Economic Growth
Lord Farmer Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Farmer
That this House takes note of the conditions required for economic growth.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have made time to prepare for and contribute to this important debate on taking note of the conditions required for economic growth. I pray that it will be helpful, constructive and stimulating, as we hold the Government to account for their major election pledge to bring about growth, presently at which they are struggling. I will focus today on mood, spirit, culture and the social underpinnings of market economies, often neglected subjects in growth discussions.
On 29 July, the Chancellor first said the new Government had
“inherited a projected overspend of £22 billion”,—[Official Report, Commons, 29/7/24; col. 1033.]
or a black hole, and so began the gloomfest, with warnings of a very difficult Budget and, probably unintentionally, the destructive talkdown of the economy. The cloud of employment rights soon appeared on the horizon, with much employer scratching of heads as to how these 28 reforms were going to deliver growth, given concerns, for example, that day-one rights could mean that they were stuck with an unsuitable hire.
Last quarter’s rise in unemployment is being blamed on the Budget’s further disincentives to hire with higher employer national insurance contributions and minimum wage levels producing an accelerator effect of pessimism. Business confidence is now at a very low ebb. One entrepreneurial farmer I was talking to recently, who has businessmen friends who were full of plans for new enterprises and the expansion of existing ones, said they had all cancelled these plans since the Budget and are hunkering down to survive.
Lifting the gloom is essential for growth. There needs to be reward for risk-taking and succour for the entrepreneurial spirit being deadened by an emphasis on rights. Responsibilities need to come back into fashion. We need a JFK moment: ask not what your company can do for you—ask what you can do for your company. Many employers shoulder significant risk. Their decisions make the difference between someone’s job being there or not, and they live daily with existential threats facing firms they have built up with their own money and effort.
Employment rights are obviously important, but employees also have responsibilities towards their employers, which should be pursued out of self-interest, if for no other reason. Securing rights, for example, to work from home or in a hybrid pattern should not be in the teeth of good business reasons for office-based staff to be working together in the office. In 1789, Pierre Victor Malouet warned France’s Estates-General:
“Take care when you tell man his rights. For you will transport him to the summit of a high mountain—from where you will show him an empire without limits”.
Rights are voracious.
JFK also said:
“One person can make a difference, and everyone should try”.
Call me nostalgic, but people used to work hard because of the need and inner drive to support their families. Arguably, they are now encouraged to vote for the party, no matter where on the political spectrum, that will do the best job of looking after their family for them. Of course the state has a role, but it should not smother or quench that provider instinct.
I welcome this Government’s efforts to stoke, not stifle, the spirit of adventure by shaking up environmental regulators and the Competition and Markets Authority. Many potential wealth-creators are snarled up in the sticky web of regulation for no reward and often at much cost. Even trying to open a bank account takes far too long. Regulation can sabotage the good intentions of policy. Of course we need a rules-based system, but when it becomes sclerotic and pathologised, it simply breeds despair.
My first City boss was always questioning whether one had the spirit of adventure. He was not counselling recklessness: risk needs to be analysed, and the risk-reward ratio needs to be calculated. The British Volksgeist, or national spirit, currently pervaded by gloom, needs to be freed from stultifying processes and reborn as a spirit of adventure. Alongside that, the world of ideas needs to be freed from the dictatorship of orthodoxy. A high percentage of the British elite inhabit a unipolar world where only one sort of ideas is considered—for example, on the issue of equality, diversity and inclusion.
Many in the British public are desperate for change. They are flirting with the idea of Farage and intrigued by the dominance of the disruptors in the United States, yet most mainstream news outlets recycle disdain for Trump and Musk and ignore the energy their ideas are pumping into the American Volksgeist. Americans have rediscovered that the buoyant animal spirits that need unleashing flourish in freedom.
Stimulating wealth creation requires encouraging people to take risks and act on out-of-the-box ideas. In this country, the hero is not the risk-taker but the reasonable man. George Bernard Shaw said:
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man”.
We will not see progress in this country when blandness is the ideal. Trailering the second Conservative debate later today, we are seeing it in the withdrawal of education options, by making the national curriculum compulsory across academies and forcing independent schools to close.
However, the liberation of market forces does not necessarily produce unending economic growth. A sustainably flourishing economy requires a stable social base. Towards the end of her time in office, Margaret Thatcher recognised that she needed to turn to social renewal after a decade-long focus on unleashing the markets and economic reform. The destruction of old industries had a devastating effect on the social fabric of the country, and family breakdown picked up speed on its already upward trend. The noble Lord, Lord King of Lothbury, the former Governor of the Bank of England, is adamant that stable families are the building blocks of a productive society, and ignoring that truth sowed seeds of destruction for future growth. Indeed, Tony Blair said in 1996 that a strong society
“cannot be morally neutral about the family”,
but now almost half of all children do not grow up with both parents.
Hyper-liberal individualism runs alongside purist free-market philosophy; hence many who espouse the latter are libertarian in their outlook. Yet, when social liberalism partners with economic liberalism, the inherent contradiction eventually brings the engine of growth to a shuddering halt. The social underpinnings of markets have been gnawed away. A real-world example is that coping with relationship breakdown made my employees less productive at work.
I once suggested to the Treasury that it should investigate the correlation between our low position on OECD league tables for both productivity and family stability and try to cost the loss of productivity that family breakdown brings. The Treasury spad that I spoke to was horrified at the prospect because, in his words, the cost would be far too high. In other words, the link with stable family life, with all its benefits to individuals and society, is well known but ignored by politicians running from an unpopular message.
Yet family instability undermines us economically in myriad ways. Adults who experience family breakdown as children are significantly more likely to have debt problems or to be on benefits. They are almost twice as likely to underachieve at school, experience mental issues such as alcoholism, be in trouble with the police or spend time in prison. One-quarter of prisoners have spent time in local authority care, and three-quarters of men in prison had an absent father. Future prosperity is sacrificed to liberal individualism.
Moreover, economic liberals’ demands for lower taxes and a smaller state will be forever thwarted when the demands on the public purse are so great, and that has much to do with the degradation of social and, particularly, family bonds. Family hubs are vital to remedying that. There are now around 950 family hubs in over 130 English local authorities, working closely with hundreds of children’s centres, building on the work of previous Labour and Conservative Governments. I declare my interest as a guarantor of FHN Holding, the not-for-profit owner of Family Hubs Network Ltd, in asking the Minister whether his Government will keep investing in family hubs in the spending review.
More broadly, David Halpern and Andy Haldane’s Social Capital 2025 says that strengthening wider networks and trust dramatically improves countries’ economic fortunes. In their words:
“The social bonds that tie us are the hidden wealth of nations”.
Strong social trust allows doing a deal on a handshake instead of through lawyers, sharply lowering transaction costs. A 10% increase in social trust increases relative economic productivity by 1.3% to 1.5%.
Social trust requires greater trust in our politics and requires politicians to tell the truth and be straight with the electorate. The leader of the Conservative Party recently admitted the futility of virtue-signalling announcements such as, “We will get to net zero by 2050”, without a credible plan. Labour has form here too. Building 1.5 million homes was hard enough when we did not have the manpower and other resources, and then the minimum wage and national insurance went up. When the Chancellor said her Budget did not increase tax on working people that was true only in a casuistic sense, and voters are sick of casuistry. Politicians should not underestimate the value of honesty. Facing up to things engenders respect. The public see through the deceit of talking down the economy when it was on the way up and misrepresenting Conservative spending plans. They simply say, “A plague on both your houses”.
Having been involved in markets for half a century, I have found money to be particularly honest. It is either there or it is not; you are either broke or you are not. In contrast, an ideology that says that net zero requires closing North Sea oilfields down will simply not work in the timeframes being driven through, not to mention that the solar panels we will rely on being made with Chinese slave labour.
Wealth creation is vital to support and lift those who need Churchill’s safety net of the welfare state, but many become entangled in that net if they are mentally or physically unwell. So, just as in the wider welfare population prior to universal credit, we need to cut welfare but, more than that, we also need to de-risk coming off welfare, especially where people are languishing on sickness benefits.
We also need to reduce the state by reducing the Civil Service. Productivity has gone up in the private sector but not the public sector, where the existential threat that many private sector companies face daily is non-existent.
To sum up my main points, poor growth has cultural as well as economic drivers. Will the Minister inform the House how the Government will banish gloom and blandness and encourage that spirit of adventure? How is he going to pep us all up? How will the Government emphasise responsibilities, not just rights, and rebuild a stable social fabric based on families and communities, where people provide, care for and trust each other? Will they admit that there is a pressing need for big ideas and people who think outside of the box? However uncomfortable they make us feel, we need disruptors who can discredit and destroy the dictatorship of orthodoxy. I beg to move.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed today. It was a robust debate and it was full of good ideas, stimulating and constructive. I thank the Minister for addressing many of the questions and giving details. I am saddened by the political point-scoring, because we have problem of growth and we need a coherent plan, as my noble friend Lord Horam, said, for growth. I intended—and as I said at the beginning, I prayed—that this debate would produce some ideas that would be a help to the Government. I hope that the Government will take this debate, study it and take the ideas from it, and that it may help them in producing a coherent plan for growth.
I thank everybody for their work and preparation. This has been an important debate. We have a growth problem and we need a growth plan. I beg to move.
National Insurance: Charity Sector
Lord Farmer Excerpts(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, the state contracts out important family services work in prisons to charities, as they are more trusted by families and by the prisoners they are visiting. However, these contracts are so skimpily financed that increased, unbudgeted NI costs will likely mean many charities are forced to hand them back to the Government. Will additional funds be made available to bridge that shortfall so that agreed work can be delivered without risking charities’ financial integrity?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The noble Lord gives a powerful example of the valuable work that charities undertake. It is hugely difficult for this Government to find ways of filling the £22 billion black hole. The Charities Minister has met representatives and we are keen to work with and hear from individual charities where they have concerns, so if the noble Lord has specific examples that he would like to share with me, I ask him to get in touch.
Civil Servants: Compulsory Office Attendance
Lord Farmer Excerpts(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Farmer
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they intend to change requirements for civil servants to work in government offices following a vote for possible strike action over compulsory office attendance at the Land Registry.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, the issue of the amount of time civil servants are required to work in their offices rather than in their own homes has been raised several times in Oral and Written Questions, and there will be a Select Committee on home-based working starting shortly. I understand that this is going to be based here and not in people’s homes. This is a welcome opportunity to have a longer debate in advance of that. It is a very important issue for the country, as we try to pull together after a tumultuous period, especially during the pandemic, when many social norms were turned on their heads. The norm that people had separate work and home spheres was completely inverted. There were, of course, exceptions to this norm, but there were also reasons why it was a norm.
To set this debate in the broader context of requirements on the Civil Service, the last Government mandated civil servants to work together in offices 60% of the time. Phrased as an “expectation”, it had flexibility built in, so that many exceptions could be made—for example, on the grounds of disability or childcare responsibilities. The Cabinet Office said that department leaders would listen to staff and make adaptions where required to ensure that the policy meets business needs. This was part of the Civil Service People Plan, which points out that the
“programme of modernisation is no end in itself. It is about delivering to every part of our country and every family, and doing so better, more effectively and efficiently”.
The current government focus, as stated by the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, is on fundamental reform of our public services to drive greater efficiency and productivity. They renewed their commitment to the 60% office attendance mandate on 24 October 2024, doing so with reference to a wide range of studies showing the benefits of hybrid working.
However, Land Registry employees in the Public and Commercial Services Union will strike indefinitely from 21 January over their managers’ application of this mandate, refusing to cover for colleagues or to take on anything they deem to be beyond their job description. The PCS cited concerns about reduced work flexibility, extended working days due to commuting, financial impact, well-being, and impacts on disabled workers and carers. Limits to flexibility and the time, money and energy spent on commuting are all costs of employment that were normal before the pandemic catalysed the mass movement out of the workplace and into the home.
As an employer, I have first-hand experience of how hard it is to assess performance when people are working from home. Major changes to stamp duty are coming in April this year, which the Land Registry will have to administer, yet commentators in the FT have described the Land Registry’s current inefficiency, with some registrations now taking 12 to 24 months, and its service levels are already far below what any private sector business would deem to be acceptable.
The PCS general secretary, Fran Heathcote, said that imposing mandated targets on office attendance
“doesn’t increase productivity and is unpopular with staff”.
How can she be so certain? I am sure that others here will talk about the benefits of home working. However, assessments of its impact on productivity are inconclusive, and the Government are very clear on the benefits of collaborative face-to-face working, particularly in the Civil Service. Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JP Morgan, whose shareholders require him to run an efficient business, announced on Tuesday that all staff will be required to work in the office five days a week, as
“staff work better together in-person”.
Dimon has been critical of the US Federal Government’s lax expectations of their officials in this area.
The taxpayers of this country are the shareholders of the Civil Service, and we require the Government to run it effectively. In 2019, the TUC described home-based working as a “win-win-win” that
“can boost productivity … But too many employers are clinging to tradition, or don’t trust their staff enough to encourage homeworking. They need to catch up”.
The implication is that remote working was previously underused and that we are now in a brave new world of greater efficiency. Frankly, the TUC needs to catch up on the realities of human nature. The companies that I have managed and started have taught me that the sentiments expressed by the TUC are rather naive. It is not necessarily clinging to tradition to want to have the team work together, united in the aim of furthering the business and building relationships through interaction. Moreover, trust must be earned; it comes with a good track record. Accountability must be learned and observed. If you can see no evidence that work is happening, how can you know that it is taking place? Furthering the business is existentially important when its survival is at stake.
Flourishing businesses are indispensable for employees’ economic well-being and require employers to take a risk, often working long hours themselves. My experience is that home working has been a brake on creativity and productivity. The IFS warns that people might, in fact, now be working too much from home and undervaluing the benefits of in-person work. It says that externalities—the bigger picture—need factoring in, but the employee looks only narrowly at the costs and benefits of their actions. Externalities include the effects of a personal decision to home-work on everyone else in the office and their productivity. More people in the office can better facilitate collaboration and creativity, such as with a quick five-minute chat to resolve issues instead of a diarised Teams meeting.
Importantly, the costs and benefits of home working are spread very unevenly across each firm’s workforce. Older and more experienced workers may just want to get their heads down and finish early. Their pre-pandemic work-based social networks have kept going, reducing the benefits of going into the office. Often having bigger homes, they can work in separate spaces from the families that they spend time with after work. However, psychological impacts on younger, newer workers are likely underestimated. Working in their bedrooms, struggling with loneliness and flailing around with little help and social support, they need informal chats and to observe first hand those with greater experience. Much is better caught than taught.
Older and more senior workers who insist on home working for personal convenience are often pulling up the ladder that they were able to climb. Since the Budget, there has been a cloud of gloom over business, given ever-increasing levels of taxation and constantly mounting pressures on employers. These include ever-increasing rights of employees. If many rights are given on day 1, when people have not shown that they can even do the job, this will deter hiring. Entrepreneurialism is being dampened and the spirit of adventure required to start and drive a company and create wealth is evaporating. Many companies are fast reaching the limits of sustainability in such a hostile environment and urgently need their staff to do the work that they are paid to do in the most productive way possible.
We are still in the wash of the pandemic, so in this nationally vital area of employment it is time to evaluate what is good, what is bad, what is right and what is wrong. Frankly, it cannot just be what the unions and employees want. The home working norm, which emerged in very abnormal circumstances that now no longer exist, has been sustained. Why? Will the Government confirm that working from home and even hybrid working will not be treated as a right? The employer should be able to require what is needed for delivery. Will the Government confirm that they do not intend to reduce the Civil Service office attendance mandate? They should, as employers and stewards of our taxes, act on the bigger picture, the externalities mentioned by the IFS, and enable other employers to do the same.
Whitehall: Prioritising Performance
Lord Farmer Excerpts(6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Farmer
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the report, Making the grade: Prioritising performance in Whitehall, published by Reform on 1 May; and what steps they are taking in response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
His Majesty’s Government remain committed to attracting and retaining the most talented people to build a highly skilled and capable Civil Service. The recommendations contained within the Reform report are detailed and wide-ranging. Time is being taken to consider carefully all the recommendations. A number of activities are under way to continuously improve how talent recruitment and performance are managed.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging reply. Reform emphasises the need for greater cognitive diversity in the Civil Service and a clear route for public service-minded and exceptionally talented applicants without a specific role to apply for. Will the Government set up a mid-career fast stream to bring in high-flyers experienced in other ways of working to help break the groupthink? Similarly, using “behaviours” in success profiles favours internal candidates, so will the Government scrap this and assess instead on skills and experience?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Success profiles provide a common framework for recruiters to assess the key attributes for roles, including skills and experience. Behaviours are not compulsory. The Government People Group is due to review the content and application of, and support for, success profiles in 2025 as part of continuing work to improve the quality and openness of recruitment. The Government are reviewing the options for a mid-career scheme as workforce demands in the next spending review are established. Many roles are open to external recruitment at all grades, with talent schemes such as the Future Leaders Scheme available to support rapid progression through to more senior levels. Regarding diversity of thinking, currently around 10% of those on the Future Leaders Scheme declare as neurodiverse.
Conversion Therapy Prohibition (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity) Bill [HL]
Lord Farmer Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I agree with many other noble Lords that this very short Bill does not do justice to the many sensitive and complex considerations that these issues raise. One result of the Bill’s brevity is that it includes no safeguards. The vague definition of “conversion therapy” raises more questions than it answers. No distinction is made in the Bill between undeniably cruel and coercive efforts to change someone’s sexuality or gender on the one hand and, on the other, faith leaders, parents and friends who may be approached by someone struggling in these areas and do their best to advise them. Any responsible legislation in this area must make these crucial distinctions.
No doubt, it is very difficult to do. The Government have been struggling for years to define conversion therapy in the robust way necessary for legislation. The Government Equalities Office consultation closed more than two years ago. A draft Bill was to be prepared for spring 2022, but has not been forthcoming. I am sure that that is not for lack of effort. Drawing up a conversion therapy law that does not infringe on family life, belief and other fundamental human rights is no easy task. This Bill certainly does not achieve it.
Many noble Lords will have seen the analysis of Jason Coppel KC, who considered the Bill in detail. His words are telling. He notes that the Bill
“would apply across the whole range of life; including in religious settings, social settings, and in the home”.
He says:
“No attempt has been made to craft exemptions or exceptions so as to ensure that any particular conduct, including conduct in domestic settings, or the practice of religion, is not prohibited”.
The Bill would, he says,
“restrict the ability of gender-critical persons to express their beliefs; the ability of religious organisations to express their beliefs … and the ability of parents to counsel and bring up children in the way they believe to be right”.
He continues by saying that
“the Bill criminalises expressions of personal conviction even if they are made without expressions of hatred or intolerance, or improper purpose or coercion, or abuse of power”.
He concludes that the Bill would interfere with rights protected by Articles 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
We must take these warnings seriously. With these rights engaged, any legislation must be carefully crafted, but also have sound justification. So what is the justification? If conversion therapy entails coercive and abusive behaviour, there are many laws governing such conduct already. When we go beyond the existing law, we very quickly infringe free speech and religious liberty. I have yet to hear a clear articulation of the gap in the law that the Bill intends to fill. Hence, I am left wondering to what extent it is needed at all. I do not believe I am alone in that.
My noble friend Lady Eaton referred to Keira Bell and her horrific experience at the Tavistock clinic. We are all, I am sure, troubled by it, as we should be. A young lady has been left with a damaged body after irreversible surgery that was not clinically necessary but rather ideologically driven. This is what happens when there is only one permitted way to respond to people experiencing distress about their gender.
This comes back to the finding of Dr Hilary Cass that “social transition” is not a neutral act; it is a major psychosocial intervention that is likely to affect whether a child’s gender distress disappears or becomes long lasting. As we saw with Keira Bell, and many like her, social transitioning is the first step on the pathway to often deeply regretted permanent changes. Therefore, those who are ideologically driven to affirm and encourage children, in particular, to see themselves as trans when they are going through temporary turbulence need to be held responsible. If anything, this Bill should outlaw that—but I cannot see it being used that way in practice. Those calling most loudly for this Bill certainly would not want that.
Despite manifest problems with the current affirmative approach, this Bill will entrench rather than correct it. My noble friend Lady Foster referred chillingly to the conversion therapy law in Victoria, Australia, which makes it criminal not to affirm someone’s identity and sexuality. Victoria’s approach is lauded by those calling for this Bill, yet its law and official guidance are extraordinarily intolerant. It has even issued guidance on what the law now considers to be acceptable prayers. Prayers must reassure people that they are “perfect the way they are”. That is a long way from the New Testament’s declaration that
“all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.”
I certainly have sinned, continue to sin and continue to fall very far short of the glory of God. But here, parents who do not agree to their children going on to puberty blockers can fall foul of this law. We cannot go down this path.
Universal Credit (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Regulations 2022
Lord Farmer Excerpts(2 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, for bringing forward this regret Motion, which highlights important issues arising from the continued managed migration from legacy benefits to universal credit, and I pay tribute to her detailed knowledge in this area. As she said, the Government removed the need for the DWP to return to Parliament after 10,000 claimants had been migrated to universal credit from legacy benefits without a full evaluation of the programme so far.
In supporting her Motion, I will raise three important concerns: the lack of safeguards for vulnerable claimants, as we have heard; transitional protection, given the evidence of adverse impact of technical issues on claimants; and lack of scrutiny by Parliament, removing the opportunity for MPs and Peers to challenge and question the process so far or to introduce any legislative changes thought necessary.
First, the impact on vulnerable people can be severe. Fifty per cent of claimants of legacy benefits are on employment support allowance, which is a benefit for people who have an illness or disability that prevents them working. The process of claiming universal credit is difficult but for these people it presents a major challenge. The DWP plans to stop payment of legacy benefits to those who do not comply after three months; this is a significant sanction and could cause major distress, particularly to the most vulnerable claimants. The Government have removed the cap without publishing an evaluation. It seems essential that managed migration should be halted until an evaluation has been published.
Secondly, transitional protection is available only to those households that are migrated. There is evidence of the adverse impact of a number of technical issues on certain groups of claimants. For example, claimants will be better off if migrated after the annual uprating and worse off if migrated before. That is unfair and inequitable. People transferring from temporary to mainstream accommodation will have the housing cost element added to their universal credit. That will erode any transitional protection they may receive.
Carers, of all people, who give so much to our communities and who are entitled to the limited capability for work-related activity, will lose out on transitional protection, as the LCRWA full amount means that transitional protection is eroded by this element. Transitional protection comes to an end when joint claimants separate as a couple, even when a partner has died or left as the result of an abusive relationship. A full evaluation would enable these important issues to be reviewed and, where necessary, action to be taken to strengthen transitional protection. No claimant should be worse off at the point of transfer and vulnerable claimants need to be protected from the consequences of not coping with claims.
Thirdly, there is a lack of accountability to Parliament. As the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee points out, insufficient detail has been provided for there to be confidence in the DWP’s capacity to carry out the full migration without detriment to claimants. The managed migration to universal credit is an enormous project. The volume of claimants alone is a cause of concern, in that failure to deliver competently could cause widespread distress and hardship to those claimants.
Of the 2.6 million people still on legacy benefits, up to half are vulnerable long-term claimants such as the sick or disabled. The DWP needs to provide stronger evidence of its competence to communicate with the most vulnerable claimants and of its capacity to transfer their claims without disruption to those payments. Parliament should not be excluded from this major project, the impact of which on the poorest and most disadvantaged people may be very serious. It is essential for MPs and Peers to exercise full scrutiny and accountability and that they are kept in full touch as the project is rolled out. We support the Motion.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, the Minister told the House on 17 October that, as of February 2022, 5.18 million working-age adults, or 12.7% of the GB working-age population, were receiving out-of-work benefits. She explained that the largest categories were universal credit “out-of-work” or those with “no work-related requirements”, but can she inform the House how many are claiming the legacy employment and support allowance? Presumably, they would all be migrated as part of “move to UC”.
She also said that the DWP is trying to reduce the flow into unemployment and inactivity through prevention and retention work by supporting disabled people and people with long-term health conditions. Will the migration of people currently claiming legacy employment and support allowance into universal credit mean these claimants receive more attention from work coaches, with the aim of their being better enabled to work? This is not about being punitive, but ensuring that no one is simply parked on benefits when their well-being and sense of purpose would be greatly boosted by working or increasing their hours. This is obviously even more important when there are so many vacancies.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for tabling this important regret Motion, which she introduced with her usual power and precision. All I can do is reinforce some of the points she and the noble Lord, Lord Storey, made emphasising how much this matters for both the well-being of claimants, particularly those in vulnerable circumstances, and transparency and accountability to Parliament.
I have yet to see a convincing justification for the removal of the stage gate, which was introduced to assuage concern raised in both Houses. Two reasons were given by the then Secretary of State in a letter to the chair of the Work and Pensions Committee in May: first, that early lessons and observations were captured during the truncated pilot in Harrogate. We have not been told what those lessons were and, curiously, in oral evidence to the committee in June, the next month, the same Secretary of State said:
“We learned a bit in Harrogate, but not a lot. The main thing we learned in Harrogate is not to do it the way it was done in Harrogate.”
That is all the more reason, one would have thought, for maintaining the piloting approach that Parliament was promised. But, no, apparently UC’s resilience during the pandemic means that a pilot is no longer needed. As my noble friend pointed out, that was a very different exercise involving a very different group of people, almost certainly far fewer in vulnerable circumstances. Instead of the pilot, as we have heard, we have what is called the discovery phase—which sounds so appealing, like a mystery cruise, but has actually reassured no one, particularly the SLSC and SSAC, never mind external stakeholders.
Although ultimately SSAC drew back from recommending that the stage gate be retained, it made clear its concerns at its abolition. Among the points it made was the need to monitor the impact of the declining ratio of staff to claimants during the discovery phase and to publish before the Summer Recess the criteria for scaling up and moving on to the next phase of implementation, yet, to my knowledge, they have still not been published. Why not? Will the Minister give an undertaking today to do so, and to ensure that the declining staff/claimant ratio is monitored?
These and other issues, as we have heard, stem from a concern about the risk to claimants of the whole exercise. When the original regulations were considered, the view was put strongly by SLSC and SSAC that the balance of risk lay too heavily on the claimant. This was why CPAG, of which I am honorary president—I am grateful for its full briefing—Z2K and disability organisations called for the automatic transfer of migrated claimants, rather than requiring them to make a new claim. I never saw a plausible reason for rejecting that idea, but clearly it will not happen. As my noble friend asked, could the department at least consider the suspension of an existing claim rather than its termination in cases where a new claim is not made in the required period—not least because of the implications for transitional protection?
Her Majesty The Queen: “The Faithful”
Lord Farmer Excerpts(2 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Farmer
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what consideration they have given to advising Her Majesty The Queen to add “The Faithful” to her title; and what legislation, if any, would be required before such a title was adopted.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his thoughtful suggestion and for his kind words in the Motion on the humble Address about Her Majesty the Queen’s long and successful—and, I submit, happy and glorious—reign. There are no plans for the Government to advise Her Majesty to change her title, which was set out by proclamation made under the provisions of the Royal Titles Act 1953.
Lord Farmer (Con)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer, which I was expecting. Does he agree that the unprecedented occasion of a Platinum Jubilee demands marking for future generations and centuries the uniqueness of this reign? Adding “the Faithful” to the Queen’s title, as in “Alfred the Great”, would make her stand out in the sweep of history. This permanent and indisputable marker would acknowledge her constancy and outworked sense of duty. It has a double meaning, as it is directed both to God and to her fellow man. Can my noble friend the Minister suggest a constructive way forward?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I agree with every sentiment that my noble friend has expressed about Her Majesty. The position is that the titles are proclaimed by the Accession Council and embraced in the Royal Titles Act. The Platinum Jubilee demonstrated the affection this country has for Her Majesty; it may be left to history to accord titles to past monarchs, but the Government have no plans to make a change.
House of Lords: Appointments Process
Lord Farmer Excerpts(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I first thank my noble friend Lord Balfe for his kind words and for initiating this debate. Recent Sunday Times stories about former party treasurers imply that large donors given peerages are inherently unsuited to serve in the House and that this is confirmed when they do not subsequently speak or attend. Wealthy people putting their mouths where their money is bring insight and expertise to this House’s debates and committees.
On the criticism of the quality of service and work done in this House by the Sunday Times, the judgment of a senior EU lawyer whom I met during the bicentenary of the Battle of Waterloo was that the work received in Brussels from the House of Lords was second in quality to no other secondary Chamber in the world. Our gracious monarch strictly enjoins us to attend her Parliament in Westminster to treat and give our counsel upon the arduous, urgent dangers impending upon her realm. This Writ of Summons lays sobering responsibilities upon those who receive it.
Without making excuses, here are some thoughts on why former treasurers may not contribute: the difficulties of investing much time mastering the House’s procedures, of understanding the timetabling and of risking disapprobation when speaking out in relative inexperience. These can be powerful disincentives. My advice to former treasurers is this: you have the money and a great honour has been bestowed on you—you can speak in Parliament—so pay for high-quality help. Do not stint; an experienced advisory team can help you master procedure and time.
Frankly, disapprobation can come to wealthy Members not for what they say but for who they are. Fear of humiliation discourages and silences. Such prejudgment is discourteous, and courtesy is the currency of this House. If we in this House treated all appointees cordially, we would see and hear the best of people and counsel given would be richer and more wide-ranging.
Government: Leadership Training
Lord Farmer Excerpts(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Norton for this timely debate, which I fully support. I follow the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, by admitting that I come to it somewhat humbly, acknowledging my lack of experience as a Minister, an MP or a civil servant.
Over the past 18 months, we have become more aware than ever of the importance of effective government, which requires excellence in leadership. When the control of the state extends over our social lives, our access to workplaces, healthcare and leisure facilities and our ability to travel freely, it is terrifying to think that incompetence might hold sway for want of core leadership skills. Among those, I give pre-eminence to the ability to exercise courage and servant leadership, which are mutually interdependent, in pursuit of the common good. Political elites should always be focused on pursuing this, but their hypercompetitiveness and electoral short-termism make courage and servant leadership particularly elusive traits.
Moreover, “Gotcha!” politics has become supercharged by cancel culture: pitiless condemnation of what people say—let alone do—which makes it more difficult than ever to act with courage. Anonymous social media bullies seek to destroy through fear the man or woman who, in Theodore Roosevelt’s words,
“is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; … who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds”.
Good governance always requires taking risks, for the present incumbents to realise long-term rewards which may accrue to other political parties and leaders.
The implementation of my two reviews commissioned by the Ministry of Justice required political and civil service leaders to invest faith and money in the ability of healthy relationships with families and others to reap significant rehabilitation rewards. In the short term, this meant, for example: allowing access to iPads for video visits; home leaves on temporary licence; and enabling more women to stay with babies born during or shortly before their sentence. Retrospective research findings, such as reoffending being 39% less likely when prisoners had received family visits, suggest good outcomes will ensue from such measures, but prospective, longitudinal studies showing reductions in intergenerational crime and long-term desistance, are likely to take more than a decade to yield the irrefutable data that many leaders prefer to act on when making seemingly risky decisions.
Academic business studies expose the limits of such “vigilant” leadership. This is when decision-makers work
“to the best of their limited abilities, within the confines of available organizational resources, to exercise all the caution they can to avoid mistakes in the essential tasks of information search, deliberation, and planning.”
To me, this emphasis on caution, avoiding risks and bureaucratic decision-making can and does stifle initiative and innovation and quenches the spirit of adventure. It can eliminate the need for courage, whereas judging risk/reward ratios and courageously acting on them demands it.
Research on how senior leaders in the US federal Government made their most difficult decisions considered whether they employed this “vigilant” approach to decisions involving informational, technical or political complexity. Notably, leaders said that their most difficult decisions required courage. Those courageous decisions were made after personal reflection and/or consulting a small number of trusted advisers, rather than in ways that could be described as “vigilant”. The researchers concluded that complex decisions required leaders and their advisers to be “ambidextrous”—systematic and highly rigorous but also able, when courage was needed, to stick their heads above the parapet and take risks to reap potentially great rewards.
However, how does one train to develop a courageous risk-reward mindset? It has to be modelled from the top and is closely linked to servant leadership that focuses on the growth and well-being of those being led. I am a Christian and follow the most successful servant leader of all time, who was fundamentally characterised by humility, Jesus Christ, who described his heart as humble and lowly. He is not a bad model to look at even for those who are not Christians.
For the purposes of this debate, servant leadership includes demonstrating loyalty to those above and below oneself in the ministerial hierarchy or Civil Service grade structure and, of course, ultimately to the people of this country—again seeking their common good. Organisational culture experts describe how servant-led employees do not fear being punished for taking risks and trying to do the right thing, as long as their actions align with their organisation’s goals, mission and core values. This makes them perform at more of a risk-taking level. Imagine if the whole of government—politicians and the Civil Service—were infused throughout with courage and servant leadership, where responsibility lies where it should and subordinates are not sent over the top to take the flak.
I know that there is a view that those most senior should be protected where possible from the full force of opposition, but preparing for this debate put me in mind of the Battle of Waterloo, where my great-great-great-grandfather lost an arm. As many in this House will know, Waterloo was a slaughterhouse, the worst carnage in the Napoleonic wars, with huge pressure on British officers, a vast amount of whom were killed or badly wounded. In those days, officers led from the front, exposing themselves to great risk of loss, balanced with the reward of glory in service to their country. We need to see a revival of that courage and servant-mindedness in Whitehall and Westminster today.
Covid-19: Wedding Venues
Lord Farmer Excerpts(4 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Farmer
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when weddings will be able to take place in venues which enable social distancing and comply with other COVID-19 precautions.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, I am sure my noble friend would welcome that, following the Prime Minister’s Statement yesterday, from 4 July, wedding ceremonies and civil partnership ceremonies will be able to take place in England. Venues should ensure that they are Covid-19 secure, with clear social distancing in place. People should still avoid having a large ceremony and should invite no more than 30 close family members and friends.
Lord Farmer (Con) [V]
My Lords, I do indeed welcome the announcement that my noble friend refers to. The Government are supporting commitment by lifting the ban on weddings, but marriages also need supporting. The Government were unable to express their commitment to do that in the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill, but will not bring that Bill, when enacted, into force until autumn 2021. What commitment will my noble friend make that this Government will have enhanced support in place for marriages under strain by the time no-fault divorce is available?