Pyrrhic victory over British well-being shows the need for systemic reform, say analysts

Unlock the publisher’s digest free

Roula Khalaf, editor -in -chief of the FT, selects her favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.

Sir Keir Starmer may have done enough to remove a rebellion from the back-ban on the reforms of British well-being, after having made eleventh hour concessions to soften their impact. But even if Tuesday’s vote on legislation is in favor of the government, it may be at best a pyrrhic victory.

Existing applicants have now spared the reductions in health -related benefits, savings for chessboard will be 2.5 billion pounds smaller than expected, leaving a hole in public finances that the Chancellor will have to fill. Charitable organizations in disabilities still consider politics as fundamentally defective, however.

Think-Tanks recognizes the need for a reform, but say that the way ministers, including Liz Kendall, secretary of work and pensions, have poorly managed the process shows that the risk of leaving a change in sensitive policy is motivated by the need to respect an arbitrary budgetary rule.

“I do not think you can start with a process where you say that the objective is to reduce X billion,” Tom Pollard, head of social policy, told the New Economics Foundation reflection group. “It is a very difficult reform and the process must accept that the savings will go further.”

The best approach, according to many analysts, would be to start by defining the principles of what the social protection system should achieve, to build a better base of evidence on which claims support and why, and think much more broadly about systemic change.

The main measurement of the government’s money saving, refining the point system to qualify for independent personal payments, was “a rapid way to resolve a few billion billion at the time of the spring declaration,” said Louise Murphy, main economist to the group of reflection on the Foundation resolution.

A preferable starting point, she argued, would be to understand at what additional costs of people with different conditions are really confronted and how they used PIP. The Minister of Social Security, Sir Stephen Timms, will now examine the PIP evaluation process, but that “may be less significant if certain things are already outside the table,” said Murphy.

“You must examine the engines of the increase in complaints on disability benefits, which partly concerns an aging population, but also on the need for a more accessible company, such as transport and employers adjustments, and a wider service system that covers the cost of life,” said Stephen Evans, director general of learning and work.

To achieve sustainable savings in the social protection bill, the government should spend in advance, making the benefits and housing more generous and also increases support for employment without constraint, said Evans. “Focusing the reform on a piece of the performance system is like tightening a ball. Costs and difficulties in people will go out somewhere unless you treat underlying problems. ”

An area where there could be training effects is social care. Currently, local authorities take into account reception by PIP people when they decide the support to provide. This means that savings in the social protection system could simply exert more pressure on short money advice, noted Pollard.

In addition to seeking to make reforms more coherent, invest in DWP’s ability to manage the social protection system could also be paid over time.

DWP’s incapacity has been a factor in the rise of social protection of the DWP – which means that people remain in benefits longer, no one checking if their health has improved.

The Treasury has now announced additional funding to allow the ministry to accelerate its expansion of professional support for disabled people. Analysts say that is welcome, but should be associated with broader incentives for employers to hire disabled people.

They also argue that it should not be used as justification of the changes made to PIP, because the advantage is not linked to the status of use of people.

However, even if the ministers were able to rewind the chronometer and start from the first principles, consult the reforms largely and soften the initial expenses, it is not clear if they would ultimately be able to design an affordable system that would gain the support of affected people.

“There are simply inevitably difficult compromises,” said Tom Waters, associate director of the Institute for Tax Studies. Despite the faults of the current approach, “there is simply no way to reduce these figures a lot without considerably reducing income for a significant number of disabled people.”