Lords throw out plans for welfare reform
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The Government suffered three defeats in the House of Lords over its controversial Welfare Reform Bill.
Peers voted by 260 to 216 to allow young disabled people to receive employment and support allowance (ESA). They also threw out a plan to limit to one year the time people can claim ESA and a time limit on contributory ESA payments from people receiving cancer treatment. The defeat is embarrassing for ministers and will delays plans for the introduction of the Government's flagship universal credit scheme. The bill must now return to the Commons to reverse the defeats.
Putting forward the first amendment, the independent peer Baroness Meacher said the plans would mean disabled children who could never work would never be entitled to the benefit. She said it would leave them dependent on means testing and they would receive no income at all if their partner was earning. Labour shadow welfare minister Lord McKenzie of Luton who backed Lady Meacher's amendment added: "The abolition of the youth condition does seem particularly spiteful."
The Government was later defeated by 234 to 186 over a plan to limit to one year the time people can claim ESA. Peers agreed a move to replace the one-year cap with the ability for the Government to introduce secondary legislation specifying a limit of not less than two years.
The Government suffered a third defeat when peers voted 222 to 166 to accept Lord Patel's second amendment, which removes a time limit on contributory ESA payments from those receiving cancer treatment.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments