Yesterday, January 25th, the Guardian reports that the government has suffered its sixth defeat on the welfare reform bill, after the House of Lords rejected the proposal to charge individuals who use the Child Support Agency (CSA) to seek child maintenance payments. This defeat comes in the wake of the January 23rd rejection by the Lords to include child tax credit in the welfare cap. But, the transfer of control of the social fund from government to local control was approved at that time. However, with these two defeats minsters will have to rethink some of the proposals within the bill as the Department of Works and Pensions hopes to overturn all six defeats next week in the House of Commons.
The Welfare Reform Bill is the brainchild of the Coalition government and is suppose to “make work pay” through a number of proposed changes to current welfare provisions. The major change is the “Universal Credit“, still progressing through Parliament, that replaces a number of existing test-means benefits and tax credits for those of working age. This will start in 2013.
According to the UK Parliament website other key areas of the bill are:
- an introduction of a Personal Independence Payments to replace the current Disability Living Allowance
- restrictions on Housing Benefit entitlement for social housing tenants whose accommodation is larger than they need
- up-rates Local Housing Allowance rates by the Consumer Price Index
- amendments to the forthcoming statutory child maintenance scheme
- limits on the payment of contributory Employment and Support Allowance to a 12-month period
- caps on the total amount of benefit that can be claimed
The basic ideology behind this massive reform in the UK welfare system is the belief by some in government, like Work and Pension Secretary Ian Duncan Smith, that those on benefits find it financially more rewarding to stay on state aid rather then find employment. With this reform the Coalition government hopes to tackle poverty, welfare dependency and worklessness, while promoting a fairer and easier understanding benefits system.
Theoretically these reforms may appear advantageous, yet the reality of how these new measures will impact disadvantaged populations remains to be seen. The defeat of the last two propositions of welfare reform by the House of Lords is indicative of needed revisions to the bill before it can fully be accepted as a viable piece of legislation. Yet, the transfer of control of the social fund for those in desperate need of financial help to local council control is a worrying action that may actually lead to more inequality, and seriously hurt those in need of financial assistance.
A number of questions remain to be answered. Will the benefits of possibly saving money really outweigh the human costs to those who will be left worse off with these changes? Will this welfare reform really save the UK money? How will redistributing funds from sources like the social action fund to local councils ensure fairness or curb inequality? Who is going to regulate? Let us just hope it is not as columnist Ruth Lister asserts, the Government washing their hands of its responsibility to support and maintain the welfare state.
