General Chat

It has been alleged, that at a fringe meeting, after being asked by a Conservative councillor about the disabled and the National Minimum Wage, Lord Freud replied said this:-

"Now, there is a small…there is a group, and I know exactly who you mean, where actually as you say they’re not worth the full wage and actually I’m going to go and think about that particular issue, whether there is something we can do nationally, and without distorting the whole thing, which actually if someone wants to work for £2 an hour, and it’s working can we actually ... "

Lord Freud is the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Welfare Reform, included in his brief are the following - Universal Credit, Housing Benefit, Benefit Cap, the Social Security Advisory Committee, Credit Unions, Mental Health Reviews, the Health and Work Service, and Bereavement Benefits.

Should the Prime Minister sack Lord Freud the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Welfare Reform?

Yes.

to expand a bit

"Lord Freud was asked whether it was preferable for someone with a disability, who could not get a job, to be paid less than the minimum wage - and to have their income topped up with benefits - in order to give them the experience of work and boost their self esteem."

If the intent is to " give them the experience of work and boost their self esteem."
then I see no reason why those people should not be paid the minimum wage, if that IS the aim then even a short period of work will be of value ....if on the other hand it is to be used as a cynical cost cutting excercise ....... :-P

ADD, if it turns out that the disability level is such that NO job can be done, well at least that avenue has been tried. If the person CAN do the job as well as someone without the disability then there is no reason why they shouldn't be paid the going rate for doing it.

Yes but he is only showing the way IDS himself thinks and ultimately most of the Tories/UKIP.

They should all hang their heads in shame and resign now. LibDemons too.

RolloTheRed - I agree with you, especially your comment about IDS, interesting that when the PM was asked about this at PMQ's - IDS was seen to quickly leave the chamber - wonder why ;-)

he should be booted out by the seat of his pants

disabled people don't deserve the cards life has thrown them :-( :-(

If he's got to go, let him go now. 'Will he or won't he?' tends to drag on past my frustration limit.

Despite subsequent profuse crocodile apologies for uttering such sentiments, we all know now what he mentally thinks about the matter.

Be gone!

Absolutely, politicians forget we disabled have a vote too and are quite capable of applying pressure via social media and petitions to force intervention if an incumbent doesn't shift their butt voluntarily.

Dave has a habit of dithering when it comes to sacking people - Andy Coulson, Andrew Mitchell, and Maria Miller are a few he did his, will I or won't I waltz over ;-)

I have signed the online petition :-D

Yes I agree with Rollo TheRed it is bad enough that they have changed the rules about DLA I have got to reply for this new one next year if I had been 65 last year it would have stayed the same. Its not fair because I'll always have this condition and there lots of people out there just like me, so yes it makes me very angry to things like this.

Maybe one of the things that makes it difficult for David Cameron to sack Lord Freud is it appears the Prime Minister does not know who he has appointed as ministers in his government, yesterday during PMQ's, when the PM was asked a question about what Lord Freud is reported to have said, the Prime Minister replied - "these were not the views of anyone in government"

So the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Welfare Reform, Lord Freud, is not a member of the government :-S

There are reports in the press today that, according to a 10 Downing Street spokesman, Lord Freud retains the Prime Minister's full confidence - now that is something any government minister who is in trouble does not want to hear :-D

Does this mean that the reports in the news today, that Lord Freud was unable, to represent the government in the House of Lords yesterday, where he had been scheduled to reply to a question and represent the Government in a debate - was a demonstration of the Prime Minister's confidence in his Under Secretary of State for Welfare Reform.
.
When asked why he was withdrawn, the Department for Work and Pensions said the peer "isn't available" but gave no further details of why he was being replaced by colleagues - so northing to do with what he is reported to have said about disabled people :-S

The 'powerful' are not good listeners.

And this 'Minister' has as much backbone as a Jellyfish.

He appears to attract similar criticism in his role of Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Welfare Reform - as to what he received when he was working for various financial institution in the City ;-)

Having listened to the esteem panel on last night’s ‘Any Questions’ on Radio 4, I may have to grovel a little because of the snide remarks I posted concerning Lord Freud following his reported opinion on the disabled & the minimum wage.

Lawyers love legalese. I have no knowledge of Lord Freud’s educational achievements but nothing pleases lawyers more than to draw up a document that nobody else can understand. Ideally, it should be gobbledegook even to another lawyer, for this will prove their cleverness beyond all doubt. And, of course, it is all done for the public’s protection. Are Politicians any different?

The panel on ‘Any Questions’ understood Lord Feud’s ‘disabled/minimum wage’ outburst differently to us mere citizens. Somewhere or some how, his initial words got tied-up in unnecessary knots. As far as the programme was concerned, the situation was straightforward enough & much less complicated than we thought.

'Clarity of language should not stand between the speaker & the listener. Diverse interpretations plus conflicting opinions arose and, in this instance, Lord Freud’s linguistic ability was shy of the mark.

I hope that’s clear!

Perhaps if he had actually used words that clearly said, for example (the government would be prepared to look at paying disabled people £2 per hour and the government would top that up to the amount of the minimum wage) much controversy and outrage could have been avoided - alas his words did not convey that.