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

The big problem for the NHS? Local government cuts

Even a U-Turn on planned cuts to the service itself will still leave the NHS under heavy pressure. 

38Degrees has uncovered a series of grisly plans for the NHS over the coming years. Among the highlights: severe cuts to frontline services at the Midland Metropolitan Hospital, including but limited to the closure of its Accident and Emergency department. Elsewhere, one of three hospitals in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland are to be shuttered, while there will be cuts to acute services in Suffolk and North East Essex.

These cuts come despite an additional £8bn annual cash injection into the NHS, characterised as the bare minimum needed by Simon Stevens, the head of NHS England.

The cuts are outlined in draft sustainability and transformation plans (STP) that will be approved in October before kicking off a period of wider consultation.

The problem for the NHS is twofold: although its funding remains ringfenced, healthcare inflation means that in reality, the health service requires above-inflation increases to stand still. But the second, bigger problem aren’t cuts to the NHS but to the rest of government spending, particularly local government cuts.

That has seen more pressure on hospital beds as outpatients who require further non-emergency care have nowhere to go, increasing lifestyle problems as cash-strapped councils either close or increase prices at subsidised local authority gyms, build on green space to make the best out of Britain’s booming property market, and cut other corners to manage the growing backlog of devolved cuts.

All of which means even a bigger supply of cash for the NHS than the £8bn promised at the last election – even the bonanza pledged by Vote Leave in the referendum, in fact – will still find itself disappearing down the cracks left by cuts elsewhere. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. He usually writes about politics.