DWP climbdown will lift 50,000 kids out of poverty rather than push them into it
Around 50,000 children will be lifted out of poverty after the Government shredded its controversial welfare plans, new analysis shows.
Number-crunchers now estimate that an increase to some Universal Credit components will pull tens of thousands of youngsters out of relative poverty. It comes after the Government was forced to shelve a shake-up of personal independents payments (PIP) for the disabled following a huge rebellion by Labour MPs.
Ministers were hoping to slash £5billion a year from the welfare bill by limiting access to PIP and health elements of Universal Credit. But more than 100 backbenchers, including a number of Labour heavyweights, found this unpalatable and signed an amendment that would torpedo the plans.
This forced the Government into an embarrassing climbdown ahead of a crunch vote last Tuesday. There will now be no changes to PIP until a review is carried out by DWP minister Sir Stephen Timms, it was announced.
As a result no money will be saved, the DWP says. MPs will vote on the hollowed-out Universal Credit Bill on Wednesday, with Keir Starmer confident the U-turn will satisfy critics within his own party.
According to the Government's own analysis, 250,000 people - including 50,000 children - were set to be pushed into poverty if the original plans had gone ahead. The Government was forced to make concessions after 108 Labour MPs publicly rebelled.
York Central MP Rachael Maskell branded the plans "Dickensian" as she called on her backbench colleagues to vote it down in what would have been a devastating defeat for Mr Starmer.
As a result welfare changes are now expected to alieviate poverty rather than cause it. But new analysis published by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) states: "It is estimated that there will be 50,000 fewer individuals in relative poverty after housing costs in the financial year ending 2030 as a result of the modelled changes to social security, compared to baseline projections."
Updated legislation now making its way through Parliament will increase the Limited Capability for Work Related Activity (LCWRA) component in UC. The new legislation also includes plans to raise the standard rate of UC.
The lack of savings means Chancellor Rachel Reeves is likely to announce tax rises in her Budget in the autumn.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
11 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Britain remains trapped in poor economic policy
Randeep Ramesh certainly tackles a worthwhile and complex modern economic policy conundrum (Labour could find the money it wants without raising taxes. This is austerity by amnesia, 29 June). But his opinion that the Bank of England should simply hand over the cash proceeds from quantitative tightening (QT) and that central bank independence is somehow partly responsible for Britain's economic woes, are misguided. Central bank independence was hard-won and has largely proven a resounding success in the developed world for more than 30 years. Allowing a central bank to hand over substantial moneys from QT revenues to the Treasury would be a recipe for disaster, against the spirit if not the letter of the law, as well as a dangerous precedent. More broadly, there is merit in Ramesh's push to coordinate fiscal and monetary policy better. Neither the Treasury nor the Bank are immune to criticism in their failures to act earlier to stave off the inevitable post-Covid inflation spike by raising rates more quickly in late 2021-early 2022, before the Ukraine war. Equally, the Treasury may have acted in a more nuanced fashion in removing the government-led stimulus NewmanLondon A big thank you to Randeep Ramesh for explaining the implications of quantitative easing (QE) and QT. This insane orthodoxy simply gives public money to banks and the City. In 2007-08, the then Bank governor, Mervyn King, pontificated about 'moral hazards' for banks with regard to their risky behaviour, but then it was the public purse that took the hit from the crash and has been picking up the tab ever since. It is a parasitic system geared to the benefit of the City and the oligarchy. Gordon Brown's granting of independence to the Bank was a mistake, driven by his anxiety to reassure the City that Labour was not a threat. Running the economy is profoundly political and ideological, and the notion that only state technocrats can be trusted with monetary policy is nonsense. Rachel Reeves is making the same mistake by trying to fit her spending to Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) predictions. The creation of the OBR was simply a George Osborne wheeze to help justify his disastrous austerity policy, which Reeves is in danger of WoodKidlington, Oxfordshire Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
Rhyl Journal
25 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
Investors stripping cash from water firms ‘criminal' says ex-Wessex Water chief
Colin Skellett, who helmed the south-west England utility from 1988 to 2024, argued against nationalising water companies because of the industry requiring 'continuous levels of investment'. He spoke as campaigners and experts urged the Government to explore public ownership during the UK River Summit in south London on Tuesday. Ministers have promised a 'fundamental reset' following years of companies paying out large dividend that diverted money away from infrastructure investment and maintenance, leading to sewage pollution and rising bills. However, they have ruled out nationalisation and instead are focusing efforts on tightening rules, increasing investment and strengthening penalties within the current system of regulated private firms. Minister Emma Hardy talking about tackling sewage with @RiverActionUK but the government is ignoring the reality: 7 European countries with highest average of 90%+ bathing sites achieving 'excellent' status – all are 90%+ publicly owned 🇨🇾🇦🇹🇬🇷🇲🇹🇭🇷🇩🇪🇩🇰 — Cat Hobbs (@CatHobbs) July 8, 2025 Speaking at the summit, Mr Skellett said he has seen the industry change since he joined it in 1974, saying it is one that 'requires continuous levels of investment'. 'The problem with public ownership is the Government always has other things it wants to spend its money on,' the former Wessex boss said. He argued that privatisation helped to get debt off the Government's balance sheet and boost investment but this changed when the 'wrong sort of investors' began stripping cash out of companies through high dividends. 'It was bloody criminal what happened – the amount of money that was stripped out of not just Thames (Water), but a number of companies,' he said. 'So we need that to change (in) the system. It's not so much about ownership, it's more about how you regulate it, how you control it, and how you make sure the investment continues.' It came as the Environment Department (Defra) announced an increase in funding for the Environment Agency from £114 million in 2022/23 to £189 million this current financial year, a sum which is understood to have been welcomed by the regulator. 🚨REVEALED: Over half of adults in England don't trust the Government to end the UK's sewage crisis. And who can blame them? 💩 158,000+ sewage spills already this year. 📣 We're in London today, demanding the radical change we need. Are you with us?✊➡️ Email your MP today and… — Surfers Against Sewage (@sascampaigns) July 2, 2025 Ministers are also currently awaiting the publication of the independent water commission's final report and recommendations, led by Sir Jon Cunliffe, which is expected in two weeks. The review is not exploring nationalisation as an option, with campaigners at the summit indicating they will continue to campaign on the issue following its publication. Ewan McGaughey, professor of law at King's College London, argued that the Government should take away licences from failing water companies and transition them into a long-term sustainable model of public ownership, calling privatisation in England a 'broken model'. Mr McGaughey said 90% of countries and cities around the world have water in public ownership and cited examples such as Berlin and Paris, which brought their sectors back into public ownership in 2013 and 2009 respectively after the privatised model failed. 'Bills go down. Water quality goes up. It's actually not really that controversial. You just have to look at the evidence, and you can see that public ownership works better,' he said. Cat Hobbs, founder and We Own It, which campaigns for public ownership of public services, said the Government's decision to not allow the independent review to explore nationalisation is a 'scandal'. 'That has to change. They still have time to change it,' she said, And Ashley Smith, founder of Windrush Against Sewage Pollution (WASP), called privatisation a 'ludicrous scam', arguing that there has never been a single year since the firms were privatised when shareholders put in more money than they took out of the firms. Later, water minister Emma Hardy defended the Government's approach to reforming the sector. 'There's been a lack of sustained investment in the industry for an incredibly long time,' she told the summit. 'We have taken immediate action, but there are some things that, of course, are going to take longer to fix. 'We want to listen to you and we can have difference of opinion – that is absolutely fine but I want to make sure that we try and bring as many people with us as possible because fundamentally we're all trying to get to the same place and that place is an effective water system with reduced pollution which is better for customers and better for the environment.' Ms Hardy called the Cunliffe report a 'once-in-a-generation opportunity to modernise (the sector)' and said the Government will give a top-level reaction to the review before looking at any potential further legislation.
Western Telegraph
25 minutes ago
- Western Telegraph
UK will take more measures against Israel if no Gaza ceasefire soon
Speaking at the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday, the Foreign Secretary admitted the impact of Government measures taken against Israel after a joint statement from the UK, France and Germany, was 'not sufficient'. The statement, released in May by the Prime Minister, French President Emmanuel Macron and Canadian premier Mark Carney, condemned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's 'egregious' actions in Gaza and called for a halt to its military offensive and an end to restrictions on humanitarian aid. The Foreign Secretary was asked by committee member Labour MP Alex Ballinger: 'If we do not get the ceasefire we're all praying for in the coming weeks…' 'No, we have to get the ceasefire,' Mr Lammy interjected. 'But if that is not the case and we see the abomination that you've described and the intolerable continuation of the situation in Gaza, will the Government go further to take measures against Israel?' Mr Ballinger asked. 'Yes, yes we will,' the Foreign Secretary replied. Mr Lammy defended the UK Government's actions against Israel, citing the suspension of arms sales to the country and sanctions against Israeli ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich. He also highlighted the UK's support for the Palestinian Authority and the signing of a memorandum of understanding with its prime minister Mohammad Mustafa. 'I am very, very comfortable that you would be hard pressed to find another G7 partner that's doing more than this country has done,' he added. Mr Lammy told the meeting Britain would oppose plans reportedly set out by by Israel's defence minister Israel Katz to move Palestinians in Gaza into a camp on the ruins of the city of Rafah. Smoke rises to the sky following an Israeli bombardment in the Gaza Strip, as seen from southern Israel (Leo Correa/AP) Labour MP Uma Kumaran said of the reported plan: 'They're calling it a so-called humanitarian transit area but there's no schools there, there's no medical provisions there, there are no other facilities, and there are plans for forced screening. 'Katz wants international partners to be involved in that. Will Britain oppose this and can you guarantee us in this committee that no British companies or NGOs will be involved in those plans?' Mr Lammy said: 'We've been very clear that we don't support the aid foundation that has been set up, it's not doing a good job, too many people are close to starvation, too many people have lost their lives.' He added that his understanding was that there had been better conversations between the UN agency system and Israel over the last few days, saying: 'So I'm surprised at the statements that I've seen from Mr Katz over the last 24 hours. 'And as I've indicated, they run contra to the proximity to a ceasefire that I thought we were heading towards, so I wonder if there's some politicking going on for those within the government that for some reason stand opposed to this.' Pressed on whether Britain would be opposing any such plans, he said: 'Yes.' At the meeting, Mr Lammy suggested Britain, France and Germany could snap back sanctions on Iran unless the country gets 'serious' about stepping back from its nuclear ambitions. The Foreign Secretary said: 'Iran faces even more pressure in the coming weeks because the E3 can snap back on our sanctions, and it's not just our sanctions, it's actually a UN mechanism that would impose dramatic sanctions on Iran across nearly every single front in its economy. 'So they have a choice to make. It's a choice for them to make. 'I'm very clear about the choice they should make, but I'm also clear that the UK has a decision to make that could lead to far greater pain for the Iranian regime unless they get serious about the international desire to see them step back from their nuclear ambitions at this time.'
