Universal Credit Reform - Conservative Party policy

By Will Candy, L6

A complex reform, but a useful example for G & P students, of Parliamentary Committees and their influence.

What is it?

Universal Credit is a new welfare benefit in the United Kingdom that will replace six of the main means-tested benefits and tax credits. The Government plans to introduce the Universal Credit over the period 2013 to 2017.

The Universal Credit was introduced by Iain Duncan Smith and announced at the conference of the Conservative Party in 2010.The coalition aimed to implement it fully over four years and two parliaments, intending to cut costs.

Unlike some existing benefits, such as Income Support, that have a 100% withdrawal rate, the Universal Credit will be gradually tapered away, like tax credits and Housing Benefit so that, in theory, people can take a part-time job and still be allowed to keep most of the money they receive.

How has the Media taken to it?

In practice, however, large scale criticism from the mainstream media, including Conservative-leaning press, has pointed out that part-time work will no longer pay, and people will be better off refusing it. The new system will also ensure that self-employment is no longer a viable option for vast swathes of the population due to the "Minimum Income Floor" provision.

The scheme Being Delayed

The whole scheme was due to begin nationally in October 2013 for new claimants (but again, excluding more complex cases such as families with children), with a gradual transition to be complete by 2017. However, there is actually no chance of it proceeding according to that schedule. One tester of the system in April 2013 noted that the online forms took around 45 minutes to complete, and that there was no save function.

This is the Telegraph's take on the delay.

Criticism

Professor John Seddon started a campaign for an alternative way to deliver Universal Credit on 24 January 2011 after speaking at a conference alongside a representative from the DWP.

John Seddon makes the case that you can't deliver high-variety services through 'cheaper' transaction channels.

He argues that instead this will drive the costs up. John Seddon wrote an open letter to Iain Duncan Smith and Lord Freud as the start of a campaign to call a halt to the current plans and, instead, to embark on a better (systems) approach.

The Labour Party has also criticised the reform, as has former Prime Minister John Major, who described Ian Duncan Smith this way:

Unless Iain Duncan Smith is very lucky, which he may not be, or a genius, which is unproven, he may get some of it wrong.

Perhaps most importantly, the National Audit Office, a parliamentary body independent of government and which ultimately reports the influencial Public Accounts Committee, criticised the Universal Credit Reform as explained here, and a different account of the same thing can be found here. This YouTube video suggests that Ian Duncan Smith has lost all control over the reforms:

Plebgate - the Police, the Minister and Commons Committees

By Vincent Chow, L6

In early September 2012, Andrew Mitchell, a Tory MP was appointed Conservative Chief Whip in the House of Commons. His political career was reaching new heights: he was now part of the Cabinet, as was widely regarded as a prominent figure of the Conservative Party as well as UK Politics as a whole.

However, he resigned from his cabinet position a month later.

Why?

Well, according to Metropolitan police incident logs, Mitchell had apparently verbally abused three police officers at the gate of Downing Street after they had told him to use the pedestrian gate instead of the main gate to leave.

One can imagine the media frenzy that followed. The Sun demanded an immediate resignation, labelling Mitchell a “millionaire minister with no respect for police officers”. Calls for his resignation came from all corners of society. Despite his vehement denials, especially that he did not use the word “pleb”, Mitchell succumbed to the immense pressure put on him and resigned.

But in December, CCTV footage emerged of the incident. The footage seemed to call into question all accounts of what happened that night, especially the police’s.

Mitchell seemed to be justified. The Metropolitan Police immediately began an investigation into the matter, named Operation Alice.

However, the resultant report was non-conclusive and did not accuse the police officers of lying. Accusations of senior police interference in the investigation as well as a police cover up of the truth were being thrown around.

The Commons Home Affairs Committee interrogated the three involved police officers, where they stood by their account of events. Last week, the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), announced that they would hold a new inquiry into the matter. It’s been over a year since that September night and yet no one has been vindicated.

As the investigation is still ongoing, I can’t criticise Mitchell or blame the police. However, I can’t help but think about what the repercussions are if the IPCC report does conclude that the police were lying and that they were framing a Cabinet member.

Trust in the police has not been especially high in recent times. Many social commentators have noted that the relationship between the police and the public has deteriorated massively. The recently confirmed Hillsborough cover-up; the 20th anniversary of Stephen Lawrence’s death; the revelation that the police are leaking information to the media; the integrity of the police and the authorities seems to be what’s at stake here.

If the IPCC delivers a guilty verdict for the police, there will undoubtedly be resignations and dismissals. But more significantly, public trust in the police and the authorities will decline to a new low, increasing tensions between the public and the police, rendering future enforcement more difficult.  

This is useful for G & P students contemplating the power of Parliamentary Committees. Although the details of the case continue to get murky, it is striking that a member of the Police recently apologised to a House of Commons Committee for not telling the whole truth in a previous encounter. Parliamentary Committees have very little power, except the power to publicise an issue. In this case, the apology was accepted.

The Wikipedia article about Plebgate can be found here.