Labour MPs opposed to the government’s massive £5bn of benefit cuts say they will refuse to support legislation to implement them, even if more money is offered by ministers to alleviate child poverty in an attempt to win them over.
Legislation will be introduced to the House of Commons in early June to allow the cuts to come into force. They will include tightening the criteria for personal independence payments (Pip) for people with disabilities, to limit the number of people who can claim it. Under the changes, people who are not able to wash the lower half of their body, for example, will no longer be able to claim Pip unless they have another limiting condition.
A major rebellion appears to be hardening on the Labour benches rather than subsiding, despite frantic efforts by whips and government ministers to talk MPs round.
One idea being floated as a way to win over rebels is for ministers to publish their long-awaited child poverty strategy shortly before the key Commons votes, and in it offer additional money for poor parents of children under five. Work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall is understood to be examining a proposal focused on the youngest children that would cost less than the £3.6bn needed to scrap entirely the controversial two-child limit on benefit payments. It is now accepted in government that, given the state of public finances, the cap cannot be scrapped in the short term.
Many of the several dozen Labour MPs who are angry at their party’s cuts say they will refuse to get involved in any such “trade off” involving children in poverty and the disabled.
Rachael Maskell, the Labour MP for York Central, who is planning to vote against the legislation, said: “You can’t compromise with a trade-off under which you say you will take more children from poor families out of poverty by placing more disabled people into poverty. That simply cannot be right.
“The government really does need to start listening to MPs, civil society and the population at large because there is really widespread opposition to these policies.”
Ministers and the Labour whips have been holding talks with concerned MPs over recent days, only to find the strength of feeling is not abating. A group of MPs is understood to be preparing to break cover by calling for a complete rethink. One government source said: “If anything, I think there is more worry than there was. It is like this is non-negotiable for many of our people.”
Another major complaint from Labour MPs is that they will be asked to vote on the legislation to implement the benefits cuts before the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) has concluded an impact assessment on the effect they will have on getting people off welfare and into the workforce – the stated objective of the cuts. The OBR report is not due until the autumn.
Last month, Keir Starmer said there was a “moral” as well as an economic case for reforming the benefit system. “It is indefensible, economically and morally, and we must and we will reform it. We will have clear principles, we will protect those who need protecting.
“We will also support those who can work back to work, but Labour is the party of work – we’re also the party of equality and fairness.”
Another Labour MP opposed to the cuts, Neil Duncan-Jordan, who won the seat of Poole in Dorset by just 18 votes last July, overturning a Conservative majority of 19,000, said he had more than 5,000 Pip recipients in his seat.
He said he could not support any compromise or “trade off”. “There is not a hierachy of need,” he said. “The whole policy is wrong. It goes without saying that if these benefits cuts go through, I will be toast in this seat.”
Duncan-Jordan said it did not make sense that MPs were being asked to vote on the cuts before the OBR had reported on how effective they would be in returning people to the workplace. “We are being asked to take a leap of faith. It does not make sense.”
In its report accompanying Rachel Reeves’s spring statement, the OBR said that “the full impacts of these policies are very uncertain, given the complexity of how trends in health, demography and the economy interact with the benefits system (as our 2024 welfare trends report explored).
“Welfare reforms incorporated into previous OBR forecasts have in many cases saved much less than initially expected, such as the transition from disability living allowance to Pip, or taken far longer to implement than expected, as was the case for the roll-out of universal credit.”
The OBR added: “We will undertake a full assessment of the potential impact of the Green Paper polices on the labour market ahead of our next forecast.”
