UN criticises Starmer's welfare reforms and warns measures will 'increase poverty rates'

A UN committee on disability rights has criticised the UK government's welfare reforms, saying they will "increase poverty rates".  In an intervention likely to be seized on by MPs seeking to further water down the measures, the committee asks ministers for answers on 10 issues surrounding the benefit changes - and says the reforms risk "regression" for disabled people.

The committee, which reports to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, asks about British politicians suggesting people are defrauding the benefits system. One point on which it wants clarification is: "Public statements by politicians and authorities 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." Other questions are on the impact the measures will have on "young persons, new claimants of disability benefits, women with disabilities, persons with disabilities with high level supports" and others.

They ask ministers about what measures they have taken to address "the foreseeable risk of increasing poverty rates amongst persons with disabilities if cuts are approved" and claim the welfare bill has had "limited scrutiny". The letter claims that the committee has "received credible information" that the Universal Credit and Personal Independent Payment Bill "will deepen the signs of regression" that the committee warned about in a report last year on the cost of living crisis and its impact on disabled people.

An intervention by the UN will be an embarrassment to the government, which has promised its welfare reforms will help disabled people into work. Liz Kendall, the welfare secretary, was criticised heavily earlier in the year for saying some people on benefits were "taking the mickey".

After a chaotic first vote in Parliament on 1 July, in which MPs succeeded in watering down the reforms significantly, the government now says its reforms will lift 50,000 people out of poverty. The bill was backed by 335 MPs, with 260 against - a majority of 75.

Read more:This has been PM's most damaging U-turn yetIs Starmer at the mercy of his MPs? The first version of the reforms would have - the government's assessment said - pushed 250,000 people into poverty. Charities are urging MPs to continue to push for further changes - including on cuts to Universal Credit sickness payments.

A different UN committee heavily criticised benefit changes made by the Conservatives in 2016 and called on the UK to take "corrective measures" when Labour came into office. The UN's committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) concluded that "welfare reform" measures introduced by Conservative-led governments in 2012 and 2016 had disproportionately affected disabled people, low-income families, and workers in "precarious employment".

The committee said this had led to "severe economic hardship, increased reliance on food banks, homelessness, negative impacts on mental health, and the stigmatisation of benefit claimants". The Department for Work and Pensions has been contacted for comment.

The Universal Credit and Personal Independent Payment Bill returns to the Commons on Wednesday for its remaining stages. Mikey Erhardt, policy lead at Disability Rights UK, said: "The fact that the UN has yet again felt it needs to write to the UK government about our cruel and punitive social security system should be a national shame.

"We hope this letter is a wake-up call for MPs. Despite all the chaos of the last-minute climbdowns and concessions, the Universal Credit bill remains broken.

"There are still billions of cuts on the table, and we urge MPs to approach tomorrow's proceedings with caution as their vote will have serious implications for disabled people across the country. "If disabled people feel unable to trust the government's promises on co-production and the UN needed to raise concerns over the bill's impact, how can MPs vote this bill through?".