Deprecated: Class Jetpack_Geo_Location is deprecated since version 14.3 with no alternative available. in /var/www/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6114
The Benefits Trap – Croydon Constitutionalists

The Benefits Trap

At our My tuppenceworth evening on the 19th February Mike Swadling spoke about the Benefits Trap.

“4.2 million working age people in Great Britain are receiving health related benefits which is 10.2% of the population”

I want to talk about the benefits trap and the problem particularly with sickness benefit in this country. Now, you might know that Fraser Nelson was speaking about this on Trigonometry this week. I think it came out Sunday. You will notice the difference if you have watched that between mine and his version. His is eloquent, whereas I’m me.  I did honesty write this before that came out, and frankly I just don’t have that quick of a turnaround to have written it after.

The unemployment rate in the UK is 4.4%. Currently, the employment rate for people age 16 to 64 is 74.8%, so there’s a bit of a delta there.  4.2 million working age people in Great Britain are receiving health related benefits which is 10.2% of the population.

“if families support themselves, it’s up to them what they do. But when we support them, we as taxpayers have a vested interest I think, in their choices”

There are people that are under 64 that are retired. There are people looking after children or other family members. And frankly, if families support themselves, it’s up to them what they do. But when we support them, we as taxpayers have a vested interest I think, in their choices.

As a reminder, in the last 30 years, we’ve had just three years not in budget deficit for the government. The last one of them was 24 years ago. Britain now spends more on sickness than on defence with £65 billion on health-related payments compared to just £54 billion for the military.

1.57 million unemployed people in the UK compares to 2.83 million people age 16 to 64 who are economically inactive due to long term sickness.  Unemployment, thankfully, is not (yet?) necessarily the major problem. It’s sickness benefit that is the big part of our benefit system. The cost of personal independence payments, which is the main disability benefit, is predicted to rise by 60% up to £35 billion in the next four years.

They reckon getting 400,000 people back to work would save £10 billion. If the Treasury cuts spending on disability benefits and universal credit to just pre-pandemic levels, and this is not some weird utopian ideal, just cut it to where we were five years ago, it would take 3p off the basic rate of income tax, 4p off higher rate tax and scrap inheritance tax. But that’s the financial side.

I think the major problem is the moral problem. A couple of quotes for you.

Lord George Bridges the Chair of The Lords Economic Affairs Committee said the system encouraged welfare over work, calling it “financially unsustainable” and a “waste of human potential.”

Quote Tony Blair – “You’ve got to be careful of translating those [challenges] into a mental health condition and losing your own agency, in a way, to govern your own life… Life has its ups and downs, and everybody experiences those. And you’ve got to be careful of encouraging people to think they’ve got some sort of condition other than simply confronting the challenges of life. We need a proper public conversation about this because you really cannot afford to be spending the amount of money we’re spending on mental health.”

I’m sure we’ve all seen family members or friends, who lose agency and drive though periods of unemployment.

“open up offices for the people to come into two or three days a week from nine to five. No longer would you be able to stay at home seven days a week as an option and get paid”

So, what’s my idea? Why am I speaking to you? What I would like to do is make sure that no one is allowed to stay at home seven days a week on benefits. Now, let’s qualify that a bit. No one who’s retired or in regular medical care or receiving a carer’s allowance would be expected to attend.

If you’re of working age, you’re not receiving treatment or caring for someone, you will need to come into an office, the unemployment office. I would like to open up offices for the people to come into two or three days a week from nine to five. No longer would you be able to stay at home seven days a week as an option and get paid.

Why am I saying this? Frankly, you are, what you do.

  • Staying at home makes you stay at home.
  • A lack of motivation keeps you unmotivated.
  • A lack of mixing with people keeps you bad at mixing with people.

Being made to do something you don’t want to do makes you much more likely to do other, better things you do want to do.

Now, I want to, for a moment, park what people do whilst they’re in the unemployment office. Mainly because I don’t think that matters much. It bogs us down in the wrong discussion. For the purpose of this, let’s just assume they’re coming to watch TV.

“No longer would they be simply staying at home, staying in a routine, they’re having to do something different, and it gives them the motivation to do something better”

Why do I want to do this? Now, I suspect, and it’s only suspicion, and I admit I can’t back up these numbers, but as soon as you make people physically, regularly, and for extended periods of time turn up, you will find:

  • 5% of the people on benefits simply don’t exist and drop off
  • 10% have full-time jobs, so drop off
  • Another 10% have another means of support or choose simply no longer to collect benefits.

I would call a 25% reduction a good start. Now, even if I overestimated that by 100%, I don’t think that was wild numbers I used there, 12.5% would still be a darn good start. And then you get to the more important part, the moral part. Starting to energise those people who have been out of work for extended periods. No longer would they be simply staying at home, staying in a routine, they’re having to do something different, and it gives them the motivation to do something better.

Every government seems to rename benefits and tinker around the edges of how to implement them. Experts come and go and implement different ideas to varying success. The benefit, I think, of this plan is its simplicity. You simply have to turn up.

But who turns up? The top 10 types of health conditions for people aged 16 to 64 who are economically inactive and in long-term sickness are depression, bad nerves and anxiety, impacting 1.3 million. Problems with legs or feet and problems with back or neck, affecting a million people. Mental illness impacts 900,000. Between 600,000 and 800,000 people have problems with arms and legs, heart, blood or circulation. And then other health conditions, chest or breathing problems, digestive problems, and diabetes impact about 360,000. And of course, some people have more than one of these.

The point is, whilst those might be very serious conditions, these are not people with stage 4 cancer. They’re not undergoing major surgery. No one would expect those people to be in the office, but literally millions who are currently receiving sickness benefits could be.

Assuming you end up targeting 3 million of the 4.1 million people on health benefits, at two days a week in the office, that would be equivalent to 2,000 people needing to be housed for each of the 600 job centres in the UK. That is a lot, and I won’t pretend that’s easy.

There are many empty buildings that could easily house 1,000 people in Croydon, and across the country. Many office buildings are half empty. This is not an insurmountable challenge and could be built up to. Schools are empty a third of the year. Towns are full of empty halls, churches and many other places that could be brought into use.

What will it cost? Frankly, a fraction of the savings you would make by getting Britain back to work.

“You can give them YouTube how-to videos. You can give them distance learning courses. You can invite charities in to help people…. You could do a multitude of things, but you’ve got to get them to turn up first”

What would people do? Now, I did park that, and I parked it because I think it’s much less important than forcing the change on people. But frankly, by default, people could watch the History Channel. You could stick on the Open University. You could make books available. You can give them YouTube how-to videos. You can give them distance learning courses. You can invite charities in to help people. You can organise litter picking giving people the day off after two hours of effort, et cetera, et cetera. You could do a multitude of things, but you’ve got to get them to turn up first.

What matters is you get people out, you increase their motivation, and you increase their ability to live life once again.

Main image generated using Grok.