Robert Jenrick sets out Reform’s benefits plans (Image: Getty)
Up to 330,000 unemployed people would be forced to work for their local council or lose benefits under Reform UK’s plans to slash the welfare bill by £50billion. They would clean up high streets and parks, carry out minor repairs to council houses or work in libraries and community centres. Jobseekers could also be told to assist schools or social service departments in “non-sensitive” roles that do not involve working with children or people receiving care.
The plan was announced by Reform Treasury spokesman Robert Jenrick, who said claimants who refused to take part in the scheme would have their benefits cut or stopped entirely. It is part of a package of measures which also involves banning non-British citizens from receiving working-age benefits such as Universal Credit or Jobseeker’s Allowance, and slashing the number of people receiving disability benefits, including Personal Independence Payments (PIP).
G
Mr Jenrick said: “There are more than 330,000 adults on Universal Credit capable of work, and who are supposed to be looking for it, which they have been reportedly doing so for more than 12 months.
“That can’t keep going on. If taxpayers must contribute, so must the able recipients of their support who can as well.
“I am therefore announcing that a Reform government will introduce a welfare-to-work scheme.”
Those taking part in the scheme will get an extra £30 a week on top of their usual benefits to cover the cost of transport and meals.
The plan was criticised by think tank the Institute of Economic Affairs. Director-general Daniel Hannan, a former Conservative and now independent member of the House of Lords, said: “Requiring 330,000 people to do community service risks creating a costly new bureaucracy for councils. Welfare reform should save money, not give the state another scheme to administer.”
Sir Mel Stride, Shadow Chancellor, said: “I introduced reforms to cut the sprawling welfare budget after the pandemic by reducing the numbers on long-term benefits and radically overhauling PIP. Labour called them ‘divisive’ and scrapped all of them, allowing the benefits bill to continue spiralling. Robert Jenrick hailed my reforms for making the system fairer and enabling us to cut taxes responsibly.
“Reform continue to flip-flop, like they did on the two-child benefit cap, and their fantasy numbers are simply not plausible. Meanwhile, Labour are totally failing to tackle the scale of our welfare problem.”
Mr Jenrick told a London press conference that the average tax burden for each family to pay for the welfare state will reach £7,000 by 2031.
Reform’s plan to stop foreign nationals receiving benefits would include EU nationals with settled status, who are currently eligible as part of the Brexit deal negotiated with the EU. This stated that people living in the UK before December 31, 2020, the day Brexit took place, would not lose the rights they currently had. Changing this will mean reopening Brexit negotiations with Brussels.
The proposal to limit PIP involves extending the period employers have to provide sickness pay from 28 weeks at present to two years. To compensate for the cost, a Reform government would cut employer National Insurance contributions by 0.2%.
Reform Announces Major Plan for Unemployed People to Clean Parks and Repair Council Houses
Reform UK has sparked a fresh debate over unemployment and public services after announcing a proposal to involve unemployed people in work intended to improve local communities, including cleaning parks, maintaining public spaces and helping repair council houses. The plan highlights the party’s wider argument that people who are able to work should be encouraged to contribute to society while receiving support from the welfare system.
The proposal comes amid continuing pressure on local councils across Britain, many of which face difficult financial decisions while dealing with deteriorating public spaces, housing maintenance backlogs and growing demands for essential services. Supporters of the approach argue that using available labour to tackle visible problems could benefit communities and encourage people back into employment.
However, the details of any such scheme would be crucial. Questions remain about who would participate, whether the work would be compulsory, how participants would be paid and what safeguards would prevent the replacement of existing council employees.
For Reform UK, the issue provides an opportunity to place welfare reform, public spending and community responsibility at the centre of the political debate.
A Plan Focused on Local Communities
Parks, playgrounds, pavements and public gardens are among the services that residents encounter every day. When these facilities are neglected, people can quickly lose confidence in their local authorities.
Overgrown grass, litter-filled green spaces, damaged benches and poorly maintained communal areas can make neighbourhoods feel less welcoming. Council housing presents another challenge, particularly where repairs have been delayed because of limited budgets, shortages of skilled workers or administrative difficulties.
A programme that helps councils tackle these problems could have visible benefits if it is properly designed and funded.
Under the approach described in the proposal, unemployed participants could potentially assist with activities such as collecting litter, clearing vegetation, maintaining public gardens and carrying out basic maintenance tasks. More specialised work on council properties would require appropriate training, supervision and qualified tradespeople.
The distinction is important. Cleaning a public park is not the same as repairing electrical systems, addressing structural damage or resolving serious plumbing problems. Any housing maintenance programme would need to ensure that work affecting residents’ safety is completed by appropriately qualified professionals.
Reform’s challenge would be to explain precisely how the proposed arrangements would operate in practice and how local authorities would be expected to implement them.
Welfare Reform and the Question of Responsibility
The proposal reflects a wider political argument about the relationship between unemployment benefits and participation in the labour market.
Supporters of stronger work-related requirements argue that public assistance should be accompanied by meaningful opportunities to find employment, develop skills and contribute to local communities. They believe that structured work programmes could provide unemployed people with routines, practical experience and a pathway towards regular jobs.
For some participants, supervised community work might offer a useful opportunity to gain references, learn basic maintenance skills and demonstrate reliability to potential employers.
However, the circumstances of unemployed people vary considerably. Some are actively searching for work but face a shortage of suitable vacancies. Others may lack the qualifications required by local employers or live in areas where transport makes commuting difficult.
There are also people who face health conditions, disabilities, caring responsibilities or other barriers that prevent them from taking part in a standard work programme.
A policy that fails to recognise these differences could create additional hardship without delivering lasting improvements in employment.
The central question is therefore not simply whether unemployed people should contribute to their communities, but how a programme could help them move into sustainable work rather than merely placing them in temporary activities.
Could Council Housing Benefit?
Council housing is another major area where the proposed plan could attract attention.
Across many parts of Britain, social housing providers face pressure to maintain ageing properties, respond to residents’ complaints and complete essential repairs. Delays can affect tenants’ comfort, safety and quality of life.
Supporters of a community employment programme may argue that suitable additional workers could help with non-specialist tasks, including tidying communal gardens, clearing shared outdoor areas and assisting with basic maintenance under professional supervision.
If the scheme were carefully coordinated with existing housing services, it might help improve communal spaces and allow skilled staff to concentrate on more complex repairs.
Nevertheless, the problems facing social housing cannot necessarily be solved by adding more general labour. Major refurbishment projects require materials, funding, contractors and specialist expertise. Damp, mould, structural problems and faulty electrical installations demand appropriate assessments and effective repairs.
Councils would also need clear arrangements covering insurance, health and safety, supervision and responsibility for any damage.
There is a further concern about existing employees. Trade unions and housing professionals may question whether public authorities could use benefit claimants to carry out work that should instead be performed by paid staff.
To gain wider acceptance, any scheme would need to demonstrate that it supplements existing services rather than undermining established jobs or employment standards.
Cleaning Parks and Improving Public Spaces
Public parks are a particularly visible target for community improvement programmes because relatively straightforward maintenance can make a difference to residents’ daily lives.
Regular litter collection, clearing pathways, maintaining flower beds and removing minor obstructions can help create cleaner and more accessible public areas.
Such activities may also provide participants with opportunities to develop transferable skills, including teamwork, time management and the safe use of basic equipment.
Local councils could potentially identify areas requiring additional attention and organise supervised projects around specific community needs. Residents might then see tangible results from the programme, provided the work is consistent and properly managed.
However, successful park maintenance requires more than labour alone. Councils need equipment, waste collection arrangements, protective clothing, training and staff capable of coordinating activities.
If those costs are ignored, a programme could prove less economical than expected. Authorities would need to compare the total cost of running the scheme with the cost and effectiveness of existing maintenance arrangements.
The benefits would also depend on whether the work improves services over the long term or simply provides a temporary solution to problems caused by insufficient funding.
Concerns About Compulsory Work
One of the most sensitive questions is whether participation would be voluntary or linked to eligibility for unemployment benefits.
If a programme imposed work requirements, the rules would need to explain which claimants were affected, what exemptions applied and what would happen if someone could not attend.
A fair system would need to account for disability, illness, caring duties, reasonable adjustments and genuine conflicts with job interviews or training opportunities.
There would also need to be a clear distinction between work experience, training and ordinary employment. People carrying out productive work should understand their rights, the conditions under which they participate and whether the arrangement could lead to paid employment.
Critics of compulsory schemes often argue that sanctions can push vulnerable people into financial difficulty without resolving the reasons they are unemployed. They may also question whether mandatory placements offer better results than personalised job-search assistance, apprenticeships or employer-led training.
Supporters, meanwhile, may argue that reasonable participation requirements can encourage engagement and help ensure that public resources are used effectively.
The outcome would depend heavily on the programme’s design, the quality of its support and the evidence of whether participants subsequently find sustained employment.
The Financial Challenge for Councils
Local authorities would face practical questions about funding and administration. Even when participants receive benefits through the existing welfare system, organising community work is not cost-free.
Councils may need to provide supervisors, transport, tools, safety equipment and training. Housing maintenance could require additional inspections and coordination with contractors.
The government would also need to clarify whether councils would receive extra funding or be expected to organise the programme within existing budgets.
Without sufficient resources, authorities could struggle to deliver the scheme consistently. The policy might also create tensions between national government objectives and the financial realities facing individual councils.
A convincing plan would therefore need measurable targets, transparent spending arrangements and a clear method of evaluating its results.
Important measures could include the number of participants moving into paid employment, improvements in public-space maintenance, reductions in suitable repair backlogs and the overall cost to taxpayers.
These indicators would help determine whether the programme delivered genuine value rather than simply shifting costs between public departments.
A Political Debate With Wider Implications
The proposal fits into a broader national discussion about welfare spending, local government services and the responsibilities of people receiving public support.
For Reform UK, community work offers a way to connect concerns about unemployment with highly visible problems such as litter, neglected parks and delayed housing repairs.
The idea may appeal to residents who want cleaner neighbourhoods and more responsive public services. It could also attract criticism if people believe that benefit claimants are being unfairly targeted or that councils are using the scheme to avoid employing workers.
The details will matter more than the headline. A programme that provides training, respects individual circumstances and leads to genuine employment could offer advantages. One that relies on poorly supervised compulsory labour without improving job prospects could produce a very different outcome.
Ultimately, the proposal raises a fundamental question about how Britain should respond to unemployment while local authorities struggle to maintain essential services.
Reform UK’s plan places that question firmly in the political spotlight. Its success would depend on whether the party can demonstrate that community improvements, fair treatment of unemployed people and responsible use of public money can be achieved together.
For councils and residents, the most important test will be practical: whether parks become cleaner, housing repairs are completed more effectively and people who are out of work gain a realistic route into lasting employment.