X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.spectator.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

Coffee House

We get few answers from the Work and Pensions grudge match

23 June 2014

5:41 PM

23 June 2014

5:41 PM

Departmental questions have, by this stage of the parliament, all developed their own characters. There is the colourful combat of Treasury questions, often involving one Tory minister deploying a lengthy analogy involving handing over the keys to a car or arson to describe Ed Balls. Then there’s Michael Gove and Tristram Hunt’s lesson in rhetoric at Education questions. And then there’s the hour-long grudge match that enlightens no-one at Work and Pensions questions.

Today’s session was a typical example. Labour had plenty to attack on, from the implementation of universal credit to the cost of the employment and support allowance. And the party did attack. But the questions and the answers revealed very little about whether the government’s welfare reforms are under control or not, save that Mike Penning seems to think that the BBC cooked up its leak about ESA for ‘their own benefit’, without being fully clear what benefit there might be to a news organisation of a leaked document, other than that it is, er, news.

[Alt-Text]


The session grew more heated as it progressed. David Winnick told Iain Duncan Smith that he was ‘sickened’ by the way ministers were answering questions about the most vulnerable. IDS told Labour that it had a ‘pathetic’ excuse for not visiting a JobCentre rolling out Universal Credit. Very little light was shed on the department. Here is the exchange between the Work and Pensions Secretary and Rachel Reeves:

Reeves: ‘At the start of this year 3,780 people were claiming Universal Credit. The most recent numbers show that 5,610 people are receiving the benefit. At this rate of progress, how long will it be until the 7.7 million households that are supposed to be receiving this government’s flagship benefit as the Secretary of State originally set out will be receiving it?’

Duncan Smith: ‘We’ve already made this clear. To date, around 11,000 are actually on the pathfinders, we are now rolling out… starting that rollout to another 9 sites beyond the 10 sites that we were doing the pathfinder in, there will be further changes and further enhancements and we expect and believe, according to the plan that we laid out, that everybody will be on by 2017.’

Reeves: ‘I think it’s the first time I haven’t heard the Secretary of State say his project is on time and on budget but we still hear total and utter complacency. Mr Speaker at this rate of progress it will take a staggering 1,052 years before Universal Credit is rolled out.

‘So what do we have? Universal Credit delayed, Personal Independence Payments delayed, employment and support allowance delayed, doesn’t the Secretary of State realise that his incompetence is not only wasting tens and hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money but is also causing untold pain and hardship for she of the most vulnerable people in our country?’

Duncan Smith: ‘Can I just say to the honourable lady, Universal Credit, as I said, will be rolling out to the 90 sites and we will be delivering it safely and carefully, unlike what they did with tax credits. But can I also say in her general answer to what we’re doing, this government and this department has entered into the biggest welfare reform programme and we are getting more people into work, record numbers in work, record falls in unemployment, more young people into work, more young people who’ve been long-term unemployed back in work, the benefit cap, 42,000 people have been capped, 6,000 as a result have moved into work, Universal Credit, 600,000 claimant commitments signed, Universal Job Match has 6.9 million people registered, the work programme – no, she’ll want to hear this stuff because these are all records of success of welfare reform, but the Work Programme is 550,000 people they wrote off and never got a job now back in work and auto-enrolment under my right honourable friend, 3.6 million people into a workplace pension. This is a government reforming welfare, that is a government with no policies, no purpose and no prospects.’

Who is right? Is it Duncan Smith, who says it is better to roll something out more slowly than you’d anticipated so that you don’t muck it up (an admission that Universal Credit won’t be on time or on budget, but better to be late, more expensive and useful than on time, on budget and a hopeless mess)? Or is it Rachel Reeves, who says the programme is now moving so slowly that it will take over a thousand years before it is rolled out properly?

We have many more Work and Pensions questions before we’ll find out the answer, which will only come after the General Election. Either Labour will win and pause the project, presumably before deciding that it would be even messier to unravel it and that the principle is so important that it cannot abandon the reform. Or the Tories win. But if the Tories are in power, this is not an automatic guarantee that Universal Credit will succeed: conspiracy theorists in Whitehall maintain that the project could simply be on ice until after 2015 when IDS may have moved on from his position and it will be easier to ditch it. Other ministers seem more hopeful that it is safe, although no-one seems particularly keen to take on the Work and Pensions brief any time soon.

Give something clever this Christmas – a year’s subscription to The Spectator for just £75. And we’ll give you a free bottle of champagne. Click here.


Show comments
Close