparing some written parliamentary questions to table on the DSIT [Department for Science and Technology] space data and Desnz [Department for Energy Security and Net Zero] emissions tracking platforms. 'So that I get the wording right can you email me the key technical terms / names of the projects / frameworks and what to ask about & I'll then convert into the right parliamentary language.' At 4.29pm, Wicks replied that Freeman should ask questions of the DSIT to better understand whether it would continue 'investment in national space data activities'. He then listed three specific areas he could ask about. The first was to ask the DSIT whether it would continue to invest in 'the Earth observation Data Pilot run by the Geospatial Commission and whether that will be extended or grown into a pan-government purchasing mechanism'. This was a government-run pilot launched in 2023, when Freeman was still science minister, which was testing ways public bodies could access satellite data to better inform 'analysis in key policy areas, including land use, environmental monitoring and emergency response'. Wicks's second proposal was for Freeman to ask the DSIT whether it planned to 'continue funding the Earth observation data hub as a tool for public sector to access and make use of different Earth observation data'. This was another programme funded by the DSIT, and uses a mix of public and paid-for commercial space data to inform decision making within government, businesses and academia. On GHGSat's website, it stated it supplies data to the hub. Outlining his third proposed question, Wicks added: 'And of course, the Methane programme run by UK Space Agency that makes use of GHGSat data.' Freeman was responsible for the UK Space Agency when he was a minister. He also suggested Freeman ask the agency's chief executive about his recent commitment to 'prioritise 'supporting development of methane emissions measurement best-practices'.' Wicks then suggested Freeman submit a separate question to Ed Miliband's Desnz department to work out whether it would 'start integrating more GHG [greenhouse gas] measurement data' into its methodology for calculating emissions which he said would build on 'investments such as Greenhouse Gas Emissions Measurement and Modelling Advancement (Gemma) to explore the added value of satellite data.' All of the proposals set out in Wicks's email appear to be aimed at obtaining information from ministers that would be beneficial to GHGSat: The following day, at 12.51pm, Freeman emailed a member of his parliamentary staff and asked them to submit questions to ministers via the clerks who formally process written questions on behalf of MPs. He asked his staffer to tick 'any 'interest declaration' box if there is one' — a process which flags that an MP has asked a question that relates to one of their publicly registered interests. While this was done, it was not disclosed that the company had shaped his questions. Freeman then listed five questions for DSIT, all of which draw on the proposals Wicks had made the day before: Freeman also requested three questions be submitted to Desnz and a final question be tabled to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: A search of the parliament's website shows eight of these questions were formally tabled by Freeman over several days in December last year, with ministers responding several weeks later to each of them. The MPs' code of conduct makes clear that 'taking payment in return for advocating a particular matter in the House is strictly forbidden'. It adds that they may not speak in the Commons, vote or initiate parliamentary proceedings, or make approaches to ministers in return for payment — and must not initiate proceedings which would provide financial or material benefit to an organisation or individual from whom they have received financial reward. It also prohibits MPs from pursuing interests which are 'wholly personal', 'such as may arise from a profession or occupation outside the House'. Hannah White, director of the Institute for Government think tank, who previously served as secretary to the Committee on Standards in Public Life, said: 'Commons rules are intended to prevent any public perception that 'outside individuals or organisations' might pay an MP in order to benefit from their actions in Parliament. The evidence suggests there are clear questions to answer about whether these rules have been breached.' The Sunday Times has also seen extracts from Freeman's online work calendar showing he had regular meetings with GHGSat and Wicks via Zoom calls from at least July last year until March this year. One, on October 22 between 4.45pm and 5.45pm, listed Freeman as the organiser and the location as 'PCH', short for parliament's Portcullis House, where Freeman's parliamentary office is based. It is alleged by a source that he held several meetings with businesses that are listed on his register of interests using his parliamentary computer. In an email attached to this meeting, Wicks asked Freeman whether he would be able to meet with him and GHGSat's president, Stéphane Germain, 'in person next week' and that they should schedule 'regular' 30-minute catch-ups twice a week. Wicks then outlined priorities they had 'discussed on the call', one of which was 'UK Gov engagement', and another 'engagement strategies with senior officials'. The MPs' code of conduct states that 'excepting modest and reasonable personal use, members must ensure that the use of facilities and services provided to them by parliament, including an office, is in support of their parliamentary activities, and is in accordance with all relevant rules'. When Freeman took up his adviser role with GHGSat, he also received advice from Acoba, the appointments watchdog. It noted that 'there are risks associated with your influence and network of contacts gained whilst in ministerial office', adding: 'In particular, this is a company that is interested in government policy and decisions relating to the civil space sector and emissions.' According to Acoba, Freeman had assured the watchdog that he had 'made it clear to the company that you will not lobby government on its behalf, and this will not form part of your role.' It imposed conditions on the appointment, including a two-year ban on him being 'personally involved in lobbying the UK government or any of its arm's length bodies on behalf of GHGSat Ltd'. Freeman said: 'As a longstanding advocate of important new technologies, companies and industries, working cross-party through APPGs [All-Party Parliamentary Groups] and the select committee, I regularly ask experts for clarification on technical points and terminology, and deeply respect and try to assiduously follow the code of conduct for MPs and the need to act always in the public interest. 'Throughout my 15 years in parliament (and government) I have always understood the need to be transparent in the work I have done for and with commercial clients and charities and am always willing to answer any criticism. I don't believe I have done anything wrong but I am immediately referring myself to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and will accept his judgment in due course.' A spokesman for GHGSat said: 'GHGSat retained George Freeman MP for a brief period to help GHGSat understand and navigate the geopolitical environment in the UK and Europe. GHGSat signed a services agreement with Mr Freeman that did not include any lobbying activities and was concluded on the basis of the terms laid out by the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments. GHGSat takes all applicable laws and regulations concerning lobbying extremely seriously.'
Telegraph
14 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Albanian PM: We'll take every criminal back if Farage is right
Albania's prime minister has pledged to take back all his country's prisoners in the UK in an escalating row with Nigel Farage over how many of them are in jail. The Reform UK leader challenged Edi Rama on Friday to take back Albanian criminals after accusing him of hypocrisy over comments he made about Britain having become a 'dark place' after withdrawing from the EU. Mr Farage said it was hypocritical to describe the UK as a dark place when one in 50 Albanians in Britain were currently in prison in the UK. The Reform leader, who was shown on opinion polls to be the public's favourite to be the UK's next prime minister on opinion polls, urged Mr Rama to 'show some goodwill and take them all back tomorrow'. Mr Rama, who stands at 6ft 7in tall, has now taken to X to post his response, saying that if Mr Farage's figure was right, he would take all the criminals back and if wrong, he would invite him to Albania as his guest of honour as long as he promised never to badmouth the country again. 'Ooopsss… Mr Nigel Farage himself has just challenged me on the facts!' said Mr Rama in his tweet. 'What an honour – for a 'giant man', as he described me (meaning, of course, from a 'tiny country') – to earn the attention of Britain's unrivalled virtuoso of headline politics. 'He said – and I quote: 'I tell you what, Mr Rama, did you know one in 50 Albanians in Britain are in prison? So show some goodwill and take them all back tomorrow, because this is hypocrisy.' Mr Rama went on to claim Mr Farage's figure was 'bonkers' and a 'classic from the post-truth Brexit playbook'. He added that many Albanians are caught up in an 'outdated and restrictive visa system', but said their rate of criminality 'would be no higher – and likely lower than – that of the British population itself'. He continued: 'Let's both bring our numbers to the table. If your 'one in 50' claim holds water – I will personally commit to taking them all back. That's not a competing headline – it's a public pledge. 'But if your scary stat turns out to be just tabloid fuel, then no apology needed. No drama. Instead, you'll come to Albania – as my guest of honour ... And all I ask in return is the simplest public pledge from you, made while enjoying our country: next time someone badmouths Albanians, you'll be the first to tell them – in your histrionic way – not to do it again.' Ooopsss… Mr. @Nigel_Farage himself has just challenged me on the facts! What an honor — for a "giant man," as he described me (meaning, of course, from a "tiny country") — to earn the attention of Britain's unrivaled virtuoso of headline politics. He… — Edi Rama (@ediramaal) June 27, 2025 Speaking to The Telegraph, Mr Farage said he would take up the challenge. 'We will hold Edi Rama to his pledge!' he said. The statistic Mr Farage cited was first reported by The Telegraph when the newspaper compiled a league table of nations based on data from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and Office for National Statistics (ONS). This showed there were 10,435 foreign nationals in jails in England and Wales compared to 76,866 British nationals. Nations with fewer than 20 people in UK jails were excluded because of the low sample size. This was cross-referenced with ONS 2021 census data, from which was extracted the number of foreign nationals from each country who do not have a UK passport. There may be some margin for error as some foreign nationals could have been granted citizenship but not applied for a passport. The Albanian imprisonment rate was 232.33 per 10,000 people – or one in 50. This was calculated based on the census data showing 68,672 foreign-born Albanians lived in the UK. Excluding the 15,860 without a UK passport gives a total of some 52,000. With 1,227 in jail, it equates to two per cent of Albanians. The original spark for the row was Mr Farage's attack on Mr Rama after the socialist leader criticised post-Brexit Britain. He said Sir Keir Starmer's plan to send failed asylum seekers abroad to hubs in Europe demonstrated that post-Brexit Britain is in 'a very dark place'. Mr Rama said Britain was 'looking for places to dump migrants' – a concept he claimed would have been unthinkable a decade ago.
Telegraph
14 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Prepare for economic collapse: last week the 2026 British financial crisis became inevitable
Make a note of last Friday's date: June 27 2025. It was the day that Britain's coming financial crisis became inescapable. In backing away from his attempt to slow, however feebly, the rise in benefits spending, Sir Keir Starmer was signalling to the world that Labour would never bring Britain's budget back into balance. The storm might break in 2026 or 2027 or even later. Labour politicians will do everything in their power to postpone the reckoning. But debts are not just paper liabilities; they end up being recovered. We have all just watched a hopeless and hapless PM throw away his majority and, with it, any hope of reform. And the bond vigilantes saw what we saw. What were Labour's rebels thinking? Their constituents will be hammered when the money runs out, when salaries and savings lose their value and imports become luxuries. They will be swept from office just as surely as were Greece's socialist MPs after the euro crisis. Do they even believe their own claims? Do they truly imagine that they are shielding the vulnerable? Do they picture themselves posed heroically over some wheelchair-bound child, fending off the ghost of Margaret Thatcher? I doubt it. They have, after all, seen the numbers. They know that one working-age adult in ten is now on benefits. They know that the number is rising, with a thousand people a day applying for Personal Independence Payments (PIP) – a rise which, tellingly, is not mirrored in any indices of sickness. They understand how PIP works. They know it can be accessed on grounds of, for example, anxiety, alcoholism, or ADHD (there are 50,000 claimants in this last category). They are aware that most new claims are for mental health conditions that are hard to verify. They will have seen the online videos explaining how to make a successful claim – you get this many points for saying that you have trouble getting dressed, this many for saying that you can't sit still, and so on. They might even be dimly acquainted with the age breakdown of the claimants. The fastest rise is among 25- to 34-year-olds, an incredible increase of 69 per cent in just five years. Incredible in every sense. Such a sudden and cataclysmic rise in disability would be visible on every street. Do you think Labour MPs, who meet PIP claimants in their surgeries, genuinely suppose that they are all incapacitated to the point of being unable to earn a living? No, this was never about justice for people with disabilities – still less about justice for taxpayers. Indeed, the most immediate consequence of guaranteeing existing but not future claims is to deter people from coming off benefits, knowing that there will be a lower rate if they go back. What we are seeing is the lowest and most cynical short-termism from MPs who want to keep their seats. In parts of urban Britain, Labour's election strategy involves distributing postal votes to welfare claimants along with the warnings that the Tories are coming for their benefits. From a purely partisan point of view, it suits Labour MPs to have constituents who claim state handouts. Sure, handouts are debilitating for the recipients and burdensome for the contributors; but the politicians who arrange the transfer often get an electoral reward. Labour MPs' WhatsApp groups have been pulsing with links to a study by the Disability Poverty Campaign Group which shows that, in nearly 200 Labour constituencies, the number of people claiming PIP is higher than the parliamentary majority. Among the MPs who are, so to speak, dependent on dependents, are Shabana Mahmood, Wes Streeting and Jess Phillips. You have to spend time around politicians to understand the extent to which such surveys strike icy daggers into their hearts. Never mind the moral case for self-reliance; never mind the debts we are loading onto our children. What looms in the feverish fears of MPs is having to mount the stage in their local sports centre and make a concession speech. Yet, paradoxically, they are making their defeat almost certain. The British state spends an unbelievable £52 billion a year on disability and incapacity benefits. According to the DWP, that figure will rise to £70 billion at today's prices by the end of the present Parliament. The changes that were first proposed would not have reversed that rise. They would not even meaningfully have slowed it. They would have shaved only £5 billion from the scheduled increase. In the event, that tiny dent was unacceptable to Labour MPs, fresh from running charities and NGOs, unused to hard decisions, unprepared for unpopularity, uninterested in economic reality. Asked in a BBC interview how she would make up the shortfall, one of the rebel leaders, Meg Hillier, replied airily that that was up to the Chancellor. In truth, the Chancellor's decision has been made for her. Labour backbenchers would rather pull the sky down on our heads than risk a bad local headline. Labour Whips, knowing that the only thing they have going for them is the split between the two Right-wing parties, will do anything to avoid a similar split on the Left. Labour is thus incapable of reducing expenditure. If it could not stick to its commitments on reducing the winter fuel allowance, capping child benefit or slowing the rise in PIP, it is plainly not going to attempt a radical overhaul of benefits. Without spending cuts, two options remain: yet higher taxes or yet more borrowing. Both damage growth – or at least they would if there were any growth to damage. In an economy that is flatlining (at least when we strip out the impact of immigration and consider GDP per head) they will topple us into recession. Which brings us back to the coming gilt strike. Who knows what the trigger will be? It might occur overseas. When bond markets turn, they are not interested in geography, justice or moral hazard. Rather, they look coldly for the weakest wildebeest in the herd, the spavined, limping laggard. And among major economies, that is Britain. Our politicians are shockingly complacent when it comes to the possibility of a full-scale financial crisis. We haven't had a proper one since 1976 and, frankly, even that was tame by global standards. Yes, the markets stepped in to punish Labour's profligacy, short-termism and cowardice. But our national debt back then was 47 per cent of GDP and falling; now it is 96 per cent and rising. Spending a chunk of my teenage years in South America in the 1980s, I am perhaps more alive than some of my countrymen to what a debt crisis looks like. I have seen, not just the inflation, the unemployment, the poverty – but the consequent lurch into authoritarianism. If twentieth-century South America seems too exotic, cast your mind back instead to the euro crisis. Ireland took it best, gulping down its medicine and making serious economies. Public sector salaries were reduced in real terms and there were rounds of redundancies. From cabinet ministers to claimants of child benefit, everyone had to take a cut. I suspect that, under Labour, our crisis will be more Greek than Irish. In other words, we will continue to vote 'against the cuts'. Our politicians will raise taxes in ways that would have made Charles I blush. We will elect parties that promise to 'end austerity'. And, as a result, we will end up having to make deeper cuts. And Labour? Labour will go the way of Greece's PASOK, as voters blame it for having failed to make softer savings while there was still time. It is true that voters themselves are in no mood for such savings yet; but good luck with using that as an excuse. Starmer might manage to limp on until the next election, a prisoner of the 400 standard-issue big-government Labour MPs who want him to stick to the Corbynite policies on which he was elected party leader. Either way, Labour itself is finished. Last week will be remembered as the moment when its MPs took the decision to check out.
