Starmer faces biggest rebellion of his premiership

Sir Keir Starmer has been accused by Labour MPs of breaking his promises over welfare with whips concerned up to 50 will rebel over reform legislation.

Britons take part in a protest against disability welfare cuts in London. Picture: Getty Images.

Sir Keir Starmer has been accused by leading rebel MPs of breaking his promises over welfare as he faces the biggest rebellion of his premiership.

Debbie Abrahams, Labour chair of the work and pensions committee, urged the government to “think again” and said she would vote against the reforms or abstain unless there were further changes.

Several other senior backbenchers raised concerns and warned that the government’s plans would lead to a “three-tier” benefit system. They urged the government to reconsider the legislation.

Last week the prime minister agreed to protect all existing claimants of personal independence payments, a form of disability benefit, and those receiving the health element of universal credit, which is paid to those unable to work. The policy reversal will cost about £3 billion.

The government believed the concessions would be sufficient to ensure that the legislation would pass in the Commons. However, whips believe that about 50 MPs could still rebel, making it easily the biggest rebellion of Starmer’s premiership.

Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader, said her party would vote against the legislation because it did not go far enough. She said the “watered-down small savings” in the legislation showed Labour was “not serious” about welfare reform. Official modelling suggests that more than 150,000 people could still be pushed into relative poverty by the welfare measures, despite the concessions, down from 250,000 in the original assessment.

In an impact assessment written after the changes made in response to a threatened rebellion by more than 120 Labour MPs, officials said there would now be a “negligible” impact on child poverty, which had been one of the key concerns in the original proposals.

Under the plans the government will change the criteria used to determine eligibility for benefits for new claimants from November next year. The changes will come into effect before the implementation of a review by Sir Stephen Timms, the welfare minister, which is intended to overhaul the entire system for assessing people’s needs.

Rebels raised concerns that the review would not be implemented before the change in the eligibility criteria came into force, which they said had been discussed during negotiations with No 10.

Abrahams told ITV News: “The actual offer that was put to one of the negotiating team wasn’t what we thought had been negotiated.

“These are some good concessions but we’re not quite there yet. What is concerning is this is being driven by financial concerns.”

Dame Meg Hillier, the lead signatory of the wrecking amendment to the bill, asked Liz Kendall, the work and pensions secretary, if she could “explain to the House the rationale for settling on those four points in one category prior to the Timms review”.

Vicky Foxcroft, who quit as a government whip over the reforms, asked: “If claimants request a reassessment because of worsening health conditions, will they be assessed on the current criteria or new eligibility criteria?”

Sarah Owen, chair of the women and equalities committee, asked: “What is the logic of making changes to future claimants before finishing the Timms review, now co-produced with disabled people? Could this lead to not just two tiers but three tiers – those existing claimants, those new claimants who will lose out and those post-Timms review?”

Kendall said that the changes to the welfare system were harder to implement for a Labour government. She said: “Making changes is never easy and perhaps particularly as a Labour government because tackling poverty and inequality is in our DNA.

“But I believe we must begin to make these changes to make sure those who can work get the support they need, to protect those who cannot and to begin to slow the rate of increase in the number of extra people going on to sickness and disability benefits.”

The Times