Editor’s note: We have decided to republish below an excellent prescient article by Leanne Wood A.M originally published in Cambria Magazine in 2008.
By LEANNE WOOD A.M. & RHYDIAN FÔN JAMES
Blame the unemployed for unemployment. This is the basic principle behind New Labour’s proposals to reform welfare benefits. Failure to find employment is no longer the result of labour market conditions or health barriers to work, but rather a motivational failure on the part of the unemployed. If they have their way, New Labour will preside over the dismantling of the welfare state, which has existed in a recognisable form since the reforms which came out of the Beveridge report.*
The Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) recently published its welfare reform green paper, No One Written Off,** which is based on a report by banker David Freud.*** The first big change will be the abolition of Incapacity Benefit (IB) and Income Support (IS), amongst some other big changes to benefits. The purpose is cited as the ‘simplification’ of the benefits system. There will now be two types of benefits to replace the others – Job Seekers’ Allowance (JSA), which already exists but will be modified, and the Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), which was introduced**** on the 27th October 2008.
JSA will be even more stringent than it is now. People will be required to undertake periodic checks on their availability for employment and compulsory health checks, they will have to provide evidence that they are searching for employment and they could be required to participate in back-to-work programmes and community-based work experience. Much of this system is already in place, but in future it will be backed up with serious benefits sanctions for those who fail to meet the conditions. There will also be requirements on lone parents to take up back-to-work schemes and training once their child reaches the age of five, with requirements to work once the child turns seven.
There are undoubtedly some who selfishly use benefits to avoid work. But life on benefits is not the easy ride some right-wing sources like to depict. It means rationing basics like food and fuel. It’s difficult to imagine someone having an ambition to live on benefits. Most people are aware of a few people whom they suspect of using the welfare safety net as a lifestyle choice. The problem is assuming that all the unemployed are playing the same game – and punishing the vast majority who are desperate to find jobs. A comprehensive programme of employment support is the only fair way to help the unemployed into work.
* W. Beveridge, 1942. SOCIAL INSURANCE AND ALLIED SERICES. London, HMSO, Cmd. 640437 ** NO ONE WRITTEN OFF: REFORMING WELFARE TO REWARD RESPONSIBILITY, Department for Work and Pensions, 2008 *** Freud D, 2007, REDUCING DEPENDENCY, INCREASING OPPORTUNITY: OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE OF WELFARE TO WORK, Corporate Document Services **** A NEW DEAL FOR WELFARE: EMPOWERING PEOPLE TO WORK, DWP.
The providers will be paid well for their support, out of the savings made on benefits payments. Thus they will be reimbursed, from taxpayers’ money, for the negligible costs of gaining a large, unpaid workforce. Creating such a situation is economically unsound. The result will be, ironically, higher levels of unemployment. Many full-time jobs will be axed as a benefit claimant workforce will be far cheaper. As firms cut back on their paid employees, unemployment will rise. This will lead to lower wages, as people accept low pay in order to compete with benefits recipients.
A reduction in wages will be more likely as ESA designates more people employable, so that firms can recruit more easily. So as well as forcing workers out of jobs, the ones who remain will get a lower wage. This reasoning leads to the major flaw in these plans – individuals will be forced to search for jobs that do not exist.
Recent Office for National Statistics (ONS) and DWP* data shows approximately 21 thousand vacancies across Wales but over 330 thousand claimants of JSA/IS/IB. How can so many claimants be squeezed into so few available jobs? The Green Paper also proposes the creation of a competitive market in benefits provision and employment support. It is obvious that the providers will strive to maximise profits. They will be reimbursed by the state but they will also attempt to make their workforce as productive as possible. They will inevitably attempt to minimise their costs, which will be at the expense of their service quality. The claimants will suffer.
Providers could end up deliberately holding back claimants in order to later place them in work that is more profitable for the provider. Benefits sanctions can, arguably, reduce costs for the DWP, by forcing people into work with the threat of sanctions. Freud says the government can save £11 billion by implementing his recommendations, although this assertion is based on a number of rather flimsy assumptions. But sanctions mean a suspension of benefits, which mean that those sanctioned may have no income during the period of the sanction. If such people are genuinely unable to find a job, or unable to work due to health or family reasons, they will end up destitute.
Two options face those with no income: steal, or feign illness so that hospitalisation is inevitable. In this case, the state bears the cost through the Home Office or the NHS. More seriously, the ill or disabled may have dietary requirements, or may suffer in other ways if they face benefits sanctions. In these cases, the NHS will be picking up the bill. Other government departments, such as those responsible for education and public service delivery may also be expected to bear extra cost.
Looking beyond DWP’s Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL), the total savings for the government will not be as large as advertised. (*Work and Pensions Longitudinal Survey)
TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber can see the potential problems. ‘People who lose their jobs want help in getting new skills and new paying jobs, not make-work schemes that provide no pay, no prospects and not even any time to search for a new job. Workfare policies do nothing to benefit wider society. And workers in low paid jobs could well be replaced by workfare claimants leading them to lose their jobs in turn.’
This sentiment has been echoed by Public and Commercial Services Union general secretary Mark Serwotka who has said: ‘These proposals are regressive and draconian, going further than even Thatcher dared in the 1980s. Picking up litter to receive benefits will stigmatise people and do nothing to get people back into long-term sustainable employment.’ He added: ‘The proposals will also entrench the role of the private sector in the delivery of welfare reform. The public sector has consistently out-performed the private sector in getting people back into work and we fear that the profits for the few will increasingly be the driving factor in the delivery of welfare, rather than the needs of the many.’
Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn said he was ‘surprised and disappointed’ that the government seemed to be ‘punishing people for being poor’. Not surprisingly, the Tories welcomed the Green Paper. Breaking Wales up into its constituent parts shows that the economic centres of Deeside, Cardiff, Newport and Swansea have reasonable prospects for job hunters. Elsewhere, the situation is dire all over Wales. Arfon in the North has 366 vacancies but 700 JSA claimants, whilst Rhondda has 248 vacancies, and a massive 986 JSA claimants. The latest ONS figures* show that Wales has 45.5 thousand JSA claimants alone, so even people on this benefit are struggling to find work. And the current recession means that job vacancies are declining rapidly, at the same time as redundancies soar.
Considering the current economic climate, and the general unfairness of these proposals, especially in Wales, the response must be to implore the Westminster government to rethink its position. The only sensible route is to encourage people into employment through support and the creation of more incentives for work, not to punish the most vulnerable people in our society.
Plaid Cymru has noted social and economic research on the proposals, and the pleas from Trade Union, and has wholeheartedly rejected the welfare to work philosophy. In contrast, with these socially conservative measures, New Labour appear to be attacking what used to be their core support in order to please a small cabal of right-wing tabloid newspapers. With friends like New Labour…
Leanne Wood is a Plaid Cymru Assembly Member, representing the region of South Wales Central. Rhydian Fôn James is a freelance economic researcher.
*Labour Market Statistics, Office of National Statistics
They also blame the disabled for being ill as they are trying to take DLA and AA off them.
I am copying an email I received from the Disability and Work website they are allowing me to pass it on.
Charities claim it’s too late to save DLA and AA
Dear roger,
CHARITIES ADMIT DEFEAT
We have received a copy of an email which a campaigner says came from the charity ASBAH (Association for Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus) in response to his concerns about the care green paper. The email appears to admit defeat in the fight to save DLA and AA:
“. . .ASBAH, in line with many other larger bodies is of the view that these proposals have already gathered too much momentum to be reversed and that major changes are inevitable. . . it is vital within any alternative system that people retain elements within their budgets where they can exercise choice in how they spend that money. Although we have not adopted a position where we are fighting to save DLA and AA we would fight to see this element of choice protected and would resist any attempt to convert all support to ‘in kind’.”
We have emailed ASBAH to ask for confirmation that the email is genuine and to ask which other ‘larger bodies’ – presumably disability charities – have also given up the fight to save DLA and AA.
We have yet to receive a response.
MINISTER’ STATEMENT: IS DLA REALLY SAVED?
One week on and there has been absolutely no corroboration of Care Services minister Phil Hope’s off-the-cuff statement that DLA is not being considered for the axe.
As we pointed out last week, Hope’s ‘don’t worry, be happy’ exhortation contradicts previous statements made by the DWP. So, the continued failure by either the DWP or the Department of Health to make any official statement confirming that they have changed their position and that DLA is now safe can only be a cause for deep suspicion and grave concern.
In addition, no reassuring words whatsoever have been offered in relation to AA.
So, at Benefits and Work, our message continues to be ‘It’s not over yet: carry on campaigning’.
NO 10 PETITION STRUGGLING
The petition about DLA and AA seems to be grinding to a halt again, at under 12,000 signatures. As we said last week, if any agency starts a petition it’s vital that they give it maximum publicity or it ends up damaging, rather than promoting, their cause.
Do you have time to check the website of any disability charity that you have a connection with and, if there isn’t an obvious link to the No 10 petition, email them and politely ask them to publish one.
You could point out that the petition was started by the Disability Charities Consortium and that it’s important that disability charities now work together effectively to promote it. If they can’t act together on so simple a thing as getting signatures on a petition, then what exactly can they act together on and how can they claim to be representing their members’ interests?
The petition can be found at:
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/AttendanceA/
GREEN PAPER WEBSITE AMAZED
The Big Care Debate website have answered our queries about missing responses by replying that “we have received an amazing response from the public in regards to the Green Paper, on both the website and via email. We are doing our best to work our way through them, and have them online and ready to view as soon as we can.”
We know that in the past, such consultations have struggled to get responses numbering in the hundreds, let alone the thousands. So, we can certainly believe that the ‘amazing’ response by Benefits and Work campaigners has taken the Department of Health by surprise. But we do wonder how hard it can be to read and publish a few thousand posts over several months. Is the sheer volume of communications really the only problem? Rather than, say, the fact that most responses are overwhelmingly hostile to the green paper?
If you haven’t yet sent a response to the green paper, please do so by visiting this link:
http://careandsupport.direct.gov.uk/greenpaper/execsum/
Or emailing: careandsupport@dh.gsi.gov.uk
We’re concerned that there doesn’t appear to be any complaints procedure for the green paper consultation and we’re looking into this. But at the very least, if they don’t publish your response it will give more grounds for challenging the validity of the whole green paper consultation, which is after all a statutory process.
POST YOUR NEWS
Finally, remember that you can post your news in the Benefits and Work forum, if you’re a member, at:
http://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/forum?func=showcat&catid=13
and/or in the free welfare watch forums at:
http://welfarewatch.myfineforum.org/index.php
You can also keep up with news about opposition to the green paper at the Carer Watch campaign blog:
http://carerwatch.com/cuts/
Unfortunately, we’re getting so many emails on this subject that we are unlikely to be able to respond individually. But we do appreciate hearing your news and views and we do encourage you to publish them for others to read on the forums detailed above.
Good luck,
Please feel free to forward or publish this email.
Benefits and Work Publishing Ltd
http://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk
Company registration No. 5962666
(c) 2009 Steve Donnison. All rights reserved.
I am sorry to hog the site but I feel this is important. I am posting another email I have received regarding this item.
A champion emerges as minister admits DLA threat
Dear roger,
The last two weeks have finally removed any uncertainty about whether DLA is under threat, but they have also brought real cause for optimism.
Lord McKenzie of Luton, the parliamentary under secretary of state for work and pensions, was asked last week in a House of Lords debate which disability benefits the government are ‘considering integrating into the wider social care budget in England’.
Lord McKenzie replied:
“At this stage, we do not want to rule out any options and so are considering all disability benefits.”
Even when care minister Phil Hope’s claim that DLA is ‘not under threat’ was referred to and Lord McKenzie was specifically asked to rule out the using DLA as a source of funding for social care, his response was “no particular benefit is ruled out of consideration.”
So, whilst we can’t say why Phil Hope made his ‘be very happy’ statement, we can now say with certainty that it does not reflect the government’s stated policy. For more, see:
Senior minister confirms DLA is under threat
http://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/latest-news/1115-senior-minister-confirms-dla-is-under-threat
But that same Lord’s debate also brought a real ray of hope in the form of a champion prepared to fight for DLA and AA.
Lord Ashley of Stoke warned the minister that “any attempt by the Government to withdraw these benefits, or any benefits at all, will be very strongly resisted by disabled people, by their organisations and by many Members of both Houses of Parliament.”
Lords warn attack on DLA and AA will be “very strongly resisted”
http://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/latest-news/1116-lords-warn-attack-on-dla-and-aa-will-be-very-strongly-resisted
Lord Ashley – former MP Jack Ashley – is a formidable campaigner, with victories dating right back to the thalidomide campaign of the 1970s. It will not have brought any joy to ministers’ hearts to see Jack Ashley, and a number of other noble Lords, lining up against them. And it’s a tribute to the efforts of Benefits and Work campaigners that this issue has gone from being almost entirely unacknowledged – or dismissed as scaremongering – to being debated in the House of Lords in less than three months.
Elsewhere, the No 10 petition has perked up again, now reaching over 17,000 signatures. As few as another 1,000 signatures should see it getting into the top 10 petitions before the care consultation ends on November 13th. Do you know people who haven’t signed yet? Try and encourage them along to:
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/AttendanceA/
Meanwhile, the Big Care debate website continues to be swamped by people protesting about the threat to disability benefits. From a feeble 130 posts when we began this campaign, there are now 2,219 responses on the Executive Summary page and 606 on Having Your Say. The total is far higher than that achieved by any similar government consultation and the responses are overwhelmingly hostile.
If you haven’t yet sent a response, please do so by visiting this link:
http://careandsupport.direct.gov.uk/greenpaper/execsum/
Or emailing: careandsupport@dh.gsi.gov.uk
We’d like to close this newsletter with an email from one of our campaigners which we think is an inspiring example of spontaneous campaigning:
“Today I was in the Blackburn Shopping Centre on my Shopmobility scooter when I saw Mr. Jack Straw doing his shopping. It was too good an opportunity not to speak with him, so after a few swift manoeuvres I asked for one minute of his time. I told him that I had worked for the past 32 years in the NHS and had now been diagnosed with RA [rheumatoid arthritis] hence the scooter and that I have just been awarded DLA and what a difference it has and will make to myself and indeed others and to please not take it away…. He said “he wouldn’t” and gave me his card to write to him and of course I will follow it up with a letter.”
We’re not suggesting that gangs of claimants on Shopmobility scooters should roam our town centres hunting for MPs spending their expenses – pleasing though that image is – but if you’re able to, why not make an appointment to see your MP at their regular surgery and put your views across in person?
With an election looming, the fact that people are prepared to actually visit them in their offices will make a real impression, particularly on MPs with slender majorities.
Good luck,
Steve Donnison
Please feel free to forward or publish this email.
Benefits and Work Publishing Ltd
http://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk
Company registration No. 5962666
POST YOUR NEWS
Finally, remember that you can post your news in the Benefits and Work forum, if you’re a member, at:
http://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/forum?func=showcat&catid=13
and/or in the free welfare watch forums at:
http://welfarewatch.myfineforum.org/index.php
You can also keep up with news about opposition to the green paper at the Carer Watch campaign blog:
http://carerwatch.com/cuts/
Unfortunately, we’re getting so many emails on this subject that we are unlikely to be able to respond individually. But we do appreciate hearing your news and views and we do encourage you to publish them for others to read on the forums detailed above.
I’m sorry….but Leanne and Rhydian don’t ‘get it’.
I have written up my experience http://www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatos.html and I have contributed to the House of Commons, Work and Pensions Committee and their inquiry on “Decision making and appeals in the benefit system” . It has been over 5 months and I am still waiting for information from Atos Healthcare and that is before an appeal is allowed to be handled by the DWP. You can see what the Minister says. I decided to publish the main extracts of every piece of correspondence so that others can use as templates if appropriate.
I thought the state had a duty of care to the dying, the sick, the disabled and their carers. I was wrong. It seems to me that people are denied their entitlements by subterfuge. The Government does not have the courage to put a bill through Parliament to say “it is tough, when you are ill that is it, you are finished”. My experience is that this is the reality. I feel Atos Healthcare have set up a “benefit denial factory” as instructed by Labour. The Atos Origin UK operation that they run for the DWP has the highest profit margin of all their European operations. For shame.