Prime Minister Andy Burnham’s government has set out five cost-of-living measures ahead of the Oct. 28 Budget, addressing selected household and work-related costs while outlining support for carers and local postal services.
HM Treasury says the proposed tariff changes span more than 100 products and, combined with suspensions announced earlier this year, could reduce household grocery costs by up to £21 a year. The measures include lower duties on goods such as baked beans, chocolate and gherkins, alongside cuts on fertiliser and kerosene.
Lower fertiliser duties are intended to help farmers, while households that heat with kerosene would receive a separate benefit. The Treasury described the proposal as its second cost-of-living tariff package this year, following one in June.
For workers who drive for their jobs, the tax-free mileage rate would remain 55 pence per mile for the first 10,000 business miles. The rate for miles beyond that point would increase to 35 pence from 25 pence. The government estimates about three million employees and self-employed workers could benefit. The package would also extend parental pay to more than 150,000 additional parents each year, including self-employed fathers and partners.
The proposed Carer’s Allowance system would reduce support by £1 for each additional £1 earned above the weekly limit, instead of ending the benefit altogether. The Guardian has reported that carers have faced large repayments after narrowly exceeding the threshold, which can make a small increase in earnings costly.
The Post Office plan would expand parcel drop boxes to 1,000 locations and upgrade 600 branches by the end of the financial year.
The Guardian reported that Conservative shadow chancellor Andrew Griffith said inflation had wiped out the package’s benefits, blaming government borrowing, taxes and a failure to cut spending. He called the measures “cheaper gherkins” and an “insult to families.”
Chancellor John Healey is scheduled to present the Budget on Wednesday, Oct. 28. The Conservatives have also challenged Healey to explain how he would fund higher defense spending, as EconoTimes reported in its earlier coverage of the pre-Budget dispute.
