Benefit levels in the UK

Work and Pensions Committee Closed Inquiry
Opened: 30 Mar 2023 Closed: 23 May 2024 Parliament page
In our July 2022 report, The cost of living , we heard evidence which suggested that a root cause of the financial challenges households faced “lay in the fundamental inadequacy of social security support”. We therefore recommended that the Government should “review the adequacy of benefit levels and publish its … Read more
11 Recommendations
8 Conclusions
2 Reports
7 Oral sessions
4 Letters
7 Events
Activity timeline 21 events
23 May
2024
Report published
21 Mar
2024
Report published
21 Mar
2024
Report published
21 Feb
2024
Correspondence
14 Dec
2023
Correspondence
6 Dec
2023
Oral evidence
6 Dec
2023
Formal meeting (oral evidence session) · Room 6, Palace of Westminster
15 Nov
2023
Correspondence
25 Oct
2023
Correspondence
13 Sep
2023
Oral evidence
13 Sep
2023
Formal meeting (oral evidence session) · Room 16, Palace of Westminster
19 Jul
2023
Oral evidence
Oral evidence sessions 7 sessions
6 Dec 2023
View on parliament.uk
Work and Pensions Committee
Katherine Green · Department for Work and Pensions Katie Farrington · Department for Work and Pensions Rt Hon Mel Stride · Department for Work and Pensions
13 Sep 2023
View on parliament.uk
Work and Pensions Committee
Adam Butler · StepChange Brian Dow · Rethink Mental Illness Duncan Shrubsole · Lloyds Bank Foundation for England and Wales Emily Holzhausen OBE · Carers UK Jane Tully · Money Advice Trust Katherine Hill Tom Pollard · New Economics Foundation
19 Jul 2023
View on parliament.uk
Work and Pensions Committee
Andrew Harrop · Fabian Society Céline Jaeggy · UNEDIC Emily Farchy · Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Iain Mansfield · Policy Exchange Kristoffer Lundberg · Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, Sweden Mike Brewer · Resolution Foundation Rebecca Deegan · Association of British Insurers
28 Jun 2023
View on parliament.uk
Work and Pensions Committee
Balbir Chatrik · Centrepoint Ben Beadle · National Residential Landlords' Association Ben Twomey · Generation Rent Dr Carin Tunåker · University of Kent Francesca Albanese · Crisis Prof Peter Kemp · Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford Sheila Haig · City of Edinburgh Council Timothy Douglas · Propertymark
14 Jun 2023
View on parliament.uk
Work and Pensions Committee
Deven Ghelani · Policy in Practice Dr Stephen Brien · Social Security Advisory Committee Matthew Oakley · Social Metrics Commission Peter Whiteford · Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University Rt Hon Sir Iain Duncan Smith MP
17 May 2023
View on parliament.uk
Work and Pensions Committee
Ciara Fitzpatrick · Northern Ireland Cliff Edge Coalition David Stickland · Benefits Training Company Dr Steffan Evans · Bevan Foundation James Taylor · Scope Ken Butler · Disability Rights UK Kirsty McHugh · Carers Trust UK Professor Stephen Sinclair · Scottish Poverty and Inequality Research Unit (SPIRU) Tom Lee · Child Poverty Action Group
8 Mar 2023
View on parliament.uk
Work and Pensions Committee
Ashwin Kumar · Manchester Metropolitan University Donald Hirsch · abrdn Financial Fairness Trust Iain Porter · Joseph Rowntree Foundation Nicholas Timmins · Institute for Government Peter Kelly · The Poverty Alliance Robert Joyce · Institute for Fiscal Studies Ryan Shorthouse · Bright Blue
Title HC No. Published Items Response
Second Report - Benefit levels in the UK HC 142 21 Mar 2024 19 Responded
EasyRead Report - Benefit levels in the UK 21 Mar 2024 0
Recommendations & Conclusions
19 results
1 Recommendation Accepted
Second Report - Benefit levels in …
Set out clear timeline for concluding review of research on carers' experiences
The Department should set out when it intends to conclude its review of research on the experience of carers.
Government Response
The government has confirmed its intention to publish the research into the experiences of claiming Carer’s Allowance and states the Department will set out timescales for this publication shortly.
Department for Work and Pensions
View details
2 Recommendation Rejected
Second Report - Benefit levels in …
Commission further research on benefit levels' impact on claimant health and economic productivity
The Government should commission further research to understand the impact of benefit levels on the health and wellbeing of claimants and its relationship with economic productivity. (Paragraph 55) Setting benefit levels: Purpose, principles and policy objectives Read more
Government Response
The government rejects the recommendation, stating it has no plans to commission further research into the impact of benefit levels on health, wellbeing, and economic productivity, citing its focus on incentivising work and existing employment support programmes.
Department for Work and Pensions
View details
3 Recommendation Deferred
Second Report - Benefit levels in …
Outline principles to guide benefit policy design and inform benefit level setting after consultation
Discussion on the adequacy of benefit levels can often be sidetracked by debate on whether it is possible to define essential costs or needs. We agree that it would be a useful first measure for the Government to set out … Read more
Government Response
The government defers its response to be considered in conjunction with its response to recommendation 4.
Department for Work and Pensions
View details
4 Recommendation Rejected
Second Report - Benefit levels in …
Outline clear benchmarks for income-replacement benefits, relating to living costs and work incentives
DWP is clear that benefit levels and the design of benefit policy are intended to incentivise work. This is welcome. The Department does not however directly acknowledge the other purpose of benefits: to provide financial support for living costs to … Read more
Government Response
The government rejects the recommendation, stating it does not intend to establish a benchmark for income-replacement benefits.
Department for Work and Pensions
View details
5 Recommendation Rejected
Second Report - Benefit levels in …
Review current benefit levels against benchmarks and outline plans to achieve objectives
Having established a benchmark, the Department should review the extent to which current benefit levels are meeting this benchmark. If DWP finds that it is not meeting these objectives, it should set out how it intends to reach them alongside … Read more
Government Response
The government rejects the recommendation, stating it does not intend to establish a benchmark for income-replacement benefits, which is a prerequisite for the proposed review of benefit levels.
Department for Work and Pensions
View details
6 Conclusion Accepted
Second Report - Benefit levels in …
Personal Independence Payment support proves insufficient, frequently diverted to cover basic living costs.
Support provided through Personal Independence Payment (PIP) is not operating as intended. Evidence suggests that insufficient means-tested benefits frequently necessitate PIP recipients to use their extra costs benefits to cover day-to-day living costs. (Paragraph 98) Benefit levels in the U … Read more
Government Response
The government agrees that Personal Independence Payment (PIP) is not operating as intended and refers to its recently published 'Modernising Support for Independent Living: The Health and Disability Green Paper,' which explores ways to improve support for disabled people.
Department for Work and Pensions
View details
7 Conclusion Accepted
Second Report - Benefit levels in …
DWP fails to clarify PIP's intended contribution to disabled claimants' extra costs.
DWP has not clearly stated the extent to which PIP should contribute towards the extra costs incurred by claimants with a health condition or disability. We heard that for some claimants, the shortfall in support provided was significant enough to … Read more
Government Response
The government clarifies that Personal Independence Payment (PIP) is intended to provide a contribution towards extra costs, giving recipients flexibility, and highlights significant spending on PIP and additional Cost of Living Payments for disabled people.
Department for Work and Pensions
View details
8 Conclusion Accepted
Second Report - Benefit levels in …
Require DWP to use Extra Costs Taskforce findings to benchmark PIP coverage.
We welcome the Government’s recommitment in its February 2024 Disability Action Plan to take forward plans to set up an Extra Costs Taskforce to understand the extra costs disabled people face in their daily lives. DWP should be part of … Read more
Government Response
The government is restarting work on the Extra Costs Taskforce, with the Disability Unit working on a project plan and engaging DWP and other departments. However, it states that setting a benchmark for PIP coverage using the Taskforce's findings would be premature until the ongoing consultation on PIP has concluded and its response published.
Department for Work and Pensions
View details
9 Conclusion Deferred
Second Report - Benefit levels in …
Introduce further levels of support for PIP and Universal Credit's Health Element.
There is a persuasive case that there should be a greater number of levels of support provided through PIP—both higher and lower—to reflect more accurately the experiences of claimants. The Department should introduce further levels of support through PIP and … Read more
Government Response
The government deflected the recommendation, stating that a recently published Green Paper on modernising support for independent living is considering how to effectively support people with long-term health conditions and disabilities.
Department for Work and Pensions
View details
10 Recommendation Rejected
Second Report - Benefit levels in …
Devise further opportunities for Parliament to scrutinise government benefit uprating decisions.
We understand that to increase legacy benefits, changes must be made to DWP IT systems several months in advance—with work needing to be completed by the end of November, for increases to be enacted the following April. Parliament however is … Read more
Government Response
The government effectively rejected the recommendation to provide further scrutiny opportunities ahead of the Uprating Order, explaining that the existing statutory process and implementation timelines prevent earlier parliamentary debate.
Department for Work and Pensions
View details
11 Conclusion Acknowledged
Second Report - Benefit levels in …
Government decisions to uprate working-age benefits and Local Housing Allowance welcomed.
We welcome the Government’s decision to take a consistent decision and uprate all working-age benefits for 2024–25 by the September 2023 CPI inflation rate of 6.7%. We also welcome the Chancellor’s announcement in the 2023 Autumn Statement that Local Housing … Read more
Government Response
The government acknowledged and noted the committee's welcome for its decision to uprate working-age benefits and reset Local Housing Allowance rates.
Department for Work and Pensions
View details
12 Recommendation Accepted
Second Report - Benefit levels in …
Introduce an ‘Uprating Guarantee’ for annual, consistent benefit increases from 2025–26.
There remains uncertainty for some benefits each year as to whether they will be uprated. We agree with the assessment of the Secretary of State that it is important that “there is an element of fairness to the consistency” of … Read more
Government Response
The government did not commit to a new 'Uprating Guarantee', explaining that existing law mandates price-linked increases for certain benefits and, by convention, discretionary benefits are typically increased annually in line with CPI.
Department for Work and Pensions
View details
13 Recommendation Rejected
Second Report - Benefit levels in …
Require government to justify deviations from ‘Uprating Guarantee’ and assess their impact.
If the Government decides to deviate from the ‘Uprating Guarantee’, it should clearly set out its reasoning to Parliament. The Government should also undertake work to understand what impact the decision to not follow consistent practice would have on its … Read more
Government Response
The government rejected the recommendation, stating it has no plans to change the existing uprating process under the Social Security Administration Act 1992, thereby not committing to a new 'Uprating Guarantee' or its associated reporting requirements.
Department for Work and Pensions
View details
14 Recommendation Rejected
Second Report - Benefit levels in …
Commit to annually uprating capital limit, benefit cap, and Carer's Allowance earnings threshold.
Policies which reduce the level of support claimants can receive, such as the capital limit rule in means-tested benefits, the benefit cap, and the earnings threshold in Carer’s Allowance, risk reducing benefit levels if they are not regularly uprated in … Read more
Government Response
The government effectively rejected the recommendation to annually uprate the capital limit, benefit cap, and Carer’s Allowance earnings threshold, outlining its existing review cycles and discretionary practices for each.
Department for Work and Pensions
View details
15 Recommendation Rejected
Second Report - Benefit levels in …
Reduce time between inflation measure and benefit uprating implementation, retaining consistency.
We recognise the Department cannot shorten the reference period for benefit uprating due to the DWP IT systems used to uprate legacy benefits. In the longer term, and following the completion of migration to Universal Credit, the Government should aim … Read more
Government Response
The government rejected the recommendation, stating it has no plans to change the length of time between inflation measurement and uprating implementation in the short to medium term due to various interdependencies, despite IT modernisation for State Pensions.
Department for Work and Pensions
View details
16 Conclusion Rejected
Second Report - Benefit levels in …
Make the Household Support Fund a permanent feature of the social security system.
It is welcome that the Government is extending the Household Support Fund (HSF) for a further six months until September 2024. Alongside other benefits, the HSF has provided a vital layer of additional support to households during the cost of … Read more
Government Response
The government rejected making the Household Support Fund permanent, stating it was introduced for high inflation, which is now falling, and confirmed a six-month extension until September 2024 as targeted temporary support.
Department for Work and Pensions
View details
17 Recommendation Acknowledged
Second Report - Benefit levels in …
Make a commitment to annually uprate Local Housing Allowance to retain its 30th percentile value.
The evidence is clear that support for housing costs cannot be viewed in isolation from wider support provided through other benefits. When and if claimants experience a shortfall in rent, this can impact other parts of household budgeting and erode … Read more
Government Response
The government made a vague commitment, stating the Secretary of State has committed to reviewing Local Housing Allowance rates annually, taking into account local rents and the broader fiscal context, but not explicitly committing to annual uprating at the 30th percentile.
Department for Work and Pensions
View details
18 Conclusion Rejected
Second Report - Benefit levels in …
DWP has scope to commission independent research on benefit levels and living costs.
The Government of the day has a political mandate to make decisions about benefit adequacy, but its decision-making might be assisted by independent advice. There is scope for DWP to commission independent research, either via an independent body, such as … Read more
Government Response
The government rejected the recommendation, stating the Department currently has no plans to commission independent research into the effectiveness of benefit levels, as it already tracks poverty measures and conducts internal evaluations.
Department for Work and Pensions
View details
19 Conclusion Accepted
Second Report - Benefit levels in …
Include Work Coach numbers, average caseloads, DEAs, and DEALs in quarterly statistics releases.
We are concerned that there is not sufficient capacity in the system to absorb the number of claimants who will be made subject to conditionality, or increased conditionality, following announcements made in the 2023 Spring Budget and 2023 Autumn Statement, … Read more
Government Response
The Department committed to publishing quarterly full-time equivalent (FTE) statistics for Work Coaches, Disability Employment Advisers, and Disability Employment Adviser Leaders. However, it rejected publishing average Work Coach caseload sizes, stating it would not provide clarity on support levels.
Department for Work and Pensions
View details
Government Response AI assessment · 19 of 11 classified
Accepted 6
Acknowledged 2
Deferred 2
Rejected 9
Total 11 recs + 8 conclusions
Correspondence 4 letters
21 Feb 2024 Correspondence with the Secretary of State relating to Benefit levels in the UK
Parliament page
14 Dec 2023 Correspondence with the Secretary of State relating to Benefit levels in the UK
Parliament page
15 Nov 2023 Correspondence with the Secretary of State relating to benefit deductions
Parliament page
25 Oct 2023 Correspondence to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Chancellor of the Exchequer relating to uprating decisions: Working age benefits
Parliament page