Herald Express: Labour's day of shame over Welfare Bill

Last Tuesday was a day of shame for the Labour Party. I doubt any of their MPs entered politics to slash benefits for the sick and disabled. Yet, at the start of the week, that’s what the Government was whipping them to do.  

From the start, it was clear the changes suggested in the Government’s Welfare Bill were not designed to support vulnerable people. If they were, those affected would have been consulted from the start. Instead, what we got were a set of policies that at the start of Tuesday’s debate appeared Dickensian, and by its end, had become farcical.  

There were so many U-turns during the debate it was hard to keep track. And as the dust settles on this sorry saga, it’s important to not only reflect on what was eventually voted through, but also the changes Labour originally asked its MPs to green light.  

At its introduction in March, the Welfare Bill proposed significant changes to Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment (PIP), a working-age benefit to help people with the costs associated with a long-term health condition or disability.  

The changes to the latter were particularly shocking, with new claimants being asked to score at least four points on at least one of ten activities to qualify for the PIP daily living component. Critics argued this was too high a bar. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation estimated the change would push 400,000 people into poverty.  

This claim came out in March and didn’t move the Prime Minister. Nor did the DWP’s own assessment that its changes would plunge 250,000 people into poverty. In fact, as recently as three days before the debate, Keir Starmer said there was a “moral imperative” to voting the changes through. Only when Labour MPs began revolting did the PM change course.  

It’s staggering how sidelined disabled people have been in the Government’s planning for these changes. I’m sure I’m not the only MP whose inbox between March and June was full of vulnerable people fearing they were going to lose vital support.  

For those four months, I’m sure many lived with terrible, daily anxiety about what would happen should these changes come into effect. Then, within 24-hours, the Welfare Bill’s original proposals were gone.  

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. If they had only listened and engaged with those affected – and with their own backbenchers – the U-turns could have been avoided.  

Instead, fearing a humiliating defeat, the Government watered down its plans. Now, the PIP changes have been delayed until after a review by the Disabilities Minister and will only impact future claimants. The Universal Credit cuts have also been reduced.  

Though the PIP changes are now contingent upon a major review in autumn next year, should they come into force they’ll create a two-tiered benefit system, with those who claimed before the review being shielded and those after being exposed.  

Think about the illogicality of that: someone diagnosed with ME in late 2026 could receive less support than those with the same condition diagnosed a year earlier. To borrow the PM’s language, there is nothing “moral” about that.  

Clearly, these polices were designed first-and-foremost to help the Treasury. What’s strange is that they opted to target the most vulnerable in society rather than adopting the revenue-generating policies the Liberal Democrats have been pushing.  

The Government should ask the big banks, social media giants, and online gambling companies to pay their fair share of tax. Adopting these policies would generate far more money and would save the Government from the reputational damage it suffered last week.