Afternoon summary
Keir Starmer has been told that he faces “the mother of all rebellions” if he does not drop the plans to cut disability benefits announced yesterday. The Labour leftwinger Richard Burgon made the prediction after seeing Starmer challenged about the proposals at PMQs. (See 3.43pm.) In an article for the New Statesman, George Eaton says as many as 40 Labour MPs are threatening to rebel over the plans when they come to a vote in the Commons, which is expected in May. The row is also causing particular problems for the Scottish Labour party, where Anas Sarwar, the party leader, has said that the cuts don’t amount to a return to austerity, while one of his senior MSPs has said the opposite. (See 4.41pm.)
Some individuals currently getting sickness and disability benefits could lose almost £10,000 a year by the end of the decade under the plans announced yesterday, the Resolution Foundation thinktank has said. It has published a detailed analysis of the plans, which points out that some people could in effect lose out twice, because if they no longer qualify for Pip (the personal independence payment), they will also no longer be able to get the top-up universal credit payment (UC LCWRA). It says:
A single person who would have previously qualified for Pip standard daily living and UC LCWRA will now not qualify for Pip daily living if they do not score at least four points on a single criterion of the Pip assessment, and from 2028 they will also not qualify for the UC LCWRA element when the Pip assessment replaces the work capability assessment to determine eligibility. This amounts to an annual loss of £9,600 per year in 2029-30.
The Resolution Foundation also says the changes will affect poorer families the most, because seven-in-ten Pip recipients are in the lower half of the income distribution.
In its conclusion, the thinktank says:
Yesterday’s green paper marks a serious attempt by the government to tackle two major concerns: the growing spend on disability benefits, and the large number of people who are not working through ill-health.
But any gains risk being completely over-shadowed by the scale of income losses faced by those who will receive reduced or no support at all – irrespective of whether they are able to work. The irony of this green paper is that the main beneficiaries are those without health problems or a disability. Although it includes some sensible reforms, it is hard to escape the conclusion that many of the proposals in the green paper have been driven by the need for short-term savings to meet fiscal rules, rather than long-term reform, with some of the suggested giveaways or transitional protection being unconfirmed and subject to further consultation. The result risks being a major income shock for millions of low-income households.
Hancock dismisses criticism of 'VIP lane' for PPE procurement during Covid crisis as 'wholly naive'
Matt Hancock has described criticism of the so-called “VIP lane” that meant some PPE contract offers were prioritisied for Whitehall consideration during Covid as “wholly naive”.
Giving evidence to the Covid inquiry in a hearing held as part of its PPE module, the former health secretary was asked about evidence submitted by an expert describing the “VIP lane” process as “problematic”, in part because there was “no consideration given to the risk of de facto differential treatment”.
At a time when the government was desperate to acquire PPE, and inundated with offers from contractors largely unknown to Whitehall, the “VIP lane” enabled ministers to recommend offers from people who contacted them directly for priority consideration.
The government defended the scheme on the grounds that final decisions were always taken by officials. But the initiative continues to be mired in controversy, not least because it was used by the Tory peer Michelle Mone to obtain contracts that are now subject to an ongoing criminal investigation.
Asked about the expert’s comment criticising the scheme, Hancock replied:
What I would say about that particular paragraph that you read out is that it is wholly naive as to the circumstances that we face. The point about naivety is really, really important.
It’s fine having academics write papers about this stuff, and some of the academic analysis of how you could do better in a future pandemic is really, really valuable.
But it can only have any value at all if you understand what it was like. You know, you weren’t there. This professor wasn’t there. But you’ve got to understand what it was like.
The pressure to save lives is intense, but so is the reality that high-quality offers will come through and be sent through to senior decision makers, and you have to have a process for dealing with that.
Apologising for being “impassioned” in his evidence, Hancock went on:
I have been subject to enormous amounts of conspiracy theories about what went on here when, in fact, what happened was so many people working as hard as they could to save lives, and they bought more PPE as a result, and therefore people are alive who would otherwise be dead.
And frankly, I’m incredibly proud of the people who themselves have felt under attack because of the way that questions have been put, which does have a material consequence on future responses to a pandemic.
Hancock also said it was important to ensure that, in future, “more bureaucracy” did not get in the way of effective procurement in an equivalent crisis.
Coming back to the new Pip eligibility criteria (see 3.43pm), the Resolution Foundation thinktank says claimants with musculoskeletal conditions, like back pain or arthritis, are the people most likely to lose out. It has published this chart in an analysis.
Updated
John Swinney claims Anas Sarwar's 'no austerity under Labour' pledge exposed as worthless by benefit cuts
John Swinney has said Anas Sarwar’s words “count for absolutely nothing” as he accused the UK government of a return to austerity – something the Scottish Labour leader had promised would not happen.
As PA Media reports, speaking to reporters in Grangemouth, the first minister said Keir Starmer’s government wanted to enact cuts that would punish “the most vulnerable in our society”.
During the general election campaign last year, Sarwar, the Scottish Labour leader, had told voters: “Read my lips: no austerity under Labour.”
The SNP claims the benefit cuts announced yesterday, among other measures, amount to austerity – something that has been rejected by Sarwar but echoed by a senior member of his team at Holyrood, PA says.
Carol Mochan, Scottish Labour’s public health spokeswoman, contradicted her boss in a social media post on the welfare cuts by saying:
Austerity has never been a sustainable path to growth. We cannot balance the books on the backs of people who require benefits just to have a passable standard of living.
These reforms are a mistake and should not go ahead.
Swinney said he “could not fathom what the Labour Government thinks it is doing”. He added:
I think it’s made a number of huge mistakes already. The winter fuel cut was a disastrous mistake for the Labour government to make.
That proposal was offered to the Tories on countless occasions and they never took it.
The Labour Party has taken that cut and they’ve now taken cuts to disability benefits, which even the Tories didn’t do.
Swinney also said he was “not surprised” the cuts led to Neil Findlay quitting the party. (See 11.13am.) And he claimed Sarwar had broken his pre-election pledge.
We now know that Anas Sarwar’s words count for absolutely nothing.
This is the return to austerity that I told everybody would happen unless some of the hard realities of the public finances were addressed.
Labour are interested now in returning austerity and punishing the most vulnerable in our society. What disgrace the Labour party has become.
Updated
In a Guardian column Frances Ryan says the plans for cuts to sickness and disability benefits announced yesterday are “rotten with contradictions and cruelty”. Here is an extract.
Even with the U-turn, the bulk of the cuts will fall on the Pip budget, despite the benefit having nothing to do with employment. Indeed, removing Pip – which is often used to pay for taxis, mobility aids and care staff – is more likely to push disabled people out of employment. Pip is also a “gateway benefit”, and ministers are yet to address whether those losing it could see their families lose vital carer’s allowance too.
Meanwhile, the plan to reduce UC for the whole “unfit to work category” will hit many severely ill and disabled people who will not be protected by the new premium. Ministers say this will “incentivise” people to stay in the work-search group, as if the reason a teacher confined to bed with ME quit her job is that she’s just not incentivised enough.
This is austerity dressed up as reform, where the government cuts the money disabled people need to live on in order to balance the books, while claiming it’s all being done to help them.
And here is Frances’ column.
After the Commons vote where MPs removed the Lords amendment to the NICs bill exempting care homes, hospice and other health-related businesses (see 3.07pm), there were five more votes rejected Lords amendments to the bill. The government won them all with three-figure majorities. These included Lords amendments exempting small charities from the NICs increase, and firms providing transport for children with special educational needs.
MPs are now debated a Tory opposition day motion urging the government to publish information about the impact the winter fuel payment cut has had on pensioner poverty.
Starmer's failure to defend new Pip eligibility rules at PMQs show why 'cruel' plans should be dropped, Labour MP says
The Labour MP Richard Burgon has said that Keir Starmer’s failure to answer in detail a question about how the Pip (personal independence payment) entitlement rules will work under the reforms announced yesterday shows why the plans should be dropped.
In a post on social media, Burgon said:
The prime minister was unable to answer a simple question today about why a disabled person who needs help to eat, wash and manage toilet needs could no longer get Pip under his proposals.
The government must drop this cruel proposal or it’ll face the mother of all rebellions.
Burgon was referring to what happened when the SDLP MP Colum Eastwood asked Starmer to justify the new Pip rules. (See 12.54pm.) Eastwood said:
A lady came to see me recently who needed help. She had a disability. It meant that her children had to help her cut up her food. They have to help her wash beneath her waist. They have to supervise her as she goes to the toilet.
Under the Tory welfare system we were able to get that lady on Pip. Under the prime minister’s new proposed system, she will get zero, nothing.
And after 14 years of the Tory government – and many of us wanted to see the back of them – can the prime minister answer one question – what was the point if Labour are going to do this?
In response, Starmer said that lived with the impact of disability through his mother (who had Still’s disease and was in a wheelchair for much of his life) and through his brother (who had learning difficulties), but that he thought the current welfare system was “indefensible”. He did not say why Eastwood’s constituent should lose her Pip, but he said under the government’s plans “if you can never work, you must be supported and protected”.
On Newsnight last night the SNP MP Kirsty Blackman made a similar point about how the new Pip rules will work. She said:
If you, for example, can’t put on your own trousers, if you cannot get in and out of the shower yourself, if you are not able to go to the toilet without supervision, you still may not make the criteria [to keep getting Pip], because none of those things get you four points.
Blackman was referring to the change in the eligibility rules set out in the green paper yesterday. It says:
We will introduce a new eligibility requirement to ensure that only those who score a minimum of 4 points in at least one daily living activity will be eligible for the daily living component of Pip. This requirement will need to be met in addition to the existing Pip eligibility criteria.
This means that people who have lower needs only in the daily living activities (scoring 3 or less for each activity) will no longer be eligible for the daily living component of Pip. Meanwhile, people with a higher level of functional need in at least one activity – for example, people who are unable to complete activities at all, or who require more help from others to complete them – will still receive Pip.
Pip works on a points system, where points are awarded by level of disability in relation to various activities. There is a guide to the points here.
Commenting on the first vote on the Lords amendment to the NICs bill (see 3.07pm), Daisy Cooper, the Lib Dem deputy leader and Treasury spokesperson, said:
Labour MPs today have voted for a health tax on GPs, dentists, pharmacies, hospices and care homes, and it is patients who will pay the price.
The Liberal Democrats are proud we have led the fight to exempt health and care providers from this misguided tax hike, and we will not give up now.
On April 6 worried social care providers and GP surgeries are going to be hit with bills they simply cannot afford. Rachel Reeves must finally see sense, U-turn on this disastrous policy and exempt health and care providers from this damaging jobs tax.
MPs vote to reject Lords amendment exempting hospices and care homes from employer NICs rise
MPs have voted to reject a Lords amendment to the national insurance contributions (NICs) bill that would have exempted hospices, care homes, pharmacies and dentist from the increase in employer NICs announced in last years’ budget.
The government won by 307 votes to 182 – a majority of 125.
Defending the proposal to reject the amendment, James Murray, a Treasury minister, said that if the government did not get this income, other tax rises, cuts, or borrowing would be needed. He told MPs:
We have had to take difficult but necessary decisions to repair the public finances and rebuild our public services …
In order to restore fiscal responsibility and get public services back on their feet, we needed to raise revenue including through the measures that this Bill will introduce and many of the amendments from the other place put at risk the funding that this Bill seeks to raise. So let me be clear, to support these amendments is also to support higher borrowing, lower spending or other tax rises.
But the Conservative MP Wendy Morton accused the government of “giving with one hand but taking away with the other”. She said:
The hospice sector is just one example of many sectors which have been adversely affected by this cruel tax that the government is placing on them.
Daisy Cooper, the Lib Dem Treasury spokesperson, said the Lords had made 21 amendments to the government’s original bill. “Taken together they provide protections for health and care providers, for small charities with an annual revenue of less than £1 million, for transport providers for children with special educational needs and disabilities, for small businesses with fewer than 25 employees,” she said.
Green party of England and Wales says its membership has reached 60,000
The Green party of England and Wales has announced that its membership has reached 60,000.
Carla Denyer, the party’s co-leader, said:
The Green party got more votes and more MPs than ever before last May. We’ve got more councillors than ever and expect that number to grow this May. Today, we are celebrating breaking the 60,000 members point.
Crucially, this growth in membership and political representation is organic, powered by our grassroots activists on the ground. Increasingly as the two tired old parties collapse, people are crying out for change. Greens are offering real hope, real change, and a real alternative.
The membership figure is very close to the party’s highest ever total, just over 60,000, which was reached in May 2015.
No 10 brands Badenoch 'climate defeatist'
Downing Street has described Kemi Badenoch as a “climate defeatist”.
At the post-PMQs lobby briefing, the PM’s press secretary was asked about the speech Badenoch gave yesterday saying reaching net zero by 2050 was impossible, and whether Keir Starmer believed, unlike Badenoch, that net zero targets will drive up living standards. She replied:
Absolutely … Net zero is an opportunity to be seized.
It’s good for the economy, good for UK businesses, jobs, apprenticeships and growth.
The leader of the opposition has become a climate defeatist.
Government to consult on holding national day to honour victims and survivors of terror attacks
Plans for a national day to honour victims and survivors of terror attacks have been announced as part of government efforts to boost support for those affected by terrorism, PA Media reports. PA says:
Views are being sought over the move from victims, survivors and the public on what the day would be called, ways for victims to be commemorated and a date for the event.
A 12-week consultation launched today comes after survivors of terror attacks have campaigned for more recognition and support for those affected by atrocities.
The government has also announced plans to set up a new support hub to help victims in the immediate and long-term aftermath of terror attacks.
Security minister Dan Jarvis said: “The impact of a terrorist attack is long-lasting and evolving. Victims and survivors of terrorism need the highest levels of support to recover and rebuild their lives. These reforms will significantly enhance the support available to those affected.
Rachel Reeves will not announce an extension of the freeze in income tax thresholds in the spring statement next week, Pippa Crerar, the Guardian’s political editor, is reporting. At PMQs Keir Starmer refused to rule this out. (See 1.53pm.) But Pippa reports on social media.
I understand that Rachel Reeves will NOT be making any tax changes next week in her spring statement.
She has previously said she wouldn’t extend freeze on the income tax threshold - this hasn’t been ruled out but it would be at autumn budget.
Tories have suggested govt is planning move for next week.
Updated
Starmer declines to repeat at PMQs Reeves' pledge not to extend income tax threshold freeze
Here is the PA Media news story from PMQs.
Keir Starmer failed to repeat the chancellor’s commitment not to extend the freeze on income tax, ahead of next week’s spring statement.
Kemi Badenoch pressed the prime minister to reaffirm the pledge during PMQs.
In the autumn budget, Rachel Reeves decided not to extend the freeze on the thresholds at which people start to pay different rates of income tax.
Thresholds were initially frozen by the previous Conservative government until April 2028.
In the Commons, the Conservative leader also accused Starmer of digging his own black hole and urged him to protect hospices from national insurance increases.
Badenoch said: “The chancellor promised a once-in-a-parliament budget that she would not come back for more. And in that budget, she said there will be no extension of the freeze in income tax thresholds. Ahead of the emergency budget, will he repeat the commitment that she made?”
Starmer replied: “She’s got such pre-scripted questions she can’t actually adapt them to the answers that I’m giving. I think she now calls herself a Conservative realist. Well, I’m realistic about the Conservatives.
“The reality is they left open borders and she was the cheerleader. They crashed the economy, mortgages went through the roof. The NHS was left on its knees, and they hollowed out the armed forces.
“This government has already delivered two million extra NHS appointments, 750 breakfast clubs, record returns of people who shouldn’t be here, and a fully-funded increase in our defence spending. That is the difference that a Labour government makes.”
UPDATE: Reeves is not going to extend the income tax threshold freeze in the spring statement, the Guardian understands. See 1.57pm.
Updated
PMQs - snap verdict
The two best moments of PMQs came when Keir Starmer was challenged about the disability benefit cuts – first by Colum Eastwood (who is not a Labour MP, but who belongs to a sister party, the SDLP, and who expressed what a lot of Labour MPs are thinking), and then by Diane Abbott (who is a Labour MP, but who would have been an an ex-MP by now if the Starmerites had managed to include her in the pre-election Corbynite purge, as they originally wanted). The two backbenchers asked serious, emotionally-charged questions, and Starmer replied respectfully.
By contrast, Starmer’s exchanges with Kemi Badenoch were a bit ‘so what?’ It was very much in no-score draw territory. But, for Badenoch, that is a distinct improvement on some of her recent performances.
Badenoch kept most of her questions quite short, which probably helped. She started by asking Starmer why he was holding an “emergency budget” next week, challenging him to say that the spring statement won’t amount to an emergency budget. Starmer, probably wisely, decided not to engage in a dispute about a matter of journalistic semantics (technically, next week's announcement isn’t a budget, but it will probably feel like a budget, and some journalists will describe it as much). This did not really do much harm, but Badenoch might have helped make the “emergency budget” label stick.
Starmer looked more uncomforable when Badenoch asked why Labour MPs would be voting to overturn a Lords amendment that would exempt hospices from the employer national insurance increase. The PM was not exactly wounded by the exchange, but he looked as if he would rather be talking about something else (as he also did when Ed Davey raised the matter later). He resorted to his stock answer about the government needing to raise more money, and the opposition parties supporting the budget spending increases but not the measures that funded them. We will be hearing these points for months and years to come, because they are decent arguments.
Finally, Badenoch challenged Starmer to confirm that the spring statement will stick to the pledge made by Rachel Reeves last year when she said in her budget “ there will be no extension of the freeze in income tax and national insurance thresholds beyond the decisions made by the previous government”. Starmer refused to give that assurance, which means news organisations can now report this as a hint that the freeze in tax thresholds might be extended next week. (In practical terms, this would feel like a tax rise.) From Badenoch’s point of view, this is a result.
After PMQs a Tory spokesperson said:
The prime minister just failed to repeat the chancellor’s pledge not to extend the freeze on income tax. The only logical conclusion is that at next week’s emergency budget Labour are plotting stealth taxes to drag more people into paying higher tax rates.
At the post-PMQs briefing No 10 also refused to rule out the freeze in tax thresholds being extended next week, and so perhaps Badenoch is onto something.
But there are other “logical conclusions”. It is quite normal for PMs to refuse to answer questions about forthcoming budgets spring statements, because that sets a precedent allowing MPs and journalists to find out what is being planned by elimination questioning. Maybe Starmer and Reeves are planning a new stealth tax? Or maybe Starmer just did not want to engage. The Whitehall spin machine may provide a clearer answer later today, or before next Wednesday, but at this point we don’t know.
Colum Eastwood, the SDLP MP, asked probably the most powerful question at PMQs, about the disability benefit cuts. I did not cover it earlier (it came just after the Starmer/Badenoch exchanges), but you can watch it here.
MP Colum Eastwood criticises Starmer over cuts to PIP
— ITVPolitics (@ITVNewsPolitics) March 19, 2025
'After 14 years of the Tory government, and many of us wanting to see the back of them, what was the point if Labour are going to do this?', he asks pic.twitter.com/KLtdvTOG67
UPDATE: See 3.43pm for more on this exchange.
Updated
Starmer defends calling benefit cuts plan 'moral' after Diane Abbott says it's all about cost cutting, not morality
Diane Abbott (Lab) says the welfare system can be a nightmare to navigate, and needs to reform. But she calls for less of the rhetoric about this being “moral”.
There is nothing moral about cutting benefits for what may be up to one million people. This is not about morality. This is about the Treasury’s wish to balance the books on the back of the most vulnerable and poor people in this society.
Starmer says Abbott has been a passionate advocate on this issue for a long time. But he disagrees, he says. The current system is broken, he says. He goes on:
I think one in eight young people not in employment, training or education, that’s a million young people, I think that’s a moral issue.
Because all the evidence suggests that, someone in that situation, at that stage of their life, is going to find it incredibly difficult ever to get out of that level of dependency. That cuts across the opportunity and aspiration at the root of my values, and Labour values, about how we take working people forward. So I do see it as a moral issue.
I’m not going to turn away from that. I am genuinely shocked that a million people, young people, are in that position, and I’m not prepared to shrug my shoulders and walk past them.
Updated
John Hayes (Con) says crossbows can cost lives in the hands of killers. The last government launched a consultation on their use. They are as powerful as guns. Will the government give a clear decision before Easter on what it will do about this.
Starmer says Hayes is right to raise this. The government is working on this, he says.
Lee Dillon (Lib Dem) says President Putin is “playing for time” and not signing up to a ceasefire. He says now is the time to seize frozen Russian assets.
Starmer says the asset issue is “complicated”. The UK is working with other countries to see what is possible. But it is “not straightforward”.
Lee Anderson (Reform UK) says he comes to the Commons to ask sensible questions.
MPs laugh at this.
Anderson ploughs on, asking by how much the world’s temperature would fall if the UK achieved net zero tomorrow.
Starmer says Anderson knows his views on net zero. But he accuses Reform UK of “fawning over Putin”, and says they have not even got enough MPs to fit in the back of a taxi.
Uma Kumaran (Lab) says Straford and Bow, her constituency, has the largest number of high-rise buildings with dangerous cladding in the country.
Starmer says the government has signed a contract with developers to address this.
John Cooper (Con) says the MoD is using procurement systems designed for peacetime. Will the PM change this?
Yes, says Starmer. But he says the Tories left a mess, having not made the investment needed.
Anneliese Midgley (Lab) asks about the TV drama Adolescence, which explores the radicalisation of young men, and asks the PM to back a campaignt to tackle toxic misogyny.
Starmer says he is watching this at home with his teenage children, and it is very good. The radicalisation of young men online is abhorrent, he says. It is important to tackle this growing problem.
Nick Timothy (Con) asks about compensation for victims of the infected blood scandal, saying some victims are having compensation cut.
Starmer says the Tories committed to this compensation, but did not budget for it. The government is committed to acting on the inquiry’s recommendation, he says.
Brian Leishman (Lab) asks about support for workers at the Grangemouth oil refinery who are losing their jobs.
Starmer says every employee made redundant will get 18 months’ pay.
Alison Griffiths (Con) asks about the Santander bank closures. What is the government doing to ensure people are not left without access to banking services?
Starmer says the governmnet is rolling out 350 banking hubs.
Chris Murray (Lab) says there are more homeless children in Edinburgh than in the whole of Wales.
Starmer says this is an appalling indictment of the SNP’s record.
Danny Kruger (Con) asks why the governmnet is not consulting on some of its plans for disability cuts.
Starmer says the Tories had 14 years to improve the system.
Paul Davies (Lab) welcomes government moves to tackle problems caused by off-road bikes
Starmer says the government’s crime bill is addressing this.
Paul Kohler (Lib Dem) asks for more support for people with eating disorders.
Starmer says too many people with these disorders are not getting the help they need. He will update Kohler on what the government is doing about this, he says.
Carla Denyer, the co-leader of the Green party, says the economic system is deeply unfair. She says a wealth tax would be fairer than the disability cuts.
Starmer says the tax system is proportionate, and the rich are paying more. But the Green party’s manifesto proposed £80bn in extra borrowing – which would do what Liz Truss did to the economy, he says.
Laurence Turner (Lab) asks about resources for the police.
Starmer says the government is giving the police money to recruit 13,000 more officers.
Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, also asks about the impact of the NICs increase on care providers. Peers passed a Lib Dem amendment to exempt the care sector. He asks Starmer to deny reports Labour MPs will vote to take out that amendment today.
Starmer says the government had to raise extra money. He says Davey cannot welcome the extra money in the budget, but oppose the measures needed to fund it.
Davey turns to illegal hare coursing. He says criminal gangs are terrorising rural communities. They are threatening farmers, and farmers are saying it is only a matter of time before someone is killed. He calls for a rural crime strategy.
Starmer says he is grateful to Davey for raising this important issue. The government has a rural crime strategy, but he will work with Davey to develop this further.
Badenoch says the chancellor has said she will not extend the tas threshold freeze. Will Starmer repeat that promise?
Starmer says Badenoch calls herself a Conservative realist.
I’m realistic about the Conservatives. The reality is they left open borders and she was the cheerleader.
Badenoch says the hospice announcement Starmer mentioned was money for buildings, not to compensate for the NICs increase.
Starmer says he has set out the position on hospices.
Badenoch again asks if hospice will be exempt from the jobs tax.
Starmer says the government is supporting the hospice sector. He says Badenoch should apologise for the black hole the Tories left in the finances.
Badenoch says MPs will vote on the employer national insurance rise later. Will the government exempt hospices, pharmacies and care providers.
Starmer says Badenoch did not commit to reversing the employer national insurance rise.
Badenoch asks if the government regrets raising business taxes.
Starmer says Badenoch is supposed to be straight talking. Will the Tories reverse it? If not, what else would they cut?
Kemi Badenoch says last year’s budget was supposed to be a one-off. So why are we having an emergency budget next week.
Starmer defends the government’s economic record.
But he does not challenge the claim that the spring statement is an emergency budget.
Andrew Pakes (Lab) says the national minimum wage is going up next month. He urges the government to go “further and faster” in making work pay.
Starmer says Pakes is doing a superb job for his constituents (he is certainly doing a superb job for the Labour whips) and he criticises the Tories for opposing the rise in the minimum wage.
Alberto Costa (Con) asks about children with brain cancer. He recalls a constituent whose son died from a tumour, aged six. Will the PM arrange a meeting for his mum with a minister to discuss research?
Starmer says the loss of a child is “unbearable”. Most of us, including Starmer himself, would not know how to react, he says. He will arrange the meeting.
Keir Starmer starts by saying he spoke to President Zelenskyy last night. He reaffirmed the UK’s support for Ukraine.
He says he is “deeply concerned” by the resumption of military action in Gaza. Picture of children affected, and the numbers killed, are “shocking”.
And he pays tribute to the last surviving Battle of Britain pilot, John Hemmingway, who has died.
Starmer faces Badenoch at PMQs
PMQs is imminent.
Here is the list of MPs down to ask a question.
Liberal Democrats condemn Trump for his 'fawning call with Putin'
With Keir Starmer reluctant to criticise President Trump because he has to negotiate with him, Kemi Badenoch reluctant to criticise him because many Tories admire him, and Nigel Farage reluctant to criticise him because he does not want to jeopardise their personal friendship, the political space for Trump-bashing in UK politics is a lot more empty than it probably should be.
The Liberal Democrats are exploiting this more than anyone else, and this morning the party has issued this statement, from the Lib Dem foreign affairs spokesperson Calum Miller, about the Trump/Putin call yesterday. Miller says:
Donald Trump’s fawning call with Putin couldn’t be more different to his and JD Vance’s shameful bullying of Zelensky in the Oval Office.
It’s clear Trump is being played by Putin - stringing him along and currying favour even as his savage war machine continues to push deeper into Ukraine.
Now is the time for the UK and our allies in Europe and the Commonwealth to redouble our efforts to support Ukraine’s defence and achieve a lasting peace.
Last night, to back up its analysis of the disability cuts, the Institute for Fiscal Studies published two charts illustrating aspects of the changes.
This one shows how the £5bn cuts announced yesterday compare in scale to previous benefit cuts, listed here in order of how big they were, in current prices.
NEW: Today’s announced reforms to disability and incapacity benefits represent a fundamental change to how the state supports people out of work.
— Institute for Fiscal Studies (@TheIFS) March 18, 2025
As a whole they're expected to save over £5 billion by 2029–30, the biggest cut to welfare in any fiscal event since 2015:
[THREAD] pic.twitter.com/wmG00WYKG7
And this one shows how incapacity benefit, or the maximum health top-up for universal credit, as it is now, has gradually become worth significantly more than the standard rate. The changes announced yesterday are intended to reverse this trend.
Over the last 50 years, successive governments have widened the gap between the basic level of unemployment benefit and the highest level of incapacity benefit.
— Institute for Fiscal Studies (@TheIFS) March 18, 2025
These changes will significantly narrow that gap. pic.twitter.com/c1Df3LTT7R
Matt Hancock, the former Tory health secretary, has just started giving evidence to the Covid inquiry as part of its inquiry into PPE procurement.
There is a live feed here.
I won’t be covering it minute by minute, but I will post any highlights.
Neil Findlay, a former Labour MSP, has resigned from the party over the disability benefit cuts.
In an open letter to Keir Starmer posted on social media, he says government claims that the cuts are motivated by the desire to get more sick and disabled people back into work are “lies”. He goes on:
Of course people who can work should work - no one is questioning that - but for my relatives, friends and neighbours, and your constituents who have the misfortune to suffer from a chronic, debilitating, long-term condition that leaves them bed-bound, unable to leave their home or crushed by mental illness, these cuts will not motivate them to get back to work, it will instead scare and humiliate them and strip them of their dignity and self respect and for some it will send them to an early grave. The blame for this will lie squarely with you and the sycophants within your party who passively support these dreadful cuts.
MY RESIGNATION FROM THE LABOUR PARTY
— Neil Findlay (@Neilsocialist) March 19, 2025
Having spent 35 years in the Labour Party yesterday’s disgusting attack on the sick and disabled was the last straw - this is my letter to @Keir_Starmer 👇 https://t.co/xmFAOZkMIp pic.twitter.com/5LiwkSCL1x
Reform UK achieves highest polling for Scottish election
Severin Carrell is the Guardian’s Scotland editor.
Reform UK has recorded its highest polling figure for a Scottish election, with a poll by Survation putting its support at 17% in the constituency vote - comfortably ahead of the Scottish Conservatives and six points behind Labour.
The poll for the public relations firm Quantum Communications also found that Reform UK was three points ahead of the Tories in the regional list vote on 16%, with Scottish Labour on 20%.
Because of Holyrood’s proportional voting system, that implies Reform UK could win 14 Scottish parliament seats in May 2026.
Those would most likely come via the regional lists, where any vote higher than 5% puts a party in contention for seats, but at 17% in the constituency vote, some first past the post seats would also come into play.
Survation found the Scottish National party will comfortably win, with 34% of the constituency vote and 29% of the list vote. The Diffley Partnership estimates that would give the SNP 55 seats against 19 for Labour and 17 for the Tories overall.
Those data confirm evidence from the Scottish Election Survey that Reform UK is splitting the non-nationalist vote, despite having no Scottish leader and only a handful of council seats – all gained by sitting councillors defecting.
It has yet to win any elections in Scotland yet appears to be taking significant votes from the Tories but also some from Labour, and a few in the margins from the Liberal Democrats and SNP.
Prof Nicola McEwen, director of the Centre for Public Policy at the University of Glasgow, said that until now Scotland seemed to have bucked the Reform UK trend in England and Wales.
Although small numbers in the sample point to the need for caution, 16 to 24-year-olds represent Reform’s strongest voter group by age.
This is not unique to Scotland. Across the UK and Europe, far right parties today appear able to capture support from young people to levels normally associated with the far left.
Survation has posted details of the poll on social media.
NEW: Reform Records Highest Support Ever in a Scottish Poll
— Survation. (@Survation) March 19, 2025
Constituency vote share:
SNP: 34% (-1)
Labour: 23% (+1)
Reform UK: 17% (+4)
Conservatives: 12% (-2)
Liberal Democrats: 8% (n/c)
Green: 4% (-2)
Alba: 1% (n/c)
Fwk: 6-13 March 2025
(Changes vs January 2025) pic.twitter.com/VshOqG0bR4
Aside from Reform UK’s rise, the broader electoral landscape remains largely stable, with the SNP maintaining an 11-point lead over Labour, marking a recovery from their polling lows from a year ago. pic.twitter.com/2em5jXgUWd
— Survation. (@Survation) March 19, 2025
Peer who led government NHS review failed to declare shares in health firms
The independent peer Lord Darzi, a senior adviser to the government on the NHS, failed to officially declare shareholdings in healthcare companies worth hundreds of thousands of pounds, David Conn reports.
Ministers may extend DLA for children so that parents still get it for period after death of sick child, Timms says
The government is considering extending disability living allowance for children so that, if a parent has given up work to care for the child and he or she dies, the benefit keeps being paid for a period.
In an interview with Sky News, Stephen Timms, the social security and disability minister, said:
One thing we are looking at is, and we’re taking legal advice about this at the moment, the possibility of extending disability living allowance for children, the benefit that’s paid when children are very unwell, for a period after the child’s death.
Just to support parents during what otherwise [is] obviously a terribly, terribly difficult time, but also a financially difficult time for them. That’s a possibility that we are looking at at the moment.
Updated
Tighter rules for Pip won't exclude all people claiming as result of severe anxiety, says DWP minister Stephen Timms
In his interview on Times Radio this morning, Stephen Timms, the social security and disability minister, said that the government’s decision to tighten the eligibility requirments for Pip would not exclude all people claiming as a result of severe anxiety.
Asked if people with anxiety would no longer by able to claim Pip under the new rules, Timms replied:
No, it depends what the effect of the condition is on people’s wellbeing, and the indicators are all published and set out.
So if you have difficulties doing certain things, then you get points on the Pip assessment. And the number of points you get determine how much Pip you get.
Updated
The Guardian has today published this article by Brian, a single father with mental health issues who receives Pip, who explains why he is alarmed about the disability benefit cuts announced yesterday.
Starmer claims no one with 'condition that means they'll never be able to work' will lose out from disability benefit cuts
In his article in the Times about the disability benefit cuts, Keir Starmer makes a bold claim – that nobody with a condition meaning they can never work will lose out. He says:
Our reforms are guided by three principles. First, if you can work, you should. Second, if you want to work, the government should support you to make that a reality. Third, if you will never be able to work because of your illness or disability, the state should help you to get by with security, dignity and respect.
So, nobody with a condition that means they will never be able to work will lose out from our changes. Nor will they have to endure the indignity and fear of endless reassessment – that requirement will be scrapped.
If Starmer can persuade disabled people that this is true, then much of the opposition to what the government is doing would diminish. But, from the reaction we saw yesterday, it is clear that disabled people, and the charities that represent them, do not believe that this is correct.
Most of the savings are going to come from the government tightening eligibility for Pip (the personal independence payment), a disability benefit that covers the extra costs people incur because they are disabled and that is paid to people both in work and out of work. Yesterday the Resolution Foundation thinktank said these changes would cost up to 1.2 million people between £4,200 and £6,300.
Speaking on the Today programme this morning, Ruth Curtice, the foundation’s chief executive, said:
The government haven’t given us a number for how many will be affected, and because they’ve made quite a detailed change to the system, we can’t tell exactly who will be affected.
I think it would have been good if the government had told us yesterday, but given what they’ve told us about how much they’re planning, the Resolution Foundation estimate it’s around a million people who are losing their entitlement to Pip completely ..
You can think of £5bn as small or large, depending on your perspective – getting those from a million individuals means that for those individuals, it’s really significant income loss.
Minister refuses to rule out further benefit cuts amid backlash over disability benefits being reduced by £5bn
Good morning. Keir Starmer and his team got through the announcement yesterday of disability benefit cuts worth £5bn without total Labour meltdown – no one has resigned from the government yet – but backbenchers were broadly sullen and unpersuaded, and the battle to implement these changes is only just starting.
Here is our overnight story, by Kiran Stacey, Pippa Crerar and Jessica Elgot.
Patrick Butler, the Guardian’s social policy editor, has an analysis here.
And Archie Bland has a good overall upsum of where we are in his First Edition briefing.
Starmer has written an article for the Times defending the cuts (more on that soon), and Stephen Timms, the social security and disability minister, has been giving interviews this morning. His first was on Times Radio, where Kate McCann quickly highlighted one of the reasons why this is perilous territory for Labour. Timms said that, even with these cuts, the welfare bill was still going up; but these measures made the rising cost “sustainable”, he argued. So McCann asked if the government was ruling out further benefit cuts in future. Timms replied:
The proposals were set out in full yesterday. We’re going to be tabling legislation to implement a number of those changes. We’re going to be consulting over a full 12-week period on some of the proposals that we made yesterday. And we’re determined to get this absolutely right.
McCann tried again:
Can we just be very clear, though – are you ruling out coming back for more from the welfare bill?
And Timms replied:
Who knows what will happen in the next five years?
Indeed. And we’re not going to find out today. But we will hear what Starmer has to say in the next three hours, when Starmer takes PMQs.
Here is the agenda for the day.
Morning: Matt Hancock, the former Tory health secretary, gives evidence to the Covid inquiry as part of its module looking at PPE procurement.
Noon: Keir Starmer faces Kemi Badenoch at PMQs.
After 12.30pm: MPs debate Lords amendments to the bill putting up employer national insurance.
3pm: Martin Lewis, the consumer champion and founder of MoneySavingExpert.com, gives evidence to the Commons energy committee.
If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line or message me on social media. I can’t read all the messages BTL, but if you put “Andrew” in a message aimed at me, I am more likely to see it because I search for posts containing that word.
If you want to flag something up urgently, it is best to use social media. You can reach me on Bluesky at @andrewsparrowgdn. The Guardian has given up posting from its official accounts on X but individual Guardian journalists are there, I still have my account, and if you message me there at @AndrewSparrow, I will see it and respond if necessary.
I find it very helpful when readers point out mistakes, even minor typos. No error is too small to correct. And I find your questions very interesting too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either BTL or sometimes in the blog.Here is the agenda for the day.
Updated
