Labour in ‘good place now' on welfare, Kendall insists after Government U-turn
Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall sought to downplay party splits over the legislation after Downing Street offered concessions in a late-night climbdown to head off Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer's first Commons defeat.
Meanwhile, Number 10 said there will be no 'permanent' increase in borrowing as a result of the U-turn but declined to rule out tax rises in the autumn amid mounting questions about how the changes will be funded.
Some 126 Labour MPs had signed an amendment that would halt the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill in its tracks when it faces its first Commons hurdle on Tuesday.
Leading rebels now believe the concessions on offer, which include protecting personal independence payments (Pip) for all existing claimants, will be enough to win over a majority.
However, the fallout threatens to cause lasting damage as harder line rebels remain opposed to the legislation and some backbenchers have called for a reset of relations between Number 10 and the parliamentary party.
Facing questions about the climbdown on Friday, Ms Kendall denied suggestions she had found it 'difficult' to water down reforms she had so strenuously defended and said the concessions left the Bill in 'the right place'.
'We have listened to people, we have engaged with them,' she said.
'I think we're in a good place now, alongside the huge investments we are putting in to create the jobs that people need in every part of the country… but also to make sure there's employment support for those who can work and protections for those who can't.'
Asked how she felt about softening the impact of the policy, Ms Kendall said: 'I don't find it difficult, because the principles that I strongly believe in, that work for those who can is the best route out of poverty… that we must protect those who can never work, that is really, really important.
'Those principles are ones we all agree on.
'We're in the right place with the changes we've made.'
The Government has also left the door open to further reform later down the line, with Ms Kendall saying there need to be 'changes in the future' to ensure 'people who can work do'.
Ministers had hoped the Bill would save up to £5 billion a year, but the changes announced after crisis talks with rebels on Thursday mean Chancellor Rachel Reeves would need to find the money elsewhere to make up the shortfall.
The Government's original package had restricted eligibility for Pip, the main disability payment in England, as well as cutting the health-related element of universal credit.
Existing recipients were to be given a 13-week phase-out period of financial support in an earlier move that was seen as a bid to head off opposition.
Now, the changes to Pip will be implemented in November 2026 and apply to new claimants only while all existing recipients of the health element of universal credit will have their incomes protected in real terms.
The concessions on Pip alone protect some 370,000 people currently receiving the allowance who were set to lose out following reassessment.
The changes represent a major climbdown for the Prime Minister, just days after he insisted to reporters he would 'press on' with the cuts, arguing there was a 'moral case' for them.
Ms Kendall confirmed the U-turn in a letter to MPs late on Thursday night, along with plans for a review of the Pip assessment to be led by disabilities minister Sir Stephen Timms and 'co-produced' with disabled people.
A Number 10 spokesperson said: 'We have listened to MPs who support the principle of reform but are worried about the pace of change for those already supported by the system.
'This package will preserve the social security system for those who need it by putting it on a sustainable footing, provide dignity for those unable to work, support those who can and reduce anxiety for those currently in the system.'
Dame Meg Hillier, one of the leading rebel voices, hailed the concessions as 'a good deal' involving 'massive changes' to protect vulnerable people and involve disabled people in the design of future reforms.
She said: 'It's encouraging that we have reached what I believe is a workable compromise that will protect disabled people and support people back into work while ensuring the welfare system can be meaningfully reformed.'
Not all the rebels have been satisfied with the changes, with several suggesting they would create a 'two-tier system' and raising questions about who would be classified as a new claimant after November 2026.
One told the PA news agency that discontent and low morale among the backbenches would 'continue to fester' without a 'wider reset' of relations between Number 10 and the Parliamentary Labour Party.
Another accused decision-makers in Government of operating as an 'exclusive club' and showing 'disregard' for both its MPs and experts outside Westminster.
The concessions could also leave Ms Reeves scrambling to fill a hole in her budget come the autumn, with economists suggesting they could reduce the projected savings by at least £1.5 billion per year.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies said the changes make further tax rises in the budget 'even more likely' in order for the Chancellor to balance the books.
Meanwhile Ruth Curtice, chief executive of the Resolution Foundation think tank, suggested the changes could cost as much as £3 billion.
Facing questions from reporters about how the reduction in cuts would be funded, Downing Street said there would be 'no permanent increase in borrowing' and promised further detail on the policy next week.
'We'll set out how this will be funded at the budget, alongside a full economic and fiscal forecast in the autumn, in the usual way,' a Number 10 spokesman said.
'The full details (of the changes) will be set out to Parliament ahead of the second reading on Tuesday.'
Asked whether the Government could say there would be no tax rises to pay for the changes, the spokesman said: 'As ever, as is a long-standing principle, tax decisions are set out at fiscal events.'
Number 10 dismissed suggestions that Sir Keir's leadership had been marked by a pattern of caving in 'if enough people kick up a fuss' following similar policy changes over the winter fuel payment and grooming gangs.
Sir Keir earlier this month announced the fuel allowance would be reinstated for millions of pensioners and also agreed to a national inquiry into grooming gangs after an independent audit recommended a probe, following months of opposition pressure.
'It's not unusual as part of the parliamentary process to introduce a Bill, have a debate about the principles and then look at how those are implemented,' the spokesman said.
'Sometimes that's with amendments along the way.'
On Friday morning, care minister Stephen Kinnock refused to be drawn on how the changes would be covered, saying it was 'very much the Chancellor's job as we move into the budget in the autumn'.
He also declined to comment on whether it was fair that two people with the same condition would receive different amounts of money depending on when they started their claim.
Mr Kinnock told Times Radio there were 'many different individual circumstances' and it was 'not possible to generalise'.
Asked whether the Government now expected the Bill to pass, he said: 'Yes.'
There was mixed reaction among charities to the prospect of concessions.
Learning disability charity Mencap said the news would be a 'huge relief to thousands of people living in fear of what the future holds'.
Director of strategy Jackie O'Sullivan said: 'It is the right thing to do and sends a clear message – cutting disability benefits is not a fair way to mend the black hole in the public purse.'
The MS Society urged rebels to hold firm and block the Bill, insisting any Government offer to water down the reforms would amount to 'kicking the can down the road and delaying an inevitable disaster'.
Charlotte Gill, head of campaigns at the charity, said: 'We urge MPs not to be swayed by these last-ditch attempts to force through a harmful Bill with supposed concessions.
'The only way to avoid a catastrophe today and in the future is to stop the cuts altogether by halting the Bill in its tracks.'
The Tories described concessions as 'the latest in a growing list of screeching U-turns' from the Government.
Shadow chancellor Mel Stride said: 'Under pressure from his own MPs, Starmer has made another completely unfunded spending commitment.
'Labour's welfare chaos will cost hardworking taxpayers. We can't afford Labour.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Starmer still faces Labour anger over risk of ‘two-tier' disability benefits
Keir Starmer is battling to stem the revolt over his cuts to disability benefits, with about 50 Labour MPs concerned the new concessions will create a 'two-tier' system where existing and new claimants are treated differently. Senior government sources insisted things were 'moving in the right direction' for No 10, with the whips phoning backbenchers to persuade them to support the bill on Tuesday. Government insiders said they believed they had peeled off enough of the original 120-plus Labour opponents of the legislation to win the vote, after the work and pensions secretary, Liz Kendall, promised to exempt current disability claimants from the changes, and to increase the health element of universal credit in line with inflation. However, rebel MPs will attempt to lay a new amendment on Monday giving colleagues a chance to delay the bill, which will still involve £2.5bn of cuts to future disability benefits. The continuing row over the changes is likely to blight the week that will mark the first anniversary of Labour's return to power. In an interview on Thursday, Starmer admitted to a range of mistakes – including using the phrase 'an island of strangers' in an immigration speech, and hiring his former chief of staff Sue Gray. His government has made a series of U-turns in the last 12 months, but his handling of the welfare bill might be the most damaging episode of them all. Starmer will next week be hoping to draw a line under the difficult period, in which the government has also reversed cuts to winter fuel payments and changed course over holding an inquiry into grooming gangs. Dozens of Labour MPs are continuing to criticise the welfare cuts on a Labour WhatsApp group. Many MPs are still undecided about how they will vote and are pressing for more assurances that it is ethical and legal to set up a division between current and future claimants. Disability charities have said the bill remains 'fatally flawed' and will lead to an 'unequal future' for different groups of disabled people, making life harder for hundreds of thousands of future claimants. The government confirmed on Friday night that people who have to make new claims for Pip after November 2026 will be assessed under the new criteria. This means those reapplying after losing their Pip or who have fluctuating health conditions will not have the level of their previous awards protected. Starmer defended the bill on Friday, saying it struck the right balance. The changes will protect 370,000 existing recipients who were expected to lose out after reassessment. The prime minister said: 'We talked to colleagues, who've made powerful representations, as a result of which we've got a package which I think will work, we can get it right.' Asked how the government would pay for the £3bn of concessions, which experts believe will have to be funded by tax rises or extra borrowing, Starmer replied: 'The funding will be set out in the budget in the usual way, as you'd expect, later in the year.' There would need to be at least 80 rebels to defeat the bill, and government sources were quietly confident they had given enough ground after Meg Hillier, the chair of the Treasury committee, said she would back the legislation following changes. Others were unconvinced. One leading rebel said 'everyone but a handful of people is unhappy', even if they do end up reluctantly backing the changed legislation. Another expressed frustration that No 10 and the whips were 'trying to bounce people into agreeing before we've seen enough details'. Rachael Maskell, the Labour MP for York Central, a leading opponent of the bill, said: 'They are going to have to go back to the negotiating table … deaf and disabled people's organisations are rejecting these changes as it fails to address future need and gives no security for people with fluctuating conditions, for instance where people are in remission.' Other critics who plan to vote against the bill include the MP for Crawley, Peter Lamb, who said: 'Despite many improvements to the system set out in the bill, at its core the bill remains a cost-cutting exercise. No matter the level of involvement of disability groups in co-producing a scheme for new applicants, to save money the new scheme has to result in people with high levels of need losing the support necessary to wash themselves, dress themselves and feed themselves.' Sign up to Headlines UK Get the day's headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning after newsletter promotion Simon Opher, the MP for Stroud, said he still opposed the bill. 'The changes do not tackle the eligibility issues that are at the heart of many of the problems with Pip [personal independence payments]. The bill should be scrapped and we should start again and put the needs of disabled people at the centre of the process.' Diane Abbott, a leading figure from the left of Labour, said the rebellion was 'far from over', while another Labour MP said: 'The bill starts from the premise of cuts, not reform. It's also arse about face in terms of impact assessments and co-production. It's simply a negotiated dog's dinner. In that sense, nothing has really changed except the fact they've negotiated more [people to] misguidedly to sign up to it.' One thing Labour MPs are pushing for is more clarity on the review of the Pip system, due to be done before autumn by Stephen Timms, a work and pensions minister. Many expect that process to change the points system from the current proposals. Some in the party also want Starmer to reinstate Vicky Foxcroft, who quit as a whip to vote against the bill before the U-turn was made. Stella Creasy, a leading Labour MP who had initially signed the amendment to delay the bill, said she wanted to see more details. 'We need to understand why we would treat one group of claimants differently from another,' she said. A Labour MP from the 2024 intake said: 'I'm waiting to look at the details before making any decisions. Many are in the same place as me and need to get something more than a midnight email on an issue of this much importance to hundreds of thousands of people.' The Labour MPs opposed to the changes are citing a fundamental rejection of the idea that a Labour government will be making disabled people worse off. At the same time, many of them have also been alienated by what they say is a No 10 operation that is out of touch with the parliamentary party, and has tried to strongarm MPs into backing the legislation with threats and promises of preferment. 'Good will has been lost and there is still huge suspicion about whether they will try and pull a stunt at the last minute,' said one Labour MP. The majority of disability charities and campaign groups still opposed the cuts. Ellen Clifford, from Disabled People Against Cuts, said: 'Many people who rely on Pip to survive have fluctuating conditions which means our support needs can go up and down. By penalising existing claimants if we go out of and then go back to the benefits system depending on our health, more people will be denied the support they need. 'This is exactly why no disabled people's organisation across the whole of the UK has welcomed these concessions because we know the complexities of the social security system and bitter experience from years of cuts that there are many ways in which grand sweeping statements about protections translate to very little in practice when you go into the detail of it.' The disability equality charity Scope said that despite the concessions, an estimated 430,000 future disabled claimants would be affected by 2029-30. Its strategy director, James Taylor, said: 'It is encouraging that the government is starting to listen to disabled people and MPs who have been campaigning for change for months. But these plans will still rip billions from the welfare system. 'The proposed concessions will create a two-tier benefits system and an unequal future for disabled people. Life costs more if you are disabled. And these cuts will have a devastating effect on disabled people's health, ability to live independently or work.' Additional reporting by Frances Ryan
Wales Online
2 hours ago
- Wales Online
Government warned that Welsh universities are in an 'precarious position'
Government warned that Welsh universities are in an 'precarious position' The alert from MPs follows a union claiming there is a real danger that a Welsh university could collapse as they face a £70m+ combined deficit, squeezed budgets and rising costs Welsh Affairs Committee chair Ruth Jones MP (Image: Mark Lewis Photography ) Welsh universities are in an "acutely precarious position", a parliamentary committee has warned. The alert follows a union claiming that there is "a real danger a Welsh university could collapse". The Welsh Affairs Committee is calling on the UK and Welsh governments to look at university funding again. Vice chancellors claim the current model isn't working as they face vast deficits and cuts. MPs on the Welsh affairs committee are calling on the UK Government "to think again on how universities are supported at a systemic level and to work with the Welsh Government to put them on a sustainable footing." Universities say they are struggling to make ends meet with fewer higher paying international students, increased costs and home tuition fees not covering the price of running those courses. Swansea University Vice Chancellor Professor Paul Boyle says the current university funding model is "unsustainable" In a statement after taking evidence from of all Welsh universities the committee, chaired by Newport West and Islwyn MP Ruth Jones ,said said: "universities in Wales are in an acutely precarious position, as they face up to wide-ranging challenges including falling admissions among Welsh young people, declining international student numbers and tuition fees lagging far behind inflation." The statement went on to say that the committee noted that this week's Industrial Strategy acknowledged the critical role universities play in driving skills and innovation, while they also hold "huge economic and civic importance to communities up and down Wales". You can read details of what vice chancellors told the Welsh Affairs Committee here. Article continues below Professor Wendy Larner, Vice Chancellor of cardiff-university>Cardiff University, told the committee on June 25 that this is 'an existential moment for universities' and that universities 'need to be different for the future'. Professor Paul Boyle, Vice Chancellor of Swansea University, added that universities are working towards financial sustainability within a system that 'does not lend itself to that sustainability'. Hearing from them and other vice chancellors the committee said: "The status quo is unsustainable. It's therefore crucial that the UK Government acts, together with its Welsh Government partners, as part of its promised major reforms for higher education." Sign up for our free daily briefing on the biggest issues facing the nation sign up to the Wales Matters newsletter here. Despite recent rises in home tuition fees and an extra £18m+ from the Welsh Government this year for universities in Wales say this extra income was all but wiped out by a collective £18m+ national insurance bill and other rising bills. But critics, and some university staff say thay there is a risk in increasing domestic fees. A further rise may deter home students from applying at the same time as fewer international students want to come to university here. It could also make university less attractive to people from less well off households and affect widening participation. Article continues below Nearly every university is making cuts with hundreds of jobs shed, courses earmarked for closure and warnings of more savings ahead.
BBC News
3 hours ago
- BBC News
Former teacher says phone ban will not be easy
A former teacher and union rep has said a decision to ban mobile phones in Jersey schools and colleges "may encourage children to actually talk to each other".The Government of Jersey said the ban would include break and lunch times and apply to all students up the end of Key Stage Mauger from the NASUWT teacher union welcomed the change and said she spent much time in her teaching days telling students to put their phones away or down, and believed children would said: "I don't think it will be easy. 'Easy to enforce' "I think initially while children are getting used to this ban, they will try every manoeuvre they can to retain and use their phone in school."If a school has a good behaviour policy, which all Jersey schools do have, then it should be easy for teachers to enforce."Outside of school, she believes it is the responsibility of parents to monitor how their children are using their phones, including social ban is set to come in from September, and she thinks it will help reduce the amount of "horrible things" seen by children online. Local play champion and smartphone free childhood campaigner Emily Jennings said the parent community was heartened to see the guidance and recommendations for mobile-free Jennings believes the next steps for the government was to work with mobile phone manufactures to create more non-smart mobile phones for children."Currently if you walk into a mobile phone shop on the high street, there are very few," she said."Most of them are designed for old people with big buttons which are not cool for kids." She said the announcement by the Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning Deputy Rob Ward promoting non-smart phone ownership for children was a first for the UK."They may not bring the phone to school, and they may have the smartphone that their parents may have given them before, but the education minister has recommended that parents don't buy their children a smart phone," said Ms Jennings."There are safer phones for children that do not have internet on them." 'Win for childhood' Ms Jennings said the ban of the devices at school was a "real win for childhood". "Children are free to play with each other in real life without distraction from dopamine devices is just extraordinary," added Ms Jennings."This is a radical step and a real win for childhood."
