logo
Welfare reforms: What concessions has the Government made?

Welfare reforms: What concessions has the Government made?

Yahooa day ago

Last-minute concessions to the Government's controversial welfare reforms have been welcomed by some campaigners but described as not good enough by others.
Here, the PA news agency takes a look at what the changes are and how Labour MPs and disability groups have reacted.
– What had the Government originally planned?
In March, reforms to the welfare system – aimed at encouraging more people off sickness benefits and into work – were announced.
The Government said the changes, including restricting access to the main disability benefit known as Pip (personal independence payment) and the sickness-related element of universal credit (UC), were expected to make welfare savings of £4.8 billion by 2029-30.
With around 1,000 new Pip awards every day – 'the equivalent of adding a city the size of Leicester every single year', the Government argued the current situation was unsustainable.
An impact assessment published alongside the Bill included estimates that changes to Pip entitlement rules would see about 800,000 people lose out, with an average loss of £4,500 per year.
Changes to UC were expected to see an estimated 2.25 million current recipients of the health element impacted, with an average loss of £500 per year.
Overall, as a result of the changes, it was estimated some 250,000 more people, including 50,000 children, across Great Britain were likely to fall into relative poverty after housing costs by the end of the decade.
– What concessions have been made?
In a late-night letter to MPs, Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall conceded two changes she said would 'strengthen the Bill'.
In recognition of the 'uncertainty and anxiety' caused by the proposed changes, she said all current Pip recipients would keep their benefits, saying only new claims from November 2026 will come under the tightened eligibility requirements.
An impact assessment had stated that 370,000 current recipients were set to lose Pip entitlement across England and Wales.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) said the change will also indirectly benefit around 50,000 carers who look after someone on Pip, ensuring they keep their carer's allowance to the value of around £4,340 per year.
Ms Kendall also vowed all those currently receiving the UC health element, as well as new claimants meeting the severe conditions criteria, will have their incomes 'fully protected in real terms'.
The Resolution Foundation said this will protect some 2.25 million people from a loss of between £250 and £500 per year.
The Work and Pensions Secretary has also promised a review of the Pip assessment, led by social security and disability minister Sir Stephen Timms, which will have input from disabled people 'to ensure the benefit is fair and fit for the future'.
– What are disability groups saying?
Mikey Erhardt, from Disability Rights UK, accused the Government of 'playing politics with our lives', insisting the Bill must still be pulled.
He said the changes will mean 'a benefits system where future generations of disabled people receive less support than disabled people today' and added that, in making the original announcement of cuts, the Government had 'prioritised balancing its books over improving the lives of disabled citizens'.
Mr Erhardt added: 'Despite seemingly rowing back on some of the worst aspects of its plans, the Government is still attempting to slash billions of pounds from a system that doesn't provide enough support as it stands.'
The MS Society said the Government was simply 'kicking the can down the road and delaying an inevitable disaster', and urged MPs 'not to be swayed by these last-ditch attempts to force through a harmful Bill with supposed concessions'.
Food bank network Trussell welcomed the 'significant' concessions but said the proposals 'still present a bleak future for future claimants and still risk placing the Government's commitments to end the need for emergency food and tackle poverty in serious jeopardy'.
Similarly, national disability charity Sense said the changes are 'significant and positive, yet fall short of a fair deal for disabled people', while Inclusion London branded the Bill a 'rationing' and argued there is 'no moral or economic case for balancing the books on the backs of disabled people'.
– What are Labour MPs saying?
Dame Meg Hillier, one of the leading rebel voices, described the concessions as 'a good deal' involving 'massive changes' to protect vulnerable people and involve disabled people in the design of future reforms.
She said: 'It's encouraging that we have reached what I believe is a workable compromise that will protect disabled people and support people back into work while ensuring the welfare system can be meaningfully reformed.'
Health minister Stephen Kinnock said he is confident the welfare reforms – being brought under the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill – will pass a vote in the Commons on Tuesday in the wake of the concessions.
But some Labour MPs are still not satisfied, with Nadia Whittome saying the concessions are 'nowhere near good enough', vowing to still vote against the Bill unless 'serious' proposals are made to 'protect the dignity of disabled people'.
Speaking to the Today programme on BBC Radio 4, she said MPs she had spoken to 'are sticking to their position because we understand that we are answerable to our constituents'.
Ms Whittome added: 'If the Government doesn't pull the Bill, doesn't consult properly with disabled people and come back to MPs with a serious proposal that protects the dignity of disabled people, I will vote against and I will be far from the only one.'
– What will the changes cost and save?
The Resolution Foundation has estimated that the concessions will cost between £2.6 billion and £3.2 billion by the end of the decade.
The originally expected savings of £4.8 billion are now reduced by more than half, the think tank said.
The IFS estimated a cost of around £3.0 billion relative to the Government's previous plans and savings of around £2.5 billion by 2029/30.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Plans unveiled for NHS funding to be linked to patient feedback
Plans unveiled for NHS funding to be linked to patient feedback

Yahoo

time26 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Plans unveiled for NHS funding to be linked to patient feedback

NHS funding could be linked to patient feedback under new plans, with poorly performing services that "don't listen" penalised with less money. As part of the "10 Year Health Plan" to be unveiled next week, a new scheme will be trialled that will see patients asked to rate the service they received - and if they feel it should get a funding boost or not. It will be introduced first for services that have a track record of very poor performance and where there is evidence of patients "not being listened to", the government said. This will create a "powerful incentive for services to listen to feedback and improve patients' experience", it added. Sky News understands that it will not mean bonuses or pay increases for the best performing staff. NHS payment mechanisms will also be reformed to reward services that keep patients out of hospital as part of a new 'Year of Care Payments' initiative and the government's wider plan for change. Speaking to The Times, chief executive of the NHS Confederation Matthew Taylor expressed concerns about the trial. He told the newspaper: "Patient experience is determined by far more than their individual interaction with the clinician and so, unless this is very carefully designed and evaluated, there is a risk that providers could be penalised for more systemic issues, such as constraints around staffing or estates, that are beyond their immediate control to fix." He said that NHS leaders would be keen to "understand more about the proposal", because elements were "concerning". Read more from Sky News Health Secretary Wes Streeting said: "We will reward great patient care, so patient experience and clinical excellence are met with extra cash. These reforms are key to keeping people healthy and out of hospital, and to making the NHS sustainable for the long-term as part of the Plan for Change." In the raft of announcements in the 10 Year Health Plan, the government has said 201 bodies responsible for overseeing and running parts of the NHS in England will be scrapped. These include Healthwatch England, set up in 2012 to speak out on behalf of NHS and social care patients, the National Guardian's Office, created in 2015 to support NHS whistleblowers, and the Health Services Safety Investigations Body (HSSIB). Elsewhere, the new head of NHS England Sir Jim Mackey said key parts of the NHS appear "built to keep the public away because it's an inconvenience". "We've made it really hard, and we've probably all been on the end of it," he told the Daily Telegraph. "The ward clerk only works nine to five, or they're busy doing other stuff; the GP practice scrambles every morning."

Is France On The Cusp Of Another Political Crisis?
Is France On The Cusp Of Another Political Crisis?

Forbes

time30 minutes ago

  • Forbes

Is France On The Cusp Of Another Political Crisis?

France's Prime Minister Francois Bayrou gestures during the political TV show "L'Evenement" (The ... More Event) broadcast on French TV channel France 2, in Paris, on December 19, 2024. Francois Bayrou said he hoped to name a government "over the weekend", "in any case before Christmas" and that a budget would be adopted "in mid-February", although work on this was interrupted by the motion of censure that toppled the previous government. (Photo by Valentine CHAPUIS / AFP) (Photo by VALENTINE CHAPUIS/AFP via Getty Images) France has now gone through three governments in the past year, each one effectively failing to clear the hurdle of passing a fiscally responsible budget. Major stumbling block here is pension reform – two years ago a proposal to raise the headline pension age met with widespread protest. Since then various governments have tried to find ways to offset the pension burden – one notable strategy is to drop the inflation indexation of pensions (a key pillar of the forthcoming budget process is likely to centre on not indexing government disbursements for a year). Prime minister Francois Bayrou has tried to find ways of building a consensus on pension reform – including a broad conclave on pensions, the idea being to raise the formal pension age to 64. This has now run aground, with the Socialists opposing it (their electorate is very sensitive to the topic) and they have threatened to vote against the government in a potential left-wing inspired vote of confidence. The far-right Rassemblement had declared that it would not support such a vote and the manner in which the Socialists had approached the process was slip-shod. Recall that the government has so far staying in power through a 'no-dissolution' pact with the Socialists, so any parliamentary vote where the Socialists vote against the government could result in the collapse of the government (with the collaboration of the Rassemblement and the far-left), and this could be close to fatal for President Macron. Bayrou has not been a convincing performer in his six months in the job, and one option for the President is to replace him, with say the minister for finance Eric Lombard, or to simply swerve the issue of pension reform altogether – which itself would be a defeat of sorts. Other more ambitious longer term pension reforms are now off the table for the time being. As result the budget process now becomes even more complicated beacuse Bayrou's actions have cut off one of the obvious avenues for the government to cut back spending. International events have given Emmanuel Macron a new platform away from domestic troubles, but Francois Bayrou has in effect imperiled his government on pension reform and the government is again on shaky foundations. The stark reality is that with a first outline of the 2026 budget due in a few weeks, France is limping towards a fiscal crisis. At a time when bond yields across the euro-zone have converged and when the imperative to boost defence spending and embark on the investment and savings union (capital markets union) is rising, Europe needs a strong France and the involvement of Emmanuel Macron. Instead, his tenure is now marked by fiscal failure that will shape the future of the French economy and society for the decade to come. Only higher taxes or dramatically lower government spending can stop the financial demise of France. Macron and none of the opposition parties will countenance this and whomever becomes the next president of France will take up a poisoned chalice.

WhatsApp just got banned on Capitol Hill. Here's how you can make the Meta messaging platform more secure
WhatsApp just got banned on Capitol Hill. Here's how you can make the Meta messaging platform more secure

Fast Company

time44 minutes ago

  • Fast Company

WhatsApp just got banned on Capitol Hill. Here's how you can make the Meta messaging platform more secure

The U.S. House of Representatives' Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), Catherine Szpindor, informed congressional staffers this week that WhatsApp is now banned from government phones. The move came after the CAO's Office of Cybersecurity deemed the Meta-owned app to be 'high-risk to users'—a claim that WhatsApp quickly rebutted. But the CAO is correct. While WhatsApp is one of the more secure messaging apps out there, it does have some privacy and security risks. Users can mitigate some of these risks, but others are beyond their control. Here's why WhatsApp is now banned in the U.S. House of Representatives and how you can make the app more secure on your phone. What the Office of Cybersecurity said, exactly The news that the CAO's Office of Cybersecurity had announced a ban on WhatsApp this week came from Axios. On Tuesday, the publication published parts of an internal CAO memo it received, which was sent to congressional staffers on Monday, announcing that WhatsApp was now verboten on government phones. The memo stipulated that 'House staff are NOT allowed to download or keep the WhatsApp application on any House device, including any mobile, desktop, or web browser versions of its products.' It went on to add: 'If you have a WhatsApp application on your House-managed device, you will be contacted to remove it.' The reason? According to the memo, 'The Office of Cybersecurity has deemed WhatsApp a high-risk to users due to the lack of transparency in how it protects user data, absence of stored data encryption, and potential security risks involved with its use.' The CAO didn't provide further details in the memo regarding the above risks. Still, it's easy to interpret some of the things that may have made the CAO leery about the continued use of WhatsApp by Congressional staffers. WhatsApp's transparency issue WhatsApp, like competing secure messaging apps including Apple's iMessages and Signal, is end-to-end encrypted, meaning that no parties other than the ones in the chat, even including Meta, can read the chat messages. But WhatsApp collects a lot more metadata from each chat than other secure messaging apps do, and it sends this info to Meta A chat's metadata includes information such as the identities of the chat participants, IP addresses, phone numbers, and the timestamps of messages. No one knows exactly what Meta does with this metadata. Still, it is shared with Meta's other platforms, including Instagram and Facebook. It is likely used to help the company build social graphs of users, leveraged for advertising purposes, and analyzed by the company to understand who is using their apps, and when and where. This opaqueness is likely some of the 'lack of transparency' risk that the CAO was referring to. As for the 'absence of stored data encryption,' the CAO may have been referring to the default method by which WhatsApp backs up a user's chats. While WhatsApp chats are end-to-end encrypted, if a user backs up those chats to the cloud, the backup itself is not end-to-end encrypted by default. This means that if a bad actor gains access to a WhatsApp user's cloud backup, they could read all of that user's messages. It's no wonder the CAO's Office of Cybersecurity finds this worrying. WhatsApp also doesn't have other privacy and security features on by default, including the ability to lock the app behind biometrics and requiring two-step verification when a WhatsApp account is installed on another phone. If you don't work in the House of Representatives, you can still keep WhatsApp on your phone. But you might want to mitigate its privacy and security risks. Here's how. How to make WhatsApp more secure on your phone Unfortunately, there's nothing you can do about WhatsApp's metadata problem. Meta designs WhatsApp so that the metadata of your chats is sent directly to the company. There's no way you can turn this data collection off. But you can make the app more secure on your phone by following some simple steps, including: End-to-end encrypt your WhatsApp backups: In WhatsApp, go to Settings>Chats>Chat Backup>End-to-End Encrypted Backup and turn this option on. Now your chat backups saved in the cloud will be end-to-end encrypted. Lock WhatsApp: You can set WhatsApp to refuse to open without further authentication by locking the app. This means that even if someone has access to your unlocked phone, they won't be able to open WhatsApp unless they know your phone's PIN, or have your face or fingerprint. To lock WhatsApp, go to WhatsApp's Settings>Privacy>App Lock and toggle the feature on. Enable two-step verification: If someone logs into your WhatsApp account on their phone, they'll be able to see your messages. That's why you should set up two-step verification for your account. This will require a PIN that you set to be entered whenever an attempt is made to log into your WhatsApp account on a new device. If the PIN isn't entered correctly, the new device won't have access to your account. To enable two-step verification, go to WhatsApp's Settings>Account>Two-Step Verification and toggle the feature on. Apps the CAO suggests using instead When reached for comment on the CAO's decision to ban WhatsApp, the organization's chief administrative officer, Catherine Szpindor, told Fast Company, 'Protecting the People's House is our topmost priority, and we are always monitoring and analyzing for potential cybersecurity risks that could endanger the data of House Members and staff. We routinely review the list of House-authorized apps and will amend the list as deemed appropriate.' In the past, the CAO has banned or imposed partial bans on various foreign apps, including those from ByteDance, such as TikTok. But the CAO has also previously announced bans or restrictions on apps made by American companies, including Microsoft Copilot and the free versions of ChatGPT. As for Meta, a company spokesperson told Fast Company that it disagrees with the CAO's characterization of WhatsApp 'in the strongest possible terms.' The spokesperson also asserted that, when it comes to end-to-end encryption, WhatsApp offers 'a higher level of security than most of the apps on the CAO's approved list that do not offer that protection.' In the Office of Cybersecurity's memo, the agency provided guidance on alternative secure messaging apps that House staffers could use now that WhatsApp had been banned. According to Axios, those apps include Apple's iMessage and FaceTime, Microsoft Teams, Wickr, and Signal.

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