Theresa May: Chris Grayling set out our radical approach to welfare reform and my intention is to build on that and take it further

Last month we asked ConservativeHome readers to submit questions for Theresa May, the newly-appointed shadow secretary of state for work and pensions. Here is the first installment of her answers, covering her qualifications for the role and some general questions about welfare reform.

Her remaining answers will be posted in two further installments later today, the first of which is here and the second of which is here.

Question from James Maskell: What skills, abilities and experience do you bring to the role of Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary?

Theresa May: From a personal perspective I’ve worked in business so I think I bring an understanding of the world outside Westminster. My first job in the Shadow Cabinet was covering the Education and Employment brief, during which time I worked on welfare reform proposals, looking at how we could learn from experience overseas. My new brief shadows one of the largest and most complex government departments, but one whose operations impact on the daily lives of millions of people. Its effectiveness and abilities will be tested sharply during this economic downturn. I relish the challenge and having covered a variety of other departments during my time I hope that I bring an understanding of policy in general to the role.

Question from Alan Douglas: 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.

Theresa May: Thanks for saying you want to be able to remember what is said – as for the shoes issue, I think that’s more of a comment on the way the media covers conferences than anything else.

Question from HF: What changes would you make on your first day in office at DWP and can you please summarise the major reforms to benefits that you would bring in during your 1st year in office?

Theresa May: We are committed to significant welfare reform based on the belief that the best way out of poverty is work for those who are able to work. These reforms will make use of the skills and experience of the private and voluntary sectors to ensure people who are out of work are given the help they need to get into work. Other major reforms that I would like to see are simplifying the benefits system where we can, making it easier for people to claim and to identify bogus claimants. I also think a lot more needs to be done to tackle benefit fraud so that money is being given to those who really need it. One thing I won’t do is bring about sweeping changes for the sake of it. Although there are many problems with the current system, there are also many good things, notably the staff, especially at ground level. Making better use of what we have is vital and more challenging than starting all over again.

Question from Rare Breed: Do you propose to continue with the same level of reform in your shadow brief as your predecessor Chris Grayling?

Theresa May: Absolutely. Chris set out our radical approach to welfare reform and my intention is to build on that and take it further. There is still plenty of work to do.

Question from Tony Makara: 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?

Theresa May: I don’t believe it is right to leave any one group of people behind in these reforms. Being in work has many benefits for the individual beyond the pure financial and those benefits should be available for everyone who is able to take advantage of them. Having a disability or being of a certain age should not bar those who want to work and are able to do so. A reformed welfare state could offer those individuals the support and direction to get back into the workplace.

Question from David Belchamber: 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?

Theresa May: David, that is an interesting idea and simplifying the benefits system is something that I intend to look at more closely. The complexities of the current system, with endless forms of repetitive questions put many people off claiming benefits they are due, whilst allowing others to take advantage of loopholes in the system. And as you rightly say, the administrative costs are huge.

Comments

[London Tory]

Unfortunately her 'nasty party' gag was a supreme own goal, which helped tip our political fortunes at that time from recession into depression. Her pitiful condemnation of Carole Thatcher on BBC Question Time last week leads me to question whether Theresa May is actually even a Conservative. Clearly her judgement and lack of common sense are as bad as ever.

Michael Fallon and John Redwood both have intellect and convictions, and both would be vastly better DWP Ministers than this hapless political weathervane.

[Tony Makara]

If government is serious about ending the cultural phenomena of long-term unemployment then it must build properly waged work and training programmes into the benefits system. That way no-one will be written off or left behind.

I really like David Belchamber's idea about one weekly benefit. The current system is indeed a hotchpotch with people often on the wrong benefit or not claiming what is rightly their entitlement by law.

Theresa May doesn't believe the welfare reform net is being cast to wide. I disagree. All resources should be focused on filling existing vacancies and in eradicating long-term unemployment. Once these core problems have been addressed then the focus can be shifted to other areas of reform.

Welfare reform can't exist within a bubble and is entirely dependent on government encouraging job-creation here in the UK. Which means tax breaks for employers and punitive tax on those who outsource, giving jobs to Indian call centres isn't going to put British people back to work.

Nobody will leave the benefits system unless they have a well paid job to go into. Job-creation and a policy supporting the employment of British people before foreigners is crucial.

[Jon Prescott]

"Michael Fallon and John Redwood both have intellect and convictions, and both would be vastly better DWP Ministers than this hapless political weathervane"

Oh please...Theresa May has had the decency to read and reply to some of the questions posed by posters here.

"We are committed to significant welfare reform based on the belief that the best way out of poverty is work for those who are able to work."

Answers in a very general way the question I needed answered. Of course T.M. is not a John Redwood or Michael Fallon, but she is more likely to appeal to the wives and mothers of middle-England than either of those gentlemen.

"making it easier for people to claim and to identify bogus claimants. I also think a lot more needs to be done to tackle benefit fraud so that money is being given to those who really need it"

This is what I want to see, not a return to the nightmare of benefits effectively hidden from those in need of them. When a person makes a claim, those aiding the claimant should work to identify what if anything that person is entitled to. In short we need to get away from the current system which requires a high standard of education or outside advisors to negotiate the full amount. Of course my concern is for those who cannot work for no fault of their own.

[London Tory]

"All resources should be targeted in filling existing vacancies and in eradicating long term unemployment'.

A laudable aim, but one that is now impossible even to aspire to, because of EU accession.

90% of the service industries in London must now be staffed by east European nationals. They can afford to come over here, serve the lattes for £6 an hour, live in shared accomodation, and send money home for a better life later on. There are hundreds of thousands of Poles, Lithuanians etc currently doing this, quite legally.

What incentive is there for the 21 year old UK national, currently getting £60 pw in JSA, plus Housing and Council Tax benefit- and that is before doing a bit of moonlighting on the side- to get off their arses each morning to earn £6 ph in KFC, or Starbucks etc ?

JobCentrePlus is nothing more than an unreformed state monolith designed to keep largely average people in their jobs- and I am talking about the civil servants who run them, not their customers.

[Stewart Geddes]

The best way forward is to ensure that those who can work do. Work has to pay, therefore we need to remove the disincentives.

1) Raise the tax threshold so that no one on the minimum wage pays tax.

2) Make tax allowances transferable between family members so that it is worthwhile for one person to stay at home to support the family while allowing another family member to earn tax free.

3) Sliding scale benefits so that it pays to take a job without losing all benefits. How about 50p reduction for each £ earned.

[Henry Mayhew - ukipper]

After constitutional issues such as democracy and free speech, this is the most important area for an incoming government imo.

I look forward to Theresa May's work in it. She must be considered by David Cameron to be one of his most effective ministers in waiting.

[On the fence]

I have no idea who Michael Fallon is and the only thing i know about John Redwood is that he mucked up the Welsh national anthem. I wouldn't vote for them but i think Theresa May is doing a good job so far with a massive brief. These answers are honest and straightforward and seem less slippery than what you get out of most politicians.

[Tony Makara]

The PR coming from all parties on welfare reform has been woeful, with punitive measures and outright threats dominating the agenda. The fact that the Labour government sees fit to hire a people-exploiter like Jeremy Kyle to advise it on welfare reform is tragic.

The tone and approach has to change.

Gordon Brown and David Cameron have spoken insultingly about the unemployed "sitting at home watching TV all day", short of having a CCTV camera in every benefit claimants living-room, I don't see how they can possibly make such an assertion? Which goes to show that politicians often don't think very carefully about what they say.

All talk from politicians of the 'workshy', the 'idle' creates a climate of prejudice against those trapped on benefits because there are not, and never have been, enough jobs since the mid 1970s. The tone has to change. Those who are out of work have to be shown respect and support.

In many ways the DWP brief is a poisoned chalice because there is no way that two million JSA claimants can be shoehorned into half a million vacancies, many of which are out of bounds due to skills, location and other demographics. So there will always be well over a million who can't possibly work.

So welfare reform itself has to take a reality check. Set the focus on what can be achieved, because short of a new bubonic plague or major war, these numbers are not going to go away. Unless of course the economy is radically re-structured, but that's another debate for another day.

[David Belchamber]

On the fence at 12.16:
"I have no idea who Michael Fallon is and the only thing i know about John Redwood is that he mucked up the Welsh national anthem".

Apologies for going off-thread, but for the benefit of On the fence Michael Fallon and John Redwood both appear to know more about the current economic mess and how to deal with it than either Brown or Darling.

[James Maskell]

Thanks for asking my question. I readily admit it was a weak one (not feeling quite so inspired these days. Im usually far better than that) so Im suprized it was asked. I give her credit for answering it, but its rather a lot of fluff, to disguise her lack of specific experience and skills. She seems too lightweight for such a key role in a Cameron administration, Im afraid.

[Patsy Sergeant]

One could be forgiven for thinking that 'London Tory' is a troll! But I am not saying that he/she is, just that in starting the first comment at the top of the blogs, with the sentence most calculated to remind EVERYBODY of the expression most associated with TM, and then so carefully associating it with the recession/depression, he/she apparently hoped to nullify any positive reaction to Miss May's comments to CH questions.

[John Moss]

The reason foreign nationals - EU or not - will live on the minimum wage os becasue they will share accommodation. UK nationals expect Housing Benefit to pay for studio flats or better, or to get social homes.

Reforming our current system of welfare housing is key to wider welfare reform. Tying housing allocation to a requirement to work or enter training is crucial to injecting a culture of work in to the 50% of estates currently in the 20% most deprived areas of our communities.

And until we expect people who claim JSA to do three days work a week for their benefits - sweeping streets, emptying bins, tending parks etc - we will never get them to realise that work is good for them!

[Tony Makara]

John, same old theme, same old mistakes. If people are forced to undertake workfare and are paid anything less than the minimum wage it leaves the government of the day open to a legal challenge. Should such a challenge prove successful, and I think it would, it would make workfare illegal and allow JSA claimants to sue the government.

No-one objects to government providing work for the jobless with the expectation that the said work is undertaken. However that work should be paid at the going rate and at the very least paid at minimum wage.

Workfare is actually illegal under Article 4 of the Human Rights act, and again I believe a well crafted challenge to workfare on these grounds would be successful.

Those out of work are generally not experts in law, however you only need one with a well constructed case to fight the government in the courts and the whole welfare reform programme together with the DWP, will, to echo Sir Richard Tilt, be in disrepute.

[Yet Another Anon]

In many ways the DWP brief is a poisoned chalice because there is no way that two million JSA claimants
The figure of almost 2 million is the Labour Survey Count which is based on an international standard going back into the 1960s, it includes a lot of people not on JSA. It has the advantage of making international comparisons easier.

The use of courses to mask figures goes back to the introduction of things like the Yettie scheme by the Callaghan administration, this was continued in things such as ET, YTS and Training for Work by the Conservative government who towards the end concluded that such schemes weren't much use amounting as they did to state nationalisation of much of the labour market, then of course Labour brought in New Deal.

The claimant count for JSA is actually only 1.23 million which to some extent reflects the fact that JSA has mostly narrower criteria than Unemployment Benefit and Income Support for the unemployed had, there have been vast numbers of changes in the number of ways that the claimant count is calculated over the past 30 years, the use of the Labour Survey figure as the Unemployment Rate was a long standing Labour commitment, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats don't seem to be planning to move to new sets of statistics.

Certainly tightening benefits such as Employment Support Allowance and removing rights for mothers to receive benefit for staying at home to look after their children would affect the Labour Survey results because more people would be required to be available for and actively seeking work in order to receive benefit.

[Yet Another Anon]

If people are forced to undertake workfare and are paid anything less than the minimum wage it leaves the government of the day open to a legal challenge.
Jobcentre Plus benefit schemes are exempted from the Minimum Wage, they are classed as training not as employment so the state can simply set work requirements (I'm not sure they are even covered by the Working Time Regulations) and if the claimants don't do them to a standard considered adequate can refuse to give them any money, if people reach the point of starvation then technically it becomes a medical issue and they would receive neccessary NHS treatment until they were fit to work at which point if they were not in renumerative employment they would be offered another chance to work benefit and if they refused they would be refused benefit until they gave in, or died, or went away, or ended up in hospital.

[Tony Makara]

Yet Another Anon, Its clear that we don't know with absolute certainty how many people are unemployed, however it is much higher than the government claims. The Daily Mail even estimated the number out of work to be as high as ten million back in 2007, when the economy was supposedly good. The first thing a Conservative government must do is have a proper head count so we know where we stand and can try and respond accordingly.

I think the courts would see through the ruse that 'Workfare' is being dressed up as 'Training' and would declare it as underpaid work. Even the training clause only allows for six weeks of pay outside of the minimum wage.

The government has broken its own laws on the minimum wage countless times through the mandatory work-experience section of the New Deal which has had people working a 30 hour week for 13-26 weeks for an extra 15 pounds a week. In other words 50pence an hour. The government is just fortunate that no-one involved in these schemes has launched a legal challenge to demand a proper rate of pay, mainly because those drafted onto the schemes are the lowest educated and simply aren't aware of their rights.

The legality of workfare can be challenged on two main grounds, on wages, and on the fact that it is illegal under the 1998 Human Rights act.

It could also be challenged on the grounds that the government has used this cheap labour in privately owned supermarket chains that have donated to the Labour party. This could be portrayed as a conflict of interests and as the government providing free unemployed labour as a quid pro quo in exchange for donations.

[David Belchamber]

"Yet Another Anon, Its clear that we don't know with absolute certainty how many people are unemployed, however it is much higher than the government claims".

This is vitally important, Tony. I have been trying on various threads to establish reasonably accurate figures for those able to work but currently not working.

Tim quoted a figure from CCHQ on Monday 18 February: "Real unemployment is over 5 million", a statement that had Jack Stone hopping up and down.

What I am now seeking is a breakdown of the figures: we know that unemployment in December was 1.97 million and that the claimant count rate was 1.23 million in January. I am assuming that these are two separate figures and that the latter is not included in the former. Am I correct?

Are NEETS then to be added? But as these are under 1 million (I believe), who else counts as being unemployed, apart from long-term sick, who are only technically unemployed as there are not able to work?

I believe that, if we can only prove to people that Brown is once again understating embarrassing data, his political demise will be hastened.

If you recall, the CPI was about half the rate of real inflation for a long period and knife crime stats were just wrong. Anyone for off-balance sheet items and the real level of government debt as a percentage of GDP?

[Ross Warren]

"Real unemployment is over 5 million"

Does this figure include carers? Hardly real unemployed people in any sense.

" think the courts would see through the ruse that 'Workfare' is being dressed up as 'Training' and would declare it as underpaid work. Even the training clause only allows for six weeks of pay outside of the minimum wage."

Which brings up this the thorny issue of benefit for carers again. Is it right to continue to exploit this group simply because we always have. As it stands to receive carers allowance a person must be committed to a minimum of 35 hours a week of often very difficult work. £50.0) p.w. is hardly a minimum wage. I don't expect great progress but I would like to see figures for carers to be quoted and we should at least recognize that they are not unemployed under any definition of the term.

[Tony Makara]

David, superb analysis as always! The way I see it neither the government or the opposition parties want to recognize the true number out of work because it means they will be forced to do something about it. Instead they accept the official figures because it allows them to remain in the comfort zone, allows them to manage welfare rather than tackling unemployment itself. The NEETS should definitely be counted, as well as those who we know disappear from the count because they are in what is laughably called 'Training'.

Ross, more must be done to support carers with a decent income as they not only provide a valuable service to society but also save the exchequer money by providing front-line care.

[Yet Another Anon]

that the claimant count rate was 1.23 million in January. I am assuming that these are two separate figures and that the latter is not included in the former. Am I correct?
The claimant count is those signing on for JSA, the Labour Survey figure is a broader figure including people classed as available for and actively seeking work whether they are signing on or not.

Official Unemployment figures have only ever included those classed as available for and actively seeking work, or as the requirement was in the 1920s Genuinely Seeking Work, anyone who is classified as having dropped out of looking for work or being available for work has never been counted in official figures in the UK.

[chris southern]

raising the taxable allowance only forces others to pay more.
income tax is ridiculous to be honest, it penalizes those in work (it was also a war time measure that was supposed to be repealed after the war!)

cut out the tax on labour and more people are better off working, you still get money through people spending.

schemes desighned to get people back in work need to be good schemes as well, most of them are pathetic.
helping someone write a cv who has been unemployed for some time doesn't usualy help them back into work (it's easier to get a job if you already have one!)
and the six month waiting period on benefits before you can get training is plain stupid, it just means people are demoralized and already losing their pride by the time the training is potentialy available (been their too many times in the past)

offer training that is relavant to the local industires straight away, this keeps up their morale and employers can actualy keep tabs on people within the training schemes and get an idea of who they wish to hire. (most employers hate having to sit down and interview loads of people)

by being able to see people on the training courses and talk to them they will get a better opinion of that person skills/use within their business, far better than a twenty minute interview.

the way is to move forward with thinking, putting employers, traing and work forces together instead of looking to the past.

if you want benefits and are able to work, then put people onto a training course straight away.
a training course relavant to local business needs, not a catch all statistic shuffling excercise as that helps no one.

[Ross Warren]

"Ross, more must be done to support carers with a decent income as they not only provide a valuable service to society but also save the exchequer money by providing front-line care."

In many cases carers have become an essential layer of the NHS. As it stands the money paid to carers is often clawed straight back from the benefits paid to the sick person. The saving to the Nation is many Billions per year. Of course we accept that the country is going through a difficult patch and we do not expect to receive even minimum wage until the nation can afford it, but we would like to see some progress on our pension rights. Care in the community has saved the nation a great deal of money, and for many people it has been the right policy. When you consider the many thousands of people who would have spent their lives in hospital, now live useful and fulfilling lives, because they have a full time committed family member looking after them. Most people would agree that we have a very humane policy in place. A policy that is good for both the sick and the Nation. What we need to address now is the long term future of those of us who care. I would like to see real help for those who come to the end of their care commitment. Money isn't everything but a carer should receive enough in their own right. The current balance means that whilst the carer gets £50.00 the sick person receive (in many cases) a top of £20.00+ top up for having a carer. Shouldn't that money be paid directly to the carer? As it is a JSA claimant gets more than a carer despite the fact that a carer is considered to be working at least 35 hours a week. In many cases we are working 18+ a day and have to be available during the night, a 24 hour 365 day commitment.