Cabinet united over welfare cuts, McFadden says as ministers brace for backlash

The Cabinet is united behind efforts to slash the welfare bill, one of Sir Keir Starmer’s closest allies said as the Government braced for a backlash to its benefits curbs.
Pat McFadden, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and a key figure behind the scenes in the Starmer administration, insisted the plans being unveiled on Tuesday were “entirely in line with the values of the Labour Party”.
Ahead of Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall’s announcement, MPs on Labour’s left and the party’s trade union backers have hit out at the measures, arguing they would punish the disabled and the poor.
Reports have suggested there is also unease around the Cabinet table, with ministers including Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner and Energy Secretary Ed Miliband said to have voiced concerns in private.
But Mr McFadden said: “I believe the Cabinet is united behind taking on the issue of the growing benefits bill.”
He told Times Radio the current system “leaves too many people in a permanent state of dependence on benefits without the opportunity of work”.
Balancing the books
Ministers insist that reform is necessary, given the number of people in England and Wales claiming either sickness or disability benefit has soared from 2.8 million to about 4.0 million since 2019.
The benefits bill has risen with this increase, reaching £48 billion in 2023-24, and is forecast to continue rising to £67 billion in 2029-30.
The Government hopes to save up to £6 billion from the bill as Chancellor Rachel Reeves struggles to balance the books in the face of weak economic growth and mounting debt interest costs.
Ms Kendall is set to abolish the “work capability assessment” for universal credit, which is used to determine eligibility for incapacity benefit payments for those with illnesses or disability who have limited ability to find a job.
She is also expected to cut the top rate of universal credit incapacity benefit, which The Times said would be partially offset by an increase to the basic rate and £1 billion pumped into support schemes to help claimants get into work.
The most controversial element of the package could be changes to the personal independence payment (PIP) – a benefit aimed at helping the disabled with the increased cost of living associated with their conditions.
PIP is not means-tested and is available to people even if they are working.
The Government appears to have shifted away from rumoured plans to freeze PIP, meaning a real-terms cut by not increasing the payments in line with inflation, but reports have indicated they will be harder to qualify for in future.
That could include more frequent reassessments for both PIP and incapacity benefits to determine whether the payments are maintained.
Reassessments
Mr McFadden said: “Reassessments will be part of the package announced today.
“We want people, if they’re on long-term sickness benefits, not to languish there forever, but to be reassessed.
“There have been too few reassessments in recent years.”
But he suggested people with degenerative illnesses or permanent disabilities would be treated differently to those who might have a temporary condition which would allow them to be supported into work.
A series of Labour MPs have already hit out at the plans despite intensive efforts by No 10 to persuade them of the need for change.
Nadia Whittome said she was “gravely concerned by the reforms” reportedly being considered and “frankly horrified” by comments from some ministers, while veteran MP Diane Abbott said there was a “chasm” between “a tiny number of people at the top” and the overwhelming majority of MPs and party members.
Labour Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham warned that changes to eligibility and support while leaving the system as it is would “trap too many people in poverty”.
Unite’s general secretary Sharon Graham wrote in the Mirror “we are putting the poorest against the poorest”, while Unison’s Christina McAnea said: “Hitting those least able to speak up for themselves is never acceptable.”
Support our Nation today
For the price of a cup of coffee a month you can help us create an independent, not-for-profit, national news service for the people of Wales, by the people of Wales.
The lady and her partner have only three quarters of a million pounds to get by on a year in their four million pound house yet we pay for their electric, some £350 a month…
‘Homo Superioris’ humans minus empathy, compassion and a conscience…
Married Law Makers…any rules about collusion …
The misery and fear the uk labour govt are about to unleash on the most vulnerable people in our society would’ve made even the heartless margaret thatcher blush. And while they try to justify these massive benefit cuts with neutral sounding phrases like ‘reforming the welfare state’ Starmer, Kendall, Reeves et al need to understand one thing – this monstrous cruelty will never be forgotten and they will never be forgiven. And shame on Wales’ labour first minister for refusing to comment on this outrage when she was challenged about this by plaid in the Senedd last week.
Won’t get fooled again and again…
A wealth tax would raise more than the proposed benefit cuts. Also 5.5billion a year is lost to the UK Treasury by tax dodging. Just short of the gains to be made from cutting benefits to the most vulnerable. Surely closing the tax loopholes or introducing a wealth tax or both would be better and fairer than plunging the poorest into even greater poverty.
I agree with you in principle, Linda Jones, but a wealth tax would be a nightmare to deliver (think contested valuations etc). Richard Murphy’s Taxing Wealth Report 2024 shows that up to £100b of extra tax could be collected from those with wealth or very high incomes much more efficiently.
His very readable blog (http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/) provides an excellent guide to specific issues, and stresses fairness (horizontal and vertical equity). Strongly recommended.
We keep saying and restating this glaringly obvious message but governments are so fixated on looking after “wealth hoarders” when we should be looking after “creators” who can spread it about a bit by paying wages and buying products and services for their businesses.