Hindsight is wonderful - as these confirmed benefit reform predictions prove

Hindsight is wonderful – as these confirmed benefit reform predictions prove

It’s true that hindsight is wonderful – as these confirmed benefit reform predictions prove.

In 2013 I published a Vox Political article entitled “Welfare benefits: ‘The Lords regret…” about benefit-related statutory instruments being introduced to the House of Lords.

There was nothing to be done to stop them, but peers had proposed adding to the motions their regret that these pieces of law would not do what the government of the day was saying.

🧡 Support Vox Political
If you value independent political journalism that holds power to account — without corporate or party influence — please consider supporting this work. Even £1 helps keep it going.
👉 Support here via Ko-fi: https://ko-fi.com/voxpolitical

Buy Cruel Britannia in print here. Buy the Cruel Britannia ebook here. Or just click on the image!

So for the Universal Credit Regulations 2013 – setting out entitlement to, and calculation of, an award of Universal Credit, the then-new single payment for people who are out of work or working on a low income, Baroness Sherlock moved an addition to the motion: “this House regrets that the Regulations will not achieve their aim of making work pay for all and in fact will provide lower work incentives for 2.1 million households; will have the effect of penalising savers; will result in a cut in childcare support for working families; will result in cuts to the income of some of the poorest and most vulnerable in the country and will have a disproportionate impact on women and lone parent families; do not meet the needs of disabled people; do not provide adequate treatment of small businesses and the self-employed; and risk pushing many families into arrears and homelessness.”

In other words, they would do the exact opposite of whatever the Cond-Dem (Conservative and Liberal Democrat coaltion) government of the day was saying.

Was this true? Let’s see:

Work Incentives & Income Cuts: The design of Universal Credit, including the taper rate and work allowances, has been criticised for not adequately incentivising work, especially for second earners and those with fluctuating incomes.
Childcare Support: While Universal Credit aimed to simplify benefits, many families found the system complicated, with upfront childcare costs posing barriers to employment.
Penalising Savers: The capital rules within Universal Credit have been noted to discourage savings, as households with savings over certain thresholds receive reduced support.
Housing Stability: The rollout of Universal Credit has been associated with increased rent arrears and evictions, as delays in payments and budgeting challenges affected tenants’ ability to pay rent on time.

A similar amendment was proposed to the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013, expressing concern about the impact of replacing Disability Living Allowance with the Personal Independence Payment (PIP), under the rules for entitlement and calculation they laid down.

Lord McKenzie of Luton moved: “this House is concerned about the impact of the replacement of Disability Living Allowance with Personal Independence Payment; is concerned about the lack of a full impact assessment on carers; regrets the lack of a cumulative impact assessment of all the changes hitting disabled people; regrets the fact that vital safeguards have not been introduced to ensure that additional pressure is not put on carers, that people do not lose their freedom to work and that they are not driven to already-stretched NHS or social care services; believes that while Disability Living Allowance needed reform it should have been started with the needs of disabled people and not with a budget cut; notes that some 600,000 fewer people will be in receipt of Personal Independence Payment by May 2018 compared to those who would have been entitled under Disability Living Allowance; and further notes that some 25,000 disabled people could be forced to give up their jobs because they can no longer afford the extra costs of getting to work.”

Look at the similarities between that and the current plan to reduce entitlement to PIP.

Truer words were never spoken than when George Santayana told us, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Would you like to know what happened? Here:

Delays and Backlogs: The implementation of PIP was marred by significant delays, with many claimants waiting months for assessments and decisions. See this report from the Commons’ Public Accounts Committee
Assessment Issues: The assessment process faced criticism for inaccuracies and a high rate of successful appeals, indicating systemic issues in evaluating claimants’ needs. The report from the Commons’ Public Accounts Committee also refers to this
Reduced Support: Many individuals who previously received DLA found themselves ineligible for PIP, leading to a loss of financial support and associated benefits, such as mobility vehicles. See this report by The Guardian

Of course the government voted down these amendments. In my article at the time, I was it would be up to us – those who were directly affected by these changes – to monitor what happened and reveal the truth of these statements.

So now you know.

There were other statutory instruments: The Jobseeker’s Allowance Regulations 2013 and Employment and Support Allowance Regulations 2013 limited both benefits so they would only be payable based on a person’s National Insurance contribution record; those who did not qualify on that basis would instead claim Universal Credit.

The Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2013 addressed the administration of all these benefits, revising the appeals process so that claimants must first apply for a disputed decision to be reconsidered by a decision maker (i.e. an internal review) before they could make an appeal to an external tribunal. This was the much-lamented rule that, it was claimed, would dump appellants onto Jobseekers’ Allowance – even though they could not possibly find work – until their reassessment had taken place.

Now we know that the introduction of mandatory reconsideration before allowing appeals added an extra layer of bureaucracy, often delaying justice for claimants.

Access to Appeals: Claimants were required to undergo an internal review before appealing to an independent tribunal, which extended waiting times and, in some cases, left individuals without income during the process. See this Guardian article
Legal Challenges: Courts later ruled that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) acted unlawfully in denying appeals to those who missed deadlines, highlighting flaws in the system. See this Guardian article.

The Social Security (Loss of Benefit) (Amendment) Regulations 2013 support changes introduced by the Welfare Reform Act 2012, including sanctions of up to three years’ loss of benefit that may be imposed following conviction for a benefit fraud offence.

Impact on Vulnerable Individuals: Critics argued that such harsh penalties could disproportionately affect vulnerable individuals, potentially leading to increased hardship and homelessness.

I stated at the time that “it is clear that this is a toxic mixture of changes, designed to bring as much misery as possible down on an already-downtrodden sector of society”.

Now the evidence shows that the predictions made by those peers – and myself – have largely come to pass.

🧡 Support Vox Political
If you value independent political journalism that holds power to account — without corporate or party influence — please consider supporting this work. Even £1 helps keep it going.
👉 Support here via Ko-fi: https://ko-fi.com/voxpolitical

The implementation of Universal Credit and PIP, changes to the appeals process, and stricter sanctions have all contributed to increased hardship for many, particularly among disabled individuals and low-income families.

And now Labour is about to start the cycle of misery all over again – secure in the knowledge that no government minister will be harmed by this.

But they are making the rest of us hope that harm will come to them anyway.

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (bottom right of the home page). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

5) Follow Vox Political writer Mike Sivier on BlueSky

6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical

7) Feel free to comment!

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.
Cruel Britannia is available
in either print or eBook format here: