A PLANNED £12bn cut to the welfare budget will mean working age people on benefits each lose an average £19 a week, according to new estimates.
An independent benefits advice service said the group would have to be targeted as other areas are either protected or will not produce big enough savings to meet the Conservative Party's plans if they are re-elected at May's General Election.
Steve Donnison, a former welfare rights advisor and co-founder of the independent Benefit's and Work website, says those affected by the £19 a week reduction are likely to include people claiming housing benefit, disability benefits or those unfit to work and reliant on employment and support allowance.
Prime Minister David Cameron was criticised for failing to give any detail about where the axe will fall when grilled by Jeremy Paxman in Thursday's night's Sky/Channel 4 leadership debate.
But pensioner benefits, which make up well over half of the benefits bill are to remain untouched while other expected cuts will save too little, Mr Donnison's report says.
Freezing the uprating of working age benefits, one of the details which has been announced, will save £2bn, he says, according to figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies.
The proposal to cut housing benefit for some under-25s will only save £50 million, and paying child benefit for only a family's first three children will save £300 million.
This leaves the larger part of £10 billion to come from the five million working age claimants in the UK, an average of £2,000 per claimant over two years or £19 a week.
Mr Donnison said the Institute for Fiscal Studies had also concluded that the £10 billion unaccounted for and could only be delivered by radical changes or big cuts.
He added: "It is immensely cruel of the chancellor to announce such deep cuts to benefits but refuse to say where the axe will fall."
Benefits cuts wer usually popular with the media and a section of the electorate, he said, raising questions about why Mr Osborne was not saying where they will be found. "How vicious must these cuts be that he doesn't say what they are?"
Dr David Webster of Glasgow University said they might even be an underestimate as the cuts appear to be intended to take effect annually over two years.
Professor Paul Spicker, chair of public policy at Robert Gordon University, said it was very unclear how the Conservatives intend to deliver the proposed £12bn saving, but it could not be achieved by 'cheese paring'.
"If you say pensions won't be affected, and they make up the majority of benefits, that immediately causes a problem," he said. "George Osborne's aim is to shrink the size of the state. That inevitably means people on low incomes end up on lower incomes."
"There seems to be an assumption that you can just stop people's benefits and they will manage."
Others have already experienced bigger cuts, by moving from disability benefit to the less generous job seekers allowance, through the bedroom tax, or by having their benefits stopped, he said.
"People have had quite substantial sums taken away and we've seen a growth in food banks, and a pernicious trend towards payday loans."
Further reducing the welfare bill could cause more suffering, he said. "If there is no safety net the consequences will be extremely negative and could include people starving, committing suicide and you will have people who turn to crime."
A Conservative Party spokesman said: "We have already said we will freeze benefits for two years so benefits are not rising faster than wages - this is the right thing to do and will save billions.
"We've delivered £21 billion of welfare savings so far and are confident that by sticking with our long-term plan to reform our welfare system so it rewards work we can make sure Britain lives within its means."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article