Source · Select Committees · Work and Pensions Committee
Second Report - Benefit levels in the UK
Work and Pensions Committee
HC 142
Published 21 March 2024
Recommendations
1
Accepted
Para 44
Set out clear timeline for concluding review of research on carers' experiences
Recommendation
The Department should set out when it intends to conclude its review of research on the experience of carers.
Government Response Summary
The government has confirmed its intention to publish the research into the experiences of claiming Carer’s Allowance and states the Department will set out timescales for this publication shortly.
Department for Work and Pensions
View Details →
2
Rejected
Commission further research on benefit levels' impact on claimant health and economic productivity
Recommendation
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
Read more
Government Response Summary
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
View Details →
3
Deferred
Para 69
Outline principles to guide benefit policy design and inform benefit level setting after consultation
Recommendation
Discussion on the adequacy of benefit levels can often be sidetracked by debate on whether it is possible to define essential costs or needs. We agree that it would be a useful first measure for the Government to set out …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government defers its response to be considered in conjunction with its response to recommendation 4.
Department for Work and Pensions
View Details →
4
Rejected
Para 89
Outline clear benchmarks for income-replacement benefits, relating to living costs and work incentives
Recommendation
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 …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government rejects the recommendation, stating it does not intend to establish a benchmark for income-replacement benefits.
Department for Work and Pensions
View Details →
5
Rejected
Para 90
Review current benefit levels against benchmarks and outline plans to achieve objectives
Recommendation
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 …
Read more
Government Response Summary
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
View Details →
10
Rejected
Para 109
Devise further opportunities for Parliament to scrutinise government benefit uprating decisions.
Recommendation
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 …
Read more
Government Response Summary
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
View Details →
12
Accepted
Introduce an ‘Uprating Guarantee’ for annual, consistent benefit increases from 2025–26.
Recommendation
There remains uncertainty for some benefits each year as to whether they will be uprated. We agree with the assessment of the Secretary of State that it is important that “there is an element of fairness to the consistency” of …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government did not commit to a new 'Uprating Guarantee', explaining that existing law mandates price-linked increases for certain benefits and, by convention, discretionary benefits are typically increased annually in line with CPI.
Department for Work and Pensions
View Details →
13
Rejected
Para 123
Require government to justify deviations from ‘Uprating Guarantee’ and assess their impact.
Recommendation
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 …
Read more
Government Response Summary
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
View Details →
14
Rejected
Para 126
Commit to annually uprating capital limit, benefit cap, and Carer's Allowance earnings threshold.
Recommendation
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 …
Read more
Government Response Summary
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
View Details →
15
Rejected
Para 133
Reduce time between inflation measure and benefit uprating implementation, retaining consistency.
Recommendation
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 …
Read more
Government Response Summary
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
View Details →
17
Acknowledged
Para 141
Make a commitment to annually uprate Local Housing Allowance to retain its 30th percentile value.
Recommendation
The evidence is clear that support for housing costs cannot be viewed in isolation from wider support provided through other benefits. When and if claimants experience a shortfall in rent, this can impact other parts of household budgeting and erode …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government made a vague commitment, stating the Secretary of State has committed to reviewing Local Housing Allowance rates annually, taking into account local rents and the broader fiscal context, but not explicitly committing to annual uprating at the 30th percentile.
Department for Work and Pensions
View Details →
Conclusions (8)
6
Conclusion
Accepted
Support provided through Personal Independence Payment (PIP) is not operating as intended. Evidence suggests that insufficient means-tested benefits frequently necessitate PIP recipients to use their extra costs benefits to cover day-to-day living costs. (Paragraph 98) Benefit levels in the U 75
Government Response Summary
The government agrees that Personal Independence Payment (PIP) is not operating as intended and refers to its recently published 'Modernising Support for Independent Living: The Health and Disability Green Paper,' which explores ways to improve support for disabled people.
7
Conclusion
Accepted
Para 99
DWP has not clearly stated the extent to which PIP should contribute towards the extra costs incurred by claimants with a health condition or disability. We heard that for some claimants, the shortfall in support provided was significant enough to worsen physical and mental health outcomes, as well as to …
Government Response Summary
The government clarifies that Personal Independence Payment (PIP) is intended to provide a contribution towards extra costs, giving recipients flexibility, and highlights significant spending on PIP and additional Cost of Living Payments for disabled people.
8
Conclusion
Accepted
Para 100
We welcome the Government’s recommitment in its February 2024 Disability Action Plan to take forward plans to set up an Extra Costs Taskforce to understand the extra costs disabled people face in their daily lives. DWP should be part of the Extra Costs Taskforce. Once operationalised, DWP should use findings …
Government Response Summary
The government is restarting work on the Extra Costs Taskforce, with the Disability Unit working on a project plan and engaging DWP and other departments. However, it states that setting a benchmark for PIP coverage using the Taskforce's findings would be premature until the ongoing consultation on PIP has concluded and its response published.
9
Conclusion
Deferred
There is a persuasive case that there should be a greater number of levels of support provided through PIP—both higher and lower—to reflect more accurately the experiences of claimants. The Department should introduce further levels of support through PIP and the new Health Element of Universal Credit in time for …
Government Response Summary
The government deflected the recommendation, stating that a recently published Green Paper on modernising support for independent living is considering how to effectively support people with long-term health conditions and disabilities.
11
Conclusion
Acknowledged
Para 113
We welcome the Government’s decision to take a consistent decision and uprate all working-age benefits for 2024–25 by the September 2023 CPI inflation rate of 6.7%. We also welcome the Chancellor’s announcement in the 2023 Autumn Statement that Local Housing Allowance rates will be reset at the 30th percentile of …
Government Response Summary
The government acknowledged and noted the committee's welcome for its decision to uprate working-age benefits and reset Local Housing Allowance rates.
16
Conclusion
Rejected
Para 134
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 Summary
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.
18
Conclusion
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 Summary
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.
19
Conclusion
Accepted
We are concerned that there is not sufficient capacity in the system to absorb the number of claimants who will be made subject to conditionality, or increased conditionality, following announcements made in the 2023 Spring Budget and 2023 Autumn Statement, as well as planned changes to the Work Capability Assessment. …
Government Response Summary
The Department committed to publishing quarterly full-time equivalent (FTE) statistics for Work Coaches, Disability Employment Advisers, and Disability Employment Adviser Leaders. However, it rejected publishing average Work Coach caseload sizes, stating it would not provide clarity on support levels.