Universal Credit and Welfare Reform

Debate between Eilidh Whiteford and Nick de Bois

Tuesday 11th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I am not recognised for praising those on either Front Bench, but I must say that I am pleased that both sides genuinely seemed to take a workmanlike approach to the debate. Furthermore, I hope that there is a genuine consensus that the debate is about getting people back to work, rather than labouring on about welfare cuts and so on, which would be the more stereotypical debate. I think that the premise that it is about getting people back to work is genuinely accepted. At moments during the debate I wondered whether Opposition Members are fair-weather friends of that argument, but I hope I am generous in assuming that it is the main goal.

I will set out a little context before turning to some specifics. In 2010 around 5 million people—12% of the working-age population—were effectively trapped on out-of-work benefits. It is also true that many of them—about 1.5 million—had been receiving such benefits for a considerable time, which meant that we were dealing with not only a personal problem that was individual to each of those people, but a cultural problem that demanded change to help move them from a life of dependency to one of independence.

Reforming welfare is as much about driving cultural change as it is about the process. We are fighting something that has become intergenerational and almost institutional. Worklessness and welfare dependency are two evils that are very close together and they do not simply develop in difficult economic times; we have enjoyed long periods of growth, yet 11% of the working-age population—some 4 million people—were on out-of-work benefits during those years. It is interesting, although worrying, that during the last economic boom employment rose by around 2.5 million, yet a great deal of that was in the public sector and more than half was accounted for by non-UK nationals. This is not an immigration debate and I am not trying to make that point, except to register the huge challenge we face in driving the welfare system to help put people back to work.

The shift is now about moving from handouts being at the centre of the welfare system to putting work first. I know that we could look over the previous Government’s time in office and say that they continually grew the welfare state—it is a fact; it happened—and I suggest that they did so with entirely the right intentions, but it has led to this generational and cultural issue. I think that we can alter this cultural perception so that working becomes something to aspire to, rather than the exception in many families.

In that context, I should like to address one or two of the concerns that have been raised, starting with the question of managing money and monthly payments. This is about a practical need. If someone who is unemployed goes straight into a job, there is a strong chance that they will end up getting paid on a monthly basis, and not many employers will give a new employee an advance.

[Dr Whiteford]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that many people who work in part-time jobs, particularly women, are still paid on a weekly basis. That is not unusual among lower-paid workers.

[Nick de Bois]

That is why I chose my words carefully. Many people will be paid in that way. However, in this debate we risk letting the whole programme be driven by a group of individuals, be it those that the hon. Lady mentioned or those who are unfamiliar with computers, who may be in the minority but are none the less significant. That is not the right approach. I would turn the telescope round and look the other way, and help those groups to aspire to have control over their money on a monthly basis or to become computer-literate. That is the difference in emphasis that I would suggest. I see the hon. Lady shrug and sigh, but I offer those comments in the spirit of our all wanting to improve the quality of people’s lives and their opportunities to move forward.

Managing money is also about individual responsibility. We have seen an attitude building up whereby people are almost saying, “The state will look after me and the state will do this for me.” We cannot accept that any more; it is wrong. It does not encourage the right motivation to take responsibility for our lives, when we can. There must be a practical and moral drive to increase personal self-sufficiency.

The argument about computers is valid, particularly where broadband issues arise. I am pleased that Ministers have recognised the problem and will try to provide access to computers to overcome it. We have talked in terms of percentages. There are about 3,500 jobseeker’s allowance claimants in my constituency; I am pleased to say that the number is slightly diminishing. We should not call into question the proposed universal credit merely because 700 of those people may not be able to get access to or use a computer. If 2,800 people can do it, we should work harder to help the other 700 to achieve it. Perhaps that is, again, another way of looking at the problem.

Like others, I am very cautious about IT systems. When I worked in my own company, we used to plan for a bill of £20,000 and it often came in a lot higher and with few of the results that we needed. That is a fact of life. It is daunting to see some of the Government projects that have gone wrong in the past, so I applaud the approach that this Government are taking, and I think that the House rightly gives it credit. This computer system is not going to be launched with a big bang on day one; it is being trialled and done in stages, and that is correct. To be fair, we should give credit to the Secretary of State and his team for learning from the lessons of the past in trying to drive good value. I wish him well in his task, as I am sure that the whole House does. I note that Labour Members have some concerns about this, but from the perspective of the overall goal, they are manageable.

Housing Benefit

Debate between Eilidh Whiteford and Nick de Bois

Tuesday 9th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

As an outer-London MP with the 13th highest proportion of LHA claimants, I very much welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate, in preparation for which I met representatives from Shelter and other interested parties. I had looked forward to this debate, but I must say that as the afternoon has grown longer and I have grown a little wearier, I have been disappointed that, apart from some notable contributions, we seem to have heard a lot of cant, hyperbole and soundbites from many Opposition Members, which has done little to improve the quality of the debate.

I have sat here for so long that I started looking for some fresh ideas, and at one point the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) said that there was no strategy. Well, strategy there is, and strategy is the point that has been missed by Opposition Members, because it is a mistake to look at housing reform in isolation. That is a mistake that we have seen all afternoon. To do so is to miss the point of what the Government are trying to do. This Government’s strategy is to try to lift people out of poverty, taking them from dependency to independence—something that the Opposition have neither embraced nor understood, but even at this late hour I hope that they might just reflect on it. They are missing the point of what the Government are doing, but by understanding my constituency they will see what we can do for our constituents.

Enfield North has 7% unemployment, higher than average youth unemployment, and pockets of poverty, mainly in the eastern area. Those are issues that I want to conquer, and that requires reform. Doing nothing is not an option, but constructive suggestions have been notably lacking from the Opposition. Of course the decisions are difficult—[Interruption.] I welcomed the conversion of the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) to the cap for London, which was seriously missing from everything that the Opposition had said previously. Of course the changes are difficult, but that does not mean that they are wrong. They will drive out poverty by the most reliable means of helping people and contributing to getting them back into paid employment.

The Secretary of State is sensitive to many of the demands. He was quick to point out the discretionary funds that are available and to which due acknowledgment has not been given today. Is it right to have a system—

[Dr Whiteford]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Nick de Bois]

I will not give way until I have made some progress. I am sure the hon. Lady will understand that I have been here for many hours, and I am not sure whether there is anything new coming from the Opposition Benches.

Is it right to sustain a scheme that works against employment? No. What do I say to the employer who came to my surgery only last week and told me that people are queuing up for jobs, but they want to work for only a limited number of hours for fear of losing their house? How absurd is that? Whatever the Labour party’s good intentions when it was in government, its reforms produced a grotesque situation. What do I say to the people who come to my office and want to work, but are caught in the poverty trap—[Interruption.] I am sorry that hon. Members do not want to listen, but week after week in my constituency I see the evidence of a failed policy on my doorstep, and it is absolutely right to represent my constituents’ interests not only where there has been failure, but where there is an opportunity for success. That is what this Government are trying to do, and rightly so.

What will the changes mean? We are talking about the LHA, not social housing. Rents are high. There has been a 25% increase over seven years in the LHA sector compared with 15% in the private sector. It was interesting when an Opposition Member—forgive me, I cannot remember his constituency—said that the 40% share of the LHA market that the Government are driving is not influencing rents. It is utter nonsense to think that such a massive contribution can have no impact on the level of rents. Opposition Members may deceive themselves if they wish, but I assure them that in the real world that is definitely the case.