Welfare Reform Bill and why it is must be passed

The proposed reforms to the Welfare system are drastic. The intention is to address the dependency culture, weed out the frauds and hence create savings to assist the deserving. I think we all generally support this aim. The opposition amongst British opinion appears to be based on the negative impact these changes might have on some deserving recipients. The reality is that this division and opposition to the reforms are being based on ideology rather than facts.

 The Tories have a poor reputation when it comes to caring for society. Meryl Streep’s effort hasn’t cured the hangover some Britons still carry from the Thatcher era. But we need to put ideology aside and not turn this into a character assault against the Tories.

 The government’s drive for reform is coming from a necessity for change. A policy that affects so many people that form a heterogeneous group will unavoidably lead to small group that looses out. These will be the exceptional circumstances. We need to figure out a way of addressing their situation – that remains outstanding but it’s not being ignored.

 

We can argue about the policy details and how to improve it based on facts. What I am losing patience with is opposition that is based on painting the reforms to be the evil Tories’ scheme to squash helpless citizens and attributes them to mal intent.

 Yes, the policy could be improved – there is always room for improvement. So voice your opinion and contribute to the feedback that the government is seeking in its consultation period that runs to 30 April 2012. What we can do is try to highlight the exceptional cases so that policy may further be tweaked to address their case.  Click here.

 There will be individual cases who are thought to “lose out”. Their situation should not be used as a reason to block this reform but instead should be used to shape it.

 I do think where the government falls short is in communication. Especially when radical changes are being proposed, clarity of communication, explaining why and how is critical. The coalition has not done a good job of this. But again, let’s not hold that as an example of vindictive intentions.

 The case studies considered by the government show that their research has tried to be comprehensive. Where housing benefit may be reduced, other measures are boosted to support people who rightfully need it.

 There are a number of points about the reforms that I strongly believe are undeniably positive. They will make assessment, collection and receipt easier by not having to chase multiple forms and paperwork.

·         The Government also announced the inclusion of an additional bedroom within the size criteria used to assess Housing Benefit claims in the private rented sector where a disabled person or someone with a long term health condition has a proven need for overnight care and this is provided by a non-resident carer(s)

·         When Universal Credit starts and people do more work, they will lose about 65 pence of every pound they earn after tax. This means that we (government) will let people keep some of their benefit before they start to lose money from their benefit because of their wages. We call this the taper.

·         There are many others that I will post in a separate blog

The bottom line is that there are very many reasons for reform and that the proposals go a long way in addressing these. It is not a final policy and the government is keeping an open door to invite feedback during the consultation period. Let’s acknowledge that what is trying to be achieved here is very brave – while many previous governments have recognised the need for reform, the controversy surrounding such a sensitive issue has prevented action. Here is a government being brave, and risking its popularity to make necessary changes. Speak up to shape policy but blocking it will continue injustice.

 

Here are some facts on the current situation and the full length white paper can be read here

 

·         working-age welfare budget has increased by 45 per cent in real terms over the last decade – while the deserving population demographics have obviously not deteriorated by the same proportion, or even close

·         5 million people are on out-of-work benefits in the UK, and 1.4 million of them have been receiving out-of-work benefits for nine out of the last ten years. Not only that, but we now have one of the highest rates of workless households in Europe, with 1.9 million children living in homes where no-one has a job ­– Where possible, people have to be incentivised to work. The proposed single taper will benefit people who work any amount of time and will increase as more hours are worked. Under the old system only 16 hours per week was recognised, any time below or above this was not credited

·         contributions from the public resulted in over 1,600 responses via post, email and through the online consultation site ­– all the voices in opposition who wish to block the reforms should be instead contributing to this consultation.

·         In 2009, 2.3 million contacts to the Department for Work and Pensions were driven by people contacting the wrong agency and 1.4 million by people contacting the wrong office. 3 This complexity prevents people taking up benefits to which they are entitled. For example, in 2008/09 only between 38 and 51 per cent of those in work and entitled to Housing Benefit actually claimed. The Government spends a further £3.5 billion each year on administration.  -  A key focus of the reforms and Universal Credits is to simplify the whole system. One contact point, less paperwork, fewer government departments involved, eliminate duplication of resources, easier transition in and out of work and monitoring of benefits. Hopefully more of the deserving recipients will now apply and savings from wastage can be directed to the rightful beneficiaries.

·         Spending on working-age Housing Benefit has increased by more than 25 per cent to £14.2 billion -  once again, the population demographics have not shown the same proportional change to match the increased spend hence there is significant wastage.