
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.
Speaking in the Commons on Monday afternoon, Ms Kendall insisted that changes to her proposals on Pip and universal credit would 'ensure no existing claimants are put into poverty'.
A Number 10 spokesman also said that the DWP's poverty modelling was 'subject to uncertainty' and did not 'reflect the full picture', including investment in the health service to help people get back to work.
Ministers hope the concessions will be enough to avert defeat when MPs vote on the reforms on Tuesday, although Downing Street remains braced for a substantial revolt.
A 'reasoned amendment' proposed by senior Labour backbencher Dame Meg Hillier had received support from 126 Labour MPs, enough to overturn Sir Keir Starmer's majority.
On Friday, Dame Meg had described the concessions as a 'workable compromise'.
But Labour MP Debbie Abrahams, who negotiated the concessions alongside Dame Meg, told ITV News on Monday that the Government had rowed back on what had been negotiated.
Although she described the concessions as 'good', Ms Abrahams said the rebels were 'not quite there yet' on a deal with the Government.
She added: 'The actual offer that was put to one of the negotiating team wasn't actually what we thought we had negotiated on Wednesday and Thursday. There are some issues around that.'
In the Commons, both Dame Meg and Ms Abrahams raised concerns that a review of Pip, to be conducted by disabilities minister Sir Stephen Timms, would report too late to have an effect on the changes scheduled for November 2026.
Meanwhile, Conservative shadow work and pensions secretary Helen Whately accused the Government of making 'unfunded U-turns costing billions and welfare plans that are not worth the paper that they are written on'.
She said: 'Their latest idea is a two-tier welfare system to trap people in a lifetime on benefits and deny them the dignity of work while leaving the taxpayer to pick up the ever-growing bill.'
Tory leader Kemi Badenoch confirmed on Monday evening that her party would vote against the Government's proposals, saying they were 'not serious welfare reform'.
Accusing Sir Keir of having 'watered down the small savings Labour were making', she added: 'We have a Government that is incapable of governing. For that reason, we will be voting against the welfare Bill tomorrow.'
The U-turn will also cause problems for Chancellor Rachel Reeves, who will now have to find a way to cover the shortfall between the amount the Government had expected to save, and the new, lower figure.
And that figure could be even higher, with economists at the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Resolution Foundation suggesting last week the U-turn could cost in the region of £3 billion, raising the prospect of further tax rises.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Auto Car
21 minutes ago
- Auto Car
Why the UK's car factories have suffered for years – and how to fix them
Close The current UK government is proving one of most automotive-friendly in years, winning plaudits from the industry for its successful haggling over US tariffs, loosening of the ZEV mandate without a disruptive rewrite, and now for a new industrial strategy that puts automotive right at its heart. One of the hopes the government expressed within the strategy document is that UK vehicle manufacturing output can climb again, from a paltry 905,233 cars, vans, trucks and buses last year to 1.3 million by 2035.


South Wales Guardian
27 minutes ago
- South Wales Guardian
Immigration reforms for ‘complete reset' to be introduced in Parliament
New rules to be laid in Parliament on Tuesday will also seek to increase salary and skills thresholds up to degree level for skilled workers, which will cut eligibility for 111 occupations. A new time-limited temporary shortage list will also be introduced until the end of 2026 for below degree level, where recruiting foreign workers is key to build critical infrastructure or industrial strategy. But those workers will no longer be able to bring their families and will not be entitled to salary and visa fee discounts. The legislative measures are the first policy changes to be introduced from the Government's Immigration White Paper to tighten controls and cut migration to the UK. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said: 'We are delivering a complete reset of our immigration system to restore proper control and order, after the previous government allowed net migration to quadruple in four years. 'These new rules mean stronger controls to bring migration down, to restore order to the immigration system and to ensure we focus on investing in skills and training here in the UK.' The changes, if approved by MPs and peers, will come into force from July 22. Further measures from the White Paper such as increasing English language requirements and raising the immigration skills charge are also expected to be in place by the end of the year. The White Paper is aimed at reducing numbers, clamping down on abuses of the system and ending a reliance on cheap foreign labour. Home Office estimates indicate that changes from the plan could reduce the number of people coming to the UK by up to 100,000 per year, when looking at eight of its proposals including on study and work routes and a higher level of English language requirement. But the move to scrap care worker visas has sparked concerns from the sector, with GMB national officer Will Dalton describing the decision as 'potentially catastrophic' as the care sector was 'utterly reliant on migrant workers' and still had more than 130,000 vacancies across the country. The Home Office believes there are 40,000 potential members of staff originally brought over by 'rogue' providers who could work in the sector while UK staff are trained up. Transitional arrangements for overseas care workers already in the UK have also been set out on Tuesday, according to the department.


South Wales Guardian
28 minutes ago
- South Wales Guardian
Scheme to register foreign agents comes into force but China avoids top tier
The new Foreign Influence Registration Scheme (Firs) comes into effect from Tuesday, requiring anyone carrying out 'political influence activities' on behalf of a foreign power to register with the Government or face prosecution. The rules, which cover activities such as political communications or lobbying, were introduced in 2023 as part of efforts to strengthen national security amid concerns about covert action by foreign governments. Security minister Dan Jarvis said: 'We welcome legitimate engagement with all countries, but we will not tolerate covert attempts to manipulate our political system or society. 'The Foreign Influence Registration Scheme gives us the tools to confront growing threats to our national security, one of the foundations of our plan for change, without compromising the openness that defines our democracy.' The new rules also include an 'enhanced tier', which requires anyone working for certain states to declare any activity, not just political work. Mr Jarvis said: 'This is about creating accountability and visibility so that covert influence operations have nowhere to hide, and ensuring we have the tools to detect and disrupt them.' Failing to register with Firs carries a maximum sentence of two years, or five years for agents of states in the enhanced tier. So far, only Iran and Russia have been placed in the enhanced tier, with both nations accused of operating covertly in the UK to shape public opinion and intimidate opponents. But despite calls from some MPs to include China in the enhanced tier, Russia and Iran remain the only nations on the list. Beijing has been repeatedly accused of seeking to covertly influence British politics and academia. A 2023 report by Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee found China had engaged in 'aggressive' interference, including seeking to 'penetrate or buy academia to ensure that its international narrative is advanced and criticism of China suppressed.' Following the announcement in April that Russia would be included in the enhanced tier, Conservative shadow home secretary Chris Philp said it was 'astonishing' that China had not received similar treatment and accused the Government of 'prioritising economic links over national security'. At the time, Mr Jarvis replied that the Government had a 'consistent long-term and strategic approach' to the UK's relationship with China. He added: 'The Government's policy is clear – we will co-operate where we can, compete where we need to and challenge where we must, including on issues of national security.'