Flagship welfare reform plans to be introduced in Parliament
It was reported in recent days that Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall has agreed to include 'non-negotiable' protections in the Bill, including a guarantee that those who no longer qualify for Pip will still receive the payments for 13 weeks, rather than just four weeks.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
4 hours ago
- The National
SNP 'working with Tories to weaken Land Reform Bill', MSPs say
The Greens' Mark Ruskell and Labour's Mercedes Villalba both told the Sunday National that the SNP Government was using Tory votes to keep effective measures out of the new legislation. The Land Reform (Scotland) Bill will this week pass 'stage two' at Holyrood, where amendments to the initial wording are proposed by MSPs and voted on for inclusion or rejection by members of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. However, last week, MSPs on the committee – which has three SNP, two Tory, one Labour, and one Green member – voted against measures including putting a public interest test on the proposed buyer of Scottish land. Rural Affairs Secretary Mairi Gougeon speaking to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee in a meeting held on June 17 (Image: Holyrood TV) The amendment, proposed by Villalba and rejected by the SNP and Tories, would have forced ministers to take into account things like a potential landowners' tax residence when deciding if a sale would be in the public interest. MSPs and the Government did support dropping the threshold for estates covered by the legislation from 3000 to 1000 hectares – but the SNP and Tories voted together to reject an amendment to push that down further to 500 hectares. There are around 2.5 acres to a hectare, and 1.6 acres to a standard football pitch. Villalba had tabled a more radical proposal that would have prevented anyone in Scotland from owning more than 500 hectares of land unless it could be shown to have environmental or community benefits. This was also voted down by the SNP and Tories. READ MORE: Rachael Revesz: The Land Reform Bill is only tinkering round the edges Changing the threshold at which estates are covered by the bill from 3000 to 1000 hectares means that the number of estates which will be required to publish Land Management Plans, support wild places, and comply with the Scottish Outdoor Access Code has been doubled to a total of about 700, covering just over 60% of Scotland's land, the John Muir Trust said. Villalba said that 67% of Scotland's countryside is owned by 'just 0.025% of the population' and that the 1000-hectare threshold would do nothing to change this. Further questions surround whether land must be contiguous to be considered a single 1000-hectare estate. The SNP put forward a rule saying that plots of land are a single holding if their borders are within 250 metres. The Greens had been set to table an amendment to make this 10 miles, but it was not moved. Ruskell said this was due to a shared understanding that the 250m limit was too low – and that it would be addressed at a later stage. However, Ruskell further said that the bill in its current state was 'fundamentally not going to lead to a solution to the growing inequalities in land ownership that we have in Scotland'. Scottish Green MSP Mark Ruskell in the parliament chamber (Image: Holyrood TV)'This bill does not tackle that, full stop,' he went on. 'It gives communities a bit more power, it provides a bit more scrutiny as to what landowners are currently doing, but it's not clear that this is going to make any major difference in terms of getting a more diverse pattern of land ownership and really changing the answer to 'Who owns Scotland?'. 'Things will continue broadly as they have been for centuries, but with a wee bit more community involvement. It's a bill that's tweaking around the edges of existing systems rather than having a big bold vision.' He told the Sunday National that the Scottish Government could 'easily put forward a more radical vision into this bill and get support from Labour and the Greens, easily'. 'Every amendment would pass. Every single amendment would be unchallengeable. So it's their call because they have the votes for it and they have the consensus on the left – but they don't want to play to that. 'So they're getting support from the Tories to defeat anything that's taking a bill into a more radical place.' READ MORE: Lesley Riddoch: Scotland needs real action on land reform Villalba went a step further, saying the bill was not fit for purpose and would entrench inequality across Scotland. The Scottish Labour MSP went on: 'The SNP have demonstrated that their true allegiance is not with the Scottish people, but rather with wealthy private landowners who manage their property not in the public interest but to maximise their own profits. 'Scotland's land should belong to the people, and benefit both local communities and the natural environment. It's high time the SNP stopped deferring to lobbyists and empowered Scots to take back control of their land.' She added: 'By voting against the inclusion of a presumed limit on ownership over 500 hectares in the bill, the SNP risk allowing land to be sold or managed in ways that benefit private interests at the expense of the public good, entrenching the very problems their proposals seek to correct. 'What's more, by aligning with the Conservative Party to reject the inclusion of a robust public interest test, rather than stand up for Scots, they have rolled over for the wealthy – and not for the first time.' The SNP and Scottish Government were approached for comment.
The Herald Scotland
5 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Inside Westminster there's a problem for Scottish Labour
I joined them on Wednesday and heard MPs discuss the scourge of poverty. But while I am immersed in politics every day, I could not have anticipated the mood of this lobby day. Built for kings, Westminster Hall is the oldest part of the UK parliamentary estate. It is a far cry from the realities facing millions of people every day. In 2024, almost three million emergency food parcels were delivered - the equivalent to one every 11 seconds. In Scotland, more than 239,000 were distributed. Every week, hundreds of MPs pass through this corridor on the way to the Commons chamber. They hold the power to make a difference - but will they? I met up with the Scottish volunteers just before we entered Westminster Hall. They were excited to take their campaign to politicians; hopeful that the urgency of their message would be listened to. Campaigners, from all across Scotland, including Glasgow, Edinburgh and Dundee, told their representatives how their food banks were pleading for donations for new born babies, asking supermarkets for milk formula and nappies. After an hour though, their enthusiasm had waned. The MPs and their staffers were willing to listen but there was a growing worry among campaigners that the "warm words" would be left behind in the ancient halls of Westminster. To be fair to the Scottish MPs, there is no doubt they meant well and it would not be fair to suggest they were not moved by the accounts of poverty they heard. It was clear many were aware of the hardship in their constituency. Read more: Speaking of the Scottish Labour MPs she had met, one campaigner told me: "Every MP we've spoken to here are sympathetic to the problems - although it is evident some are more than others. "But they are new backbenchers. The chances of them standing up and leading a rebellion in the Commons is pretty slim." At the same time as MPs gathered to meet with campaigners, a major event was looming in the House of Commons. MPs were due to debate the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) proposed welfare cuts. This was the day that Liz Kendall unveiled her green paper on the changes to Personal Independence Payments (PIP), where changes to the eligibility threshold would cut disability payments for millions. Since then, we have witnessed the resignation of one Labour MP, frontbencher Vicky Foxcroft, a Lewisham North representative. She resigned the whip, stating that she could not in good conscience advocate for these reforms. When campaigners raised their concerns that these changes would push more people towards food banks, the MPs told them reform on the broken system was crucial - but other MPs were quick to share that they too had concerns. But here is how that went down. Another campaigner said: "The MPs who met with us today are saying all of the right things and that is really encouraging and welcome to hear. "But the thing is: when it comes to standing up in parliament, or standing up against decisions being made by the government or the Prime Minister, will they do it? "I'm worried that what we're hearing is just warm words. We want the MPs to mean what they say and I'm just not sure that they do." When I put these concerns to some of the Scottish Labour politicians in attendance at the lobby event in Westminster Hall, they hit back. "Whether during my time as a councillor or as an MP, I always try to take on board the concerns of my constituents and where possible, I raise them in the chamber. That is exactly what I am doing here." Coatbridge and Bellshill MP Frank McNally was also adamant his track record of supporting children in poverty while a councillor in North Lanarkshire would reflect in the Commons. "Before I became an MP, I created the first food programme in the UK that feeds kids 365 days a year," he said. "It's an area that is really important to me. We've got a child poverty strategy that is going to be published very soon, and I think that we want to see real, tangible actions within that because there is no one magic bullet. 'We need that comprehensive approach that goes across all aspects of government, from decisions that are taken here at Westminster and decisions that are taken in the Scottish Parliament. 'There needs to be a holistic approach to addressing some of these issues and that is what I'm focused on.' Mr McNally was one of the MP's who expressed "concern" at the welfare proposals but was not ready to say how he would vote on it either way, while stressing the government should abolish the two-child benefit cap when "economic circumstances" allow it. After speaking with campaigners, Glasgow South MP Gordon McKee said: "Nobody wants any food bank to exist. Unfortunately this is a legacy of 14 years of Conservative government, where more and more people were struggling to afford the basic necessities." But the MP, described within his party as a "rising star", also said his party had delivered "nearly" the biggest increase in the national minimum wage 'in history'. READ MORE: Dr Zubir Ahmed, the Glasgow South West MP, told The Herald he understood what it was like to be disadvantaged. "I grew up in a family and in a close where my dad was the only person that had decent work coming in. 'I know what it's like when government essentially puts you on the scrapheap, limits your potential and tells you this is as good as it is going to get. 'I don't want to be part of any government that does that. I want to be part of a government that enables work and solves those kind of issues, where people in work don't need to use a food bank because they've got a decent income coming in and job security.' The next few weeks facing Scottish Labour MPs could be career defining. Having the courage to oppose decisions being made by senior party figures can be harmful for their place amongst colleagues. It was fair to say that this was the main concern from campaigners in Westminster last week: stand up for you constituents or stand up for your party - sometimes there cannot be both. There was clearly a nervous energy in the Scottish Labour camps in London and I sensed that the campaigners there almost felt sorry for them. Big decisions are coming - and perhaps there is no easy path for a Labour MP.
ITV News
11 hours ago
- ITV News
Health Secretary says Asissted dying will take 'time and money' away from the NHS
Wes Streeting has warned that legalising assisted dying would take 'time and money' away from other parts of the health service. The Health Secretary, who opposed the legislation in the Commons, said better end-of-life care was needed to prevent terminally ill people feeling they had no alternative but to end their own life. Streeting, writing on his Facebook page, said he could not ignore the concerns 'about the risks that come with this Bill' raised by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Physicians, the Association for Palliative Medicine and charities representing under-privileged groups. The Government is neutral on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill which cleared the Commons with a majority of 23 votes on Friday. Streeting, who was one of the most senior opponents of the legislation, said: 'Gordon Brown wrote this week that 'there is no effective freedom to choose if the alternative option, the freedom to draw on high-quality end-of-life care, is not available. "Neither is there real freedom to choose if, as many fear, patients will feel under pressure to relieve their relatives of the burden of caring for them, a form of coercion that prioritising good end-of-life care would diminish.' He is right. 'The truth is that creating those conditions will take time and money. 'Even with the savings that might come from assisted dying if people take up the service – and it feels uncomfortable talking about savings in this context to be honest – setting up this service will also take time and money that is in short supply. 'There isn't a budget for this. Politics is about prioritising. It is a daily series of choices and trade-offs. I fear we've made the wrong one.' Streeting said his Department of Health and Social Care 'will continue to work constructively with Parliament to assist on technical aspects of the Bill' as it goes through the House of Lords. Assisted dying campaigner Dame Esther Rantzen urged peers not to block the landmark legislation. Dame Esther told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: 'I don't need to teach the House of Lords how to do their job. 'They know it very well, and they know that laws are produced by the elected chamber. 'Their job is to scrutinise, to ask questions, but not to oppose. 'So yes, people who are adamantly opposed to this Bill, and they have a perfect right to oppose it, will try and stop it going through the Lords, but the Lords themselves, their duty is to make sure that law is actually created by the elected chamber, which is the House of Commons who have voted this through.' Dame Esther, who turns 85 on Sunday and has terminal cancer, acknowledged the legislation would probably not become law in time for her to use it and she would have to 'buzz off to Zurich' to use the Dignitas clinic. Paralympian and crossbench peer Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson told BBC Breakfast: 'We're getting ready for it to come to the Lords and from my personal point of view, about amending it to make it stronger. 'We've been told it's the strongest Bill in the world, but to be honest, it's not a very high bar for other legislation. 'So I do think there are a lot more safeguards that could be put in.'
