Labour backbenchers have issued a fresh call for a Government rethink on proposed disability benefit changes, in the wake of a dramatic U-turn over the Winter Fuel Payment. The move comes after Chancellor Rachel Reeves confirmed that pensioners earning less than £35,000 a year will once again be automatically eligible for the annual payment—worth up to £300—reversing a widely criticised restriction introduced last year.
The £1.25 billion restoration of the payment has been broadly welcomed across Parliament. However, several Labour MPs have seized the opportunity to urge ministers to now reconsider controversial planned reforms to Personal Independence Payment (Pip).
Nadia Whittome, MP for Nottingham East, warned the Commons that ministers risk repeating mistakes. “I’m not asking him to keep the status quo,” she said. “I’m simply asking him not to cut disabled people’s benefits.” Her remarks were aimed at Pensions Minister Torsten Bell, who straddles both the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions.
According to the Government’s green paper, Pathways to Work, new eligibility thresholds could see claimants lose their entitlement unless they score at least four points in one daily living activity. Tasks include washing, preparing meals, or using the toilet. “This means that people who only score the lowest points on each of the Pip daily living activities will lose their entitlement in future,” the document states.
Richard Burgon, MP for Leeds East, also pressed the minister to reflect on the lessons from the Winter Fuel Payment reversal. “I very much welcome this change in position,” he said, “but can I urge the minister and the Government to learn the lessons of this? Listen to backbenchers… so we don’t end up back here again with yet another U-turn.”
Mr Bell, while defending the broader aims of the reforms, acknowledged: “It’s important to listen to backbenchers, to frontbenchers… even members opposite on occasion.” The remark drew cheers from across the House.
Criticism also came from outside Labour ranks. Liberal Democrat MP Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) suggested more U-turns were likely. “To save his colleagues anguish,” he quipped, “will he let us know now when those U-turns are coming—on Pip and the two-child benefit cap?”
The two-child cap—widely condemned by anti-poverty campaigners—was also raised by Rebecca Long-Bailey, MP for Salford. “It’s the right thing to do to lift pensioners out of poverty,” she said, “but can the minister reassure this House that plans are under way to lift the two-child cap on universal credit as well?”
Mr Bell responded that a child poverty strategy would be published in the autumn, and all potential levers to reduce child poverty were “on the table”.
More Read
“If we look at who is struggling most, having to turn off their heating,” he said, “it is actually younger families with children… large families are disproportionately affected by poverty, and that must change.”
Meanwhile, Conservative former cabinet minister Esther McVey seized on the Chancellor’s climbdown to question whether the Government would now reconsider its National Insurance hikes and inheritance tax reforms, which she said were harming jobs, farms and family businesses.
But Mr Bell hit back, accusing the Conservatives of hypocrisy. “This is a party opposite that has learned no lessons whatsoever,” he said. “They come to this chamber calling for more spending, opposing every tax rise, and expecting to be taken seriously.”
The tensions reveal deep divisions over Labour’s approach to welfare reform—between its economic pragmatism and its traditional social justice instincts. As backbench pressure mounts and further reviews loom, ministers may yet face more tough decisions—and more potential U-turns—in the months ahead.
