David Cameron has given a strong hint that he will soften the blow of stripping child benefit from better-off couples with children.
The Prime Minister told House Magazine he realised there was "a cliff-edge issue" for high earners and a sense of "unfairness" that some working couples would keep the benefit despite earning more.
Hinting that George Osborne could address the complaints in March, Mr Cameron said: "I don't want to impinge on the Chancellor's Budget."
Critics say the coalition's vow to take away child benefit from any household where one earner is on £40,000 or more is unfair because it will cost a family of three £2,500 a year at a stroke. But a working couple could rake in, say, £78,000 between them without losing the weekly payments of £20.30 for the eldest child and £13.40 a week for other children.
"Some people say that's the unfairness of it, that you lose the child benefit if you have a higher rate taxpayer in the family," said Mr Cameron. "Two people below the level keep the benefit. So, there's a threshold, a cliff-edge issue. We always said we would look at the steepness of the curve, we always said we would look at the way it's implemented."
The PM refused to back down from the principle that higher earners should not pocket child benefit because "we want to make sure that everyone makes a contribution to dealing with the deficit".
In the interview, Mr Cameron also said Boris Johnson was a potential prime minister, saying: "I think he's got a huge amount to offer London and a huge amount to offer the country ... Our relationship is much misunderstood. I'm a big Boris fan."
Obscure parliamentary conventions could be used to overturn a series of Lords defeats on government welfare reforms, Downing Street signalled today. Commons financial privilege - which allows MPs to force through changes if they relate to tax and spending - could apply because the defeats would cost £1.6 billion.
"I think privilege would have some impact on some of these amendments," the Prime Minister's spokesman said. The little-used convention could be invoked after peers rejected plans to means test disability and sickness benefits.
