Universal Credit

Lord Clinton-Davis Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to the recent analysis by the Office for Budget Responsibility on the rollout of universal credit.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)]

In the OBR’s independent forecast of public spending, it has assumed a modest adjustment to the rollout for universal credit, which it says has a comparatively small impact on forecast expenditure. We maintain our determination to deliver the plan already set out which has been assured by the Major Projects Authority and signed off by the Treasury. The plan is on track. Universal credit will bring economic benefits of £7 billion every year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clinton-Davis (Lab)]

Both eminent bodies, the OBR and the IFS, forecast that the policy of the Government is reducing the state to its lowest level since the early 1930s. That is utterly different from what the Minister is predicting. Is not that dire consequence possible? It is utter madness, is it not? Does the Minister dispute the conclusions of both bodies? What is his prognosis?

[Lord Freud]

Well, my Lords, I will talk about universal credit and what it aims to do for the people who need support from the state system. It directs our funding far more efficiently to people who need that support. It produces economic benefits of £7 billion every year and it does so at an investment cost of £1.8 billion. That investment cost is down from the £2.4 billion that we originally envisaged.

Poverty and Social Exclusion

Lord Clinton-Davis Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2014 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to the recent findings by the Poverty and Social Exclusion in the United Kingdom research group.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)]

This report was published back in March 2013. It says that people were deprived if they could afford less than 42 out of 44 necessities. Under the Child Poverty Act, which this House spent much time on, 1.8 million children are in combined low-income and material deprivation, which is far lower than the 4 million children reported to be deprived in this report.

[Lord Clinton-Davis (Lab)]

It is not only the Poverty and Exclusion research group that has highlighted what certainly was a catastrophic increase in the percentage of households that fall below society’s minimum standard of living. Does the Minister understand that the concern expressed by that organisation has also been expressed by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Barnado’s, and many others, and that it still exists? I prefer the joint views that they have expressed to those of the Government.

[Lord Freud]

The previous Government put through the Child Poverty Act, which we on this side of the House supported. It is based on some research that comes out regularly on households below average income. That came out last week, and it showed that the proportion of children in relative poverty is at its lowest level since the mid-1980s.

EU: Youth Unemployment (EUC Report)

Lord Clinton-Davis Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clinton-Davis (Lab)]

My Lords, one of the tasks that we set ourselves was to dispel, as far as we could, some of the hopelessness which affects young people today. We cannot possibly succeed in doing that entirely, but we can make a contribution, which is what we tried to do.

I wish that I could have gone along with my colleagues to Birmingham, Liverpool and so on, but unfortunately my health did not permit it. However, I think that we have done a worthwhile job and I pay a compliment to our staff, who were superb throughout. I also pay a compliment to our chair, who enabled all of us to make a contribution. She deserves the compliments of the whole committee as far as that is concerned. The sub-committee has been remarkably well led. She has shown a determination to involve all the members and, without exception, they have responded in full—sometimes, like me, rather too fully.

I also share our chairman’s view that it is outrageous that the Government should have responded to this lengthy report in the way that they have. We have a joint effort to make in tackling this important issue. Why have the Government been so late? Why have they chosen to come forward with their response so close to this debate? It is absolutely outrageous.

The sub-committee concentrated, of course, on the question of youth unemployment and, in particular, on the threat that it poses to young people and to society at large, here and in the European Union. How can the European Union assist member states on the question of long-term unemployment? Long ago I was a member of the European Commission, but I cannot recall a debate about this issue. Perhaps we were rather slow to tackle it or perhaps it was not of such concern at the time. All I would say is that this report sheds a certain light upon an issue that all too often is shrouded in darkness.

Of course, the foremost task lies with the member states—a point underlined by the sub-committee and repeated in this debate—but the EU can and should play a vital role in supplementing those efforts. I do not think that prejudice against the EU has any part to play in this. It is important to collaborate in order to find solutions for this important issue, if we can. Naturally, the EU cannot do everything and it does not try to do so, but it can indicate how member states might most usefully work together. The process of learning and working together can be hugely beneficial. The report rightly emphasises that we can also learn from the experience of others who are not members of the EU. They are suffering too, and they may have useful ideas to share. It is indeed in our mutual interest to do this. Moreover, as the report indicates, the EU’s Europe 2020 strategy has a prominent role to play in tackling youth unemployment in Europe.

As the report illustrates, although UK youth unemployment is lower than the EU average, we should not rest on our laurels. In fact, youth unemployment in the UK does not compare well with some other similar economies in the Union—a point that is highlighted in the report. In my view, the Government’s response is far too complacent about this issue. We contend in our findings that there is much to learn, and we have strongly suggested that EU funding should be far less centralised. The correct course for enabling Union funds is that they should be spread more sensibly among the people and organisations that are most affected so that they can be full partners in this enterprise.

The concept of the Youth Guarantee which has been advanced by the Commission is broadly supported by the sub-committee as an important initiative in the drive to confront youth unemployment. We have set out our support for the steps that are outlined for those parts of the EU which are most affected by youth unemployment. We have recommended that this youth employment initiative should be set up in five areas of the United Kingdom, which would receive that funding. This point has been made time and again in this debate, and we deserve a reply from the Government about what their intentions really are.

We also indicated the importance of young people working and gaining experience in other member states, but we must insist, as a vital ingredient, on the proper protection of workers’ rights, thus averting the exploitation of young workers.

My earnest hope is that the report of the sub-committee will help to advance the significant issues that are at stake. All in all, I close where I began by saying that the members of the committee, led skilfully by our chairman, have contributed largely to the findings that we seek to insist upon.

Leveson Inquiry

Lord Clinton-Davis Excerpts

Friday 11th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness who has just spoken. Her defence of the PCC, about which she spoke at some length, was not wholly convincing, as the House has already mentioned. I regret very much that some news organs fall very short of being the “acceptable press”, to which she referred. It was a rather biased account.

In recent years, too many of the public have been exposed to the unwarranted intrusion and calumnies of the press and, unless effective action is taken, others will be, too. Much of the press, although not all, is controlled by press barons who are primarily concerned with advancing their own political and economic objectives, and, in the main, in my view, are largely unconcerned about potential victims who have too easily become pawns in attempts to increase circulation. The majority of the national papers are not to be trusted, I would contend.

Fortunately, many of the relevant issues have been put under Lord Justice Leveson’s microscope. There may well be a few matters in this comprehensive report from which one might legitimately dissent but that does not mean that the core solutions advocated by Leveson should not be implemented, as the Prime Minister assured us they would be, unless, to quote his words following the inquiry, “they are bonkers”. Bonkers Leveson is certainly not, and Labour’s Bill and that of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, take the line that the regulator has to be independent and that an independent body should oversee the regulator to secure that objective.

Although there are cogent arguments in favour of enshrining in statute a code of conduct, there are those who contend that it would jeopardise press freedom. A compromise between these two positions would be to ensure the impartiality of the independent regulatory body by requiring that it should be presided over by members of the senior judiciary. The exact formula for this would have to be worked out. Statutory intervention should and would be limited in this instance to the setting up of the regulatory body and would not extend to any prescription for press freedom in general.

Labour’s Bill in some respects falls short of those I would favour, but it is a positive advance that represents genuine momentum in implementing the principal recommendations of the report. Regulation of the press is not prescribed in Labour’s Bill, but the regulator will be both independent and—I hope—effective. We should not end up with what the majority of the press would prefer: superficial change during a honeymoon period, with no substantial transformation in reality. If the press considers itself a profession, laws—simple ones, I hope—to protect the public are absolutely essential. This is common to most professions. Why should the press be different?

I have great respect for the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who is not in his place. His intention is to comply with the concept of a new regulatory process. However, I fear that under his proposals, without some statutory underpinning, albeit of a limited nature, the structure of the regulatory body may prove to be not as strong or as independent as he claims.

I do not subscribe to the notion that the press should become the final arbiter, exercising real power; that the chair of the board could be summarily dismissed by the press, no doubt acting at the behest of the press barons; that a mere notice in writing to that effect would suffice; and that sanctions, if any, would be decided by the same press barons. That is totally inadequate. Some solution! Some independence! No wonder the press and media would support that.

Of course there are weaknesses in the route I outlined, but it is better than the plan devised by the newspapers or that offered by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt—for whom, as I said, I have great respect. Some government supporters, particularly those in another place, would in the final analysis prefer to kick the whole thing into touch.

I support the proposal put before the House by the Opposition. It would provide a fair wind to the aims that so many of us wish to see realised. Having said that, I would warmly welcome cross-party talks, provided that those participating were positive and prepared to make clear decisions. However, royal charters are essentially the wrong signpost to follow. My view is that that should not happen.

EU Report: Women on Boards

Lord Clinton-Davis Excerpts

Tuesday 13th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, for all she has done to advance this cause. Arriving at a more equitable situation between men and women on boards is ultimately desirable. However, it depends on being able to recruit women of real ability. It must be done within a limited time and satisfy the requirements of all the members of the EU. I have no doubt that to impose quotas at this stage would be a mistake. Some member states prefer legislation while some combine both. Others, such as ourselves, prefer a voluntary approach.

But what if insufficient progress is made? The sub-committee said that the voluntary approach must be given a fair time to work. That is entirely right, but at the end of the day, if it does not work, quotas should be applied. Two issues are absolutely vital. First, the EU should preferably act in concert. Secondly, there is no place for backsliders.

Pensions: Britons Living Abroad

Lord Clinton-Davis Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, the figures for non-frozen pensioners are 610,000 and for frozen pensioners 550,000. The difference in payment is currently between £57 for the non-frozen and £32.70 for the frozen. I am satisfied, as are the courts, that what we have is objective and justifiable in this area.

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

Would the Minister apologise for yesterday’s tantrum? I am very concerned about his mental health.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, the expert in thumping Palace woodwork, who is Black Rod of course, suggested that I did not make a habit of maltreating the furniture. I am happy to take that advice to heart.

Welfare Reform

Lord Clinton-Davis Excerpts

Thursday 11th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

I thank my noble friend Lord German for raising the issue of the impact on poverty. I have a much shorter word on record: it is not “complex”, “cumbersome” or “inefficient”; I call it a mess.

How will this work? In effect, by having more generous tapers and disregards we are putting money into the pockets of people doing small amounts of work. So there is the direct economic impact of that money going in. There will be a second order impact, which will be twice as large because we will simplify the system and have only one form. This will encourage a much higher take-up rate and, in practice, will almost eliminate the scourge of in-work poverty. So that is where the figure of 850,000 comes from.

There will also be the dynamic or incentive effect of always knowing that it is worth working, and being incentivised to work will reduce the number of workless households by about 300,000. We have not put that poverty impact in the Statement; it is in addition to it. Some households will be pulled above the artificial 60 per cent median line, and we expect the poverty impact to be even greater than the 850,000 we have referred to. These are big figures. I remind the House that, on conventional analysis, the reduction in child poverty during the 13 years of the previous Government was about 600,000 children, so we are looking at making a big relative effect in one go.

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

I wish I could share the Minister’s optimism. I believe that immense difficulties will arise in practice.

I wish to ask about handicapped people. Are any changes envisaged in this approach in regard to those claiming to be handicapped? Will they have a right of appeal if they are turned down—after all, experts can be wrong—and will legal aid be available in the vast majority of cases? If it is denied, that will not be fair—and, after all, fairness goes to the heart of what we are talking about.

[Lord Freud]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for his question. I hope I am not being too optimistic. On the handicapped issue, there are a few concepts buried in the question and I shall try to disentangle them.

First, how does the universal credit look to a disabled person? In the present system we have a conflation between disability and inactivity in the labour market. It is one or the other; you can do a little work, but not much. The beauty of the universal credit is that people on disability benefit will be on the same taper as others, with generous disregards, so that they are not in the desperate position of being inactive on disability benefit or working. We should remember that 40 per cent of people with disabilities are in the workforce—they want to be in the workforce—and that some of the most heavily disabled people want to work. We want to build up a system to help them to do so.

The second element of the noble Lord’s question deals with the work capability assessment process that we are now trialling. There will be an independent and elaborate tribunal process through which people can go. They can bring in legal support if they want but, in reality, most people do not need it because it has been accepted as a relatively balanced process, and robust systems will be in place to make sure that people do not get put into the wrong category. However, putting the money aside for one minute—clearly one likes to have more money than less and to be on a higher rather than a lower benefit—the reform will unlock the inactivity that we are in effect forcing on too many disabled people.