White Paper on Universal Credit

Written Evidence Submitted by Mind

We had previously commented on the consultation paper ‘21st Century Welfare’ and a copy of this response is attached. We have considerable doubts about the general direction of the changes proposed and our comments seem equally relevant to the White Paper.

We would like to expand on our response to Question 6, dealing with the role of the contributory principle. We are deeply concerned by the proposal to time-limit contributory ESA. In our view non-means-tested benefits for people with long-term mental health problems are an essential part of the system. Many such people rely on personal and emotional support from partners to be able to live in the community. Making partners wholly responsible for their financial support as well seems both unjust and self-defeating. It seems highly likely that the change would result in family breakdown in many cases and increased rates of hospitalisation and institutionalisation. Where this did not happen work incentives for the partners of people with long-tern illnesses or disabilities would be dramatically worsened. All this seems directly contrary to the declared policy objective.

There is however a more fundamental objection. The proposal is that the Government should simply repudiate its obligations to a very large group of people, all of whom will have been paying National Insurance contributions for years and in many cases decades on the basis of what seemed like absolutely firm assurances of support if they were no longer able to work.

It is hard to imagine a Government reneging on its debts in this way in any other context. Financially no doubt there are equally good reasons for withholding pay or pensions from current and former Government employees or refusing to honour Government bonds. No such proposals have however been made and it would be very surprising if they were.

What is happening in fact is that a specific group of people has been targeted to have their rights withdrawn and that this group is defined specifically by the fact that all its members suffer from a long-term illness or disability. We find the implications of this very disturbing.

December 2010