Coffee House

‘Denuded’ Work and Pensions committee sheds little light on Universal Credit

17 September 2012

8:22 PM

17 September 2012

8:22 PM

The Work and Pensions Select Committee was much denuded this evening, chair Anne Begg told the guests: its membership had either been promoted in the reshuffle or had personal crises to attend to. In the end Begg was joined by Andrew Bingham, Stephen Lloyd, Teresa Pearce and Glenda Jackson to interrogate Iain Duncan Smith and Lord Freud about the implementation of universal credit. Their questions seemed rather denuded, too: not of detail, for these MPs do truly know their stuff when it comes to welfare reform, but of a sense of the bigger picture.

During the hearing, which lasted nearly three hours, the Work and Pensions Secretary and his Welfare Reform Minister explained how they planned to encourage claimants to manage their claims online. Duncan Smith suggested this would bring claimants into the 21st century, explaining that ‘what we’re not doing is treating them all as infants’. He dismissed claims that monthly payments of the new benefit would push families into poverty, arguing that most claimants wanted monthly payments and that the days of weekly wage packets at the factory gate had gone.

‘Those days are long gone. For some they are still there, but there’s vast majorities want to go on monthly. We have to get them ready for that. That’s what this is about.’


The pair also outlined the safeguards for vulnerable clients who struggle to manage their own budgets, including announcing that the department is seeking expressions of interest from companies interested in providing products such as ‘jam jar’ bank accounts. They also announced a string of specific concessions for self-employed claimants and those living in supported housing.

This was all very well and good, and the committee members welcomed each announcement. But it was only towards the end of the session, after Duncan Smith had rather wearily expressed some desire for what was turning into an eternal set of questions to end, that Liberal Democrat MP Stephen Lloyd started to talk about the big picture. He urged the Work and Pensions Secretary to work at improving the image of universal credit, so that claimants might begin to see it as a positive thing. Duncan Smith replied that actually he would be spending Thursday explaining aspects of the credit which were currently rather misunderstood to the media. ‘There is a lot of ignorance in the media,’ he told the committee.

One issue the media is growing less ignorant of is the concern in Whitehall about the computer system that will make universal credit actually work. As the Spectator revealed in its leading article last week, Jeremy Heywood is briefing against the reform, saying he is ‘sceptical’ that it will be a success. But aside from admitting that the computer system bridging HMRC and DWP has not yet been tested, the two ministers said very little on this. Perhaps Thursday’s ‘major exercise’ with the media will shed a little more light on what the department is doing to allay Heywood’s fears, if there’s a chance of reassuring the Cabinet Secretary at all at this stage.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.

Show comments
  • Iain Hill

    Smell of death?

  • Daniel Maris

    This is probably the only important and novel thing the government has done so far.

    It is no doubt far from perfect – because it is NOT a universal credit. But it is a step in the right direction.

    But we really need a true universal credit paid to all citizens. For one thing that will allow our citizens to compete much better with immigrants in the job market who would not be eligible for the credit.

    Of course UC needs to be tied in with other reforms: a low flat rate income tax; shifting the tax burden from income tax to a progressive property tax and a progressive sales tax; and a legal duty to support yourself coupled with a legal right to work.

  • s_o_b

    It would be a shame if something that has the potential to be a life-changing reform failed because of yet another public sector IT SNAFU. Yes, these systems are complex, but if our wretched civil service could find people who understand how to specify and procure a system, and then project managers strong enough to manage the suppliers and the politcians they might be in with a chance.
    I work for a software house which delivers medium complexity bespoke systems – when things go wrong one or more of the following have always played a part:
    Insufficiently detailed scope
    Poor project governance
    Scope creep
    Unrealistic expectations
    One of my clients is a large Public Sector organisation, and dealing with them is a total nightmare. Incompetent? Yes. But much much worse is that there are never any consequences for their staff if they are late or fail at a task. Yet any opportunity to put one over on the supplier is never missed. If I had the choice I would not work with public sector IT departments. It’s an old joke but true nonetheless – all the people with any get up and go got up and went.