Scotland refuses to match Labour's ‘damaging' welfare cuts
The Scottish government announced it will not mirror the planned changes to welfare disability benefits proposed by Labour.
The cost-cutting measures are largely focused on the Personal Independence Payment (PIP), designed to help with extra costs incurred by living with an illness or disability.
The equivalent in Scotland is the Adult Disability Payment (ADP), and the administration of which is devolved to the Scottish government.
Holyrood's social justice secretary, Shirley-Anne Somerville, confirmed the decision in an official announcement, criticising the UK government for the plans.
Ms Somerville said: 'The UK government's proposed reforms will be hugely damaging to those who rely on social security support, particularly during the ongoing cost of living crisis. These plans have yet to be passed at Westminster, so there is still time for the UK government to step back from this damaging policy and I strongly urge them to scrap their harmful proposals.
'The reforms do not reflect the Scottish government's values. We will not let disabled people down or cast them aside as the UK government has done. We will not cut Scotland's Adult Disability Payment.
'The UK government should follow our lead and protect the social security safety system, rather than dismantling it. If they do not, then disabled people can draw no other conclusion than the UK government remain content to balance the books on the backs of the most vulnerable.'
Ms Somerville highlighted findings by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) that the changes are set to push 250,000 more people into poverty, including 50,000 children. The MSP for Dunfermline claimed this threatens to undermine work to reduce child poverty, pointing also to Labour's refusal to scrap the two-child benefit cap.
Work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall presented the welfare bill on Wednesday, which MPs are set to vote on next month - but are currently divided.
Ms Kendall defended the reforms - aimed at encouraging more people off sickness benefits and into work - saying they were necessary as the 'social security system is at a crossroads'.
She said: 'Unless we reform it, more people will be denied opportunities, and it may not be there for those who need it.
"This legislation represents a new social contract and marks the moment we take the road of compassion, opportunity and dignity.'
While Scotland is able to decide how to administer the ADP, the measures in the bill regarding Universal Credit are still liable to impact Scottish nationals, as this benefit is managed centrally.
From April 2026, the payment rate for the health element of Universal Credit will be frozen. Those already receiving it will remain on £423.27 a month until 2029/30.
However, new applicants after this month will receive a severely cut rate of £217.26 – almost half.
The controversial proposals have drawn widespread criticism from charities and campaign groups. More than 100 Labour MPs are reportedly considering voting against the government on the plans as the government faces a significant rebellion.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
26 minutes ago
- BBC News
Why is Bristol's birth rate falling faster than other UK cities?
As the cost of living rises, more people are questioning whether they can afford to have children. Bristol's birth rate is falling more rapidly than that of any other city in England and Wales - reflecting a national trend which has seen the fertility rate drop by 21% over the past Bristol, the birth rate has fallen by 36% in the last 10 years. The Office for National Statistics said this trend may be influenced by financial Young, 32, from the city, told the BBC he believes the current economic climate is making it much harder for people his age to raise a family. "It's always been a goal of mine to have kids in the future," he said."Taking them on holidays, day trips, and just giving them every chance to succeed. "But one of our biggest concerns is finances - whether we'll have the time and resources to raise kids the way we want to."Despite Bristol's economy doubling in size since 2004, the number of babies born has dropped by a third in the past decade. According to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), the UK's total fertility rate - measuring the average number of children per woman - currently sits at Bristol, that number is even lower at 1.14 - a 36% decline in 10 years. Aaliyah Thomas, 30, has two children and said she can sympathise with Mr Young."It's quite difficult having a newborn and an older child," she said. "Trying to balance everything financially is really challenging."She added that she has noticed that more people she knows are delaying parenthood."The cost of living is so high, a lot of people just need to be in a better financial position before they can even think about having kids."Kate, a mother of several adult children, said the cost of moving out is a major barrier for them."They can't move out with their partners, they can't be self-sufficient and live by themselves," she said. "Rents are too high, and even buying a home is difficult. First you have to save for a deposit, and if you're renting, you often can't afford to save at all." Kerry Gadson, head of population analysis at ONS, said: "The reasons behind when and if women have children are very personal."In the 1960s, we had the introduction of contraception, more women entered the workforce and attended university and this is when we saw a real change."It [starting a family] may be driven by a range of factors including financial pressures and the timing of other life events, such as partnership formation and moving into your own home, which is generally happening later at the moment."Ms Gadson explained that women are having babies later, with the average age of new mothers being 31, but it doesn't mean that they are having fewer children."At the moment, birth rates are declining, but it doesn't mean that it will continue to fall."What's really interesting about Bristol is the average age of the people who live there is much younger than the average of the UK and that's by almost 10 years."So you're looking at a median age of 33 versus 41 for the average in the rest of the UK." For others, choosing not to have children is a decision they've embraced Joce, who is child free by choice, said: "When I was younger, I didn't realise it was even an option to not have children. "But as I got older, I realised you didn't have to. Most people I know who do have kids say 'good for you,' because I get to do more things and have more freedom with my time."She said she has never experienced any negative judgements for her decision."Bristol's a very liberal city, and I think we're more accepting of different lifestyles," she added. Filmmaker Maxine Trump, whose film 'To Kid or Not to Kid' documents her her decision not to have children, is part of a growing group of people openly discussing the choice to remain child documentary, which took her eight years to make, explores the pressures and prejudices faced by women who do not want to be mothers."At the time when I was making the decision not to have children, I couldn't verbalise it, because there wasn't a lot of people around me that had made that decision."Having grown up with many nieces and nephews, Mrs Trump explained that she loves children, but felt having her own was not the right choice."I found this wonderful career that enabled me to go out filming and my life wouldn't have been easy to take on the responsibilities of having kids."Mrs Trump said she has a lot of empathy for younger people who want to have also feels the government could offer better incentives for people to have children by introducing more schemes for childcare."Younger people at the childbearing age are making really considered decisions. "The house prices are really going through the roof in Bristol, and it's really hard for people to decide whether or not to have kids."
BBC News
26 minutes ago
- BBC News
Charity praises plans to repair and reopen Redhill theatre
The UK's national advisory body for theatres has welcomed a council's commitment to repair and reopen a Surrey venue which was shut after unstable concrete was Harlequin Theatre in Redhill closed its doors in September 2023 after reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (Raac) was found throughout the and Banstead Borough Council has said it expects the theatre to reopen in late spring 2027 if everything goes to Trust, a charitable organisation, described the arts centre as an "invaluable cultural space". The Surrey venue was at one stage listed among the most likely theatres in the country to close, according to the Local Democracy Reporting Service. Earlier in June, the council's executive committee agreed a way forward that would involve a £4.5m repair job. Joshua McTaggart, Theatres Trust CEO, said: "We welcome the council's commitment to safely reopening the Harlequin Theatre and cinema while minimising the time the local community is left without this invaluable cultural space."We are also pleased to see progress being made on plans to create an additional art and culture venue in the area, which can only add to the vibrancy and appeal of the town."The agreed work will allow the theatre and cinema to open at its previous capacity, pending final full council sign off in plans, which would have run alongside repair work, have been put on hold, as the council considers handing over control to a private group.
Telegraph
29 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Britain's mad planning system is becoming more and more absurd
Across the political spectrum, we don't agree on much. But we can all agree that the UK needs more homes and must start building in earnest. So why is Labour-run Birmingham City Council demanding that Mark Jones rip down the £180,000 two-bedroom 'granny flat' he built in his back garden for his dying father? With bin strikes, rat plagues and near bankruptcy, one might imagine that this particular local authority would have different matters on its mind. Mr Jones said he believed the building complied with planning laws and lodged a retrospective planning application. But the council's officious officers found that the Sutton Coldfield IT engineer has fallen foul of their regulations as it was 'over-intensive', and have ordered it to be demolished by the end of the month. The case shows in microcosm what is wrong with Britain's planning system. Like so much that is wrong on our island, from the NHS to the post-war explosion in council housing, its origins lie with the 1945 Clement Attlee Labour government. The 1947 Town and Country Planning Act established our system of planning permission, as well as the modern system of needing consents to build on land. It also meant that all planning authorities had to come up with a comprehensive development plan. Green belts, the listing of buildings and the anathematising of building in the open countryside can all be dated back to this legislation. In some regards, we should be grateful for Attlee's innovation. Anyone who has taken the seven-hour trip from Boston to Washington DC on the Acela Amtrak train will see why. Apart from a stretch along the Connecticut coastline, the prospect out of the windows is of virtually unending urban sprawl. Or contrast the west coast of Ireland with the west coast of Scotland. While the Irish views are endlessly interrupted by the tackiest imaginable McMansions, complete with fake colonnades and naff statuary, the Caledonian vista is virtually uninterrupted. Our planning system has made large-scale developers hugely powerful to a far greater extent than in most other developed countries. Building your own house is straightforward in much of the United States. But then America is a large country with plenty of space, as defenders of the British status quo might point out. The rules in much of Europe, however, are also vastly more flexible. In France, for example, it is relatively straightforward to buy a plot of land on the fringes of a village and build a family home on it. By contrast, in the UK, to build a new single dwelling in the isolated countryside is extraordinarily difficult. One of the very few routes is via what is now called Paragraph 84 consent. This is a rule, first introduced in 1997 in the dying days of John Major's government, allowing for new country houses to be built, but only if they are of 'truly outstanding' design and 'reflect the highest standards of architecture'. We would all, I am sure, like to live in such houses – but to meet such benchmarks requires money, plenty of it. It is not something that rural Mr Joneses, middle-earning IT engineers and their like, will ever be able to afford. The British system places all the cards in the hands of the vast corporate builders, with their new housing developments. Angela Rayner's Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which is now being pushed through the House of Lords, will only make this problem even worse. It will make development easier, and that is indeed a worthy goal. It will make it easier to overrule Nimby-style objections, but its mechanisms are not there to help people who want to do their own projects. It is all about pushing through large-scale plans in the face of local opposition, be they for new homes, wind or solar farms or the latest railway wheeze dreamt up in Whitehall. It is not about allowing Sir Keir Starmer's much-touted 'working people' to realise their own building ambitions. Our planning system might seem to have been more of a success if our post-war homes were exemplars of design. But that is far from the case. Probably the only country in Western Europe that has uglier townscapes than those found in much of Britain is Germany. Walk through Cologne, and outside of its Cathedral and Romanesque churches you would be hard put to find an uglier city with less inspiring buildings. Colognians have a very good excuse. When their city was rebuilt in the 1950s from the ashes the RAF had reduced it to, beauty was not foremost on their minds. We have no such excuse for some of the horrors that urban planning has imposed on our towns and cities. And our planning laws did little to protect us from these missteps. When Nick Boles was housing minister in the Cameron government, he was evangelical about relaxing planning rules in urban and suburban areas. He wanted to allow thousands upon thousands of Mr Joneses to do pretty much as they pleased with their own land and property, and thought this would make a huge difference to our housing shortage. It would also empower local people. Such an approach would clearly be a disaster if applied to, say, the Victorian garden square of London or the Georgian terraces of Bath. They would soon be scarred with endless glass boxes and extensions which would now be on trend, but soon look very dated. If Labour really wants to empower working people, allowing the Mr Joneses to build on their back gardens could be just the thing. But don't hold your breath.
