Business news and discussion on TalkFuse.
Haigh refuses to say when Labour will ‘get welfare bill down’
Louise Haigh declined to say when Labour expects to reduce the welfare bill, saying the government would focus on “investing in success” and make support more conditional on taking up opportunities. The exchange matters because ministers have not set a timetable, while forecasts show welfare spending rising during this parliament.
The Office for Budget Responsibility projects total welfare spending will increase from about £334 billion in 2025 to £413 billion in 2030, with much of the growth driven by pensioner spending. It also forecasts working-age health and disability benefits could rise by just under £20 billion, and Universal Credit by more than £14 billion. Haigh said Labour had not set a timetable for reducing the bill; a government policy paper is due next year, and Alan Milburn is expected to report on youth unemployment within weeks.
In short
- Haigh gave no date for reducing the welfare bill.
- Forecast spending rises from £334bn in 2025 to £413bn in 2030.
- Labour’s full welfare policy paper is due next year.
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Labour’s approach can be defended as an attempt to tackle the causes of rising working-age benefit claims, rather than promise savings by a fixed date before policies have been assessed. Investing in employment support and linking some assistance more closely to taking up suitable opportunities could help people into work while preserving support for those unable to work; the forthcoming policy paper and youth unemployment review may provide a basis for setting realistic goals.
The case against
With welfare spending forecast to rise substantially during this parliament, critics can reasonably argue that ministers should set clearer milestones and explain how they will manage the fiscal consequences. Without a timetable or specific measures, it is difficult for Parliament and the public to judge whether the government’s approach will contain costs, and greater conditionality could place pressure on people whose health or circumstances limit their ability to take up opportunities.