‘Security for those who cannot’: Labour’s neglected welfare principle
The Government’s welfare reforms have been based on the principle of ‘work for those who can, security for those who cannot’. While benefits policy and delivery have focused heavily on the first half of this equation, the security side has been neglected. Saul Becker argues that New Labour will need to address what this means in practice and pay far more attention to providing real security for those who cannot work if more people are to be lifted out of poverty.

Welfare, work and independence
‘Security’
The evidence on ‘security’
‘The work you want, the help you need’
Cash versus care: help available from personal social services
Overlaps between social security and social services
Assessment and conclusions

Welfare, work and independence
New Labour has committed itself to modernising the welfare state and to attacking the so-called problem of ‘benefit dependency’. During its first and second terms, Labour has gradually and determinedly redefined the relationship between benefits (‘welfare’) and work, not least through its New Deals and ‘welfare to work’ programmes, but also by ‘making work pay’ through the introduction of an array of tax credits and tax changes, adjustments in national insurance, and the introduction of a national minimum wage.

The principles for this reform agenda were set out in Labour’s Green Paper, New Ambitions for Our Country.[footnote 1] This established the duties of government and individuals – what Labour defines as a ‘new welfare contract’. Essentially, the duty of government is to make work pay and provide people with the assistance they need to find jobs; the duty of individuals is to seek training or work and to take up the opportunity to be independent where they are able to do so. Labour regards the best route out of ‘dependency’, poverty and social exclusion as being through paid employment, and where necessary this will be supported by in-work benefits, tax credits and other incentives or inducements to make work pay and to make people take up the work that is available to them.

But what of those people who cannot work, either because of old age, illness, disability, mental disorder, frailty, caring/family responsibilities or for other reasons? There is a well-established association between many of these circumstances and worklessness – which is itself strongly associated with low income and hardship. Many people in these groups face particular barriers to accessing the labour market and keeping paid employment.

How should these individuals and groups be treated by the state? Traditionally, the British social security system has not been overly generous in the amount of money it provides through benefit payments, not least because of a belief, inherited from Poor Law days, that generous benefits will undermine paid work and low-paid work in particular. Today, the level of income support paid to unemployed adults is still just 20 per cent of average earnings – and this is down from 30 per cent in 1983.[footnote 2] Labour’s mantra, ‘work for those who can, security for those who cannot’ suggests, however, a rejection of this principle of ‘less eligibility’. The implication is that those who cannot work should be provided with ‘security’.

‘Security’
Security is very much about the condition of being secure, having freedom from worry and uncertainty, and of being protected from danger, anxiety or apprehension. It is associated with a feeling of confidence, certainty and safety (Oxford English Dictionary, 1973). Labour confirms that ‘those people for whom work is not an option are entitled to an income which allows for a decent life'. Labour identifies a responsibility of government to ‘support those unable to work so that they can lead a life of dignity and security'.[footnote 3] It also confirms that 'those people for whom work is not an option are entitled to an income which allows for a decent life'.[footnote 4 ] Here we have insights into what ‘security’ might comprise, especially how it can be applied in practice. Security is closely linked with ‘a decent life’ and with ‘a life of dignity’. When linked together in policy discourse, security and dignity are concerned with valuing people unconditionally for what they are, and providing them with a standard of living which gives them protection, safety and certainty in their living arrangements and quality of life. We need to note in these phrases not just what is said but also what is not. Labour seems to be saying that there is some absolute standard that could be defined as ‘a decent life’, ‘a life of dignity and security’ and ‘a fulfilling life with dignity’, and that this outcome should be available unconditionally to all those who cannot work.

Labour confirms that ‘those people for whom work is not an option are entitled to an income which allows for a decent life'

In practice, however, Labour has never revealed or articulated what that standard of security and dignity might be. It has no specific performance indicators or measures to operationalise ‘security’ for those who cannot work. And, because there are no specific indicators or targets, there is no official research being conducted within the Department for Work and Pensions’ (DWP) to assess whether or not this ‘security’ has been achieved.

Despite the lack of an official ‘security’ standard, it is still possible to assess whether or not those who cannot work are living a life of dignity and security. To do this we need to turn to ‘proxy’ indicators of ‘security’, or more accurately, indicators of a lack of security and dignity.

The evidence on ‘security’
There is an abundance of evidence on the circumstances, lifestyles and well-being afforded to people who cannot work and who rely on social security benefits for some or most of their income. Various sources are available, including pressure groups, academics, poor people and the Government itself.

In reviewing the scientific data published during the last five years, including work on Budget standards, Households Below Average Income, the national Poverty and Social Exclusion Survey, as well as evidence from poor people themselves, there is no doubt that serious questions must be asked about the adequacy of benefit levels, particularly income support, to meet even a low cost but acceptable standard of living. While some progress is being made in tackling broad features of social exclusion in Britain, the situation with regard to income poverty for individuals and families is much less clear, with large sections of society living on very low incomes (and all that is associated with this). The number of people living in households with less than 60 per cent of the median income (one of the preferred thresholds of income poverty used by both the European Union and UK government) was 12.9 million people (23 per centof the population) in 2000/01.[footnote 5]

Living standards are particularly low for many non-working families, who are are four times more likely to experience severe hardship than those who are working.[footnote 6] Substantial numbers of non-working lone parents and couples report difficulties affording even the most basic food and clothing items. Few make use of basic financial services, such as bank accounts, and more than half have accumulated debts. Forty per cent of non-working families are in severe hardship and overall, more than eight in ten children in all non-working households are living in hardship. Greater hardship has been independently associated with ill-health and disability, caring responsibilities and having larger families.[footnote 7]

The evidence from official and academic sources, and from hearing the voices of poor people themselves [footnote 8] shows that relatively moderate increases in disposable income can lift people out of hardship and move them closer to a position of financial and personal security, dignity and independence. Moving people into work offers a key route out of hardship, and this is enhanced if people also then receive in-work benefits or tax credits which lift their disposable income even higher. The case for increasing disposable income applies as much to those who cannot work as it does to those in work receiving in-work benefits or tax credits.

In considering ‘security for those who cannot’ we must not ignore the role of the discretionary social fund in providing a ‘safety net’ to millions on low incomes with additional expenses which are difficult to meet from regular income. There is an abundance of literature on the discretionary social fund which, since its introduction in 1988, has been the cause of considerable controversy, not least because of its discretionary, cash-limited and loan-based nature, but also because of the overwhelming evidence that it actually contributes to poverty and hardship for many people on low income, rather than alleviating it. Applicants to the fund experience uncertainty (as to whether or not an application will be successful), their waiting for a decision and the terms of any repayments add to their anxiety and apprehension, and many who do get a payment (a loan) have their disposable income reduced below levels which are already insufficient to provide a low cost but acceptable standard of living. These outcomes are the very antipathy of ‘security’. Despite its own calls (when in opposition) for the discretionary scheme to be abolished, Labour seems less inclined to do this now that it is in government.

‘The work you want, the help you need’
While ‘work for those who can, security for those who cannot’ remains the defining principle for welfare reform, along with the introduction of Jobcentre Plus came a new phrase to guide delivery: ‘the work you want, the help you need’. In future, ‘security for those who cannot’ will be supplemented by ‘the help you need’. Jobcentre Plus personal advisers will be the first port of call, and could, for example, direct those unable to work to other sources of help, assistance and support, such as social services departments and health professionals. Jobcentre Plus personal advisers, and those working for the new Pensions Service, will have a clear ‘help-orientated’ focus to their work. This is an important development, in that it recognises that many people who cannot work have multiple needs, and while an adequate income is central to this, so too might be the need for health and social care support, particularly for those who have illness, disability or caring responsibilities.

Cash versus care: help available from personal social services
For many vulnerable people who cannot work, their needs are as much for services and support as they are for cash. Labour has recognised that ‘services, especially education, health and housing, are at least as important as cash benefits in promoting independence and security; tackling poverty and widening opportunity’.[footnote 9]

For many vulnerable people who cannot work, their needs are as much for services and support as they are for cash

Local authority social services departments exist to keep vulnerable adults, children and families safe, and to promote their independence through the provision, primarily, of care-related services. At any one time up to 1.5 million people rely on help from statutory social services. Social services play an imporant role in countering the disadvantage and discrimination that many people face. Their main users are also the most costly (in expenditure terms) clients of social security (elderly people, sick/disabled people and families) and many of these come to the attention of social services because of poverty-related circumstances or difficulties in living or maintaining their independence.[footnote 10] Today, there are significant overlaps in functions between cash and care, with social services taking on important income maintenance roles, and social security becoming increasingly concerned with ‘the whole person’, not just benefits.

However, unlike social security, social services have a far more developed programme of research, inspection and evaluation focusing on the quality and adequacy of their services. There is no parallel focus within the DWP on the adequacy of cash payments to provide security for those who cannot work.

Assessment and conclusions
While publicly proclaiming ‘work for those who can, security for those who cannot’, there is little evidence that Labour in its first term actually considered what ‘security’ might mean in practice. Labour has no ‘standard’ or measure from which to judge whether the current benefit system actually provides security to those who cannot work, nor has it commissioned research explicitly designed to find out. One must hope that this will become more of a priority in Labour’s second term. The evidence available, from many different sources, is unrefutable. To provide ‘a decent life’ and ‘a life of dignity and security’ for those who cannot work, people will need higher disposable income; this will help lift many out of the poverty and hardship that millions experience while living on benefit. For a government concerned to base policy on ‘what works’, there is little doubt that increasing disposable incomes will work in promoting security and independence.

However, Labour seems more concerned that providing ‘adequate’ benefit levels and a replacement to the social fund ‘safety net’, may militate against its other principal aim of using the benefit system to promote personal and economic independence through paid work. Labour has a deep-rooted belief that paying ‘adequate’ (never mind ‘generous’) levels of benefits to those who cannot work, and a rights-based and grants-dominated safety net, will reinforce ‘dependency’ and act as a magnet to attract people into making claims, undermining Labour’s other guiding principle, ‘work for those who can’. This is why Labour has been so reluctant to engage publicly in a discussion about higher benefit levels and the redistributive function of social security, or the reform of the social fund. However, under cover of tax and benefit complexity, and tough talk, Labour has made some improvements to benefit levels which have benefited some groups, particularly children. The 2002 Budget finally made visible Labour’s intention to use increased taxation to improve some (universal) public services, notably the NHS, but not those services taken up disproportionately by the most disadvantaged, including social security and social care.

To some extent, Labour’s difficulties of engaging with what ‘real’ security might involve for those who cannot work are tied up with its confusion between those who ‘cannot’ work (because of illness, disability, caring responsibilities and so on), and its belief that everyone, in theory, can and should work. There is a sense that Labour equates those who cannot work with another group of workless people – those who won’t work. To pay out benefits which provide real security and dignity to a group of people who have ‘refused’ to engage in their side of the new welfare contract would be anathema to Labour. This group’s reluctance or refusal to work – their failure to engage in reciprocity – would in principle cancel out the Government’s duty to support them. It is the ‘won’t work’ group that pose the most challenges for Labour and which continues to confuse Labour’s thinking about ‘security’.

Labour has no alternative but to grasp the nettle of minimum income standards

If Labour truly wants those who cannot work to have an income which allows for ‘a decent life’ and ‘a life of dignity and security’ then it has no alternative but to grasp the nettle of minimum income standards and define a minimum income standard at a level considered ‘sufficient to cover essential needs with regard to respect for human dignity’.[footnote 11]

Labour will also have to engage in a number of other hard debates. It will need to reconsider the relationship between social insurance, private insurance and means-tested benefits and how each of these relate to issues of short and long-term financial ‘security’; it will need to recognise that paid employment is not a viable option for everybody; and it will need to engage in a meaningful debate as to the nature and value of ‘work’. Labour’s equating of work as being synonymous with paid employment, and its implicit denigration of other forms of unpaid work in the home and community (such as family care-giving, bringing up children, volunteering, and so on), serve to undervalue those people engaged in unpaid work and to downgrade their contribution to both society and the economy.

It is also important that Labour remembers that ‘security’ for those who cannot work is not just a function of social security alone (and adequate levels of benefits in particular), but that security and dignity are best guaranteed through a combination of money and services. Adequate levels of disposable income and reliable, good quality care and support services, are the necessary foundations for real security for ‘those who cannot work’, to promote their well-being, independence, dignity and freedom from poverty and exclusion. In the future, Labour will need to think more about how cash and care policy can become more ‘joined-up’, and how money and services can be delivered in a seamless manner, to promote security for those both in and out of work.

Saul Becker is Professor of Social Policy and Social Care at Loughborough University

This article is an edited version of a chapter which will appear in J Millar (ed) Understanding Social Security: issues for policy and practice, The Policy Press, 2003

Footnotes
1. Department of Social Security, New Ambitions for Our Country: a new contract for welfare, The Stationery Office, 1998 [back to text]
2. M Rahman, G Palmer and P Kenway, Monitoring Poverty and Social Exclusion 2001, York Publishing Services, 2001 [back to text]
3. See note 1 (my emphasis) [back to text]
4. See note 1 (my emphasis) [back to text]
5. Department of Work and Pensions, Households Below Average Income 1994/95 to 2000/01, Corporate Document Services, 2002 [back to text]
6. S Vegeris and S McKay, Low and Moderate Income Families in Britain: changes in living standards, DWP Research Report 164, Coporate Document Services, 2002 [back to text]
7. A Marsh, S McKay, A Smith and A Stephenson, Low-Income Families in Britain: work, welfare and social security in 1999, DSS Research Report 138, Coporate Document Services, 2001 [back to text]
8. P Beresford, D Green, R Lister and K Woodward, Poverty First Hand: poor people speak for themselves, CPAG 1999 [back to text]
9. See note 1 [back to text]
10. S Becker, Responding to Poverty: the politics of cash and care, Longman, 1997 [back to text]
11. J Veit-Wilson, Setting Adequacy Standards: how governments define minimum incomes, The Policy Press, 1998 [back to text]

Poverty 112, Summer 2002