For and Against: Labour's Welfare Reforms

Liz Kendal leaves a meeting with Labour MPs that had been set up to allow an 'extremely critical' review of the proposals. Photograph: Thomas Krych, Shutterstock

For: Kendall’s Reforms, the Sustainability of UK State Welfare, and Preventing Austerity 2.0.

By Cianan Sheekey

The provision of state welfare is extremely important, particularly for those who cannot work, and thus the unveiling of Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Liz Kendall’s welfare reforms has proven highly contentious. The reforms aim to curb the UK’s ever-growing welfare bill, which before the changes would have totalled £70 billion a year by

2029, an amount perceived by Prime Minister Starmer and Chancellor Reeves as unsustainable and reflective of the system being not fit for purpose - understandable given the nearly £22 billion hole which already exists within the UK’s public spending. This article will dissect the welfare reforms, examining the rationale behind them, and arguing for their necessity within the context of the long-term viability of the UK state welfare provisions.

Firstly, it is worth noting the less-covered empirically beneficial elements of Kendall’s reforms. In alignment with HM Treasury’s plans to slash red tape, the reforms scrap the Work Capability Assessment (with this assessment being merged into the Personal Independence Payments (PIP) system), removing the need for PIP reassessment for those with long-term conditions. PIP assessments becoming more frequent (for those requiring them), and are to become primarily done through face-to-face appointments. The removal of unnecessary and faulty binary bureaucratic assessment systems, as well as improving the personability of welfare processes, reflect a much-needed streamlining of welfare procedures. More than ever, disabled individuals who receive PIP are being respected by the state - with those receiving it as a result of long-term conditions no longer required to allow the DWP (Department for Welfare and Pensions) to unnecessarily intrude upon their lives, whilst those in need of reassessment appointments receiving them far more swiftly and in-person.

Additionally, HM Government is legislating a ‘right to try’ which “guarantee[s] that work in and of itself will never lead to a benefit reassessment”. This, alongside a record £1 billion investment to support the disabled and long-term sick in returning to work, amounts to the most significant attempt at “giving people the confidence to take the plunge and try work” in recent history. These welfare reforms elicit a major legislative push to encourage employment and reduce state dependency, which coinciding with the issuance of long-overdue state respect for disabled people in terms of PIP procedure, promotes a widespread push for encouraging individuals to achieve self-reliance and receive more than the state can provide for doing so. The DWP is receiving little to no credit for attempting to address the “fundamentally broken welfare system” that the Starmer Ministry inherited with decisive, structurally constructive policy.

Now for the crunch. The newly announced reforms are projected to cut £5 billion from the state’s welfare bill by 2029: PIP will increase in line with inflation, whereas Universal Credit's standard rate will increase above that of inflation yearly, culminating in an additional £775 per year by 2029, with incapacity benefits frozen at £97 until 2029/30. However, this will not apply to those “who have the most severe, life-long health conditions”, with said individuals receiving income protection through an additional premium. Criticism of these reforms has, however, been concentrated, primarily, on the revisions being made to PIP eligibility criteria.

PIP assessment utilises a scoring-based system for everyday tasks, such as preparing food and following a set route. A medical professional assesses how an individual may be hindered in performing each of these tasks, scoring each out of 12, with 1 being the minimal affliction and 12 the most. Under the new reforms, to qualify individuals will now be required to score at least a 4 in a single category for the daily living element of PIP (the other side of PIP, the mobility element, is unaffected by the reforms).

Whilst my discussions with current and potential PIP recipients suggest these changes are fair, with it being suggested the reforms aim to cut the welfare bill whilst ensuring those who deserve the payments rightly receive them, I acknowledge other individuals will vehemently disagree. Several notable critics have arisen, including Labour MPs such as Diane Abbott and newly re-whipped Richard Burgon. It must be noted, however, that these policies are not set in stone. The government is clamouring for individuals to be involved in their open consultation about the details of the bill. The consultation is open now and individuals affected are implored to utilise the opportunity for their voices to be heard, and the link for this can be found here.

The issue here is that, whilst discussions have granted personal assurances these changes are fair and it is clear several individuals disagree with this sentiment, something remains apparent - change in the welfare system is necessary for its long-term sustainability. The austerity measures undertaken under the Cameron Ministry were devastatingly bleak, a deeply unfortunate reflection of the horrific state of the British economy following the 2008 financial crisis. Deep cuts very much left some areas of public service and welfare provision on life support, and without proactive reform, the catastrophic gap in public finances will not be addressed - not dealing with the inherited £21.9 billion hole in public finances is to invite electoral catastrophe for the Labour Party, leading to, at best, a Conservative neoliberal nightmare (austerity 2.0), and at worse, a populist Reform ruination.

Failure to minimise growing rates of government expenditure will have dire consequences, including the creation of an easy path for parties within HM Opposition to enter government

Some critics have already labelled the government’s welfare reforms as austerity 2.0., but this comparison is misleading. Unlike the Coalition Government’s sweeping cuts, these reforms are (more) measured, consultative, and are designed to prevent austerity, not impose it. Do not belittle the word for the sake of poignancy.

The current Starmer Ministry is not making these decisions lightly. The reforms to benefits, of which many elements are empirical pros, have caused a significant stir, and whilst any individual’s concerns are valid so far as they have them, broader economic realities need to be considered. Failure to minimise growing rates of government expenditure will have dire consequences, including the creation of an easy path for parties within HM Opposition to enter government. To avoid this, at best neoliberal nightmare, welfare reforms have been necessary - welfare reforms which have received no dues even where irrefutable benefits can be noted. HM Government is behaving in a fashion consistent with the apt sentiment of Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner: “[We] can’t do all the things that make us feel warm and cuddly."

Against: Why Our Government Chose To Punish the Disabled, and Where Else this Money Should be Saved.

By Lewis Young

Every year, a significant amount is spent on benefits with £258 Billion being spent on our Welfare State in 23/24. However, it is crucial in the lives of many who rely on the system to support their families and survive. The Labour Party’s changes to the welfare system will significantly damage the lives of the disabled, the sufferers of mental health disorders and those with learning difficulties. The tough reality is that many people in the UK are simply unable to go to work. Whether this be due to physical disability, mental illness or learning difficulty, the introduction of cuts to PIP and Universal Credit’s ‘Health Top-up’ will make their life harder. Those suffering from disabilities live everyday wishing they could go to work, live unassisted without the necessity for support with everyday tasks, or without the need for therapy and treatment, but unfortunately this is not the case.

Under the new rules, a person with schizophrenia often will not meet the requirements for PIP

Our Government undoubtedly must support those who find themselves in this position, and their goal of cutting £5 Billion from our benefits system instead punishes those who need help. Changes to the PIP, or Personal Independence Payment, will make it more difficult for those who need it so badly to claim it. A person trying to claim the PIP must meet the 4-point level on one of the Government’s 10 daily life criteria, which mainly focus on physical disability. Examples include the claimant’s ability to dress and undress unassisted, ability to prepare food, and their ability to bathe themselves. Also included is the ability to communicate with others, which is the best attempt to include those with a hidden disability within the criteria. This very obviously fails to incorporate the vast majority of learning difficulties and mental health disorders.

Taking Schizophrenia as an example, a sufferer may experience hallucinations and delusions causing difficulty in their everyday lives, along with low motivation, poor hygiene, a lack of energy and difficulty concentrating. Under the new rules, a person with schizophrenia often will not meet the requirements for PIP – they physically hold the ability to bathe, cook, and communicate, however their disorder impairs this ability and prevents success in everyday life. Previously, sufferers of schizophrenia were 2.8x more likely than others to receive PIP, but after the changes many with a less serious case will not receive the payment, but often will remain unable to work.

Our Labour Government’s cuts will further increase the number of individuals suffering from poor mental health in the most underprivileged groups of society. Mind UK identify poverty, debt, poor housing, social disadvantage and long-term stress as some of the major issues which are known to cause mental health problems, all things which many disabled people may experience more severely after Labour’s welfare changes are put into place. This will have the inverse effect on many people than that the Labour Government wish to have - many will be pushed further away from work due to poor mental health on top of disability and could result in life becoming even harder for the people who are already living difficult lives because of health conditions.

Figures state that benefit applications under learning disabilities are up 400%, and poor mental health claims are up by 190%. Viewing this as overdiagnosis and attempting to keep these individuals off of benefits will force those who need government support into jobs which may not adequately suit their needs – so-called ‘overdiagnosis’ is really just increased awareness and understanding of learning difficulties and mental health issues, which can allow for extra support and treatment/therapies in the case of many mental health issues.

Support provided by the government is vital, providing people the assistance they need to cope. So, if not welfare, where should this £5 Billion be saved? Instead of attacking our nation’s poor with damaging cuts to funds which allow them to survive, our Government should be focusing upon saving money from increased focus on financial crime and tax avoidance.

a focus upon fixing and preventing the use of tax havens would be greatly beneficial,

The HMRC estimate that £5.5 Billion was lost last year from tax evasion – with recent reports stating this number is likely an understatement. If the richest in society or business owners were successfully held accountable for their crimes, the £5 Billion the Government wish to gain from welfare cuts would be saved without punishing those who need support.

Additionally, a focus upon fixing and preventing the use of tax havens would be greatly beneficial, with tax havens allowing for many businesses to save large amounts they would otherwise have to pay. Organisations including Tax Justice UK are focused on this issue, aiming to pressure the government to force increased transparency in overseas tax havens like the British Virgin Islands.

Ultimately, our ‘Labour’ Government is making a grave mistake punishing the disabled to save money. What we see in Starmer’s Government is a Labour Party wearing blue underwear, cutting support to our society’s least advantaged whilst permitting financial crime and tax avoidance. Labour’s reforms to the welfare state will have catastrophic impact upon the lives of the disabled and mentally unwell and will result in many struggling to survive.

Photograph: Shutterstock