Labour has improved its welfare bill. I still won’t be voting for it, The Guardian, 27/06/25

Due to editing by The Guardian, the printed version differs in parts from the original piece submitted below.

Reading the news you could be forgiven for thinking a week of drama in Westminster had finally concluded on Friday morning, with a deal between the Government and some of the Labour MPs who signed the reasoned amendment on Monday.

No doubt the changes will be sufficient for some colleagues to now support the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payments Bill, but having considered the concessions offered by the Government, I’m afraid that as things stand I—and a large number of other signatories—cannot support what is being proposed on Tuesday.

This isn’t something I do easily. The Labour Party is my home. I was born into a family of Labour activists and joined as soon as I was able. I re-established my university Labour Society in the wake of Iraq and on graduation worked for Labour MPs and as a party organiser. For 16 years I rebuilt my CLP and grew the council’s Labour Group, delivering some of the highest contact rates in the country and consistently beating the national swing at local elections. When we retook the council in 2014, I become the party’s youngest council leader at the age of 27 and over the years which followed I have worked with many of those now occupying decision-making roles in Government. I have campaigned in every election under every leader from Neil Kinnock to Keir Starmer and I didn’t spend 14 years fighting to return Labour to Government just so I could cause trouble.

However, 14 years in local government taught me a few things. It taught me about the critical role of consensus-building amongst your elected representatives if you want to deliver change. It conditioned me to taking tough budget decisions and the fact that creative approaches to policy making always delivered better outcomes for residents than blunt ones. Most of all it showed me the utter devastation to households and neighbourhoods directly caused by the Tories’ cuts to social security. I am loyal to my country, my constituency, and my party, that is precisely why on this bill I cannot be loyal to the Government.

I accept that the concessions are an improvement, by making it clear that those already in receipt of PIP will continue to receive it there is a hope we can avoid the tragic loss of life which followed the last set of disability cuts. Yet, despite many improvements to the system set out in the bill, at its core the bill remains a cost-cutting exercise. No matter the level of involvement of disability groups in co-producing a scheme for new applicants, to save money the new scheme has to result in people with high levels of need losing the support necessary to wash themselves, dress themselves, and feed themselves. That’s not an opinion, it’s arithmetic.

In 15 years as an elected representative, I have never opposed any policy where I couldn’t see a better alternative and from the start I have tried to use the routes available to MPs to improve what was on offer, beginning with the No.10 engagement meetings immediately prior to the publication of the green paper and ending last week with visits to very senior figures in No.10 and the whip’s office, making it clear to them that they did not have the votes, that pushing the vote would only damage the Government, and again setting out alternatives.

So, what is the alternative? Roughly half the £34bn the Government estimates PIP will cost by 2030 is for people with mental health conditions. While GPs are in charge of PIP assessments, they aren’t responsible for treating mental health conditions, that’s left to mental health trusts. In my area, the ratio of practitioners to patients waiting for an assessment is one to 13,000. What chance do we have of getting those patients off PIP when it will take years to even assess them?

The solution is obvious, a short-term boost in funding to clear the backlog so by 2030 we save anywhere up to £17bn, well above what the bill proposed and in-keeping with the fiscal rules.

Of course, the Office for Budgetary Responsibility presents a challenge, having previously discounted the potential impact of various medical or employment support interventions. They explain that this because the Treasury fails to provide them with evidence necessary to justify savings conclusions, including for the £1bn of work incentives set out in the bill.

Treasury has to do better if public service reform is to succeed, working with the OBR to develop the evidence base that interventions will deliver outcomes. To that end they should make use of the Integrated Data Service which includes data on which medical interventions are delivering what work uptake and which for some reason no other part of Government has chosen to use so far.

Throughout my many conversations with decision-makers, I have repeatedly set out the case for alternatives and had them ignored. As a Labour MP, if I am going to remove the support disabled people need to undertake the basic activities of life, I need the Government to demonstrate why that is the best option available. So far, that case has still not been made.