Latest news with #TreasurySelectCommittee
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
This week will haunt the prime minister after his most damaging U-turn yet
It has been a painful week to watch. A U-turn in slow motion, culminating in a midnight climbdown as Number 10 agreed to concede to defiant MPs on Thursday night. The concessions are considerable. They mean, among other compromises, that existing claimants of personal independence payments (PIP) and the health aspect of Universal Credit will be protected from welfare reforms. 👉 Follow Electoral Dysfunction on your podcast app 👈 Some MPs, like and Nadia Whittome, remain unconvinced, but they were never high on the list of rebels the government expected to persuade. Ministers now hope that with the backing of MPs like Dame Meg Hillier, the chair of the Treasury Select Committee, the bill will pass the Commons. Their problems won't end there, though. Firstly, there is the question of money. The Resolution Foundation estimates the concessions will cost £3bn of the £5bn the hoped to save from the welfare reforms. The 's spokesperson says the changes will be fully funded in the budget and there will be no permanent increase in borrowing. They won't comment on any potential tax rises to plug the gap in Rachel Reeves' finances. The bigger cost, though, is the political one. A year ago, when Sir Keir Starmer strode into Downing Street with a thumping majority, few could have imagined how the last few days would play out. Read more: More than 120 MPs, nearly a third of the parliamentary party and more than the total number of Tory MPs, publicly prepared to rebel on a flagship policy. How did it come to this? How did the prime minister, and the people around him, not see a rebellion coming when there had been signs MPs weren't happy for weeks? Those are the questions being asked by senior Labour figures behind the scenes. Sir Keir's spokesperson says the prime minister consistently engages with colleagues, and parliamentary engagement takes many forms. But a lack of engagement with backbenchers has led to the prime minister's most damaging U-turn yet, and this week will haunt the prime minister beyond Tuesday's crunch vote.
The Guardian
2 days ago
- Business
- The Guardian
Another tragic fact about this disastrous welfare bill: it proves Labour hasn't learned and doesn't listen
This disaster bill won't pass on Tuesday. The dangerous obduracy of the prime minister and chancellor confirms precisely what Labour MPs say: they haven't listened, they aren't listening and the fear is they won't learn to listen. Even if the bill squeezed through with some softening, it will be a pyrrhic victory. Why take such a risk for so little? U-turns are better than crashes, but best not left to the last nanosecond. Senior ministers, some of whom have already spoken up in cabinet, will put their feet down firmly to insist on radical alteration, or better still that it's withdrawn and rethought to avoid what they call 'this catastrophe'. If niceties of parliamentary practice escape some, understand how extraordinary this rebellion is. Read their 'reasoned amendment' with its crushing reasons why. Voting for this amendment kills the bill stone-dead, as it means the bill will not have a second reading. Finito. Who put the amendment forward? Grandee of the chamber Dame Meg Hillier, chair of the powerful Treasury select committee. She's so respected for her chairing of the public accounts committee that, unusually, she was elected unopposed. She also chairs the liaison committee, the grand committee of all chairs that regularly grills the prime minister. Ten – and counting – Labour committee chairs join her among the 126 signers, backed by the London mayor. Keir Starmer unwisely dismissed them as the usual 'noises off', but they are noise he needs to hear. A few are his longtime opponents but, for most, mutiny is a mortally serious matter. That's not from fear of whips' retribution or expulsion (there's safety in numbers), but because they know how destructive this is to their government less than a year in power, after aeons in the wilderness. As a parliamentary candidate, each Labour MP signed a pledge to support their party in parliament in exchange for wearing the Labour rosette: they owe the party everything. Taking this drastic step, they are motivated by the serious harm this bill does to all on disability benefits in their constituencies, but they also do it to save the government from seriously damaging itself. A bad bill, hastily put together, propels 250,000 people with disabilities into poverty, along with 50,000 children (maybe more when all assessments are in). The initial rationale sounds convincing: claims for personal independence payments (Pip) can't keep growing at 1,000 a day. But 'moral' pleas for the fate of disabled people 'trapped' on benefits who want to work but lack support fail to sound anything but disingenuous. Taking a crude machete to benefits because the Office for Budget Responsibility suddenly found a £5bn gap in Treasury accounts is no way to solve it. Nor was it the plan of Liz Kendall and Alison McGovern, who have long talked up employment support into good jobs with new work coaches plus their youth guarantee, not expecting this last-minute thunderclap from the Treasury. It's unsellable, try as they might, even to British voters who tend to be ungenerous: welfare and foreign aid vie for unpopularity. But an axe to funds for disabled people? Polling from More in Common finds 44% of Britons think that welfare reforms are too harsh and only 10% too lenient (Kemi Badenoch's forlorn position). A majority think this is purely cost-cutting, not motivated by support for vulnerable people. Cabinet ministers have been sent out, like lambs to the slaughter, to defend it on the airwaves and each has a list of MPs to call. Any success, I ask a senior one? 'No, none, not one, even at my most persuasive.' What's more, they report that many Labour MPs not signing the amendment are as strongly opposed to the bill as the signers. Talking to MPs, I find less anger than an ache for the error. Here's the tragedy for Labour supporters. Broadcasters have taken to referring to the cuts as 'Labour's flagship bill', which of course it isn't. But it risks defining the government, instead of its far more significant actions. I observed Rachel Reeves on Tuesday as she visited Elaine primary school in Rochester, Kent, to talk about free school meals and Labour policies for poor children, both now and to come. She joined the dinner ladies handing out meat, roast potatoes, cabbage and carrots with lashings of gravy, plus chocolate brownies. The chancellor was also handing out her message to local TV reporters, rattling it off impressively in one interview after another. Free school meals, when rolled out to all on universal credit, will lift 100,000 children out of poverty, saving parents £500 per child each year. New uniform rules cut costs. Of course Labour will fulfil its manifesto promise to raise many more children out of poverty in this parliament: wait for the autumn child poverty review. The national living wage rose by 7%. Investment post-austerity means £20bn to expand the schools building programme over the next decade. NHS waiting lists are falling. This week the prime minister announced £150 off energy bills for an extra 2.7m households. There's plenty more in Labour's good record. Reeves raised £40bn in tax from businesses and the rich – far bolder, in worse circumstances, than Blair and Brown's first year. She gave the NHS most, early-years education gets a boost and her spending review's better borrowing rules open the gates to huge capital investment, especially on green energy and nuclear reactors. Some rail is nationalised with steel potentially to follow. But a new trade strategy on Thursday, along with this week's excellent industrial strategy, sink under the weight of this obstinate error. To steal a phrase, the evil this government does gets emblazoned on front pages, the good is oft interred on page 93. That's because its actions fail to coalesce into an identity, risking the government being defined by others and by its own errors. The qualities of no-drama Starmer and iron chancellor Reeves were the essential sober stabilisers in recovery from Corbynism, but now they need political theatrics to explain what they are about. Last time, on winter fuel allowances, they didn't move until far too late. This last-minute swerve suggests no lessons learned. In Reeves's chat with Rochester children, one asked: 'Do you like raising taxes?' In effect, her answer was yes, as she explained what good things taxes pay for. But I doubt she would be pleased that you can now hear senior ministers wanting more of them, flying kites for more radicalism, pondering why the highly paid haven't been asked for more, and ways wealth taxes might work. Pressing ahead is folly, but even now, that seems the intention. Running towards a brick wall. How many times? Polly Toynbee is a Guardian columnist
The Guardian
2 days ago
- Business
- The Guardian
Another tragic fact about this disastrous welfare bill: it proves Labour hasn't learned and doesn't listen
This disaster bill won't pass on Tuesday. The dangerous obduracy of the prime minister and chancellor confirms precisely what Labour MPs say: they haven't listened, they aren't listening and the fear is they won't learn to listen. Even if the bill squeezed through with some softening, it will be a pyrrhic victory. Why take such a risk for so little? U-turns are better than crashes, but best not left to the last nanosecond. Senior ministers, some of whom have already spoken up in cabinet, will put their feet down firmly to insist on radical alteration, or better still that it's withdrawn and rethought to avoid what they call 'this catastrophe'. If niceties of parliamentary practice escape some, understand how extraordinary this rebellion is. Read their 'reasoned amendment' with its crushing reasons why. Voting for this amendment kills the bill stone-dead, as it means the bill will not have a second reading. Finito. Who put the amendment forward? Grandee of the chamber Dame Meg Hillier, chair of the powerful Treasury select committee. She's so respected for her chairing of the public accounts committee that, unusually, she was elected unopposed. She also chairs the liaison committee, the grand committee of all chairs that regularly grills the prime minister. Ten – and counting – Labour committee chairs join her among the 126 signers, backed by the London mayor. Keir Starmer unwisely dismissed them as the usual 'noises off', but they are noise he needs to hear. A few are his longtime opponents but, for most, mutiny is a mortally serious matter. That's not from fear of whips' retribution or expulsion (there's safety in numbers), but because they know how destructive this is to their government less than a year in power, after aeons in the wilderness. As a parliamentary candidate, each Labour MP signed a pledge to support their party in parliament in exchange for wearing the Labour rosette: they owe the party everything. Taking this drastic step, they are motivated by the serious harm this bill does to all on disability benefits in their constituencies, but they also do it to save the government from seriously damaging itself. A bad bill, hastily put together, propels 250,000 people with disabilities into poverty, along with 50,000 children (maybe more when all assessments are in). The initial rationale sounds convincing: claims for personal independence payments (Pip) can't keep growing at 1,000 a day. But 'moral' pleas for the fate of disabled people 'trapped' on benefits who want to work but lack support fail to sound anything but disingenuous. Taking a crude machete to benefits because the Office for Budget Responsibility suddenly found a £5bn gap in Treasury accounts is no way to solve it. Nor was it the plan of Liz Kendall and Alison McGovern, who have long talked up employment support into good jobs with new work coaches plus their youth guarantee, not expecting this last-minute thunderclap from the Treasury. It's unsellable, try as they might, even to British voters who tend to be ungenerous: welfare and foreign aid vie for unpopularity. But an axe to funds for disabled people? Polling from More in Common finds 44% of Britons think that welfare reforms are too harsh and only 10% too lenient (Kemi Badenoch's forlorn position). A majority think this is purely cost-cutting, not motivated by support for vulnerable people. Cabinet ministers have been sent out, like lambs to the slaughter, to defend it on the airwaves and each has a list of MPs to call. Any success, I ask a senior one? 'No, none, not one, even at my most persuasive.' What's more, they report that many Labour MPs not signing the amendment are as strongly opposed to the bill as the signers. Talking to MPs, I find less anger than an ache for the error. Here's the tragedy for Labour supporters. Broadcasters have taken to referring to the cuts as 'Labour's flagship bill', which of course it isn't. But it risks defining the government, instead of its far more significant actions. I observed Rachel Reeves on Tuesday as she visited Elaine primary school in Rochester, Kent, to talk about free school meals and Labour policies for poor children, both now and to come. She joined the dinner ladies handing out meat, roast potatoes, cabbage and carrots with lashings of gravy, plus chocolate brownies. The chancellor was also handing out her message to local TV reporters, rattling it off impressively in one interview after another. Free school meals, when rolled out to all on universal credit, will lift 100,000 children out of poverty, saving parents £500 per child each year. New uniform rules cut costs. Of course Labour will fulfil its manifesto promise to raise many more children out of poverty in this parliament: wait for the autumn child poverty review. The national living wage rose by 7%. Investment post-austerity means £20bn to expand the schools building programme over the next decade. NHS waiting lists are falling. This week the prime minister announced £150 off energy bills for an extra 2.7m households. There's plenty more in Labour's good record. Reeves raised £40bn in tax from businesses and the rich – far bolder, in worse circumstances, than Blair and Brown's first year. She gave the NHS most, early-years education gets a boost and her spending review's better borrowing rules open the gates to huge capital investment, especially on green energy and nuclear reactors. Some rail is nationalised with steel potentially to follow. But a new trade strategy on Thursday, along with this week's excellent industrial strategy, sink under the weight of this obstinate error. To steal a phrase, the evil this government does gets emblazoned on front pages, the good is oft interred on page 93. That's because its actions fail to coalesce into an identity, risking the government being defined by others and by its own errors. The qualities of no-drama Starmer and iron chancellor Reeves were the essential sober stabilisers in recovery from Corbynism, but now they need political theatrics to explain what they are about. Last time, on winter fuel allowances, they didn't move until far too late. This last-minute swerve suggests no lessons learned. In Reeves's chat with Rochester children, one asked: 'Do you like raising taxes?' In effect, her answer was yes, as she explained what good things taxes pay for. But I doubt she would be pleased that you can now hear senior ministers wanting more of them, flying kites for more radicalism, pondering why the highly paid haven't been asked for more, and ways wealth taxes might work. Pressing ahead is folly, but even now, that seems the intention. Running towards a brick wall. How many times? Polly Toynbee is a Guardian columnist
The Herald Scotland
3 days ago
- Business
- The Herald Scotland
Voters expect a Labour government to reduce poverty not make it worse
Sir Keir's deputy Angela Rayner insisted the vote would go ahead on Wednesday but the government's defiant stance did not stop the numbers of rebels from ticking up. Now the government has confirmed talks are taking place about changing the reform package. Chancellor Rachel Reeves' finely balanced budgeting depends on the £5bn she says will be saved by 2030 through the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill. She also wants to prevent daunting projected increases in welfare spending down the line. Read more Rebecca McQuillan But deep concerns about the impact of the cuts on sick and disabled people has led the rebels to table an amendment which, if passed, would halt the bill in its tracks. With days still to go for more MPs to join the insurgency, the government can no longer be sure of winning – hence the dialogue. But even if they could, ignoring such a huge show of concern would be madness. That backbench disquiet would turn to anger and anger would turn into open mutiny. And all for the sake of a bill that, while leaving some claimants better off, would likely push others into poverty, possibly in their hundreds of thousands. Money must be saved, but no Labour government should be taking risks like that with people's lives. The insurgents have the advantage of being highly credible. They are drawn from across the party and feature heavyweight backbench figures including nine committee chairs such as Dame Meg Hillier, the respected head of the Treasury Select Committee, who proposed the amendment, and former Holyrood minister Patricia Ferguson, chair of the Scottish Affairs committee. Twelve Scottish MPs have signed and the amendment has the backing of metropolitan mayors Sadiq Khan and Andy Burnham. The rebels don't argue with the government's overall aims – to protect those most in need and help other claimants into work – but they fear the reforms won't have that effect. There's no escaping the reality that the government has to save money. With the rising cost of defence, a cash-hungry NHS, housebuilding and the jaw-dropping deficit caused by Covid and Liz Truss – all set against the backdrop of sluggish growth – any Chancellor would have to get out the paring knife. Chancellor Rachel Reeves wants to cut the benefits bill (Image: PA) And the government is right to be worried about the benefits bill. The number of people claiming health-related benefits with no requirement to work has gone up by 800,000 since 2020. Spending on health-related benefits has gone up £20bn since the pandemic and is set to go up nearly £20bn more by 2029. Some claimants could work, with the right support. There is indeed a moral case for reform – governments shouldn't just leave people languishing in a benefits trap. But voters – and Labour MPs – expect a Labour government to bear down on poverty, not make it worse, and the proposed changes don't pass that test. On the one hand, the government is set to spend much more on schemes to help people into work, end benefit reassessments for the most sick or disabled people and increase the basic level of UC. But it also proposes tightening the criteria for the least disabled people claiming personal independence payments (which does not directly affect Scotland) and cut the health-related element of Universal Credit (UC) for new claimants (which does). The amount of UC new claimants receive because they have limited capacity to work would be reduced by almost half. These claimants, the government hopes, will then find work. The trouble is, changing benefits is a clumsy, inexact approach to changing behaviour. For the policy to be a win-win – making savings for the government while also helping people access a better future – all those who are losing money must be able to find jobs. What if it doesn't work like that? That's what sends a trickle of cold fear down MPs' backs. What if employers don't play ball or work programmes aren't effective? Relatively small reductions in benefits can have a serious impact on struggling families, as The Herald's recent series on child poverty revealed. Read more The Department for Work and Pensions has concluded that the plans would push 250,000 people into poverty, including 50,000 children, though it insists many would then find work and no longer be in poverty. According to the Resolution Foundation think tank the reforms could help more than 100,000 people into work but hundreds of thousands would fall into poverty regardless. No wonder so many Labour MPs hate the policy. If defending the winter fuel payment cut was hard for them, then this policy would be a bed of nails. But the fiscal constraints the government faces are real. The government cannot let the benefits bill rise to unsustainable levels or leave people who could work languishing at home. So Labour ministers and MPs are now talking to one another to find a solution. That implies delaying implementation or watering down the reforms. The rebel MPs want further consultation. They want back to work mentoring support to be put in place before cuts are made. They also want to better information on how the changes would affect employment levels among sick and disabled people before backing the plans. It's not what ministers wanted, but if they listen, the outcome will be better, fairer, more defensible reforms that are much more consistent with Labour values. The Prime Minister may well come to thank his bloody-minded backbenchers in the end. Rebecca McQuillan is a journalist specialising in politics and Scottish affairs. She can be found on Bluesky at @ and on X at @BecMcQ
The Guardian
6 days ago
- Business
- The Guardian
More welfare spending alone not route to social justice
Labour MPs have launched a significant rebellion against the government's welfare cuts with an amendment designed to kill its reform bill, spearheaded by senior select committee chairs. The amendment – which sources said could be signed by up to 100 MPs – declines to pass the government's welfare reforms and calls for a pause, including for further consultation and for support to be in place before any further cuts are made. The Guardian understands the amendment has been spearheaded by the Treasury select committee chair, Meg Hillier, and a number of other committee chairs. Dozens of backbench MPs have signed the amendment, which is set to be published on Tuesday, with predictions it could reach as high as 100 signatures. A senior MP said: 'The government hasn't listened to private concerns so now will have to address these very public ones.' The aim would be to pass a so-called 'reasoned amendment', which halts the passage of a bill. It means the bill would not pass its third reading, saying that provisions 'have not been subject to a formal consultation with disabled people, or co-produced with them, or their carers'. It also says the bill should not pass until the Office for Budget Responsibility can publish its analysis of the employment impact of the changes this autumn. It adds that the majority of the additional employment support funding will not be in place until the end of the decade. It notes the government's own impact assessment estimates that 250,000 people will be pushed into poverty as a result of the provisions, including 50,000 children. It calls for an assessment of the impact of the changes on health or care needs and for the conclusion of other reviews. The amendment would need to be selected by the speaker, Lindsay Hoyle, and gain the support of opposition parties to pass and there is no guarantee of either. But the symbolism of so many MPs signing the amendment would make taking the bill forward extremely problematic for Keir Starmer. The move comes following a meeting of MPs addressed by the work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall, who told the private meeting there was 'no route to social justice based on greater benefit spending alone'. She said the cuts were about 'ensuring the welfare state survives' and that the government would always seek to protect those with the greatest need. Some frontbenchers are believed to be considering their positions ahead of next Tuesday's vote on cuts to personal independence payments (Pips) and changes to the health-related element of universal credit. Cabinet ministers, including the business secretary, Jonathan Reynolds, and the culture secretary, Lisa Nandy, have been making the public case to angry MPs to back the changes. At least 170 MPs have expressed concerns about the bill in public interventions and private letters to party whips. The government whip Vicky Foxcroft, a former shadow disability minister, quit her post last week saying she could not support the cuts which could affect more than a million people. The changes, which are at the centre of a £4.8bn welfare cuts package, will mean even people who are unable to wash half their body or cook a meal for themselves will be denied the payments if they have no other impairments. The chancellor, Rachel Reeves, denied earlier on Monday that the government would go any further to appease MPs, either by making tweaks to the changes or by delaying the vote. 'There will be no U-turn. We're voting on it next week,' she said. Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion Speaking to MPs at the parliamentary Labour party meeting, Kendall urged them to support the government and emphasised the extra support it would be establishing. 'The path to fairer society – one where everyone thrives, where people who can work get the support they need, and where we protect those who cannot – that is the path we seek to build with our reforms,' she said. 'Our plans are rooted in fairness, for those who need support and for taxpayers. 'They are about ensuring the welfare state survives, so there is always a safety net for those who need it. They're about putting proper safeguards in place to protect the most vulnerable. 'But above all they are about our belief that everyone can fulfil their potential and live their hopes and dreams when – collectively - we provide them with real opportunities and support. This is the better future we seek to build for our constituents and our country.' Reynolds said on Monday that he was persuaded by the changes even though his child received Pips. 'It's in the public domain that I have a significantly disabled child, who is in receipt of Pip,' he said. 'We're going to be spending, with these reforms, £31bn a year by the end of this parliament. We are going to protect the most vulnerable people. That's where that money is going to go to. 'But the bigger risk that worries me is if we, as we do, want to support vulnerable people, you have to have public consent for that. And at the minute, the growth in the numbers, the applications, as Rachel says, we're an outlier, we haven't seen this in other countries after the pandemic. 'So I'd say to colleagues, this is about making sure we protect the vulnerable and have public consent for a system, which frankly, we have got as responsible people to ask ourselves the question: Is that system working as it should at the minute?'
