Welfare to Work Debate

Speech by Paul Holmes MP delivered to Liberal Democrat Federal Conference on Tue 21st Sep 2004

This Government is characterised for most people by three things:

1. Lack of trust

2. Spin

3. and - Control freakery

• with for example its central target setting which constantly distorts the delivery of Health, Education and Policing.

New Labour's, New Deal policies epitomise this pursuit of soundbites over substance, of false promises and of distorting and pointless Tick Box Targets.

Certainly the New Deal is better than the Tory neglect in the 1980'sand 1990's, when poor quality schemes such as YTS and YOP's were little more than scams to fiddle the unemployment figures.

It would be hard not to improve upon that.

But much of the New Deal has proved to be window dressing and spin.

Don't take my word for it read the reports from the National Audit Office, the Work and Pensions Select Committee -OR - read the now numerous research documents produced by the Department of Work and Pensions itself.

Let me give you a flavour of some of their findings:

What for example of the repeated Government boast that the New Deal for Young People has succeeded, in getting over a ¼ of a million under 25's off benefit and into work?

As the Labour controlled Education and Employment Committee reported in 2001 "there was a clear trend of falling unemployment for 18-24 year olds since 1994 long before the introduction of New Deal."

In 2000, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research estimated "that of those leaving unemployment, up to 80% WOULD have done so anyway in the absence of the New Deal programme.

The National Audit Office in 2002 reported, that only around 14% of under 25's found jobs directly because of the New Deal. Most of the other 86% it said, 'would have found work anyway because of turnover in the Labour Market and growth in the economy.'

The findings are similar for the other major New Deal programme, New Deal 25+.

In short, over £¾ of a Billion per year is now being spent on New Deal programmes which see the already 'Job Ready' get into work fairly easily - as they would do anyway when the job market is buoyant. But,as another DWP study found in 2002, these schemes, in the view of DWP staff and training providers, "largely fail to help those over 50, those with severe basic skill needs and those requiring intermediate or higher level skill training."

Job Centre Plus Personal Advisors, in different parts of the country, have told me, that the tick box culture means that the 'job ready' are given priority so that centrally imposed Government Targets can appear to be met while the hard to place fail to get the support they need.

A telling figure from the 2003 DWP annual statistics is that the Disabled get just 3% of the New Deal budget.

The New Deal is giving the least help to the most needy.

So what should we as Liberal Democrats do to help the unemployed?

We could look back to nineteenth century liberalism for the answer as some seem to favour. Then the Benthamites, decided that the soaring cost of Poor Relief was due to scroungers abusing the system. So with the New Poor Law in 1834 they introduced the Workhouse Test. The aim was to make life on poor relief so harsh that most of unemployed would unemployedwould set off, with a copy of Samuel Smiles' book on 'Self Help' under their arm, and get a job.

As economic liberal ideas go it was utter nonsense then, just as it was when Thatcher and Tebbit used virtually identical language.

Soaring unemployment in 1834, as in 1984, was a result of structural and cyclical unemployment and of the skills gaps that major economic change brought in its wake.

Republicans in the USA still think it's the fault of the poor that they are unemployed and poor. Their 'Welfare to Work' experiments have inspired some of Gordon Browns policies. I hope Gordon isn't listening today or New Labour might add a New Poor Law to the New Deal.

In fact of course they already are doing so, with the massive extension of Benefit Sanctions. An imminent 'Big Stick' approach to Incapacity Benefit claimants is we are told the real reason why Andrew Smith recently resigned from the Government. HE believed that some of the pilot schemes such as Pathway to Work were proving successful in getting long term IB claimants back into work â€" by offering help and support rather than by threatening them or slashing their benefits.

Perhaps Andrew had read his own Department's reports, on the negative impact of Benefit sanctions? Such as those published in March 2001,April 2001 and Dec 2002? Perhaps he read the University College London study in April this year, that demonstrated a link, between claimants disappearing from the register due to sanctions, and a 2-3% increase in crime?

Studies show that sanctions drive the most needy into the black economy, into crime, back into drug and alcohol abuse, into homelessness. Cut already low benefits to parents, and their children are inevitably penalised too.

Conference, the detail in this motion speaks for itself. Job Centre Plus would remain as the Gateway for those seeking Job and Benefit advice. But we would refocus the £3/4 Billion of New Deal money into support for those who need most help in accessing the job market via'Individual Work Schemes.'

This is not an unproven project. The Shaw Trust, the biggest job broker for disabled people in the country has shown what can be done.

So have the Groundwork Trust in their 50 projects. I was impressed by the approach of Working Links in a London Employment Zone that I visited.

Phoenix are doing excellent work with hard to place clients in Chesterfield and North Derbyshire, and are running the innovative Progress2Work scheme for former drug abusers. I have met JC+ Personal Advisers in Chesterfield who are doing outstanding work with disabled people on the Pathways to Work pilot.

But all of these successful projects are of restricted scale. If the Government really believed in evidence based policy making they would extend these schemes across the country. Instead they are cutting funding to some and pursuing right wing media headlines with threats of ever harsher sanctions instead.

As a nation we cannot afford to continue to ignore the plight of those who face the greatest difficulty in gaining work, including the 1.2 million disabled people who want to work. It is unjust to them, and, with an ageing population profile, it is an appalling the nation of thenation's human capital.

I urge you to support this motion.