Any reforms to the social security system are bound to cause concern, both to the recipients of these benefits and to the wider public. Popular opinion is divided on the issue, but there is a widespread consensus that those who simply cannot accept paid employment should be financially supported.
Beyond that principle, however, there lies countless choices about the way benefits should be paid, and especially to those that help people with disabilities and long-term sickness cope with the challenges that face them. Genuine compassion should not be sacrificed as Liz Kendall, the secretary of state for work and pensions, proceeds with the changes she proposes in her green paper.
Even if these reforms are increasingly being forced on the government by economic circumstances, and the state of the public finances, the books cannot be balanced on the backs of the most vulnerable in society.
All the indications are that the most draconian of measures, such as a cash-terms freeze – ie a real-terms cut – in the personal independence payment (PIP) is not going to be implemented, even if the eligibility criteria are to be reviewed.
PIP is a particularly sensitive benefit, being entirely focused on helping those with mobility issues, without means-testing, and sitting outside the universal credit system. One idea that has been mentioned is making PIP a “conditional” benefit for those aged 16 to 30, limited to those willing to look for work or be involved in further education or training, except in exceptional circumstances. But the obvious problem there is that not every person in that age group is fully able to seek work.
This is only one of the many conundrums facing Ms Kendall and her colleagues as they try to free up £5bn in a system that isn’t spectacularly generous in the first place, and has been subjected to cuts by successive governments for almost half a century. The bills have not been steadily increasing because the benefit rates have been outpacing inflation, or to cover new sections of the population; nor for a sudden outbreak of indolence among the British. The rise in the cost of the welfare state generally is demonstrably due to demographics – and an ageing, less healthy nation in the aftermath of Covid and facing ever-increasing NHS waiting lists.
Ministers say that the system isn’t working, and that may be true, but there is a corrosive level of distrust about motives and aims – and a lack of evidence-backed analysis and policy prescriptions. This has greatly weakened the government’s case for reform.
It may well be, as Wes Streeting, the health secretary argues, that there has been “overdiagnosis” of poor mental health among the young – but assertion does not amount to proof. The alternative explanation, and one that was raised at the highest level during Theresa May’s premiership, is that mental health was historically under-diagnosed, and rarely given parity of esteem with physical health – arguments that are compelling but seldom heard these days.
Ms Kendall argues that these reforms aren’t about saving money for the Treasury, but rather as part of a “moral mission” to get people back to work. She rightly identifies the 1 million young people – one in eight – who are not in employment, education or training, the so-called Neets, as a national scandal. For them, as for the long-term sick and people with disabilities, getting people to work will help their wellbeing just as it will help reduce labour shortages and boost economic growth. But the point still stands, that those unable to join the workforce have to be protected from anything like coercion.
The flaw in Ms Kendall’s approach is that she has not done the spadework necessary to win the arguments and reassure enough people that what she is doing is both practical and fair. The contrast with what Mr Streeting has been doing in health is instructive.
On taking office, Mr Streeting commissioned Lord Darzi, a distinguished expert, swiftly to produce a top-level review of the state of the NHS, and to make recommendations. This has formed the basis for the reforms Mr Streeting has rushed through since, and provided all the evidence and arguments for change he has needed. Ms Kendall lacks such a base for her green paper, and that is not helping anyone.
The public and parliament alike need to better understand, fundamentally, just how many people there are who cannot work, for reasons of mental health issues, physical illness or permanent disability. Or, on a more nuanced basis, how many are able to do some work; and what support they need to do so.
To be fair to Ms Kendall, she does recognise the need for coaching people into employment, for training and for the “right to try” a job without fearing that, if it doesn’t work out, they’ll have to go through the arduous process of re-applying for their benefits.
There is no doubt that reform is needed – and inevitable, given the public finances. Ms Kendall has spent many months examining the options and exploring new ideas, and funds are committed to help people into work, education or training. Reforming welfare is not necessarily unpopular, and the public dislikes fraud and what Ms Kendall once called “people taking the mickey”. What is still lacking is that evidence-based document that dispassionately sets out what’s wrong and makes the kind of independent recommendations that could command even more public confidence in those reforms. Her green paper is only the start of that political journey to widespread acceptance of much-needed reform.
