Latest news with #DameMegHillier
Telegraph
12-07-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
Cash use to be tracked amid ‘two-tier society' fears
The Bank of England will monitor the use of cash payments amid fears that vulnerable groups risk being excluded in a 'two-tier society'. Threadneedle Street officials are set to intervene after MPs warned more checks were needed to ensure people can still pay with cash in public places, such as coffee shops, leisure centres and on public transport. There are currently no legal requirements in the UK for businesses or organisations to accept cash, fuelling fears that pensioners and people with disabilities could be shut out. Dame Meg Hillier, chair of the Treasury select committee, welcomed the move by the Bank and said it was a 'positive first step'. It comes after the committee revealed earlier this year that vulnerable groups were having to pay higher prices for essential goods amid an increase in the number of shops not accepting cash. However, it also said there were significant obstacles in assessing the true level of cash acceptance across the UK. A study by Link, the UK's cash machine network, in 2024 found that half of those surveyed had been to a business or organisation in the last eight weeks that did not accept cash or discouraged cash use. Yet 98pc of small businesses said they accepted cash when polled by Savanta. A lack of consistent evidence makes it challenging for the Government to determine how widespread the issue of cash acceptance is in the UK. There are concerns that a decline in cash acceptance will lead to the exclusion of vulnerable groups such as the elderly, people with learning disabilities, and domestic abuse victims. Dame Meg said that the Government 'consistently agrees' with the Treasury committee's view 'that action needs to be taken to avoid financially excluding vulnerable groups'. In response to the committee's findings, Emma Reynolds, the economic secretary to the Treasury, said: 'Ensuring individuals have access to the appropriate financial products and services they need is a key priority for the Government.' The Treasury is due to publish a financial inclusion strategy later this year, 'which will examine the barriers consumers face to accessing products and what more industry and government can do to support them'. ATM decline When appearing before the Treasury committee in January, Ms Reynolds said the Government had 'no plans to regulate businesses, big or small, to compel them to accept cash'. Yet the committee has argued that ministers may have to legally mandate cash acceptance in the future if a 'two-tier society' arises. Worries of a decline in cash acceptance have emerged alongside a significant fall in the number of free ATMs. The number of cash machines in the UK fell by 5pc year-on-year to 46,182 in 2024, according to Link. Since the pandemic, there has been a rise in the number of businesses that call themselves cash-free, with others stating that they prefer customers to accept card or contactless payments. Over the last decade, there has also been a significant decline in the number of cash transactions. Cash accounted for just over half of all payments in 2013, but that fell to 12pc in 2023 as the popularity of card and digital payments increased. Blackouts in Spain and Portugal earlier this year prevented the public from making card payments. The committee highlighted the importance of physical cash in emergency situations, warning that alternatives must be in place in the event of a major technological failure or a state-sponsored cyber attack.
The Independent
01-07-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Did my MP vote against Starmer's plan to cut benefits?
Sir Keir Starmer 's welfare bill has managed to scrape past its second reading as he fended off what is believed to be the most significant rebellion since he became prime minister a year ago. The bill passed its second reading by 335 ayes to 260 noes, a majority of 75, with 49 Labour MPs voting against the welfare cuts which have caused controversy. Disability minister Sir Stephen Timms announced a last-ditch concession that plans to restrict eligibility for personal independence payments (PIP) – which had been the central pillar of the government's reforms – would not take place until after a review of the benefit had concluded. The government had initially planned to change the eligibility criteria for disability benefits for all new claimants from November 2026 but now the new system will not come into force until the review has concluded. It comes just days after the government watered down the legislation for the first time on Thursday, excluding all existing claimants from changes to PIP in a chaotic U-turn. Sir Keir's welfare bill has continuously caused controversy as a growing rebel camp, led at the time by Dame Meg Hillier, putting forward an initial amendment which forced the government to U-turn from its initial plans. While she voted to back the legislation, almost 50 Labour MPs expressed their discontent with the bill still. One key voice in the 'noes' was MP Ms Maria Tidball, born with a congenital disability affecting all four limbs, who broke down in tears as she delivered an impassioned speech criticising the welfare cuts. Another key rebel, Rachel Maskell, said disabled people will have been worried watching the debate. The MP for York Central said: 'I'm obviously really sad that the Bill went through but I think my greatest sadness is that disabled people will have been looking on and seeing Parliament debating their futures, and I think they'll be incredibly distressed when they see the way that Parliament was today. 'That's the thing that tugs at me, because I think ultimately we've got huge responsibility to disabled people and they weren't served well by the department today.' Sir Stephen Timms later said, in response to concerns over a two tier system, that it was 'completely normal in social security.' 'PIP replaced DLA (disability living allowance) in 2013 but half a million adults are still on DLA today. That doesn't cause problems. Parallel running is normal, and actually it's often the fairest way to make a major change.' Work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall said welfare reform was particularly 'difficult' for Labour because the party cared 'passionately' about the subject. Asked what the main lessons were from the backbench rebellion over proposed cuts, she told broadcasters: 'Welfare reform is always really difficult, perhaps especially for Labour governments. 'It's something we care passionately about.'
The Independent
30-06-2025
- Business
- The Independent
Welfare rebellion looms for Starmer despite concessions to Labour rebels
Sir Keir Starmer continues to face the prospect of a major rebellion over his welfare cuts despite making concessions to disgruntled Labour MPs. Ministers hope a partial U-turn will be enough to win over Labour rebels when MPs vote on welfare changes on Tuesday. The concessions included protecting people claiming personal independence payment (Pip) from changes due to come into effect in November 2026, and rowing back plans to cut the health-related element of universal credit. But backbench anger has continued to simmer, with a statement from Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall laying out the concessions on Monday receiving a negative response. Asked whether he was 'confident' that the concessions had done enough to secure passage of the Universal Credit and Personal Independent Payment Bill, disabilities minister Sir Stephen Timms would only tell Sky News: 'I certainly hope it passes.' Some 126 Labour MPs had previously signed a 'reasoned amendment' proposed by Treasury Committee chairwoman Dame Meg Hillier that would have stopped the legislation if approved. That rebellion appeared to have been averted after Dame Meg described concessions agreed on Friday as a 'workable compromise'. But in the Commons on Monday, she was one of several senior Labour figures to raise concerns about the Government's revised proposals, while another MP involved in negotiations, Debbie Abrahams, suggested ministers had rowed back on what had been agreed. A second amendment rejecting the Bill has been put forward by York Central MP Rachael Maskell with the backing of 138 disability groups, saying disabled people had 'yet to have agency in this process'. Ms Maskell's amendment is reported to have been signed by only around 35 Labour MPs – far fewer than the 83 needed to overturn Sir Keir's majority, but enough to deliver the largest rebellion of his premiership just before the first anniversary of Labour's election victory. Other sceptical MPs are expected to abstain on Tuesday, but could vote against the Bill next week if there are no further concessions. One of the chief concerns revolves around a review of Pip to be carried out by Sir Stephen and 'co-produced' with disabled people. His review is not expected to report until autumn next year, making it difficult to incorporate his findings into the Pip changes due to take place at the same time. Ms Abrahams suggested the timing meant the outcome of the review was 'pre-determined', while Sarah Owen, another select committee chairwoman, warned it could create a 'three-tier' benefit system. Groups including Disability Rights UK and Disabled People Against Cuts criticised the Government's claim that Sir Stephen's review would be 'co-produced' with them and urged Labour rebels to stand firm. They said: 'The Government have made it very clear that they are intent on slashing the support that so many disabled people rely on to work and live independently, no matter how many disabled people tell them what a harmful policy this will be.' Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said her party's MPs would vote against the proposals, describing them as 'not serious welfare reform' and saying ministers had 'watered down the small savings Labour were making'. The original proposals were expected to save £4.8 billion by 2030, but Ms Kendall revealed on Monday that the revised proposals were likely to save less than half that figure.
Yahoo
30-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Welfare rebellion looms for Starmer despite concessions to Labour rebels
Sir Keir Starmer continues to face the prospect of a major rebellion over his welfare cuts despite making concessions to disgruntled Labour MPs. Ministers hope a partial U-turn will be enough to win over Labour rebels when MPs vote on welfare changes on Tuesday. The concessions included protecting people claiming personal independence payment (Pip) from changes due to come into effect in November 2026, and rowing back plans to cut the health-related element of universal credit. But backbench anger has continued to simmer, with a statement from Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall laying out the concessions on Monday receiving a negative response. Asked whether he was 'confident' that the concessions had done enough to secure passage of the Universal Credit and Personal Independent Payment Bill, disabilities minister Sir Stephen Timms would only tell Sky News: 'I certainly hope it passes.' Some 126 Labour MPs had previously signed a 'reasoned amendment' proposed by Treasury Committee chairwoman Dame Meg Hillier that would have stopped the legislation if approved. That rebellion appeared to have been averted after Dame Meg described concessions agreed on Friday as a 'workable compromise'. But in the Commons on Monday, she was one of several senior Labour figures to raise concerns about the Government's revised proposals, while another MP involved in negotiations, Debbie Abrahams, suggested ministers had rowed back on what had been agreed. A second amendment rejecting the Bill has been put forward by York Central MP Rachael Maskell with the backing of 138 disability groups, saying disabled people had 'yet to have agency in this process'. Ms Maskell's amendment is reported to have been signed by only around 35 Labour MPs – far fewer than the 83 needed to overturn Sir Keir's majority, but enough to deliver the largest rebellion of his premiership just before the first anniversary of Labour's election victory. Other sceptical MPs are expected to abstain on Tuesday, but could vote against the Bill next week if there are no further concessions. One of the chief concerns revolves around a review of Pip to be carried out by Sir Stephen and 'co-produced' with disabled people. His review is not expected to report until autumn next year, making it difficult to incorporate his findings into the Pip changes due to take place at the same time. Ms Abrahams suggested the timing meant the outcome of the review was 'pre-determined', while Sarah Owen, another select committee chairwoman, warned it could create a 'three-tier' benefit system. Groups including Disability Rights UK and Disabled People Against Cuts criticised the Government's claim that Sir Stephen's review would be 'co-produced' with them and urged Labour rebels to stand firm. They said: 'The Government have made it very clear that they are intent on slashing the support that so many disabled people rely on to work and live independently, no matter how many disabled people tell them what a harmful policy this will be.' Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said her party's MPs would vote against the proposals, describing them as 'not serious welfare reform' and saying ministers had 'watered down the small savings Labour were making'. The original proposals were expected to save £4.8 billion by 2030, but Ms Kendall revealed on Monday that the revised proposals were likely to save less than half that figure.
Telegraph
30-06-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
Scrap Lifetime Isa bonus because it supports middle classes, MPs urge
Labour has been urged by MPs to reform the Lifetime Isa because it helps too many middle-class first-time buyers get on to the property ladder. A Treasury select committee review raised concerns that the tax-free saving product was not helping 'its intended recipients' and that Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, should 'consider whether it has a future in its present form'. Lifetime Isas or 'Lisas' were first introduced in April 2017 by former chancellor George Osborne, with the aim of helping first-time buyers and future retirees grow a tax-free nest egg. Savers aged between 18 and 39 can deposit up to £4,000 a year, with the Government adding a 25pc bonus up to a maximum of £1,000 a year. Around 1.4 million people have the accounts, which can be used to buy a first home up to the value of £450,000 or for retirement. But the Lisa has faced criticism in recent years because the house price cap has remained frozen since its inception and savers face a 25pc penalty on the total value of their investment if they choose to withdraw it for any other reason. The Commons committee, chaired by Labour MP Dame Meg Hillier, questioned whether the state bonus was too generous and if it was the best use of public money 'given the current strain on public finances'. MPs said that the product may not be well-targeted towards those in need of financial support and could in fact be subsidising the cost of a first home for wealthier people at a significant cost to the taxpayer. Dame Meg said: 'The committee is firmly behind the objectives of the Lifetime Isa, which are to help those who need it onto the property ladder and to help people save for retirement from an early age. 'The question is whether the Lifetime Isa is the best way to spend billions of pounds over several years to achieve those goals. 'We know that the Government is looking at Isa reform imminently, which means this is the perfect time to assess if this is the best way to help the people who need it.' The Office for Budget Responsibility estimated that spending on Lisa bonuses would reach more than £600m in 2027-28 and cost approximately £3bn over the five years to 2029-30. The report argued that this annual spend was equivalent to the £625m the Government has committed to invest in training construction workers as part of its ambitious plans to build 1.5m new homes in England by the end of the parliament. Biggest impact Emma Reynolds, the economic secretary to the Treasury, told the committee: 'Arguably the biggest impact for first-time buyers will be increasing the supply of homes.' The committee said it feared that Lisas were being used by people who could already afford to buy a home and recommended that the Chancellor set up an impact assessment to assess whether too many middle-class individuals were using the product. Tom Selby, of AJ Bell, a wealth manager, said: 'Labour came into office with a promise to boost home ownership, predominantly through planning reforms aimed at increasing house building. 'However, pledging to boost home ownership while slashing the incentive scheme for those building a deposit would surely be an ill-advised move likely to frustrate those hoping to get on the housing ladder.' MPs also argued that the 25pc withdrawal charge, which causes Lisa holders to lose the state bonuses they have received plus 6.25pc of their own contributions, was unfair. Savers also face the penalty if they choose to use the money for anything other than a home or retirement. Sarah Coles, of Hargreaves Lansdown, a wealth manager, said: 'Since the Lisa was introduced in April 2017, average house prices in the UK have risen by more than 30pc, and the cap hasn't moved. When they started saving, many of those who bust the price cap had no idea prices would rise so far, so they have had to pay the withdrawal penalty through no fault of their own.' In 2023-24, some 99,650 people paid an exit penalty to take their money out, compared with 56,900 who used the savings to purchase a home. The committee said this indicated the 'product is not working as intended'. It said the cap, which would be worth £602,000 today if it had risen in life with inflation, ensured government spending supported those who need financial assistance the most. Claire Exley, of Nutmeg, a digital wealth manager, added that the penalty on the Lisa was 'punitive'. Mr Exley said: 'The Lifetime Isa withdrawal penalty is excessively punitive. The penalty does not account for a change in life circumstances where an individual may not need the Lisa any more, e.g. inheriting property, or where an individual moves abroad or becomes redundant. 'There should be a mechanism which ensures the Government receives any bonus paid to Lisa savers or investors but that does not excessively harm those who can no longer use a Lisa or whose life circumstances change.' A Treasury spokesman said: 'Lifetime Isas aim to encourage younger people to develop the habit of saving for the longer term, helping them to purchase their first home or build a nest egg for when they're older. We welcome the committee's report and will now review its findings and respond in due course.'
