Do the current welfare reforms undermine our human rights?

Do the current welfare reforms undermine our human rights?  by Morag Gillespie, WiSE Research Centre

Last week I spoke at one of the many events at SCVO’s Gathering at the SECC in Glasgow. A panel of us discussed whether the current ‘welfare reforms’ – Social Security cuts (as I and many others prefer to call them these days) – undermine our human rights. Most, though not all, of us were broadly in agreement that they did.

Mhairi Hunter described the difficult situations facing many impoverished people who attend the surgeries she runs as a Glasgow City Councillor. Alan Miller of the Scottish Human Rights Commission highlighted how the Department for Work and Pensions had not addressed the question of human rights in a meaningful way when framing welfare changes, highlighting the ‘bedroom tax’ which means that lots of people who happen to have a spare room lose some of their housing benefit and so need to meet the cost from existing benefits. In short, the argument is that, in the absence of the availability of smaller homes in most parts of Scotland, the likely consequences are that some people will be forced into rent arrears and eviction, so their rights to a home and family life would be infringed.

Its a good example – another highlighted by the Human Rights Joint Committee is that the risk of conditionality and sanction provisions could lead to destitution in some circumstance, “such as would amount to inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR, if the individual concerned was genuinely incapable of work”[1].

Unfortunately, we seem to be in a time where facts, research and evidence have limited input to the political and media debates which rage around poverty and social security. The myths about benefit fraud, levels of benefits payments, intergenerational worklessness and ‘dependency culture’ are topped only by the reality of the breathtaking wealth and incomes that grow exponentially year on year for a tiny few at the top along with reward for failure, bonuses, golden hellos and goodbyes for the well paid. Portraying people as deserving or undeserving has been effective in encouraging public opinion to support social security cuts and a race to the bottom, towards an increasingly residualised American style welfare system.

Public opinion is not much different in Scotland, although one member of the audience at the debate highlighted that we Scots like to think we are a bit more egalitarian. That offers some potential for a more informed and measured discussion in the debate about Scotland’s future.

I would advocate a social security system designed to protect us all across the life-course when we need it – I’d be thrilled to engage in discussion with politicians about the details of how that might look, how it is integrated with economic and fiscal policy, how we get from here to there and so on.  However, the idea of promoting social security for all seems to be a non-party political standpoint these days – whilst there are criticisms of government actions,  none of the main political parties is prepared to challenge  the drive towards residual welfare by articulating a clear alternative vision.

As a rich nation, we should be doing so much better than that – the time to tackle the incredible inequalities in our society is long overdue as is the time for proper informed debate.