DWP announces 'old' and 'new' PIP system ahead of benefits shakeup
However, the proposed changes to eligibility will impact new PIP claimants when implemented next year. The DWP chief explained this will effectively create two PIP systems, pre-November 2026 and post-November 2026, operating concurrently to support individuals with disabilities, long-term illnesses, or physical or mental health conditions.
The Government's reversal on welfare cuts is expected to cost taxpayers around £2.5 billion by 2030, Ms Kendall told MPs on Monday, outlining concessions to Labour rebels. She noted that it is "very common throughout the benefits system to have existing claimants protected on old rules and old rates. That is what we are doing today".
The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) will confirm the financial details of the UK Government's adjusted welfare plans during the Autumn Budget, as reported by the Daily Record. With regards to worries over a possible "two-tier" benefits system for existing PIP recipients, Ms Kendall pointed out: "The fact is, our welfare system frequently ensures that existing claimants are shielded from new rates or rules, as people build their lives around that support and adjusting can be extremely challenging."
Previous forecasts by the DWP suggested that proposed reforms could see an additional 150,000 individuals sliding into poverty by 2030. Whilst this number is lower than the initial estimate of 250,000 additional cases of relative poverty brought on by housing costs, it remains a significant cause for concern.
The DWP's published modelling noted the estimate did not account for potential positive effects from increased funding and support for people with disabilities or long-term health conditions seeking employment.
Ms Kendall maintained that the revised amendments for PIP and Universal Credit "ensure no existing claimants are put into poverty". Ministers are counting on these concessions to avoid defeat when MPs cast their votes for the reforms on Tuesday, particularly in light of a "reasoned amendment" proposed by senior Labour backbencher Dame Meg Hillier. This amendment had the support of 126 Labour MPs, a number sufficient to jeopardise Sir Keir Starmer's majority.
However, on Friday, Dame Meg characterised the concessions as a "workable compromise". Labour MP and chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, Debbie Abrahams, has spoken out about the UK Government's apparent backtrack on previously negotiated concessions.
Speaking to ITV News, Ms Abrahams labelled the concessions as "good" but cautioned that they were not quite sufficient for a deal just yet. Ms Abrahams expressed her discontent, saying, "The actual offer that was put to one of the negotiating team wasn't actually what we thought we had negotiated on Wednesday and Thursday. There are some issues around that."
Her statement reflects unease over the negotiation process's transparency and outcome.
Concerns were also raised by both Dame Meg and Ms Abrahams in the Commons regarding the timeliness of a forthcoming review of PIP led by disabilities minister Sir Stephen Timms, suggesting it may not impact the planned changes set for November 2026 soon enough.
On the opposing side, Conservative shadow work and pensions secretary Helen Whately has levelled criticism against the UK Government, accusing them of making "unfunded U-turns costing billions and welfare plans that are not worth the paper that they are written on". She sharply criticised, "Their latest idea is a two-tier welfare system to trap people in a lifetime on benefits and deny them the dignity of work while leaving the taxpayer to pick up the ever-growing bill."
Tory leader Kemi Badenoch confirmed the party's stance on Monday evening, stating they would vote against the Labour Government's proposals, dismissing them as "not serious welfare reform".
Join the North Wales Live WhatsApp community group where you can get the latest stories delivered straight to your phone
Find out what's happening near you
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Labour sees biggest first-year poll drop for governing party since 1990s
It is common for political parties to experience a slide in the polls after taking power – it has happened to every UK government bar one in the past 40 years – but a drop of this size is unusual. The last time it was in double digits was 1992-93, when the Tory administration led by Mr Major saw its poll numbers fall 12 points, from an average of 43% in the weeks after the April 1992 election to 31% a year later. John Major meets people on a walkabout in Bolton during the 1992 general election campaign (Adam Butler/PA) The findings have been compiled by the PA news agency, using its own archive of national poll data combined with figures published in the long-running British General Election academic studies. Polls measuring voting intention do not always appear in the immediate aftermath of an election – for instance, the first polls of this parliament were not carried out until the start of August 2024, one month after Labour's victory on July 4. To compare Labour's poll performance fairly with that of previous governments, the average poll numbers in the weeks after a general election have been compared with those for the month leading up to the first anniversary of that election. Almost every government in the past four decades has seen their poll standings slip over this period, but mostly by single digits – and often from a much higher starting point than Labour's 34% in 2024. For example, the Labour government led by Tony Blair saw its vote share in the polls drop by an average of six points during its first year in office in 1997-98, though from the lofty heights of 59% to 53%, still well ahead of all other parties. Tony Blair and his wife, Cherie, walk into Downing Street after Labour won the 1997 general election (Sean Dempsey/PA) Labour's second term under Mr Blair saw a larger poll drop of seven points, but from 49% to 42% – again, comfortably ahead of its rivals. The Conservative government led by Boris Johnson elected in 2019 saw its first-year poll ratings also slip by seven points, but from 46% to 39%. There were smaller drops at the start of Labour's third term in 2005-06 (down five points in 12 months) and at the start of Conservative leader David Cameron's first term as PM in 2010 (down three points), though Mr Cameron's second win in 2015 was followed by a larger six-point fall. The one recent exception to this trend was the Conservative minority government led by Theresa May that was elected in 2017, with Tory support in the polls increasing by two points over 12 months, from 40% to 42%. Theresa May speaks in Downing Street after the 2017 general election, which led to the formation of a minority Conservative government (Jonathan Brady/PA) A first-year drop in the polls for a governing party is typically accompanied by a rise in support for the main opposition in Parliament. But the past 12 months have seen something different and new in UK politics: a simultaneous and large fall in support for both the government and the opposition, with the Conservatives slipping from an average of 25% in the aftermath of the 2024 election to 18% over the past month. And while Labour and the Tories have both slid in the polls, smaller parties have risen – notably Reform, which has climbed from third place on 17% to first place on 29%. The Liberal Democrats have also edged up, from 12% to 14%, while the Greens have increased from 6% to 9%. Opinion polls are snapshots of the prevailing public mood, not projections or forecasts – and they do not predict what could happen at the next general election. But the amount of movement in recent polls, in particular the fall in support for both Labour and the Conservatives, points to an unsettled mood among voters and a volatile political landscape. Sir Keir's personal approval ratings make similarly challenging reading for the Prime Minister. Polling company Ipsos has measured public satisfaction with prime ministers since the late 1970s. Its data tracks the proportion of adults in Britain who say they are either satisfied or dissatisfied with how the PM is doing their job. The difference between these two numbers represents the approval score. Margaret Thatcher speaks to the press the day after winning the 1979 general election (PA) The most recent Ipsos survey, completed in early June – not quite a full year since the general election – suggests 19% of adults are satisfied with Sir Keir's performance and 73% are dissatisfied, giving him a net approval score of minus 54. This is lower than any other score recorded by Ipsos for a prime minister roughly 12 months after taking office. The next lowest score is minus 48, for Labour's Gordon Brown in June 2008, and minus 37 for the Conservatives' Rishi Sunak in October 2023. The highest approval ratings were for Mr Blair in May 1998 (a plus score of 44) and Mr Major in November 1991 (plus 15). The other scores are minus 3 for Mr Cameron (May 2011); minus 7 for Conservative PM Margaret Thatcher (June 1980) and minus 25 for Mrs May (July 2017), while Mr Johnson had a net approval rating of zero a year into office in July 2020, with the same proportion of people saying they were satisfied and dissatisfied. Sir Keir's current score of minus 54 is not quite the worst ever approval rating for a prime minister reported by Ipsos, however. Mrs Thatcher dropped as low as minus 56 in March 1990, while both Mr Major and Mr Sunak sank as far as minus 59, in August 1994 and April 2024 respectively.
Times
an hour ago
- Times
The Times letters: Starmer, leadership and the U-turn on welfare
Write to letters@ Sir, Your leading article ('Abject Surrender', Jul 2) outlines very well the vagaries and indecisiveness of our prime minister. You say he has shown how incapable he is of reining in the state and public finances. Further to this it has been widely claimed that he is losing authority. I, and I think many others, would question whether he had any credibility and authority in the first place. Sir Keir Starmer's U-turns and false promises simply make the electorate wonder who is in charge. A leader should lead and if he caves in to 50-odd rebel MPs, as he has done on welfare reform, then what hope is there for the country? Add to this the fact that record illegal immigration is costing the country a fortune and that the government appears to have no plans to tackle it. We lack leaders with substance, clout and an 'action this day' GrundyHartley Wintney, Hants Sir, William Hague is quite right to argue that the prime minister has failed dismally during his first year in office to outline the overarching purpose of his government, let alone offer a vision that is inspiring or even reassuring ('What's Starmer's big idea? He needs to tell us', comment, Jul 1). This should come as no great surprise, however. Even before the general election it was clear that Labour did not have a coherent plan about anything, whether for the economy, education, defence or stopping migrant boats. Having failed to prepare for the realities of power, the party has lurched from one ill-thought-out decision to another, frequently changing tack, in a desperate attempt to mollify everyone. All this does is satisfy no one and that is precisely where we are, 12 months in. Seemingly standing for nothing, always looking for scapegoats and all the while communicating poorly are a recipe for disillusionment and MortimerPerth Sir, Polly Mackenzie says that what is needed is 'a fundamental reset of the prime minister's office' ('Starmer's lost power of political speech', Jul 2). I suggest also that the prime minister needs to be able to rely on a trusted colleague to give him advice, perhaps someone without ambition who has served at the top rank of politics. There must be plenty of candidates to choose from. Margaret Thatcher relied on Willie Whitelaw — 'Everyone needs a Willie' — and his advice proved BenyonBladon, Oxon Sir, Time and again, Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves justify their actions mainly by saying they are doing 'the right thing'. This continual failure to give wider reasons leaves them exposed when they have to make a U-turn. Has the right thing suddenly become the wrong thing? Has the wrong thing suddenly become the right thing?Peter ClarkLondon SE23 Sir, Dr Karin Englehart (letter, Jul 1) should rest assured that nothing has changed since she was denied the post of a medical assessor because she suggested that a benefit claimant's account should not necessarily be taken at face value. Whenever I expressed a doubt that a patient would be granted a benefit, I was assured that they would be guided in how to do so Surinder Bakhshi (ret'd) Birmingham Sir, Regarding Martha's Rule and the training of doctors (letters, Jul 1 & 2), fellow physicians would often consult my father on cases. His skill as a diagnostician was a source of amusement to our family. He would state mysteriously that the person on the table next to us at a restaurant had a particularly interesting condition. Late in his life, I asked him how he became so good at diagnosis. He told me he had studied hard as a medical student and with no immediate family to return home to, would stay behind during holidays and tour hospital wards to extend his education. He would talk to patients, ask to read their notes and discuss with fellow staff. I doubt such access to patients would be allowed HerseeGreat Missenden, Bucks Sir, Dr Rosemary Alexander seems to have forgotten that Martha's Rule was enacted because doctors, not physician associates, made an incorrect diagnosis, gave a wrong interpretation of facts, missed serious problems and then refused help from medical colleagues. Physician associates are not the only professionals who have been guilty of ordering unnecessary expensive tests — private GPs are much more culpable of that ArulConsultant paediatric surgeon,Birmingham Women's and Children's Hospital Sir, James Kirkup bemoans the cost to the state of 'doctors' comfortable retirements' (comment, Jun 30). As a house officer in 1997 I was paid less per hour to be on call for five surgical wards overnight than I was the previous year as a general assistant in a supermarket. However, I consoled myself with the promise of a comfortable final salary pension. This pension has since been eroded and we have moved on to career-average schemes. Furthermore, many of my generation have faced tax charges amounting to five or six-figure sums for pensions that they may never receive. It is little wonder that the exodus to foreign climes and the private sector continues David W McCareyConsultant rheumatologist and physician, Glasgow Sir, Further to your helpful leading article on the royal finances ('Gravy Train', Jul 2), the King and Prince of Wales are, respectively, Duke of Lancaster and Duke of Cornwall by the will of parliament — the Act of Settlement. The revenues of the duchies are not 'private wealth' but a perquisite of the titles parliament bestowed. In the country's perilous financial situation the time has surely come to end this ridiculous fiction, deploy public money for the public good and pay the head of state and his helpers proper salaries and expenses for the duties they carry RossAuchencairn, Dumfries and Galloway Sir, The decision to retire the royal train would end a tradition dating back to 1842 ('End of the line for royal train', news, Jul 1). More than a symbol of royal travel, it reflects our national heritage and the bond between crown and country. Nowhere is that identity more deeply felt than in places such as Wolverton, in my constituency, where the train found its home. Fitted out there in 1977, it is a part of the town's identity, its legacy woven into Wolverton's rich cultural heritage. At a time of rail revival and infrastructure spending, this is a chance to modernise a cherished tradition, not scrap it. There is time to change track: I believe the train has more miles left in it Curtis MPHouse of Commons Sir, Sir Ephraim Mirvis has criticised Bobby Vylan's chant of 'death, death to the IDF' as being antisemitic ('Change needed at BBC after Bob Vylan fiasco, says Chief Rabbi', Jul 1). The inference to be drawn from the Chief Rabbi's remarks is that criticism of Israel's military activities is automatically antisemitic. This is a dangerous route down which to go. The separation of the racial aspect from the governmental one is important, otherwise any action by the Israeli government can be given carte blanche because criticism may be considered AlexanderChichester Sir, Is it not time to stop conflating disapproval of Israel's government with antisemitism? There are Jewish people all over the world, including in Israel, who do not like the way that Binyamin Netanyahu's government is conducting its war in Gaza. If that is regarded as supporting terrorism, then God help CookeClavering, Essex Sir, The science behind cheese and dreaming (news, Jul 1; letter, Jul 2) is straightforward: cheese is rich in tryptophan, one of the building blocks for neurotransmitters that influence sleep and moods. Wallace and Gromit never eat Wensleydale before Jeremy AuchinclossElgin, Moray Sir, James Marriott ('AI will leave a gaping void for workaholic world', Jul 1) repeats the canard that bankers in the past worked only from 10am to 3pm. This was far from the case. We started at 9am. After closing we had to balance the books — this was before calculators and computers — and this often meant working until well after 5pm. Overtime was paid only if we worked until 6pm (it was remarkable how often we were ushered out at 5.55pm). Saturday mornings were worked too, and annual leave was two weeks. My annual salary when I joined in 1954 was £170. I couldn't afford a meal at a café, and there was no staff room at the bank, so I had to cycle six miles home for lunch and be back again within the SprattFormer Lloyds Bank manager, Upton St Leonards, Glos Sir, Rohan Silva (comment, Jul 2) praises the benefits of AI which, with some transitional friction, will do us all good. But he doesn't mention the consequences of AI in the hands of bad people. In future years will we be able to believe anything we see on the internet, TV or newspapers? Only physical meetings will be acceptable for serious decision-makers. Perhaps we can hope that AI can be adapted to recognise lies created by ToozeDarlington, Co Durham Sir, I take issue with Emma Duncan's assertion (Notebook, Jun 30) that 'backing creative kids may do them no favours' and that young people pursuing careers in the creative industries 'will find themselves in their thirties without a profession or a useful skill'. The arts have always been a lottery. But other professions have their dropouts too: many teachers, lawyers and doctors change jobs in their thirties. What should we do — only train armies of bankers and business people? What a sad society it would be that did not encourage the creative spirit and the outspoken, brave young people who make the arts happen. Our country needs their stories, plays, dance and music — they are attempts to understand IrelandAmbassador, Action for Children's Arts Sir, Wimbledon's linesmen and women are rather like the Beefeaters at the Tower of London — not strictly indispensable but the visual essence of their place of work. Wimbledon has lost its unique character without DallingHartley Wintney, Hants Sir, Mark Riley (letter, Jul 2) should be ashamed of himself. Those are eye-stalks on the Daleks' domes, not weapons. Disgraceful knowledge of Dalek HarrisSittingbourne, Kent Sir, Matthew Parris should venture to Northern Ireland to see, and walk, a real wall (Notebook, Jul 2). The Mourne Wall in Co Down is 19 miles long, 5ft high and 2ft wide, built in the early 20th century using only granite boulders and reaching 2, ShieldsBanbridge, Co Down Write to letters@
Glasgow Times
an hour ago
- Glasgow Times
Starmer faces Labour turmoil and global volatility as he marks year in Number 10
The Prime Minister led his party back into power with more than 400 MPs on July 4 last year – clinching a majority just short of Sir Tony Blair's landslide in 1997. But with a daunting in-tray of problems including a stuttering economy, creaking public services and global volatility, his political honeymoon period was short-lived. The Prime Minister said his Cabinet should look back with a sense of 'pride' at the first year in office (Carl Court/PA) His personal popularity is now the lowest of any British premier after their first 12 months in office, political scientist and polling guru Professor Sir John Curtice said. 'There were pretty clear potential weaknesses before they even started, and most of those weaknesses have basically just been exposed over the course of the last 12 months,' he told the PA news agency. Sir John said part of the problem lay in what he described as a failure of narrative in setting out the Government's vision for change to the public. 'They're portraying themselves as a repair gang rather than the builders of a new Jerusalem. Pessimism doesn't necessarily go down very well,' he told PA. 'The thing with Starmer is, he's a brilliant prosecution lawyer… But prosecution lawyers present cases that have been (put together) by someone else. The problem is that as a political leader you've got to prosecute your own case. 'Maybe he needs new personnel? Either he's got to learn to do it himself or get someone in to do it for him.' That verdict was echoed by some dissenting voices within Labour ranks, where there is lingering discontent among rebels over the Government's Welfare Bill despite Number 10 offering major concessions on the legislation. The Government saw off the threat of a major Commons defeat over the legislation on Tuesday after shelving plans to restrict eligibility for the personal independence payment (Pip), the main disability benefit in England. 'I think he really needs to think about why he wants to be a Labour Prime Minister and what is it he actually cares about,' one long-serving Labour MP said. They said Tuesday had marked 'the lowest point' in Sir Keir's premiership so far and raised questions about his authority, warning that backbenchers may now feel emboldened to demand further U-turns elsewhere. Sir John said that the Government's challenges in passing legislation were unsurprising with the broad but fragile coalition of support on which Labour built its election victory, securing 412 seats on just 35% of the vote. That means many MPs defending narrow majorities and raises the prospect of 'a large body of people who are nervous about their political futures,' he said. The Government's original welfare proposals had been part of a package that ministers expected to save up to £5 billion a year, leaving Chancellor Rachel Reeves needing to look for the money elsewhere. The fallout threatens to cause lasting damage to morale in Labour ranks, with some rebels calling for a reset in relations between the parliamentary party and the leadership before fractures widen. Images of the Chancellor crying in the Commons on Wednesday have also led to questions about her future, although a Treasury spokesman cited a 'personal matter' as the cause of her distress and Number 10 said she would remain in post. Asked whether it was time for a course correction, Downing Street has said the Prime Minister will 'plough on' with the 'very busy agenda' of Government. But the MP quoted above said: 'The idea that they can keep carrying on as they've been carrying on is suicidal. 'They have no real sense of how the party thinks and feels.' Others had a more optimistic view of the year ahead, with a Starmer loyalist who supported the Bill suggesting the upset could be salvaged with a 'measured but solid response' from the Government. 'The worst they can do is nothing,' the backbencher added. The Prime Minister used a Cabinet meeting on Tuesday to defend his record in office, telling ministers the welfare Bill was 'to help those who can work into employment and ensure dignity and security for those who can't work.' He said they could all 'rightly look back with a real sense of pride and achievement' on the last 12 months, pointing to a reduction in NHS waiting lists and a series of economic agreements struck with the US, EU and India. Abroad, the Prime Minister faces a tricky diplomatic balancing act as he seeks to strengthen ties with both Europe and Washington amid global instability from the Ukraine war and Middle East crisis. Sir Keir Starmer secured a trade deal with the US last month (Suzanne Plunkett/PA)h At home, Labour is staring down a threat from Nigel Farage's Reform UK party, which turned opinion poll momentum into widespread gains at the ballot box during the local elections in May. Sir John said that parties such as Reform and the Greens offer more choice to voters wanting to express their discontent with Labour while the Tories continue to flounder in the polls. 'The character of the challenge is different from what it has been historically,' he said. Tim Bale, professor of politics at Queen Mary University, said people had been expecting bold change on areas such as workers' rights and growth, and the Government's achievements so far were 'pretty small beer' by comparison. Critics say the first year has instead been marked by a series of U-turns, including a partial reversal of cuts to the winter fuel payment and the move to launch a national inquiry into grooming gangs after months of resisting opposition pressure to do so. The Government disputes that framing, pointing out for example that ministers had never explicitly ruled out a statutory probe into child sexual exploitation but waited for a review to be carried out before making a decision. Prof Bale said he believed the first year had gone 'worse than most people imagined' and warned 'it's difficult for a leader who starts badly to persuade people that he or she is what they need.' But he said the problems were not necessarily fatal, adding that setbacks early on in a premiership have an upside in allowing for more time to 'turn it round'. 'If you look back to Margaret Thatcher, she was able to do that, so it's not a foregone conclusion that all is lost, even for Keir Starmer himself,' he said. Arguing that the Government could recover in the polls if its plans for the economy and public services pay off, he added: 'I think you can see the light at the end of the tunnel, but it's a very long tunnel.' Sir Keir has pledged to lead a 'decade of national renewal' through a phased approach to Government, the first year of which he said would involve 'cleaning up the mess' his administration had inherited. In a speech last week seeking to set the tone for the future, he said: 'We've wiped the state clean, we've stabilised the economy, and now we can go on to the next phase of government, building on that foundation.' A Government spokesperson said: 'We were elected with a commitment to deliver change and security for working people – and we are getting on with the job. 'We are delivering our Plan for Change – wages are rising faster than prices, interest rates have been cut four times, immigration has come down with 30,000 people with no right to be here removed and over four million NHS appointments have been delivered. 'Progress has been made, but we know people are impatient for change – and we are too – so we will continue to govern in the national interest for British people and deliver a decade of national renewal.'
