logo
Streeting confident about welfare vote amid criticism of ‘two-tier' Pip plans

Streeting confident about welfare vote amid criticism of ‘two-tier' Pip plans

Western Telegraph18 hours ago

Wes Streeting said the changes 'have put us in a much better position' and give 'peace of mind' to those currently in receipt of personal independence payments.
The Government's original welfare package had restricted eligibility for Pip, but in a climbdown to stave off a backbench rebellion, the changes will now only apply to new applicants.
Mr Streeting said this was not unusual for such a transition.
'When things change and evolve as you bring in new systems, it does change sometimes from group to group, student finance being an example,' he told the BBC's Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg programme.
He said 'we've got to listen' when asked if further concessions could be made on Pip.
Unite general secretary Sharon Graham has called for the Government to start from scratch on the Bill and said the latest plans were 'divisive and sinister'.
'Creating a two-tier system where younger disabled people and those who become disabled in the future will be disadvantaged and denied access to work and education, is morally wrong,' she said.
Disabled Labour MP Olivia Blake said the proposed changes had been 'plucked from the air'.
'This could form an unethical two-tier system that treats two people with the exact same injury or illness differently,' she told The Guardian.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has said the 'broken' welfare system must be fixed 'in a Labour way' (Paul Currie/PA)
The Health Secretary told Sky News's Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips that the changes 'have put us in a much better position'.
'As a result of the changes, it means anyone watching this morning who's in receipt of personal independence payments now has the peace of mind of knowing that their situation is protected,' he said.
Labour MP Louise Haigh meanwhile said she planned to back the Welfare Bill next week but needed to see the full detail of the new plans on Monday.
The former Cabinet minister also said it was a moment for the Government to 'reset'.
'I think this is a moment and an opportunity to reset the Government's relationship with the British public and to move forward, to adopt a different approach to our economic policy and our political strategy,' she told the BBC.
On Saturday, the Prime Minister told the Welsh Labour conference the 'broken' welfare system must be fixed 'in a Labour way'.
The original plans restricted eligibility for Pip and cut 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 to lose out after reassessment.
Ministers had hoped the reforms would get more people back into work and save up to £5 billion a year, but the concessions left Chancellor Rachel Reeves needing to find money elsewhere and point to possible tax rises in the autumn.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Judges to rule on Palestinian group's legal action over Israel military exports
Judges to rule on Palestinian group's legal action over Israel military exports

Powys County Times

time24 minutes ago

  • Powys County Times

Judges to rule on Palestinian group's legal action over Israel military exports

A Palestinian human rights group will discover on Monday whether it has won a legal challenge against the Government over decisions related to exports of military equipment to Israel amid the conflict in Gaza. Al-Haq is taking legal action against the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) over its decision to continue licensing exports of components for F-35 fighter jets. In September last year, the Government suspended export licences for weapons and military equipment following a review of Israel's compliance with international humanitarian law in the conflict. But an exemption was made for some licences related to parts for F-35s, with lawyers for Al-Haq telling the High Court in May that this 'carve-out' was unlawful and 'gives rise to a significant risk of facilitating crime'. The DBT is defending the challenge, with its barristers telling a four-day hearing in London that the carve-out is 'consistent with the rules of international law' and that suspending the licences would negatively impact a wider international programme. Lord Justice Males and Mrs Justice Steyn are due to hand down their ruling at 10.30am on Monday. At the hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice, Raza Husain KC, for Al-Haq, said the case came 'against the backdrop of human calamity' in Gaza, describing the conflict as a 'live-streamed genocide'. In written submissions, he said that the Government misunderstood relevant parts of the Geneva Conventions when there was a clear risk that the parts might be used to commit or facilitate violations of international humanitarian law by Israel. F-35s are part of an international defence programme which produces and maintains the fighter jets, with the UK contributing components for both assembly lines and an international pool. An earlier hearing in the case was told that the decision to 'carve out' licences related to F-35 components followed advice from Defence Secretary John Healey, who said a suspension would impact the 'whole F-35 programme' and have a 'profound impact on international peace and security'. In written submissions for the May hearing, Sir James Eadie KC, for the Government, said that this 'provided justification to take exceptional measures to avoid these impacts and was consistent with the UK's domestic and international legal obligations'. He continued that some of Al-Haq's criticisms 'are not based on a balanced appreciation of the facts' and did not consider 'the true depth and range of the information-gathering and analysis' by the Government when it made the decision.

Trump says US is 'not going to stand' for Netanyahu's corruption trial
Trump says US is 'not going to stand' for Netanyahu's corruption trial

The Herald Scotland

time31 minutes ago

  • The Herald Scotland

Trump says US is 'not going to stand' for Netanyahu's corruption trial

"How is it possible that the Prime Minister of Israel can be forced to sit in a Courtroom all day long, over NOTHING (Cigars, Bugs Bunny Doll, etc.). It is a POLITICAL WITCH HUNT, very similar to the Witch Hunt that I was forced to endure," Trump said on June 28 in the post on Truth Social. Netanyahu thanked Trump in a post on X, formerly known as Twitter. "Together, we will make the Middle East Great Again!" he said. Israel's main opposition leader Yair Lapid criticised Trump's statement, saying he should not "intervene in a legal process of an independent state," the BBC reported. Trump said the trial complicates negotiations with both Iran and Hamas. The United States targeted several nuclear sites in Iran after Israel launched an air war on June 13 and tensions erupted between the Middle Eastern nations. Hamas attacked Israel out of Gaza on Oct. 7, 2023 and is still holding hostages, while Israel has unleashed strikes on the strip for nearly two years. Trump also said the ongoing trial "tarnishes" the "victory" from bombing Iran, which agreed to a ceasefire after the US bombed several nuclear enrichment facilities. "It was the United States of America that saved Israel, and now it is going to be the United States of America that saves Bibi Netanyahu," Trump said in a separate post earlier in the week. "THIS TRAVESTY OF "JUSTICE" CAN NOT BE ALLOWED!"

Judges to rule on Palestinian group's legal action over Israel military exports
Judges to rule on Palestinian group's legal action over Israel military exports

Rhyl Journal

timean hour ago

  • Rhyl Journal

Judges to rule on Palestinian group's legal action over Israel military exports

Al-Haq is taking legal action against the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) over its decision to continue licensing exports of components for F-35 fighter jets. In September last year, the Government suspended export licences for weapons and military equipment following a review of Israel's compliance with international humanitarian law in the conflict. But an exemption was made for some licences related to parts for F-35s, with lawyers for Al-Haq telling the High Court in May that this 'carve-out' was unlawful and 'gives rise to a significant risk of facilitating crime'. The DBT is defending the challenge, with its barristers telling a four-day hearing in London that the carve-out is 'consistent with the rules of international law' and that suspending the licences would negatively impact a wider international programme. Lord Justice Males and Mrs Justice Steyn are due to hand down their ruling at 10.30am on Monday. At the hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice, Raza Husain KC, for Al-Haq, said the case came 'against the backdrop of human calamity' in Gaza, describing the conflict as a 'live-streamed genocide'. In written submissions, he said that the Government misunderstood relevant parts of the Geneva Conventions when there was a clear risk that the parts might be used to commit or facilitate violations of international humanitarian law by Israel. F-35s are part of an international defence programme which produces and maintains the fighter jets, with the UK contributing components for both assembly lines and an international pool. An earlier hearing in the case was told that the decision to 'carve out' licences related to F-35 components followed advice from Defence Secretary John Healey, who said a suspension would impact the 'whole F-35 programme' and have a 'profound impact on international peace and security'. In written submissions for the May hearing, Sir James Eadie KC, for the Government, said that this 'provided justification to take exceptional measures to avoid these impacts and was consistent with the UK's domestic and international legal obligations'. He continued that some of Al-Haq's criticisms 'are not based on a balanced appreciation of the facts' and did not consider 'the true depth and range of the information-gathering and analysis' by the Government when it made the decision. Charities Oxfam and Amnesty International, as well as Human Rights Watch, all intervened in the case.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store