Recommendations & Conclusions
9 items
2
Recommendation
Second Report - Benefit levels in the UK
Rejected
The Government should commission further research to understand the impact of benefit levels on the health and wellbeing of claimants and its relationship with economic productivity. (Paragraph 55) Setting benefit levels: Purpose, principles and policy objectives
Government response. The government rejects the recommendation, stating it has no plans to commission further research into the impact of benefit levels on health, wellbeing, and economic productivity, citing its focus on incentivising work and existing employment support programmes.
Department for Work and Pensions
4
Recommendation
Second Report - Benefit levels in the UK
Rejected
DWP is clear that benefit levels and the design of benefit policy are intended to incentivise work. This is welcome. The Department does not however directly acknowledge the other purpose of benefits: to provide financial support for living costs to jobseekers, people with low earnings, and to those who are …
Government response. The government rejects the recommendation, stating it does not intend to establish a benchmark for income-replacement benefits.
Department for Work and Pensions
5
Recommendation
Second Report - Benefit levels in the UK
Rejected
Having established a benchmark, the Department should review the extent to which current benefit levels are meeting this benchmark. If DWP finds that it is not meeting these objectives, it should set out how it intends to reach them alongside annual uprating, for example, by ratcheting-up benefit levels where fiscal …
Government response. The government rejects the recommendation, stating it does not intend to establish a benchmark for income-replacement benefits, which is a prerequisite for the proposed review of benefit levels.
Department for Work and Pensions
10
Recommendation
Second Report - Benefit levels in the UK
Rejected
We understand that to increase legacy benefits, changes must be made to DWP IT systems several months in advance—with work needing to be completed by the end of November, for increases to be enacted the following April. Parliament however is not presented with the secondary legislation to approve these changes …
Government response. The government effectively rejected the recommendation to provide further scrutiny opportunities ahead of the Uprating Order, explaining that the existing statutory process and implementation timelines prevent earlier parliamentary debate.
Department for Work and Pensions
13
Recommendation
Second Report - Benefit levels in the UK
Rejected
If the Government decides to deviate from the ‘Uprating Guarantee’, it should clearly set out its reasoning to Parliament. The Government should also undertake work to understand what impact the decision to not follow consistent practice would have on its benchmark of objectives for benefit levels.
Government response. The government rejected the recommendation, stating it has no plans to change the existing uprating process under the Social Security Administration Act 1992, thereby not committing to a new 'Uprating Guarantee' or its associated reporting requirements.
Department for Work and Pensions
14
Recommendation
Second Report - Benefit levels in the UK
Rejected
Policies which reduce the level of support claimants can receive, such as the capital limit rule in means-tested benefits, the benefit cap, and the earnings threshold in Carer’s Allowance, risk reducing benefit levels if they are not regularly uprated in line with other prices. To ensure that policies designed to …
Government response. The government effectively rejected the recommendation to annually uprate the capital limit, benefit cap, and Carer’s Allowance earnings threshold, outlining its existing review cycles and discretionary practices for each.
Department for Work and Pensions
15
Recommendation
Second Report - Benefit levels in the UK
Rejected
We recognise the Department cannot shorten the reference period for benefit uprating due to the DWP IT systems used to uprate legacy benefits. In the longer term, and following the completion of migration to Universal Credit, the Government should aim to reduce the length of time between the measure of …
Government response. The government rejected the recommendation, stating it has no plans to change the length of time between inflation measurement and uprating implementation in the short to medium term due to various interdependencies, despite IT modernisation for State Pensions.
Department for Work and Pensions
16
Conclusion
Second Report - Benefit levels in the UK
Rejected
It is welcome that the Government is extending the Household Support Fund (HSF) for a further six months until September 2024. Alongside other benefits, the HSF has provided a vital layer of additional support to households during the cost of living crisis. The Household Support Fund should be made a …
Government response. The government rejected making the Household Support Fund permanent, stating it was introduced for high inflation, which is now falling, and confirmed a six-month extension until September 2024 as targeted temporary support.
Department for Work and Pensions
18
Conclusion
Second Report - Benefit levels in the UK
Rejected
The Government of the day has a political mandate to make decisions about benefit adequacy, but its decision-making might be assisted by independent advice. There is scope for DWP to commission independent research, either via an independent body, such as the Social Security Advisory Committee, or ad-hoc, to supplement its …
Government response. The government rejected the recommendation, stating the Department currently has no plans to commission independent research into the effectiveness of benefit levels, as it already tracks poverty measures and conducts internal evaluations.
Department for Work and Pensions