No rights without responsibility
Matt Oakley 11:06am
The most recent official statistics show that 5.4 million adults and 1.9 million
children live in the UK’s 3.9 million workless households. Through the Universal Credit, the coalition is taking a radical approach to tackle this, but it won’t be enough. The
government’s own analysis estimates that it will move 300,000 households into work. But this will leave 3.6 million households behind, dependent on benefits and likely to pass worklessness
onto the next generation.
There are also timing worries. Unemployment and, in particular, youth unemployment are high on the political agenda (new statistics on NEETs will come out next week), but the Universal Credit will not be fully implemented for another seven years. If the significant IT development needed to run the system fails or is delayed, there will be a real risk that the benefit system will escape major reform in this parliament.
In short, to ensure real reductions in worklessness, increased employment, growth in all regions of the UK and an end to poverty, we need to do more now.
Today’s publication from Policy Exchange, No rights without responsibility: rebalancing the welfare state, sets out a new direction for welfare reform. It argues that personal responsibility needs to be at the heart of the welfare system. We propose four main areas for reform.
First, people claiming Jobseekers Allowance must be required to do more in order to claim the benefit. Evidence suggests that jobseekers spend as little as eight minutes a day looking for work. The prospects of low wage work and a full working week might be unattractive; but claimants should spend more full-time hours searching for a job. The current system also allows 12 weeks of “preferred search”, where jobseekers can turn down opportunities that do not match their aspirations. This should be abolished for those who have not paid National Insurance Contributions: claimants should be required to look for work and to accept employment when it is offered, even if it pays no more than their welfare benefit.
Secondly, sanctions that penalise claimants who renege on agreed conditions need to be strengthened, while ensuring that dependents must not suffer. For instance, those who are sanctioned might have their benefits paid through smart cards that limit the sorts of goods that can be bought. There also needs to be an investigation into whether non-financial sanctions might be effective.
Thirdly, a stronger link needs to be created between the National Insurance Contributions and benefits received. We suggest that personal welfare accounts are created. These would be funded from NICs and could replace contributory JSA. They would also sit above Universal Credit to provide a clear link between what people put in and what they get back.
Finally, we argue that the state has a stronger responsibility too. It must ensure that no one is left without support to get back to work. This would require finding better ways of segmenting and fast-tracking claimants to the Work Programme. Doing this would ensure that those who need the most help receive intensive support .
Some of these proposals need more detailed work, which future reports will provide. But others can be introduced now. Not allowing a 12 week search for “preferred work” and requiring more time be spent seeking work are real steps that can be taken now. This may sound tough, but it is how the British believe the welfare state should be run. Polling results included in the report show that 70 per cent of Britons think jobseekers should lose their unemployment benefits if they turn down job offers, even if the job offers no more than a claimant receives in unemployment benefits. This support spreads across all sections of society and across the political spectrum.
The principle is clear: if there are jobs that need doing and there are people on welfare capable of doing them, they should accept this work rather than staying on benefits, regardless of the quality of the experience it may offer them. This is the underlying principle of ‘rights and responsibilities’.
Matt Oakley is Head of Enterprise, Growth and Social Policy at Policy Exchange
Previous
andrew
May 20th, 2011 11:28am Report this commentWell said. Shame you will be ignored. The lefties around David Cameron don't have the guts, and he doesn't have the guts to champion these sorts of things himself.
Trapped
May 20th, 2011 11:30am Report this commentAnd what of the rights of the most vulnerable who are subjected to evaluations by a company ill fit for the purpose they are employed (ATOS) and the rights of the genuine claimant who does everything they can to get back into work but simply is unable to find a job, the article fails to mention that quite often people are declined (particularly over 40's / over 50's) due to overqualification.
Being harsh on claimants is all fine and well, but the state should not force the needy and the genuine through additional hoops when the feckless and workshy will simply find new ways and loopholes to get around this.
Ian Walker
May 20th, 2011 11:39am Report this commentNot bad, although a bit gloomy. But I have to take issue with this:
"Thirdly, a stronger link needs to be created between the National Insurance Contributions and benefits received. We suggest that personal welfare accounts are created. These would be funded from NICs and could replace contributory JSA. They would also sit above Universal Credit to provide a clear link between what people put in and what they get back."
It would be much better to scrap NI and the contributory JSA altogether, and simply say that British society looks after the vulnerable without fear or favour.
If people want redundancy insurance they can buy it from any number of places. And being commercial concerns, they're probably about 43 million times more efficient at it than civil servants are.
(PS - any baby boomers who squeal that they've paid their NI stamp and should get what they're due are welcome to hand back their buy-to-let portfolios and free degrees)
stereodog
May 20th, 2011 12:08pm Report this commentI agree with elements of this report but with some of the caveats that Trapped mentioned. I was out of work for two years after university and was exposed to many of the horrors of the job centre. Firstly I would like to say that I was never told about this 'preferred work' period and I haven't met anyone else who was.
The main problem I encountered was that the job centre does not help claimants early on. It was only after a year out of work that I was offered any (albeit nugatory) training or active support. By this time the impressivness of your CV has been eroded by an extended period of joblessnes.
The other problem is that A4e (the government's new deal contractor) is fatally compromised by it's recieving commission for placements. I tried to set up a voluntary position with a charity valuing antiquarian books (a passion of mine) but because it had not been arranged by A4e they blocked it and instead offered me a 'placement' doing their filing.
As I say I don't fundamentally disagree with the government's proposed reforms but I do worry that unless the quality of support provided to job seekers improves people will end up being penalised through no fault of their own. I do also find the notion that most jobseekers only spend 8 minutes a day looking for jobs a little galling. Due to my local job centre being clsoed down i used to spend 4 hours a week just getting to and from the job centre before taking into account the hours I spent filling in forms and writing letters.
philip emanuel
May 20th, 2011 12:10pm Report this commentTo take a low paid job means that you will be worse off than on benifit, due to the costs of going to work & then it is a long process to get back on the system if the job ends. Why do people in work get less than those in the same circumstances on benifit.
StrongholdBarricades
May 20th, 2011 12:15pm Report this commentYou miss out the one reform that is absolutely necessary:
Over 80% of employers do not advertise their vacancies through job centres because they feel that the staff just refer anyone and the employer is left to wade through all the dross.
Fix the job Centres and you will get much better outcomes
Austin Barry
May 20th, 2011 12:34pm Report this comment"No Benefits without Responsibility.." would be a more arresting title and may even stir the inert constituency of malingerers from its squalid nest of crisp packages, lager cans and dead insects.
Maggie
May 20th, 2011 12:59pm Report this commentThere should be no benefits for people who aren't on the electoral register/census.
alexsandr
May 20th, 2011 1:02pm Report this commentAs an IT person with years of experience, I found the job centre to be useless in finding work. They simply hadnt got a clue. Their searches on their jobs were too broadly based and could not take into account specialities - they have 1 category for 'computer programmer' which is useless.
And as said above am employer will not look at someone applying for a menial job is they have higher powered job experience.
Andrew Fletcher
May 20th, 2011 1:10pm Report this commentSome sensible ideas but no hope of them ever being implemented. Same with IDS's proposals. (will get bogged down and will take too long)
Frank Sutton
May 20th, 2011 2:01pm Report this commentIan Walker: "any baby boomers who squeal that they've paid their NI stamp..."
I hope these insurance schemes that you advocate won't take the same approach to customers "squealing" their claims.
tom jones
May 20th, 2011 2:41pm Report this commentI'm not sure about the whole "take the job even if you're on the same as you'd get on benefits." We really need to make sure that being in work ALWAYS results in people being better off than they are on benefits. Some people would say "I'd rather work for the same amount of money than claim benefits" and I'm one of them, but many others would say "why should I bother?" The system rewards joblessness and it shouldn't. The government's own welfare changes should be speeded up before Labour get back in and start dolling out money like it's candy again!
bojimbo
May 20th, 2011 2:44pm Report this commentI don't work , I'm retired .
Ruby Duck
May 20th, 2011 3:00pm Report this commentI don't understand this "support for getting back into work" stuff.
When it comes to work, we treat prisoners better than the unemployed.
Prisoners get work. The unemployed get a regular beating from some smug jobsworth for not having found any.
Why doesn't the Job Centre supply teams of labour for short-term and seasonal contracts (hourly or fixed price), without interrupting anybody's claims? It could bring the inexperienced, long-term unemployed, and disabled up to marketable speed by placing them alongside experienced workers on fixed price contracts (the best sort of "support") and bring in a few quid to help pay the welfare bill at the same time.
30 years ago, perhaps the unions wouldn't have accepted it, but the only toes it would be treading on these days are those of the agencies bringing in unskilled labour from abroad.
N J Mayes
May 20th, 2011 4:30pm Report this commentThese look like some interesting ideas, but mightn't the proposal that "those who are sanctioned might have their benefits paid through smart cards that limit the sorts of goods that can be bought" be liable to the same sorts of Big IT problems that, as you point out, could scupper the whole thing?
TGF UKIP
May 20th, 2011 6:30pm Report this commentStrongholdBarricades makes a vitally important point and all the Oakley points along with all the stuff emanating from Duncan Smith will make very little difference by not only failing to incentivize employers to take risks with any long term unemployed individual but completely failing to even consider the employer point of view in their gushings.
Martyn
May 20th, 2011 9:49pm Report this commentIt is not just a case of the feckless but of the useless. Out there are, regrettably, millions who are innumerate, not really literate, incapable of following instructions, and unable to basic time keep. They are not just shirking work; no employer would want or keep them. And there are no jobs sufficiently menial or low-skilled for them to do. They can't even manage to pick fruit (which is why Thanet Earth tend to employ literate, punctual, able-to-communicate-in-English Poles).
Rob
May 21st, 2011 4:39am Report this commentBut Martyn, how could this be true? We all know (don't we?) that our education system has improved consistently over the last 30 years, producing more and more highly qualified and skilled young people, achieving higher and higher grades each year....the statistics prove this beyond any doubt whatsoever...
Back to top