One size does not fit all: why Universal Credit needs to work for older people

With its age-blind design, Universal Credit is a missed opportunity to tackle the UK’s demographic challenge.

The shape of our labour market has altered dramatically in recent decades. Among the starkest changes is the increase in the number of older workers – from five million in 1992 to 7.5 million in 2012. One in three people of working age in the UK is already over 50 and the growth of this group will continue to far outpace that of their younger counterparts.

For many of these baby boomers, their working lives have coincided with good times of rising employment and a boom in assets like house prices. But it is naïve to think that all the boomers are now sailing into affluent, easy retirements. The UK has four million inactive or unemployed older people, many of whom might still want to work but are prevented by a mix of caring responsibilities, poor health, poor skills and the fact that there’s often no real financial incentive for them to do so. As a result, many people retire or drift out of the labour market without having been able to save all they need for a comfortable old age.

This is bad news for those households left without the savings they need to maintain decent living standards into retirement. But it also spells trouble for the public finances, putting upward pressure on benefit spending and reducing tax revenues just as public spending constraints are at their tightest.

The ageing challenge provides the context for the introduction of Universal Credit (UC). The interaction between the welfare system and incentives is one of the main ways a government can shape labour market behaviour and UC is the government’s flagship welfare reform. The financial support it offers low earners is a potentially powerful tool to boost employment – indeed providing incentives (“work always pays”) is the principle at the heart of UC. And one in five families receiving UC will include at least one person aged 50 or over.

But how effective will UC be in increasing an older person’s incentive to work? This question has received almost no attention. Yet a report out today from the Resolution Foundation, Getting on: older workers and universal credit, shows that while UC offers some benefits to older workers, it also misses an opportunity to develop an age-specific approach to raise their incentives to stay in a job, or return to work.

In fact, while many older workers will be better off under UC, others will see their financial incentives to work sharply reduced. In the most severe case, someone aged over 60 and earning £7 an hour could see their annual income from work fall by £1,640 (from £9,120 to £7,480). This is because many older workers doing between 16 and 30 hours a week on low incomes receive an extra level of support under the current system of tax credits which will disappear under UC. The result is that an additional tranche of low-paid older people working more than 16 hours a week will be worse off.

The problem is that in its welcome attempt to simplify the current mishmash of working and workless benefits, UC has been designed on an age-blind basis. This passes up the opportunity to incorporate age-specific measures which would make work more appealing to older people, especially those over 55 who are nearing retirement. For example, UC could allow older workers to keep more of their earnings before support starts to be withdrawn (raising the ‘disregard’). A new, higher disregard for workers over 55 would leave low paid older workers better off by £150 a month. This would come at an overall public cost of £200 million; however this cost would fall if older people moved into in work as a result - the Treasury saves around £5,300 a year when a person moves from longer-term unemployment to work 25 hours a week.

The introduction of UC is by no means all bad news. Greater simplicity is to be welcomed. UC also makes support more flexible, helping those who wish to retire gradually and those who can’t work full-time because of caring duties or poor health. UC also provides more incentive to save into a pension than the current system, a very desirable change.

Despite the positives, there is a strong case for making UC more attractive for people to work past the age of 50 and on into their 60s. The UK would add another 1.5 million workers if it matched the older employment rates of other advanced economies, and efforts to boost employment among this group will be vital to living standards in the coming decades.

Our ageing population and relatively poor performance in this field makes this a crucial economic issue for the country. As things stand, UC with its present age-blind design is a missed opportunity to tackle the UK’s demographic challenge.

Giselle Cory is senior research and policy analyst at the Resolution Foundation

Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith speaks at last year's Conservative conference in Birmingham. Photograph: Getty Images.

Giselle Cory is senior research and policy analyst at IPPR.

Daily Mail
Show Hide image

Who "speaks for England" - and for that matter, what is "England"?

The Hollywood producer Sam Gold­wyn once demanded, “Let’s have some new clichés.” The Daily Mail, however, is always happiest with the old ones.

The Hollywood producer Sam Gold­wyn once demanded, “Let’s have some new clichés.” The Daily Mail, however, is always happiest with the old ones. It trotted out Leo Amery’s House of Commons call from September 1939, “Speak for England”, for the headline on a deranged leader that filled a picture-free front page on David Cameron’s “deal” to keep Britain in the EU.

Demands that somebody or other speak for England have followed thick and fast ever since Amery addressed his call to Labour’s Arthur Greenwood when Neville Chamberlain was still dithering over war with Hitler. Tory MPs shouted, “Speak for England!” when Michael Foot, the then Labour leader, rose in the Commons in 1982 after Argentina’s invasion of the Falklands. The Mail columnist Andrew Alexander called on Clare Short to “speak for England” over the Iraq War in 2003. “Can [Ed] Miliband speak for England?” Anthony Barnett asked in this very magazine in 2013. (Judging by the 2015 election result, one would say not.) “I speak for England,” claimed John Redwood last year. “Labour must speak for England,” countered Frank Field soon afterwards.

The Mail’s invocation of Amery was misconceived for two reasons. First, Amery wanted us to wage war in Europe in support of Hitler’s victims in Poland and elsewhere and in alliance with France, not to isolate ourselves from the continent. Second, “speak for England” in recent years has been used in support of “English votes for English laws”, following proposals for further devolution to Scotland. As the Mail was among the most adamant in demanding that Scots keep their noses out of English affairs, it’s a bit rich of it now to state “of course, by ‘England’. . . we mean the whole of the United Kingdom”.

 

EU immemorial

The Mail is also wrong in arguing that “we are at a crossroads in our island history”. The suggestion that the choice is between “submitting to a statist, unelected bureaucracy in Brussels” and reclaiming our ancient island liberties is pure nonsense. In the long run, withdrawing from the EU will make little difference. Levels of immigration will be determined, as they always have been, mainly by employers’ demands for labour and the difficulties of policing the borders of a country that has become a leading international transport hub. The terms on which we continue to trade with EU members will be determined largely by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels after discussions with unelected bureaucrats in London.

The British are bored by the EU and the interminable Westminster arguments. If voters support Brexit, it will probably be because they then expect to hear no more on the subject. They will be sadly mistaken. The withdrawal negotiations will take years, with the Farages and Duncan Smiths still foaming at the mouth, Cameron still claiming phoney victories and Angela Merkel, François Hollande and the dreaded Jean-Claude Juncker playing a bigger part in our lives than ever.

 

An empty cabinet

Meanwhile, one wonders what has become of Jeremy Corbyn or, indeed, the rest of the shadow cabinet. The Mail’s “speak for England” leader excoriated him for not mentioning “the Number One subject of the hour” at PM’s Questions but instead asking about a shortage of therapeutic radiographers in the NHS. In fact, the NHS’s problems – almost wholly caused by Tory “reforms” and spending cuts – would concern more people than does our future in the EU. But radiographers are hardly headline news, and Corbyn and his team seem unable to get anything into the nation’s “any other business”, never mind to the top of its agenda.

Public services deteriorate by the day, George Osborne’s fiscal plans look increasingly awry, and attempts to wring tax receipts out of big corporations appear hopelessly inadequate. Yet since Christmas I have hardly seen a shadow minister featured in the papers or spotted one on TV, except to say something about Trident, another subject that most voters don’t care about.

 

Incurable prose

According to the Guardian’s admirable but (let’s be honest) rather tedious series celeb­rating the NHS, a US health-care firm has advised investors that “privatisation of the UK marketplace . . . should create organic and de novo opportunities”. I have no idea what this means, though it sounds ominous. But I am quite certain I don’t want my local hospital or GP practice run by people who write prose like that.

 

Fashionable Foxes

My home-town football team, Leicester City, are normally so unfashionable that they’re not even fashionable in Leicester, where the smart set mostly watch the rugby union team Leicester Tigers. Even when they installed themselves near the top of the Premier League before Christmas, newspapers scarcely noticed them.

Now, with the Foxes five points clear at the top and 7-4 favourites for their first title, that mistake is corrected and the sports pages are running out of superlatives, a comparison with Barcelona being the most improbable. Even I, not a football enthusiast, have watched a few matches. If more football were played as Leicester play it – moving at speed towards their opponents’ goal rather than aimlessly weaving pretty patterns in midfield – I would watch the game more.

Nevertheless, I recall 1963, when Leicester headed the old First Division with five games to play. They picked up only one more point and finished fourth, nine points adrift of the league winners, Everton.

 

Gum unstuck

No, I don’t chew toothpaste to stop me smoking, as the last week’s column strangely suggested. I chew Nicorette gum, a reference written at some stage but somehow lost (probably by me) before it reached print.

Editor: The chief sub apologises for this mistake, which was hers

Peter Wilby was editor of the Independent on Sunday from 1995 to 1996 and of the New Statesman from 1998 to 2005. He writes the weekly First Thoughts column for the NS.

This article first appeared in the 11 February 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The legacy of Europe's worst battle