Universal Credit and Welfare Reform

Debate between Charlie Elphicke and Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford

Tuesday 11th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Charlie Elphicke]

Just because they do not have that capability today does not mean that we should write them off for all time. It does not mean that we should be pessimistic or defeatist, as the previous Government too often were.

Let us look at the facts. Some 75% of people in work today are paid monthly and if someone is going to go back into the workplace, they need to get used to monthly payments. When the previous Government moved from weekly to fortnightly payments, all the usual customers, suspects and groups popped up and said that it would be a disaster, but what actually happened? People managed. If we trust people, they often step up to the plate. We need to accept that people are able and responsible and have the ability to be successful in taking responsibility for their lives.

[Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)]

I agree with my hon. Friend’s point about the need to trust people as well as the need to move towards monthly payments and increase people’s capacity to go back into the workplace. I understand that the DWP is considering which individuals might need exemptions and support for certain aspects of universal credit, and does he agree that there are certain circumstances in which exemptions and support might be necessary? I am thinking in particular of joint payments in circumstances where individuals might be at risk of domestic abuse, in which case joint payments might present a barrier to a safe exit.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I am sure that the Minister will deal with that point when he winds up the debate, but I heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State say from a sedentary position that the Government are dealing with that. It is important.

Of course, there will always be cases where people are unable to use computers at all, because they have severe dyslexia or other such conditions, and we need to be understanding of that. I draw a lot of comfort from the fact that we are hearing from the DWP that jobcentres will help to lead people through the process to ensure that they can access modern technology and be up for using it. Surely that is right, because we want people in the workplace to be able to access and use the most modern technology. That is why we should not write people off.

Surely the more that people are using the internet, the more that they are used to monthly payments and monthly budgeting and the more they are used to paying their rent like everyone else who is not on benefits, the better. I urge the Opposition to consider a change of heart about trusting people, to think that people can take responsibility for their lives and to take a more optimistic viewpoint. We will then be able to send a clear message to people that we believe in them, that they have a role to play in the future success of the country and that more of them should be able to be in work and play their part in making this country great again.

Equitable Life

Debate between Charlie Elphicke and Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford

Tuesday 20th July 2010 Westminster Hall

[Nicola Blackwood]

I believe that those issues were raised on 17 March and that there might have been a subsequent commitment. However, hearing the Minister’s confirmation would be helpful.

Two issues are at stake in the process. The first is purely financial.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

With respect, I add that Equitable Life victims in Dover are deeply concerned. I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and on her excellent argument.

[Nicola Blackwood]

The first of the two issues at stake is purely financial—the technical problems of designing a scheme that is fair, transparent, swift and simple. The second issue, which is almost more challenging, is ethical—the admission of responsibility by the Government for regulatory failures and the acknowledgement of what that failure has meant to Equitable Life members.

By failing to admit the full extent of the losses, we will fail on the latter issue, ethically, even if we succeed on the former, financially. I do not see any reason why we need to go down that route. All parties have consistently stated that final payments will have to be balanced against other calls on the public purse. The High Court stated that, as the Government were not required to create a compensation scheme, any legal objections to the nature of such a scheme were bound to fail, so there seems to be no legal barrier.

In my dealings with EMAG, representatives have clearly stated that they understand that full payment may well not be possible, but they want an acknowledgement, at least, from the Government of the full cost that they have shouldered.