Government eyes end to benefits and inflation link

 
Receipt and money In September 2011 inflation came in at an unusually high 5.2%

Related Stories

The government is considering ending the automatic annual increase in benefits in line with inflation, sources have told BBC Newsnight.

If implemented, the move would see many benefits frozen for two years, then rising only in line with average pay.

In recent years inflation has risen at a far higher rate than average earnings - Whitehall officials say a switch since 2008/9 would have saved £14bn.

The government needs to find £10bn of extra savings in the welfare budget.

Sources stressed the detail of how to make these cuts had not yet been discussed. They would not be drawn on which policies were being looked at.

Newsnight understands that the new £14bn figure is entering into fractious government debate over how to make a further cut to the welfare budget - something occupying minds at the top of government.

Liberal Democrat resistance

The move, under which millions of claimants' benefits would eventually inch up at the same pace as average earnings, would affect a wide range of working-age benefits including jobseeker's allowance and housing benefit.

Chancellor George Osborne has told the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) it must come up with the extra £10bn reduction to allow cuts to other government departments, due to begin in 2015, to stay at the level they are now, rather than go deeper.

Mr Osborne tried to refashion the link between benefits and inflation last September when inflation came in at an unusually high level - 5.2% - but he was beaten back by an alliance of the Liberal Democrats and the Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith.

Though he was unsuccessful then, the idea has resurfaced. One Whitehall source close to the process said: "A freeze [to benefits] for a couple of years would help us get to the £10bn."

George Osborne speaking in Commons Chancellor George Osborne has demanded a further £10bn welfare saving

Tory strategists believe they have polling evidence which would put significant numbers in support of an end to so-called benefits uprating.

But the possibility of freezing benefits will anger Liberal Democrat activists as they prepare to gather in Brighton this weekend for their annual conference.

Many in the party believe the coalition should find the further £10bn of cuts through tax rises such as wealth taxes and there should be no further cuts to welfare.

An increasing number believe the welfare budget is already straining to bring in its current £18bn of cuts.

Historically benefits have often risen by less than wages, with inflation not typically as high as in recent years, and it is already falling this year.

Despite this, coalition sources say it is not clear wage growth will recover to its former health for a while, which will require the examination of the relative increase in benefits versus that for wages.

Benefits freeze

One option now being weighed up inside government is the freezing of 90% of benefits - which officials estimate would make savings of £7bn in one year.

Start Quote

We are aware that there is the effect on poverty to be considered but we believe that benefits have risen by so much over the last few years that a freeze for a couple of years would help people deal with the transfer. When you see the savings possible, it is simply mind boggling”

End Quote Whitehall source

However, coalition sources suggest this is likely to be discounted as too harsh, since it would include disability benefits.

Instead, other options are being discussed which coalition sources believe would be "fairer".

Senior figures are proposing a two-step change to the payment of benefits. At first there would be a freeze to a wide range of working-age benefits to last for two years. After that a new link would be introduced between benefit payments and increases in wages.

Officials said they did not want a huge increase in benefits should wages start to climb very sharply, so work was being done on the exact linking mechanism.

The IPPR think tank has estimated that had benefits been linked to earnings, not inflation, over the last few years, jobseeker's allowance would be a weekly £66.81 rather than £71.

Sources said they were mindful of the risk of pushing benefit claimants into poverty, but that there was potential for massive savings.

"Benefits are rising faster than earnings; this does not encourage people to go to work. Benefits were never meant to be a salary replacement," one told the BBC.

"We are aware that there is the effect on poverty to be considered but we believe that benefits have risen by so much over the last few years that a freeze for a couple of years would help people deal with the transfer. When you see the savings possible, it is simply mind-boggling," the informant added.

Sources believe the change would not be implemented quickly, but could be in place by 2014, suggesting it is being eyed as pre-election challenge to Labour and the Lib Dems.

One benefit which will not be affected is the state pension. Pensions are now protected by a "triple lock" which means they will go up annually by either inflation, earnings, or 2.5%, whichever is higher.

Having introduced this measure, the coalition will not touch it. But all other benefits are not protected in this way.

 
Allegra Stratton Article written by Allegra Stratton Allegra Stratton Political editor, BBC Newsnight

Lib Dems push for early 2015 Budget to stop Tory 'giveaway'

The Lib Dems want the 2015 Budget to be brought forward to stop the chancellor using it as a pre-election giveaway, BBC Newsnight understands.

Read full article

More on This Story

Related Stories

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 1153.

    The legend of Jacob and Esau is an excellent illustration of the operation of one of the most important of all economic laws: the law that the terms upon which an exchange is made between two parties are determined by the relative extent to which each is free to refuse to make the exchange. If both are free to refuse, then the exchange will be made on equitable terms"

    "This Ugly Civilisation"

  • rate this
    +3

    Comment number 1152.

    Truth is plain failure of this government in benefits reform is obvious everyday we hear more and more desperate mortally redundant measures from the right wing

    The strategy of taking away from the poor and giving away the same money in large tax cuts to the rich for the next election has failed

    Even the Chinese are boosting benefits to keep there domestic economy going?

    Economics book anyone

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 1151.

    @1148.BareBodkin
    Agreed. Free markets reward well run enterprises & increases wages while punishing poorly run biz. As the labor becomes more skilled, it can demand a higher wage, à la Henry Ford & the $5 per day wage, or China’s booming middle class. Ironically China (Communist in all but name) has less restrictions on business than the UK. Their standard of living is increasing, ours isn't.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 1150.

    1149.Have your say Rejected
    Been Nice but its not really in my habit to form friendships or enter into discussions with imbeciles.. May I bid you good evening and good bye ..

  • rate this
    +3

    Comment number 1149.

    1141. Socialist Apocalypse The Thieves Amongst Us

    "Yes only in the mind of a U.K. Socialist apparatchik, could they be so verbose and of such a high opinion of themselves they elevate themselves above the intelligence of a U.S. president."

    Now I know not to take you seriously, you are either ingenue or a danger to yourself.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 1148.

    1142.Expat Andy
    @1132. Ex Tory Voter
    "By subsidising poorly run business that the free market wants to liquidate, you’re Destroying as many jobs ... as you hope to “save”."
    -
    The UK is overrun by inefficient small businesses run for the sole benefit of the proprietor and subsidised by unsocial wages brought on by immigration.
    This capital would be better managed by qualified people.

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 1147.

    If taxes on cigarettes deters smoking,
    Do taxes on earnings deter working and employment?

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 1146.

    @1136.fredbmw
    1131 pinback
    well any saving helps

    so you think forcing unemployed people to suicide is a helpful way of saving money.
    what a disgusting excuse for a human being you are

  • rate this
    +3

    Comment number 1145.

    RE:1137

    And lets not forget, it's not only people earning a salary that are evading TAX, it's also the corporations that are dodging billions in TAX, just as my post originally states.

    It's is these people that are giving hard working people a bad name. Just as it is the benefit fraudsters that are giving the genuinely unemployed a bad name.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 1144.

    Real harship is bound to come given the attack on the poorest by Cameron and the naked theft of privatised utilities hiking the cost of living. Add to that the terrorism of speculators hiking food prices to make a buck.

    If that is Capitalism it should be destroyed. But its not. Cameron represents faceless capitalism.

    We need a more humane system. End of.

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 1143.

    To solve this problem we need bigger, bolder thinking. People on benefits are effectively living off someone else's money (i.e. the taxpayer). So we need to bring this bill down. Communal cooking and housing is cheaper, so give them the choice of living in a large hostel (city) or Kibbutz style farm in the country. They work for their benefits until they manage to get a paid job again.

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 1142.

    @1132. Ex Tory Voter
    Should we keep paying for horse & buggy makers to have jobs?
    By subsidising poorly run business that the free market wants to liquidate, you’re Destroying as many jobs (most likely more) as you hope to “save”. You’re only seeing the immediate losses; The taxes imposed to save these jobs are levied on the very businesses trying to succeed and create new (viable) jobs

  • rate this
    -1

    Comment number 1141.

    1129.koolkarmauk

    Yes only in the mind of a U.K. Socialist apparatchik, could they be so verbose and of such a high opinion of themselves they elevate themselves above the intelligence of a U.S. president.
    I would think that your 12 year old son may be a good listening post for your inane drivel, but he will be 13 soon so catch him quick before he finds you below his conversational level..))

  • rate this
    -2

    Comment number 1140.

    All benefits should be made discretionary. Then those who blatently abuse the system can be weeded out. That will save a shedload of money.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 1139.

    "1127.JasonEssex
    The $32 Trillion was based upon the WORLDS richest 1000 people. Considering in the top 100 we have 1 person I would expect the UK to have only a small % of that figure."

    It's estimated that £9tn of that off-shored money is from the UK ( checked up having been, correctly, picked up on the £21tn being the global the other day). 10% tax on that and we'd all be very happy bunnies.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 1138.

    Historically wages normally rise faster than inflation, the current situation where inflation is higher than wage increases is quite unusual. If this policy were introduced permanently then it would actually increase the long term cost of benefits (when things return to normal) & only decrease the short term cost.

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 1137.

    @1120.AshleyB9

    Don't just claim facts, prove them.
    2010 figures for long term unemployed, 650,000 people
    http://tinyurl.com/yakfdbv
    Tax evasion costs Treasury 15 times more than benefit fraud.
    http://tinyurl.com/6msyscv

    I was generalising, you just made it up.

  • rate this
    -3

    Comment number 1136.

    1131 pinback
    well any saving helps

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 1135.

    Cameron still manages his big handouts to the Rich and affluent though. Surely a normal society would have begun their with any cuts.

    Jobs and houses etc etc...all in the tax havens but we dont want the Rich to pay a penny eh Tax dodgers alliance.

    What a shamless nation we are.

  • Comment number 1134.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

 

Page 1 of 58

 

Features

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.