I gave a talk last night at the Institute of Chartered Surveyors in which I was 'heckled' by Peter Lilley, the former Social Security Secretary, Professor Pat Thane and Paul Holmes, the Liberal Democrat chairman.
Paul Holmes repeated the well-worn assertion that the Tories shunted people into Invalidity Benefit during the 1980s in order to keep down the official unemployment figures. I said that, in fact, the cause of the huge rise in the numbers claimeing invalidity benefit was the creation of a special premium for the benefit compared to unemployment benefit. This had been created first by the Heath government and then greatly increased by the Wilson government in the 1970s. I had done the numbers (and they are in the book).
I then said I did not believe that there was any cunning plan by the Tories to put people onto Invalidity Benefit but that perhaps Peter Lilley, having been a long-serving Social Security Secretary, would put me right.
Peter Lilley stood up and said that if there had been any intention to do so, it would have been communicated to the civil servants in writing. That is how government departments work. He had seen no evidence of any such instruction or suggestion ever having been made. (Indeed, I will add that if there ever had been such an instruction, it would very probably have been leaked.)
It was possible, however, said Peter Lilley, that individual benefit officers would guide claimants to invalidity benefit since it paid better (and has other advantages, incidentally).
Later he told me that a doctor in the audience had come up to him afterwards and told him that doctors at that time would also guide claimants towards invalidity benefit as the benefit of choice.
This exchange confirms me in my view that there was no cunning plan but the rise in the numbers on Invalidity Benefit was a result of a premium created in the 1970s combined with higher unemployment. Invalidity Benefit became the 'benefit of choice'.
Posted by James Bartholomew • Indexed in Welfare benefits
Comments (4)
TrackBack (20)
Comments
An admirable effort last night, James. I felt that your critics' points were fairly limited to historical and statistical nitpicking. The important arguments - that the welfare state diminishes self-reliance, self-respect and the amount of meaningful personal contact that claimants have with others - and that it is incapable of adaptability to local circumstances - went pretty much unchallenged.
We have heard a lot about how sixty years of unprecedented economic growth have caused increased depression and social breakdown; but this ignores the concurrent sixty years of unprecedented state control over health, education and social security.
I wouldn't worry about your lack of solutions ... we need to get the diagnosis right before the subscription. Thanks.
Posted by: A woman in the audience at June 14, 2006 07:43 PM
While agreeing with the general point, I would suggest that Peter Lilley isn't actually going to admit to this, and also that it is possible for a policy to have a clear result whilst having a completely different rationale.
New Labour's channeling of money to its client groups and constitutencies isn't promoted as "give money to those that support us", but it is done in full knowledge of what will happen.
This statement "Peter Lilley stood up and said that if there had been any intention to do so, it would have been communicated to the civil servants in writing." is clearly nonsense.
Posted by: Paul at June 16, 2006 08:11 AM
The rise in incapacity benefit claims is definitional rather than real. In 1979 there were 790,000 claimants of Invalidity Benefit, the National Insurance based forerunner to Incapacity Benefit. In 1997 the number of people on incapacity benefit was well over 2.7 million.
Notice the use of capital letters in the above paragraph. You see incapacity benefit is actually three benefits: NI based Incapacity Benefit which has about 1.3 million recipients today despite a 220% increase in the number of people paying the necessary NI contributions, Severe Disablement Allowance which until fairly recently had about 300,000 claimants and the balance are non contribution based Income Support "by reason of incapacity" claimants.
When the government use these figures to claim a massive rise in the claimant pool since 1979 they are saying "incapacity benefit" rather than "Incapacity Benefit". Its an easy way to lie. You see in 1979 if you couldn't get Invalidity Benefit (when sick or disabled) you most often would end up on "Supplementary Benefit" the forerunner to Income Support. The goverment conveniently miss out this huge group to justify a pogrom against sick and disabled people which was originally aimed at ending NI based Incapacity Benefit rather than the generally higher paying Income Support. Note they did not intend to reduce the NI contributions that pay for Incapacity Benefit.
Incapacity Benefit can be seen as a benefit of self-reliance as you can only get it with an up to date NI contributions record. Ending Incapacity Benefit in favour of Income Support or means tested benefits would deeply entrench the Nanny State and deter people from saving for sickness in later life as the government would in effect pirate your savings under means tested IS. The same argument applies to pensions of course.
In any discussion on incapacity benefits it is very important to get your facts right. Have you seen the following garbage before:
"In the past, people going on to incapacity were just left there, written off, more likely to reach retirement age or to die than ever work again and, at its height, costing a staggering £15 billion a year."
Said by Peter Hain recently. Its a complete lie. 70% of ib claimants leave it within 2 years and a further 14% before death or retirement. Only 16% stay on it until they die or retire. (The Hain statement used to commence: "After two years on the benefit...."). Bearing in mind that about half of all claims are over 50 and that sick and old people are very much more likely to die or retire these figures seem to me to be very encouraging!
Under ESA the government are paying private companies money to get 1 million off incapacity benefit. They will achieve this in less than eighteen months as 700,000 leave incapacity benefit every year! Money for old rope I think.
Posted by: J Midgley at November 5, 2007 12:26 PM
Warning: file(http://63.247.138.2/~bartholo/randomquotes.dump) [function.file]: failed to open stream: No route to host in /home/bartholo/public_html/archives/2006/06/that_old_chestn.php on line 328
Warning: implode() [function.implode]: Bad arguments. in /home/bartholo/public_html/archives/2006/06/that_old_chestn.php on line 328
It was a very enjoyable talk. Reading through the book now:)
Posted by: nic at June 14, 2006 06:02 PM