Iain Duncan Smith has identified debt as one of his ‘pathways into poverty’ (it is of course also a result of poverty, which benefits cuts make worse). So he ought to be particularly mindful of the need for investment in the advice and support needed to help people struggling with debt. He must realise that his housing benefit changes could result in more families losing their homes, and that this will create a demand for more housing advice. The new work capability assessment for disability benefits is already leading to more disabled people being refused benefits, and thus to a substantial number of appeals. With the government intending to increase and accelerate the level of testing that takes place, more challenges can be expected, more cases will go to tribunal, and the demand for advice and representation will increase. And with increased job losses as a result of government spending cuts, and with firms introducing more short hours working and temporary jobs to cope with the economic downturn, there will be an increasing call, not just for back-to-work support, but for advice on employment rights.
Welfare benefits, debt, housing and employment matters already constitute the bulk of the caseload of my local Citizens Advice Bureau, and our council welfare rights unit is also coping with high levels of demand. The consequence of the government’s spending plans will be a significant increase in the need for their services, and those of other advice providers in my constituency and elsewhere. Advice agencies across the country will therefore be listening very carefully for announcements this Wednesday about the funding that the government intends to make available for good quality, independent advice. With levels of need likely to soar, now is not the time for cuts.
But the signs are not encouraging. According to rumours, the Ministry of Justice has been fingered for disproportionately large spending cuts, causing concern about the fate of the already pressed budget for legal aid. Council spending cuts put welfare rights units at risk. The CAB movement’s taking on more work – not least picking up the consumer champion role from Consumer Focus, abolished in the bonfire of the quangos – but will it be guaranteed the resources it needs to fulfil its task? It’s not good enough to point to the role of volunteers in the CAB, as if that magics up cost-free capacity. Coping with complex advice needs requires a high degree of expertise and training, and whether that’s provided by volunteers or by paid staff, it can’t be done on the cheap.
The independent advice sector has long been the Cinderella of welfare spending, but it provides a vital service. It supports some of the most vulnerable in society: the low-paid worker who’s least well-placed to challenge an unscrupulous employer for fear of the sack, those under pressure from their landlord and at risk of losing the family home, those with mental health problems or learning difficulties, those fleeing abusive relationships. Good advice prevents difficult problems becoming intractable. Well-targeted spending on the provision of quality advice protects individuals and saves money down the line. But it has to be adequately resourced.
The resources needed are modest in comparison with spending on other social programmes. Yet without adequate funding, the poorest will lose out – and we’ll all pay a much higher price for the increased homelessness, debt and family breakdown that’s the inevitable result. So let’s hope IDS has persuaded the Chancellor to put his money where his mouth’s been, to prevent more people finding themselves on these ‘pathways into poverty’ through lack of good quality, accessible advice. Advisers across the country – and their clients – will judge the government on that.