Disabled people ‘could face extra annual costs of £15,000 by end of the decade'
Disability equality charity Scope has warned that Government concessions on welfare cuts will simply lead to a 'two-tier system' where 'huge numbers' of people in need are still out of pocket.
Its analysis has estimated average monthly costs – not taking into account welfare reforms – to cover extras such as higher energy bills or specialist mobility equipment, are likely to rise to £1,244 for disabled people in the UK, totalling almost £15,000 a year, by April 2029.
The annual disability price tag report comes just a day before MPs are expected to debate and vote on the Government's welfare reform Bill.
Ministers were forced into an eleventh-hour climbdown on Friday in the face of a major backbench rebellion, offering concessions on some aspects of Labour's proposed cuts plan.
The Government's original package, first presented in March, included restrictions on eligibility for personal independence payments (Pip), the main disability payment in England, as well as cutting the health-related element of universal credit.
But, in the face of pressure from more than 100 Labour MPs, the Government U-turned last week, saying existing claimants would be protected, with tightened eligibility only applying to new claimants.
While Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has said his welfare reforms now strike 'the right balance', Scope argued the changes will still result in 'catastrophic cuts', with some disabled people protected and supported but others not.
The charity's latest report is based on analysis of the Family Resources Survey (FRS) and makes calculations using Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) inflation forecasts to show the likely extra costs faced by disabled people in the coming years.
It does not take into account the impact of the welfare reforms, with the charity warning that the figures highlight that those people who do not get Pip could end up in a 'precarious financial position and will still face high extra costs'.
It estimated extra costs for disabled people are currently at £1,095 a month, up from last year's price tag, which stood at £1,010.
Scope said benefits do not cover the entirety of these costs, with a current monthly shortfall of around £630, likely to rise to a £704 shortfall by the end of the decade.
James Taylor, executive director of strategy at Scope, said: 'Life costs an enormous amount more when you're disabled. Whether it's higher electricity bills because of medical equipment to power, or higher heating bills because of health conditions affected by the cold.
'Our latest analysis finds the price tag of disability is now £1,095 a month. A figure only set to increase in the coming years unless action is taken.
'The concessions put forward by Government will just create a two-tier system, where huge numbers of disabled people face the disability price tag with little or no support from Pip.
'The Government must change course on these catastrophic cuts now, and properly co-produce with disabled people on how to reform our welfare system.'
Responding to the 'two-tier' claims from other critics last week, Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall said: 'The changes that we are introducing will make sure existing claimants are unaffected, but we also all agree that there do need to be changes in the future to make sure that people who can work do, so we protect those who can't but we make the welfare state sustainable for the future.'
While all of the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill applies to England and Wales, only the UC changes apply to Scotland.
The Government said there are equivalent provisions to legislate for Northern Ireland included in the Bill.
A Government spokesperson said: 'We're delivering one of the biggest packages of welfare reforms in a generation – including scrapping the Work Capability Assessment, rebalancing Universal Credit, and investing in tailored employment support.
'Protecting people is a principle we will never compromise on, which is why we're delivering long-lasting and meaningful change that puts the welfare system on sustainable footing so the safety net will always be there for those who need it.
'We're restoring trust and fairness in the system, ensuring existing Pip claimants will be able to keep their award and putting the voice of sick or disabled people at the heart of our plans, whilst ramping up support to help them into work.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scottish Sun
43 minutes ago
- Scottish Sun
Scotland's hefty benefits bill is no badge of honour – it's a mark of shame for SNP
Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) HAVING a massive benefits bill is not something to be proud of – it is a sign of a failing society. But for some reason, Scotland's increasing dependence on social security has become the subject of bragging rights for the SNP Government. 2 Scotland's benefits bill is not something to be proud of, writes Chris Musson Credit: Alamy 2 Scotland's dependence on social security is the subject of bragging rights for the SNP Credit: PA It is a policy based on optics, on PR, on quick wins, and on narrow, nationalistic posturing. Pretty much anything apart from society's long-term health. It can be largely summed up by this: SNP chiefs want to show everyone how much more generous and compassionate they are than those dastardly scoundrels at Westminster. Presently, Nats ministers are in their element, due to Labour's civil war over UK Government welfare reforms, which aim to cut £5billion a year from the benefits bill and get more people back into work. Last week, when the SNP weren't claiming the Westminster move would push families into poverty, they were boasting about how much cash is dished out by the Scottish Government on devolved payments. So, a press release trumpeted £6billion handed out by their fledgling agency, Social Security Scotland, in its first years of existence following the devolution of a string of benefits. 'More than £6billion has been paid to help people with cost of living', the announcement said. This cynical wording aimed to make people think these were cost of living payments in the same vein as the cash which came for fuel bills from the UK Government a couple of years ago. It's not, though, this is money paid for standard benefits — now 14 of them — delivered by Scottish Government's Social Security Scotland since 2018. If you think that sounds like a lot, look away now. Because given the amount of benefits now kicking in at the devolved agency, with its 4,200 staff and £321million running costs, it is set to spend £7.7billion next year alone — and £9.5billion a year by 2030. Find out what's really going on Register now for our free weekly politics newsletter for an insightful and irreverent look at the (sometimes excruciating) world of Scottish Politics. Every Thursday our hotshot politics team goes behind the headlines to bring you a rundown of key events - plus insights and gossip from the corridors of power, including a 'Plonker' and 'Star' of the Week. Sign up now and make sure you don't miss a beat. The politicians would hate that. SIGN UP FOR FREE NOW Most of this is for Scottish versions of Westminster payments, but extra benefits paid out by Scotland under devolution total £1.3billion a year, rising to a future £2.1billion. At Westminster, those reforms by Labour aim to cut reliance on Personal Independence Payments and get people — who can — back into work. At Holyrood, the Scottish version of PIP — Adult Disability Payment — is costing £3.6billion a year, and forecast to hit £5.4billion by 2030. This includes the thousands of adults now getting ADP for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder — many claimants having been farmed by money-making websites who take a slice after helping people with applications. So, while Westminster tried to scale back on welfare, Holyrood is scaling up. In the words of Social Security Scotland, this is all in the name of 'a human rights based approach' to 'demonstrate dignity, fairness and respect in all our actions'. Well, there's a fine line between compassion and being a walkover, and SNP ministers may well have crossed that threshold already. The Scottish Government seems to be ideologically opposed to paying less in benefits, because in their eyes, benefits are inherently a great thing. And they are especially great when it makes them look more generous than Westminster. But what is the endgame here? Before SNP ministers got powers over welfare, Scotland's disproportionate reliance on social security compared to the rest of Britain was universally regarded as a bad thing. In the early 2010s, levels of disability benefits claimed per person in Scotland were 22 per cent higher than Great Britain as a whole, figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies show. This was fuelled by higher rates of people with health problems limiting their daily activities. Scotland had long been dubbed the 'sick man of Europe'. On some measures, we still are. Yet now, maintaining and increasing payments is the overwhelming focus of the devolved government, not actually getting people better and getting them to work. Where is the long-term plan to better the health and wealth of the nation, rather than fostering an increasingly unaffordable reliance on welfare? Sometimes, I'm not sure they're particularly interested. Last year, the SNP defaulted to its usual scornfulness when ex-Labour MSP Des McNulty pointed out in a study for a think-tank that the Scottish Government's new Scottish Child Payment benefit might not be the bees knees after all. His report pointed out — sensibly — that perhaps throwing money at a broad group of people may not work in the long term. That money could be better targeted on the very poorest, he said, and moreover we needed to invest in the 'complex roots of poverty' by helping people back into work, for example. McNulty hit the nail on the head with the mention of 'complex'. Because sorting this out is complicated. It requires serious thought and time. SCOTTISH Tory MSP Alexander Stewart missed his first shadow cabinet meeting after being named social justice spokesman — as he was singing for the Holyrood choir. Stewart was busy doing a solo performance of 'Where I Want To Be' from the musical Chess. And it turned out that where he wanted to be was anywhere but in a meeting with leader Russell Findlay. Elsewhere in parly's final week before its ten-week summer break (yes, really), angry MSPs spent an hour debating the 'menace 'of seagulls. It was left to SNP's Christine Grahame to urge calm, saying the issue must not be styled as 'people versus gulls'. A bit late, given the ferocity of the debate. Throwing £27.15 per child per week at low-income families is simple and comes with bonus political points. Some people will always need help if they are genuinely unable to work due to disability, for example. But a society which becomes increasingly reliant on welfare is failing. Failing to get people into work, failing to get them better if they're ill. Failing to get them motivated, if they can't be bothered to work. Failing to educate and inspire kids for their prospects, and failing to get the economy going and create decent jobs. A big benefits bill is not a badge of honour to be press released. It's a mark of shame. Ministers must show more ambition because at the moment, the ambition seems to be a nation of layabouts.
Western Telegraph
an hour ago
- Western Telegraph
Fuel margins remain high despite lower prices at the pump, watchdog finds
The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) said retailers' margins – the difference between what they pay for fuel and what they sell it at – remained high compared to historic levels. Fuel prices across the UK fell for both petrol and diesel over the three months to the end of May by 7.6 pence per litre (ppl) and 8.4 ppl respectively. But the CMA found that fuel margins were similar to the high levels seen during its road fuel market study – a review of the market to understand the factors influencing fuel prices undertaken in 2023 – which suggested overall competition in the UK's road fuel retail market remained 'weak'. Supermarket fuel margins fell from 8.9% in December 2024 to 7.9% in February 2025, before rising to 8.3% in March 2025, the regulator found. Non-supermarket fuel margins fell from 9.9% in December 2024 to 8.9% in January 2025, before rising to 10.4% in March 2025. The CMA also looked at the retail spread – the average price that drivers pay at the pump compared to the benchmarked price that retailers buy fuel at – across the UK from March 2025 to May 2025. It found that petrol retail spreads averaged 15.4 ppl, which was 1.5 ppl higher than the previous four-month period – and still more than double the average of 6.5 ppl over 2015 to 2019. Diesel retail spreads averaged 18.8 ppl, which was 4.6 ppl higher than the previous four-month period and more than double the average of 8.6 ppl in 2015 to 2019. Dan Turnbull, senior director of markets at the CMA, said: 'While there is uncertainty over how global events will impact the price of oil, our report shows fuel margins remain high compared to historic levels despite lower prices at the pump in recent months. 'The Government committed to launching a 'fuel finder' scheme following our recommendation to help drivers compare real-time prices and boost competition. 'Once launched, it will make it easier than ever to shop around and find the best deals.' RAC head of policy Simon Williams said: 'Given fuel is a major expense for households, and with eight in 10 drivers dependent on their cars, it's disappointing to see they've paid over the odds yet again. 'We have to hope the launch of the Government-backed Fuel Finder scheme, due at the end of the year, will stimulate competition and finally lead to fairer pump prices.' AA president Edmund King said: 'Once again, the CMA has exposed boosted margins and profits from petrol and diesel. Road fuel is a critical part of a consumer and family budgets. Increased fuel costs have a major influence on inflation. 'While the hope is that pump price reporting, which becomes mandatory at the start of the next year, might bring about more competition, what is happening now is not only bad news for drivers and businesses but also siphoning off potential consumer spending for the likes of tourism and others.' Mr King added: 'The clear and present danger now is the cost of petrol and diesel along holiday routes. Some of the prices are outrageous and we can only hope that drivers take maximum advantage of the price transparency provided by the CMA's voluntary reporting scheme to locate the competitive forecourts.'
Western Telegraph
an hour ago
- Western Telegraph
Human rights group loses legal challenge over exports of jet parts to Israel
Al-Haq took legal action against the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) over its decision to continue licensing exports of components for F-35 fighter jets, telling a hearing in May that it was unlawful and 'gives rise to a significant risk of facilitating crime'. In September last year, the Government suspended export licences for weapons and military equipment following a review of Israel's compliance with international humanitarian law in the conflict. But an exemption was made for some licences related to parts for F-35s, which are part of an international defence programme. The DBT defended the challenge, with its barristers telling a four-day hearing in London that the carve-out is 'consistent with the rules of international law'. In a 72-page ruling on Monday, Lord Justice Males and Mrs Justice Steyn said the case was about a 'much more focused issue' than the carve-out itself. The judges continued: 'That issue is whether it is open to the court to rule that the UK must withdraw from a specific multilateral defence collaboration which is reasonably regarded by the responsible ministers as vital to the defence of the UK and to international peace and security, because of the prospect that some UK manufactured components will or may ultimately be supplied to Israel, and may be used in the commission of a serious violation of international humanitarian law in the conflict in Gaza. 'Under our constitution that acutely sensitive and political issue is a matter for the executive which is democratically accountable to Parliament and ultimately to the electorate, not for the courts.'
