Since joining the Social Security Advisory Committee in September last year, I’ve been hugely impressed by the depth of expertise and the breadth of experience that the Committee benefits from. My colleagues on the Committee don’t just bring a wide range of knowledge, but a range of perspectives too. In all of our meetings I’ve seen a genuine willingness to listen to and understand each other’s views and to reach a shared position that’s all the stronger and more robust for it.
That’s certainly been the case in the Independent Work Programme (IWP) steering group, which oversees the Committee’s programme of research.
In January this year, the IWP steering group met to work through a number of suggestions for research projects, which were submitted by members of the wider Committee. Back then, with so many interesting and thoughtful suggestions of areas where the SSAC could add value with our independent research, it was clear that it was going to be difficult to whittle down the choices. It was so difficult, in fact, that we ended up selecting two projects.
One project is looking at ageing transitions and the other, which I’ve been supporting along with a small sub-group of SSAC colleagues, is on the uprating of benefits.
Uprating helps to protect claimants from rising prices, keeping up with living standards of the wider population, and, in some cases, reduce poverty by increasing benefits faster than inflation, such as through the State Pension triple lock. The current framework, set out in the Social Security Administration Act 1992, requires annual reviews and formal uprating orders. Under that framework, some benefits are required to keep pace at least with inflation, but many are not. Some of these, and some of the rates, thresholds and caps which are important parts of the social security system have either been frozen since they were introduced or are uprated irregularly. These include the Benefit Cap, Local Housing Allowance and Bereavement Support Payment. A key aim of this project was to find out what has happened to these over time. However, as so often happens with research projects, the further we’ve got, the more potential scope has opened up for us to explore other potential connected issues.
It’s been important that we stay disciplined and focused on what we’re setting out to understand from this project – why and how certain benefits are uprated irregularly, what the impact of this has been, and what could be done to make the process better. In our meetings we have often had to remind ourselves of this, and the resource limitations that we’re working under. That being said, we are now getting close to the finish line and publication of what should be a thought-provoking and well evidenced report and set of recommendations.
As well as looking at what’s happened (or not happened) when it comes to benefits uprating, we wanted to understand what that has meant for real people and their lives. So our findings have been informed by interviews and roundtables with stakeholders, as well as a comprehensive database of benefit rates and values that we have been putting together.
We’ve gathered some important insight on where benefits, thresholds or caps have been frozen or uprated sporadically. There is also compelling evidence of how their real terms value has been impacted, and what that means for claimants. Whether it’s inflation, earnings, or the average wages, we’re considering whether benefits, thresholds and allowances have been keeping pace with key metrics. In assessing the impact of this, we’re giving consideration to what the policy intent of the benefit or threshold was in the first place, to consider whether that intent is being fulfilled.
Having set out the problem, we’ve been working together as a group to explore what the solutions might be. Talking through the possible different approaches, we’ve considered whether each is workable, and weighed up the benefits and risks. Whatever the reasons behind the decisions that have been taken, it’s clearly important for us all to understand what process is being followed, and, as always, we’re interested in ensuring accountability, consistency and fairness.
We’re looking forward to finalising and releasing our report soon, and hope that it will start a useful conversation about the way that benefits uprating is currently handled, and how it might be improved.
Leave a comment