Long-term unemployment or worklessness is one of the great evils of modern society. It blights individuals, their families, and communities, and costs the exchequer significant amounts in benefits and lost revenue. Little wonder the current government has made tackling the problem a major priority, with almost five million people now reliant on some form of working-age benefit.
It is clear that the coalition government believes that the problem of worklessness is one of labour supply, not labour demand. Indeed, ministers are convinced that the private sector has the ability not only to provide jobs for the large numbers currently out of work but also for those who are likely to lose their jobs as a result of the fiscal changes now being introduced.
But is this the case?
Worklessness tends to be most concentrated in weaker local economies, typically in former industrial cities, coalfield areas and coastal towns, and the context and causes differ from place to place – indeed from person to person.
This is exemplified by new research from the Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research at Sheffield Hallam University, which was commissioned by the National Worklessness Forum.
It shows that in the worst 100 districts outside London – which provide a home to almost a third of the UK population – an average of 18 per cent of all adults of working age are out-of-work on benefits.
To bring the employment rate in the worst 100 districts outside London up to the rate already found in the best third of the country, the researchers have calculated that this would require an extra 1.2 million residents to be in work.
My experience as a council leader, and from being involved in the National Worklessness Forum an advisory group set up under the last government, is that in many of Britain’s weaker economies jobs are much harder to come by than in the economic powerhouse of the south-east, and even there, in parts of east London and some coastal towns, employment is not always easily accessed.
There is no denying that a private sector recovery that cuts worklessness across the board would be desirable, but history and evidence shows that is naive to believe that a private sector recovery alone can cut the gaping chasm in worklessness rates in different parts of the country, if growth is overwhelmingly concentrated in the south-east of England.
The government must work with businesses and local authorities to shape the recovery and ensure that worklessness in the UK’s weaker local economic areas is seriously addressed as part of efforts to rebalance the economy.
Previous one-size-fits-all, top-down solutions, while well intentioned, only reduced the problem at the margins. The government’s new Single Work Programme, under its current design, runs the risk of failing to tackle worklessness in its most concentrated form.
The government should reconsider the design of its new Work Programme, and instead work with employers and local authorities to create a genuine job creation programme, which learns from and builds on the success of the Future Jobs Fund, introduced by the last Labour government to provide jobs for young people during the last recession.
It is more vital than ever that we have a targeted strategy to offer genuine job opportunities and hope in our weaker local economic areas.
If the Single Work Programme idea of payment by results (ie getting people a job) is to succeed, there need to be safeguards to avoid contractors only working with those people who are easiest to place in jobs. There also needs to be a clearer focus on real outcomes which can be effectively measured. Placing people on training programmes with nowhere to go will benefit neither the contractors nor the unemployed.
I lead a cross-party alliance of urban councils, many of whom face real problems of deprivation across England – SIGOMA – and the concerns that I raise are echoed by councillors across the country. My sincere hope is that all the major political parties will finally accept and understand the nature of worklessness – particularly in those weaker local economies – and be prepared to work creatively to achieve long term solutions.
There is no doubt in my mind that there is capacity in the financial sector to pay for a major job creation programme, given the current size of banks’ annual bonus pool – around £7 billion.
I am confident that there would be strong public support for a progressive initiative that ensured that the men and women most at risk from the financial and economic problems the country faces were supported by the banks and other financial institutions that were responsible for helping to create out present economic problems in the first place.
I do worry when costs to the exchequer in significant amounts of benefits and lost revenue and worklessness get confused. It takes away from those who are on benefit who are working in the voluntary sector in order to get experience to find full time work. The issue is the perception of numbers on benefit who sit around and do nothing, not because they can’t find work but because they feel they don’t have to. Job creation is hugely important, there can be no argument about that but worklessness can be stopped and not with IDS ‘let them sweep streets’ one rule fits all approach but with appropriate work programmes within the voluntary and public sector. There is absolutely no benefit to being on benefit and the “I’d be worse off if I came off them and went to work” mindset needs to be taken away. End the benefit payment, replace it with a community payment based on work and worklessness for the majority of benefit recipients ends.
If you go with this then sadly for Newer labour we may as well vote Tory, because the Tories are doing something about it while labour did as you did above talk about it. Of course this month again jobs are going down, of course nothing to do with Christmas. Right the sad fact is under labour, when I went to have a benefits review the adviser said I’ll tell you now if you return to work you will be worse off. The sad fact is in area like mine the only jobs on offer are retail, before my accident i worked in the building trade thats now dead, so where are these so called jobs, my council has decided to make 1000 unemployed most of them are disabled people. You lot talk the talk from your ivory offices get down to the real world of actually going out looking for jobs, yes yes we have a group of people who will always live on benefits, sadly even now with new rules these people are experts at getting benefits, and of course they are experts at not saying no, but you saying no thanks. Welfare is what made this country great looking after the sick and the disabled, even the military are now having to go through the new medicals. labour Tory which one I now vote for depends who gives me the best deal, Brown wanted to stop DLA so right now my vote will go to Tories, and I spent 46 years in labour.
Robert As someone who has had two brain tumours removed I understand what your saying and most certainly do not need a lecture on benefits. Far from being in an ivory tower I am living with the simple fact that there is no benefit to being on benefit. You have got to understand that no one is saying if your ill and can’t work that you HAVE to go to work, what’s being said is that if you can do something then you should. IDS’s view is that you will work, with I suspect everything means tested and geared up so that everyone does do something and will get punished if you don’t, the above is about worklessness and its consequences including the benefit burden, I am saying worklessness can be addressed without the “your on benefits and as such a burden” philosophy. As a builder for example and purely if your able to do it you could either help with voluntary building projects or train others in the trade, instead of sitting at home, doing nothing and letting ‘worklessness’ take its toll. At the moment (probably because its an easy cheap shop to take) benefit recipients are being bracketed as all the same which is simply not true, something needs to be done to address this and job creation is the solution.
Bull shit mate total bull shit I see every day severely disabled people being told they can return to JSA, or they can go onto the work group of the ESA. One gent who has lost both legs and has a triple bye pass was informed he was able to work. The WCA test has become the most ridicules test ever. getting the 15 points needed to show your disabled has become closer to near impossible. I do not need lecture from New labour or dam Tories I see it when I sit in the office seeing people cry about having benefits stopped. I’m classed as paraplegic and I lost my points by being told a wheelchair is the same as legs, as most offices and shop are now accessible. I still think people need to live the life before chomping on about workableness
As mentioned I already ‘live the life’ and was turned down for DLA. Not sure about which part of that you don’t understand. As mentioned if you can’t work in no way should be forced to do it and if some idiot decides that you must then there would would have built in safeguards in favour of the applicant not the system. At the moment it is very much geared the other way round and as mentioned from what I’ve seen of IDS’s plan it will be even worse. What’s happening to you is the very reason why those who can must because as mentioned it is they who are dragging everyone into the one rule for all policy.
Look it’s got sod all to do with IDS, this was put in place by Labour, remember the party of the working class, well not anymore Labour has told us now it’s backing the Tories plans to make the new medical even worse. I was sitting at a meeting when my MP Labour was moaning about the new housing rules and regulations the Tories are to bring in, I stuck up my arm and asked is this not the same rules and regulations which Caroline Flint wanted to bring in, silence whispering before the words came out “YES”. Ed Miliband has stated he is backing IDS on welfare reforms, and since Progress is a new labour forum think tank call it what you like it would mean this site would say they back welfare reforms. I spent 44 years in labour and left when that idiot Brown took over I had a guts full of battling against a brick wall. Labour and Tory the difference now is well I cannot see it.
Robert – Did Labour introduce the scheme? YES Was the scheme flawed? As a victim of the medical panel YES, to bloody right it was. Will the scheme introduced by IDS be even worse? YES, I suspect it will. I’ve said why I back reform but if you interpret that into stopping benefits of the most vulnerable you’re very much mistaken.