Welfare for the 21st Century & State of the nation report: poverty, worklessness and welfare dependency in the UK - DWP 270510
You can find the State of the nation report: poverty, worklessness and welfare dependency in the UK by clicking here.
Rt Hon Iain Duncan Smith MP
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
Welfare for the 21st Century
Thursday 27th May 2010
[Check against delivery]
Introduction
Good morning.
I am pleased to be here as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, heading a strong and committed team of Ministers – Lord Freud, Chris Grayling, Steve Webb and Maria Miller.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the Permanent Secretary, Leigh Lewis, and his staff for the hard work and dedication they have shown over many years.
Walking around the building I have got some idea of the depth of enthusiasm of the staff who work here. People are keen to be involved in our programme of reform.
In fact, some of the people I have talked to – while in no way commenting on the previous government – have told me that the system they administer with such dedication is indeed breaking and in need of urgent attention.
But then, that is why I took this job.
Poverty Pathways
Six years ago, I launched the Centre for Social Justice, determined to deliver on a promise that I made to a number of people in some of the most deprived areas, that I would work to improve the quality of life of the worst off in Britain.
I had a vision that if people of good will and determination could come together – ignoring party labels and rooted in the most difficult communities in Britain – we could find a way to deliver on that promise.
We wanted to understand the root causes of poverty.
From this starting point, the team refined the work into five pathways to poverty – family breakdown, educational failure, addiction, debt, and the fifth, worklessness and economic dependency.
This, it was agreed, was what drives poverty.
Yet far too often, these pathways have not been reflected in the priorities of successive governments.
You can see that every day right here in London – one of the richest cities in the world where great wealth lives in close proximity to the harsh realities of poverty.
What, perhaps, is most remarkable is the degree of consensus among academics and, most importantly, inspirational leaders and community charities, that we need a new approach to tackling persistent poverty.
How, they asked, can it be right for generations in families to live and die without ever holding down a regular job?
How can it be right that we ask the unemployed to take the greatest risk for the least reward?
And how can we find new ways of breaking the cycle of dependency and re-discover social mobility?
The Problem
I want this Department to be at the forefront of strategy to improve the quality of life for the worst off.
But this will be no easy task. As last week’s poverty statistics showed, the challenge we face is huge.
Income inequality is at its highest since records began.
Working age poverty, after flat-lining until 2004, has risen sharply and now stands at the highest level seen since 1961.
There are more working age adults living in relative poverty than ever before.
Some 5.3 million people in the UK suffer from multiple disadvantages.
And today, 1.4 million people in the UK have been on out of work benefits for nine or more of the last 10 years.
Crucially, this picture is set against a backdrop of 13 years of continuously increasing expenditure, which has outstripped inflation.
The figures show that at current prices, we spent £28bn in 1978/79, excluding pensions.
By 1996/97, the figure was £62bn.
And today (2009/2010), it stands at £87bn, including tax credits, which takes the overall bill to £185bn once pensions are added.
Worse than the growing expense, though, is the fact that the money is not even making the impact we want it to.
A system that was originally designed to support the poorest in society is now trapping them in very condition it was supposed to alleviate.
Instead of helping, a deeply unfair benefits system too often writes people off.
The proportion of people parked on inactive benefits has almost tripled in the past 30 years to 41% of the inactive working age population.
Some of these people haven’t been employed for years.
Indeed, as John Hutton pointed out when he had this job, “Nine out of 10 people who came on to incapacity benefit expect to get back into work. Yet if you have been on incapacity benefit for more than two years, you are more likely to retire or die than ever get another job.”
That is a tragedy. We must be here to help people improve their lives – not just park them on long-term benefits.
Aspiration, it seems, is in danger of becoming the preserve of the wealthy.
The legacy of the system we have today stands at more than 1.5 million people on Jobseeker’s Allowance; almost 5 million out-of-work benefit claimants; and 1.4 million under-25s who are not working or in full-time education. Nearly 700,000 of those young people are looking for a role in life, but cannot find one.
The Economy
We literally cannot afford to go on like this.
The need to reduce costs is shared across the government, but here in DWP we always have to be conscious that we are often dealing with some of the most vulnerable members of our society.
That is why I will be guided throughout this process by this question – does what we are doing result in a positive Social Return on Investment?
In short, does this investment decision mean a real life change that will improve outcomes and allow an individual’s life to become more positive and productive?
That is how we will be guided on every decision.
We have to constantly remind ourselves that we are here to help the poorest and most vulnerable in our society.
So we will require that when we implement a programme it has a clear and evidence-based outcome.
We will also discipline ourselves and ensure that we are not tempted to alter it according to which way the political wind is blowing that day.
Fidelity to the original objective is vital in getting the best value for money for the taxpayer. And if a programme is not cost-effective against that criteria, then we must look at a better way to deliver.
Making Work Pay
To do all this, there are a number of key problems we must address.
One of the first is that for too many people work simply does not pay.
Let’s say someone on benefits is offered a relatively low-paid job.
If you factor in the withdrawal of, say, JSA, plus Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit – all at different rates – it means that for too many people they are left with little more income in work than they received on benefits.
Add to that normal costs of travelling to work and the loss of any passported benefits, and you soon start to see why work may not be the most financially sensible option.
For a young person, the situation is even worse since they are usually ineligible for Working Tax Credits.
Worse again for some people, the move from welfare into work means they face losing more than 95 pence for every additional £1 they earn.
As a result, the poor are in effect being taxed at an effective rate that far exceeds the wealthy.
The system has become regressive.
Extremely high effective tax rates also impact lone parents who want to work more than 16 hours a week.
So our current benefits system is actually disinincentivising people from work.
These prohibitive marginal tax rates mean that for some people, work simply does not pay.
We have in effect taken away the reward and left people with the risk.
It is no wonder they are so resistant to finger wagging lectures from government.
I have always believed that choice in life is about that balance and the ratio between risk and reward.
Get that ratio right and positive decision making will become the norm. Life chances will improve considerably and cost savings will follow as well.
The Work Programme
There has been much talk about sanctions. But I believe it is only right that if we are helping people to get back into work, then we also have a right to expect that those we support are ready and willing to take on work if it is offered.
That is why reform of the Back to Work programme is so important.
We will create a Work Programme which will move toward a single scheme that will offer targeted, personalised help for those who need it most, sooner rather than later.
My Ministerial team is working on the details and we’ll be hearing more about the Work Programme in the coming weeks.
But it seems obvious to me that if we know a particular older worker is going to struggle to get back into employment, it is only fair that we try to get them on to a welfare-to-work programme immediately, rather than pausing for 12 months as is currently the case.
A greater level of personalised support also means more people will be work-ready as the jobs market picks up, so over time we will get a higher return on investment, as well as producing greater life changes for the individual.
To make sure we get the best value for money, we will also be changing the framework to bring the ideas and energy of the third sector and the private sector to the forefront of the process.
We will reform the regime so that we properly reward the providers who do best at creating sustainable jobs that help people move out of benefits and into work. But we are not prepared to pay for anything less.
At the same time, we will also make sure the system is fair by ensuring that receipt of benefits for those able to work is conditional on their willingness to work.
So to be fair to the taxpayer, we will cut payments if they don’t do the right thing.
In addition, we will re-assess all current claimants of Incapacity Benefit on their readiness to work.
If people genuinely cannot work, then we will make sure they get the unconditional support they need.
However, those assessed as immediately capable of work will be moved on to Jobseeker’s Allowance straight away.
At the same time, those who have the potential to return to work will receive the enhanced support they need through ESA (Employment and Support Allowance) and the Work Programme.
Again, this is about fairness in the same way as ensuring that we get rid of the jobs tax so that employers are not penalised for giving people a chance to get back to work.
Pensions
The principles of fairness, responsibility and social justice also inform our agenda for pensions.
For example, we are phasing out the default retirement age so that we are not penalising perfectly healthy people who want to keep working and keep contributing.
The idea of someone being fired just because they turned 65 is nonsense.
People who are good at their job and want to work for longer should be able to do so.
In my view, that’s only fair. But of course this policy area rests with BIS, so the detail of how we do this is really their decision.
However, one of the big issues we have to face up to as a society is that we are all living longer and healthier lives.
That has huge implications for the pensions regime.
When the contributory state pension was first introduced in 1926, men were not really expected to live much past their pension age.
In fact, average life expectancy for a boy born in 1926 was just 64 years and 4 months.
By contrast, one in four babies born today will live to 100.
Shifting demographics means that the pensions landscape has changed massively.
That is why we have to make sure that pensions are affordable for the country and that is why we have to increase the pension age.
Another thing we are doing on pensions is to end the rules requiring compulsory annuitisation at 75.
This will simplify some of the rules and regulations around pensions. But it also means we will have a fairer system where people take proper responsibility for the decisions that make best financial sense for them.
And, of course, from April 2011 we are triple-locking the value of the Basic State Pension so that it will rise by the minimum of prices, earnings or 2.5%, whichever is higher.
So if earnings are going up fast, the pension will increase in line with earnings. If prices are going up fast, it will increase in line with prices. And if neither is going up fast, it will go up at least 2.5%.
Next, we also have to find ways to encourage greater personal saving. That means we need a vibrant private system too.
We want to encourage employers to provide high quality pensions for all their employees, and I look forward to working with employers, consumers and the industry to make automatic enrolment and increased pension saving a reality.
Real freedom in retirement comes from planning ahead for the future.
It would be one of the most positive changes we could make in office.
Welfare Reform
The third strand of reform we have set out covers the welfare system and it reflects my determination to make it simpler and more transparent so that work always pays.
We know that work provides the most sustainable route out of poverty, so it is absolutely vital that we get this right and people see a clear link between work and reward.
Less complexity in the system will also save money in administration costs, as well as cutting back on the opportunities for fraud and error.
However, the biggest savings of all will come from putting clear incentives in place to get people back into work and off benefits altogether.
By putting a dynamic approach to benefits in place, we will make sure that individuals and households are always better off in work so that they can take a sustainable path out of poverty.
Challenges Ahead
However, none of this will be easy.
There are major challenges ahead.
Some are technical – for example, how do we link all the various benefit systems that generate such complexity and confusion?
Some are practical – such as working out how we get the best out of the third sector and private sector providers on the Work Programme.
Some of the most difficult challenges will be cultural though. Because for too long, we have discouraged people from taking up their responsibilities as the Welfare State has pushed in to fill the gap where family and society used to function far more effectively.
Conclusion
Social Justice will define my role as Secretary of State at this Department…from jobseekers in our agencies, to families, carers and pensioners.
Indeed, I am pleased to announce today that I will chair a Cabinet Committee on Social Justice with the cooperation of my Coalition colleagues.
My drive is for social justice to run through the fabric of our government, in all that we do.
I also want to reinforce my personal determination to remove the barriers to social mobility and equal opportunity.
And I wish to set out my determination to build a fairer society.
In doing so, let me underline my personal commitment to equal opportunities for all.
This is my commitment to social justice and a welfare system that is fit for the 21st Century.
And I hope that by working together, we can make social justice a reality for Britain long into the future.
The prize is a welfare system that is simple, more efficient and one that helps to restore the social mobility that should be at the heart of British society.
A welfare system that is fit for the 21st Century.
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/newsroom/ministers-speeches/2010/27-05-10.shtml
Lawrence Kay is a research fellow in Policy Exchange's Economics Unit.
Apart from your wages at the end of the month, have you ever thought about what you get from having a job? Someone who’s unemployed will easily be able to tell you. They will say that being in employment means you get to keep your head up when someone asks you what you do for a living, that doing something is better than doing nothing, and that it’s nice to know that you are looking after yourself. Unfortunately, if you really do want to find someone who can describe these things to you, there are lots of people in Britain who you can ask.
This year we will probably break the barrier of having 6 million people on welfare. This figure covers a whole host of different benefits being claimed for reasons such as unemployment to being ill or caring. It is likely to keep on rising because it looks like the economy won’t perform well enough in 2010 to keep struggling firms from letting more workers go. As this happens, more people will be given money from the government to help them avoid absolute poverty. This is a good thing, but it raises a simple question: if someone is given money for not having a job, might they think twice about trying to get one?
In a report from Policy Exchange out today, there is an exhaustive answer to this question. Once we take into account the costs of work, the way that benefits are withdrawn and taxes levied as people on welfare try to start working, the financial point of looking for a job looks pretty small. For example, someone on Incapacity Benefit who receives £177.27 while out of work (a sum that incorporates money from Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit) will only make £30.46 extra after working for 40 hours at the minimum wage. I’ll save you the maths: that’s a wage rate of 76p per hour.
The Government can do all it likes to encourage people back to work through improving employment services and making more demands on the workshy to be less bashful about looking for a job, but when someone on benefits knows that they will have to make a lot of effort to get only a little in return, unemployment will always be higher than it need be. In the lexicon of “Broken Britain”, this means someone on benefits can say to the Jobcentre “What’s the point?” when asked to get a job. In other words, our welfare system actually encourages people to avoid the benefits of work. It is this that puts cracks in families and community relationships.
But what’s the solution? To allow people on welfare to keep more of their earnings when they get a job. Many are only allowed to keep £5 before they start having their benefits withdrawn. If we curtail tax credit spending then we can raise this level to £92.80 without the Treasury being out of pocket. The Jobcentre can then say to the unemployed “You get a job and you’ll be at least £92.80 better off a week.” People on benefits might then be willing to say “Alright, I’ll give it a go.”
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2010/03/escaping-the-pover...
More than 75 per cent of disabled people with children live below the poverty line, a survey has found.
The Disability Review 2009, published by the charity Leonard Cheshire Disability, surveyed more than 1,200 disabled people in the UK about their experiences of education and employment, social care, citizenship and transport.
42 per cent of those who participated said they were struggling to live on their present income, a rise of nine per cent since 2007 when the first survey was carried out.
The survey also found that more than 60 per cent were in fuel poverty, a figure that compares to 11 per cent of the general population.
John Knight, director of policy and campaigns at Leonard Cheshire Disability, said: “Disabled people are twice as likely to live in poverty as non-disabled people.
“Our survey reveals that disabled people are continuing to have very low levels of income and very low levels of savings, and are clearly struggling to meet even the basic costs of living.”
He added: “With disabled people entering the recession on a profoundly unequal footing to non-disabled people, the need for a government strategy to tackle disability poverty is now more urgent than ever.”
Commenting on a finding that 50 per cent of people in poverty are contributing to the cost of their social care, Neil Coyle, director of policy at the Disability Alliance, said: “Councils must assess disability related expenditure, but do not do this well, and leave disabled people unable to afford three meals a day in some cases.
“This is unacceptable and must be addressed by the Government urgently.”
Laura Courtney, campaign manager for Every Disabled Child Matters, said she was concerned that 54 per cent of respondents to the survey felt they’d experienced discrimination in the education system.
She said: “Disabled children can have emotional and behavioural issues arising directly from their impairments, are more likely to have mental health problems affecting their behaviour, and can become frustrated and disillusioned with their lack of progress due to unmet special educational needs.”
Julie Newman (pictured), the acting chair of the UK’s Disabled People’s Council, said she was particularly worried by the findings because of the continuing threat to Attendance Allowance and Disability Living Allowance for over-65s.
She said: “The prices of clothes in supermarkets are coming down but not all disabled people can access those shops.”
The survey also found that more than 50 per cent had no savings, more than 40 per cent believed they’d been turned down for a job because of their impairment and nine per cent had been victims of a disability hate crime.
83 per cent voted in a local or European election in the last three years, a rise of six per cent on last year’s survey.
http://www.disabilitynow.org.uk/latest-news2/news-focus/poverty-trap-dee...
The coalition agreement between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats has major implications for poverty in the UK. The agreement highlights the following:
- "the personal allowance for income tax should be increased in order to help lower and middle income earners"
- "we will restore the earnings link for the basic state pension from April 2011 with a "triple guarantee" that pensions are raised by the higher of earnings, prices or 2.5%"
- "reductions can be made to the Child Trust Fund and tax credits for higher earners"
- "arrangements will protect those on low incomes from the effect of public sector pay constraint and other spending constraints"
An increase in disposable income and pay protection for some low earners is welcome. Poverty levels for those in work were rising before the recession, and may well have continued rising during the recession, as a consequence of family members losing their jobs or having their working hours reduced. (We will have a better idea about this when the 2008/09 poverty figures come out on Thursday).
Our Minimum Income Standards research shows that a full-time job on the minimum wage is unlikely to provide a socially-acceptable standard of living, in part because of the impact of income tax on take-home pay. On the face of it, raising the tax threshold would address this problem (see next month's JRF-funded report from Demos on the implications of taking people who earn below the MIS out of income tax). However, modelling work by Left Foot Forward on the impact of moving to a £10,000 threshold concludes that the majority of the cuts would in fact go to the better-off and the income tax proposal, by itself, won’t help people who are already earning below the current threshold, or people who aren’t in work.
This is why tax cuts need to be thought of as part of a wider strategy to tackle poverty. There needs to be a dual focus: an examination of 'in-work' poverty, as well as an analysis of the deep poverty caused by low levels of out-of-work benefits. For adults of working age who claim all they are entitled to, these benefits provide only about 40% of their minimum income standard. In contrast, pensioners who successfully claim Pension Credit and other benefits are able to meet their income standard.
A freeze on the uprating of benefits such as Job Seeker's Allowance (JSA) has been discussed as one way of saving money on the welfare bill. But when you look at the make-up of welfare spending, JSA is a fraction of the overall amount compared with pensions. If spending on pensions is protected – and even enhanced through the return of the earnings link – the implication is that the axe will fall even more heavily on benefits for working-age adults and parents, including Tax Credits. The idea that the welfare bill can be cut substantially through welfare-to-work measures seems hopeful at best. These kinds of trade-offs need to be an explicit part of the debate.
In contrast, proposals to cut child tax credits for higher earners may be less of a worry than is sometimes claimed. But there are three possible reasons to be concerned:
- if the threshold is cut so much that it essentially becomes only for a small group on extremely low incomes;
- if cutting it means that people feel stigmatised claiming it;
- if it seriously undermines public support for the system as a whole.
Unless we have good evidence that those things are happening, taxing 'middle-class benefits' may be a price worth paying. People in poverty should not be the ones left paying for the fallout from the debt crisis.
http://www.jrf.org.uk/blog/2010/05/coalition-government-uk-poverty
Danny Alexander also claimed the benefits system may be brought “close to meltdown” by tens of thousands appealing rulings they are no longer eligible for state support.
Although his comments were made before the general election, sources close to Mr Alexander said that he remains concerned and would be lobbying Cabinet colleagues.
The new Tory-Liberal Democrat coalition Government have promised to crack down on Britain’s sick note culture by reassessing everyone who currently claims benefits.
Employment Support Allowance (ESA) was introduced 18 months ago to replace Incapacity Benefit and uses a new medical test to decide whether applicants are fit for work.
The Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) revealed in February that more than two thirds of claimants for ESA are being found fit to work, almost 20 per cent more than the Government had planned.
It is now the most commonly appealed benefit, with 8,000 tribunals heard every month across the UK and 40 per cent of decisions are being reversed.
Speaking before his promotion to the Cabinet, Mr Alexander questioned whether it was appropriate to press ahead with a planned expansion of ESA later this year.
In the interview, broadcast by the BBC on Wednesday, the Lib Dem MP said: “If the experience we've had over the last few months is anything to go by, there will be thousands, tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of incorrect decisions that are made.
“Tens of thousands of appeals will follow, and that will be a system, then, that is close to meltdown. It’s ministers who should be changing the way that the system works to ensure that it is fair.”
So far, only those claiming after 2008 have undergone the ESA medical test, but the new Government has signalled its intention to press ahead with a planned roll out of the scheme in October.
This will see 2.5 million existing Incapacity Benefit claimants, those on long-term sick before 2008, forced to take the new medical test.
Atos, a multinational IT giant, has a £500 million contract with the DWP to carry out the assessments.
In the same interview, Mr Alexander said: “There’s a suspicion that ministers may well be incentivising Atos to actually give results of the assessment which take people off benefit.
“The fact is that the process isn’t working and that genuinely vulnerable people are being denied money as a result.”
In a statement issued on Wednesday, Mr Alexander said: “I remain concerned at the way the ESA is administered and the problems it is causing for my constituents and will continue to raise the issue on their behalf.”
But a DWP spokesman said: “People need much more support to manage their conditions and get help to find work and moving them to ESA is the best way to do that.
“We are fully aware this is a big undertaking and that is why we are working on plans to make the change happen as smoothly as possible.”
An Atos spokesman added that the company was audited by the DWP to ensure a high standard of assessment and that medical advice was correct.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7768597/Danny-Alexan...
der the new government, the cost of the welfare state will increase, unemployment will go up, and so will the number of people living in poverty. It is worth bearing this in mind when reading the spin about Iain Duncan Smith’s “radical welfare reforms”. Here’s three reflections on his speech today:
1. Duncan Smith’s big idea for getting people into work is to pay them more benefits. Under his plans, everyone who is in low paid work will also get paid Jobseekers’ Allowance, and possibly also Housing and Council Tax Benefit.
He hasn’t yet managed to persuade the Treasury of the advantages of this policy (surprise, surprise).
In some ways, this is a good idea. It is an extension of the principle of tax credits, and a recognition of the fact that for most people in low paid work, their wages are not enough to live on. It is also revealing that the outcome of years of research by right-wing think tanks about how to reduce poverty came up with the conclusion that we need to give more money to people in poverty (rather than, say, to cut benefits).
But the cost will be much more than £3 billion. This is an expensive way of trying to reduce in work poverty.
2. Duncan Smith’s welfare policies involve Big Government forcing individuals to change their behaviour through a mix of sanctions, financial incentives, and payments to external contractors based on performance against closely defined outputs.
There is a pretty massive gap in this approach. Reducing unemployment and poverty can’t be achieved just by the state and individuals – the role of employers and of civil society is crucial. As someone once said, there is such a thing as society, it’s just not the same as the state. And the spirit of “we’re all in this together” means that employers need to recognise their responsibilities and do their bit, rather than just relying on government and unemployed people to behave differently.
Reducing in-work poverty requires action on issues such as employers hiring workers on zero hour contracts and requiring them to wait by the phone to see if they have any work for them; and action to prevent employers requiring workers to do a four week unpaid work trial at the start of a new job. Big companies which make billions of pounds in profit and even some anti-poverty charities don’t pay their staff enough to live on.
Whether it is replacing minimum wage jobs with apprenticeships, or requiring unemployed people to do community work, the Coalition is actually increasing the number of people who are working, but not earning enough to live on.
3. The rest of Duncan Smith’s policies – whether it is Christian fundamentalist moralising by advisers who thinks prayer can cure gay people; or forcing sick people into looking for jobs which don’t exist; or massive corporate welfare payments to companies to meet poorly designed targets, are as vicious as they are ineffective.
I know that the media and politicians have this view of Duncan Smith as a Noble Man who cares about the Poor, but I don’t think that view will be shared by anyone on the receiving end of his policies. By all means, Labour and lefties should welcome his conversion to the cause of increasing the wages of low paid workers, and should support him against the Treasury when the rest of his party resists the cost of what he is proposing.
But Labour should also draw on the expertise of MPs like Andrew Smith and Alastair Darling – the last ministers who reduced poverty and increased employment – and Kate Green, the former head of Child Poverty Action Group, to craft an alternative and genuinely radical set of welfare reforms. Britain needs a modernised welfare state where everyone looking for work gets personalised support to help them get a job, with reforms to council tax and other taxes which hit the poor hardest, with quality services including free childcare, and where employers recognise their responsibilities and pay all their workers enough to live with dignity.
http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/05/27/radical-welfare-reforms/
The purpose of the Bill is to:
- Simplify the benefits system in order to improve work incentives.
The main benefits of the Bill would be:
- Making the benefits system less complex.
- Improving work incentives.
- Getting the five million plus people languishing on benefits into work and out of poverty.
- Reducing the scope for fraud and error.
The main elements of the Bill are:
- Removing the confusing complexity of the benefits system, which too often leaves people afraid to make any change to their circumstances and can be a barrier to moving from benefits to work.
- Making people see a gain when entering work through simplifying the benefits system.
- Reducing the scope for fraud and error by making the benefits system simpler.
- Reducing unnecessary administration of benefits. Currently people can have overlapping entitlements or switch between different benefits – around 200,000 people a year cycle between Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) and Incapacity Benefit (IB/ Employment and Support Allowance (ESA).
Related documents:
- Building Britain’s recovery – achieving full employment Feb 2010 – http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/building-britains-recovery.pdf
- Raising expectations and increasing support Dec 2009 – http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/fullversion.pdf
- No-one written off – reforming welfare to reward responsibility – July 2008 – http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/noonewrittenoff-complete.pdf
- Benefit Simplification Guide 2009 – http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/simplification-guide-best-practice.pdf
- Simplification and the customer – http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/simplification-and-the-customer.pdf
Existing legislation in this area includes:
- Welfare Reform Act 2009
- Welfare Reform Act 2007
- Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992
Devolution:
Any benefit changes will apply to Great Britain. Provision or benefits in Northern Ireland is devolved and will require parallel legislation.
Tags: Queen's Speech
http://www.number10.gov.uk/queens-speech/2010/05/queens-speech-welfare-r...


Triple-jeopardy in new Government’s welfare reform proposals puts disabled people at greater risk of poverty
Today’s welfare reform statement by the incoming Secretary of State includes the positive commitment to put DWP at the forefront of improving the quality of life for worst off citizens, to ensure work pays, and to hold a Cabinet Committee on Social Justice which DA hopes to inform.
But overall, the new coalition Government’s plans have sparked widespread fear amongst many disabled people and their representative organisations. The proposals announced to date could amount to a triple-jeopardy for disabled people of:
Medical tests
Changes to move people from Incapacity Benefit (IB) to Employment Support Allowance (ESA; the benefit which replaced IB from 2008) will require every current IB recipient to undergo a Work Capability Assessment (WCA). The previous Government only proposed that 1.5 million people would undergo the WCA . The new Government is also proposing to do this faster than the previous plans (which would have meant 10,000 assessments per week to 2014). This will require additional cost – recruiting extra Jobcentre Plus and medical assessment staff to handle the 2.6 million assessments .
The WCA determines who gets what benefits but has been shown to be seriously flawed and unable to effectively ascertain the impact impairments/health conditions have on some disabled people’s ability to work . Cases have already come to light of people assessed as being fully fit for work appealing the decision and being put on the ESA support component (which is the modern equivalent of IB).
The number of appeals against WCA decisions is already incredibly high – and 40% of the people who appeal are having initial DWP decisions overruled. This is very expensive for the taxpayer – and will mean considerable additional Tribunals service expenditure .
Support to find work
Disabled people face additional barriers to work – including the need for appropriate support in work and accessible transport. The previous Government provided tailored support for many disabled people through initiatives like Pathways to Work (which was open to disabled ESA recipients for example). The new Government is scrapping all previous work programmes like Pathways in favour of a single, overarching scheme: the ‘Work Programme’.
It is unclear if/how the Work Programme will meet disabled people’s additional support needs in the way previous initiatives attempted. Disability Alliance believes that a ‘one size fits all’ approach does not always work for disabled people and may mean additional barriers to work are generated. This is very worrying at a time of higher unemployment and greater competition for available jobs, as well as ongoing employer discrimination issues (eg unwillingness to employ people with impairments/health conditions ).
In work but worse off
The previous Government proposed a £40 per week better off in work ‘guarantee’ for many people moving off benefits . This has not been progressed in today’s announcements, although making work pay has been a consisted theme of previous statements from the Conservatives and broader coalition Government.
Disabled people earn less when in work compared to other citizens . But disabled people have higher living costs (for specialist equipment, transport and prescription bills for example) . Today’s proposals may contribute to higher rates of in-work poverty for disabled people, as they come alongside broader announcements under the new Government to cut access to tax credits. The crude threshold of income to be used to cut access to tax credits may not reflect disabled people (or parents of disabled children’s) higher living costs .
The new Government has also committed to a review of employment law . Disabled people fear this may result in a watering down of employer’s obligations to improve working practices through ‘reasonable adjustments’ which help level the playing field at work for disabled people . This could put disabled people’s jobs at risk.
Triple jeopardy and the risk of poverty
Vanessa Stanislas, Disability Alliance Chief Executive, says:
Further information/contact
Vanessa Stanislas, Chief Executive, Disability Alliance 020 7247 8776 vstanislas@disabilityalliance.org
Neil Coyle, Director of Policy, Disability Alliance 020 7247 8776 ncoyle@disabilityalliance.org
More information
http://www.disabilityalliance.org/welreform2.htm