James O’Brien interviews Iain
Duncan Smith on LBC 97.3, Wednesday 20th February 2013.
I am including the highlights
(most of the interview) as a result of the Court of Appeal's ruling in the case of Cait Reilly (and the other appellant), though you will miss out on the condescending
sneers and irritation in Iain
Duncan Smith’s timbre. You will also miss out on James O’Brien’s perceptiveness
and wonderful technique for demolishing the meaningless waffle espoused from
the mouth of IDS.
JO: ...You think that they think
shelf-stacking is beneath them…
IDS: ..That’s a ridiculous point if you don’t mind me saying
so. Because I didn’t say that. What I said was -
JO: I've got the transcript in front of me.
JO: I've got the transcript in front of me.
IDS: People who are doing work experience which is us
allowing people to continue to earn their Job Seeker’s Allowance…they will
learn all sorts of different skills…going into a business and involving
yourself in a supermarket stacking shelves is as vital as any other job that
you might have to do and particularly as all of us go to shop in supermarkets
the point I was making - which is more important in life if your shelves have
not got food on them, doesn’t the shelf-stacker have some particularly strong
position in society?
JO: Yes, but you were talking about a woman who had no
problem with stacking shelves, she merely wanted to be paid for it.
IDS: She was paid for it…what do you think the taxpayer was
paying for God’s sake? That’;s what we are paying her to do (shouting down
James O’Brien)
JO: I’m glad you’ve said that
…(repeats it several times)
IDS: So what, you’d rather -
JO: If you let me, I’ll tell you
-
IDS: - that the taxpayer allows her to sit on unemployment
not getting work experience?
JO: If you let me I’ll tell you…let me read to you the
official Department of Work & Pensions response to a petition to abolish
Workfare and I quote from your own department: ‘We do not have Work For Your
Benefits or Workfare Schemes in this country.” A further response to a Freedom
of Information request for your own department states -
IDS: We don’t have a Workfare
Programme.
JO: “…Benefit
is not paid to the claimant as a remuneration for the activity” so explain to me how she can earn her
Job Seekers Allowance in a country where benefit is not paid as a remuneration
?
IDS: Because the Work Experience Programme is one which you
can volunteer to do…once you volunteer to do it’s made clear to you
JO: But the Court of Appeal has
just found -
IDS: (Getting worked up): Listen, you’ve asked me a
question, why don’t you let me answer it?
JO: I am letting you answer it
but you’re not answering the question I asked.
IDS: Let me finish OK? If you just want to make a mess of this
that’s fine …
JO: That’s your prerogative, Mr
Iain Duncan Smith
IDS: We do not have a Workfare
Programme…
JO: Aren’t they forced to do it?
The Court of Appeal has just found that they are.
IDS: You don’t understand what
the Court of Appeal has just found.
JO: I’m afraid that I do.
IDS: You don’t, with respect.
JO: Why don’t you explain.
IDS: I will, thank you. What the Court of Appeal found was
that it was not against their Human Rights to do it which was -
JO: I haven’t mentioned Human
Rights.
IDS: That’s what they did – they
brought that case on the basis of Human Rights…
JO: I haven’t mentioned Human
Rights
IDS: …the Court found that the regulations around this
should have been more specific to each individual scheme. We deliberately set
them general around all work schemes and they’ve asked us to set them more
specifically, we have done that…
JO: I need to clarify this point. You used the word ‘earn’
to describe the payment of Jobseekers Allowance to somebody working for a
highly profitable company like Poundland.
That is your phrase. You used it on this programme and you used it on
the Andrew -
IDS: That’s because -
JO: You don’t like being
interrupted yourself, Mr Duncan Smith.
IDS: OK, fire away.
JO: And then we learn from your own department that benefit
is not paid to the claimant as a remuneration for the activity. Those two
positions are completely irreconcilable.
IDS: No, they’re not. Listen. They volunteer to do this.
Wehave allowed them to continue to receive Jobseekers Allowance for the time
they’re doing Work Experience. What she was saying is ‘we’re not paid, we don’t
receive any money.’ My answer is you do – the taxpayer is paying you Jobseekers
Allowance. We’ve allowed you to do Work Experience and not lose your Jobseekers
Allowance.
JO: So it’s remuneration for
working
IDS: In the past she would have
lost her Jobseekers Allowance.
JO: So the benefit is payment
for the work.
IDS: I don’t quite understand
what you’re getting concerned about.
JO: If you concentrated on what I’m saying instead of
telling me to listen all the time you would. She’s getting paid for doing the
work at Poundland with her Jobseekers Allowance.
IDS: It’s Work Experience.
JO: It’s a pay packet.
IDS: It’s Work Experience. She’s benefiting from the Work
Experience but then she’ll go on and be more likely to be employed in the
future. I think that’s a positive. I think it’s ludicrous to assume this is
some kind of negative -
JO: You know that this woman had actually secured voluntary
work experience and you also know that to describe as somehow sneering or
looking down at shelf-stacking is absurd.
IDS: But she volunteered to go
on the Work Experience Programme.
JO: Because she’d been lied to about what it would involve
as the Court of Appeal found last week.
IDS: They did not find that she
was lied to.
JO: I’m sorry you just said that
they needed to clarify exactly what the regulations were.
IDS: The regulations were around the withdrawal of benefit
if she failed to comply with what she’d agreed to do.
JO: Which only works if the
benefit is a reward for doing the Work Experience.
IDS: With respect, if you’d read what the judgement was –
JO: I’ve read every word of the
judgement, Mr Duncan Smith.
IDS: Then you need to understand
it, with respect.
JO: Well with respect to you I do and insulting me doesn’t
advance the argument in any way.
IDS: I’m not insulting you. This debate is going nowhere
because you’ve made your mind up before you gave this interview.
JO: Au Contraire. This debate is
incredibly illuminating.
IDS: Are you saying to me that
these kids shouldn’t be doing Work Experience - ?
JO: I’m saying if they’re working they should get paid. It’s quite straightforward. You are. Why shouldn’t they be?
IDS: They’re on Jobseekers Allowance. The taxpayer is paying
them. They’re getting Work Experience -
JO: So what is the minimum wage
for?
IDS: This is Work Experience. They are doing up to two
months Work Experience. I don’t quite understand why you think they shouldn’t
be doing that, that they should be paid a full wage because the companies
aren’t committed to taking them on…many of them do…
JO: Hang on, remind me of the companies that have pulled out
of the scheme?
IDS: There are more companies that have joined the scheme
than have even pulled out.
JO: I don’t think that’s an answer to my question.
IDS (Starts singing the praises of the schemes and benefits
to young kids etc)
JO: It doesn’t matter how many times you say it, it doesn’t
sound any more plausible or convincing that the bottom line is you’re using
benefits to pay an incredibly cheap workforce to subsidize incredibly
profitable companies and passing it off as some sort of assault on a fictional
feckless generation.
IDS: I don’t agree with you.
JO: Of course you don’t…1700 people in Nottingham applying
for 8 jobs.
IDS: Look, there are more people in work today than at any
time on record.
JO: There are more people alive today than any point since
records began. What a strange observation!
IDS: OK, this is turning into a bit of a political diatribe
on your part…I’ve come on here to talk quite rightly about the fact that even
in quite difficult times the British Labour market is doing better than we
would have expected, that long-term unemployment is falling, that the reality
is that employment is improving and that unemployment is falling as well and I
believe that the Programmes we’ve set about this…that Work Experience is
critical to that to help young people get the experience of the world of work.
We simply won’t agree about that…
JO: I’m terribly sorry, I agree with you entirely. People
need an awful lot of help to get back into work as has been proved by the fact
that 1700 people are applying for 8 jobs in a coffee shop in Nottingham today,
What would you say to the 1692 who failed?
IDS: The reality is that even in that area there are 15,000
vacancies and the reality is that the claimant count in that area is falling.
JO: That’s really what you’d say to them? The reality is -
IDS: Let me finish…what I’d say is actually this. You have to keep looking for jobs,
there are jobs there, it’s not easy, I’m not saying there’s a magic wand around
to wave, with the reality that people are looking for those jobs is a positive
point to make for young people’s determination to find work, our job is to make
sure we make the circumstances right around those companies so they can
actually create more work -
JO: Sorry you’ve lost me.
IDS: - Which is what they’re doing
JO: Sorry you’ve lost me.
IDS: Come back to the figures. Overall -
JO: Yeah 1962 people
IDS: - there are 15,000 vacancies in the same area
JO: So it’s a positive
IDS: I don’t quite know what your point is here.
JO: I’m not surprised. You’re not listening to a word I’m saying.
To the 1692 people who failed to get one of these jobs in a coffee shop you’d
say that’s a positive.
IDS: I didn’t say that at all.
JO: I think you did.
IDS: But if you
want to keep trying to indicate what I say when I said quite clearly, look all
of them will be deeply disappointed but the reality is there are jobs, there is
work there and people will have to keep on looking for it, this is not easy
times. You know, if you were sitting in France or Italy or Spain-
JO: Yes, but we’re not.
IDS: - you’d find these positions much more positive.
JO: OK, so I understand now. You say to them, be grateful you don’t live in France.
IDS: No, I’m not saying that. I said, the positive figures
today are a good indication that the private sector is creating jobs, there are
more people in work, there are more jobs, the claimant count is falling, these
are positives, I’m not saying they’re brilliant, they’re positive…there are
half a million vacancies on a daily basis in the UK -
JO: - For two and half million Job Seekers.
IDS: …more people are entering the work force, more people
are being employed and long term unemployed people are being found work and the
programmes we’re putting around them including Work Experience which you don’t
seem to think much of –
JO: No, I just think people should be paid.
IDS: They are being paid, the tax-payer is paying for them.
JO: Yes, that’s the astonishing element of this whole
exchange, isn’t it?
IDS: There’s nothing astonishing about it –
JO: - that you think a benefit is a payment for work done.
IDS: No what I think is, Work Experience gives people a
chance to see the world of work, it gives a chance for the company to see them,
I think the taxpayer is making an investment in that because for 2 months that
gives them now a much better chance of getting into work. I don’t agree with
you at all. I think the Work Experience Programme is a huge success –
JO: Apart from the little wobble in the Court of Appeal last
week.
IDS: - It is a strong and good programme and I’m very proud
of it
JO: What happens finally if your challenge to the Court of
Appeal findings last week fails?
IDS: We’ve already said we’ve changed the regulations going
forward –
JO: So the thing you’re proud of has been changed.
IDS: No, the programmes themselves are exactly the same.
JO: But the regulations have changed…the programme is
exactly the same but the regulations have changed.
IDS: The regulations around the programme they said should
be tightened up and we’ve tightened them up.
I think the interview says it all. To hear it in its entirety go to:
http://www.lbc.co.uk/listen-obriens-explosive-row-with-duncan-smith-67738
http://www.lbc.co.uk/listen-obriens-explosive-row-with-duncan-smith-67738
No comments:
Post a Comment