Tax cuts for the rich, promised by Boris Johnson and Jeremy Hunt, have been attacked by the United Nations rapporteur on extreme poverty, who compared them to Donald Trump’s fiscal policies and warned that they would “tremendously increase inequality” in Britain.

The special rapporteur, Philip Alston, told a side meeting at the UN human rights council, in Geneva, that it was a tragedy that the Tory leadership candidates were promising tax cuts. He warned that this meant “even less money, not just to spend on the poor but on infrastructure and the middle classes”.

He added: “Tax cuts on this level are a bid to dramatically increase inequality and benefit those who are already wealthy.” Even conservative economists could now recognise that inequality was “counter-productive to economic growth”.

Alston was in Geneva to present his final report on UK poverty, which concluded that austerity had caused the “systematic immiseration of a significant part of the British population”, leaving 14 million people in relative poverty.

His report was based on an 11-day fact-finding mission to UK places, including Essex, Newcastle, Glasgow, Belfast and London, as well as on months of research.

Alston has angered the UK government by calling its flagship universal credit welfare reform “a digital and sanitised version of the 19th-century workhouse”. On Thursday he stepped up his criticism accusing the Conservatives of rupturing a cross-party consensus – that had existed since the 1942 Beveridge report advocating a social welfare state – by following politically motivated austerity policies.

Boris Johnson and Jeremy Hunt have proposed tax cuts that would cost at least £10bn and £37bn respectively, according to the IFS. Photograph: Getty Images

His comments on the Tory leadership contenders’ tax plans are likely to cause fresh tensions, given the Department for Work and Pensions, led by Amber Rudd, as secretary of state, is a key supporter of Hunt. The department has accused Alston of producing a “barely believable” report painting “a completely inaccurate picture of our approach to tackling poverty”.

Johnson, if he becomes prime minister, intends to cut taxes in a move directed largely at the wealthiest people which would cost at least £10bn, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Hunt has proposed a corporation tax cut and national insurance cut that would cost more than £37bn, the IFS said.

Alston said it was wrong to argue that such cuts would boost productivity and economic growth, which would trickle down to the poorest. “There is no evidence of that from any other country. The US tax cuts by Donald Trump have not trickled down. They have trickled up.”

He cited work by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, and International Monetary Fund which suggested increased inequality was antithetical to growth.

On Friday British diplomats are expected to again push back against Alston’s conclusions, despite a senior official at the Department for Work and Pensions telling parliament in June that he had “made a lot of good points”.

Other countries will also comment on the damning appraisal of poverty in the UK, the world’s fifth richest country.

Alston told a side meeting convened by Human Rights Watch that the UK had “a major problem of poverty and the key issues remain unaddressed by the government”.

He said that, despite ministers trumpeting close to full employment and economic growth, that had “not made any difference to the 12 million people living in poverty and those who line up every day at some of the 2,000 food banks that have sprung up around the country”.

He added: “I would like to see very significant change. I believe that would be achieved without great expense. I believe the welfare situation in Britain could be transformed overnight, even by this government.”

But he said the philosophy seemed to be that “if you are successful, wealthy and have privilege behind you, you will do well and the government will help you in many ways”, adding: “If you have problems you’re on your own. It is a philosophy and it is not one consistent with human rights.”

The Department for Work and Pensions was contacted for comment.



