
If ministers want to see how welfare reform can be done, come see us in Greater Manchester
As clear as the case is for some form of wealth taxation, it would be wrong to make that the only response. The Department for Work and Pensions system didn't work for people before last week's debate and it still doesn't now. What is needed is a unifying version of reform, and we think we can help with that.
With a decade of devolution behind us, Greater Manchester is ready to step forward as the UK's first 'prevention demonstrator', showing how we can prevent poor outcomes for residents and rising costs of public services. We are proud to have received that official designation from the government in the 10-year health plan for England, and we are confident we can live up to it.
The time has come to break with Whitehall business as usual and build an entirely new model of support. One of the many problems with Whitehall's approach to welfare reform is trying to solve the complex issue of getting more people into work from within the narrow policy silo of the DWP when, in truth, the answers are much more likely to lie outside.
This is where Greater Manchester starts. We recognise that the barriers to work our residents face are often linked to issues like housing, personal debt and mental health. Consequently, a whole-person, whole-system approach is the only one that stands any chance of working. This is the philosophy upon which our prevention demonstrator is based – a bottom-up, names-not-numbers approach to supporting people with the essentials needed for a good life. At its heart are three big ideas which we believe, if carried out to their fullest extent, could together score the savings the Office for Budget Responsibility needs to see, as well as financing the removal of the two-child benefit cap.
Whereas the Whitehall version of reform focuses on people, and crude cuts to headline rates of support, ours begins with bricks and mortar. I am stunned by the extent to which the media debate on benefits underplays the impact of the housing crisis. It inflates the benefits bill by multiple billions – but is also entirely fixable.
The new Greater Manchester strategy, published today, is anchored on the idea of a 'housing first' city region. Without the foundation of a good home, everything in life becomes more difficult for our residents. From now on, housing will be recognised as pre-eminent in public policy. Freeing our city region from the grip of the housing crisis will be our number one priority.
What does that mean in practice? It means, for instance, reaching a new tipping point within two to three years of building more social homes than we are losing, alongside a much tougher approach to improving standards in the private rented sector through our new good landlord charter.
In an ideal world, we would go much further. The vast majority of the £39bn announced for housing at last month's spending review should be focused on a drive to build a new generation of council homes, rather than subsidise private housing. The evidence is compelling. A 2024 study for the National Housing Federation, carried out by the Centre for Economics and Business Research, found that building 90,000 new social homes would save £3.3bn a year in universal credit over the long term. If the government worked with England's mayors and councils to scale that number up to 500,000, then the recurrent annual saving to the benefits system gets closer to £18bn.
Building on this new approach to housing, the second part of our prevention demonstrator involves a paradigm shift in employment support, moving away from a distrustful, tick-box system and towards a more empowering Live Well approach.
How is a system which people fear having contact with, and often leaves them feeling worse about themselves, ever going to help them into work? The answer is it won't. Years of tough-on-benefits rhetoric has created a system which people see as being there to trip them up rather than help them out.
The only answer is to turn it on its head. We must start with places people trust at a local level, such as community and voluntary organisations, and with the issues in people's lives that are the true barriers to work. This is the essence of Live Well. We know there are thousands of people in Greater Manchester who have completely disengaged from the DWP but, if helped in a different way and particularly with issues that are destructive to their mental health like personal debt, could be supported into work.
Our third focus is young people. The appalling statistic of 1 million people not in education, employment or training stands as a damning monument to an education system in England built for some young people but not all. The obsession with the university route, and the failure to provide equal technical paths, leaves many teenagers feeling lost in the middle years of secondary school. Our plan for the Greater Manchester baccalaureate, or Mbacc, seeks to fix that with the guarantee of a 45-day work placement for every young person who wants one.
We are confident our prevention demonstrator, in its entirety, could significantly reduce reliance on the benefits system and other public services like the NHS. We have never truly tried prevention in this country. If there was ever a time to give it a proper go, surely it is now?
Andy Burnham is the mayor of Greater Manchester. He served as the Labour MP for Leigh from 2001 until 2017
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
22 minutes ago
- The Independent
The options available to Alexander Isak as he trains at former club amid transfer speculation
Newcastle United striker Alexander Isak is training individually at his former club as speculation surrounding his future continues. His former club Real Sociedad confirmed on Thursday he was 'working with his trainers' at their Zubieta facility, with the striker having reportedly told Newcastle he is keen to explore a move away from the club. The Sweden international has been heavily linked with Liverpool and did not not travel with the rest of the Newcastle squad earlier this month for their pre-season tour of Asia. Newcastle have been approached for comment. The decision to train at his old club rather than his current one will heighten speculation that Isak sees his future away from Newcastle. No offer has been submitted by Liverpool as yet to Newcastle, who would almost certainly be looking for a British record transfer fee for the player. Should Newcastle price Isak out of a move or simply refuse to listen to offers, one option Isak and his representatives might consider would be to unilaterally terminate his contract with three years remaining. A European Court of Justice ruling in favour of former Chelsea midfielder Lassana Diarra last year means players can now terminate their deals 'without unnecessary fears', according to the lawyer who led Diarra's case. The ruling appears to have given players greater leeway to terminate a contract without just cause. The court found some of FIFA's transfer rules were contrary to European law because they restricted freedom of movement and were anti-competitive. Jean-Louis Dupont, who led Diarra's challenge and who was also at the centre of the landmark Bosman case which granted players free agency at the end of their contracts, believes last year's ruling lifts the threat of significant sanctions for players who choose to terminate their deals. Dupont, speaking in general rather than specifically about Isak's case, told the PA news agency: 'In its Diarra judgement, the court ruled that players have a right to termination without just cause and that it is for the ex-employer to establish the existence and the quantum of damages, knowing that losing the opportunity to transfer the player is NOT a damage. 'According to the court, such termination cannot entail disciplinary sanctions (when effected in between seasons). 'FIFA has, imperfectly, amended its rules to abide by the court ruling. But the bottom line is that players have the right to terminate without unnecessary fears.' Asked whether he thought players would now be free from the threat of sporting sanctions such as a ban for terminating their deals, Dupont added: 'Yes. If not, the right to terminate, as granted by the court, would just be theoretical. But, apparently, FIFA is still resisting on this point.' Following the ECJ ruling, FIFA opened a global dialogue on its transfer rules and issued amended, interim rules just before Christmas last year. The world players' union FIFPRO immediately pushed back on the amendments, saying they did not 'provide legal certainty' to players. FIFPRO issued guidance to players in May stating that following the ruling, a player's transfer fee or transfer value could no longer be used in the calculation of any compensation due to the club where the player had been contracted, and advised that the compensation paid should be 'limited to the residual value of the contract, with a possible further reduction or increase on the basis of the national law'. A presumption that a player's new club had induced the termination of contract was removed in the amended rules issued by FIFA last December. Now, a player's old club must prove the new club induced the player to break contract.


The Independent
22 minutes ago
- The Independent
Awkward moment Trump leaves Starmer squirming over ‘family farm tax'
Watch as Donald Trump explains how the US ended inheritance tax on farmers whilst sitting next to a silent Sir Keir Starmer on Monday (27 July). During a press conference held as part of the US president's four-day trip to Scotland, the pair were questioned on how important farmers are to a country. While Mr Trump did not comment on the UK 's 'tractor tax' plans, which will make farms valued at £1m or more liable for 20 per cent inheritance tax, he stated that the US had ended its federal levy on farmers. 'There's no estate tax on farmers, so when a parent leaves their farm, because a lot of these farms, they don't make a lot of money, but it's a way of life and they love that way of life.'


The Independent
22 minutes ago
- The Independent
PM says he ‘particularly' listens to hostages after Palestine backlash
Sir Keir Starmer has said that he 'particularly' listens to hostages after a British-Israeli woman who was held captive by Hamas criticised his pledge to recognise a Palestinian state. The Prime Minister said there is a 'need to do everything we can to alleviate the human catastrophe in Gaza' after Emily Damari accused him of 'moral failure' over the move. Ms Damari said that Sir Keir is 'not standing on the right side of history' and that she was 'deeply saddened' by the decision. As well as Ms Damari's criticism, Wednesday also saw a group of peers warn that the pledge could break international law. Speaking to ITV West Country while on a visit to Swindon on Thursday, the Prime Minister said: 'I particularly listen to the hostages, Emily Damari, who I have spoken to, – I've met her mother a number of times, and they've been through the most awful, awful experience for Emily and for her mother. 'And that's why I've been absolutely clear and steadfast that we must have the remaining hostages released. That's been our position throughout and I absolutely understand the unimaginable horror that Emily went through. 'Alongside that, we do need to do everything we can to alleviate the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, where we are seeing the children and babies starving for want of aid which could be delivered. 'That is why I've said unless things materially change on the ground, we'll have to assess this in September, we will recognise Palestine before the United Nations General Assembly in September.' It comes as some 38 members of the House of Lords, including some of the UK's most eminent lawyers, wrote to Attorney General Lord Hermer. As first reported by the Times newspaper, the peers warned Sir Keir Starmer's pledge to recognise Palestine may breach international law as the territory may not meet the criteria for statehood under the Montevideo Convention, a treaty signed in 1933. Business minister Gareth Thomas described the decision as a 'political judgment' and said ministers 'believe it is' compliant with international law. He told Times Radio 'In the end, recognition of another state is a political judgment and over 140 countries have already recognised Palestine, and we're determined to do so in September if Israel does not end the violence in Gaza, agree to a ceasefire and agree to a lasting route towards a two-state solution, and to no annexation in the West Bank.' In their letter to Lord Hermer, the peers said Palestine 'does not meet the international law criteria for recognition of a state, namely, defined territory, a permanent population, an effective government and the capacity to enter into relations with other states'. There is no certainty over the borders of Palestine, they said, and no single government as Hamas and Fatah are enemies. In their letter, seen by the PA news agency, the peers added: 'You have said that a selective, 'pick and mix' approach to international law will lead to its disintegration, and that the criteria set out in international law should not be manipulated for reasons of political expedience. 'Accordingly, we expect you to demonstrate this commitment by explaining to the public and to the Government that recognition of Palestine would be contrary to the principles governing recognition of states in international law.' Lord Hermer has previously insisted a commitment to international law 'goes absolutely to the heart' of the Government's approach to foreign policy. Sir Keir announced earlier this week that the UK could take the step of recognising Palestine in September ahead of a gathering at the UN. The UK will only refrain from doing so if Israel allows more aid into Gaza, stops annexing land in the West Bank, agrees to a ceasefire, and signs up to a long-term peace process over the next two months, the Prime Minister said.