In truth, this is a remarkably thin document, offering more in the way of broad brush proposals (a universal credit, a single IT-based delivery system) than specifics about plans – or costs. No-one will argue that our welfare benefits system ought to be simple to understand, and to ensure work pays. But our system of social support fulfils many broader functions – as a safety net, as a demonstration of social solidarity, as a means of recognising and supporting caring and wider social contribution – as well as promoting and incentivising work. These goals are missing from the document, and, it has to be assumed, from the government’s vision for social security too.

Even within its own limited terms of addressing work incentives, the document misses much of the point. We know there are plans to introduce a Single Work Programme of interventions to help people back into work, but the linkage to those reform plans is scarcely made at all. There’s little discussion of barriers to employment or the nature of the labour market, the scantiest reference to skills and qualifications, a passing remark or two about childcare, absolutely nothing about pay, conditions, rights, vacancy rates, progression opportunities, or structural inequalities in the workplace. But just as much as the benefits system, the labour market itself creates substantial barriers to work. Perhaps the government has a strategy for addressing that – it fails to get a mention in this document.

Missing too, is any indication of the cost of the reforms, the timescale, and what the proposals mean for levels of benefits. Perhaps that’s not surprising: we’re already on notice that the Treasury’s very, very unlikely to wear any increased cost. As a result, the DWP are forced to suggest that the changes proposed can pay for themselves, even save money over time. Savings on the benefits bill, it’s been suggested, can be recycled into delivering more effective programmes to get more people into and progressing at work. That may be true to a limited extent, but the risks for the poorest are significant, the upfront costs substantial, and the economic climate unpropitious for such ideas to take root right now.

That’s not to say that a wholesale review of the goals of our welfare system, its current deficiencies, and strategic solutions, isn’t overdue. Such a review might look again at the nature of contribution and entitlement, the minimum income needed to support basic living standards and maximise life chances, the structure of the labour market, changes in demographics and support for different patterns of family life, and wider social support. That might be too much to expect of this document, but the lack of attention to this broader context creates substantial risks.

What we’re looking at is a half baked programme of reforms that will likely be paid for by cuts in benefits as the means to incentivise work. The government might deny it, but the signs are already there. The emergency budget announcements of a cap on housing benefit, a freeze on child benefit, cuts to tax credits, plans for more tests for disability benefits, and uprating benefits in future in line with the less generous consumer price index rather than RPI all carry a warning of where these proposals are likely to lead. Whatever IDS’s intentions, the plans outlined in 21st Century Welfare will surely increase poverty and fear.

Photo: Jason Cartwright 2010