Two weeks ago Richard Tilt, the chair of the government’s Social Security Advisory Committee suggested that elements of the welfare reform programme should be put on hold for the duration of the recession. More recently, Compass, the supposedly left-wing pressure group, have argued that the tougher tests to qualify for out-of-work benefits could leave people with no support whatsoever. Moreover, Compass have suggested that it is wrong to involve the private and voluntary sectors in the delivery of welfare to work because “it is wrong to profit from the sick and the unemployed”.
One can understand why such views have garnered some support on the centre-left, not least because of the emotive use of language. But there is a very strong case that the arguments are misconceived and would severely disadvantage precisely those groups that Compass in particular say they wish to help.
Let’s start with Richard Tilt’s critique. First, it would be absurd to deny that unemployment is rising and will continue to increase before peaking at between 2.5 to 3 million in 2009. Second, this inevitably means that lone parents and those receiving Incapacity Benefit/Employment Support Allowance may find it more difficult to return to the labour market. Third, it means too that there is an imperative for more investment in the “core” functions of JobCentre Plus to ensure that adequate support is offered to those with decent skills and qualifications who have been unlucky enough to lose their jobs. Fourth, it is very unlikely that the government will hit the target in 2010 that 80 per cent of the working age population will be in employment.
But it cannot be right to say that lone parents and the disabled who wish to work (and most do) should be bypassed by the welfare system. At a time of rising unemployment it is essential to redouble the government’s efforts to equip the so-called “hard to reach” groups with the capabilities they need to find work as the economy recovers. This means more investment in the new Flexible New Deal, not less. It means a more determined attempt to get employers to join Local Employment Partnerships (focused on lone parents and IB recipients). And it means a robust defence of the “something for something” principle – that investment by government in welfare provision must be matched by obligations to participate in the New Deal and to look for work.
Compass seem to believe that the government plans the wholesale privatisation of JobCentre Plus. It may be politically convenient for the general secretary of PCS to make this case, but Compass are foolish to follow his lead. The objective of government policy here is to expand the scale of support for those without work and widen the possibilities for experimentation through the involvement of the private and voluntary sector. It is wrong to believe that JobCentre Plus has a monopoly of wisdom and right to think that the voluntary sector can provide valuable support to those facing personal challenges – with drug and alcohol problems as a good example.
Of course it is possible to offer a constructive critique of government policy: is the level of investment in the New Deal adequate, or is the government looking for a Ford Mondeo outcome on a Lada budget? Could benefits be higher without any adverse impact on incentives to work? Are there enough quality jobs on offer at the bottom of the labour market? Unfortunately this is not where Compass have chosen to pitch their tent, offering instead a return to a manifestly unsatisfactory status quo, which is a rather odd position for the proclaimed guardians of social democratic authenticity.
Dear David,
I remember you saying at a Work Foundation conference soon after Freud launched his proposals that the welfare reforms were based on the assumption that the number of jobs would continue to increase, and that the model didn’t work if this were no longer to be the case.
The DWP’s own research shows that sanctions are ineffective in getting people into work. And I wonder why you decided to misrepresent your critics. Neither Compass nor Tilt (nor any of the other signatories of the letter that you link to) are defenders of the status quo when it comes to welfare, and neither have objected to voluntary groups having a greater role in delivering services to help people get jobs. They support a whole host of policies which would help to remove the barriers which people face, including the lack of affordable childcare and housing, the cost of transport, discrimination against disabled people and much more.
There is a consensus around providing more support for people to help them find skills and jobs, especially now times are tougher economically. Where the disagreement comes is over proposals to create a ‘multi-billion pound market in welfare’ as Freud proposed, and in whether to give bureaucrats greater powers to cut people’s benefits, as you support.
It is dishonest to try to frame this debate as ‘support vs status quo’ and I suspect the reason that you and Purnell are doing so is because you don’t think people would buy your arguments about the need to hand over billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money, apparently up to £50,000 per claimant, to private companies on the advice of an investment banker who, by his own admission, ‘knew nothing about welfare’ one month before he produced the report which now forms the basis of government policy.
Ah I see New Labour, another of Labours people who get money for nothing.
I’m disabled how do you know I want to work did you ask me.
how do you know I want to live have you asked me.
New Labour who know more about others then they know about their own party.
What’s your reply, David?
I notice Progress are not adding my comments because of my what disability.
I’m disabled I’ve been with the Job Center plus for six years, the Shaw trust packed up and left my area insufficient employers willing to help was the reply I had, Remploy use only young adviser still wet behind the years, mine would not even shake my hands because she felt it better not to, might catch something I suggest. she then told me that work was about getting out and about, she then handed me three jobs and left, I did not see her again. the three jobs were window cleaning Painting and decorating and taxi driver on the midnight shift, I’m in a wheelchair.
But the lack of help is startling in July this year my DEA said it was no good meeting since employers were not employing, thats was July she suggested we meet again after December, by then she said a private company can do the work.
I mean it’s simple who is going to take on a person who takes morphine to kill the pain, wets himself and at times messes himself because he has no control. get real
Progress put this comment up.
Just a quick couple of points. Paul Gregg’s report for the DWP, published today, sets out a progressive approach to conditionality. It supplements the policies that are in the process of being implemented and makes clear that the “something for something” principle has real teeth – by calling, for example, for additional support (and therefore higher spending) for those people trying to return to work.
It makes clear too that some people should not be subject to any benefit conditions at all “because it would not be reasonable to require them to undertake any form of work-related activity or take steps back to work”. This would seem to cover Robert’s situation and it is a principle that I support.
I don’t know where donpaskini heard me make those comments but he/she does seem to have misunderstood my position. Obviously the 80% target is unlikely to be achieved if unemployment is rising, but that does not mean that extra help for lone parents and ESA recipients should be abandoned, which is what Freud is really all about.
Whether a market based system “works” or not is an empirical question and I’m happy to accept that there should be rigourous evaluation of both efficiency and effectiveness. After all, as citizens we have a right to know that public money is being wisely spent. What I would question, however, is the view that private providers can have no role in getting the unemployed back into work. This is a purely ideological position that would rule out private sector involvement even if that made a positive contribution.
As donpaskini says, there is a consensus that getting people back to work depends on the availability of childcare and decent transport. But the government has already gone further than this and sought to link employment policy more clearly with regeneration and community development policies. It would be encouraging if the progressive intentions behind such initiatives were recognised a little more often. I doubt very much whether there is any difference between me, James Purnell or donpaskini on the importance of affordable childcare – and the tighter benefit conditions on lone parents will only be introduced if childcare is available.
Wearing my Work Foundation hat I have called for additional spending on the core functions of JobCentre Plus over the next year see: http://www.theworkfoundation.com/research/publications/publicationdetail.aspx?oItemId=205&parentPageID=102&PubType= . The Pre-Budget Report includes an additional £1.3 billion for employment related measures, so donpaskini cannot complain that no action has been taken
Compass can speak for themselves, but they seem to have adopted a purely oppositionist stance. Their guiding assumption is that the government will stigmatise the already poor just to satisfy the prejudices of Daily Mail readers. I defy anybody to explain why conditionality and sanctions are in themselves unacceptable. These elements can be found in the welfare state regimes of more egalitarian countries than the UK (Denmark and Sweden are obvious examples). A better argument for donpaskini to advance would be that benefits in both those countries are significantly higher than in the UK. Moreover, he/she could make the case that higher benefits plus substantial investment in skils and training are the corollary of tighter conditions (whether to attend JobCentre Plus interviews or actively look for work).
We would have a much better discussion if we focused our attention here and moved beyond the rather arid arguments about privatisation and coercion. As I said in my initial post, there is a constructive critique to be offered of government policy – and one might see Paul Gregg’s report as a contribution to that process. It is a shame however that those who claim to defend the interests of the most vulnerable have no alternative proposals beyond “don’t implement Freud”; the unemployed deserve better than that.
My brother suffers from anxiety panic attacks depression and mild agraphobia(excuse my spelling if incorrect) he doesnt leave the house unless i or my younger brother take him,in the last 4 months he has left his flat twice once for a medical examination for his benefits how is he ment to go to a jobcenter when he is scared to answer his front door,so he will be losing his benefits when the new reforms kick in this to me is torture he is panicing now and these changes arnt due for atleast a year ?? The stands on mental health are sketchy at best,could some one spell it out for me.