Who are the 47 Labour MPs who rebelled in the welfare reforms vote?
The Government had watered down its welfare plans last week by removing the personal independence payment (Pip) part of the Bill in a bid to appease angry backbenchers.
Despite this, a number of Labour MPs remained unhappy with the now-called Universal Credit Bill.
Speaking in the Commons, Neil Duncan-Jordan, the Poole MP, said the Government's earlier concessions were not enough 'because this Bill still contains a proposal to cut £2 billion from the universal credit health element for over 750,000 future claims'.
Nadia Whittome, MP for Nottingham East, said 'these changes do not alleviate all of my concerns', adding: 'One in three disabled people are already in poverty.
'This Bill, even after the Government's amendment, would take around £3,000 a year from the disabled people of the future.'
Kim Johnson argued the Bill 'remains a danger to disabled people', adding: 'It's not just a bad policy, it's economically reckless, because when you take away essential support you don't reduce costs, you shift those costs on to the NHS, on to local authorities and on to unpaid carers and on to working class communities.'
The Liverpool Riverside MP said she 'will not stand by while this Government has stripped away dignity, security and hope for the people I represent'.
Labour MP Nadia Whittome (David Woolfall/PA)
Mr McDonald described the situation as a 'shambles', adding: 'Now is the moment to stop the cuts, and I implore the Government to rethink this Bill.'
The Middlesbrough and Thornaby East MP said the welfare Bill would 'discourage' people from taking an opportunity to try and work.
'A Government that claims to care about fairness cannot proceed like this,' he added.
Alison Hume, MP for Scarborough and Whitby, also urged the Government to 'pull this Bill', adding: 'Let's get it right for the people who really matter. Let's get it right for disabled people.'
Cat Eccles, who spoke of her own experience of the system after she 'almost lost my life, followed by a total mental breakdown', also criticised the legislation.
The Stourbridge MP said: 'I didn't come here to make people worse off, and that's why I still cannot support this Bill.'
Stella Creasy tabled an amendment which would have required the Secretary of State to have due regard to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
The Walthamstow MP said her new clause four would aim to 'ensure that people can live a life of freedom equally alongside us as our fellow human beings' and that 'disabled people in our communities can meet their living expenses'.
Here is a full list of Labour MPs who voted against the Bill at third reading:
Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington), Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting), Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree), Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire), Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood), Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam), Chris Bloore (Redditch), Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool), Richard Burgon (Leeds East), Maureen Burke (Glasgow North East), Dawn Butler (Brent East), Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby), Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran), Stella Creasy (Walthamstow), Marsha De Cordova (Battersea), Peter Dowd (Bootle), Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole), Cat Eccles (Stourbridge), Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham), Barry Gardiner (Brent West), Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith), Mary Glindon (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend), Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire), Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby), Imran Hussain (Bradford East), Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside), Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington), Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth), Emma Lewell (South Shields), Clive Lewis (Norwich South), Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford), Rachael Maskell (York Central), Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East), Navendu Mishra (Stockport), Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central), Grahame Morris (Easington), Margaret Mullane (Dagenham and Rainham), Simon Opher (Stroud), Kate Osborne (Jarrow and Gateshead East), Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill), Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston), Euan Stainbank (Falkirk), Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South), Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth), Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood), Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East), Mohammad Yasin (Bedford).
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scotsman
19 minutes 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.
Times
23 minutes ago
- Times
Britain is broke: how inflation-linked debt costs us £60bn
Britain is broke. That was the depressing conclusion of the Office for Budget Responsibility's annual report on the future of the public finances published this week. Of course the fiscal watchdog did not choose those exact words. Instead it used 65,000 other words, but if you were to distil the overall message, it's hard to come to a different conclusion. The watchdog chose to focus its report this year on the ruinous cost of the triple-lock pension promise and the strain that net zero will place on the public purse. But in Westminster, all the talk is about how a little-known policy decision made decades ago is putting the government in an uncomfortably tight fiscal straitjacket. That decision was to start promising investors who lent money to the government that their cash would be protected from the ravages of inflation. Or in more technical language, the government started issuing index-linked gilts that were tied to the retail prices index (RPI) measure of inflation. This innovation meant investors could lend the government money safe in the knowledge that if inflation rose, the amount of interest they would receive and the amount returned at the end of the term of the loan would rise so the real value of their investment would never fall. Conventional gilts offer no such protection. The lender is just paid a fixed amount of interest each year, and a fixed amount of cash is returned at the end of the term. The consequences of this policy for the public purse are only now beginning to be felt because of the higher levels of inflation since the pandemic. The numbers are stark. In 2020 the government spent £25 billion a year on debt interest, but in the last tax year it spent £105 billion. By comparison, it spends £60 billion on schools, £55 billion on defence and £20 billion on the police. So who is to blame and how did we get here? The short answer is politicians. The long answer is more complicated. Decisions on the type of debt to issue each year are made by the chancellor but they are informed by officials and subject the demands of the market. The record shows that particularly high levels of index-linked gilts were issued under the chancellorships of Gordon Brown and George Osborne. However, the policy itself was first introduced by Geoffrey Howe, who was chancellor in 1981. Howe made the decision in part because the early Thatcher government was struggling to borrow what it needed after the economic crises of the 1970s, but also because it signalled that the Treasury was serious about cracking down on inflation. By promising to protect the real value of money lent to the Treasury, investors were reassured that the new government would not repeat the reckless and inflationary policies of the previous decade. There was also strong demand for this type of government debt from the pensions industry because it helped to fund the inflation guarantees in final salary schemes. • OBR rings alarm on pensions, climate change and the fiscal rule In the decades that followed, index-linked gilts, or 'linkers' as they became known, were hailed as a clever innovation because they met this demand and actually saved the government money. The reason was that investors would accept a lower rate of return on index-linked loans than conventional gilts because of the inflation protection they offered. Provided the RPI rate remained low — and over the next few decades it generally did — the government benefited by having to pay less interest on its debts. Indeed, an official analysis in 2023 found that the Treasury cumulatively saved £158 billion by issuing linkers in place of conventional gilts between 1981 and 2022. However, the equation dramatically shifted in 2022 when inflation surged to a high of 14.2 per cent. Suddenly, the amount the government had to pay to service its debts ballooned. Britain's public finances were hit uniquely hard because over the preceding decades the UK government had issued so much more index-linked debt than anyone else. By 2022, nearly 25 per cent of Britain's outstanding borrowing was index-lined, more than twice as much as any other G7 country. Italy has the next highest holding at 12 per cent but US debt has only 7 per cent and Germany less than 5 per cent. This meant that between 2019 and 2022, debt interest costs increased faster in the UK than in every other OECD country. The proportion of this increase that is down to linkers is subject to debate because the pandemic greatly increased government borrowing generally and the interest rates on conventional gilts also increased. However, an analysis by The Times of RPI rates and the stock of outstanding government debt, suggests the decision to issue linkers over conventional gilts cost the Treasury £62.8 billion in higher interest payments during 2022 and 2023. To put this in perspective, a penny on income tax raises only about £6 billion. These higher borrowing costs are set to continue for years to come as linkers mature and are repaid. It is one of the main reasons why the annual bill for servicing the nation's debt is set to hit £132 billion by 2030, according to the OBR. Whatever the exact cost of linkers, there can be no doubt that they have severely constrained Rachel Reeves's ability to enact meaningful policy, or borrow to invest in Britain's creaking public services. To make matters worse for the chancellor, investors in the gilt markets are acutely aware of the government's inflation-based debt problem so they scrutinise her every policy decision. Any move that suggests Labour might abandon fiscal responsibility rapidly raises the interest rates they demand to lend to the government. That is a major problem when the Treasury needs to borrow more than £250 billion this year and why these investors have been nicknamed the 'bond vigilantes'. The bond market really is an ever-present sword of Damocles hanging over the government. Anyone who doubts its power should remind themselves what happened to Liz Truss following her disastrous mini-budget. Perhaps understandably, no one is jumping to the front of the queue to take the blame for creating this situation. A Treasury source said that successive chancellors had to decide between the 'short-term attraction' of index-linked gilts and the longer-term risk. The 'red hot' demand from the pension industry made those decisions harder. However, the source admitted that, in hindsight, the issuing of index-linked gilts 'went too far'. While no politicians have publicly blamed the officials who advised them, questions have been asked about the role of civil servants. The principal official responsible for advising the government through the Brown and Osborne period was Sir Robert Stheeman, who was chief executive of the Debt Management Office (DMO), a Treasury agency created in 1998 when the Bank of England became independent. The DMO took on the bank's role of issuing and servicing gilts, with an objective to 'minimise financing costs over the long term, taking account of risk'. While there is no public record of Stheeman, who was earning £145,000 a year when he left in 2024, explicitly calling for more linkers, he did repeatedly describe them as a 'key part of the UK financing programme' and emphasised their cost advantages under certain market conditions. Last year, his replacement, Jessica Pulay, noted the markets' robust demand for index-linked gilts. However, ascribing any blame to officials at the DMO is tricky because they have no decision-making role and are only there to advise and execute government orders. So as successive chancellors were making merry in the bond markets, drunk on the illusion that inflation was a historic problem, did anyone raise the alarm? The short answer is very few. There were some warnings but they were muted. For example, in the mid 2010s, the House of Lords economic affairs committee highlighted that the UK's large share of inflation-linked debt made the public finances unusually vulnerable to inflation shocks — however it was presented only as a theoretical risk. Given the extended period of low inflation the country had benefited from, few took much notice. It was only when the OBR raised the alarm in 2017 that the Treasury decided to act. In the 2018 budget, Philip Hammond announced the government would gradually reduce the proportion of index-linked gilts it issued. Over the next five years, the share of government borrowing raised using linkers fell from 23.5 per cent to 12.4 per cent. However, it was too little, too late. Decades of much higher levels of issuance, and the fact that the inflation uplift on these debts kept their value rising, meant that by 2022, when inflation surged, more than 25 per cent of all outstanding gilts were still index linked. Rumours in Westminster suggest that for years the Treasury did not want to address the risks because linkers were considered a useful tool to constrain excessive departmental spending and the profligacy of No 10. The theory is that having a high proportion of index-linked gilts meant that large increases in public spending would be inflationary and therefore prohibitively expensive. Whether that theory is true, remains to be seen. However, what cannot be disputed is that Britain's debt experiment will handicap chancellors for years to come.
The Herald Scotland
39 minutes 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.
