Monday, July 21, 2025
Are Labour bringing devolution process to a halt?
They say that Antoniw, who will stand down as Labour MS for Pontypridd at next year’s Senedd election, has written an article for the Institute of Welsh Affairs’ Agenda journal in which he analyses constitutional developments in Wales:
His intervention comes less than a week after Chancellor Rachel Reeves confirmed that the Welsh Government would again be bypassed in the administration of post-Brexit regional aid funding for Wales. Instead it will be handled by the UK Government’s Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, in conjunction with the Wales Office, headed by Secretary of State for Wales Jo Stevens.
In his article, Mr Antoniw states: “Since the general election, progress on further Welsh devolution has been non-existent. At the moment it is difficult to see that anything of consequence has changed. If anything, it has deteriorated. A lot of talk and superficial good will but little substance and lethargic commitment to reform.
“Gordon Brown recommended that there was no reason why Wales should not have the same powers as Scotland. It has been a great political irony that the asymmetrical devolution model has found so much favour with some MPs. The defence of the England and Wales justice system, an outdated, post-Victorian model that is failing in just about every respect due to lack of funding and outdated concepts of the operation and administration of justice is bizarre and almost reflects a colonial mentality.
“The Welsh Government published a detailed set of proposals for justice reform, highlighting how it was not only needed but essential to building a 21st century justice system. A move towards dispute resolution, drug and alcohol courts, family reform, youth justice and probation devolution all had at their core the recognition that justice is about resolving disputes and resolving many of the issues which are rooted in social and economic inequality and poverty. The last UK Government largely ignored the report.
“To date, I have still seen no comprehensive response or analysis. The lack of response sadly reflects a retrospective and introverted constitutional conservatism that permeates across Westminster politics.
Antoniw sets out eleven demands, which he believes the UK Government should implement:
“This is what I believe is essential if we are to get back onto a stable, workable and efficient democratic parliamentary structure:
1 Abolish the House of Lords and replace it with an elected Council of the Nations and Regions. Its function would be to be a Constitutional chamber, and a scrutineer of legislation.
2 End first-past-the-post as the electoral system for Westminster Parliament. It no longer works.
3 Introduce a new Constitutional Reform Act to put the Inter–Parliamentary Governance Framework on a statutory basis. This will protect the Constitutional structure. This should also include the Sewell Convention. Sewell can no longer depend on goodwill and trust. It needs to be justiciable. There is no longer a need for a Welsh and Scottish office. These are expensive pre-devolution creations which have become outdated, irrelevant and undermine the operational development of the Inter-Parliamentary Framework. It is time for them to be phased out.
4 Develop a new, needs-based financial settlement for the nations and regions of the UK, which has a clear constitutional framework.
5 Devolve the justice system incrementally over the next 10 years, starting with the devolution of youth justice, probation and policing, all of which are so intrinsically intertwined already with devolved functions.
6 Recognise a Welsh legal jurisdiction. This is essentially an administrative step but is long overdue.
7 Wales should have a designated judge in the Supreme Court.
8 Devolve the Crown Estate to Wales. This can be achieved without disrupting existing plans. Wales’ recent history is one of being exploited for its national resources of coal and water. We should learn the lesson of history and ensure this isn’t repeated with the Crown Estate and the resource of offshore wind and tidal energy.
9 Extend full and equal parliamentary privilege to all the Parliaments of the nations of the UK.
10 The UK Government should formally recognise responsibility for the cost of pre-devolution coal tip safety and engage with the Welsh Government over the funding of a 10-year plan for tip removal and land restoration.
11 Repeal the Tory UK Internal Market Act. This was introduced to undermine devolution and centralise UK Governmental power post–Brexit. It is not necessary and undermines the excellent common frameworks which were established to ensure hegemony across the UK internal market.
I can happily sign up to all these demands. As Antoniw says, the 'constitution is the agreement, the compact between Government and the People. It is about the exercise of power within the Rule of Law and we ignore it at our peril. It is the very essence of government.'
He is right that there is a need for a constitutional convention, but the Welsh government is not entirely without blame here. I note for example that Antoniw doesn't mention devolution of railways, a major source of tension between the Welsh and UK governments, and one that can be traced back to the refusal by the then Welsh First Minister to acceept responsibility for railways in the first place.
Welsh Labour in the past has been incredibly conservative when it comes to further devolution of powers. Antoniw is ahead of the curve in his own party on this side of Offas Dyke as well.
Sunday, July 20, 2025
What is the tipping point in Palestine Action arrests?
The paper says that demonstrations have been held in London, Manchester, Edinburgh, Bristol and Truro on Saturday as part of a campaign coordinated by Defend Our Juries:
In London’s Parliament Square, beside Mahatma Gandhi statue, police officers surrounded people at an event at which signs were held that read “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action”.
Officers confiscated the placards and searched the bags of those arrested. Some people were carried away while others were led away in handcuffs.
The Metropolitan police said 55 people had been arrested in Parliament Square under section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000 for displaying placards in support of Palestine Action.
Defend Our Juries said on X: “The UK government is complicit in Israel’s genocide against Palestinians. They are attempting to silence those who expose this complicity.”
A woman who was detained in Parliament Square said: “We demand that Palestine Action is de-proscribed.
“Our government is not only arming a genocide, they are using terrorism laws to silence people who speak out.
“Palestine Action are campaigning for peace. They are dismantling weapons factories.”
Greater Manchester police said they arrested 16 people, who remained in custody for questioning. Avon and Somerset police said 17 people were arrested during a protest in Bristol.
In Truro Cathedral in Cornwall, eight people were arrested after protesters gathered to show support for Palestine Action.
Devon and Cornwall police said in a statement that about 30 protesters were involved in a “peaceful” Defend Our Juries demonstration.
“A number of placards which were contrary to the law remained on display despite police advice,” the force said. “Eight people, two men and six women, were arrested on suspicion of offences under section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000. They remain in police custody.”
At a high court hearing on Monday, the co-founder of Palestine Action, Huda Ammori, will ask for permission to challenge the home secretary’s decision to ban the group under anti-terrorism laws.
UN experts, civil liberties groups, cultural figures and hundreds of lawyers have condemned the ban as draconian and said it sets a dangerous precedent by conflating protest with terrorism.
More than 70 people were arrested last week at demonstrations across the UK where references to Palestine Action were allegedly made.
Police Scotland arrested a man in Glasgow on Friday “for displaying a sign expressing support for a proscribed organisation”.
The sign read “Genocide in Palestine, time to take action” with the words “Palestine” and “action” larger than the others. Another man wearing a T-shirt with the same slogan was charged with a similar offence last weekend at the TRNSMT music festival in Glasgow.
The question is what are the court going to do with all these people? Are they going to send them to already over-crowded prisons as envisaged by the Home Secretary? And if they do, are we going to get suffragette-style hunger strikes to make the point?
And where is the tipping point when the government will have to rethink their approach to this issue? Can they face-down continued passive resistance for ever? We will have to see.
Saturday, July 19, 2025
Beware the white lady
In the twelfth century the castle was mainly owned by the first Earl of Warwick and his family. In 1203 the lordship of Gower was given to the de Breos family who ruled until the 1320s when it passed into the hands of the de Mowbray's via Alina de Breos who married John de Mowbray.
The de Mowbrays lost Gower to the Beauchamps for some time due to a legal decision and in 1461 it passed to the Herberts, the Somersets and then to the Dukes of Beaufort who held it until 1927 when it was transferred to Swansea Corporation. Currently it is the responsibility of the Swansea Council, with the Friends of Oystermouth Castle looking after the day to day running of the castle during the open season.
Famously, the castle is the home of the white lady, a ghost who, according to this site, is possibly Alina de Braose herself.
There have been a number of sightings over the year, many recorded on the Swansea Bay page. It doesnt sound like she is a particularly friendly spirit.
Friday, July 18, 2025
The seriousness of data leak becomes apparent
The paper quotes defence sources as saying that the highly sensitive document contained names and email addresses belonging to people sponsoring or linked to some individual cases. Personal information about MI6 officers was also included:
The identities of members of the SAS and MI6 are a closely guarded secret, and the possibility that following the leak such information could have ended up in the public domain was a source of significant official concern.
SAS and other special forces officers were involved in assessing whether Afghans who said they were members of the elite 333 and 444 units, known as the Triples, were allowed to come to the UK.
Defence sources said the dataset also referred to a “secret route” that Afghans could use to come to the UK.
The paper adds that the leaked data included the names, email and phone numbers for thousands of Afghans who had applied to come to the UK under an existing relocation scheme designed for those who had helped the British military:
In some instances the data contained further written information about their case and status of their application – focused on whether they had in fact helped the UK or British forces in Afghanistan – but it did not contain addresses or photographs.
This week Afghans affected by the breach received a message addressed from the UK government, and sent in English, Pashto and Dari, that warned the recipient’s email address had been used to make a resettlement application and that some personal data may have been compromised.
Details of the breach were limited, but recipients on the email – some of whom remain in hiding from the Taliban in Afghanistan – were advised “not to take phone calls or respond to messages or emails from unknown contacts” and to limit who could see their social media profiles.
Lives could be lost as a result of this leak. Did the government close the relocation scheme prematurely?
Thursday, July 17, 2025
Is Starmer losing his grip on the Labour Party?
The paper says that the four MPs who have lost the whip are Rachael Maskell, Neil Duncan-Jordan, Brian Leishman and Chris Hinchliff. They were informed on Wednesday afternoon and told their positions would be kept under review. Apparently, the whip has been removed because they are “persistent rebels”:
All four MPs facing suspension have been openly critical of several government policies, including the welfare bill and cuts to the winter fuel allowance.
MPs who lose the whip are no longer considered part of the parliamentary party, though they retain party membership unless that too is revoked. The suspension is usually for a set period, and then reviewed.
Three other Labour MPs who have rebelled against the whip – Rosena Allin-Khan, Bell Ribeiro-Addy and Mohammad Yasin – had their trade envoy roles removed. Trade envoys are parliamentarians who help the government promote trade and investment with specific regions, and can be drawn from opposition as well as government.
One Labour MP on the left of the party said those suspended had been told they faced an inquiry lasting a few months and that the decision to suspend them had come from Downing Street.
The MP said the move was intended to create a “climate of fear” in the party and made the government look “brittle”. “What those MPs, what we all did, were to defend Labour values. The fact that the government was humiliated was all of their own making. There are elements around No 10 who now want to lash out vindictively rather than acknowledge the mistakes that were made. This is now frankly a punishment beating … They’ve learned nothing.”
Another Labour MP said: “The trade envoy sackings are particularly weird … There are Tory and Lib Dem trade envoys who vote against the government all the time and that’s OK, but a Labour one gets sacked for one rebellion? Make it make sense.”
These sackings come following similar action taken against seven Labour MPs who rebelled over the two-child benefit cap a year ago.
Starmer and his advisors may feel that these sort of disciplinary measures make him seem like a strong leader, but the reality is that the MPs concerned are far more representative of the wider Labour Party than he is. Not being able to take all of the Labour Parliamentary Party with him the PM is resorting to these suspensions instead.
If anything it makes him look weak and isolated within an increasingly narrow managerial mindset. When will this government start to bring in the changes voters expected of them?
Wednesday, July 16, 2025
Extraordinary cover-up of leak that could have cost lives
They add that fears that the individuals named would be at risk from reprisals from the Taliban led the previous government to set up a secret relocation scheme, the Afghan Response Route (ARR), involving 20,000 people at a cost in the order of £2bn.
But the most astonishing thing about this whole story are the lengths that the government went to in an effort to cover up this whole mess, involving securing an unprecedented superinjunction in August 2023 preventing the leak and secret relocation scheme to be reported and denying those in the know to even disclose the existence of the court order:
“Members of this house, including you, Mr Speaker, and myself, have been subject to this superinjunction. It is unprecedented, and to be clear, the court has always recognised the parliamentary privilege of proceedings in this house, and ministers decided not to tell parliamentarians at an earlier stage about the data incident as the widespread publicity would increase the risk of the Taliban obtaining the dataset.”
Healey said the leaked spreadsheet also included details of MPs, senior military officers and government officials.
He said: “This official mistakenly believed that they were sending the names of 150 applicants. However, the spreadsheet in fact contained personal information associated to 18,714 Afghans who had applied either to the ex gratia or the Arap [Afghan relocations and assistance policy] scheme on or before the 7th of January 2022.
“It contained names and contact details of applicants and in some instances information relating to applicants’ family members. And, in a small number of cases, the names of members of parliament, senior military officers and government officials who were noted as supporting the application. This was a serious departmental error.”
He added: “To date, 900 ARR principals are in Britain or in transit, together with 3,600 family members, at a cost of around £400m.”
The safety of the individuals was of course paramount, but as Lewis Goodall of The Newsagents podcast reports, the government did not swing into action as one might expect to get these Afghans out of danger. Instead, they effectively sat on their hands:
Months went by, yet we heard nothing. To my surprise, given that by now I was aware the breach had taken place in early 2022 and had been discussed openly in an Afghan Facebook forum, there wasn’t any wider reporting in the media. Eventually, we were summoned to another hearing, where I expected news that the super would be discharged, or at the very least a date where that would happen. To my astonishment, there was no prospect of this- instead the government was changing the rules of the game. It became clear, via the court documents that initially at least, the then Sunak government was not proposing to help very many people as a result of the breach at all- around 200 principals, perhaps up to 1000 in all including family members- 1% of the total number potentially affected and at at least some risk.
...
The government has spent a huge amount of money on this case. Defending its right to secrecy over our right to know, cloaked under Afghans right to life, but not to know. I worry about where this leaves our democracy, I worry about what precedent it sets, I worry about how easy it is in our system, for the executive to act without restraint. For all of its problems, this could never have happened in the United States, with its first amendment rights, and constitutionally bound freedom of expression. So many times I sat in court 27 and wondered- what else don’t we know? Might there be other courts like this, in other cases? In my view, there never ever should. This case, is about a question as old as politics itself- who guards the guardians?
He has a valid point.
Tuesday, July 15, 2025
Reform u-turn after tasting reality of power
As the Guardian says, while Reform does not have a definitive national position on this issue, the general approach set out by Farage and his fellow MPs has been to push repeatedly for a significant fall in overall migration and curbs to work visas:
In May, Farage said care staff were not skilled and overseas care workers should only be allowed in on strictly time-limited visas. More widely, he has called for zero net migration, meaning there can be no more arrivals than departures.
Richard Tice, Reform’s deputy leader, has said Britons should do care work rather than what he termed “a never-ending stream of cheap, low-skilled labour from overseas”.
Perhaps they should tell their new cohort of councillors, because those of them who are now having to face up to the responsibility of actually running things are finding that the reality is far different from the rhetoric being spouted by the Reform leadership.
The Guardian reports that Linden Kemkaran, the leader of Reform-run Kent council, has written to the government to express “grave concern” about a planned tightening of visas for health and care workers, despite the party’s wider commitment to significantly reducing net migration.
She told Ministers that the changes, including an imminent end to the specific visa route for care workers, could have a significant impact on local care homes:
In a letter to Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, and Stephen Kinnock, the care minister, they said that about 20% to 25% of the county’s social care workforce was from overseas and able to work via licensed sponsorships from employers.
This route expires on 22 July, part of a wider tightening of migration rules, including on health and care visas, announced by the government in May. The Reform councillors’ letter warned about the impact on “a number of displaced social care workers who may have lost their jobs, or the sponsoring provider has lost their licence”.
When care workers’ existing visas expire, they wrote, to keep a visa they would need to earn at least £41,000 a year, the new minimum salary for skilled worker visas. Added to the NICs rise, “this is totally unsustainable, and the risk is that many care workers at this level will go home and leave providers on a cliff edge”, the letter said.
They added: “Due to the challenges facing the adult social care system in general, and care providers in particular, we urge you to reconsider these changes and look forward to your support in addressing these urgent pressing matters.”
Nothing better illustrates the fantasy politics being spouted by Farage and his minions, than the fact that his own councillors think they are unworkable and will plunge health and social care into crisis. Don't believe what Reform say, judge them by what they do.
In a letter to Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, and Stephen Kinnock, the care minister, they said that about 20% to 25% of the county’s social care workforce was from overseas and able to work via licensed sponsorships from employers.
This route expires on 22 July, part of a wider tightening of migration rules, including on health and care visas, announced by the government in May. The Reform councillors’ letter warned about the impact on “a number of displaced social care workers who may have lost their jobs, or the sponsoring provider has lost their licence”.
When care workers’ existing visas expire, they wrote, to keep a visa they would need to earn at least £41,000 a year, the new minimum salary for skilled worker visas. Added to the NICs rise, “this is totally unsustainable, and the risk is that many care workers at this level will go home and leave providers on a cliff edge”, the letter said.
They added: “Due to the challenges facing the adult social care system in general, and care providers in particular, we urge you to reconsider these changes and look forward to your support in addressing these urgent pressing matters.”
Nothing better illustrates the fantasy politics being spouted by Farage and his minions, than the fact that his own councillors think they are unworkable and will plunge health and social care into crisis. Don't believe what Reform say, judge them by what they do.
Monday, July 14, 2025
Unions and campaigners opposing ban on Palestine Action
The Observer reports that the singer Charlotte Church and veteran peace campaigners are among hundreds who have signed a letter describing the move to ban the group Palestine Action as “a major assault on our freedoms”.
They add that trade unionists, activists and politicians have also added their names to the letter opposing the group’s proscription under anti-terrorism laws last week:
Church said: “I sign this letter because history shows us that when people stand up to injustice, those in power often reach for the same old playbook: label dissent as dangerous, criminalise protest, and try to silence movements for change by branding them as extremists or terrorists.
“From the suffragettes to the civil rights movement, what was once condemned as radical disruption is now celebrated as moral courage. We must remember this pattern – and refuse to let our rights be eroded by fear. This is not new, and we will not be silenced.”
“By signing this letter I am not inviting support for any proscribed organisation – people can make their own minds up – but I am making a clear and strong stand against the abuse and misuse of terrorism laws to malign direct action protest.”
A ban on Palestine Action, which uses direct action to mainly target Israeli weapons factories in the UK and their supply chain, was voted through by parliament this month. Being a member of, or showing support for the group is now a criminal offence after a last-minute legal challenge to suspend the group’s proscription failed.
The open letter states: “Peaceful protest tactics which damage property or disrupt ‘business-as-usual’ in order to call attention to the crimes of the powerful have a long and proud history. They are more urgent than ever in response to Israel’s genocide against the Palestinian people.”
Other signatories to the letter include the environmental and human rights campaigner Angie Zelter, who was acquitted after disarming a BAE Hawk Jet and who also destroyed infrastructure supporting Britain’s Trident nuclear weapons system.
She said: “Effective protest often disrupts ‘business as usual’. Halting the cruel arms trade and the dangerous militarisation of our society is really important to me. I have been involved in peaceful civil resistance for decades. I am in full support of civil resistance and of people involved in upholding international law.”
Elected representatives who have signed the letter include James Dornan, the Scottish National party MSP for Cathcart who last week put a motion to the Scottish parliament calling for the proscription of the Israel Defense Forces as a terrorist organisation.
It was also signed by Gerry Carroll, the socialist activist and member of the legislative assembly for West Belfast, along with Plaid Cymru, Labour and Co-operative councillors.
A spokesperson for Glasgow Trades Union Council, which is collectively backing the letter, said: “As the UK government is attacking our civil liberties, we must ask ourselves if not now, then when?”
One of the organisers of the letter was Anne Alexander, a researcher and UCU activist at the University of Cambridge, who said more than 900 people had signed. She said: “The response to this open letter shows that people up and down the country want to stop arms going to Israel and that they don’t agree that a direct action group are ‘terrorists’ because they tried to disrupt the supply chain fuelling a genocide.”
Other signatories include Leanne Wood, the former leader of Plaid Cymru, and Suresh Grover, the veteran civil rights and anti-racist campaigner who was a founder of the Southall Monitoring Group and led campaigns to help the families of Stephen Lawrence, Zahid Mubarek and Victoria Climbié.
In the meantime, protestors opposed to this government's 'abuse' of the terrorism legislation, and who are determined to test the law, are being arrested, including an 83 year old priest. We have yet to see how the courts will treat those protesters but if others follow their example I imagine that the government will have an embarrassing problem on their hands.
Sunday, July 13, 2025
The growing number of children in poverty affected by two-child benefit cap
The Independent reports that new figures have revealed that more than 1.66 million children are living in households affected by the cap. This new data brings the total number of children affected by the cap since Labour came into power a year ago to 300,000:
New figures have revealed that more than 1.66 million children are living in households affected by the two-child benefit cap as campaigners ramp up calls for the controversial measure to be scrapped.
There are nearly 470,000 households facing benefit reductions due to the policy, the latest official figures from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) show, housing nearly 1.7 million children.
The government has faced intense pressure from campaigners, charities and opposition parties over the measure, which experts say is a chief driver of child poverty in the UK.
Ministers have so far resisted calls to scrap the Tory-era policy, with prime minister Keir Starmer saying it could only be done when fiscal conditions allow. Shortly after Labour’s landslide victory last July, seven of the parties MPs were suspended for voting with the SNP to scrap the cap.
Speculation has grown that the government may announce an end to the measure in autumn when it is due to publish its delayed child poverty strategy. Education secretary Bridget Phillipson said earlier this month that such a move was “not off the table,” adding that ministers are “looking at every lever” to reduce child poverty.
The two-child benefit cap prevents parents from claiming universal credit or tax credit for their third child. It was introduced by the Conservatives and came into place in April 2017. It only affects applies to children who were born after 6 April 2017.
The Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) said its analysis suggests an estimated 400,000 children would be lifted out of poverty immediately if the policy was scrapped, with 109 more children pulled into poverty by the measure every day.
The charity’s chief executive Alison Garnham said: “The government’s moral mission to tackle child poverty will make our country a better, stronger place, but families urgently need action not just words.
“Giving all kids the best start in life will be impossible until government scraps this brutal policy - and a year after the election families can’t wait any longer for the help they desperately need.”
Labour's inaction on this issue is a disgrace and has real consequences. Isnt it time they grew some cojones and started to live up to their 'Change' electiom slogan?
Saturday, July 12, 2025
A remarkable politician
As the site says, Val Feld’s plaque, the first Purple Plaque in Wales, is located on the Senedd building in Cardiff Bay, and was unveiled by her daughters and granddaughters on 6th March 2018:
Val was born Valerie Breen Turner in Bangor on 29 October 1947 and died in Swansea on 17 July 2001.
She was one of the most highly regarded members of the National Assembly for Wales across the political spectrum, as one of the leading architects of devolution, achieved in 1997. She promoted women’s participation in Welsh politics. At the time the Welsh Cabinet was the first in the world to have a majority of women members, which was remarkable in a very traditional, macho political culture.
Val became the first Director of Shelter Cymru in 1981, independent from the English organisation for the first time. After completing a Women’s Studies course in Cardiff, she was appointed Director of the Equal Opportunities Commission in Wales. Val was instrumental in ensuring that the Government of Wales Act 1998 included clauses requiring due regard to equal opportunities.
All Val’s work was underpinned by her commitment to equality and social justice, and she was a powerful force for women and minority groups, including Swansea Women’s Centre, Jazz Heritage Wales, Women’s Archive of Wales, Multi Ethnic Women’s Network (MEWN Swansea) and Chwarae Teg.
I served in the National Assembly for Wales with Val, who represented Swansea East, the constituency I lived in. She was a force to be reckoned with.
Val was born Valerie Breen Turner in Bangor on 29 October 1947 and died in Swansea on 17 July 2001.
She was one of the most highly regarded members of the National Assembly for Wales across the political spectrum, as one of the leading architects of devolution, achieved in 1997. She promoted women’s participation in Welsh politics. At the time the Welsh Cabinet was the first in the world to have a majority of women members, which was remarkable in a very traditional, macho political culture.
Val became the first Director of Shelter Cymru in 1981, independent from the English organisation for the first time. After completing a Women’s Studies course in Cardiff, she was appointed Director of the Equal Opportunities Commission in Wales. Val was instrumental in ensuring that the Government of Wales Act 1998 included clauses requiring due regard to equal opportunities.
All Val’s work was underpinned by her commitment to equality and social justice, and she was a powerful force for women and minority groups, including Swansea Women’s Centre, Jazz Heritage Wales, Women’s Archive of Wales, Multi Ethnic Women’s Network (MEWN Swansea) and Chwarae Teg.
I served in the National Assembly for Wales with Val, who represented Swansea East, the constituency I lived in. She was a force to be reckoned with.
As I said in the Plenary session following her death, her work on homelessness and equal opportunities, and in other fields was pioneering. She was a builder of opportunity for those who had been unable to find their own voice.
Friday, July 11, 2025
Details needed on Welsh rail investment
Wales-on-line reports that there is currently no date for when rail improvements promised by the UK Government will start, nor any indication of where the first works will take place.
The Treasury's paperwork said the following was being promised: "£300m for rail investment in Wales, including for the Burns Review stations, North Wales Level Crossing, Padeswood Sidings and Cardiff West Junction.
"This [spending review] and the upcoming 10-year infrastructure strategy will recognise Wales’ long-term infrastructure needs and will deliver at least £445m of rail enhancements to realise them."
But in terms of what will be delivered and when there was no more detail available then. In the following days we had tried to get details from the Welsh secretary, the Department for Transport, and the Treasury about what would take place when and exactly what the money was to be spent on.
The best we could get was from the Department for Transport (DFT). "We will be working with industry partners such as Network Rail and Transport for Wales in the coming months to agree the programme of further work to deliver the investment. This work will update will confirm the costs and delivery schedule for the overall programme," we were told.
Neither Network Rail nor Transport for Wales were able to give details and our questions were directed to the Welsh Government's transport minister, Ken Skates and our repeated requests to sit down with him to ask questions have also been unfulfilled.
"I think that's absolutely right because obviously the Welsh Rail Board has produced the priority list that went into the spending review to get that money They'll now look at how how it is delivered."
She was then asked by Mrs Jones if there was a "timeline for their timeline" and the Welsh secretary said there was not.
She added: "Not that I'm aware of. I know that work is starting on it pretty imminently and so I would hope it would not be too long because now we've got the funding secured, we've got to get on with delivering it.
All-in-all this funding announcement sounds rushed and not very well planned out. Given the previous track record of government railway projects, I will be surprised if there will be a single spade in the ground before the next Senedd election.
Thursday, July 10, 2025
Have we lost the ability to build infrastructure?
A perfect example of that is HS2 (or any railway project for that matter), which is taking far longer to build and costing far more than was ever envisaged for it.
The Guardian reports that the boss of the high-speed rail project has told MPs that HS2 construction contracts priced at £19.5bn have already cost £26bn despite being “just over halfway done”.
The paper adds that the transport select committee heard that the civil engineering to build tunnels and cuttings for the 100-mile line should be almost finished but is closer to 60% complete, while only a third of the wider project – including laying tracks and wiring – is done:
Mark Wild, chief executive of HS2 Ltd, told the committee that the rush to start work in 2020 without balancing the risks in the contracts was the major reason for costs spiralling upwards.
Contracts were signed off in April 2020 and construction formally began five months later, before designs were finalised and local planning consents were in place, he said.
Wild, who started work last December, is currently engaged in a “reset” of construction, which he said would include reshaping his direct staff at HS2 Ltd, coming up with a credible schedule and budget, and renegotiating contracts in the autumn.
He said: “The bottom line is that, at the notice to proceed, the contractors could not price the risk. What we’re seeing is the crystallisation of risk: they should have cost £19.5bn, and we’ve already spent £26bn and we’re just over halfway done … Between 50% and 100% is the likely overspend.”
The line between London and Birmingham – initially designated phase one, but now the entirety of HS2 – was originally planned to open in 2026.
The schedule was subsequently postponed to between 2029 and 2033. But on Wild’s advice, Heidi Alexander, the transport secretary, told parliament last month that there was “no route” to full HS2 services until after 2033.
Wild said Covid and inflation caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine had both had a significant impact on time and costs, but that HS2 had failed to manage costs.
He said the company was “unbalanced” and had “a significant gap” in its frontline workforce managing contractors, as well as having “too many consultants who’ve been there for too long”.
“We’ve ended up … locked in our own bureaucracy,” he added.
I'm almost sure that Joseph Chamberelain didn't come across any of these obstacles when he performed a civil engineering feat like no other and transformed public health in Birmingham.
Wednesday, July 09, 2025
UN panel raises concerns about impact of Labour's welfare bill
The paper says that n a rare intervention, the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities asked about the legislation after receiving “credible information” that it seemed likely to worsen the rights of disabled people:
A letter from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, on behalf of the committee, said it “respectfully requests information” about the bill, and in particular the extent of any impact assessment.
It also sought information on “any measures to address the foreseeable risk of increasing poverty rates amongst persons with disabilities if cuts are approved”.
According to an impact assessment by the Department for Work and Pensions released on Monday, the revised bill will mean 50,000 fewer people are in relative poverty after housing costs in 2030. An assessment of the original plans found the measures would have pushed an additional 250,000 people into poverty, with some charities saying this figure would have been higher.
The letter also requests information on the extent of consultation with disabled people and charities ahead of the bill being presented, and whether the House of Lords would be able to give only “limited scrutiny” if, as expected, it is designated as a money bill, limiting the upper house’s powers.
The UN committee called for scrutiny of politicians and others in the UK “portraying persons with disabilities as making profit of social benefits, making false statements to get social and disability benefits or being a burden to society”.
Pointing to previous UN reports criticising the UK for its record over the rights of disabled people, the committee said it had “received credible information indicating that, if approved, the universal credit and personal independent payment bill will deepen the signs of regression” found in earlier reports.
Whatever this bill turns out to say after all the concessions to Labour MPs, there is no hiding the inevitablity that a large number of disabled people will be worse off.
Tuesday, July 08, 2025
Labour MPs getting the rebellious habit
The paper says that education secretary Bridget Phillipson has insisted that ministers are committed to reforming support for children with learning difficulties or disabilities, which currently costs £12bn a year, but has refused to rule out scrapping key documents that families rely on to guarantee specialist help:
Education, health and care plans (EHCPs) are statutory documents which outline the support needed to help children with special needs and disabilities achieve key life outcomes. Many seeing them as the only way to get schools to provide the support children need.
Asked whether she could rule out getting rid of EHCPs, Ms Phillipson described it as a “complex and sensitive area”.
Speaking to the BBC’s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg programme, she added: “What I can say very clearly is that we will strengthen and put in place better support for children.”
“I’ve been spending a lot of time listening to parents, to disability rights groups, to campaigners and to others and to colleagues across Parliament as well, because it’s important to get this right,” she added, but said it is “tough”.
But one Labour MP told The Independent that a lot of his fellow backbenchers have strong relationships with Send campaigners, warning: “If they’re now being told by them this is a betrayal - combined with last week - they’ll be pushing back against any cuts.”
“People are angry with us. New MPs will be feeling that”, he added.
Other Labour MPs told The Times that the plans risk becoming “welfare mark two”, claiming that dozens of MPs are prepared to rebel over the issue.
One backbencher urged the government to “think again now or they’ll be repeating the same mistake they made with welfare reform.”
“We’re all in favour of reforming the system but that cannot be driven by saving money and taking support away from children”, they added.
A second Labour MP said: “If they thought taking money away from disabled adults was bad, watch what happens when they try the same with disabled kids.”
Having forced a climbdown by the government once, Labour MPs are now getting antsy and starting to assert themselves. If Starmer continues to pursue his blue Labour agenda there may well be many more rebellions.
Monday, July 07, 2025
Are MPs failing their staff?
The paper says that staff employed by MPs have said that they have been put in “extremely dangerous” situations after a small number of parliamentarians “wilfully ignored” security advice:
A confidential report sent to Commons authorities last year, seen by the Guardian, highlighted the concerns amid tension over the Gaza conflict and what it described as a rising number of “mentally and emotionally unstable constituents”.
One MP’s constituency worker reported being threatened with a knife last year, while another described a hammer attack at an MP’s surgery.
A survey of nearly 400 MPs’ employees, most of whom were based outside Westminster, found that more than one in three (38%) now fear for their own or colleagues’ safety – up from 19% in 2022.
Ninety-five staff employed by MPs said none or only some safety recommendations had been acted on, while 31 respondents said security measures had been rejected by their MP or office manager. Only 28% said all safety recommendations had been implemented at their constituency office.
The Westminster-based wellness working group (WWG), which represents MPs’ staff, said it was “shocked to our core” by its survey. It said some MPs were “wilfully ignoring security advice and putting their staff in extremely dangerous situations for unconscionable reasons such as optics in the public eye”.
Concerns about MPs’ safety have risen sharply since the murders of Jo Cox in 2016 and David Amess in 2021.
Last year, Lindsay Hoyle, speaker of the House of Commons, described Commons security as his “top priority”, saying the issue “keeps me awake at night”. The speaker’s office published a cross-party report last month warning that record levels of abuse and harassment were “stifling debate and weakening democracy”.
Yet those working for MPs said they felt there had been little focus on their own safety, particularly those in constituency offices where some felt “extremely unsafe” and “very vulnerable”.
A confidential report highlighting a spate of attacks and threats on constituency offices was handed to Hoyle and senior Commons officials last year. The 18-page audit, compiled by the WWG, described how staff endured “countless encounters with aggressive people” at their constituency office, including hammer attacks and bricks thrown through the window.
One MP was said to have reacted angrily about the use of safety tools such as lone worker devices, which send security alerts when activated.
A constituency worker said their MP “laughed off” their concerns when a man attacked the constituency office with a hammer.
Another said they were made to feel scared after being driven by an MP to the home of a constituent known to be “very unwell” and enter the property first.
One worker claimed the police had refused to help when their MP’s office was being vandalised because it was the staff member who was under threat, not the MP.
The MPs were not identified by name in the confidential report and the Guardian is not publishing detailed accounts of the incidents as it risked identifying members of staff.
This is frankly disturbing. MPs have a duty to their staff, those who don't fulfill that duty should be named and shamed.
Sunday, July 06, 2025
The threat to the right to protest
Both will willingly use the mechanisms available to the state to suppress views and actions they disapprove of when, in many instances, there are already routes that can be taken to prevent such protests going too far.
The treatment of Palestine Action is a good example of this. On Wednesday, the House of Commons was asked to vote on whether to proscribe three organisations as terrorist groups under the Terrorism Act: two neo-Nazi groups—the Russian Imperial Movement and the Maniacs Murder Cult—and Palestine Action.
By linking these three groups together, the government put MPs into an impossible position. There is no doubt that the two white supremacist organisations listed clearly meet the threshold for proscription. But, as one Liberal Democrat MP explained, the vote was all-or-nothing. Parliament wasn’t allowed to assess each group on its own merits.
Dr AL Pinkerton, the Liberal Democrat MP for Surrey Heath, explained the dilemma he faced on Facebook:.
Let me be absolutely clear: I condemn in the strongest terms the reckless and illegal actions of those who broke into RAF Brize Norton and targeted military aircraft. Those responsible should be prosecuted using the full force of existing criminal law.
But that wasn’t the question before MPs. Tonight’s vote wasn’t about whether those actions were illegal (they were), or whether the individuals responsible should face criminal charges (they should). It was about whether supporting Palestine Action—regardless of whether you’ve broken the law—should carry a sentence of up to 14 years in prison under terrorism legislation.
'''
I do not believe the Government has yet made a clear or proportionate case for using terrorism powers in this instance. Proscribing a group for damage to property alone—however serious—is unprecedented. Terrorism legislation is meant to address imminent threats to life, not provocative protest, however distasteful.
If the Government has intelligence it cannot share publicly, it needs to explain how that evidence will hold up in court. Because if the proscription of Palestine Action collapses under legal challenge, we’ll have achieved nothing except making martyrs of extremists and weakening the long-term credibility of our counter-terror laws. That’s why I walked through both the “Aye” and “No” lobbies to register an abstention.
I support action against genuine threats—but we need prosecutions that stick, not gestures that unravel.
By my count, six Liberal Democrat MPs, including Dr Pinkerton abstained in this way, others stayed away altogether.
Thursday's Guardian contained a number of letters on this subject, including one by former Greenham Common activist, Dr Lynne Jones. It is worth quoting it in full:
In 1983, along with thousands of other women, I cut down sections of the fence around RAF Greenham Common, which was to house nuclear weapons in the form of cruise missiles (Greenham Common women urge new generation to ‘rise up’ against nuclear threat, 27 July).
Arrested and fined £50 for criminal damage, I was jailed for a couple of weeks for refusing to pay the fine. After the missiles arrived in 1984, I joined Cruisewatch actions, which, by obstructing the convoys on the road and throwing paintballs at them, prevented any missile deployment exercises taking place in secret. Again the charges were not severe. Arrested on Salisbury Plain on one occasion, my friends and I were released without charge. Women who did more than £10,000 worth of damage by painting the Blackbird spy plane in 1983 also had their charges dropped.
This week, if the home secretary, Yvette Cooper, has her way, those committing similar kinds of criminal damage could face 14 years in jail for “terrorism” (Free speech target or terrorist gang? The inside story of Palestine Action – and the plan to ban it, 28 June). Yet nonviolent civil disobedience works. In 2004, Mikhail Gorbachev said he attended the 1986 Reykjavik summit because he was confident that “the Greenham Common women and the peace movements of Europe […] would not let America take advantage if we took this step forward”. That step led to a 1987 treaty removing tactical nuclear weapons, including cruise missiles, from Europe.
Keir Starmer plans once again to deploy tactical nuclear weapons, under US government control, on British soil and mass protests are already planned. As the Guardian pointed out in its excellent editorial on Palestine Action (23 June), Starmer might think that “redefining visible dissent as a national security threat is a way to contain public anger”, but it is unlikely to make it go away.
On the contrary, Margaret Thatcher’s government appeared to recognise that increased repression of “eccentric” women might actually increase popular support for a cause. Perhaps he could learn something.
It is worth recording that, on the criteria being deployed by the Labour Government, the suffragettes would have also been proscribed, possibly the antit-apartheid movement too and, even further back, the Chartists, as well as many other protest groups, all of whom are now acknowledged by some of the same Ministers who want to ban Palestine Action as organisatons that secured social reform by direct action.
The treatment of Palestine Action is a good example of this. On Wednesday, the House of Commons was asked to vote on whether to proscribe three organisations as terrorist groups under the Terrorism Act: two neo-Nazi groups—the Russian Imperial Movement and the Maniacs Murder Cult—and Palestine Action.
By linking these three groups together, the government put MPs into an impossible position. There is no doubt that the two white supremacist organisations listed clearly meet the threshold for proscription. But, as one Liberal Democrat MP explained, the vote was all-or-nothing. Parliament wasn’t allowed to assess each group on its own merits.
Dr AL Pinkerton, the Liberal Democrat MP for Surrey Heath, explained the dilemma he faced on Facebook:.
Let me be absolutely clear: I condemn in the strongest terms the reckless and illegal actions of those who broke into RAF Brize Norton and targeted military aircraft. Those responsible should be prosecuted using the full force of existing criminal law.
But that wasn’t the question before MPs. Tonight’s vote wasn’t about whether those actions were illegal (they were), or whether the individuals responsible should face criminal charges (they should). It was about whether supporting Palestine Action—regardless of whether you’ve broken the law—should carry a sentence of up to 14 years in prison under terrorism legislation.
'''
I do not believe the Government has yet made a clear or proportionate case for using terrorism powers in this instance. Proscribing a group for damage to property alone—however serious—is unprecedented. Terrorism legislation is meant to address imminent threats to life, not provocative protest, however distasteful.
If the Government has intelligence it cannot share publicly, it needs to explain how that evidence will hold up in court. Because if the proscription of Palestine Action collapses under legal challenge, we’ll have achieved nothing except making martyrs of extremists and weakening the long-term credibility of our counter-terror laws. That’s why I walked through both the “Aye” and “No” lobbies to register an abstention.
I support action against genuine threats—but we need prosecutions that stick, not gestures that unravel.
By my count, six Liberal Democrat MPs, including Dr Pinkerton abstained in this way, others stayed away altogether.
Thursday's Guardian contained a number of letters on this subject, including one by former Greenham Common activist, Dr Lynne Jones. It is worth quoting it in full:
In 1983, along with thousands of other women, I cut down sections of the fence around RAF Greenham Common, which was to house nuclear weapons in the form of cruise missiles (Greenham Common women urge new generation to ‘rise up’ against nuclear threat, 27 July).
Arrested and fined £50 for criminal damage, I was jailed for a couple of weeks for refusing to pay the fine. After the missiles arrived in 1984, I joined Cruisewatch actions, which, by obstructing the convoys on the road and throwing paintballs at them, prevented any missile deployment exercises taking place in secret. Again the charges were not severe. Arrested on Salisbury Plain on one occasion, my friends and I were released without charge. Women who did more than £10,000 worth of damage by painting the Blackbird spy plane in 1983 also had their charges dropped.
This week, if the home secretary, Yvette Cooper, has her way, those committing similar kinds of criminal damage could face 14 years in jail for “terrorism” (Free speech target or terrorist gang? The inside story of Palestine Action – and the plan to ban it, 28 June). Yet nonviolent civil disobedience works. In 2004, Mikhail Gorbachev said he attended the 1986 Reykjavik summit because he was confident that “the Greenham Common women and the peace movements of Europe […] would not let America take advantage if we took this step forward”. That step led to a 1987 treaty removing tactical nuclear weapons, including cruise missiles, from Europe.
Keir Starmer plans once again to deploy tactical nuclear weapons, under US government control, on British soil and mass protests are already planned. As the Guardian pointed out in its excellent editorial on Palestine Action (23 June), Starmer might think that “redefining visible dissent as a national security threat is a way to contain public anger”, but it is unlikely to make it go away.
On the contrary, Margaret Thatcher’s government appeared to recognise that increased repression of “eccentric” women might actually increase popular support for a cause. Perhaps he could learn something.
It is worth recording that, on the criteria being deployed by the Labour Government, the suffragettes would have also been proscribed, possibly the antit-apartheid movement too and, even further back, the Chartists, as well as many other protest groups, all of whom are now acknowledged by some of the same Ministers who want to ban Palestine Action as organisatons that secured social reform by direct action.
They really have lost all perspective.
Saturday, July 05, 2025
A most unusual listed building
As this website states, Mumbles’ distinctive Big Apple has been one of the village’s most recognisable landmarks for generations – it has appeared on postcards, been painted by local artist Nick Holly and has even earned a mention on TripAdviser.
The building, which originally had a long stalk attached to its top, was built in the 1930s by the company Cidatone:
It promoted its apple drink with the slogan “Drink your apple a day!” There were several apple kiosks placed around Wales and England’s coastal towns as part of a wide promotional campaign, including one at Aberavon, Porthcawl, Trecco Bay and Barry. The Mumbles Big Apple is believed to be the only survivor, which makes it unique!
The concrete building has had a couple of mishaps to it along the way. In 2006 it was painted orange by pranksters. Then in 2009, a ford fiesta ran into its front causing extensive damage. After the accident, around 27,000 people backed a campaign on Facebook to safeguard its future, and it underwent specialist repairwork. At its reopening, the Assembly health minister and Gower AM at the time, Edwina Hart, cut the ribbon at the kiosk before handing out free apples.
In 2019, after a campaign by local supporters, the Big Apple was granted listed building status. Cadw described the elliptical building as having “special architectural interest” and was recognised as being an iconic feature from the heyday of seaside entertainment.
Ameco, the company which also runs the Mumbles Pier, now owns this rare and unusual example of a seaside kiosk and well known Mumbles landmark.
Friday, July 04, 2025
Brecon and Radnor forty years on
As the Journal of Liberal History recants, the by-election was caused by the death of the sitting Conservative MP Tom Hooson (a cousin of the former Liberal MP for Montgomery Emlyn Hooson:
The Conservatives held the seat with a majority of over 10,000, however the government encountered problems and the election developed into a three way contest with Labour, which had held the seat before 1979, fighting hard to win it back. When the result was declared after a recount, Livsey emerged as the victor by 559 votes over Labour with the Tories slipping to third place. Livsey remained an MP (apart from 1992-97 when the Tories recaptured the seat) until he retired in 2001.
The BBC report that Labour might well have won the by-election, had it not been for a speech two nights before the poll in which the miners' leader, Arthur Scargill, demanded the right to choose the next chairman of the National Coal Board.
They add that the reminder of the only recently ended miners' strike, along with tactical voting by Conservatives, were enough to put Mr Livsey over the top with a slim majority of just over 500 votes.
Thursday, July 03, 2025
No investment west of Cardiff
Nation Cymru reports that the critcism came from Plaid Cymru’s Cefin Campbell during a scrutiny session on the work of Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Ken Skates:
Last month, the Chancellor Rachel Reeves said she had delivered what the Welsh Government had asked for in her spending review.
The package of funding included £445m for Welsh railways over the next 10 years.
Opposition parties in the Senedd have argued that this is less than what Wales is owed.
In the Senedd on on Wednesday (July 2), Campbell referred to a number of examples where investment was needed in mid and west Wales – including alleviating “chronic delays” on the Heart of Wales line, ensuring more regular services on the Cambrian Line and building a new railway station in St Clears.
Quizzing the Transport Secretary, the Mid and West Wales MS said: “Rachel Reeves said that the Welsh Government had got everything it asked for, including when it comes to rail investment.
“My question to you today is simple: is this true? And if it is true, why did you ask for nothing, literally nothing at all, to invest in the railways west of Cardiff?
“Because the truth is that not only did the spending review deliver painfully little for Welsh rail, it delivered literally nothing for the railways in the region that I represent.”
Skates described the comments as “wholly unfair” adding that he would not “play regions off against each other”.
He said: “It’s absolutely right that we take forward the projects that are most advanced, that we can draw down the funding for, otherwise we could be promised the money, it would never be spent. We will spend that money.
The fact remains that most of the schemes that are 'advanced' are concentrated in the South East of Wales. It is the same old story.
Wednesday, July 02, 2025
An inadequate reform
The poll finds that just 3% of those surveyed backed the government’s plans, with 56% of respondents agreeing that ministers should additionally limit the number of peers the prime minister is able to appoint to the upper chamber for life.
The hereditary peers bill is due to enter its report stage in the House of Lords today after five days of debate with line-by-line consideration of more than 100 amendments during March and April:
The bill fulfils part of Labour’s manifesto pledge for “immediate reform of the House of Lords”. Labour described the Lords as “too big”, with changes “overdue and essential”, promising not just to remove the hereditary peers but also to introduce a mandatory retirement age of 80, participation requirements, make it easier to remove disgraced members, and overhaul the appointments process to improve the quality of peers.
Despite these pledges, ministers argued against every amendment proposed to the bill that would have implemented these changes. Instead, the government said it needed more time to consider how to implement its commitments, and that the bill was “not the right vehicle”.
But “right now, the House of Lords has a legislative vehicle in front of it which is certain to pass. If peers want change, they should seize it,” according to Prof Meg Russell, the director of the Constitution Unit at University College London, which commissioned the polling by YouGov.
Russell said there would probably not be another opportunity to overhaul the Lords for decades. The last major bill was in 1999, in what was meant to be a two-stage reform starting with the removal of 667 hereditary peers.
“You just would not believe how slowly it moves,” she said. “Basically, it’s impossible to get agreement on anything, inside parties as well as across parties.
“No bill has reached the House of Lords coming from a government in 26 years and if you haven’t got a government bill it’s very hard to achieve any legislative change, which is why I’m saying seize it. These things come around on roughly a generational kind of cycle.”
A longstanding cross-party consensus exists that the House of Lords needs to be smaller, a position backed by the public, 71% of whom think it should be no bigger than the House of Commons’ 650 MPs.
But even as the 86 hereditary peers start to pack away their ermine, a steady flow of 76 newly ennobled life peers since the election will limit the effectiveness of the government’s changes in reducing the overall size of the chamber, which now has 859 members. Some hereditary peers may receive life peerages to allow them to stay.
“The problem here is that whenever a prime minister over-appoints, particularly to their own party, the PM that follows them feels the need to over-appoint to counteract those appointments,” said Russell. “And that’s how it gets bigger and bigger and bigger, and it’s completely unsustainable.”
My issue with this poll is that it is quite limited in what it reportedly asks, while the government's proposals are even more limited. The Lords needs more than cosmetic changes, it needs wholescale reform including being properly accountable by being elected.
Tuesday, July 01, 2025
Concessions not enough as Welfare Bill threatens to push 150,000 into poverty
Whether this will be enough to generate a revolt big enough to kill the bill has to be seen, but headlines like this are not going to help the government get the legislation over the line.
The Guardian reports that the government's own impact assessment has found that more than 150,000 people could still be pushed into poverty by the welfare measures despite significant concessions to rebel MPs to protect those already on the benefits:
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 measures.
But it found that an additional 150,000 people could be pushed into relative poverty by 2030 because of changes that would affect future claimants. The original cuts would have pushed an additional 250,000 into poverty, according to the previous assessment.
The work and pensions secretary, Liz Kendall, will set out the changes to MPs later. A number of key rebels – including the Treasury select committee chair, Meg Hillier – have been won over by promises to exempt current disability claimants from the changes and to increase the health element of universal credit in line with inflation.
No 10 said the measures were still essential to change the system and to prevent the welfare bill from escalating – though the changes promised last week will cost the Treasury an extra £3bn.
It is not surprising that a number of MPs including the former government whip Vicky Foxcroft have said that even with the changes they are unlikely to support the bill
The Guardian reports that the government's own impact assessment has found that more than 150,000 people could still be pushed into poverty by the welfare measures despite significant concessions to rebel MPs to protect those already on the benefits:
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 measures.
But it found that an additional 150,000 people could be pushed into relative poverty by 2030 because of changes that would affect future claimants. The original cuts would have pushed an additional 250,000 into poverty, according to the previous assessment.
The work and pensions secretary, Liz Kendall, will set out the changes to MPs later. A number of key rebels – including the Treasury select committee chair, Meg Hillier – have been won over by promises to exempt current disability claimants from the changes and to increase the health element of universal credit in line with inflation.
No 10 said the measures were still essential to change the system and to prevent the welfare bill from escalating – though the changes promised last week will cost the Treasury an extra £3bn.
It is not surprising that a number of MPs including the former government whip Vicky Foxcroft have said that even with the changes they are unlikely to support the bill
