Welfare U-turn will cost £2.5bn by 2030, Liz Kendall tells MPs
The Government's U-turn on welfare cuts will cost taxpayers around £2.5 billion by 2030, the Work and Pensions Secretary has told MPs as she laid out concessions to Labour rebels.
Liz Kendall said the costs and savings of the Government's revised welfare package would be confirmed by the Office for Budget Responsibility at the budget in the autumn.
But her statement to MPs on Monday suggested the measures would save less than half the £4.8 billion the Government had expected from its initial proposals.
Ms Kendall's statement confirmed the concessions announced last week in an effort to head off a major rebellion by Labour backbenchers, including protecting people who claim personal independence payments from new eligibility criteria.
Responding to claims this would create a 'two-tier' benefits system, Ms Kendall said: 'I would say to the House, including members opposite, that our benefits system often protects existing claimants from new rates or new rules, because lives have been built around that support, and it's often very hard for people to adjust.'
Earlier, modelling from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) suggested the Government's proposals would push 150,000 more people into poverty by 2030.
The figure is down from the 250,000 extra people estimated to have been facing relative poverty after housing costs under the original proposals.
Modelling published by the DWP said the estimate does not include any 'potential positive impact' from extra funding and measures to support people with disabilities and long-term health conditions into work.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
25 minutes ago
- BBC News
Avon Fire Authority chair resigns over 'unwanted' behaviour
The chair of the Avon Fire Authority has resigned after accusations of inappropriate behaviour against two members of staff. Ben Nutland is still sitting as a South Gloucestershire councillor but is now serving as an independent after being suspended by the Liberal allegations centre on an event after a conference dinner at Bristol's Hilton Hotel in November 2024, during which it is claimed he followed a fire service employee to her hotel room. Mr Nutland suggested his drink may have been spiked, but no evidence to support this claim was found by the panel investigating the complaint. The allegations against Mr Nutland only came to light following the publication of a report published by the the Avon Fire Authority's governance and oversight committee hearing earlier this month. Mr Nutland resigned in December after being notified of the complaint, the report states. The committee's report states that the allegations from both women relate to a party following a dinner at the Asian Fire Service Association conference, during which he allegedly called one woman - referred to only as "employee one" - "stunning". 'Very uncomfortable' He is claimed to have asked the woman if she wanted to "go upstairs" with him, before following her back to her room and going inside and taking off his jacket and shoes and getting on to her bed. The panel investigating the complaint heard that the woman had asked him to leave, which he did with no physical contact, but had described his behaviour as "unwanted" and making her "very uncomfortable". The second employee to make a complaint claimed that Mr Nutland had twice attempted to get her to dance with him, despite clearly being told she did not want to. She felt harassed to the point she did not want to return to her car alone that night, a panel heard. Mr Nutland, the report said, claimed not to recall behaving in this manner but had said he "did encourage others to join the dancing". The report noted that Mr Nutland had made a "full" and "heartfelt" apology for his actions and had suggested his drink had been spiked. The fire authority panel found that Mr Nutland had breached the code of conduct on three counts in relation to the complaint made by employee one, and on once count in relation to employee two. A spokesperson for South Gloucestershire Council said they had been formally notified of a breach of the fire authority's code of conduct. As Mr Nutland was appointed to his role by the council, the spokesperson continued, it was now being considered how the matter should be handled under the councillor code of conduct.
Telegraph
27 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Tim Davie must consider his position
The BBC says it should never have broadcast the vile rants of Bob Vylan at Glastonbury and should have cut the live stream when he started chanting 'death to the IDF'. So how did it happen? It has emerged that BBC director-general Tim Davie was himself at Glastonbury on Saturday afternoon and whilst ruling that the performance should not subsequently be available on demand, did not pull the livestream from iPlayer. Where were the protocols to ensure anti-Semitic political propaganda was not sent out unexpurgated on the airwaves, courtesy of the long-suffering licence-fee payer? And if such rules existed why were they not enforced by Mr Davie? The incident could not have come as a surprise. Glastonbury attracts all sorts of preening, self-absorbed nonentities who think they have a monopoly of moral and political rectitude. Surely someone at the BBC must have done their due diligence and suspected that an act like Bob Vylan, which revels in controversy, would land them in it. They knew of the risk because an on-screen warning was issued about the 'very strong and discriminatory language'. At the very least, BBC executives should have insisted upon a delay allowing editors to switch coverage to another act in the event of a nauseating stunt of the sort we witnessed on Saturday. The Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy told MPs she wanted to know why this act was broadcast live by the BBC and the feed was not cut. 'I want explanations,' she said. Now that we know that Mr Davie was intimately involved in this disastrous episode he must consider his own position.
The Herald Scotland
31 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Chagos deal cost is ‘going rate for best defensive real estate', says ex-FO boss
The independent crossbencher, a former ambassador who headed the Foreign Office from 2015 to 2020, spoke in support of the agreement in the face of strong objections at Westminster, with opponents branding it a 'surrender' and 'gross folly' funded by the public. The deal signed last month after long-running negotiations, started under the previous Tory administration, returns sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, but will see Britain lease back the strategically important military base on Diego Garcia. It follows a 2019 advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice, which said the UK should cede control. As well as establishing a £40 million fund for Chagossians expelled from the islands, the UK has agreed to pay Mauritius at least £120 million annually during the duration of the 99-year agreement, a total cost in cash terms of at least £13 billion. The Government, however, estimates the bill will be lower at around £101 million a year, while critics argue it will be much higher. The deal could also be extended in the future for an extra 40 years, provided agreement is reached. In a recent report, the House of Lords International Agreements Committee (HLIAC) said although 'not perfect', the treaty must be ratified to avoid legal challenges that could threaten UK control of the military base. Its members warned Mauritius was 'likely' to resume its campaign to secure a binding judgment on sovereignty against Britain unless the agreement was approved and concluded the Government 'cannot ignore' the risk of an 'adverse ruling' putting Britain's right to run the joint UK-US site in jeopardy. Speaking at Westminster as peers debated the controversial accord, Lord McDonald said: 'The most damaging blow to any country's international reputation is a justified charge of hypocrisy. 'The United Kingdom stands for the rule of law in all circumstances. We lose credibility when we seek exceptions to this principle for ourselves.' He added: 'Opponents dislike the expense of the deal. 'Well, we're paying the going rate as a tenant for a base in the wider Indian Ocean, somewhat more than the French in Djibouti, but we're getting more for more. 'Diego Garcia is the best defensive real estate in the whole Indian Ocean. 'Even though £101 million per year is a lot, it's a lot less than the Americans pay to run the base. 'It's a joint base, and we're paying our way in the joint effort.' Lord McDonald also disputed the agreement would bolster China's presence in the Indian Ocean, arguing that 'our partner in Delhi looms much larger in Mauritian calculations than our challenger in Beijing'. He went on: 'Confronted by a charge of double standards, some opponents of this agreement shrug their shoulders. They think they can get away with it, tough it out. But that is what the powerful and unprincipled do. That is what Russia does.' The peer added: 'It gives the UK and our American allies a secure presence in the archipelago for the next 140 years. 'It enhances our security and restores our reputation as a country respecting international law, even when inconvenient and costly.' But Tory shadow foreign minister Lord Callanan said: 'This agreement amounts to a retreat, a surrender of sovereign territory that serves as a linchpin of our defence architecture at a time when authoritarian threats are rising and alliances matter more than ever. 'Handing control to a government who align themselves ever more closely with Beijing – a regime that actively undermines international norms and our national interests – is not only unwise, it is positively dangerous. 'To compound the error, the British taxpayer is being made to foot the bill.' He added: 'This whole affair has been a gross folly. There is no strategic gain here, no credible guarantee for the future of Diego Garcia and no reassurance for our allies. 'Instead, we send a message to adversaries and allies alike that British sovereignty is indeed negotiable. It is capitulation and we must reject it.' Pointing out the Tories in office had opened negotiations to cede sovereignty, Liberal Democrat Lord Purvis of Tweed said: 'The treaty is a consequence of now completing the previous Conservative government's policy.'
