Welfare reform legislation to be debated next month, MPs told

MPs are also expected to vote on the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill on July 1, when it receives its second reading in the Commons.
The Government has faced backlash from some Labour MPs over the 'damaging disability benefit cuts', which it has said could save up to £5 billion a year.
Ms Powell set the date for the Bill's second reading during business questions on Thursday.
Labour MP Neil Duncan-Jordan has accused the Government of 'rushing through' the Bill, adding: 'This isn't something I'm prepared to support.'
Ministers are likely to face a Commons stand-off with backbenchers over their plans, with dozens of Labour MPs last month saying the proposals were 'impossible to support'.
The reforms – aimed at encouraging more people off sickness benefits and into work – are set to include the tightening of criteria for personal independence payment (Pip), which is the main disability benefit, as well as a cut to the sickness-related element of universal credit (UC) and delayed access to only those aged 22 and over.
Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall said the legislation 'marks the moment we take the road of compassion, opportunity and dignity'.
She added: 'Our social security system is at a crossroads. Unless we reform it, more people will be denied opportunities, and it may not be there for those who need it.'
In what could be seen as an attempt to head off some opposition, the legislation will give existing claimants a 13-week period of financial support.
The Department for Work and Pensions said this will apply to those affected by changes to the Pip daily living component, including those who lose their eligibility to Carers Allowance and the carer's element of UC.
But campaigners, including disability equality charity Scope, said the longer transition period, up from an originally expected four weeks, 'will only temporarily delay a cut and disabled people will continue to be living with extra costs when it comes to an end'.
As the Bill was formally introduced to the Commons on Wednesday, and the question was asked as to what the next date for debate will be, former Labour MP John McDonnell, who now sits as an independent for Hayes and Harlington, could be heard to say 'Never'.
Mr Duncan-Jordan, MP for Poole, is one of the members who has urged ministers to withdraw the cuts, which he has argued will 'make things worse' for disabled people.
Speaking to the PA news agency, he said: 'It's clear the Government are rushing through this change before MPs have received all the necessary impact assessments that they need to make a decision.
'The Bill lays out how large numbers of disabled people are going to be made poorer. This isn't something I'm prepared to support.'
Earlier this week, Mr Duncan-Jordan had said: 'The Government will only withdraw its damaging disability benefit cuts if Labour MPs make clear they will vote against them.
'The so-called concessions that have been suggested are nowhere near enough to undo the damage that is being proposed. The facts are undeniable: these cuts won't create jobs, they'll only push three million people deeper into hardship.'
The latest data, published on Tuesday, showed that more than 3.7 million people in England and Wales are claiming Pip, with teenagers and young adults making up a growing proportion.
Pip is a benefit aimed at helping with extra living costs if someone has a long-term physical or mental health condition or disability and difficulty doing certain everyday tasks or getting around because of their condition.
Data for Pip claimants begins in January 2019, when the number stood at 2.05 million.
An impact assessment published alongside Wednesday's Bill introduction confirmed previously published estimates that changes to Pip entitlement rules could see about 800,000 people lose out, with an average loss of £4,500 per year.
Ms Kendall previously said there are 1,000 new Pip awards every day – 'the equivalent of adding a city the size of Leicester every single year'.
The impact assessment also confirmed a previous estimate that some 250,000 more people, including 50,000 children, are likely to fall into relative poverty after housing costs in 2029/2030, although the Government repeated that this does not take into account the potentially positive impact of £1 billion annual funding by then for measures to support people into work.
Changes to UC are expected to see an estimated 2.25 million current recipients of the health element impacted, with an average loss of £500 per year.
But the Government said around 3.9 million households not on the UC health element are expected to have an average annual gain of £265 from the increase in the standard UC allowance.
While all of the Bill applies to England and Wales, only the UC changes apply to Scotland.
The Government said there are equivalent provisions to legislate for Northern Ireland included in the Bill.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Daily Mirror

25 minutes ago

• Daily Mirror

Millionaires may be eligible for Winter Fuel Payments in new rules

The Winter Fuel Payment U-turn could open up an unexpected loophole for wealthy retirees After facing severe backlash for cutting back Winter Fuel Payments shortly after winning the election last year, the Labour party has made a U-turn. Announcing new rules to means-test the seasonal benefit to assure vulnerable retirees are helped through the harshest months. To be eligible for the Winter Fuel Payment, which offers either £200 or £300 every winter to help cover heating costs, people over state pension age will need to have a taxable income of under £35,000 per year. ‌ Experts at Forbes Dawson warned: 'Although this may seem like a sensible approach, as many pensioners are asset-rich but have relatively low levels of income this could have unintended consequences and exclude many 'poor' people. ‌ 'Wealthy pensioners are generally in a unique position to control their level of taxable income on a year-to-year basis. Most pensioners will generally have some control over the amount of taxable income they extract from their pensions on an annual basis and many pensioners will have no 'income' and live off their built-up capital.' However, the experts added: 'We are not seriously suggesting that wealthy individuals will manipulate their income just to enjoy a £200 benefit, there will be cases where the very wealthy still qualify, while more deserving cases go without.' To break it down, the finance experts shared a fictional example of a retired NHS consultant called Dr Sam who has an estate worth £5million and makes specific moves with his money already in order to cut down a future Inheritance Tax bill. Including making loans to his Family Investment Company that sits outside his estate. As none of the shares are held by him directly, he doesn't pay tax on it and instead gets £200,000 annually as a repayment on his loan to the company. So while his general income is sitting at six-figures, his taxable income is zero so he will qualify under the new Winter Fuel Payment rules. In another fictional example, the money experts pointed out how people with less assets in retirement don't have as much control over their finances and might be excluded from the benefit. Retired teacher Doris uses a defined benefit public sector pension which is taxable income. ‌ She gets £40,000 a year from it, roughly £2,600 after tax, and with little money elsewhere she is reliant on nearly every penny so she can't cut it down. Because of her taxable income, she will not qualify for the benefit despite getting £160,000 less each year than Dr Sam. The new rules will make nine million more pensioners eligible for Winter Fuel Payments. And people can still opt out of receiving it but will need to do so before 15 September, 2025. Eligible people over state pension age will be receiving £200 between November and December 2025. Meanwhile those over the age of 80 who are eligible will receive £300.

Daily Mail​

27 minutes ago

• Daily Mail​

Legalising assisted dying means 'people will lose their lives who do not need to', MPs are warned ahead of crunch vote TODAY

Legalising assisted dying will see vulnerable people who have no need to die losing their lives, MPs were warned today ahead do a potentially seismic vote. Opponents to a change in the law on suicide said that vulnerable people including domestic abuse victims, the disabled and anorexics could all be at risk if doctors are allowed to help them to die. Protesters swarmed around parliament today ahead of the crunch vote on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which seeks to allow those diagnosed with less than six months to live to be helped to die. The biggest change on the law on suicide for decades is expected to take place this afternoon, with the result on a knife edge. And MPs made impassioned pleas for and against it becoming law. They have a free vote on a 'conscience matter', with most of the parties split between the yes and no camps. Mother of the House Diane Abbott asked MPs to vote against the bill, saying: 'There is no doubt that if this Bill is passed in its current form, people will lose their lives who do not need to, and they will be amongst the most vulnerable and marginalised in our society.' And former Tory minister Sir James Cleverly answered yes camp claims that the law might not change for a decade if it is not done now, as he argued there will be 'plenty of opportunities' in future. Many critics on both sides have asked for the legislation to be postponed to allow more scrutiny and changes to it to be made. Mother of the House Diane Abbott asked MPs to vote against the bill, saying: 'people will lose their lives who do not need to. And former Tory minister Sir James Cleverly answered yes camp claims that the law might not change for a decade if it is not done now, as he argued there will be 'plenty of opportunities' in future. But opponents of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill also believe they may have the numbers to see it off the proposed decriminalisation in England and Wales. Bill sponsor Kim Leadbeater is confident her plan to allow terminally ill people with six months or less to live to be helped to end their lives will pass the Commons. She told MPs this morning: 'Not supporting the Bill today is not a neutral act, it is a vote for the status quo… and it fills me with despair to think MPs could be here in another 10 years' time hearing the same stories.' But opponents of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill also believe they may have the numbers to see it off the proposed decriminalisation in England and Wales. The legislation passed a preliminary vote last November by 55 votes. But since then more than 20 MPs who backed it have publicly changed their minds, and the Bill would fall if 28 MPs switched directly from voting yes to no on Friday. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch also urged her MPs to vote against the legislation, describing it as 'a bad Bill' despite being 'previously supportive of assisted suicide'. But questions remain over what Sir Keir Starmer will do. He backed the law change in November and reiterated his support this week, but No 10 declined to say if he would vote today. Labour MP Naz Shah warned anorexia patients could still access assisted dying through a 'loophole'. The Bradford MP cautioned that the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill was 'not safe'. Referring to her amendment 14 to prevent a patient meeting the requirements for an assisted death 'solely as a result of voluntarily stopping eating or drinking', which MPs backed earlier on Friday, and a further amendment 38 which was not added to the Bill, Ms Shah told the Commons: 'When people stop voluntarily eating and drinking, that is not what happens to people with anorexia. 'People with anorexia stop eating and drinking because they have a psychiatric illness. These are two categorically different issues. 'So I must make it clear, absolutely clear, even though amendment 14 has passed today, this amendment does not address concerns about anorexia or close that loophole.' In what will be seen as a blow to the Bill, four Labour MPs confirmed on the eve of the vote that they will switch sides to oppose the proposed new law. Labour's Paul Foster, Jonathan Hinder, Markus Campbell-Savours and Kanishka Narayan voiced concerns about the safety of the 'drastically weakened' legislation, citing the scrapping of the High Court Judge safeguard as a key reason. Liverpool MP Dan Carden - the leader of the Blue Labour group - also said he will vote against the Bill having previously abstained. 'I genuinely fear the legislation will take us in the wrong direction,' he told the Guardian last night. 'The values of family, social bonds, responsibilities, time and community will be diminished, with isolation, atomisation and individualism winning again.' It comes as Cardinal Vincent Nichols, the Archbishop of Westminster and most senior Catholic in the UK, said the Church will close Catholic hospices and care homes if MPs vote for assisted suicide. However Dame Esther Rantzen made a plea to MPs last night, urging them to pass a Bill she said could 'transform the final days of generations in the future' and replace the current 'cruel, messy criminal law'. The broadcaster, who is terminally ill with cancer and has been a prominent supporter of assisted dying, said: 'Please allow us terminally ill the dignity of choice over our own deaths.' Lisa Nandy, a frontbench supporter of the bill, today suggested that if the law is pushed through today, extra safeguards could be added in the House of Lords. In comments that could be seen as an effort to win over waverers she told Sky News: 'I hope the Bill succeeds today. If it does pass the House of Commons stages, of course it will go on to the House of Lords, where there will be more debate and there may be more changes.' MPs will get a free vote on what is known as a 'conscience matter' with ministers Wes Streeting and Shabana Mahmood expected to vote No. Shadow frontbencher Robert Jenrick also reiterated his opposition last night. Writing for the Daily Mail, he reveals how he helped look after his grandmother, Dorothy, as a teenage boy – and how she continued to bring joy to the family as she defied a terminal diagnosis for nearly a decade. The shadow justice secretary says the prospect of legalising assisted dying 'fills me with dread', adding: 'My Nana felt like she was a burden. I know how much she hated the indignity she felt at having to ask my Mum or us to help her with basic needs. 'People like her – and there are many such people – may consider an assisted death as another act of kindness to us. How wrong they would be.' Ms Leadbeater has argued terminally ill people must be given choice at the end of their lives, but opponents of her Bill have warned it fails to guarantee protections for society's most vulnerable. So close is the vote that Alliance MP Sorcha Eastwood, who was isolating with Covid, was offered a private ambulance to bring her to the Commons to vote against it. However she tested negative today and plans to make her own way in. The proposed legislation would allow terminally ill adults in England and Wales, with fewer than six months to live, to apply for an assisted death, subject to approval by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist. Significant changes since it succeeded in the initial vote in Parliament include the replacement of a High Court safeguard with the expert panels, and a doubling of the implementation period to a maximum of four years for an assisted dying service to be in place should the Bill pass into law. Making her case for a change in the law, Ms Leadbeater said: 'We have the most robust piece of legislation in the world in front of us tomorrow, and I know that many colleagues have engaged very closely with the legislation and will make their decision based on those facts and that evidence, and that cannot be disputed. 'But we need to do something, and we need to do it quickly.' A YouGov poll of 2,003 adults in Great Britain, surveyed last month and published on Thursday, suggested public support for the Bill remains high at 73 per cent – unchanged from November. The proportion of people who feel assisted dying should be legal in principle has risen slightly, to 75 per cent from 73 per cent in November. Friday will be the first time the Bill has been debated and voted on in its entirety since last year's historic yes vote, when MPs supported the principle. However opponents claim there are not enough safeguards in the legislation as it stands to protect vulnerable people. A think tank warned hundreds of domestic abuse victims could be coerced into using assisted dying by their abusers. The Other Half warned that victims are already at a higher risk of taking their own lives and the situation could be exacerbated. It has estimated that as many as 631 abuse victims, who are also terminally ill, could opt to die every year within a decade, based on the Government's own calculations about the uptake of the ability to seek help to die. A poll carried out by the women's rights think tank found that two thirds of voters, men and women, are concerned about victims being pressured into dying by their abusers.

Western Telegraph

37 minutes ago

• Western Telegraph

MPs share their own stories as assisted dying debate continues

Debating the proposal to roll out assisted dying in the UK, Sir James Cleverly described losing his 'closest friend earlier this year' and said his opposition did not come from 'a position of ignorance'. The Conservative former minister said he and 'the vast majority' of lawmakers were 'sympathetic with the underlying motivation of' the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, 'which is to ease suffering in others and to try and avoid suffering where possible'. I have seen someone suffering – my closest friend earlier this year died painfully of oesophageal cancer and I was with him in the final weeks of his life. So I come at this not from a position of faith nor from a position of ignorance Sir James Cleverly But he warned MPs not to 'sub-contract' scrutiny of the draft new law to peers, if the Bill clears the Commons after Friday's third reading debate. Backing the proposal, Conservative MP Mark Garnier said 'the time has come where we need to end suffering where suffering can be put aside, and not try to do something which is going to be super perfect and allow too many more people to suffer in the future'. He told MPs that his mother died after a 'huge amount of pain', following a diagnosis in 2012 of pancreatic cancer. Sir James, who described himself as an atheist, said: 'I've had this said to me on a number of occasions, 'if you had seen someone suffering, you would agree with this Bill'. 'Well, Mr Speaker, I have seen someone suffering – my closest friend earlier this year died painfully of oesophageal cancer and I was with him in the final weeks of his life. 'So I come at this not from a position of faith nor from a position of ignorance.' Labour MP Siobhain McDonagh spoke int he assisted dying debate (House of Commons/PA) Labour MP for Mitcham and Morden Dame Siobhain McDonagh intervened in Sir James's speech and said: 'On Tuesday, it is the second anniversary of my sister's death. 'Three weeks prior to her death, we took her to hospital because she had a blood infection, and in spite of agreeing to allow her into intensive care to sort out that blood infection, the consultant decided that she shouldn't go because she had a brain tumour and she was going to die. 'She was going to die, but not at that moment. 'I'm sure Mr Speaker can understand that a very big row ensued. I won that row. 'She was made well, she came home and she died peacefully. What does (Sir James) think would happen in identical circumstances, if this Bill existed?' Sir James replied: 'She asks me to speculate into a set of circumstances which are personal and painful, and I suspect she and I both know that the outcome could have been very, very different, and the the moments that she had with her sister, just like the moments I had with my dear friend, those moments might have been lost.' He had earlier said MPs 'were promised the gold-standard, a judicially underpinned set of protections and safeguards', which were removed when a committee of MPs scrutinised the Bill. He added: 'I've also heard where people are saying, 'well, there are problems, there are still issues, there are still concerns I have', well, 'the Lords will have their work to do'. 'But I don't think it is right and none of us should think that it is right to sub-contract our job to the other place (the House of Lords).' Mr Garnier, who is also a former minister, told the Commons he had watched 'the start of the decline for something as painful and as difficult as pancreatic cancer' after his mother's diagnosis. 'My mother wasn't frightened of dying at all,' he continued. 'My mother would talk about it and she knew that she was going to die, but she was terrified of the pain, and on many occasions she said to me and Caroline my wife, 'can we make it end?' 'And of course we couldn't, but she had very, very good care from the NHS.' Conservative MP Mark Garnier said he would back the Bill (PA) Mr Garnier later added: 'Contrary to this, I found myself two or three years ago going to the memorial service of one of my constituents who was a truly wonderful person, and she too had died of pancreatic cancer. 'But because she had been in Spain at the time – she spent quite a lot of time in Spain with her husband – she had the opportunity to go through the state-provided assisted dying programme that they do there. 'And I spoke to her widower – very briefly, but I spoke to him – and he was fascinating about it. He said it was an extraordinary, incredibly sad thing to have gone through, but it was something that made her suffering much less.' He said he was 'yet to be persuaded' that paving the way for assisted dying was 'a bad thing to do', and added: 'The only way I can possibly end today is by going through the 'aye' lobby.' If MPs back the Bill at third reading, it will face further scrutiny in the House of Lords at a later date.