Labour's benefits record: Bringing down the claimants?

The looming reforms to the benefit system look set to be one of the most contentious issues of the coming years as ministers seek both to cut the welfare bill and move people back into work.

But to what extent is the challenge faced a result of problems left behind by the last Government?

Not much according to Shadow work and Pensions Secretary Yvette Cooper.

The Claim

Speaking during a Commons debate on unemployment this week, Ms Cooper compared the records of the Labour Government with its Conservative predecessor.

Responding to a charge from Conservative MP Oliver Heald that Labour had done "precious little" to tackle the number of workless households Ms Cooper said: "I can tell the hon. Gentleman what happened after 1997.

"In fact, there was a reduction of 350,000 in the number of people claiming inactive benefits as a result of the extra support that was put in.

"That was in strong contrast to the early '90s recession when we saw an increase of more than 450,000 in the number of people on incapacity benefits. "

Do the figures back up her claim, and is it a fair comparison with the previous Tory government?

Analysis

Though Full Fact is yet to receive a response from the Labour Party regarding the claim, we have been able to obtain the data from the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP).

Inactive benefits are those paid to claimants who are not required to be actively seeking work. A DWP spokesman explained that the numbers on inactive benefits could be calculated by combining the claimants of incapacity benefits with those on income support for lone parents.

DWP provided us with data, which while only going back to 1999, does show a trend that appears to back up Yvette Cooper.

While short of the 350,000 cited by Ms Cooper, these figures do not cover the complete time frame. But between November 1999 and November 2009 the number of people on inactive benefits fell by roughly 290,000.

Indeed before the election, Ms Cooper was citing a figure of 300,000 suggesting further falls.

However by referring to inactivity benefits rather than simply incapacity benefits, the Labour frontbencher is glossing over the largely unchanged numbers on for such payments.

The bulk of the fall in inactive benefit claimants came from a reduction in numbers on lone parent income support rather than those on incapacity benefits — this figure remained relatively unchanged at the 2.6 million mark.

As Gabriel Doctor, Senior Policy Consultant at the Centre for Social Justice explained: "Yvette Cooper's claim masks the fact that the number of those on incapacity benefits was more or less static over the whole period (right up until James Purnell's last minute ESA reforms). "

This is an important distinction because, in pointing to the reduction in people on inactive benefits, but the last Conservative government's figures on incapacity benefit, she is not comparing like with like.

If incapacity benefit claimant numbers went up under the Tories, they did not come down under Labour.

However, where Labour could claim a measure of success is in reducing the numbers claiming lone parent income support, where the working tax credit is judged to have played a part.

Mr Doctor told us: "The reduction in lone parents on income support was achieved partially through the introduction of the working tax credit- which paid very well to parents working 16 or 30 hours per week - and partially because of improving economic conditions."

While Mike Brewer of the Institute for Fiscal Studies said that the fall in lone parents on income support was in a large part due to a significant rise in employment among this group. He did however point to another factor to consider.

Because of reforms to the system lone parents are no longer able to claim income support until a child is 16, the cut off age is being gradually reduced, and will be for children aged five by 2011.

Mr Brewer explained how this change could impact on the numbers.

"Another reason why the number has gone down is that some lone parents were no longer allowed to claim income support, they had to claim job seekers' allowance instead, moving them from an inactive to an active benefit," he said.

"Some of these lone parents may go onto find work and the reform may have had a positive effect but others, one could imagine during a recession, will just have moved from claiming income support to claiming job seekers' allowance."

So it seems there is more to the claim than first meets the eye.

Conclusion

Yvette Cooper's claim is yet another example of how claims made can be accurate without painting the full picture.

Comparing figures for inactive benefits with incapacity benefits could lead to the impression that more of the reduction came from incapacity benefit than was actually the case.

Even the fall in numbers claiming lone income support does not mean all these people moved off benefits and into work, they may simply be claiming job seekers allowance instead.

Patrick Casey