|
John Rogers
© John Rogers 2007
The Welfare Reform Act 2007 (WRA - for details see: Disability alliance) will see disabled people threatened with significant loss of benefits and being forced into unsuitable work or even medical interventions. It will introduce an ever more intrusive and brutal welfare regime. There will be a threat of losing homes as housing benefit in the private rented sector is replaced by a fixed rate allowance for each city. Single parents are also to be targeted by the Act. Many considered it to be rushed, prejudiced and 'short on detail'. The Government ignored the many submissions to its consultation which were critical of the Bill. Further, much of the legislation will be enacted by what is called secondary legislation: that is behind closed doors and often influenced by unaccountable civil servants.
In 2008, Incapacity Benefit (IB) will be replaced by a two tier Employment and Support Allowance. 'Customers' who fail to participate in work-focused interviews or to engage in work related activity will lose benefits. With current levels of IB averaging £6500 per annum, claimants could lose as much as £10.93 a week rising to £21.86 for a second refusal. Jim Murphy, Minister of State for Employment and Welfare Reform was blunt: 'Work is the only way out of poverty... the benefit system will never pay of itself enough to lift people out of poverty and I don't think it should ('New Labour and the End of Welfare', Jonathan Rutherford).
This nasty and draconian Bill has largely been supported by all the main parties, though, hardly debated in parliament. This raises questions about a political process that ignores the concerns of millions of vulnerable people. Combined with the proposals in the Freud Review Welfare Reform (see 'The "unthinkable" may be about to happen', 20.3.07 Sheffield Welfare Action Network) we are now rapidly moving to a US style ruthless, maximum surveillance, minimal and privatized welfare system where the individual is blamed for their incapacity and poverty.
While one should acknowledge that there was a 'media blackout' on the Bill that left many people in the dark about its implications, only a few supported the campaign against the reforms. Thanks for the support of those who did: John McDonnell MP, Green Party members, some NUS officers, and a fair few individuals. There was a general lack of support from progressive forces of all kinds: unions, charities, churches, MPs, the far left, anti-capitalists (exactly the sort of positive coalition that develops over internationalist issues). This was very, very disappointing. There were no public meetings organized by left groups, unions and faith groups. Indeed, Brendan Barber, president of the TUC had broadly supported the Bill. Protests organized by disability action groups (see www.indymedia.org.uk/) were poorly supported by the above-mentioned, if at all.
One can argue that on this issue disabled people and others have been left to fend for themselves. Disabled people are not victims, but surely they could have expected some solidarity from those who declare they are fighting for a better world. It's clearly not a question of resources. There have been numerous anti-war marches while the Act was being developed. During this time environmental and global poverty campaigns have been quite rightly well resourced and active.
Welfare in the UK is an issue for all decent people: even leaving aside the notion of solidarity with those in difficulty. In his excellent article (for link see above) Jonathan Rutherford exposes the genesis of the welfare reforms and the Freud review, and the now global nature of welfare. Global insurance companies such as Unum Provident have massive influence with Governments. Welfare is now big business …
To carry out this transformation of welfare the DWP will need to establish a new kind of contracting system which will open up public finance to private companies. Using the private sector will bring in the banks who can fund the 'extremely large investments implied here'. Private companies would take the lead in the bidding process for contracts and in building up consortia of groups. This annual multi-billion pound market and the creation of regional monopolies 'would attract major players from around the world' (p62-3, Freud Review). As Freud concludes: 'The fiscal prize is considerable'. Hutton's public reaction was to describe the report as a 'compelling case for future reform'. This is despite that research has shown "whenever Jobcentre Plus staff have been allowed the same flexibilities and funding as private sector companies or charitable organisations they have been able to compete with, if not surpass, the performance of contractors (see document at Union Ideas Network)
Perhaps sadly, there really is a 'hierarchy of oppression' in the UK's political and social culture. People on welfare and benefits, literally millions of people, would appear to be at the bottom of that hierarchy, despite enduring humiliating and often brutal treatment. This is not new; there has been little opposition against the Government's welfare agenda for many many years. The sad thing is now that the WRA is law, disabled claimants will become even more isolated as all they can do is challenge the new reforms on an individual basis. Many have expressed real fears about these changes, with some saying they are 'dreading the things that are coming'.
The limited amount of activists involved in the campaign against this Act will be watching this legislation as it unfolds (and of course The Freud Review), bearing witness to the misery it will undoubtedly cause, lobbying, acting, raising the profile of welfare. Hopefully progressive people of all kinds will do the same and not remain silent this time.
John Rogers is a founder member of Sheffield Welfare Action Network (he writes in a personal capacity).
Subscribe to Soundings a journal of politics and culture
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |