logo
Benefits U-turn: How much will it cost?

Benefits U-turn: How much will it cost?

BBC News4 hours ago

Labour's original plan to reform the welfare system was a hasty effort to try to make billions of pounds of cuts to a rapidly growing bill in order to help the chancellor meet her self-imposed rules on government borrowing.But this latest U-turn raises significant questions about just how stability and credibility-enhancing it really is to tweak financial plans every six months to hit budget targets that change frequently due to a variety of reasons, including things such as the cost of borowing which the government cannot control.latest dealappears to row back more than half of the annual £5bn earmarked saving from the welfare reforms, by 2029-30.The planned cut to disability personal independent payment (Pip) eligibility was set to raise the bulk of this saving, £4.5bn. But now the changes will apply only to new claimants from November 2026, sparing 370,000 current claimants out of the 800,000 identified by the DWP impact assessment.Another change announced in March, which now only applies to new claimants, involves how Pip applicants are assessed. Pip assessments involve questions about tasks like preparing and eating food, washing and getting dressed. Each is scored from zero - for no difficulty - to 12 - for the most severe.They are asked questions about daily tasks and are scored on how difficult they find them. People will need to score at least four points for one activity, instead of qualifying for support across a broad range of tasks.For example, needing help to wash your hair, or your body below the waist, would be awarded two points, but needing help to wash between the shoulders and waist would equate to four points.Rebel leader Meg Hillier and ministers have jointly stressed that the new four-point threshold, even when applied to new claimants only, will be a so called "co-production". This means they will be drawn up together with disability charities, so how the scoring will be applied is still unclear and suggests the changes may not save as much money as expected.
There will also be a knock-on impact for Carer's Allowance. It seems plausible that this part will cost about £2bn.The original universal credit health changes - freezing the health element until 2029-30, and halving it then freezing it for new claimants from next April - would have raised £3bn in 2029-30. Now 2.25 million existing recipients will see a rise in line with inflation, and the most severe cases out of 730,000 new claimants will no longer see this halved.This would cost several hundred million, perhaps £1bn.In addition, the government has promised to pull forward investment in employment, health and skills support in order to frontload support to get those on health benefits back into work. This was only due to hit next year and be seen at its full £1bn level by 2029. This helps the coherence of the package as a piece of reform rather than cost-cutting.There are many moving parts here, and it is worth noting that the original costings were highly uncertain and subject to assumptions about changed behaviours. For example, critically, the number of claimants who would successfully say that they were now above the new four-point threshold.However, it seems likely that the total cost of the overnight deal is more than half of the original £5bn saving - a £2.5-3bn deal. All will be revealed at the Budget by the government's financial watchdog, the Office for Budget Responsibility.But this is in addition to the £1.25bn cost of the winter fuel payment U-turn, and would either have to come from higher taxes or cuts elsewhere, given the chancellor's "non-negotiable" borrowing rules.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Keir Starmer says he ‘deeply regrets' island of strangers speech
Keir Starmer says he ‘deeply regrets' island of strangers speech

The Guardian

time35 minutes ago

  • The Guardian

Keir Starmer says he ‘deeply regrets' island of strangers speech

Keir Starmer has said he 'deeply regrets' a speech in which he described the UK as being in danger of becoming an island of strangers without tough curbs on immigration. The prime minister made the remarks in an interview with the Observer, saying he should have read the speech more carefully and 'held it up to the light a bit more'. The speech, delivered in May to unveil Labour's immigration policy, was criticised for seeming to echo Enoch Powell's infamous 1968 'rivers of blood' speech which had claimed Britain's white population would be 'strangers in their own country'. After the speech, Starmer's official spokesperson insisted the prime minister 'absolutely stands by' his language, including claims that mass immigration had done 'incalculable damage' to the British economy. However, speaking in the interview to his biographer, Tom Baldwin, Starmer said: 'I wouldn't have used those words if I had known they were, or even would be, interpreted as an echo of Powell. I had no idea – and my speechwriters didn't know either. But that particular phrase – no – it wasn't right. I'll give you the honest truth: I deeply regret using it.' In the interview, he talked about the firebomb attack on the door of his family home in London just hours before the speech. However, he stressed that he was not using the attack as an excuse for the language, or blaming his advisers, saying he himself should have paid more attention. Sign up to Headlines UK Get the day's headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning after newsletter promotion He also acknowledged there were 'problems with the language' in his foreword to the policy document that said the record numbers of immigrants entering the UK under the last government had done 'incalculable damage' to the country. He said it was the case that Labour had 'became too distant from working-class people on things like immigration', but said 'this wasn't the way to do it in this current environment'. In his speech in mid-May, Starmer said: 'Let me put it this way, nations depend on rules, fair rules. Sometimes they are written down, often they are not, but either way, they give shape to our values, guide us towards our rights, of course, but also our responsibilities, the obligations we owe to each other. 'In a diverse nation like ours … we risk becoming an island of strangers, not a nation that walks forward together.' Afterwards, several Labour MPs questioned whether Starmer's policies were fuelling racism. Sarah Owen, the Labour chair of the women and equalities committee, who is of Malaysian-Chinese heritage, said: 'Chasing the tail of the right risks taking our country down a very dark path. 'The best way to avoid becoming an 'island of strangers' is investing in communities to thrive – not pitting people against each other.' Nadia Whittome said anti-migrant rhetoric from the government was 'shameful and dangerous'. The Labour MP for Nottingham East said: 'To suggest that Britain risks becoming 'an island of strangers' because of immigration mimics the scaremongering of the far right.'

Kneecap performances ‘satirical', says rapper ahead of Glastonbury show
Kneecap performances ‘satirical', says rapper ahead of Glastonbury show

The Independent

time36 minutes ago

  • The Independent

Kneecap performances ‘satirical', says rapper ahead of Glastonbury show

Irish language rap group Kneecap have defended their provocative performances as 'satirical' ahead of performing at Glastonbury this weekend. The rap trio are due to take to the West Holts stage at 4pm on Saturday, just over a week after one of their members appeared in court and as senior Westminster politicians criticised their participation in the popular music festival. Kneecap member Liam Og O hAnnaidh appeared in court last week after being charged for allegedly displaying a flag in support of proscribed terrorist organisation Hezbollah while saying 'up Hamas, up Hezbollah' at a gig in November last year. The band were also criticised following footage of a November 2023 gig allegedly showing a member saying: 'The only good Tory is a dead Tory. Kill your local MP.' British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has said he does not think it is 'appropriate' for Kneecap to perform at Glastonbury, while Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch said she thought the BBC 'should not be showing' Kneecap's performance. O hAnnaidh, who performs under the stage name Mo Chara, said the videos only resurfaced after Kneecap performed at Coachella in April, where they said 'F*** Israel. Free Palestine'. Mo Chara, along with bandmates Naoise O Caireallain (Moglai Bap), and JJ O Dochartaigh (DJ Provai), said the ensuing controversies are a distraction from what is happening to Palestinians. They said they are happy to lose income and clout in order to be 'on the right side of history', and said they hoped that 'being vocal and being unafraid' would encourage other bands to speak up on Palestine. In an interview with The Guardian newspaper ahead of Glastonbury, O hAnnaidh defended their performances as 'satirical'. 'It's a joke. I'm a character. Shit is thrown on stage all the time. If I'm supposed to know every f****** thing that's thrown on stage I'd be in Mensa,' he said. 'I don't know every proscribed organisation – I've got enough shit to worry about up there. I'm thinking about my next lyric, my next joke, the next drop of a beat.' Asked about the 'dead Tory' comments, he said it was 'a joke' and 'we're playing characters'. 'It's satirical, it's a f****** joke. And that's not the point,' he said. 'The point is, that (video) wasn't an issue until we said 'Free Palestine' at Coachella. That stuff happened 18 months ago, and nobody batted an eyelid. 'Everybody agreed it was a f****** joke, even people that may have been in the room that didn't agree – it's a laugh, we're all having a bit of craic. 'The point is, and the context is, it all (resurfaced) because of Coachella. That's what we should be questioning, not whether I regret things.' Ó hAnnaidh added: 'If you believe that what a satirical band who play characters on stage do is more outrageous than the murdering of innocent Palestinians, then you need to give your head a f****** wobble.'

Asos customers banned for being ‘serial returners' say it is ‘deeply concerning'
Asos customers banned for being ‘serial returners' say it is ‘deeply concerning'

The Guardian

time40 minutes ago

  • The Guardian

Asos customers banned for being ‘serial returners' say it is ‘deeply concerning'

Shoppers using the online retailer Asos have complained about having their accounts closed and being accused of breaching a 'fair use' policy on returns. Asos updated its terms and conditions last September, introducing charges for shoppers who frequently returned large numbers of goods in attempts to crack down on 'serial returners'. In the past few days some customers have reported receiving emails saying their accounts would be deactivated. One shopper, Tskenya-Sarah Frazer, said she had been contacted to say her account had been closed because she had made too many returns. 'As a tall, plus-sized, neurodivergent customer I find Asos's decision to deactivate accounts without warning deeply concerning,' she said. 'For people like me, online shopping isn't just a preference, it's a necessity. The high street often doesn't cater to our body types or sensory needs, and the physical act of shopping can be overwhelming … We rely on online retailers to try clothes in the safety and comfort of our own homes.' Frazer, whose video sharing her experience has had 150,000 views on TikTok, said one of the reasons for the returns was inconsistent sizing. 'To now be penalised for returning items that don't fit after being forced to order multiple sizes due to inconsistent sizing is not only unfair, it's discriminatory,' she said. 'There was no explanation, no transparency, and no chance to appeal.' On X (formerly Twitter) another user posted a picture of two bodysuits which were both labelled as medium but appeared to be different sizes. I'm a size 8-10. I mostly wear a size S. The bodysuit on the left is M (too small). The bodysuit on the right is also M (too big). But ASOS are closing my account because I return things 😂 @ASOS_news They said: 'I'm a size eight to 10. I mostly wear a size small. The bodysuit on the left is a medium (too small). The body suit on the right is also medium (too big). But Asos are closing my account because I return things.' Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion Asos said: 'We recently closed the accounts of a small group of customers whose shopping activity has consistently fallen outside our fair use policy. This helps us maintain our commitment to offering free returns to all customers across all core markets.' Gary Rycroft, a consumer lawyer at Joseph A Jones & Co solicitors, said it was lawful for a business to decide it did not wish to conduct business with a certain group of customers, as long as the decision was based on commercial data and not discriminatory. 'Asos have imposed a threshold on returns and that's fine for them to change their terms and conditions and as long as other statutory protections for consumers are not breached,' he said. Such a change in terms and conditions should not affect the right of consumers to return goods that are faulty or not as described, he matching a retailer's published measurements for particular sizes could be said to be 'not as described'.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store