Afternoon summary
Keir Starmer still faces a four-day battle to persuade Labour MPs to back his UC and Pip bill after the £3bn-a-year concessions announced overnight failed to fully quell the backbencher rebellion over the issue. Although Meg Hillier, who tabled the reasoned amendment that would kill the bill, has welcomed the U-turn, many MPs remain unconvinced. At least 50 MPs are still determined to oppose the bill, the Labour MP Cat Eccles told the World at One. (See 2pm.) Disability rights campaigners have also urged MPs to continue opposing the bill. (See 1.03pm.)
Here are comments from two more Labour MPs who say they remain opposed to the welfare bill, despite the concessions announced by Keir Starmer.
These are from Bell Ribeiro-Addy.
These proposed concessions to the Welfare Bill don’t go far enough.
No consultation with disabled people
No government impact assessment
No OBR analysis
No publication of PIP or Mayfield Review
The Reasoned Amendment was clear. Disabled people are being ignored.
A two-tier welfare system is not a concession, it’s discrimination.
Even with new proposals, this £3bn cut will deepen poverty and hardship for disabled people.
No tweaks can justify this assault on welfare.
MPs are being asked to vote on billions in cuts, based on a last-minute new draft or verbal promises.
The Govt plans to cram the rest of the Bill into 1 day.
No real scrutiny or consultation.
The debate around this Bill has become too toxic. It should simply be scrapped.
And this is from Simon Opher.
The government has shifted their position on the welfare reform bill, which is welcome. I’m glad they are listening. It could go some way to help disabled people stay in the jobs they have, and helps take the pressure of those who were most anxious about the potential impact of the reforms on their lives.
However, legislating inequality into our benefits system is not the way to solve this. It will condemn younger disabled people, and those yet to become disabled, to lives of worsening health and needless hardship. The support that disabled people receive is, at best, limited. The ‘concessions’ look more like an attempt to sort a political problem, rather than a serious review of how best to support disabled people and those with long term health issues in their lives and at work. The support you get should depend on need, not when you applied for it.
The changes do not tackle the eligibility issues that are at the heart of many of the problems with PIP.
The bill should be scrapped and we should start again and put the needs of disabled people at the centre of the process.
Amanda Akass from Sky News says Labour MPs planning to rebel on the welfare bill next week have set up their own WhatsApp group. She said it already has 50 members.
One rebel tells me a 50 strong Whatsapp group has already been created for Labour MPs who are still planning to vote against the welfare bill - “so it’s perfectly plausible we’ll get back to bill killing numbers over the weekend” @SkyNews
In January there was a controversy when a government minister seemed to rule out the UK joining the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean Convention (PEM), a Europe-wide customs arrangement. The minister may have been influenced by reporting that described the little-known arrangement as a customs union, when it’s not. (Its actually a deal relating to how cumulation is enforced when rules of origin regulations apply to imports.) Pro-Europeans found it depressing that the government seemed petrified of something technical and benign just because it might alarm the Brexiters. Eventually No 10 said the idea was not being ruled out.
Now, as Politico reports, the government has said it is going to actively consider joining.
Starmer defends treating Reform UK, not Tories, as main opponents, saying battle with populism must be fought now
Tom Baldwin, Ed Miliband’s communications chief when Miliband was Labour leader, has a good claim to be the writer who best “gets” Keir Starmer. He got good access to the PM for the biography he published last year and his new interview for the Observer is definitely worth a read.
The main news line is probably what Starmer said about his “island of strangers” comment in an immigration speech earlier this year being a mistake. (See 12.40pm.) Starmer hinted at this in an interview with the New Statesman’s Tom McTague recently, but Baldwin got him to admit that it was a big error. Starmer said he was distracted by the arson attack on his home that had just happened, and that as a result he should have “held [the speech] up to the light a bit more” before he delivered it.
Starmer also told Baldwin that there were “problems with the language” in his foreword to the immigration white paper published the same day. In the document Starmer said the damage done to the UK by net migration soaring under the Tories had been “incalculable”. (The document reads as if what he was trying to say was that it was just the damage done to political trust by high migration that was incalculable, but that is not what he said; in the Observer, Starmer does not elaborate on what exactly the “problems” were.)
When Sky’s Beth Rigby asked Starmer recently what his biggest mistake was in his first year in office, all she got was the admission that he should have communicated what he was doing better. Speaking to Baldwin, Starmer was forthcoming about other errors too.
Starmer said that what became known as his “things can only get worse” speech in Downing Street last summer was a mistake. It “squeezed the hope out”, Starmer said. “We were so determined to show how bad it was that we forgot people wanted something to look forward to as well.”
He said he was to blame to appointing Sue Gray as chief of staff. He said:
Not everyone thought it was a good idea when I appointed her. It was my call, my judgment, my decision, and I got that wrong. Sue wasn’t the right person for this job.
He said his response to the controversy about accepting clothes donations was not as good as it might have been because his wife was implicated, and he was angry about how she was being attacked. This clouded his judgment, he suggested.
Part of the problem is that I got emotionally involved. One thing I’m reasonably good at usually is staying calm. But when they dragged Vic into it through no fault of her own, that made me angry.
There was another interesting line about Reform UK.
Starmer defended treating Reform UK, not the Tories, as the main opposition, saying Labour needed to start fighting Nigel Farage’s party now. He said:
If we’re going to have a battle with Reform – a battle for the heart and soul of the country – we’re better off having it now. If we’re to win that battle, we have to be the progressives fighting against the populists of Reform – yes, Labour has to be a progressive political party.
For many people, though, the most memorable passage may be where Baldwin describes Starmer going to Leeds after his brother died on Boxing Day last year to clear out his house. Starmer had always been protective of his brother, who had learning difficulties, and this was a job he did not want to delegate to anyone else. Baldwin writes:
Starmer asked his armed police bodyguards to wait behind and opened the glass-fronted door. Once inside, he filled black bin liners with rotten food from the fridge and dirty clothes from the floor. Then the prime minister got to work cleaning the bathroom and toilet …
Couldn’t he just have got cleaners to sort the house out?
“No,” he says, “I didn’t want anyone else there. He was my brother – I didn’t want to let him down.”
Nick “hadn’t kept the place very clean”, explains Starmer, suddenly gulping for words before describing how “I was putting what he’d left of his life in a bag”. The prime minister forces himself back into his more familiar and less expressive form before continuing. “But – but – there you go, I suppose.”
Updated
Starmer describes welfare bill concessions as 'common sense' - while dodging question about how they will be funded
Keir Starmer has described the compromise welfare bill proposals announced overnight as “common sense” and as striking “the right balance”.
Speaking to reporters on a visit, he said:
It’s very important that we reform the welfare system, because it doesn’t work and it traps people, and therefore we’re going to press ahead with the reforms. And the principles are if you can work, you should work. If you need help getting into work, you should have that help and support. But if you can’t work or there’s no prospect of work, then you must be protected.
We need to get it right. That’s why we’ve been talking to colleagues and having a constructive discussion. We’ve now arrived at a package that delivers on the principles with some adjustments, and that’s the right reform, and I’m really pleased now that we’re able to take this forward …
For me, getting that package adjusted in that way is the right thing to do. It makes the right balance. It’s common sense and we can now get on with it.
The claim that the current system “traps people” on benefits infuriates some campaigners because Pip (the personal independence payment) is paid to people who have extra costs because they have to cope with a disability and it does not just go to people out of work. Some Pip claimants are working. Starmer, though, believes Pip incentivises people not to find work.
Asked how the government would pay for the concessions, which will cost about £3bn a year, Starmer replied:
The funding will be set out in the budget in the usual way, as you’d expect later in the year.
International development committee says supplying F-35 components for Israel may contravene international law
Geneva Abdul is a Guardian reporter.
The UK’s exemption of F-35 components from suspended arms exports to Israel may be incompatible with international law, the chair of the international development committee has warned.
In a letter to business secretary, Jonathan Reynolds, committee chair Sarah Champion raised questions over the government’s contentious decision to exempt parts for F-35 jets to Israel, and whether the carve out decided in September 2024 is compatible with the Arms Trade Treaty, the Genocide Convention and the Geneva Conventions.
The letter comes after MPs, lawyers and human rights organisations have for months argued against the continued exports which they describe as a serious violation of humanitarian law. In September, the government suspended 30 arms export licenses, but carved out the supply of components for F-35 jets, warning an embargo could disrupt the global programme and Nato’s peace and security.
The UK government, which faces court action over the decision, has justified the continued export of components on reasons of international peace and security. The government has also acknowledged, in court documents, that the supply of F-35 components for potential use in Israel is in breach of its own arms export control laws. Britain supplies 15% of the value of the F-35 jet, mainly through BAE systems.
Champion said in her letter:
If there is the ‘potential’ for an ‘overriding’ risk of serious violations of IHL/IHRL [international humanitarian law/international human rights law], then the UK must not authorise the export.
In circumstances where there are prolonged blockades of humanitarian aid including food, water and medicine, as well as evidence indicating the mistreatment of detainees by Israel, there are clearly risks of serious violations of the right to life, health, food security, and the prohibitions on cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and torture. The clear risks of serious IHL and IHRL violations are undisputable.
Concerns from the international development committee come days after the UK announced the expansion of its nuclear deterrent by buying 12 F-35A jets, which are capable of carrying conventional munitions and also the US B61-12 gravity bomb.
The letter also asks the government several questions including whether the government accepts it has knowledge that Israel is committing internationally wrongful acts and that the export of F-35 components is aiding or assisting these wrongful acts.
The government was asked to respond by 11 July.
Updated
Here are some pictures from Kemi Badenoch’s visit to Carver Barracks in Essex today.
Badenoch says welfare U-turn shows Labour 'no longer in control', and bill now 'worst of all worlds'
Kemi Badenoch has described the welfare bill as “the worst of all worlds” in the light of the concessions announced overnight.
Speaking to reporters on a visit to Carver Barracks in Essex, she said:
I think we’re seeing a government that is floundering, a government that is no longer in control despite having a huge majority.
I don’t see how they’re going to be able to deliver any of the things they promised if they can’t do something as basic as reducing an increase in spending.”
It’s a real shame because what they’re doing now with this U-turn is creating a two-tier system … this is the worst of all worlds.
No 10 should not assume Labour revolt over welfare bill is over, Diane Abbott says
Diane Abbott, the veteran Labour leftwinger and longest-serving female MP (“mother of the House), has said that No 10 would be wrong to assume the rebellion against the welfare bill is over. She posted this on social media this morning.
On the rebellion over welfare, reports of its death are greatly exaggerated. Postponing cuts is not enough. Many MPs believe the cuts are wrong in principle, hurting the people we are supposed to protect. Others know how unpopular the policy will remain.
The Cat Eccles interview on the World at One implies she’s right. (See 2pm.)
Here are some more social media posts from Labour MPs who says they remain opposed to the bill, despite the big concessions announced overnight.
From Andy McDonald
The govts proposed climbdown for current recipients of PIP and UC health is welcome. But it’s just poverty, delayed - poverty postponed - for millions of people in the future. So, for those reasons, I’ll be voting against.
From Neil Duncan-Jordan
These proposals will still force disabled people into poverty.
I oppose a two-tier approach where the support you get depends on when you applied - not on need.
There’s a fairer, more Labour way.
Let’s ask wealthy corporations and individuals to pay - not the disabled.
From Richard Burgon
Even with the changes, the Disability Cuts Bill will see nearly half a million disabled people denied PIP over the next 4 years.
MPs shouldn’t vote to cut support for disabled people who’ll need help cutting up food, washing or going to the toilet.
I’m voting against the Bill.
From Imran Hussain
The Government’s reformed welfare bill doesn’t go far enough.
It imposes £3bn in cuts and creates a 2-tier system. I’ll be voting against it.
Read my piece in the Mirror on why I oppose the principles of this Bill.
From Peter Lamb
Have now heard what the new PIP deal is.
It’s for others to disclose and every MP must make up their own mind, but to me it’s insufficient when better options have repeatedly been put forward and ignored.
I will be voting for the amendment/against the bill, alone if necessary.
Updated
At least 50 Labour MPs still opposed to welfare bill, Starmer warned, amid claims Tuesday's vote could be very tight
Ministers should not be confident that they will pass the welfare bill on Tuesday, despite the huge concessions welcomed by the MP who tabled the reasoned amendment to kill the bill, a backbencher told the World at One
Cat Eccles, who was elected MP for Stourbridge last year, said that she was aware of around 50 to 60 Labour rebels who were still oppposed to the bill. But she said she could be more.
Eccles is one of more than 120 Labour MPs who signed the reasoned amendment that would have blocked the bill at second reading. The government currently has a working majority of 165, which means that if 83 Labour MPs were to vote with all the opposition parties on a measure, the government would lose.
Asked for her response to the U-turn, Eccles said:
I’m glad that the government is finally listening, but it’s really disappointing that it is at the 11th hour. I and others have been raising our concerns since Liz Kendall first stood at the dispatch box to announce these policies back in March, so they’ve had three months to listen.
So to say this week that they’re surprised that we’ve got these concerns is really disingenuous … I think they do need to start really being a bit more collaborative with their back benches, because we do have experience amongst us, we do have a lot of knowledge, and some of us really do know what we’re talking about, especially when it comes to the system.
Asked if the changes were enough too get her to back the bill, Eccles replied:
For me? No, it’s too little too late.
We’re not going to be able to see the detail in advance … It’s not good enough for me.
Asked if other Labour MPs felt the same way, Eccles replied:
It’s quite mixed. Some people are feeling quite reassured by what’s been coming out since last night …
But many of us still feel that it’s not OK – particularly around the Pip four points scoring criteria, saying that existing claimants will still get it, but new ones may not.
There’s a worry there that we’ll create a two-tier system.
And it’s looking like they’ll still be billions of pounds of brutal cuts.
So it’s just too quick for MPs to be able to understand how these concessions will really work. And I think we should still be pressing pause and looking at this again.
Eccles did not offer a firm prediction for how many MPs would vote against the bill. Asked how many backbenchers were, like her, still opposed to the bill, she replied:
I know some, 50 or 60 that I’m aware of, but I think there’s a whole bunch of people that we’re not aware of who are feeling uncomfortable. We may not know what they will do until Tuesday evening.
When it was put to her that the vote could be “really very tight indeed”, she replied: “Yes, I think so.”
UK and France expected to announce one-in, one-out returns agreement for small boat migrants, reports say
The UK and France are reportedly expected to announce a one-in, one-out migrant returns deal to crack down on English Channel crossings, PA Media reports. PA says:
Plans for a pilot could be revealed next week, which marks one year since Keir Starmer’s government came to power, or later in the summer, according to the Times.
The deal could see migrants who arrive in the UK by crossing the English Channel in small boats returned to France, while the UK would accept those with legitimate claims to join family already in the country.
It comes as the government has vowed to crack down on people smuggling gangs across the Channel, while crossings are at a record high for this point in the year, totalling 18,518.
Home secretary Yvette Cooper has been leading the talks, the paper added, who is credited with strengthening relationships with French counterparts.
French officials have also agreed to changes that would allow police patrolling the coast to take action in the sea when migrants climb into boats from the water.
Under the new returns deal, a joint processing system between the UK and France would be set up to identify migrants who have a valid claim for family reunification in the UK, the Times reported.
For each person accepted to come to the UK, a migrant would be returned to France and relocated across the country away from its northern coastline where crossings take place.
Downing Street and the Home Office have not confirmed that an agreement will be signed, but have not denied it either.
Responding to these reports, shadow home secretary Chris Philp said:
We pay the French half a billion pounds to wave the boats off from Calais, and in return we get a migrant merry-go-round where the same number still come here.
“The French are failing to stop the boats at sea, failing to return them like the Belgians do, and now instead of demanding real enforcement, Labour are trying a ‘one in, one out’ gimmick.”
The European Stability Initiative, a thinktank, is one of the bodies that has been arguing for a one-in, one-out returns agreement for some time. In a recent article for the Sunday Times defending the plan, John Dalhuisen, a fellow at the thinktank, argued that this plan would solve the small boats crisis. He said:
From an agreed day onwards, the UK would agree with a group of EU countries, ideally including both France and Germany, to swiftly return almost all migrants who arrive irregularly across the Channel. This would reduce crossings to zero within a few weeks. As soon as it became clear that there was no prospect of success, the incentive to undertake a dangerous, costly journey would evaporate. After a few weeks, therefore, the number of transfers back to participating states would also fall to zero …
But what’s in it for a Macron [French president Emmanuel Macron], or a Merz [German chancellor Friedrich Merz]? Ultimately, something similar. Mainstream parties in Europe are leaching support to populists promising much more radical solutions to irregular migration. Right now, they have no policies of their own that credibly offer control. Nor are uglier ones that they are already endorsing (pushbacks at external borders from Greece to Poland, and deals with Tunisia and Libya to intercept boats and take them back before they even get there) working particularly well.
This deal offers the outline of such a policy. Western European countries have every interest in showing their voters that migration can be controlled lawfully and humanely through safe third-country agreements.
Disability rights campaigners urge Labour MPs to keep fighting 'impending disaster' welfare bill
Mencap, the learning disability charity, issued a statement overnight welcoming the government’s U-turn on the welfare bill. But it has now issued an expanded statement saying it is still concerned about the legislation.
Jackie O’Sullivan, executive director of strategy and influence at the charity, said:
We are encouraged that campaigners have been heard in their opposition to the planned cuts. But we fear that if, from next year, new claimants for Pip face different rules, there will be a generational divide in the quality of life for people with a learning disability.
Other groups representing the disabled, and their carers, have also restated their opposition to the government’s plans, despite the big concessions announced overnight. I posted some comments from this sector at 11.30am. Here are more organisations speaking out.
The Disability Benefits Consortium, a coalition of more than 100 disability charities, issued a statement saying:
These supposed ‘concessions’ to the cuts bill are just a desperate attempt to rush through a disastrous piece of legislation. By pushing the cuts onto future claimants, the government are betraying the next generation of disabled people. Why should someone who needs support to wash in 2025 be entitled to Pip, but not someone who has the same needs in 2035?
If the bill passes in its revised form, it will still push more people into poverty and worsen people’s health. We urge MPs to use their power to stop this impending disaster. The bill must be stopped in its tracks.
Tim Nicholls, assistant director of policy, research and strategy at the National Autistic Society, said: “
It should not have taken this much pressure to get the government to listen and step back from some of their damaging proposals. Today’s announcement will address some of the fear many autistic people who currently receive Pip felt about losing vital support that makes their daily life more manageable. But autistic people who might need Pip in the future, like autistic children who will become autistic adults, will still be fearful about where they fit in this two-tier system …
The government should do the right thing: hit ‘pause'’ on these changes and let disabled people have a meaningful say on the future of disability benefits. We won’t stop campaigning until the benefits system truly works for autistic people.
And Helen Walker, chief executive at Carers UK, said:
The government has agreed to protect existing claimants on PIP. This will be a huge relief for unpaid carers whose income via carer’s allowance is reliant on the person they care for receiving a relevant disability benefit such as the daily living component of Pip. Many have increased costs and face significant financial challenges because of their caring roles.
It’s important that the government has listened and made changes, but we remain deeply concerned about future carers. Around 12,000 people become an unpaid carer every day in the UK. The bill as it stands will still include the new four-point rule for Pip and doesn’t change the fact that many new claimants will lose out – it still represents a reduction in financial support and a bleak outlook for future carers who won’t be entitled.
Earlier the agenda said that Keir Starmer would be speaking at the Welsh Labour conference this morning. That was a mistake. He is in north Wales today, and will be speaking to the media, but his speech to the conference is happening this weekend. Sorry.
Starmer says he 'deeply regrets' using 'island of strangers' line in immigration speech, but arson attack had distracted him
Keir Starmer has said he “deeply regrets” claiming the UK risked becoming an “island of strangers” in an immigration speech that drew comparisons to the language of Enoch Powell, PA Media reports. PA says:
The prime minister said he had not been in the “best state” to give the press conference, in which he insisted on the need for tighter border controls, as he reeled from an alleged arson attack on his family home.
He said he had considered pulling out of the speech after the fire at the property in Kentish Town left him and his wife Victoria Starmer “really shaken up.”
The PM ended up going through with the conference as planned on 12 May, hours after the blaze.
In it, he warned Britain risked becoming “an island of strangers” without tougher immigration controls – rhetoric that sparked an immediate backlash and was denounced by critics, including within Labour ranks, as divisive.
At the time, Downing Street doubled down on the remarks and said Starmer “completely rejects” suggestions he had echoed Powell’s infamous “rivers of blood” speech that was blamed for inflaming racial tensions in the 1960s.
But in an interview for the Observer Starmer struck a more conciliatory tone, saying the language “wasn’t right”.
“I wouldn’t have used those words if I had known they were, or even would be interpreted as an echo of Powell,” he said.
“I had no idea – and my speechwriters didn’t know either. But that particular phrase – no – it wasn’t right. I’ll give you the honest truth: I deeply regret using it.”
He added: “It’s fair to say I wasn’t in the best state to make a big speech … I was really, really worried. I almost said: ‘I won’t do the bloody press conference.’
“Vic was really shaken up as, in truth, was I. It was just a case of reading the words out and getting through it somehow… so I could get back to them.”
Tom Baldwin, who wrote an acclaimed biography of Starmer, interviewed him for the Observer. It’s an excellent read. I’ll post more from it soon.
No 10 rejects claim welfare U-turn shows PM caves under pressure, saying it shows this is 'government that listens'
At the lobby briefing the No 10 spokesperson also defended the welfare bill U-turn on the grounds it showed this was “a government that listens”.
Asked to respond to claims the reversal showed Keir Starmer does not “stand for anything”, the spokesperson replied:
It’s not unusual as part of the parliamentary process to introduce a bill, have a debate about the principles and then look at how those are implemented. Sometimes that’s with amendments along the way.
Asked if it was fair to say Keir Starmer always backed down if “enough people kick up a fuss”, the spokesman replied:
I don’t accept that. This is a government that listens.
Updated
No 10 does not rule out tax rises, but says there will be no 'permanent increase in borrowing' to fund welfare U-turn
Downing Street has said there will be no permanent increase in government borrowing as a result of the welfare bill U-turn. Asked at the morning lobby briefing about how the concession would be funded, a No 10 spokesperson said:
There’ll be no permanent increase in borrowing, as is standard. We’ll set out how this will be funded at the budget, alongside a full economic and fiscal forecast in the autumn, in the usual way.
Asked if taxes might go up to fund the new policy, the spokesperson said:
As ever, as is a long-standing principle, tax decisions are set out at fiscal events.
IFS says new Pip policy will create 'big differences' in what's paid to people with similar conditions before and after cut-off
Although the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Resolution Foundation agree on the cost of the welfare bill U-turn (see 11.55am), there is some difference in what they are saying about the fact that the changes will implement what has been called a “two-tier” system – with existing claimants getting more than someone applying with the same health condition once the new eligibility requirements kick in.
In an interview this morning, Ruth Curtice from the Resolution Foundation said anomalies like this were a routine feature of benefit policy reform. (See 9.40am.) But the IFS says, in its statement today, that this will create “big differences” in what is paid to disabled people with similar conditions, submitting claims at roughly the same time.
The IFS briefing says:
These two changes mean that the cuts are only on new claimants. This creates a large difference in treatment depending on the timing of disability onset. Take two people who develop the exact same health problems, but one develops them just early enough (before November 2026) to qualify as an ‘existing claimant’ and one just too late. The first is assessed for Pip and UC health element under the current rules and receives £8,930 in total – £3,850 from Pip and £5,080 from UC health element. The second is assessed under the new rules – because of the tighter criteria they do not qualify for Pip, and they receive the new lower UC health element, which after the freeze will be worth £2,370 (in today’s prices). If the government goes ahead with its proposed plans to scrap the work capability assessment, the second claimant would receive no specific support for health conditions at all. These differences would persist indefinitely, in some cases for many years.
And Tom Waters, an associate director at the IFS, said:
This [policy] will create big differences – thousands of pounds a year, for many years in some cases – between similar people with similar health conditions who happen to have applied at slightly different times.
What thinktanks say about what welfare bill U-turn will cost
The government has refused to say how much its welfare bill U-turn will cost, but the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Resolution Foundation, the UK’s two leading public spending thinktanks have both issued statements providing costings. They are both saying the concessions will cost around £3bn a year (although there are some minor differences in the figures they are using).
In its analysis, the IFS says:
The initial benefit reforms would have saved the government £5.5bn by 2029–30. The revised package of reforms will save only £2.5bn, so will cost the government £3.0bn relative to its previous plans.
-The first change is to not apply the new, tighter assessment for existing claimants of personal independence payment (Pip) at the point of being reassessed. This is set to affect 370,000 current claimants in 2029–30, benefiting them to the tune of around £4,150 per year on average (in today’s prices). It will also indirectly benefit around 50,000 claimants of carer’s allowance who look after a Pip claimant, by £4,340 per year.
-The second change is to the universal credit (UC) health element, paid to those who have a condition that prevents them working. The previous plan had been to freeze this element for existing claimants and roughly halve, then freeze, it for most new claimants. The precise detail here is slightly ambiguous, but the new policy seems to be to no longer freeze the element for existing claimants (the halving and freezing for new claimants will continue). This will benefit 2.2 million claimants of the benefit in 2029–30 by £450 per year. Some will gain from both this and the Pip policy.
And in its analysis, the RF says:
These changes are welcome, but could cost between £2.6bn and £3.2bn a year in 2029-30 – making it even tougher for the Chancellor to meet her fiscal rules this autumn ….
The key change is that current Pip claimants will no longer lose support, even if they do not qualify for support under the new criteria (scoring at least four points in any single heading for the daily living component of the PIP test). Around 370,000 claimants are expected to have £4,500 protected, on average. This protection also has knock-on effects for their carers, who will continue to receive carers’ allowance. Taken together, this protection comes at a cost of £2.1bn in 2029-30.
The government has said existing recipients of the health element of UC will see support protected in real terms. This will insulate 2.25 million people from a loss of between £250 and £500 per year, and will cost between £540m and £1.1bn, depending on how it is implemented.
Overall, the changes announced today will cost between £2.6bn and £3.2bn in 2029-30 – reducing the gross savings from the original proposals from £8.1bn to as little as £4.9bn.
Disability rights campaigners say they remain opposed to welfare bill, claiming U-turn creates 'two-tier system'
Ministers seem to have failed to win over disability rights campaigners with the U-turn announced overnight.
Although Mencap, the learning disability charity, issued a relatively supportive comment about the changes agreed late yesterday, most the the disability charities or campaign groups commenting today have said they remain opposed to the bill.
James Taylor, director of strategy at disability equality charity Scope, said:
It is encouraging that the government is starting to listen to disabled people and MPs who have been campaigning for change for months. But these plans will still rip billions from the welfare system.
The proposed concessions will create a two-tier benefits system and an unequal future for disabled people.
“Life costs more if you are disabled. And these cuts will have a devastating effect on disabled people’s health, ability to live independently or work.
We urge government to properly engage with disabled people and MPs on how best to reform welfare and create an equal future.
Mikey Erhard, policy lead at Disability Rights UK, which describes itself as the country’s leading disability rights organisation, said:
We completely reject the imposition of the two-tier system on offer. It is not a massive concession to have a benefit system where future generations of disabled people receive less support than disabled people today. MPs must vote against this proposal.
By attempting to push through cruel cuts to the benefits of disabled people, the government prioritised balancing its books over improving the lives of disabled citizens. Now, it is negotiating political deals, again with no concern for the lives of disabled people.
Despite seemingly rowing back on some of the worst aspects of its plans, the government is still attempting to slash billions of pounds from a system that doesn’t provide enough support as it stands.
Charlotte Gill, head of campaigns and public affairs at the MS Society, said:
The government are finally being forced to reckon with the crisis that their proposed benefits cuts would present to disabled people, including many with MS. But instead of meaningful action, all they’re doing is kicking the can down the road and delaying an inevitable disaster.
Down the line, these cuts will still push more people into poverty and worsen people’s health. We urge MPs not to be swayed by these last ditch attempts to force through a harmful bill with supposed concessions. The only way to avoid a catastrophe today and in the future is to stop the cuts altogether by halting the bill in its tracks.
And a joint statement from Disabled People Against Cuts, Mad Youth Organise, Disability Rights UK, National Survivor User Network and Crips Against Cuts said:
Disabled people and disability rights groups totally reject the performative politics being enacted by the government, in response to being challenged by a growing MP rebellion and a tidal wave of anger from the public.
We will not sell out generations of disabled people past and future by accepting this sham of alleged concessions on welfare spending so that they can save face. The reforms are ill thought out, and MPs still do not have a full understanding of their implications and impact.
Lib Dems say they will continue to oppose welfare bill, despite U-turn, because it mean 'some of most vulnerable' losing help
Like the Green party (see 10.31am), the Independent Alliance (see 11am) and some Labour MPs (see 9.50am), the Liberal Democrats are saying the U-turn does not go far enough, and that the UC and Pip bill should not be allowed to go ahead on Tuesday.
Steve Darling, the Liberal Democrats’ welfare spokesperson, said:
It should not have taken a major rebellion for the government to realise that these cuts would cause immense damage to some of the most vulnerable and risk creating a false economy by actually forcing some people out of work.
The government should still pull this bill before the vote on Tuesday and go back to the drawing board. In the absence of any impact assessment, MPs still do not have the full facts and those who are affected have still not been consulted on these changes.
Liberal Democrats will continue to oppose this bill that risks stripping thousands of carers of vital assistance and leaving some of the most vulnerable without support.
Jeremy Corbyn joins Tories in saying welfare bill U-turn creates 'two-tier benefits system'
Jeremy Corbyn, the former Labour leader who acts as a spokesperson for the five-strong Independence Alliance group of independent MPs, has put out a statement saying he and his colleagues still regard the welfare bill as unacceptable. He says:
The government has announced a two-tier benefits system.
Under its plans, you can keep your benefits if you are disabled now, but not if you become disabled tomorrow. How is that fair?
A reminder: The Independent Alliance stands by its own amendment, and we will not back down.
Here is the Independent Alliance’s reasoned amendment opposing the bill.
In using the phrase “two-tier benefits system”, Corbyn is using the same line of attack as the Conservatives. (See 8.30am.) They are both making the point that, under these plans, someone getting Pip now may get more than someone with the same disability who makes an application after the eligibility rules have been tightened.
But this is true of most changes to benefits, or any other state entitlement, as ministers and experts have said this morning. (See 9.40am and 10.19am.) Matthew Holehouse from the Economist has been criticising the argument on Bluesky.
It’s such a cheap and weak critique: policy reforms are invariably “two tier” in that they treat future cohorts differently to current cohorts. (See: tuition fees; pension entitlement; paternity leave; 1000 other examples). The only critique is: is the future regime the right one.
The answer to that in this case may be no, in which case the Tories should prosecute that argument
Green party urges Labour MPs to keep fighting welfare bill, saying even with U-turn it's still not 'humane'
The Green party says it is still opposed to the UC and Pip bill, despite the U-turn. In a statement the Green MP Siân Berry said:
The responsibility is now with other Labour MPs to stand firm in the face of this inadequate offer. Political pressure means a reprieve for some who were set to be cruelly harmed, but this will leave disabled people, young people and those who will become sick and injured in the future, high and dry.
The prime minister should withdraw the Bill, take some considerable time to consult with disabled people and come back with something humane and workable.
Minister dismisses claim welfare U-turn sign of weakness, saying voters 'respond very positively to politicians listening'
Stephen Kinnock, the care minister, was the government voice on the airwaves this morning. Here are the main points he made about the welfare bill U-turn.
Kinnock rejected claims that the U-turn was a sign of weakness. When it was put to him on the Today programme that this move, coming after the U-turns on winter fuel payments and a national inquiry into grooming gangs, showed that if Keir Starmer was pushed, he would give in, Kinnock replied:
I think if you talk to people out there in the country, they respond very positively to politicians listening, engaging, recognising that you don’t get everything right from day one every time, and making the adjustments and the changes that are needed.
And this prime minister will always put the country first. He puts country before party, and he does the right thing for the country.
He defended having a “staggered” approach to changing benefit rules. Asked about the Tory claim that the government was creating a “two-tier benefits system” (see 8.30am), he replied:
Whenever you bring forward change to a complex system, you always have to decide between do you make the change for everybody that’s in that system, in one big move, or do you do it in a more staggered way? What’s clear from the announcement today is that it’s going to be a more staggered process.
He declined to say how much the U-turn would cost. He told Times Radio:
The full details around what we are laying out, what I’ve summarised really today, is going to be laid out in parliament, and then the chancellor will set out the budget in the autumn the whole of the fiscal position and this will be an important part of that.
He said he was now confident that the UC and Pip bill will pass its second reading on Tuesday.
Updated
Many Labour MPs will still vote against welfare bill despite U-turn, leftwinger Nadia Whittome claims
Many Labour MPs will continue to oppose the welfare bill despite the U-turn announced overnight, the leftwing MP Nadia Whittome claimed this morning.
Whittome told the Today programme:
All of the MPs I’ve spoken to who signed the reasoned amendment – MPs from across the party, not just on the left – are sticking to their position because we understand that we are answerable to our constituents.
If the government doesn’t pull the bill, doesn’t consult properly with disabled people and come back to MPs with a serious proposal that protects the dignity of disabled people, I will vote against and I will be far from the only one.
I think MPs who were around in 2015 who followed the party’s instruction and abstained on the second reading of the Tories’ welfare bill are particularly clear-minded about this because they say that is the biggest regret of their political lives.
Whittome is one of around 20 Labour MPs who are openly leftwing, or even Corbynite. Some of the MPs in that faction are either currently suspended, or have been suspended in the past, for rebelling over policy.
The Tories say the welfare bill changes will create a “two-tier benefits system”. (See 8.30am.) Ruth Curtice, chief executive of the Resolution Foundation, said this was not unusual when welfare policy is changing. She said:
It’s certainly the case you will have two recipients with the same scores on Pip assessments, one will be eligible and one won’t under this system for a period of years.
On the other hand, it is not unusual to introduce changes to the disability benefits system this way, where there are some more protections for existing recipients and that is not just a political question, I think it is also the case that losing substantial amounts of money can have a bigger impact on families.
Curtice says Treasury needs £4bn to fund welfare bill and WFP U-turns, and taxes likely to go up
In her Today interview Ruth Curtice, chief executive of the Resolution Foundation, said she thought taxes would have to go up to help fund the welfare bill U-turn. She explained:
They’ll have to find this £3bn. (See 9.12am.)
We also had the announcement on winter fuel [the winter fuel payments U-turn] which costs over another £1bn. So altogether they’re looking for over £4bn.
They also have completed their spending review, which means that spending totals for departments are set, and revisiting that will be very difficult.
Presumably, after this, looking for further changes from savings from the welfare budget would be quite challenging.
So that leaves only extra borrowing, which the chancellor doesn’t have much space for, unless she were to change her own fiscal rules, or tax rises.
When asked to confirm that this meant tax rises were inevitable, Curtice replied:
Yes, unless the government were to get better news on the economy the next time that the Office for Budget Responsibility does a forecast, which would be in the autumn.
But when we look at everything that’s happened in the world since they last did that on March, our estimate is that she’ll actually get bad news from the OBR as well.
Welfare bill U-turn could cost Treasury around £3bn a year, Resolution Foundation head Ruth Curtice says
Ruth Curtice, a former Treasury official how now runs the Resolution Foundation, a thinktank focusing on cost of living issues, told the Today programme that the welfare bill U-turn could cost the Treasury about £3bn a year. She explained:
The Institute for Fiscal Studies said [it would cost] £1.5bn yesterday on the Pip changes. I think it’s more like £3bn: you have the changes to Pip which cost £1.5bn to £2bn when you also take into account consequentials for things like carer’s allowance, but they’ve also said the freeze that they were going to introduce on universal credit health-related support will be undone and that will now rise in real terms and we estimate that will cost another £1bn.
Meg Hillier, who tabled the reasoned amendment backed by more than 120 Labour MPs that would have killed the UC and Pip bill (see 8.46am), told the Today programme that welfare bill debacle showed that Downing Street should have listened more to its backbenchers. She said:
I think there’s huge talent, experience and knowledge in parliament, and it’s important it’s better listened to, and I think that message has landed.
I’m really blown away by the talent of my new colleagues in particular, because I didn’t know them before the election.
Their knowledge and experience was really helpful, and they know a lot about this subject, and I think if they’d been listened to better, we might have been in a better place.
'Good and workable compromise' - lead Labour rebel Meg Hillier's statement on why she's accepting U-turn
Meg Hillier, chair of the Commons Treasury committee, was MP who tabled the reasoned amendment that would have killed the UC and Pip bill. She was working with other Labour select committee chairs, but as the lead signatory she was effectively leader of the reasoned amendment rebels.
Overnight she issued this statement explaining why she is accepting the government’s concessions. She said:
This is a positive outcome that has seen the government listen and engage with the concerns of Labour MPs and their constituents.
It’s encouraging that we have reached what I believe is a workable compromise that will protect disabled people and support people back into work while ensuring the welfare system can be meaningfully reformed.
This means that disabled people currently in receipt of Pip and the health element of universal credit will continue to receive the same level of support.
That future changes to disability support will be co-produced with disabled people, building on the work of Minister Stephen Timms MP to create a system that involves disabled people in decisions about their lives.
And that employment support will be brought forward and substantially improved so that people who want to work are not trapped in the benefit system.
This is a good and workable compromise and shows that the Labour government has listened and that working together with Labour MPs can move forward to support vulnerable disabled people, reform the welfare system in a just and inclusive way and contribute towards the economic growth and prosperity this country so desperately needs.
Updated
No 10 defends U-turn, saying 'we have listened to MPs worried about pace of change'
Here is the statement issued by Downing Street overnight about the U-turn. A No 10 spokesperson said:
We have listened to MPs who support the principle of reform but are worried about the pace of change for those already supported by the system.
This package will preserve the social security system for those who need it by putting it on a sustainable footing, provide dignity for those unable to work, supports those who can and reduce anxiety for those currently in the system.
Our reforms are underpinned by Labour values and our determination to deliver the change the country voted for last year.
Full text of Liz Kendall's letter to Labour MPs confirming welfare bill U-turn
Liz Kendall, the work and pensions secretary, explained the changes to the bill in a letter to Labour MPs. The full text became available overnight. For the record, here it is in full.
In the letter Kendall says the changes will “strengthen the bill” – which is a novel way of describing a humiliating U-turn, but true in the sense that the bill will now be strong enough to get through the Commons.
Dear colleague,
We have always said we are determined to reform the social security system so it is fair, provides dignity and respect for those unable to work, supports those who can, and is sustainable so it is there for generations to come.
The broken system we inherited from the Tories fails all of those tests.
These important reforms are rooted in Labour values, and we want to get them right.
We have listened to colleagues who support the principle of reform but are worried about the impact of the pace of change on those already supported by the system.
As a result we will make two changes to strengthen the bill.
Firstly, we recognise the proposed changes have been a source of uncertainty and anxiety.
Therefore, we will ensure that all of those currently receiving Pip will stay within the current system. The new eligibility requirements will be implemented from November 2026 for new claims only.
Secondly, we will adjust the pathway of universal credit payment rates to make sure all existing recipients of the UC health element – and any new claimant meeting the severe conditions criteria – have their incomes fully protected in real terms.
Colleagues rightly want to ensure that disabled people and those with ill health are at the heart of our reforms.
We will take forward a ministerial review of the Pip assessment, led by the minister for social security and disability [Stephen Timms], to ensure the benefit is fair and fit for the future.
At the heart of this review will be coproduction with disabled people, the organisations that represent them, and MPs so their views and voices are heard. The review will then report to me as work and pensions secretary.
These commitments sit alongside our raising of the standard rate of the universal credit – the biggest real-terms permanent increase of any benefit since the 1980s – the protection of the incomes of the most vulnerable who will no longer be reassessed and the introduction of “right to try”.
Our reform principles remain; to target funding for those most in need and make sure the system is sustainable for the future to support generations to come.
We believe those who can work, should, and those who cannot, should be protected.
We will front load more of the additional funding generated by these reforms for back to work support for sick and disabled people.
Taken together it is a fair package that will preserve the social security system for those who need it by putting it on a sustainable footing, support people back into work, protect those who cannot work and reduce anxiety for those currently in the system.
Thank you to colleagues for engaging with us on these important reforms to social security.
Kendall does not say in this letter how much the U-turn will cost.
And she does not say what will happen to the bill that is getting its second reading on Tuesday. The changes to the health element of universal credit are on the face of the bill. The text cannot be changed before Tuesday, and so Labour MPs will have to vote for the bill on the basis of assurances that the government will rewrite large chunks of it with amendments the following week. Those amendments are not yet available.
Starmer's 'humiliating U-turn' will create 'two-tier benefits system', Tories say
Good morning. Political journalism, like all reporting, has a weakness for cliche and at Westminster there seems to be an unofficial rule that any use of the word U-turn must be proceeded by the adjective “humiliating”. The problem with this is that most U-turns are only mildly embarrassing, and turn out to be tactically advantageous. But this time – by accident or design – the Tories do seem to be using the word appropriately.
No 10 has performed a colossal U-turn on the universal credit (UC) and personal independence payment (Pip) bill, the legislation that will slash sickness and disability benefits. It was only confirmed in the early hours this morning, in an exchange of letters. Kiran Stacey has the details here.
In welfare matters, many policy decisions are motivated by the need to reduce costs decades ahead and that was always one of the main aims of this bill (as the Institute for Fiscal Studies analysis yesterday pointed out). The bill still functions as a long-term, cost-saving measure.
But it was also intended to save money for the Treasury during this parliament. In that respect, the bill has been more or less gutted. For Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, this is a disaster.
The U-turn has various big consequences, about which we will learn more today.
Keir Starmer now seems to have guaranteed that the UC and Pip bill will pass on Tuesday night – but the rebellion will not disappear entirely. Some Labour MPs are still planning to vote against.
Reeves is now under more pressure than ever to raise taxes in the autumn budget.
People who will need sickness and disability benefits in the future are still due to lose out, by significant amounts, compared to what they might get if they were claiming benefits now. Ministers will still have huge difficulty defending this. The Tories are accusing the government of creating a “two-tier benefits system”.
Keir Starmer’s authority in his party has been badly damaged. We can’t tell yet how significant this will turn out to be, but his personal approval ratings have collapsed since the general election and, at the very least, this will make recovery harder.
Back to “humiliating U-turn”, and this is what the Conservatives said about the move in a statement early this morning. Helen Whately, the shadow work and pensions secretary, said:
This is another humiliating U-turn forced upon Keir Starmer.
With the sickness benefits bill set to reach £100bn by 2030 the country needs action. But Labour has lurched from a bad plan to a next-to-nothing plan.
The latest ‘deal’ with Labour rebels sounds a lot like a two-tier benefits system, more likely to encourage anyone already on benefits to stay there rather than get into work.
We made a serious offer to Keir Starmer in the national interest if he was willing to grip the challenge of getting the welfare bill down and more people into work - making savings to avoid putting up taxes. But instead, he’s done yet another U-turn.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10.05am: Keir Starmer is expected to speak at the Welsh Labour conference in Llandudno.
Morning: Kemi Badenoch is on a visit in Essex.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line when comments are open (normally between 10am and 3pm at the moment), or message me on social media. I can’t read all the messages BTL, but if you put “Andrew” in a message aimed at me, I am more likely to see it because I search for posts containing that word.
If you want to flag something up urgently, it is best to use social media. You can reach me on Bluesky at @andrewsparrowgdn.bsky.social. The Guardian has given up posting from its official accounts on X, but individual Guardian journalists are there, I still have my account, and if you message me there at @AndrewSparrow, I will see it and respond if necessary.
I find it very helpful when readers point out mistakes, even minor typos. No error is too small to correct. And I find your questions very interesting too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either BTL or sometimes in the blog.
Updated
