Freezing benefits is indiscriminate – we need to ensure people receive the right help at the right time
Simply freezing benefits was never a good idea. So I have to admit that, despite all my enthusiasm for welfare reform, I was relieved when it was announced that a crude “freeze” on personal independence payments (PIP) would now be replaced with a much more sophisticated approach.
The problem with freezing benefits, of any kind, is that it is indiscriminate and can hit those who genuinely need support, as opposed to those who take advantage.
What has struck me over the last few weeks is the complete confusion about what benefits are available, and which of these ones individuals should access in order to get the right support.
I have heard interviews with those either “dependent” on benefits or campaigning to maintain them, which has reinforced my view that we need to properly sort out what benefits should be available, and for what reason.
Take a neurodivergent young man I heard on the BBC. He clearly wanted to work, and expressed frustration that he was reliant on PIP even though it helped him with additional adjustments in terms of the work environment.
In my mind this is clearly a case for the Access to Work scheme, which is precisely focused on providing the right adaptations not only to encourage people to take a job, but to encourage employers to be prepared to offer a job.
The young man’s argument was: “It is too difficult to get on Access to Work.” He may well be right because the administration of the benefit leaves a lot to be desired, but that is precisely what needs fixing.
Then, take a young woman I heard interviewed last weekend, who indicated she had been working from home and occasionally going into work. She had had her PIP reassessed, and as a consequence, had it removed. She said she had to give up her job because she could no longer afford the car she needed to get to work.
In this instance the Motability scheme – intended to enable disabled people, their families and their carers to lease a new car, scooter or powered wheelchair – might have been a more suitable support than PIP.
I also heard from a very committed young Labour MP who talked about the teenage years when “my mum had to give up work to look after me” and was concerned others in that situation would be affected by the benefit reforms. Were they referring to carer’s allowance, PIP, or something else?
If we are to substantially reform the system to “make work pay”, and to provide people with the dignity and self-esteem of earning their own living, we need to ensure that people receive the right benefit at the right time, and above all, for the right reasons. The present system is an absolute mess, and the sooner we sort it out, the better.
It is long overdue – and something I was working on 20 years ago when I was at the Department for Work and Pensions. We wanted to allow people to maintain access to particular benefits when they first “tried” to get into work. Losing all your benefits the moment you take on a job has never been a common-sense approach.
The problem was that the Treasury blocked it, and here we are, all these years later, still trying to ensure that a very sensible measure is implemented to not only encourage people into work, but to incentivise it. And to understand that the early probationary period is always going to be difficult for anyone, but particularly for those who have been out of work for some time.
We can’t have an exponential rise in the benefits bill – but we can invest in supporting people to overcome the challenges that have prevented them from getting into a job. The billions projected to be spent over the years ahead should be going in to health, skills, adjustments and, where necessary, into the right benefit to fit the circumstances of every individual.
The choice we face is where to invest. In prevention and remediation, or in long-term dependence?
Lord Blunkett served as Labour education secretary (1997-2001), home secretary (2001-04) and work and pensions secretary (2005)