Theresa May, who was appointed shadow secretary of state for work and pensions last week, has agreed to answer questions from ConservativeHome readers. Leave your questions below or email them to us and we'll put a broad selection of them to Theresa and then publish her responses.
Her brief covers a wide range of policy areas, with the DWP taking responsibility for, among other things, welfare reform and the whole range of unemployment and incapacity benefits, pensions reform, the labour market, employment programmes such as the New Deal, disability legislation, the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Health and Safety Executive.
The comments thread is now closed and we will publish Theresa May's replies to a selection of your questions very soon.
Theresa, can you please summarise the major reforms to benefits that you would bring in during your 1st year in office.
Posted by: HF | January 29, 2009 at 09:36
Theresa, what changes would you make on your first day in office at DWP?
Posted by: HF | January 29, 2009 at 09:39
In these difficult economic times, many women are finding it increasingly difficult to pay for childcare. What can you do to encourage more employers to provide creches or make other arrangements to enable good women to stay in the workforce?
Posted by: Sally Roberts | January 29, 2009 at 09:48
Do you think that large numbers of middle class newly unemployed will become hostile to the full range of benefits paid to recent immigrants when they realise their own entitlement is only £60.50 pw Jobseeker's Allowance,and that for 6 months only?
Posted by: michael mcgough | January 29, 2009 at 09:54
What skills, abilities and experience do you bring to the role of Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary?
Posted by: James Maskell | January 29, 2009 at 10:01
Last time the Conservatives were in power, unemployment soared to 3m, a proportion way above our G7 partners. What will you do differently this time?
Posted by: resident leftie | January 29, 2009 at 10:10
John Major’s Tory government restricted the award of state widows’ pensions to young widows and the New Labour government killed them off completely. The only voice of dissent was the Labour MP, Stuart Bell. Her Majesty’s Opposition was, as usual, fast asleep on the job.
Will the next Conservative Government reintroduce state widows’ pensions for young widows? If not, then why not?
Posted by: David_at_Home | January 29, 2009 at 10:25
The newspapers have trailed government plans to remove passports and driving licences from fathers who fail to live up to their obligations, how is it going to help get fathers to live up to their responsibilities if by restricting their ability to travel you threaten their ability to work?
Posted by: James Burdett | January 29, 2009 at 10:28
After half of century of socialist education policy and principles, this country has seen education standards slide into oblivion in the state sector.
Is it not time for the party to argue the de-coupling of education from political mantra, to advocate the re-introduction of free selection and grammar schools and the elimination from the teaching sector of failing/failed teachers and those that advocate political concepts in education that have been proven to be failures.
With then latest statistics showing yet again, that so many leave our schools inadequately educated, if not illiterate, now is the time to be radical and appeal to the innate sense of achievement that all parents harbour.
Posted by: George Hinton | January 29, 2009 at 11:03
Hello Teresa,
The CPF have recently debated the issue of Reform of the Benefits System- will you be taking note of the members in this way please? I also have a response from Kennet DC's Senior Benefits Officer as to his contribution to necessary reform, if this would be useful.
Posted by: Janet Giles | January 29, 2009 at 11:03
Do you propose to continue with the same level of reform in your shadow brief as your predecessor Chirs Grayling?
Posted by: Rare Breed | January 29, 2009 at 11:17
In every society there are people born disadvantaged academically and grow to become labourers or menial workers. Do you think we should attempt to make such workers more respected by the rest of Society?
Whenever I visit a public convenience, often in supermarkets and they are clean and tidy, I offer a compliment either directly to the attendant or through their customer desk.
I am not being condescending, I just think it right to do. We can't, despite ridiculous socialst dogma, all be airline pilots or surgeons and lawyers!
Posted by: m dowding | January 29, 2009 at 11:44
What purpose is served by the anti-discrimination laws and the Equality and Human Rights Commission?
If most of us have achieved a level of enlightenment such that we naturally don’t discriminate against some or all of ethnic minorities, the disabled, “gays” and women then surely there is no need for such legislation or a bossy quango to enforce it.
If, on the other hand, the majority of us do wish to discriminate against some or all of ethnic minorities, the disabled, “gays” and women then surely such laws and the associated bossy quango are inherently anti-democratic.
Or do you, like New Labour, believe it is the task of the political class to change the way the rest of us think?
Posted by: David_at_Home | January 29, 2009 at 12:25
Hello Teresa,
1 - Would your plans include ending this government's website advertising of UK employment to non-British citizens. i.e. Foreigners?
2 - Would your plans include ending this governments policy of cutting nurse training for indigenous British students, whilst spending truck loads of money on advertising, interviewing and housing, foreign nurses whilst leaving our own without training, jobs, or a home because the only job they can find is in call centers with the likes of Barclays?
3 - What are your proposals to employ British medical students in preference to those methods used by Labour as detailed in Question One please?
4 - Do you have anything concrete on DC's proposal to ensure a "living wage rather than tax credits, and family credits", in respect to how employers would meet the cost and how families would manage if they couldn't? i.e. How will it work or is it a real proposal.
Thanks.
Posted by: rugfish | January 29, 2009 at 12:40
* will the conservatives pledge to reintroduce the principles of commonsense and natural justice, especially where Human Rights and Health & Safety are concerned?
* please call the state pension a "pension" and not a "benefit". When you have contributed for over 40 years, a pension has been earned.
* there are so many sources from which benefits are paid. Could they not be consolidated into one and paid as a weekly wage, thus saving huge amounts in bureaucracy?
* please consider paying mothers a weekly wage (if needed) in return for staying at home and bringing up a baby, at least for an initial period.
* can the conservatives think of any job creation schemes, especially to help the worst off and those who have been out of work for a time.
In Wiltshire, we recently met a man employed to maintain bridges and their surrounds. There are 1,660 bridges in Wiltshire and one man to repair them and clear gullies etc.
There is so much flooding in rural areas because ditches are no longer dug and kept cleaned out. Why not offer one year fixed term contracts for a tax free wage of £10 or 12,000? It would be payable direct to local authorities for any such manual jobs.
Posted by: David Belchamber | January 29, 2009 at 13:01
David,
Agreed over calling the state pension a 'pension' not a benefit.
* please consider paying mothers a weekly wage (if needed) in return for staying at home and bringing up a baby, at least for an initial period.
We already do it is called statutory maternity pay or SMP. SMP is paid for 39 weeks. The first 6 weeks of SMP are earnings related and mothers will get a weekly rate equal to 90 per cent of your average weekly earnings (there is no upper limit). The remaining 33 weeks are paid at the weekly standard rate SMP of £117.18 (from 6 April 2008) or the earnings related rate if this is less than standard rate SMP. In addition to this all normal contractual benefits are accrued including holiday pay so over the 9 months at least 21 days holiday will have accrued. A mother earning £20,000 will therefore have accrued £1615.38 whilst on maternity leave. Plus some sectors pay full pay whilst staff take maternity leave.
Posted by: a-tracy | January 29, 2009 at 13:22
i) over the past 10 yars the public secotr employment has soared by nearly a million, and there is a pension time bomb waiting to go off. While more and more companies are closing down the (private sector) final salary pensions will we have the courage and the will to reform the public sector pensions?
ii) how about the obscene pension schemes provided for the MPs and the rest?
Posted by: Yogi | January 29, 2009 at 13:30
One of the most common reasons for people being unable to work is mental health problems, particularly mild to moderate depression. How will a Conservative Government support people with mental health problems back into work, and how will it tackle discrimination against people with mental health problems in the workplace?
Posted by: Nick Hoile | January 29, 2009 at 13:30
What do you think the reaction will be from the middle-class unemployed when they discover that the 'full range of benefits' to which anyone is entitled is in fact tiny, and that migrant workers are therefore not the drain on 'the system' that many on the far right claim?
Posted by: John Smith | January 29, 2009 at 14:03
(1) Have you considered more assistance for those who are under 50 but beyond their teen years, so to speak? At present, the only available help is targeted very much at specific groups of people, such as this.
(2) Discounted course fees, regardless of the type of benefit being claimed?
(3) Many of the unemployed have difficulties which mean that they are not currently considered to be severely disadvantaged. These days, even a slight weakness can of course, make all the difference. What little help is currently available, is possibly too targeted?
(4) The availability of "work trials" or "work experience" for anybody who genuinely needs it, regardless of the benefits which they may be claiming? At present, there are always "strings attached", to most forms of help.
Posted by: Julian L Hawksworth | January 29, 2009 at 14:52
Is a Wisconsin style Workfare scheme going to be included in the forthcoming Manifesto or not please?
Posted by: Garth Wiseman | January 29, 2009 at 15:03
Have you got a man?
Posted by: david brough (lovemaker) | January 29, 2009 at 15:07
Thanks, a-tracy for the clarification. I had in mind women who were not in work, because I think that motherhood is so important and also that such mothers should not feel guilty about having to find work for an initial period.
Posted by: David Belchamber | January 29, 2009 at 15:18
David Brough - Mrs May does indeed have a husband. His name is Philip.
Posted by: Sally Roberts | January 29, 2009 at 15:19
"The first 6 weeks of SMP are earnings related and mothers will get a weekly rate equal to 90 per cent of your average weekly earnings (there is no upper limit)."
Quite and this is yet another case of the relatively poor taxpayers subsidising the rich. Will you be doing anything about it, Theresa May?
Posted by: David_at_Home | January 29, 2009 at 15:37
Labour promised to "think the unthinkable about welfare" and then Gordy fired Frank Field....
In 1945 Attlee spent development funds on social programmes and Germany spent theirs on infrastructure, result Germany is a first world country and we are barely a 2nd.
In 2008 Gordy/Darling announced their stimulus package for failed UK PLC and they increased Child Benefit. This is a ridiculous univeral benefit, abused by foreigners (some making £6k/week according to a C4 report) and anyone needing this benefit shouldn't have kids anyway. 2 aircraft carriers were cancelled as a result which would have created jobs.
Growth over the last 10 or so years has been a complete sham built on debt by a profligate useless Chancellor/Prime Minister, so the Tories have got to communicate radical reforms to the electorate and go back to Maggie's "Good Housekeeping" principles to win the election next year and rescue our broken country.
Posted by: Jules | January 29, 2009 at 15:50
I am currently studying Goverment and Politics as an A level subject and female MPs have been cause for debate recently. In particular the way that New Labour has imposed only women candidates upon certain constiuences to make the party more representative. In your personal opinion do you believe this to be a good step or not and if so, could it practicaly be introduced to the Conservative party?
Posted by: Harry Sharpe | January 29, 2009 at 16:27
You've said (for example, at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/28/equality-gender) that you accept the research showing the pay gap is very much about men and women making different choices of careers and at school, with men being more single-minded focused on money and women more likely to choose sociable hours, work that interests them, and to take leave to look after children and so on.
But if it is true that many women are consciously deciding that other things in their lives and careers matter more than a high salary, is it for politicians to second-guess women's choices and tell them they should instead be making the same decisions as men? I can see why the Conservative Party would want to end discrimination against women in pay, but not why it would want to discourage women from choosing to look after children, or following the career they find most interesting, even if their bank balance suffers.
Posted by: Peter | January 29, 2009 at 17:12
As you are also the Shadow Minister for Women, do you think therefore that there should be a Shadow Minister for Men and please give a reason for your answer.
Posted by: David Strauss | January 29, 2009 at 17:22
It would seem to me that your Equality Bill will be a nightmare for small business to implement and will ultimately cost jobs. Why is this official Conservative piece of legislation when we voted against a similar one in Europe for the reasons I give? Personally I hope the Government will vote this piece of socialist meddling down – ironic?
Posted by: George Lees | January 29, 2009 at 17:31
Correction:
It would seem to me that your Equal Pay and Flexible Working Bill (Currently in the Lords) will be a nightmare for small business to implement and will ultimately cost jobs. Why is this official Conservative piece of legislation when we voted against a similar one in Europe for the reasons I give? Personally I hope the Government will vote this piece of socialist meddling down – ironic?
Posted by: George Lees | January 29, 2009 at 17:53
Could you advise what a future Conservative Government would do to fill the £100 billion plus funding gap in the funding of private pensions.As someone nearing pensionable age and not wishing to be a burden on the State it is my biggest worry.
Posted by: John Millar | January 29, 2009 at 20:15
Is £60.50 some sort of sick joke, what will you be doing in your first term to bring JSA back into line with the cost of living ? or do you intend like Thatcher's divisive government to reward the unemployed with a 1p rise.
Posted by: The Decon Pile's | January 29, 2009 at 20:19
I hate to press a sensitive point but like the Decon Pile's and Michael Mcgough, I want to press you on the vexing issue of Welfare reform. Do you really think £60.50 is an adequate rate for an unemployed person to be payed in this day and age ? I fully realise that for every pound a week extra that JSA pays out a further 3,000,000+ will have to be found. Are we ready for the civil unrest that is likly to sweep this nation if extra monies for those recently out of work is not quickly found?
Posted by: Millicent Martin-Smyth | January 29, 2009 at 20:26
I am a chartered software engineer and therefore could be classified as middle class. Can you explain how have paid 30 years worth of National Insurance I receive £60.50 unemployed benefit while others get large pay outs having made no contributions? (As has happened to one young member of my extended family?). I am becoming very hostile to N.I. as it is nothing more than a Job Tax rather than Insurance.
Posted by: Graham L. Tasker M.B.C.S. C.I.T.P. | January 29, 2009 at 20:48
Will you try and help savers, particularly pensioners?
Posted by: B.Garvie | January 29, 2009 at 21:51
What measures do you intend to take to protect people under 25 from age discrimination in the British Social Security system- under 25s eat food, need decent housing and need money for heating....the system at present gives them less benefit- why is this acceptable?
Posted by: eugene | January 29, 2009 at 22:01
Savers B Garvie of Reading West, do they still exist?
Unless one has £100k plus then the rates of interest now payable are a joke and even that amount only earns a couple of thousand before tax. For the sort of amount the ordinary person is likely to have (up to £49.9k) the rate is a derisory 0.10% before tax. Apart from it being a safer place to store one's cash than under the bed there is little point in saving for most of us. Indeed it would be better to spend to try to help the stagnant economy and possible save jobs.
Posted by: Steve Foley | January 29, 2009 at 22:23
Do you think the 6000 extra front line staff for 2009/10 announced in the Pre Budget Report announcements made in November 2008 will be sufficient?
AND
As well putting on hold the planned closures of 25 Jobcentre plus office do you think the drastic increase in unemployment will require further offices being opened?
AND
Will you encourage Jobcentre plus to speed up their current Service Delivery Review to expand office space,extend working hours and use of additional premises?
Posted by: michael mcgough | January 29, 2009 at 22:38
To Theresa May.
Will a future Conservative Government assist those on a fixed income by lowering the age for free TV Licences to the State Pension Age, currently 65? This would be greatly appreciated by many pensioners.
Posted by: Steve Foley | January 29, 2009 at 23:07
Do you think the welfare reform net has been cast too wide under Labour?
Would it not be better to set the focus on filling the half million vacancies that do exist, along with re-training for the young and unskilled, instead of spreading resources as far as single mothers, the infirm and the elderly?
Posted by: Tony Makara | January 29, 2009 at 23:45
Is there any way you could not hand my money out to scumbags?
Posted by: Tristan Downing | January 30, 2009 at 02:40
Tony can you please clarify exactly what you have in mind? Never mind Ms May!
Posted by: The Bishop Swine | January 30, 2009 at 08:17
"I am becoming very hostile to N.I. as it is nothing more than a Job Tax rather than Insurance"
The way the unemployed are treated is criminal really. You can pay thousands in NI in a good year and would expect to receive a decent (if not generous) payout in your time of need. However the truth is slow starvation and grinding poverty. Of course we could (if minded) trace this wrongful abuse of NI back to Maggots reign of terror.
Thatcher I recall (yes I was unemployed in 81) gave us just 1p a week rise in unemployment benefit and as a result lost my vote for twenty and more years. This is one issue that we will have to address or face (in the summer of our 2nd year) serious civil unrest. Be warned this issue will not go away £60.50 is not enough.
Posted by: The Bishop Swine | January 30, 2009 at 08:33
"To Theresa May.
Will a future Conservative Government assist those on a fixed income by lowering the age for free TV Licences to the State Pension Age, currently 65? This would be greatly appreciated by many pensioners."
The people have no Bread ! Let them watch telly...good plan!
Posted by: The Bishop's sarcastic Wife | January 30, 2009 at 08:38
This may seem flippant, it is not meant to be : Could you please ensure that when you speak at Conference that the headlines are about the content of your speech, rather than about some item of clothing or footware, by carefully choosing non-controversial clothes.
As a long-term politics-watcher, I can recall kitten heels, whatever they are,(and leopard prints ?), but not a word of what you have ever said.
It's the message, not the medium, that I would like to retain.
Alan Douglas
Posted by: Alan Douglas | January 30, 2009 at 09:44
There will be a lot of votes to be garnered (bought)at the next election from,dare I USE THE TERM 'the unemployed community'--what will you offer them
Posted by: michael mcgough | January 30, 2009 at 10:12
Will you encourage Jobcentre plus to speed up their current Service Delivery Review to expand office space,extend working hours and use of additional premises?
A question that is worth repeating. In this day and age can we not expect Job Centres to be open all-day on Saturday, and for a lot longer during week days? Even an 8.00pm closing time would be some improvement.
Posted by: The Bishop Swine | January 30, 2009 at 11:54
Any chance of a debate thread on why foreign workers are being brought here when British workers are unemployed.
Why do "equal opportunities" not apply to those British workers who have not even been interviewed for the positions?
What steps will you take to get the EU mumbo jumbo out of our country ?
Posted by: rugfish | January 30, 2009 at 14:30
I am fully aware that Mark Harper is delving deep into the reality of the welfare state, as it currently stands. I realise that getting a straight answer out of Labour is almost impossible. Do you personally believe that the Welfare state can continue to deliver a reasonable standard for the most vulnerable members of the community?
Posted by: The Bishop Swine | January 30, 2009 at 15:50