So I could endlessly update this post as we hear different language from different parts of Government - but it's worth flagging that in some respects my argument continues to be relevant, and in some respects the Government have adopted explicitly more hostile language:
- STILL RELEVANT: BBC news had a headline 'Some on benefits are 'taking the mickey', says minister' (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq5gpyv4dnwo). As before, Liz Kendall's main message was positive, but she had a quick line on benefits fraud, and then the media make that into the headline. I continue to think that this is ridiculous.
It's clear that some people associated with the Government are briefing the media to be hostile to disability benefits - e.g. "Again and again, ministers and officials complain of a system where those on universal credit are required to display evidence they have applied for jobs, or face sanctions - but people out of work who also qualify for sickness benefits both get more money and are not necessarily required to seek work. Ministers believe that this encourages some people to "game the system". ***Some Labour advisers*** fear this issue is being exacerbated, especially among young people, by videos on TikTok and other platforms which explain to claimants the best ways to fill out questionnaires in order to get sickness benefits" (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgkje8vj84ro)
My personal view is that the better messaging is coming out of DWP, and the more hostile messaging is probably coming from advisors to Rachel Reeves - but because much of this is off-the-record, it's very difficult to be sure...
A comment from Rob de Vries (who doesn't have a Substack account!) - I made a small change above in response to it, but it's useful to see the wider point too:
"I think you might be being a teensy bit generous to Labour here. Right at the top of the white paper is this language
"This third pillar is the focus for this White Paper: to Get Britain Working, as part of a system based on mutual obligations, where those who can work, do work, and where support is matched by the requirement for jobseekers to take it up"
This is very focused on the obligation to work, they only mention support in the context of it being conditional. I think we have to accept that, even if they are trying to be broadly positive, they are terrified of being perceived as 'pro welfare' in any meaningful way. So they are quite happy with the 'stick' framing."
While the move toward a more positive tone is welcome, the real concern remains in how sickness and disability benefits are reformed legislatively. The emphasis that "those who can work, do work" is nothing new, and it doesn't meaningfully differ from contemporary policy. Indeed, we all know that those claimants considered capable of work - or even just work-related activity - already face strict conditionality and minimal financial support. The real substance, as always, is in how a claimant's capacity is ultimately assessed.
The desire to reform the WCA such that it 'moves away from binary categories of fit for work, or not fit for work', raises questions as to how this will be done. If it isn't determined at the time of assessment, it inevitably introduces some level of subjective discretion into the system. This sounds very much like the thinking we saw in the Health and Disability White Paper, where it was suggested that a Work Coach should ultimately decide if the claimant had sufficient ability to engage.
Yet, if this were their intention, it would assuredly bring the reforms into conflict with the Equality Act, which still places an anticipatory duty on the DWP - as a service provider - to make necessary 'reasonable adjustments' to their services. This would leave them unable to compel claimants to engage with any support if they are unable to do so as a result of a health condition or disability. Given that the definition of disability under the EA has always been significantly broader than that of the WCA, this creates a rather interesting scenario where claimants may still be effectively immune from conditionality anyway.
So then, does this ultimately hint toward relying entirely on claimant cooperation, or will they manage find a way to square this circle? Perhaps voluntary engagement, while also ironing out the cliff-edges in the system, will be sufficient to realize the proposed savings, but it feels optimistic given the forecast of 3.5m incapacity claimants by 2029.
Thanks Tony, and sorry for the slow reply. I'm not sure that the Equalities Act constrains DWP too much here, as it's a fairly low bar (though not one that they always pass...), and they're already meant to tailor conditionality to people's capacities. I've just published a report on how far this conditionality results in unreasonable requirements, see https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/24qtp?view_only= (I'll blog about it in the new year).
But more broadly, I do completely agree - no-one has really come up with a detailed plan for how you implement tailored conditionality in a way that meets the requirements of administrative justice. And if we're moving in that sort of direction, then this is something that absolutely needs to be done.
An interesting report, thank you for sharing. Look forward to the blog.
Regarding the Equality Act, it's my understanding that it would act as a sort of hard-stop to prevent the DWP from forcing unreasonable conditionality on claimants. The 'anticipatory duty' should also in theory ensure that various exemptions and provisions are also codified as part of official policy, which is mostly how it works in practice under the current system. Work coaches already aren't supposed to issue sanctions in the case that non-compliance is the result of a disability.
However, the current LCWRA criteria are so stringent that a substantial portion of claimants should remain de-facto immune on the basis that most conditionality would still be unreasonable. Take, for example, those who currently qualify on the grounds of 'substantial risk' or because 'engagement in social contact is always precluded' (Activity 16): it would assuredly fall foul of the EA to sanction claimants for failing to do what their health-condition explicitly prevents them to do, or for which it would cause significant distress. This would make it difficult (impossible?) to 'force' such claimants to engage with support. While they could still just remove these descriptors entirely, this doesn't seem the direction they're going in here; they seem to be moving toward broader (or at least more personalized) conditionality perhaps coupled with a streamlined WCA.
So I could endlessly update this post as we hear different language from different parts of Government - but it's worth flagging that in some respects my argument continues to be relevant, and in some respects the Government have adopted explicitly more hostile language:
- STILL RELEVANT: BBC news had a headline 'Some on benefits are 'taking the mickey', says minister' (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq5gpyv4dnwo). As before, Liz Kendall's main message was positive, but she had a quick line on benefits fraud, and then the media make that into the headline. I continue to think that this is ridiculous.
- MORE HOSTILE: Rachel Reeves in particular has been preparing the ground for cuts, writing in the Sun about how 'the Conservatives lost complete control of the benefits bill' (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/33002678/rachel-reeves-benefits-spring-statement/ ; this seems to relate to the welfare spending cap - see https://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/rachel-reeves-statement).
It's clear that some people associated with the Government are briefing the media to be hostile to disability benefits - e.g. "Again and again, ministers and officials complain of a system where those on universal credit are required to display evidence they have applied for jobs, or face sanctions - but people out of work who also qualify for sickness benefits both get more money and are not necessarily required to seek work. Ministers believe that this encourages some people to "game the system". ***Some Labour advisers*** fear this issue is being exacerbated, especially among young people, by videos on TikTok and other platforms which explain to claimants the best ways to fill out questionnaires in order to get sickness benefits" (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgkje8vj84ro)
My personal view is that the better messaging is coming out of DWP, and the more hostile messaging is probably coming from advisors to Rachel Reeves - but because much of this is off-the-record, it's very difficult to be sure...
A comment from Rob de Vries (who doesn't have a Substack account!) - I made a small change above in response to it, but it's useful to see the wider point too:
"I think you might be being a teensy bit generous to Labour here. Right at the top of the white paper is this language
"This third pillar is the focus for this White Paper: to Get Britain Working, as part of a system based on mutual obligations, where those who can work, do work, and where support is matched by the requirement for jobseekers to take it up"
This is very focused on the obligation to work, they only mention support in the context of it being conditional. I think we have to accept that, even if they are trying to be broadly positive, they are terrified of being perceived as 'pro welfare' in any meaningful way. So they are quite happy with the 'stick' framing."
While the move toward a more positive tone is welcome, the real concern remains in how sickness and disability benefits are reformed legislatively. The emphasis that "those who can work, do work" is nothing new, and it doesn't meaningfully differ from contemporary policy. Indeed, we all know that those claimants considered capable of work - or even just work-related activity - already face strict conditionality and minimal financial support. The real substance, as always, is in how a claimant's capacity is ultimately assessed.
The desire to reform the WCA such that it 'moves away from binary categories of fit for work, or not fit for work', raises questions as to how this will be done. If it isn't determined at the time of assessment, it inevitably introduces some level of subjective discretion into the system. This sounds very much like the thinking we saw in the Health and Disability White Paper, where it was suggested that a Work Coach should ultimately decide if the claimant had sufficient ability to engage.
Yet, if this were their intention, it would assuredly bring the reforms into conflict with the Equality Act, which still places an anticipatory duty on the DWP - as a service provider - to make necessary 'reasonable adjustments' to their services. This would leave them unable to compel claimants to engage with any support if they are unable to do so as a result of a health condition or disability. Given that the definition of disability under the EA has always been significantly broader than that of the WCA, this creates a rather interesting scenario where claimants may still be effectively immune from conditionality anyway.
So then, does this ultimately hint toward relying entirely on claimant cooperation, or will they manage find a way to square this circle? Perhaps voluntary engagement, while also ironing out the cliff-edges in the system, will be sufficient to realize the proposed savings, but it feels optimistic given the forecast of 3.5m incapacity claimants by 2029.
Some things to chew on, at least.
Thanks Tony, and sorry for the slow reply. I'm not sure that the Equalities Act constrains DWP too much here, as it's a fairly low bar (though not one that they always pass...), and they're already meant to tailor conditionality to people's capacities. I've just published a report on how far this conditionality results in unreasonable requirements, see https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/24qtp?view_only= (I'll blog about it in the new year).
But more broadly, I do completely agree - no-one has really come up with a detailed plan for how you implement tailored conditionality in a way that meets the requirements of administrative justice. And if we're moving in that sort of direction, then this is something that absolutely needs to be done.
An interesting report, thank you for sharing. Look forward to the blog.
Regarding the Equality Act, it's my understanding that it would act as a sort of hard-stop to prevent the DWP from forcing unreasonable conditionality on claimants. The 'anticipatory duty' should also in theory ensure that various exemptions and provisions are also codified as part of official policy, which is mostly how it works in practice under the current system. Work coaches already aren't supposed to issue sanctions in the case that non-compliance is the result of a disability.
However, the current LCWRA criteria are so stringent that a substantial portion of claimants should remain de-facto immune on the basis that most conditionality would still be unreasonable. Take, for example, those who currently qualify on the grounds of 'substantial risk' or because 'engagement in social contact is always precluded' (Activity 16): it would assuredly fall foul of the EA to sanction claimants for failing to do what their health-condition explicitly prevents them to do, or for which it would cause significant distress. This would make it difficult (impossible?) to 'force' such claimants to engage with support. While they could still just remove these descriptors entirely, this doesn't seem the direction they're going in here; they seem to be moving toward broader (or at least more personalized) conditionality perhaps coupled with a streamlined WCA.