On Saturday I spent the day just outside of Coventry, at the beautiful University of Warwick, at the Amnesty International UK Amplify Summit (incorporating its AGM and national conference). It was a fantastic day, full of fantastic speeches, workshops, and networking opportunities with hundreds of people who care passionately about the dignity and the human rights of all.
By far the most impactful session that I attended was called ‘Social Insecurity: Everyday Rights in 2025.’ This wasn’t about a situation in some far off place, which you may care a great deal about but doesn’t necessarily affect your own community. This was a session about the impact of government policies on some of the poorest and most vulnerable people right here at home.
Amnesty International UK have produced a truly damning report, entitled ‘Social Insecurity: The devastating human rights impact of social security system failures in the UK.’ It reminds us something which we often forget and that government ministers certainly don’t want people being reminded of: that social security is not a benefit, it is a right.
The report states:
The right to social security is outlined in Article 9 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), ratified by the UK in 1976 (by the then Labour government, it’s worth remembering).
It is also recognised in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and other treaties, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) and the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention No. 102 (1952).
Later in the report it says,
Potential claimants don’t get enough information about their rights and entitlements and limited support to make claims. This in addition to the stigma associated with making social security claims, and rigid eligibility criteria that create financial hardship for those near qualifying thresholds. Together, these systemic barriers are manifested in a social security uptake gap meaning that formal availability of social security schemes does not reflect their ‘material’ availability.
And in a very damming paragraph,
Amnesty International’s findings demonstrate that the UK’s social security system does not legally guarantee essential security payments that ensure access to basic needs such as housing, food, and education. The absence of a legally defined social protection floor (in line with ILO recommendations) leaves social security vulnerable to political discretion allowing for cuts to be made without a legal point of reference. This results in disparities and insufficient support, particularly for groups that are vulnerable to marginalisation and discrimination. Social security’s uprating methodology does not account for the actual rising costs of essential goods and services, therefore there is a rising disconnect between social security payments and living costs.
And finally,
It is clear that policies like social security freezes, caps, and deductions, removal of the spare room subsidy (the bedroom tax) and the two child limit have deepened poverty and disproportionately harmed children, disabled individuals, and low-income families. Despite increased social security spending, poverty rates remain unacceptably high, with claimants reporting severe hardships, including reliance on food banks and struggles to afford basic needs like heating and rent.
What a thoroughly damming indictment on successive UK governments including, yes, the Coalition, when Lib Dem Ministers should have done far, far more to stop the austerity agenda of the Tories which led to intolerable hardship for so many people.
The Lib Dem party of today, however, is beginning to at least atone for those wrongs by quite rightly opposing this Labour government’s austerity 2.0 agenda; its planned cuts to PIP and other forms of social security and its obstinate refusal to reverse the two child benefit cap.
I want to end this part of my column this week with these words that are written on the back of the report:
This report exposes the UK’s failure to provide human right-compliant social security to ensure no one lives in deprivation. Despite ratifying an international covenant to protect economic, social, and cultural rights nearly 50 years ago, the UK government continues to make decisions that make access to rights such as food, housing, clothing, and health more difficult. Political choices have left us with a tattered and depleted social security system that deepens poverty, entrenches inequality, and actively harms those who need it most. Drawing on first-hand testimony from hundreds of claimants and advisors, alongside a wealth of other evidence, this report reveals how the UK’s fragmented, cruel, and punitive approach creates a cascading effect of human rights violations-denying people dignity, security, food, and decent housing, as well as negatively impacting their health and well-being. Amnesty International calls for urgent reform: for social security to be recognised not as a political gift, but as a legal right that is essential to living with dignity.
The NHS needs sustained extra investment!
On Friday I took part in an action outside Labour HQ, with my friends and colleagues from the non-partisan campaign Treatment, marking a year since the new government was elected.
In the action we installed a memorial bench outside the building, remembering the all too many people, including my late mum, who have been failed by unacceptable emergency care delays, just as we had done so a year before outside Tory HQ.
Tragically, despite the change in administration, not only have things not changed on emergency care delays but, if anything, they’ve gotten worse.
Just to remind you of my dear mum’s story.
Almost exactly three years ago, on July 10th, 2022, she fell at her home. Me and a A friend and I got to her. She said she’d hurt her ribs so we didn’t try and move her. We called for an ambulance at 5.01am and an intolerable eleven hours later, paramedics finally arrived. Mum was taken to hospital where she died two days later after an infection turned to sepsis. I’ll never know if my beloved mum might still be here today if help had arrived sooner.
Sadly, my mum’s is just one of thousands of similar cases. This cannot go on.
At Just Treatment were calling for spending on the NHS to go up to the European average for spending on health services, as it did under the last Labour administration, and for an ending to private provision. Because each time that private provision is used to plug a gap in the NHS it further undermines it as a proper public service.
I’ll continue to fight for the change that must happen to fix our broke health service, so more people aren’t so tragically failed by it like my family has been.
In praise of Josh Babarinde
Today, on Sky News, the fantastic Lib Dem MP Josh Babarinde speaks incredibly bravely and powerfully of his experience of domestic abuse during his childhood and the changes he wants to see in the law.
Josh is not only a powerful advocate for justice, for others who’ve been through similar experiences, and for change, but also for our party and its values.
I think he’ll lead us one day and I, for one, cannot wait!
* Mathew Hulbert is a former Councillor, is a regular commentator on TV and Radio, and is Co-Host of the Political Frenemies podcast.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
What's he got?
What remains of the locations where Hue and Cry was filmed
Latest voting intention and leadership ratings opinion polls
Carl Pierce
Roland
Chris Cory
Robert Knight
Alex Macfie
13 Comments
“social security is not a benefit, it is a right.”
The problem with this line of argument is that it’s very much a minority POV. This doesn’t necessarily mean that people are callous or hard hearted towards those who need some help but the majority view is that it should come with conditions. The usual one is that everyone should work if they are able to do so.
Saying it’s a right is also saying it should be unconditional.
That’s always going to be an impossible sell for Lib Dems.
Great article which highlights how ruined the welfare state is under all administrations. One thing that should be highlighted is that for the majority of people they have paid for their welfare through their NI contributions which makes welfare a right which has already been paid for.
@ David Tate,
We have to distinguish between payments which are classed as insurance payouts, such as state pensions, and others which aren’t. Pensions are only paid out to those who have paid in sufficient NI contributions according to the rules of the scheme. They can be truly classed as a right.
Beveridge is often mentioned with his approval on this blog. The latest was by Jack Meredith “This isn’t the future Beveridge fought for”. Beveridge introduced the National Insurance scheme. So, literally, this meant that no contributions would mean no payouts. This wouldn’t have been a workable scheme and in the early years had to be supplemented by a something termed “National Assistance”, the means tested benefits in place from 1948 to 1966, which wasn’t what Beveridge had fought for.
He was totally opposed to means testing.
So in the context of the time NA payouts weren’t a right but NI payouts were.
The vast majority of the electorate would class pensions as a right but not Universal Credit or other social benefits. The system is even more blurred now than it was in 1966! How much does Universal Credit depend on paid in NI contributions? Not at all as far as I know.
I think @Peter Martin has it spot on. Social security, in the sense of people expecting the Government to always give them enough money for a decent living, is not – in moral terms – a natural right. If you argue that getting welfare benefits is an unconditional right, then you are in effect arguing that anyone who feels like not working or contributing to society has a moral right to help themselves (via the tax/benefits system) to money that other people have worked hard to earn. I would imagine almost anyone outside the activist/progressive bubble would regard that as unfair and absurd.
That’s not to say we shouldn’t be trying to solve poverty etc. – clearly we should. But I’d argue that any ‘right’ is better framed as that everyone should have the opportunity to participate in society, and in the process earn a decent living for themselves/their families if they wish to do so. And before anyone asks, that also implies adequate support for people who are retired or cannot work for health reasons.
It does feel like certain activists and politicians think that welfare benefit money is free money.
It’s not, every single penny of welfare benefits has to be paid for by the tax payer.
That’s not to say that we don’t need a safety net, we do, but we must never forget that it has to be paid for and is most definitely not free Money.
There is no essential difference between pensions and any other welfare benefit. While it’s true that pension eligibility requires national insurance contributions, the same applies to Jobseeker’s Allowance and other contributory benefits. Each benefit simply has its own eligibility criteria tailored to different circumstances. We wouldn’t reasonably withhold help from an 18-year-old paralysed in an accident simply because they hadn’t paid enough contributions—their need is immediate and undeniable.
The distinction between “taxpayers” and “benefit claimants” is fundamentally false. All of us occupy both roles at different points in our lives. We typically receive benefits when young and old, while contributing during our working years. This cycle is natural and universal. Unless we’re born into wealth or achieve extraordinary financial success, none of us can predict with certainty whether we’ll ultimately be net contributors to or net beneficiaries of the welfare state.
If in the final reckoning, we are net contributors then we should think ourselves lucky. It likely means we enjoyed good health and favourable economic opportunities throughout our lives—advantages that not everyone shares through no fault of their own. The welfare state exists precisely because life’s circumstances are unpredictable and unequally distributed.
Rather than creating artificial hierarchies between different types of support, we should recognise the welfare system for what it truly is: a collective insurance scheme where we all pay in when we can and receive help when we need it. This mutual interdependence is the foundation of a compassionate society.
@ Andrew,
You’re right about JSA but isn’t this being phased out in favour of UC? It’s a continuation of the process away from the contributions based insurance system as devised by Beveridge. There’ll soon only be the State pension that’s left.
There is no disagreement about “benefits when young and old, while contributing during our working years.” No-one mentioned the term ‘taxpayers’ apart from yourself, BTW. Neither would we disagree with your “we should recognise the welfare system for what it truly is: a collective insurance scheme where we all pay in when we can and receive help when we need it. This mutual interdependence is the foundation of a compassionate society.”
The question is the best way to help those who may need help. Hardly anyone believes this is making benefits unconditional and calling them rights. At the extreme end of the scale we are faced with the problem of what to do about those who could contribute during their working years but choose not to.
So it’s a nice Lib Dem idealistic policy that everyone should have enough money to keep them out of poverty with no questions asked but this is never going to be accepted by society in general. The overall consensus is that it is quite reasonable to attach conditions. If we think it would benefit someone to undergo a training course, for example, then they should do it.
If they misbehave when they are there or don’t attend there should be consequences.
– Peter Martin
“No-one mentioned the term ‘taxpayers’ apart from yourself, BTW”
The term ‘taxpayer’ appeared in the comment above mine. The rest of your post is a straw man argument.
@ Andrew,
It was written as two separate words ie “tax payer” which is why I missed it.
But more seriously, it is very lazy to try to dismiss something with the word “strawman”!
I’m trying to find out what you expect from anyone in receipt of what could be termed either benefits or rights. From what I can make out of Lib Dem policy it isn’t very much, if anything, at all. This not only brings the whole of the benefits system into disrepute, it also isn’t the best way to help people. We need a benefits system which isn’t well supported by the public to be able to help those in need of it.
If you think it isn’t already in disrepute you perhaps should get out and about to talk to people outside the bubble more.
That should be “is well supported by the public”
– Peter Martin
JSA is being replaced by another contributory unemployment benefit.
“So it’s a nice Lib Dem idealistic policy that everyone should have enough money to keep them out of poverty with no questions asked”
This isn’t LibDem policy hence “strawman”. Nobody disputes that benefit eligibility should include certain requirements.
“If you think it isn’t already in disrepute you perhaps should get out and about to talk to people outside the bubble more.”
I’d like to think you were a good enough person to feel at least slightly ashamed of that comment if you knew the circumstances of my life and upbringing. In any case I don’t think there is anything to be gained from any further discussion with you.
@Andrew. You say, ‘Nobody disputes that benefit eligibility should include certain requirements‘ Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I was under the impression that LibDem policy included GBI, as well as getting rid of sanctions on benefits? Getting rid of sanctions would in practice mean the current requirement to be actively looking for work becomes unenforceable, while GBI looks like it means benefits would have to be paid to everyone who is earning below the GBI level – without conditions. So where would the requirements be?
@ Matthew,
I’m trying to establish what you mean by a “right”. I agree that “hand-out” is an inappropriate term. The alternative is “benefit”.
As Simon points out Lib Dems have opted for the Guaranteed Basic Income which is described as follows:
“Those who do not have enough earnings to pay tax would benefit from an additional
unconditional cashflow”
The point I was making is that there is an ultra low level of public support for this kind of policy. I would favour a move towards guaranteed jobs which would have to pay a minimum and living wage, but society would be expecting something in return. There would be a conditionality.
https://www.libdems.org.uk/fileadmin/groups/2_Federal_Party/Documents/Conference/Spring_2023/UBI_vs_GBI_Explainer.docx.pdf