Plenty of confusion, but no mandate for John Hutton to force the unemployed into the hands of faith groups

What to make of the David Freud welfare review report published earlier this week. Most of the attention was focused on the element of compulsion on single mothers to seek work. But, potentially, an equally controversial measure in these proposals is the idea that faith groups would be allowed to control employment services for people deemed "hard to help". But here's the confusion, welfare minister Jim Murphy held a seminar during the Freud report's deliberations where he talked up a new role for faith groups in welfare - yet the 144 page Freud report makes not one single mention of faith groups.

Let nobody be under any illusions, faith groups who want to get involved in employment services only want to do so on the understanding that they can use their control of local services as an opportunity to promote their beliefs and recruit more believers. Vulnerable unemployed people would be exploited by these groups - with full government blessing.

Look at what "Lt Col" Roland Sewell, Director of Employment Services, Salvation Army had to say at the welfare reform seminar on the role of faith groups:

"How do we ensure that an unemployed person, or a staff member working for us, experiences the difference between a faith-based service and one from private (secular) provider?...If there is no difference, what point is there in being involved?"

If anyone needs this quote translating, it means, we are not getting involved unless we can discriminate on the basis of belief on who works in these services, and we are allowed to push our beliefs at the service users.

The handing over of employment services to proselytising faith groups is a hugely controversial idea. The case for faith welfare, whatever that may be, has not been made in the Freud report and it certainly has not been consulted upon by government, or debated within the Labour movement. Work and Pensions secretary, John Hutton, has no mandate to move ahead with these reforms until he does debate and consult. Or better still, why not just dump this load of old victorian nonsense.

Comments

[Political Penguin]

I was wondering that too. Was tempted to write on the possible issues of faith based welfare aid. As there's nothing in the document to suggest that faith based groups are in line to take on some of this work then I'll just keep an eye on it just in case someone tries to slip it in somewhere, but you're right, there's been no consultation on the possibility so if it were to be proposed the whole policy must be reconsidered.