• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Joint Public Issues Team

Churches working for peace and justice

  • Home Page
  • Who We Are
    • Six hopes for society
  • Issues
    • Economy
      • Tax Justice
      • Reset The Debt
      • Living Wage
    • Environment
      • Net Zero in My Neighbourhood
    • Poverty and Inequality
      • The Cost of Living Crisis
      • Universal Credit
      • Truth and Lies
      • Enough
      • Rethink Sanctions
      • Faith in Foodbanks
      • Housing and Homelessness
    • Asylum and Migration
      • Refugees
      • End Hostility
      • The Asylum System
    • Peacemaking
      • The Arms Trade
      • Nuclear Weapons
      • Drones
      • Peacemaking resources
    • Politics and Elections
      • Elections
      • Meet Your MP
      • Art of the Possible
      • Brexit
    • Other Issues
      • International Development
      • Modern Slavery and Exploitation
        • Forced labour in fashion
  • Get Involved
    • JPIT Conference 2022
    • Newsletter
    • Events
    • Walking with Micah
  • Resources
    • Advent
    • 10 Minutes on… podcast
    • Politics in the Pulpit?
    • Stay and Pray
    • Season of Creation
    • Prayers
    • Public Issues Calendar
    • Poetry
    • Small Group Resources
  • Blog

DWP Benefit Cap Announcement: More Leeches please!

Blog, Briefings, Poverty and Inequality · 6 February, 2017

For over 2,000 years medics cut people open or applied leaches to remove blood from people suffering from diseases ranging from cancer to haemorrhoids. With the wrong diagnosis and a dangerous treatment, it is not surprising that the medics didn’t do any good. The practice remained popular because despite the bloodletting some of the patients actually got better anyway. The bloodletters claimed every patient they didn’t kill vindicated their treatment.

The DWP’s latest misleading announcement of the Benefit Cap’s “success” follows the bloodletter’s logic.

What the Government wants us to believe

Secretary of State Damian Green is quoted as saying “Since the benefit cap was introduced in 2013, people in tens of thousands of households have moved into work. The new lower cap continues to build on that success by incentivizing work.”

The Government wants us to believe that the Benefit Cap is responsible for moving lots of families into work. The key statistic used was that 26,000 families who had their benefits cut by the Cap have moved into work. But this tells us nothing about the effectiveness of the Benefit Cap. This is the equivalent of saying 26,000 people who had leeches stuck on them survived – what we need to know is what difference did the Benefit Cap (or the bloodletting) actually make.

What is the effect of the Benefit Cap?

Contrary to the impression the DWP seeks to give, the answer to this is unknown, but it is certainly not “tens of thousands” of families moving into work.

The Government produced research that compared families just below the old higher Benefit Cap level with those just above. They estimated that without the Cap just over 2 out of 20 families moved into work and for those families affected by the Cap this increased marginally to just under 3 in 20.

The key problem with this research and the whole rationale for the Benefit Cap is that it is premised on the belief that the main effect of benefits is to disincentivise work. It’s not – the money allows families to pay rent, buy food and simply keep going. When families get less money because of the Benefit Cap, the government’s own research shows that large numbers go into debt, run up rent arrears, and can afford less food. The DWP’s announcement didn’t mention this.

Families need enough money to keep going (and when they can look for work)

Enough: Our campaign to highlight the importance of meeting family’s basic needs

The Government research looked at the families that had lost the least money due to the Benefit Cap. The DWP wrote that the other families who lost more would be even more likely to get work as greater losses of benefit would mean they were even more incentivised.

As it turns out evidence from Oxford University indicates that families experiencing larger benefit cuts found it increasingly harder to get into work. It is hardly surprising that worrying about rent, clothes, transport and feeding the children makes effective jobsearch more difficult.

I have blogged before on why “work incentives” matter very little to most families who are capped. They simply can’t work without a great deal more support than is on offer. Single parents with newborn babies are capped, people declared unfit to work are capped. Most capped families have more than 3 children often with the youngest under 3 years old. Cutting their benefits – or as the Secretary of State calls it “incentivising work” – is just making a bad situation worse.

Please no more bloodletting

The DWP announcement is beautifully constructed. As can be expected it clearly states that the policy is a “success” but neglects to mention the clear evidence of hardship caused by the Cap. While any reasonable reader would come away with the impression that the Cap causes families to move into work, when you read it very carefully you will find that definitive statements about this are deftly avoided.

The bloodletters knew no better, they didn’t have evidence that applying leeches caused harm. It is clear the Government knows the Benefit Cap causes harm and that the claims of tens of thousands moving into work as a result cannot be backed up with evidence, but it still wants to declare the Cap a success.

Don’t be fooled, and don’t let anyone convince you that drawing yet more blood is a good idea.

Filed Under: Blog, Briefings, Poverty and Inequality Tagged With: benefit cap, department of work and pension, poverty

Previous Post: « Admiral West’s Offer to MPs
Next Post: ‘Incentives’, or walking by on the other side of the road »

Primary Sidebar

Search

Recent Posts

  • Homes for Ukraine – One Year On
  • Response to the ‘Illegal Migration Bill’ – March 2023
  • Ukraine Invasion – One Year On
  • JPIT’s Review of 2022
  • What does Government Support for Asylum Seekers really provide?
  • God with Us – the Refugees of Calais and Dunkirk
  • How can we respond to COP27?
  • Statement on the conclusion of the COP27 Climate Conference in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt
  • COP27 – what should we be looking for?
  • “He has filled the hungry with good things” – What we need from the Autumn Budget
  • What are the stories we should tell about the humanitarian crisis at Manston Airport Asylum centre?
  • How can we be sure that the products we buy are not the result of modern slavery?
  • Why I hate Warm Banks (and why my church is opening one)
  • How does our theology call us to challenge Poverty?
  • Introducing Alfie
  • Biden says nuclear risk is the highest since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis
  • Churches respond to risk to benefit levels
  • Briefing on the ‘Mini Budget’ for the Enough to Live group
  • Introducing Hazel
  • Introducing Hannah

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter

Footer

Follow us

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Quick links

Stay and Pray
Politics in the Pulpit
Faith in Politics podcast
Public Issues Calendar
Useful Links

Our work

About Us
Meet the Team
Join the Team 
Internship
Our Newsletter

Contact us

25 Marylebone Road
London NW1 5JR

Tel: 020 7916 8632

enquiries@jpit.uk

Copyright © 2023 · Showcase Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in