Welfare reform is not always the panacea that some make it out to be
Dear Chris Grayling,
With rumours flying about that you will become Conservative Party Chairman in the not-too-distant future, you can be forgiven for not firing on all cylinders with regard to the upcoming welfare reforms. You and I are thinking along the same lines on these reforms: bringing in expertise from the private and voluntary sector is absolutely the right thing to do and the majority of the welfare reform package is to be commended, but we are in agreement that making lone parents of one-year-olds prepare for work is “just plain wrong”.
I agree that most (but not all) people on incapacity benefit should be looking for work or preparing for it through courses and regular interviews, and there is good reason to expect the unemployed to do four weeks’ full-time activity after a year out of work because work in itself provides a sense of structure and discipline to people’s lives. The pilot scheme requiring JSA claimants to work for their benefits after two years is commendable for the same reason. Although I’m more sceptical about drug users getting a treatment allowance instead of unemployment benefits, it certainly sends out a better message than we have at present. The issue that concerns me the most, which has also raised your shackles, is the plan to make lone parents start looking for work when their child reaches their first birthday. Today a UNICEF report claims the majority of British babies spend most of the day in nurseries or with childminders, making our new babies and toddlers the first generation in history to spend more time in childcare than with their parents, despite a growing body of research showing that under-threes benefit emotionally and behaviourally if they are looked after at home. I respect mother’s right to work and making both ends meet when you have children is very difficult, but the damage to children’s social and emotional development from parents not bonding with their babies can never be undone. In addition, UNICEF showed that the UK has high child poverty levels, does not have near-universal health services for children, allows more than 15 pre-school children to be looked after by one member of staff and has higher rates of infant death and low birth weight than many comparable countries – all of which heaps shame on the government.
The UNICEF report quoted research that has found a lack of contact with parents can lead to children becoming depressed and withdrawn, perform less well at school and develop behavioural problems. Their conclusion was that “the younger the child and the longer the hours spend in child care, the greater the risk.” They recommended that babies should be looked after by their parents for the first year of their lives, and that all governments should ensure 12 months of paid parental leave is available at 50% of salary. Currently new mothers in Britain get 39 weeks of paid maternity leave, receiving 90% of their average pay for the first six weeks and a fixed sum of £117.18 a week for the other 33. Fathers are only entitled to two weeks’ paternity leave at a maximum of £117.18 a week. This is simply not good enough. Linking parental leave to 50% of a parent’s salary for a year could cripple the UK Treasury so I would suggest having a cap on how much the state should pay. The psychological evidence shows that it can take over 18 months for parents to form a strong bond with their children, which I think is much more sensible than 12 months. The existing Conservative policy to allow parental leave to be shared between the parents however they choose is an excellent move but more is still needed.
It always saddens when I hear people say that supporting the family is ‘outdated’ or ‘living in the past’. I find it quite incredible how so many people still do not understand the importance of early years development. Iain Duncan Smith has done some superb work at the Centre For Social Justice in this area, which I’m sure you are aware of, but the Conservatives have not really shown their support for early interventions to make sure that no child is left behind. Regardless of how long you spend in your current job as Shadow DWP Secretary, I hope that you concentrate your efforts in this area. The last thing society needs right now, with our economy in freefall, is for families to be put under even greater strain and for more children to have their prospects shattered before they’ve started primary school.
Yours sincerely,
A.Tory
Welfare reform is not sufficient but it is necessary. Just as weaning people of all income-levels off the idea that the state should be the monopoly buyer of “public” services and that any problem can be solved by increasing public spending.
I’m delighted to see that someone in the Labour Party is smart enough to see that the government can’t provide everything and that the money available could be used a lot more efficiently by using private and voluntary organisations.
Unfortunately I think dragging single parents back into the workplace, while probably saving a few pennies, could have disastrous consequences.
LFAT, the first question to ask is, “should we have a welfare system/redistribution at all?” to which I think the answer is “yes”.
The next question is “How do we structure it so to remove all the complications; the disincentives to work and the perverse incentives e.g. for couples to pretend to live apart and for single women to see having kids as a source of income?”, to which the only answer is low-ish, flat-rate universal benefits without means testing, in other words a Citizen’s Income scheme.
Funnily enough, replacing the whole shebang (including tax credits, student grants, the lot) with flat rate Child Benefit of £30 a week (for the first two or three children per mother), £45 for young adults up to 25, £60 for adults over 25*, and a Citizen’s Pension of £130 a week for over 65s (all non-taxable, non means tested and irrespective of household circumstances) would be fiscally neutral and would not entail any increase in income tax rates. Housing Benefit is a slightly different topic.
It’s called a Citizen’s Income scheme. That way, for example, there is no financial incentive for young women to do baby-farming; no disincentive to get married, no disincentive to take a job, however low paid or short term, no disinctive to saving for a pension as the CP would not be means-tested either etc. To polish it all off, you could restrict it to people who have lived in the UK for at least ten years, job done.
* With an alternative of a much higher tax free personal allowance of £10k, which would be ‘worth’ £60 a week
A very thoughtful, lucid post, LFAT, and I’m delighted you mention the work Iain Duncan Smith/Graham Allen have done on early intervention.
It seems to me that this area should enjoy broad cross-party support if picked up by the leadership. For one, it only works if administered locally, rather than by Whitehall, and there’s no reason why every service has to be provided by the public sector. Second, it would better equip poor parents – who might not have enjoyed great parenting themselves – to help their kids develop in the most formative years; the comeback of personal responsibility, if you like. Finally, if the money spent on Early Intervention works (and the evidence from the U.S., where the idea’s been imported from, suggests it does), there’s the potential that you might see higher achievement in school 10 years down the line, which would obviously help the economy, cut benefit claims and reduce crime.
The potential benefits of this approach should appeal to both parties. You just need the political will to make it happen, and the patience to see it through over a number of years.
Some very interesting comments today, thanks. I hadn’t heard of the Citizens Income Scheme before, although I still think shoving up the income tax threshold would solve a lot of those problems.
Neil, the evidence from the US is astonishing. With heavy investment in early years, they found that you could slash welfare bills, prison costs, unemployment, anti-social behaviour and literacy problems within a decade. That is precisely the model that the UK government should be pursuing, but Labour simply haven’t figured this out yet. With IDS back in the Shadow DWP role, we could see some interesting movement in this area….
A good letter LFAT. I don’t think taking people out of paying any tax is an answer to many things. It removes them from the concept of contribution and lets them think there is such a thing as free money.
As to your points re family life, wholeheatedly agree.
I don’t think taking people out of paying any tax is an answer to many things. It removes them from the concept of contribution and lets them think there is such a thing as free money.
To which I’d reply that its their money anyway and it is the state which parasitically creams off a big wedge, as it has done ever since Income Tax was introduced as a temporary measure to fund the fight against Napoleon.
Additionally I don’t think that ‘contributing’ (i.e. paying protection money) to the state has much to do with anything. Avoiding taxes is as British as cricket (and almost as complex!). And its not ‘free money’ as someone will have earned it. It would only be free in the sense that the State didn’t steal from it.
“Avoiding taxes is as British as cricket”
Errr, judging by our cricket team’s performance over recent years, that comment could be interpreted in a lot of different ways!
If people are deemed capable enough to have children, why not assume that they are also capable of deciding on how to raise them?
How about bringing back some responsibility into the equation? It is all very well, but it is always the case that someone else is paying for whatever facility one receives.
Circumstances can change (and “accidents” do happen, but there are such things as consequences for one’s actions…) , which is why some help should be available, but when one decides to have children, one should make sure that one can provide for them.
Errr, judging by our cricket team’s performance over recent years, that comment could be interpreted in a lot of different ways!
I never said that we were any good at it, just that its a quintessential English game…
The welfare state always plays a dangerous game when asking for personal responsibility at the same time as offering incentives.
I totally agree that people should save up for their children – perhaps we should have tax-free savings accounts for families – but the state still has a clear interest in helping families in the early years (and arguably a moral duty as well).
Yup. You can’t legislate morality, decency or common sense, no matter how hard you try, no matter how much you wish you could. Incentives do, rightly or wrongly, distort the calculation of responsibility. If I lived in a Council House with the wife and a couple of kids and found I could afford it on benefits but not working a 50 hour week at ASDA, the responsible thing to do is to stay on benefits and keep my family housed. Totally understandable but an unintended consequence of welfare provision.
For me, with MS, struggling to pay the bills and still working, living in my own home (well, mortgaged but you get the idea!), it would be easy to throw myself onto the mercy of the state. Bin the house, go bankrupt, grab Incapacity Benefit, Housing Benefit and whatever else comes to hand. However, my sense of personal responsibility won’t allow me to do that. I want to work as long as I can, earn as much as I can, while I can.
That’s my choice and I can no more see someone legislating to make people make the same choice than I can see us allowing the poor and disadvantaged to starve to death in the streets. What you can do, and its a long term thing (which spans multiple parliaments and possibly governments!) is to inculcate that sense of responsibility into children. Until we find a reliable way of passing on our *values* such as personal responsibility or respect for others, we’ll continue to have this argument.
I believe that the overwhelming majority of those claiming incapacity benefit have genuinely got problems. That is the first thing, & I will dispute anyone who calls them malingerers.
However, a lot of them are capable of some kind of work. They will often need a lot of support & encouragement & that should be provided. Additionally, they should be allowed to do voluntary work & keep their benefits: this could replace the requirement to search for low-paid jobs which are often inappropriate & unsustainable.
Trying to coerce people will damage not only them, it will also be a waste of money. The jobsworths Purnell seems to want to have bullying people will not get them into proper jobs, only a thriving labour market (taking advantages of the opportunities for new jobs offered by greening) with appropriate support will.
Those who have been out of work for a long time should be encouraged to do voluntary work to improve their confidence & experience. As you will not be surprised to hear, I am a great enthusiast for voluntary work & used to do it myself.
I believe they are genuinely disabled in most cases. But they are not useless!
As for those on Jobseekers’ Allowance, theirs is undoubtedly a very hard lot, especially if they are single. I think it is a mistake to force them to look for any job, as often these jobs are poorly paid & temporary & don’t progress people’s lives, so they & the wider society continue to suffer. (See the latest Stumbling & Mumbling post, in which he articulates a view I’va always vaguely held).
Many JSA recipients have got undiagnosed learning difficulties or lack basic skills. Some probably wouldn’t be up to doing voluntary work, & I don’t know what to do with those of very low intelligence. But most could be helped to lead more worthwhile lives.
Voluntary work is essential in this. If there were a Citizens Basic Income, some people could spend their time getting involved & helping others instead of chasing paid employment which may not be there for them.
As for child support, if it can’t be replaced by a CBI, I would cap it at the third child. People will think twice before having large families they can’t provide for. I worry that people like Karen Matthews won’t show foresight & will just breed anyway (& this is, of course, common amongst some immigrant groups). But we don’t really need a rising birthrate or more people.
To surmise, the public sector & low-paid jobs in retail & distribution will not meet our employment needs. We should be developing sustainable manufacturing jobs & jobs in the green economy. The efforts of entrepeneurs like Deborah Meaden should not be held back by Brown. We might then see a healthy country.
However, a lot of them are capable of some kind of work. They will often need a lot of support & encouragement & that should be provided. Additionally, they should be allowed to do voluntary work & keep their benefits: this could replace the requirement to search for low-paid jobs which are often inappropriate & unsustainable.
Here I agree. I am capable of work because web-development is something I can do from home. I need to work from home because I get really fatigued (less of a problem with Modafinil (which also helps with cognition and thus work! bonus!) and can need a toilet on very short notice. And I have 2 at home so am never more that 6m from one which is, on occasion, handy! That said, I’m smart and lucky and am in a trade where I can do freelance work from home. Other people are clearly less lucky, particularly as the work becomes more manual. But the point is that work can be done, it keeps you active and is in that sense good for you (its paid occupational therapy, really!) and I believe that the growth of internet technologies and tele-presence will enable more disabled people to work from home.
Or I’m touting for work. I can’t tell.
The same would apply, I’d imagine to mothers with children of a certain age. Technology allows for homeworking which in turn opens up employment opportunities for the housebound.
“The same would apply, I’d imagine to mothers with children of a certain age. Technology allows for homeworking which in turn opens up employment opportunities for the housebound.”
You’d think so. But then why are so many call centres and other jobs of this type outsourced overseas?
Simple Julia. £5.73 minimum wage for a semi-literate innumerate v. £5 a day for a graduate in India.
Numbers is my weakest point but if there are half a million vacancies in the country and getting on for 4 million out of work, shouldn’t that sum be thought out first before all the other details.
This might seem a little extreme but the forces are always in need of new recruits (they tend to lose people occasionally). A great way to bump up our forces or to add a slight pressure to people to accept a real job or they go to Afghanistan. Obviously this would not apply to those on Incapacity Benefit.
I’d be even stricter with the doling out of money for children to a maximum of only two kids – thus not incresing population or decreasing. But there should be an increased benefit per child, more for the first and less for the second, which is then gradually removed if there are any further children. And to stop this burden being solely placed on the mother should the father leave – he gets castrated – only joking – but he would also be penalised for producing any more offspring. Which, as many people have mentioned, would restore a sense of self responsibility.
This might seem a little extreme but the forces are always in need of new recruits (they tend to lose people occasionally). A great way to bump up our forces or to add a slight pressure to people to accept a real job or they go to Afghanistan. Obviously this would not apply to those on Incapacity Benefit.
The Army requested that we abandon national service for the simple reason that it didn’t need to be dealing with large numbers of people who didn’t want to be there when it should have been properly concerned with the business of killing Johnny Foreigner. And I can assure you that with my Doom 3 and Xbox experience I can kill you with a Predator drone more effectively than a 100metre athlete! In the modern era, IB need be no bar to murdering foreigners!
I do think that it would have more of the effect of encouraging people into work and away from daytime TV!
The army does waste an awful lot of taxpayers money on people like me who join the Officer’s Training Corps (OTC) at Uni because they have the cheapest bar and it’s a bit of a laugh. they also paid for us all to go skiing for a week in France – in the books as ‘adventurous training’! So they could probably use those resources for training the great unwashed for an attack on olde Fritzy
On a completely unrelated note: Doom 3 is terrible – Nevermind teenagers being blamed for not knowing the difference between reality and a computer game – I have now take to straifing past dark alleyways and doorways just to make sure no rocket throwing skeletons appear! Damn realistic graphics, didn’t have this problem with Space Invaders
Hah if you think Doom 3 is bad, treat yourself to Far Cry 2 and you’ll view every walk in the park with great suspicion and find yourself deeply suspicious of safari holidays! Anyway, should shut up now before we get labelled the Tory Video Game Front!