The next stage of welfare reform: work more hours or lose your benefits

Ministers consider plans to force workers to increase their hours or change jobs in return for receiving Universal Credit payments.

Rarely a day now passes without ministers looking to impose new conditions on welfare claimants. The latest proposal under consideration, as today's Guardian reports, is for low-paid workers to be forced to work more hours or face losing their benefits.

Ahead of the national launch of Universal Credit in October, a DWP document notes that "the current Jobseekers Allowance caseload will be joined by current claimants of tax credits/housing benefit who are working less than could reasonably be expected." It adds: "The Welfare Reform Act enables us to place a wide range of mandatory requirements on this group (e.g. work search, work availability and work preparation requirements). Any requirement must be intended to help them find work, more work or better paid work." 

Universal Credit claimants will be divided into six groups (see below): working enough (individual and household), working could do more, not working, too sick to work right now, too committed to work right now and too sick to work. It is the second of these groups that the proposals are concerned with. The DWP suggests that claimants could be required to move job if and where "other avenues (additional job, more work with same employer) have proved unsuccessful". 

Responding to the department's "call for ideas", a new Policy Exchange report recommends that all new in-work claimants should be required to attend an initial interview at a JobCentre "where a conditionality regime should be set up to ensure the individual is doing all they can to increase their hours and earnings". It adds that claimants should then be forced to attend a quarterly meeting "to be reminded of their responsibility to try to increase their earnings", with sanctions applied for failing to attend. 

Ministers will no doubt argue that the plans are aimed at assisting the 1.4m people who are working part-time because they could not find a full-time job. The Policy Exchange report found that only 30 per cent of part-time workers who expressed a desire for full-time work were actively looking for it. Ministers will merely help push claimants in the right direction. But given the routine abuse of existing benefit sanctions by job centres, the danger is that this will become an underhand means of reducing the welfare bill.

And, rather like the suggestion that the minimum wage could be frozen or cut, the proposals sit uneasily with some of ministers' recent rhetoric. At last week's Resolution Foundation event on low pay, the skills minister Matthew Hancock (George Osborne's former chief of staff) argued that people were wrong to suggest that "working longer hours is the best way to boost earnings, and that getting people to work longer hours will help solve our economic problems." He observed: "Now I love my job, and work a humungous number of hours. And while many people in this room might do the same, let me let you into a secret: we’re unusual.

"Working more hours may be a necessary thing, but it’s not necessarily a good thing. It means less time to see the family; less time in the garden. Less free time. I’m in favour of more freedom. If the cardinal sin of modern economics is assuming that markets are always rational, then the second great failing is forgetting who we’re in it for."

If ministers are to avoid alienating the very "strivers" they purport to support, they should heed Hancock's words. 

The Department for Work and Pensions suggested that claimants could be required to seek "more work or better paid work" in return for receiving in-work benefits. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

What Jeremy Corbyn gets right about the single market

Technically, you can be outside the EU but inside the single market. Philosophically, you're still in the EU. 

I’ve been trying to work out what bothers me about the response to Jeremy Corbyn’s interview on the Andrew Marr programme.

What bothers me about Corbyn’s interview is obvious: the use of the phrase “wholesale importation” to describe people coming from Eastern Europe to the United Kingdom makes them sound like boxes of sugar rather than people. Adding to that, by suggesting that this “importation” had “destroy[ed] conditions”, rather than laying the blame on Britain’s under-enforced and under-regulated labour market, his words were more appropriate to a politician who believes that immigrants are objects to be scapegoated, not people to be served. (Though perhaps that is appropriate for the leader of the Labour Party if recent history is any guide.)

But I’m bothered, too, by the reaction to another part of his interview, in which the Labour leader said that Britain must leave the single market as it leaves the European Union. The response to this, which is technically correct, has been to attack Corbyn as Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Norway and Iceland are members of the single market but not the European Union.

In my view, leaving the single market will make Britain poorer in the short and long term, will immediately render much of Labour’s 2017 manifesto moot and will, in the long run, be a far bigger victory for right-wing politics than any mere election. Corbyn’s view, that the benefits of freeing a British government from the rules of the single market will outweigh the costs, doesn’t seem very likely to me. So why do I feel so uneasy about the claim that you can be a member of the single market and not the European Union?

I think it’s because the difficult truth is that these countries are, de facto, in the European Union in any meaningful sense. By any estimation, the three pillars of Britain’s “Out” vote were, firstly, control over Britain’s borders, aka the end of the free movement of people, secondly, more money for the public realm aka £350m a week for the NHS, and thirdly control over Britain’s own laws. It’s hard to see how, if the United Kingdom continues to be subject to the free movement of people, continues to pay large sums towards the European Union, and continues to have its laws set elsewhere, we have “honoured the referendum result”.

None of which changes my view that leaving the single market would be a catastrophe for the United Kingdom. But retaining Britain’s single market membership starts with making the argument for single market membership, not hiding behind rhetorical tricks about whether or not single market membership was on the ballot last June, when it quite clearly was. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics.