Many of the new jobs created under the coalition have been low-skilled, low-paid, and insecure. (Photo:Getty)
Show Hide image

Low wages and high prices, not laziness, are driving up the social security bill

Low wages and rising prices are pushing up the cost of in-work benefits. Labour will raise wages and keep the cost of social security down.

Britain needs a responsible and fair social security system that works for working people. One that rewards contribution, and protects those who cannot work or cannot earn enough to support themselves and their families. To deliver those aims, our system needs to be affordable.

But under David Cameron, low pay and high housing costs are pushing up the welfare bill, meaning that despite changes such as the cruel and unfair Bedroom Tax, the Tories have spent £25 billion more than planned over this parliament.

Housing Benefit makes up the second largest area of social security spending after pensions. Under the Tories, spending has risen over the parliament to reach £24 billion this year, a rise of £1.5 billion on 2010.

A toxic combination of low pay, a crisis in housebuilding, and rising rents plays a key part in explaining this rise, with the number of people forced to rely on housing benefit to pay the rent rising by over 440,000 since 2010 – clear evidence of the Tories’ failing plan.

And because of the mismanagement of the benefits system under Iain Duncan Smith, there’s also been a surge in housing benefit overpayments due to fraud and error, adding an extra £470 million to welfare spending. Overpayments now represent six per cent of total spending on housing benefit, the highest level since records began.

This can’t go on. As Ed Balls has said, will need to make tough choices to get the deficit down. Today, in our interim Zero-Based Review of the Department for Work and Pensions spending, Labour is setting out a plan to control the housing benefit bill and ensure that we can deliver a sustainable social security system.

We have listened to the independent Work and Pensions select committee and will consult on how to use data from credit reference agencies and the payments industry to make sure the information provided by people claiming housing benefit is correct.

And we will give councils back the fraud investigation powers that this government wants to take away. Just bringing error and fraud levels down to the levels seen under the last Labour Government would save the taxpayer £1 billion over the next five years, and we will set a target to save at least that amount

Labour will also take action to bring down the high cost of rents – which is pushing up the housing benefit bill – by building at least 200,000 more homes a year by 2020, and introducing stable tenancies with predictable rent rises.

At the same time we will tackle low pay which is forcing more and more working people to rely on housing benefit because they can’t afford to pay the rent. A Labour government will raise the minimum wage to at least £8 an hour by 2020 and giving tax rebates to firms who pay their staff a Living Wage so they can pay the rent.

We will deal with the rising costs of temporary accommodation and turn around a system that is trapping thousands of families in, poor quality hostels and B&Bs, while costs continue to rise. And we will reward councils that negotiate lower rents with landlords, by letting them keep these savings so that they can build more affordable homes.

Labour has a better plan to ensure we have a social security system that is fair and affordable, and that works for working people. 

Rachel Reeves is shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Chris Leslie is shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

Getty
Show Hide image

MPs Seema Malhotra and Stephen Kinnock lay out a 6-point plan for Brexit:

Time for Theresa May to lay out her priorities and explain exactly what “Brexit means Brexit” really means.

Angela Merkel has called on Theresa May to “take her time” and “take a moment to identify Britain’s interests” before invoking Article 50. We know that is code for the “clock is ticking” and also that we hardly have any idea what the Prime Minister means by “Brexit means Brexit.”

We have no time to lose to seek to safeguard what is best in from our membership of the European Union. We also need to face some uncomfortable truths.

Yes, as remain campaigners we were incredibly disappointed by the result. However we also recognise the need to move forward with the strongest possible team to negotiate the best deal for Britain and maintain positive relationships with our nearest neighbours and allies. 
 
The first step will be to define what is meant by 'the best possible deal'. This needs to be a settlement that balances the economic imperative of access to the single market and access to skills with the political imperative to respond to the level of public opinion to reduce immigration from the EU. A significant proportion of people who voted Leave on 23 June did so due to concerns about immigration. We must now acknowledge the need to review and reform. 

We know that the single market is founded upon the so-called "four freedoms", namely the free movement of goods, capital, services and people & labour. As things stand, membership of the single market is on an all-or-nothing basis. 

We believe a focus for negotiations should be reforms to how the how the single market works. This should address how the movement of people and labour across the EU can exist alongside options for greater controls on immigration for EU states. 

We believe that there is an appetite for such reforms amongst a number of EU governments, and that it is essential for keeping public confidence in how well the EU is working.

So what should Britain’s priorities be? There are six vital principles that the three Cabinet Brexit Ministers should support now:

1. The UK should remain in the single market, to the greatest possible extent.

This is essential for our future prosperity as a country. A large proportion of the £17 billion of foreign direct investment that comes into the UK every year is linked to our tariff-free access to a market of 500 million consumers. 

Rather than seeking to strike a "package deal" across all four freedoms, we should instead sequence our approach, starting with an EU-wide review of the freedom of movement of people and labour. This review should explore whether the current system provides the right balance between consistency and flexibility for member states. Indeed, for the UK this should also address the issue of better registration of EU nationals in line with other nations and enforcement of existing rules. 

If we can secure a new EU-wide system for the movement of people and labour, we should then seek to retain full access to the free movement of goods, capital and services. This is not just in our interests, but in the interests of the EU. For other nation states to play hardball with Britain after we have grappled first with the complexity of the immigration debate would be to ignore rather than act early to address an issue that could eventually lead to the end of the EU as we know it.

2. In order to retain access to the single market we believe that it will be necessary to make a contribution to the EU budget.

Norway, not an EU member but with a high degree of access to the single market, makes approximately the same per capita contribution to the EU budget as the UK currently does. We must be realistic in our approach to this issue, and we insist that those who campaigned for Leave must now level with the British people. They must accept that if the British government wishes to retain access to the single market then it must make a contribution to the EU budget.

3. The UK should establish an immigration policy which is seen as fair, demonstrates that we remain a country that is open for business, and at the same time preventing unscrupulous firms from undercutting British workers by importing cheap foreign labour.  

We also need urgent confirmation that EU nationals who were settled here before the referendum as a minimum are guaranteed the right to remain, and that the same reassurance is urgently sought for Britons living in mainland Europe. The status of foreign students from the EU at our universities must be also be clarified and a strong message sent that they are welcomed and valued. 

4. The UK should protect its financial services industry, including passporting rights, vital to our national prosperity, while ensuring that the high standards of transparency and accountability agreed at an EU level are adhered to, alongside tough new rules against tax evasion and avoidance. In addition, our relationship with the European Investment Bank should continue. Industry should have the confidence that it is business as usual.

5. The UK should continue to shadow the EU’s employment legislation. People were promised that workers’ rights would be protected in a post-Brexit Britain. We need to make sure that we do not have weaker employment legislation than the rest of Europe.

6. The UK should continue to shadow the EU’s environmental legislation.

As with workers’ rights, we were promised that this too would be protected post-Brexit.  We must make sure we do not have weaker legislation on protecting the environment and combatting climate change. We must not become the weak link in Europe.

Finally, it is vital that the voice of Parliament and is heard, loud and clear. In a letter to the Prime Minister we called for new joint structures – a Special Parliamentary Committee - involving both Houses to be set up by October alongside the establishment of the new Brexit unit. There must be a clear role for opposition parties. It will be equally important to ensure that both Remain and Leave voices are represented and with clearly agreed advisory and scrutiny roles for parliament. Representation should be in the public domain, as with Select Committees.

However, it is also clear there will be a need for confidentiality, particularly when sensitive negotiating positions are being examined by the committee. 

We call for the establishment of a special vehicle – a Conference or National Convention to facilitate broader engagement of Parliament with MEPs, business organisations, the TUC, universities, elected Mayors, local government and devolved administrations. 

The UK’s exit from the EU has dominated the political and economic landscape since 23 June, and it will continue to do so for many years to come. It is essential that we enter into these negotiations with a clear plan. There can be no cutting of corners, and no half-baked proposals masquerading as "good old British pragmatism". 

The stakes are far too high for that.