Labour MPs are increasing the pressure on Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Liz Kendall. They are raising big alarm bells about the government’s plan to overhaul the system of benefits. To this end, Dame Meg Hillier, new chair of the Treasury Committee, is currently leading an inquiry into the effects of these changes. These reforms are supposed to save £5 billion by 2030, even as the costs of welfare are soaring.
The response to these proposed reforms has raised alarm bells among some Members of Parliament. They worry that these amendments might create a “two-tier” system for future claimants. The government is now in the midst of a backbench rebellion over this sensitive issue. In reply, Kendall has promised to follow through on the implementation of recommendations from a review led by Disability Minister Sir Stephen Timms as soon as it finishes.
Kendall’s dramatic meetings with MPs are testament to how controversial the new changes to the benefit are. The government estimated that these cuts would remove at least 250,000 people from poverty by 2030. They cried out over the drastic effects of their policy choices on Americans’ lives. More updated modeling indicates that a more accurate number is closer to 150,000 people who are now in jeopardy of those same outcomes.
At a session, only last month, Labour MPs grilled Kendall mercilessly. They objected to seeing changes for future claimants being started before the conclusion of the independent Timms review. Sarah Owens raised a pointed question, asking, “What is the logic of making changes to future claimants before producing the Timms review?”
In response, Kendall spoke to the challenges of adapting to such shifts. She stated, “It’s often very hard for people to adjust,” while emphasizing her intent to listen to feedback and make positive changes as a result.
Helen Whately, the Conservative shadow work and pensions secretary, echoed the ‘grave fears’ expressed by her party members. She cautioned that if implemented, the changes could disproportionately affect the most vulnerable populations. At the same time, Steve Darling, speaking for the Liberal Democrats, has called for caution on the depth of these reforms’ impact.
A Downing Street spokesman defended the government’s position, asserting that “the welfare state must be fair, both for those who need support and for taxpayers, so it is sustainable for generations to come.” This statement is a clear signal that the administration is prioritizing social equity alongside fiscal responsibility.
These include welcome government concessions that would cost a whopping £2.5 billion, a fine amount by 2030. These concessions are intended to offset some of the harm that is likely to result from the changes to benefits. They want to quell the uprising from their own backbenchers.
Debbie Abrahams, a prominent figure in the debate, articulated that if the review is genuinely co-produced with disabled individuals and their organizations, it should determine new processes and descriptors without preset limitations. This feeling illustrates the importance of inclusion practices when it comes to determining welfare policy.
Debates are getting intense in the UK Parliament. Kendall’s approach to engaging MPs and these important decisions about the scope of benefit reform will help to determine whether the welfare support the UK will get in future will be fair and fit for purpose.
