The poor could be the losers from Labour's welfare cap

If measures designed to tackle low pay and reduce rents fail to make sufficient progress, the danger is that families will be further impoverished.

Ed Miliband was right in his speech on social security today to suggest that it is neither a decrepit structure, nor an underclass of lazy layabouts, which is the real source of stress in the system. Instead, an analysis acknowledging that it is the broader structural causes of need that are testing the workings of (or at least sympathy for) social security is clearly the right way to go. We all know that in part it is low wages that underpin a large tax credits bill, and rising rents that have to some extent driven up housing benefit in recent years.

Where Miliband went off track, however, was in then echoing coalition rhetoric on expenditure control, and in particular his suggestion that a Labour government would cap ‘structural’ social security spending on a three-year basis. The politics behind this move are clear– talking tough on spending - but does the proposal make good sense in policy terms?

To begin, there is a problem of definition. The distinction between structural as opposed to cyclical social security spending is not as neat as one might like. While unemployment benefits are clearly connected to the rise and fall of the economy, few other working-age benefits are immune from the vagaries of the cycle. It is underemployment alongside low wages that has driven up demand for tax credits, and a rising caseload that, to some degree, explains the growth in cash terms of the housing benefit bill since 2008.

In addition, the structural-cyclical dichotomy is from a decidedly pre-universal credit world. When in and out-of-work benefits, housing benefit and children’s support are rolled up into one from October this year the distinction will be even harder to fathom. While the practicalities of the coalition’s plans for capping annually managed expenditure have already been questioned, it’s hard to see how adding hazy distinctions into the exercise will make it any more workable.

That said, in the last three years the social system has been riddled with caps of one sort or another. While the overall benefit cap has attracted most attention, the coalition has also sought to hem in housing benefit in a number of ways: since April 2011, for example, support to claimants has been restricted to smaller sized properties, to more limited levels of rent, and if single, is cut according to age.

This tangle of new rules is designed to constrain housing benefit expenditure, albeit in an opaque and confusing manner. But has it? A quick look at housing benefit statistics shows that the increase in the average award since April 2011 is actually no different than that observed prior to these changes being introduced, suggesting that rents have not responded as anticipated.

Instead, to date, the squeeze from the various caps has been felt by claimants, not budget lines. Low income families and individuals have had to eke out already meagre budgets to cover shortfalls, make difficult decisions about whether to move and disrupt their and their children’s lives, or go cap (ha) in hand and apply for discretionary housing payments or charitable forms of support.

If Labour, or indeed the coalition, were to limit the overall social security budget, what we would see is this scenario writ large. It would be ordinary families who would bear the risk that programmes designed to tackle low pay, reduce rents, and connect the unemployed more effectively to the labour market fail to make sufficient progress; families whose lives would be constrained in ever-more oppressive ways; and families who would be further impoverished as a result. 

If Labour wants to rein in social security spending they have to do this by reducing need, not by rationing decency. But of course, whether social security expenditure really is out of control, as we are all incessantly told, is an entirely different question

A boy walks through the Heygate Estate in the Walworth area in London. Photograph: Getty Images.

Lindsay Judge is senior policy and research officer for the Child Poverty Action Group.

Getty
Show Hide image

The 5 things the Tories aren't telling you about their manifesto

Turns out the NHS is something you really have to pay for after all. 

When Theresa May launched the Conservative 2017 manifesto, she borrowed the most popular policies from across the political spectrum. Some anti-immigrant rhetoric? Some strong action on rip-off energy firms? The message is clear - you can have it all if you vote Tory.

But can you? The respected thinktank the Institute for Fiscal Studies has now been through the manifesto with a fine tooth comb, and it turns out there are some things the Tory manifesto just doesn't mention...

1. How budgeting works

They say: "a balanced budget by the middle of the next decade"

What they don't say: The Conservatives don't talk very much about new taxes or spending commitments in the manifesto. But the IFS argues that balancing the budget "would likely require more spending cuts or tax rises even beyond the end of the next parliament."

2. How this isn't the end of austerity

They say: "We will always be guided by what matters to the ordinary, working families of this nation."

What they don't say: The manifesto does not backtrack on existing planned cuts to working-age welfare benefits. According to the IFS, these cuts will "reduce the incomes of the lowest income working age households significantly – and by more than the cuts seen since 2010".

3. Why some policies don't make a difference

They say: "The Triple Lock has worked: it is now time to set pensions on an even course."

What they don't say: The argument behind scrapping the "triple lock" on pensions is that it provides an unneccessarily generous subsidy to pensioners (including superbly wealthy ones) at the expense of the taxpayer.

However, the IFS found that the Conservatives' proposed solution - a "double lock" which rises with earnings or inflation - will cost the taxpayer just as much over the coming Parliament. After all, Brexit has caused a drop in the value of sterling, which is now causing price inflation...

4. That healthcare can't be done cheap

They say: "The next Conservative government will give the NHS the resources it needs."

What they don't say: The £8bn more promised for the NHS over the next five years is a continuation of underinvestment in the NHS. The IFS says: "Conservative plans for NHS spending look very tight indeed and may well be undeliverable."

5. Cutting immigration costs us

They say: "We will therefore establish an immigration policy that allows us to reduce and control the number of people who come to Britain from the European Union, while still allowing us to attract the skilled workers our economy needs." 

What they don't say: The Office for Budget Responsibility has already calculated that lower immigration as a result of the Brexit vote could reduce tax revenues by £6bn a year in four years' time. The IFS calculates that getting net immigration down to the tens of thousands, as the Tories pledge, could double that loss.

Julia Rampen is the digital news editor of the New Statesman (previously editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog). She has also been deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines. 

0800 7318496