Proceeding contribution from Lord Freud (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Thursday, 6 October 2011. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee proceeding on Welfare Reform Bill.
Welfare Reform Bill
““Soon””, you can measure in weeks; ““very soon””, you can measure in days. Well, let us say that noble Lords in this Committee can. To pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, on the application of conditionality; in the Bill conditionality is linked only to employment outcomes, but any responsible Government will always want to look at options for achieving other outcomes for individuals, taxpayers and society as a whole. Indeed, I remind the noble Lord that the previous Government tried sanctions as a way to improve compliance with community sentences. On the related point of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, on IB and ESA numbers, I need to point out that the numbers were pretty much the same in 2008 and 1997. I welcome her focus on reducing inactivity. That is exactly the right thing. One can get pretty historical going over who is to blame or who is not to blame. This is the situation we are in and I do not think that any Peer in this Room would disagree with the proposition that we now have a benefits system that traps people in inactivity through its structure, and certainly one that does not apply substantial help to people to get out of that trap. She asked me to acknowledge the continuity between the two Governments, and I am pleased to do that. I can absolutely confirm that the design of the work programme, for instance, is very much based on the fact that the employment zones pilot initiated by the previous Government was clearly the most successful pilot. We picked that up, effectively, in the work programme and made it a national programme. While the aim is clearly to help as many people into work as we can, universal credit will also provide for those who cannot work. We have ensured that it is specified in the Bill that a number of groups will receive unconditional support without having to meet any labour market requirements. This will include those assessed as having limited capability for work and work-related activity; claimants with regular and substantial caring responsibilities; and lone parents or nominated carers with a child under the age of one. In terms of benefit payments, the structure of the benefit is similar to existing provision for people who are out of work. We have announced changes where we believe change is needed, and the Committee will be looking closely at specific points, such as disability support, housing benefit and the household benefit cap, when we reach the appropriate clauses. It is important to be clear from the outset that universal credit is overwhelmingly not about taking money away from people who are out of work. That much is very clear from the impact assessment, which shows that the majority of losers are people in work, many of whom have higher earnings. As I said on Tuesday, I hope that an updated impact assessment will be available soon, but the fact is that most workless people are not losers and the overall impact of the reform is progressive. I shall here refer to the important matter raised in particular by the noble Baronesses, Lady Campbell and Lady Wilkins, of the work capability assessment. We continue to work with Professor Harrington to ensure that that assessment works effectively. Clearly, he is involving disability groups in that development in a very proactive way. I obviously know the concerns of disability organisations in this area and I will aim to explain that in much more detail when we get to Clause 12, if that would be acceptable to noble Lords. It is also slightly misleading to talk about losers when we have a package of transitional protection to ensure that there are no cash losers as a direct result of the migration to universal credit, where circumstances remain the same. I understand that noble Lords are concerned that any claimants should be worse off under universal credit, but the fact is that we cannot simplify the system while retaining each and every element of all the existing benefits. That would be simply unaffordable. If I can touch on the introduction of the PIP on carers, which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and my noble friend Lord Newton—
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 730 c357-8GC
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords Grand Committee
- Subjects
- Council tax benefits Disability Disability living allowance Devolved matters Childcare Council tax Housing benefit Employment Jobseeker's allowance Eligibility Medical examinations Northern Ireland Scotland Social security benefits Wales Voucher schemes Universal credit
- Legislation
- Welfare Reform Bill 2010-12
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 21:19:59 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_770549
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_770549
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_770549