Incapacity, the Labour Market and Social Security: Coercion into ‘Positive’ Citizenship
| Author | Philip M. Larkin |
| Published date | 01 May 2011 |
| Date | 01 May 2011 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2011.00852.x |
Incapacity, the Labour Market and Social Security:
Coercion into‘Positive’ Citizenship
Philip M. Larkin
n
The article examines the likely evolutionof the social secur ity systemin the United Kingdom in
the aftermath of theWelfareReform Act 2007. This recent legislation is paradigmatic of the new
ideology and modes of thought which currently form the foundation of the modern welfare
state, an institution increasingly viewed as a facilitator for individual self-su⁄ciency, as opposed
to its traditional role of providing temporary ¢nancial support in periods of need. In addition, it
is likely that the Acthas promoted at least some changes in the concept of citizens hip,in particular
the contemporary emphasis on responsibil ities as much as on rights. The article considers
whether the Act itself has succeeded in meeting the rhetorical claims made for it by legislators
during the passage of theWelfare Reform Bill through Parliament.The question of whether the
Act contains a punitive or even coercive element is also examined.
INTRODUCTION
The Welfare Reform Act 2007 (certain central provisions of which came into
force in October 2008) in many respects represents and encapsulates current sali-
ent trends of thought on the pol itical and legal ethos underpin ning the modern
welfare state. It is posited that any major legislative reform adopted in relation to
the modern welfare state will automatically have an impact on contemporary
conceptsof citizenship, withthe two spheresbeing closely interconnected. Super-
¢cially, however, there appears little to distinguish its substance from the raft of
legislative reforms to the welfare stateenacted by Conservative governments since
1979 and successive Labour governments since 1997, a process of reform whichhas
intensi¢ed over the past decade and beyond.
1
Part One of the Act,
2
with which
this article is largely concerned, has e¡ected a number of now well-established
fundamental changes to contributory-based incapacity bene¢t (IB) with the net
result that thi s bene¢t has been replace dw ith employment and support allowance
(ESA). In short, the new bene¢t is, at least in theory, more di⁄cult to attain, with
entitlement hedged around with increased conditionality as provided for in the
accompanying regulations. In addition, a number of government-sponsored
n
University of Buckingham.The author would l ike to thank Nick Wikeley, Brice Dickson, Neville
Harris and the MLR’s a nonymousreferees for their helpful comments and advice on the earlier drafts
of this paper.
1TheWelfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 represented one major step i n the processof bene¢ts
reform undertaken by New Labour governments since 1997, with the aim of rendering social
insurance based bene¢ts less desirable and harder to attain for the individual.See D. Bonner,‘In-
capacity for Work:A New Bene¢t and NewTests’(1999) 2 JSSL 86.The current Conservative/
Liberal Democrat coalition government has also demonstrated willingness to pursue a similar
agenda in relation to welfare reform. SeeThe Guardian 15 June 2010.
2Part1 of theWelfare Reform Act has currentlybee n in forcefrom October 2008, so at the time of
writing the main provisions will have been in force forover two years.
r2011The Authors.The Modern Law Review r2011The ModernLaw Review Limited.
Published by BlackwellPublishing, 9600 Garsington Road,Oxford OX4 2DQ,UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
(2011) 74(3) 385^409
schemes have been initiated,designed to facilitatethe passage of personswho have
recovered, or are in the process of recovery, from incapacity, into employment
again.
3
The aim of the legislation, as with so many other reforms to the social
security system in recent decades, is to redirect more persons who have been ren-
dered temporarily incapacitated by illness, or certain family commitments (as a
single parent, for example) back into the labour market as soon as poss ible. The
Green Paper whichpreceded the Welfare Reform Bill 2006, A New DealforWelfare:
Empowering People to Work, set out this goal explicitly, in addition to the hopes
which ranconcurrently withan expected increase of people in paid employment:
Our economy will bene¢t from h igher employment rates. Taxpayers will gain,
too, as the bills for bene¢t dependency come down. But the gains for individuals
will be the greatest: respect, dignity, secur ity, and achievement.
4
On the surface, there appeared to be very little di¡erence between the manner in
which theWelfare Reform Bill was heralded and other similar legislation, with
the government emphasising the positive and benign aspects of the proposed
measure in order to render it more palatable to those sections of the electorate
who are fastidious about how their taxcontributions are spent.
5
Much e¡ort was
expended in refer ring to the‘empowerment’ of the incapacitated a nd unemployed
worker, whileat the same time thei nherent dignityof the individual was stressed:
one example of this was the statement of the former Secretary of State forWork
and Pensionsdeclaring that vulnerable groups in society ‘should never againbe at
the receiving end o f ‘the noisy propaganda of right-wing politicians.’
6
Similarly,
John Hutton made the bold, if not grandiose, claim during the Parliamentary
debates on theWelfare Reform Bill 2006 that:
The reforms in the Bil l set out a newdirection of travel for our welfare system.They
are underpinned by a belief in an active enabling welfare state that sees tackling
povertya nd social exclusion, with no-one left behind and no-one written o¡.The
Bill therefore marks a major shift away from the established orthodoxy of welfare
provision in our country, which has always treated functional limitations as auto-
maticallydisqual ifying people from the world of work . . . the Bill co ntinues a pro-
cess of reform that has sought to lock in the right set of values: of universality and
opportunity; of security and equity; of fairness and due process ^ valuesthat stretch
back to Beveridge^ under which the right to work is fundamental in tackling pov-
erty and building aspiration for everyone in our society.
7
3These schemes are e¡ectively a continuation of the‘New Deal’ Programmes introduced by the
New Labourgovernments in the late 1990s, heralded byo⁄cial documents such as the New Dea l
forYoung People Under 25,begu n in January 1998.
4Cm 6730 (2006). The recent downturn in the UK economy, which had not materialis ed during
the passage of theWelfareReform Bill through Parliament,sets these somewhat optimistic hopes
in context.
5This process by which quite radical reforms are presented in public in more acceptable form is
discussed in P.Larkin, ‘The‘Criminalization’of Social Secur ity Law:Towards a PunitiveWelfare
State’(2007) 34 JLS 295.
6John Hutton MP, cited inThe Guardian30 January20 07.
7HC Deb vol4 49col 61624 July 2006.
Incapacity, the Labour Marketa nd Social Security
386 r2011The Authors.The Modern Law Review r2011The Modern Law Review Limited.
(2011) 74(3) 385^409
To continue reading
Request your trial