10/05/2016 House of Commons

He needs to hold up his hands, admit he has got it wrong and stop trying

to blame others that his department's mistakes. It is time

for him to engage properly with parents and teachers to establish an

approach to primary assessment that has everybody's confidence and not

just hears. He needs to look into the eyes of those ten and

11-year-olds who are taking the tests today. He needs to look into

their eyes and says sorry for getting it wrong. Sorry for letting

them down. That is what we teach children to do, to admit their

mistakes, apologise for them, learn from them and move on. Will he now

learn his lesson and turn his attention away from the misguided

obsession with structures at the expense of raising standards in

schools and turned his focus and energy on what really matters to

parents and get this right? I am grateful for the opportunity to

respond to the honourable member for Scunthorpe. I have to say to the

honourable member that this is a Government that is committed to

raising standards in schools. I sometimes wonder with the way in

which the opposition addresses this issue, whether they are as committed

to raising standards as we are. In 2011, we conducted a review of the

primary curriculum to ensure it was closer to the curricula being taught

in the most successful education systems in the world. It was

overseen by the national curriculum review panel of highly experienced

head teachers and teachers in this country stop we introduced a funny

check to ensure six-year-olds were being taught to read properly.

120,006 -year-olds today reading more effectively as a consequence of

that reform. We reviewed their reading curriculum, the English

curriculum to ensure children became fluent readers who developed a habit

of reading for pleasure. Rue reformed the maths curriculum so

people could do long division by the Essex and knew their multiplication

tables by heart by the end of year four. And the last Labour Government

we have one in three primary school pupils leaving primary school is

still unable to read and add up properly. We are determined to

address those issues. Let me turn to the issues the honourable gentleman

raised. Levels. He talked about the removal of levels. They were only

ever intended to be used for the end of Key Stage statutory assessments.

They became dominated by teaching practice and this had a damaging

impact on teaching and failed to give parents an accurate

understanding of how their children were doing at school. The removal of

levels allowed classroom assessment to return to its real purpose of

helping teachers evaluate pupils and their understanding of curriculum

content. When we introduced the baseline in September last year, we

said we would carry out a comparability study to establish

whether it was feared that purpose. The study is now complete and has

shown the three different assessments that schools use this

year are not parable for us to create a fair starting point from

which to measure progress. We can remain committed to the assessment

of peoples and reception and over the coming months we will be

considering options for approving these arrangements but beyond 2016/

17. He wanted to bring up the spelling test. That investigation

has cursed -- has uncovered further witnesses and some of the clearance

processes. I initiated that investigation. They are taking

appropriate management action with members of staff involved and we

have already reviewed and tightened up their publication processes. This

is a Government that is committed to reviewing the curriculum, raising

academic standards in our schools. This was always going to be a

challenging month as schools got used to the new more demanding

curriculum and the more demanding assessments that follow that

curriculum. I'm confident this is the right thing to do to raise

academic standards in our schools to prepare young people for life in

modern Britain and for an increasingly competitive global

economy. Parents in Kettering of which I am one want their children

when they leave primary school to be able to write neatly and spell

correctly, we confidently, be able to add up, takeaway, multiply and

divide, no one of their times by heart, to mix well with children and

realise they themselves have lots of potential and a thirst for knowledge

which they can develop in their secondary school career. To what

extent are we achieving that in modern Britain? He rightly

summarises the issues that we need to address. We need to make sure

that the curriculum is a knowledge-based curriculum and

children become fluent in arithmetic before they leave primary school and

fluently does -- readers. Too many young people left primary school

without those skills to equip them for secondary education. I am

convinced the reforms we have introduced will deliver the

objectives that my honourable friend has set out. The evidence is we have

more sexy roles today reading more effectively than they were in 2012.

Also 1.4 million more pupils are being taught in good and outstanding

schools today than they were in 2010. Having listened to the

Minister and heard the statement about the U-turn on academies, the

Department for Education should be put in special measures. I think

that what confidence can we have that when a minister can't even get

the basics right in education, how can we have confidence that they

will get the big issues right in education? This process of testing

600,000 pupils is a complex arrangement as the honourable lady

will know. We used contractors and on this occasion and error was made

in uploading material onto a secure website. We take action swiftly when

we discovered that error as we did win the spelling test was put on

line three weeks ago. It is how you react to these issues that

determines the competence and we acted swiftly on both occasions.

This approach to testing six and seven-year-olds does require an

element of trust by those people engaged in the process. We have to

test and develop the test. There are a huge number of professionals who

see the contents of these test at Mannie Witz before they go live and

we have to trust those professionals to do their job properly and with

integrity. On this occasion, one such professional decided not to act

with integrity and I hope the honourable lady will take the same

view that we do about professionals who act in that inappropriate way. I

entirely agree with my honourable friend that testing forms an

important and crucial part of our education system. If proof were

needed that testing is important, one need look no further than the

written statement which has been circulated in the Chamber today

which says although this is a serious breach, unfortunately the

word breach is spelt incorrectly. I thank my honourable friend for

pointing that error out. I speak as a former Key Stage two marker and

support effective testing of children but I don't think the

Government understands what testing is for. If you look at the

Minister's statement, he said it was a -- was for accountability at

school. That is why we shouldn't put so much emphasis on a national test

which is about school accountability and which leads to this kind of

appalling behaviour from one teacher. We should focus on ensuring

that children understand what they are learning and get appropriate

tests for individual children. I don't disagree with the honourable

lady. It is important that children are tested frequently. It helps with

practice and schools do use in formal testing as part of the

learning process. There is another purpose of testing for public

accountability, to hold schools to account. That is why the assessments

were introduced nearly 30 years ago. It was to hold schools to account.

They targeted school improvement resources on those schools that are

not delivering the quality of education that we want for our young

people. We need to be able to do that. Children only have one chance

at an education. My right honourable friend is committed to ensuring that

we have educational excellence everywhere in every part of the

country and to be able to identify those areas and schools that need

that extra support. We need to have external assessments of children as

they leave primary school. As opposed that has Key Stage one and

another doing Key Stage two, it is outrageous that an individual has

put my child's chances at risk by making this league. Could I the

Minister if he would agree with me that it would be better for the

opposition to take their point in mind rather than playing politics

with children's testing? I do agree that as I said, the whole system

does depend on the integrity of professionals. We have to have our

senior markers having access to this material weeks before it goes live.

We have to have test developers that have access to questions months

before these tests go live. We test these before they have the right

degree of demand. There are range of people that have access to this

material. If we have people that don't carry their professional

integrity, there will be problems. We will be investigating to identify

the individual and ensure peace and's processes are tightened up so

it can't happen again. He needs to move to the bottom of the class

because he must try harder. The factors that this isn't the first

time that tests have been compromised in this academic year.

It is the second time on his watch. When he sincerely apologise to those

parents, teachers and pupils who have taken the test today and will

he also assured them that every particular measure that he needs to

take will be taken so that this will not happen on May third occasion? I

say to the honourable gentleman I did apologise for the problem with

the spelling test when that material was inadvertently put online. I

apologise for that. It is an issue that has not damage the integrity of

the grammar and punctuation and grammar test taken by 16,010 and

11-year-olds today. It was put onto a secure website are protected by

password only available to markers. 93 of those markers examine at Oriel

and we looked on the websites on social media. -- examine material.

We look to see if there was any compromising of the test. There is

no evidence. The agency are confident that has integrity and it

will go ahead. This is a complex process of administering these test

6000 pupils every year. This year was always going to be a challenging

year and this is the first year that assesses the more demanding national

curriculum that came into force on September 20 14th that schools have

had since July 2013. There is an element of controversy to hit. We

don't apologise for that policy because we believe in raising levels

in schools and that is what we came in office to achieve. We will

achieve and are achieving those standards. There are some and I am

assuming there were no such people on the opposite benches who don't

necessarily agree with is that it is important to raise academic

standards. Somebody decided that their own opinions were more

important than that professional integrity and breach the trust they

have been given to breach the confidentiality contract they had

entered into and leaks one of those tests to the media.

Thank you very much mud and Deputy Speaker. May I begin by wishing the

children taking ersatz this week very good luck. I'm sure they are

taking place in places far calmer than this morning's chamber. If this

is a deliberate leak, it is very serious. What does my honourable

friend is due to continue the viability of this year's stats?

Following the problem with the Key Stage one spelling test, we asked

agency to go through with a fine tooth comb to ensure there are no

further problems at by the Key Stage one or Key Stage two. We have been

pursued by the chief executive of the standards and testing agency

that those tests are safe and secure. I spoke to Rob Bristow, the

president of Pearson UK this morning, and the issuers may they

are doing a serious similar process. They want no further such

incidences. Bad and Deputy Speaker, last Wednesday be Prime Minister was

not able to tell the house his definition of a modal verb, but the

past aggressive tens is, or to distinguish our subordinates in and

coordinating subjunctive. I would like to give the Minister a second

chance. In the sentence my baby was born in hospital, in the hospital

where my father works", are the words where my father works a

prepositional phrase, a relative clause, a main clause or a noun

phrase? Well that's a very clever, clever question that the the lady

asks, but I have learned through bitter experience do not respond to

that kind of provocation. Order! Order! With the Minister agree with

me that it is essential to... Maribor friend is right to question

the importance of measuring progress, as well as attainment, and

one reason people regard these assessments this year is as

challenging is because there are questions in it that were previously

not included in the standard test. They were level six tests and taken

separately. We now include those tests within those tests so that

schools can get credit for the progress of children that start

there's cool with high levels of prior attainment. The Secretary of

State appeared telling me the new regime had not been handled badly

for Key stages. I am a and teachers, up and down the country, strongly

disagree. We'll be Minister except that the Department actions are

making the working lives of teachers more stressful and difficult, and

expend how you think this will help to solve the already very worrying

teacher recruitment crisis? Well, whenever have a platform, I talk

about how important it is to go into teaching, that it is a very

important profession, there are more teachers in our profession today

then there have been in history. 30,000 more teachers than 2010.

14,000 came into the profession last year. More than 11 thousand came in

before that. Of course we want more to come into teaching, as the pupil

population increases. That is why we have effective advertising

campaigns, ?1.3 billion being spent on bursaries, very generous

bursaries to attract best graduates into teaching. Thank you Madam

Deputy Speaker. I too would like to wish all these children did like

doing their exams. I know what that's like, having had three

children going through state primary schools and I would like to say that

tests are an imperative part of school life because we as parents

want to know how to plan for them, and we will want to help fill the

gaps. We would like our children do have better at maths qualifications

for businesses, better writing skills, and under the Labour Party,

all those years, the educational standards sank, so would be Minister

agree with me that this is our driving force, better education, to

raise the standards, and tests are an imperative part of that? Yes, my

honourable friend is absolutely right. We have been declining in the

Pisa tables internationally. We have to continually improve our system

because other countries are continually improving. We have two

review the primary curriculum, we have increased the demand and rigour

in mathematics and in English, and it is why we are focusing so much on

getting every chance to become a fluent reader, not only mastering

the mechanics early on in their education, but also becoming a

regular reader who reads books for pleasure and a lifelong love of

reading. We've reformed the secondary curriculum, the GCSEs, so

that they are more on a par with the qualifications in the best education

jurisdictions in the world, and we have also reformed A-levels,

responding to concerns of employers' and universities about the standard

they were saying of undergraduate and employees. Returning to these

tests, the minister can't the department can't organise, schools

can't understand them. Does he agree with a headmaster in my area who

wrote saying the primary assessment in our schools is nothing short of

shambolic. Yet again, the professional judgment of experience

educational professionals is ignored by politicians trying to make a

short-term political gain. How does he reply? No, these tests were

developed by educational professionals. A huge number of such

professionals involved in the development of these tests, and a

large number of professional educators headteachers, experienced

teachers were involved in the review of the curriculum. These assessments

are assessing the ability of schools to deliver the new curriculum. That

curriculum is more demanding, and we don't retreat from that point. It

was a deliberate decision to raise standards in our primary and

secondary schools, as we respond to an increasingly demanding world, and

as we respond to conservative employers -- the concerns of

employers and universities and others. Thank you Madam Deputy

Speaker. The government has made a big song and dance about testing

which it now cannot deliver. No sooner was either this weekend in

the Wirral this weekend, talking to governors, the government U-turn on

academisation. Then I asked the Minister when he comes to dispatch

box with a grand plan to improve education, why should teachers,

parents, and peoples in the Wirral believe what he had to say? Thingy

honourable lady simply overstates her case. We have a plan for

reforming the education system put in place in 2010. We revive reviewed

the curriculum, overseen by the national curriculum review panel of

experienced teachers and heads teachers. It was advised by an

expert panel of curriculum experts, consulted on widely between 2012 and

2013, both in formally and informally. It was then published in

final draft in July 2013, giving schools over a year to prepare for

first teaching that new curriculum in September 2014. This has been a

carefully planned review and reform of the curriculum. It has been

swept, and it has been as swift as possible, because we believe

children need the best education possible as quickly as possible, but

it is important reforms. This will be a difficult month, it was always

going to be, and schools will be assessed for time on this new

curriculum. Schools have had significant amount of materials over

the period, since July 2013, and they are ready and all our surveys

are shown that schools have been confident of teaching the new

curriculum. 90 Madam Deputy Speaker. I would hope the minister would

agree with me that stability is one of the key things to a child

thriving at primary school. The Department for Education has been

set to change its document and resources every other day,

compounded by this disgraceful leak of these test. The rewriting of

history from the benches is office it which the statistics offices

Woods tell them to stop doing. I would like to give them another

chance to get them to apologise to parents teachers and pupils to allow

them to get on with learning, to allow teachers to get on with

teaching, and children to thrive. Apologise! Again, I think the

honourable member overstates her case. The primary curriculum was

published in final form in July 20 13. There were sample questions

available as early as March 2014. The later sample questions in 2015.

What this standards and testing agency have done in reference to her

point about changes being made to materials on site is that they have

responded to telephone queries from about certain aspects of the

curriculum and sample materials, and to help teachers, they revised some

of that material so that it responded to those concerns. There

were other very minor changes, for example, when I change the decision

in response to representations by the NAHT, about the date on which

the STA collected the teacher assessment materials, when that

decision was taken in response to those concerns, and there were real

reasons why we wanted the dates to be later to ensure fairness between

those schools which were moderated by local authorities and those that

weren't full stop we responded to that concern and that of course

required all documents online to have a dates change, so if the

honourable lady can make a song and dance about those changes, but they

were all done for professional regions -- reasons, by the standards

and testing agency, I very experienced professionals and the

right thing to do. I think what's on this side of the house we are most

concerned about is that this is the second in a matter of weeks of major

people testing errors, and it suggests quite strongly that the

government has taken the eye of the ball. How has their preoccupation

with enforced academisation affected their ability to monitor their

contractors? We monitor contractors very carefully. The standards and

testing agency monitor these issues. This was an error made by an

individual who put the marking scheme and the test papers for one

of the tests, the Key Stage two spelling, punctuation and grammar

test, on a secure site 24 hours before they should have done. As

soon as one of the markers alerted them to that fact they took it down.

93 people had seen that material on the site, but all of those 93 people

were subject to a confidentiality agreement with Pearson. So, this

isn't some white bread breach. We checked to see whether the

individual who did Lee gets to a journalist succeeded in spreading

that test further. We saw no evidence overnight through social

media or other platforms whether that material leaked further. We and

the standards and test his agency believe that it wasn't on Myers and

have continued with the test. This is a very public 's operation and I

believe that parents, teachers and the public can have confidence with

the tests that have been set this week. Order! Thank you madam debit

is bigger. I would like to reuse a very serious point of order with the

chair. I think we know from reports in the press that a chest to limited

are apparently facing difficult again on costs. And the costs are

being reviewed by no less than the cabinet secretary. And also a few

issues on productivity which have been ever thus says the project was

of course first announced. Bust a serious matter has arisen which I

believe is an attempt by the civil servants who are paid for by the

taxpayer and who run HS two Limited, through their agents, ever sheds, to

gag members of this house. I don't know whether the chair is aware, but

the locusts stand eye of no less than four ministers, three

backbenchers, and I believe even the speaker, have been challenged, in

other words, HS two Limited is trying to prevent members of this

house speaking out for their constituents, and bringing

information to the other place, to the house of Lords committee, who

are now going to be deliberating this scheme. I think the question is

begged is what are they afraid of, why shouldn't members of Parliament

be able to speak directly to their constituencies and constituent and

help to try and improve this legislation as it goes through?

Quite frankly, I regard this as an interference with the freedom of

speech of members of this house, and the ability and the right to

represent the people that sent us here. So, I would very much ask the

chair and the house authorities to look into this issue. Because I

believe that on so many counts HS2 Ltd has been trying to corrupt what

is happening, or even to gag or prevent to speak people against the

project who wants to improve the project, making great against --

greater gains for their constituents.

There is a proposition that we should be gagged. In that section it

says, no officer is allowed to transact private business before the

House for his advantage either directly or indirectly. The sentence

follows on that be members may not be agents though they can deposit

petitions on behalf of parties. I hope there is not an implication

that any of the members of Parliament will be making

representations on behalf of their constituents on HS2 and are in

receipt of advantage directly or indirectly. Could you look into it

for me? Can I make it clear that the rules on local stand I are clear and

we are following them to the letter. It is wrong to stop ministers,

members of Parliament and even the speaker being able to perform the

committee of the other house about a project that has been through this

house in its first stage. This is a matter that is with the House of

Lords at the moment and it applies to the House of Lords. Because the

honourable lady is referring to a matter of privilege, I have eyes

that she writes to the speaker to have a look at this and I hope she

is happy with that. We now come to the ten Minute Rule Motion. I bring

this bill for a number of reasons. I do not count myself as an animal

rights activist but count myself as a common-sense activist. There are

many reasons why we should have concerns that any act of animal

transportation that imposes stress and unnecessary suffering with the

most -- when the most logical answer is local slaughter and refrigerated

transport of carcasses to their destination. This does not seek to

change the law in the transportation of live animals for breeding or

other aspects of animal husbandry, more -- merely to allow the

discretion of the local authorities judice great -- to decide whether

the facilities that they own should be used to facilitate transport for

slaughter abroad. In short, this bill seeks to make amendments to

section 33 of the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act of 1847. To

allow local authority control ports to prescribe at their discretion the

transport of animals for slaughter abroad. The primary reason for my

interest in this matter is a local one to my constituency of sales --

South Thanet. We have the active port of Ramsgate. It is on a

long-term lease from the Crown Estate with all port operations

being controlled and invoiced by the local authority of Thanet District

Council. Following pressure from a ship, the council acquiesced legal

demands that people be made available for small vessel Rolin,

roll off operations of a few lorries carrying livestock. The first

shipments happened on the 18th of May 2000 and 11. Not surprisingly

the transportation attracted huge amounts of local opposition and more

active campaigning by animal wide activists. The cost is estimated at

?80,000 per time. Perhaps by a factor of ten more than the likely

profit arising to the shipper. These regular shipments continued to local

opposition until we can only describe it as a truly appalling

events that occurred on the 12th of September 2000 and 12. A lorry was

loaded with 548 sheep over three tiers will stop the animal health

and veterinary laboratory agency 's war on site and discovered the lorry

had been poorly loaded and was massively overstocked. One sheep had

a broken leg, others were lame and had trapped limbs. The sheep were

ordered to be unloaded and I will quote what happened next. The scene

from the witness and I quote, all hell let loose with nearly 20 people

made up of RSPCA, the veterinary Association of police and Port

staff, some with camera in hand under paint spray in the other

chasing over 500 sheep and trying to find lame ones. It was the chasing

on the unsuitable surface that was causing the lameness. During the

chase, six lambs went into the water resulting in four being rescued by

the RSPCA and two been found dead. Later on that day some 13 hours

later after the arrival of Kent Trading Standards and news crews, a

further 37 sheep were identified as lame and were euthanised on site.

Following a second and loading after sheep were again found to have

trapped limbs. It was described by local press as simply a massacre.

The day after Thanet District Council decided unilaterally to

suspend any further animal live shipments from Ramsgate. This

decision was supported by the wider council across all of the local

political parties and by local residents. Legal fears were brought

to bear and shipments resumed again will a little over a month after on

the 19th of October 2012 following a grant of interim relief in the High

Court. The ship is then entered the legal fray over a protected period

resulting in a High Court judgment on the 27th of February 2014

following a four-day hearing in December 2013. At that hearing,

Thanet District Council relied heavily on section 40 of the

harbours act 1964 which operas some discretion as to port use. The

judgment went against Thanet District Council because primarily

of the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act. It states shall be

opened or persons for the shipping and shipping of goods. That is what

I am seeking to change by this bill. The result of bad judgment has left

local taxpayers with a compensation bill in excess of ?4 million. It is

not a large authority. A resumption of trade that nobody wants through a

port that is unsuitable with local residents appalled that it is their

port that is now being used for a trade that they find both

unnecessary and many find distinctly abhorrent. This is the nub of my ten

minute rule Bill. In the true spirit of localism, a long overdue

amendment would give a greater degree of certainty to local

authorities so that in future they may not face this type of legal

action and that they could oppose the use of their municipally

operated facilities for such transactions. If life were only that

simple, if this house were sovereign and able that an amendment that I

put forward and have taken forward through this house were to be

accepted, that would be the end of the matter. Unfortunately there is

the big boot of the EU to consider under the protection of free trade

and free movement of goods provided by Article 35 on the Treaty of the

functioning of the European Union. That has been further added to 50

years by European court judgments. Crank of itch in 1991 and the case

of 2001. Drawing to a close I am is seeking leave to advance this bill

to its next stage. An alteration to domestic law to prescribe such trade

in the circumstances that clearly apply to Ramsgate and to Thanet

District Council who controls that port. That could be brought forward

under the assumption that this parliament is sovereign to do so.

Part of the High Court judgment on this case, the conclusion was rather

instructive and I feel quite alarming. I will quote the George's

words. The law does not exist only to protect the interests of the

popular. I say this is entirely the foundation of our democracy. The

arguments about the intervention of EU law in this area is not an

argument that day, from me. It is an argument for another day and

possibly 23rd of June may be that time. On this basis, I commend this

bill to the House. The question is the honourable member have leave to

bring in the bill. I rise to oppose the motion which has so ably been

proposed by my honourable friend. I want to start by thanking him for

raising a matter which I know is a matter of concern for millions of

our fellow citizens. At the time, the events to which my honourable

friend has referred, I am sure I was not alone in receiving

communications from constituents asking that we stop this trade. My

honourable friend is responding to those calls for action but I want to

deal with the elephant in the room. The two elephants in the room, one

of which was briefly touched upon by my honourable friend. The first is

to do with our own proceedings. The fact of the matter is that as we are

in the last few sitting days of this session, even if this motion is

passed today, there is no time left to consider the Bill further during

this session of Parliament. It come along with all the dozens of others

which are listed on the order paper will fall when the session ends in

the next day or two. As the House will be aware, the procedure

committee for which I am a member has put forward proposals to change

our procedures to make them more readily understandable by those

outside of the House. There is an interesting contrast between the two

elephants because in respect of this first one, it is within our own

power to do something about it. It is in our home and is to improve

matters so we can remove the first elephant from the room. The second

elephant is the effect on our law of European law. It was touched on

briefly by my honourable friend in moving the ten Minute Rule Motion.

No matter how much we would like the sad state of affairs that we find

ourselves in means that we are powerless to do anything about the

matters that have been raised. In the time available today, it is not

possible to deal with every single detail of the matter but it will

suffice, hopefully, in order to prove my case to the satisfaction of

the House will stop if I quote briefly from the judgment of Mr

Justice birds given in the case which was brought arising out of the

FAQ set up by my honourable friend. The short title was bar-coded

against Thanet District Council. It runs to 192 paragraphs and let me

quote from three of those paragraphs. Paragraph eight

states... The claimant 's' case outlines the ban amounted to a

restriction on the export of goods within the European Union breach of

Article 35. A cannot be justified under Article 36 or otherwise. One

reason it cannot be justified is because the relevant legislation is

regulation EC one/ 2005. They claim the ban is contrary to the

regulation and that since the regulation harmonises the law in a

relevant area, the ban cannot be justified and I should explain that

the benefit of those not familiar with the acronym, it refers to the

treaty on the functioning of the European Union, one of the basic

treaties of the European Union which we are subject to. Let me jump to

the very end of the judgment, when the judgment is delivered. The end

of the penultimate 191st paragraph, he says... In my judgment, Thanet

District Council are likely to pay damages to compensate the claimants

for their losses caused by the breach of Article 35. No mention of

the act which my honourable friend seeks to amend today. Finally, let

me quote from the final paragraph. My honourable friend referred

briefly to one part of that final paragraph but he did not real the

whole -- we do whole paragraph. The final paragraph reads as follows.

The animal export trade is not popular. It involves activities

which are highly distasteful to many people stop however, the law does

not exist only to protect the interests of the problem. I have

found that Thanet District Council did not have the authority to impose

the ban which prevented the claimants from using Ramsgate port

to export livestock. The ban was an unjustifiable breach of Article 35.

It was a disproportionate decision reached in haste without separate

legal advice and breached a fundamental element of the rules

governing of free trade in the European Union.

In my judgment the council is liable to pay damages to the diamonds.

There we have it, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the final judgment, it

was nothing to do with the 1847 act, that is not kid ourselves, it was

all down to Article 35, and our constituents will often hear that

one of the reasons why those of us who believe the United Kingdom will

be better off if we left the European Union is because our

membership means the loss of sovereignty, not surprisingly, many

people will not be all that clear about what that actually means. Is

it some sort of just technical, theoretical matter, doesn't really

matter? Well, this case brings the whole issue of sovereignty to life.

In short, the loss of sovereignty means the loss of power, it's the

loss of power of this house to do anything about certain matters. And

it means that the power of ask constituents that has been given

away, power that they have entrusted to us to enact legislation on their

behalf has been lost. I believe we must be open and honest with the

country about these matters. There is no point in continuing the

pretence that this house has any power to stop these exports by

merely amending domestic legislation. The less we leave the

European Union and regain our sovereignty, that is to say regain

the power to control our own affairs, we are simply wasting our

time. We are simply giving the public the false impression that we

are able to do something about this matter when we cannot. Madam Deputy

Speaker in view of the fact that there is no prospect of this bill

making further progress, I do not wish to divide the house, but I do

trust that by the time my honourable friend brings the matter before the

house again, voters across the country will have taken the

opportunity afforded to them on June the 23rd to take back control over

this matter. The question is that the honourable member have leave to

bring in the bill? I think the ayes have it. Who will prepare and bring

in the bill? Myself, Roger Gale, Martin Vickers, Kelly Tolhurst,

Flick Drummond, Caroline Lucas, Mr Steve Baker, Doctor Tanya Mathias.

Craig McKinley. Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses

Act 1847 Amendment Bill. Reading on what day, the 13th of May. We now

come to the backbench business debate on the effects of universal

credit on children, Stephen Timms to move. An extremely grateful for the

opportunity to debate this subject. Once in place, it is estimated that

about half of all the children in the UK will be in households

entitled to use universal credit, a huge impact, one important for us to

scrutinise. I am pleased to see my honourable friend in his place, and

the minister in hers as well. I have always enjoyed debating these

matters with the honourable lady. I often wish she felt as well willing

to disagree with her honourable friends on her nest in it -- on her

ministerial brief as she is as willing to disagree with the Prime

Minister about Europe, but we will come to that. I do hope that in this

debate we can shed some light in particular on the impact on child

poverty of universe to credit -- universal credit in the UK. We have

heard of the significant potential benefits of universal credit, simple

binary system, merging six benefits into one, and in particular I think

making it much easier for people to work out the effect on their

financial position than if they were to move into work. Which is

difficult for people to work out at the moment. Under universal credit

it should be simpler. For the former Secretary of State, who has resigned

for the government after the budget fiasco around disability benefits

are I think he's entitled to a good deal of credit for coming up with

the original idea, and for driving it through in government.

Unfortunately, however, he's not entitled to very much credit for the

way he implemented universal credit. The Department got itself into a

terrible mess, the Cabinet Office has two step in to sort out a

looming IT disaster, and the result is that universal credit is now

running extremely late stop on the original timetable, set out in 2010,

transitional from the older benefit system to universal credit would now

be almost finished. The whole thing would be complete by next year. In

fact, implementation of universal credit is only really now just

beginning and on the most recent figures for March, there were

225,000 people receiving universal credit, of whom almost 88,000 were

in work. The initial plan was hopelessly unrealistic, as was

pointed out on these benches at the time. Unfortunately, the government

ignored the warnings it received. We were told at one stage there would

be 1 million people claiming universal credit by April 2014. Two

years after that, we still haven't reached a quarter of that number. It

now looks as if the current plan, and it's a bit unclear, but I think

the current plan has tradition -- transition complete by 2022. Five

years later than announced. When the universal credit started... Does he

think that it is right and third that as a result of the piecemeal

approach to universal credit, plus other allowances, some families in

the same circumstances will be through thousands of pounds a year

worse off than they were if they were in an area where universal

credit is available? There is a growing group of people who are

significantly worse off than they would have been because of the

misfortune that they are in an area where universal credit is paid

instead of tax credit and my honourable friend is absolutely

right to draw attention to that, but when the universal credit project

started in 2011, we were told it was complete in six years. Today, five

years later, we are told it is to be completed in another six years, by

2022. Five years into this initiative, the end, the completion

of it has been delayed by five years. We are no nearer the end is

now than we were told we were five years ago. But it is not just the

timetable that has changed. What is being implemented... I'm grateful

for him to give way. He was generous in his support on the principle of

this scheme. So he must accept that it is better to get this right, a

steady phased imitation being the right way to ensure the benefits

referred to are properly effective across the country? Of course that's

right. That should have been a sensible timetable and a plan from

the start and it was pointed out to ministers that the original plan was

unrealistic, and unfortunately they didn't take notice of that. As I

say, it isn't just the timetable that has changed but the substance

was not what is being incremented is now very significantly different

from what was originally going to be implemented, and this month's

effect, last week but like report from the resolution foundation has

made that very clear. I want to refer to that report in my speech a

number of times but I want too great at this point one observation from

the executive summary to that report. It is this. It says: the

latest series of cuts announced in last year's summer budget risk

leaving universal credit as little more than a vehicle for

rationalising benefit Administration and cutting costs to the Exchequer

will stop now, that is, at the heart of this debate. It is assessed to be

a pale shadow of what ministers initially announced. The losers,

above all from the cuts that have been made to those original

proposals, and also the losers from floors in the original design which

have never satisfactorily been addressed the losers will above all

be the nation's children. The resolution foundation explained the

impact of the ?3 billion cut, announced last summer. It says this:

initially designed, universal credit gave broad parity with the current

credit system. Now, universal credit will be less generous than the tax

credit system for working families, and that is what gives rise to the

anomaly, the unfairness that my honourable friend has drawn

attention. I will give way. I thank my honourable friend. Busy as

shocked as me to hear that a recent report from the children society

same disabled children will get considerably less money under

universal credit, many only receiving half of what they can

currently get under tax credits? My honourable friend is absolutely

right. That is a shocking aspect, and actually what has always been

proposed with universal credit, the support for disabled children has

been drastically reduced. I hope we will have time to discuss it. What I

want to ask the Minister is this, will she published updated, an

updated version of the impact report for universal credit that was

published alongside the 2011 Bill which introduced universal credits?

I will come back to that, because what is now being introduced is

certain that Lee -- certainly not what the US Secretary of State had

in mind when it was launched six years ago. Throughout the last

Parliament, ministers repeatedly said, and I quote, committed to

eliminating child property, and they cited the introduction of universal

credit as a key measure for helping to achieve that. In... The impact

assessment said it would reduce child poverty by 300,000. Now, there

was then a written parliamentary answer to a question in January 2013

giving a lower figure of 150,000. So, half. The impact on child

poverty would be reducing it by a rather than the national 300,000. --

the initial 300,000. Big cuts to universal credit were announced last

summer will stop all of us will recall the few roaring when

Chancellor announced swingeing tax cuts last summer, and I pay tribute

to those members opposite who crossed, unlike the Chancellor, what

it would mean too many hard-working families struggling to make ends

meet, like the family of an ambulance driver, making ?20,000 a

year, standing to lose a full ?2000 from the cuts announced by the

Chancellor last summer. The Chancellor thankfully was forced to

abandon its plans, but the equivalent cuts to universal credit

claimant at that time by hardly anybody in work, those cuts went

ahead, and so by stealth the Chancellor's cuts to tax credit will

over time the implement. Working families, on use universal credit

not tax credits, have seen a big income cuts last month, as my

honourable friend has already pointed out. At the centre of this

debate is... I will. He is making a very strong point about the value in

the cuts to parents and the wider impact of the changes will stop go

with me that there is a significant challenge any change in the system

that from a weekly, fortnightly payments to monthly, leaving payment

is to be paid in arrears, gives perhaps five weeks for money to be

paid? Six in ten of the clients coming to universal credit have not

been told about that so we could see many people out of pocket through no

fault of their own, struggling by with a huge to children in

particularly. He is absolutely right. It is an advice makes the

point that this is the biggest practical problem that is a rising

way universal credit has already been introduced. The assumption in

universal credit is that people have got a monthly pay cheque, that will

see them through the first month, and then they can start to receive

credit from the end of that. Citizens advice say that over half

of people claiming are in fact a wiki page, not monthly, so certainly

haven't got a monthly pay cheque to keep them going for those five weeks

and this causes serious problems. The point that I want to press again

on the Minister is that if she will today give us an update on what she

now believes, what the government now believes is going to be the

effect of implement in universal credit on child poverty.

Given the drastic cuts we have seen implementing Universal Credit will

now increase child poverty rather than decrease it as we were told. I

am no doubt the former secretary, it was his intention introducing this

radical change. We do have some information on that question

provided for the Institute with this caused it is in their February

report. Living standards, poverty and inequality 2016 to 2021 showing

relative poverty rates from 1997/82 2020/ 2021. Relative child poverty

stood at 27%. By 2010/11 when that Government was replaced, the

proportion was down to 18%. The statutory target enshrined in the

child poverty act which I took through the House with all-party

support in 2010 was that proportion should come down to 10% by 2020.

Instead, after 2010, it flat lined for a number of years and now it is

starting to rise. On the IFF protect -- projection, it will be back to

the catastrophic level inherited by the Blair Government by the time we

get to 2020. As the eye can -- I FS puts it, it will reverse the falls

seen under Labour. It is interesting to contrast that with what the IFS

says about child poverty. Pension poverty was at a very high level and

unlike child poverty, it reduced that proportion down to around 17%.

It was fairly stable through the last parliament from 2010 to 2015.

The future project tree is that it is not going to go up. It will carry

on at the level round about 17%. Child poverty is going to rock it

back up to the levels that it was at in 1997. The rate of child poverty

families with over three children is going to be over 30% by 2020. What

we are seeing is the huge cuts that have been announced in Universal

Credit will come about by reducing the income of working families,

families with children. That means a lot of families are going to be much

worse off, not only by comparison with what they would have received

and the tax credit system but also by comparison with what they would

have received if the Universal Credit proposals had gone ahead. It

highlights the problems for lone parents. Lone parents will be hit

particularly hard and stand to lose around ?554 per year if they are

renting or over ?2600 per year if they are not. The children of single

parents are twice the risk of living in poverty as those in cobbled

families and this will exacerbate their disadvantage. It isn't just

the cuts to Universal Credit which will drastically cut the income of

working families. Just a bigger worry is the incentives for

unemployed parents to get into work are going to be much weaker under

the current proposals for Universal Credit than was originally intended

as well. That spelt out in the report St Bees cuts don't just

affect incomes, they also undermine this scheme's incentive in structure

and returns to entering work are much lower than anticipated under

the earlier design of Universal Credit. They warned that parents

will find the incentives to work more hours very weak, particularly

lone parents. Many will reduce their hours for very small income drops

and I give way... Does he agree that the guidance instructing people to

work an extra 200 hours a year for no extra money in order to make it

up for the thousands of families that are set to lose out is an

acceptable? This suggestion that people can make up these losses by

working more hours is unrealistic in many of the circumstances. The

foundation points out that for second earners in couples, the

situation may be worse still with increasing numbers potentially

declining to enter work at all. The whole point of Universal Credit was

supposed to be to give people incentives to be in employment and

the Secretary of State yesterday reiterated that point. The problem

is that has now proposed, those incentives are not going to be in

place Universal Credit is rolled out. Let me draw the Minister's

attention to an article last month written by one of the original

architects at the Centre for Social Justice of Universal Credit. He

describes the cuts to Universal Credit work allowances introduced on

the 11th of April last month and I quote as undermining the original

intent of Universal Credit to make work pay. He goes on, the Government

should maintain support for work incentives within Universal Credit.

These cuts to work allowances will not help make work pay for low

earners. That is a very deep problem about what is now proposed. The

Minister will argue that calculations of child poverty, a

reduction of child poverty announced by the Government in the original

impact assessment for the legislation, the written answer, the

Minister will say that those calculations don't allow for the

dynamic effects of Universal Credit and encouraging people into jobs. He

addresses that point and he says this. No work allowances will limit

the dynamic affect of Universal Credit. He will make it harder for

households to make up their shortfall by working additional

hours to pick up the point made by my honourable friend a few minutes

ago. Does he agree with me that many constituents have to make agonising

decisions when making up shortfalls when it comes to their children.

Basics like food or school clothes or things like a modest birthday

present. Sometimes they get into further debt which compounds the

situation may find themselves in. Many families will find themselves

in difficult situations during the transition period and may end up

getting further into debt. I noticed Citizens Advice made that point

about the change through the support for disabled children. A large

proportion said they would cut back on food. If I can conclude what

Devon Gilarni said about this, it arises from work incentives within

the Government's flagship. The Minister will understand why that is

a problem for what the Government has been telling us for years about

what Universal Credit was going to do.

It is not only about Universal Credit, other factors have an impact

also. Those projections are consistent not with Universal Credit

reducing child poverty as we originally were told, but with

Universal Credit increasing child poverty. His low -- it is low income

families and children that are bearing the brunt of the cuts while

better off people will not be affected at all. I do want to press

the Minister to tell us what the Government's of the implementation

on Universal Credit figures will be. There is a big impact from Universal

Credit. There are other aspects that I want to touch on. The first is the

eligibility of Universal Credit claimants to free school meals.

Entitlement to so-called passport of benefits. At the moment it is

dependent on the passport and what is given to means tested out of work

benefits. That simple test is no longer available on Universal Credit

because the benefit doesn't indicate whether the claimant is working or

not. That is one of the advantages of credit. We have to devise a new

test eligibility. There has been discussion about instead of free

school meals, claims could be given a cash and it could be taken away

with the rest of their universal payment. Much of the cash would not

be spent on school meals, it would be spent on something else and that

is a danger of the school meal system collapsing. The Government

has rejected that option. We could envisage some electronic system

where claimants were given credits which could be used to give school

meals. Those could be tapered away. There is no IT system in place

currently to do that. We asked about this in the welfare reform and work

Bill committee in 2011 in a pre-legislative scrutiny. The

Secretary of State at the time told us he would have an answer before

the legislation gained Royal assent in summer 2011. Five years later we

still haven't had an answer. Ministers often told us it is a

matter for the Department for Education but the problem is that

the way this question is an SID is crucial to whether or not it will

achieve its goal. What has been hinted at is that free school meals

will depend on the family's income being below the threshold. The huge

problem with that is introducing an enormous new Cliff in the benefit

system which is exactly the kind of perverse incentive which Universal

Credit is intended to remove. Far worse than anything than at the

moment. If your income is below this threshold, the last thing you would

want is any kind of pay rise or hours increase which will cause you

overnight to lose the benefit of free school meals for your children.

We are talking about three children and it could be well over ?1000 a

year loss. What is the answer? I recognise this is genuinely

difficult. I do criticise ministers for the fact that five years later

we still haven't got an answer. It looks to me increasingly that the

only viable solution will be to extend the current temporary

solution that free school meals should be made available to everyone

who claims Universal Credit weather in work or not. I want to ask the

Minister when it is likely we will get a decision on that issue. My

honourable friend has already drawn attention to the severity of the

cuts that are proposed to incomes of disabled children with Universal

Credit. Instead of the tax support around ?60 a week, that will be cut

to ?29 a week and all of us can see that for an estimated 100,000

families with disabled children, it is going to be a dramatic reduction

in their income. The other point I wanted to highlight and my

honourable friend has drawn attention to this, it is the problem

is with the long delay between some of you making a claim they Universal

Credit and actually receiving the money and the assumption which is

simply proving to be unfounded that people will have a month's paycheque

in the bank to keep them going. I did notice the trust published its

annual statistics last month and the food bank demand showed another

increase in demand in the past year drew attention to the fact that in

some areas food banks report increased referrals due to delays

and arrears in Universal Credit. I did want to ask the Minister as well

if she would look again at the administrative arrangements for

Universal Credit because the current arrangements are going to be a

serious problem for many families with children.

The final point I wanted to raise is at the moment, local authorities pay

housing benefit and can say that claimants are going to be hit by

cars to benefits of various kinds, they can provide additional help and

tailored support, we have seen it in practice. Under Universal Credit,

however, the payment will be by the Department for Work and Pensions.

Local authorities will no longer have the data about people's

circumstances. I want to ask the minister if the department is going

to provide the data which will have, instead of local authorities, and

provide the data to local authorities so that they will be in

a position to continue to provide the tailored support have seen in

the last couple of years. Madam Deputy Speaker, my fear is that the

implementation of Universal Credit may well have a deeply damaging

impact on Britton raise children. In particular, I would like the

Minister to give us an update on the department's estimates published in

2011 and updated in 2013 on the impact of Universal Credit on the

number of children living in poverty. The question is on the

order paper. Peter Heaton Jones, sorry. Thank you very much, Madam

Deputy Speaker. I echo the words of the member for East Ham. The

backbench business committee, they have very properly allowed this

debate and I think the member for East Ham has introduced it vitally

indeed. I think that there is a difficulty in my mind with the

motion as it currently stands on the order paper. It is this, it seeks to

look at Universal Credit in isolation. It is a problem because

what we should be looking at, what we need to consider, is the entire

package of measures that this cup and has quite properly introduced

when it comes to changes in benefits and significant movements forward in

tackling difficulties with child poverty.

-- government. We have to look at the measures in the round and as a

whole, not solely focusing on Universal Credit, in my view.

The package of measures we have to be thinking about are the increases

in personal tax allowance, for instance, the introduction of the

national living wage, and significantly, I think better

childcare provision. Which is really talking to the heart of what this

debate seeks to address. I will give way to the gentleman.

The honourable member speaks about the need to take these issues in the

round, but does he accept that the IFS interbred this year predicted

child poverty is predicted to increase from 15.1% in 2015, two to

-- to 28.3% by the end of this Parliament, they say that is taking

everything into the round including planned tax and benefit reforms.

This is something else the IFS said, I'm glad the honourable gentleman

brought it up. They said Universal Credit will make the system easier

to understand, ease transitions into and out of work, and "Largely get

rid of the most extreme disincentives to work or to Alan

Moore created by the current system". IFS seemed to quite like

the introduction of Universal Credit, I had to say.

It has to be looked at in the round, the government is introducing a

whole package of measures. I was listing some of them, the growing

economy, rising employment, and help. The other issue which is not

taken into account, I think, when we consider Universal Credit is

sometimes referred to as the dynamic impact.

A horrible bit of jargon. But the dynamic impact of Universal Credit,

which seeks to take into account changes in behaviour, individual

behaviours, in response to the introduction of Universal Credit. It

is difficult to analyse but it means improved opportunities for people to

move from welfare to work, changing people's behaviours.

It is a vital point. Even though it is in its early stages of

introduction, that has already been pointed out, there is significant

evidence Universal Credit is doing well, and succeeding in ensuring

that more people do move off welfare and into work.

The latest figures show that for every 100 people, who found work

under the old JSA system, 113 payments have moved into a job. It

is the quality of the job and pay as well. People are actively looking to

increase hours and earnings as well. I feel the gentleman is seeking to

intervene. Just beginning to touch on it, would he welcomed the fact

that the emphasis on in work progression, the story does not end

when someone gets into a role but it is how they are encouraged through

job centre plus, to improve ours and their standing in the firm and get

paid more over time? I agree. That is important, and the latest figures

we have are that 86% of claimants on Universal Credit are actively

looking to increase their hours, compared to 38% under JSA.

A significant difference. The poor are actively looking to increase

their earnings as well, which goes to the heart of the point -- people

are actively looking. Compared to 51% on JSA. That is an

important part of the Universal Credit package. Let me now move... I

will give way. Is the honourable member really trying to tell us that

the dynamic impact will actually compensate for the loss of income

that families are going to receive with these Universal Credit changes?

Particularly those children with disabilities? The honourable member

leads me on to talk about children in particular. The essence of what

this motion seeks to address. Let's talk about what the government is

seeking to do, as far as the reduction of child poverty is

concerned. The latest households below average income statistics show

child poverty in the UK remains at the lowest level, the lowest level,

since the mid-19 80s. For 30 years, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The number of workless households has fallen by about three quarters

of a million since 2010. The crucial point, which goes to the

heart of this, there are now very nearly half a million fewer children

living in workless households. This government has a good and sound

record on reducing child poverty, and making sure that we target the

welfare system very carefully at those who need it most.

That is the key to what Universal Credit seeks to do. The honourable

gentleman mentioned particularly young children, the government has

invested ?2.5 billion in the troubled families initiative, the

same amount to the pupil premium, providing extra funding for the most

disadvantaged children in schools. This is a measure we sometimes don't

hear much from the party much, income inequality is down under this

government. That is what the statistic shows,

and it is important to remember this government is having some success.

One very particular issue I want to touch on now is the government's

announcement on the introduction of the new and significantly

strengthened approach to life chances, it for Britain's most

disadvantaged children. I sat for 17 sessions last autumn on the

legislation committee for the welfare reform and work act, along

with the Minister and a number of other honourable member 's eye can

see on all sides of this house. For those who were not there, this was

an important part of what the legislation committee discussed. The

welfare reform and work act seeks really to ensure the life chances of

the most disadvantaged children are front and centre in the welfare

reforms we are seeking to introduce. It will be central to the one nation

approach over the next five years, and ministers are committed. I have

heard them say it a number of times, to a much more effective measure

focused on the real causes of poverty.

I say again, what we have to do is be looking at it as a whole. Whilst

I do not seek to say that the debate isn't worthwhile, I question the

wording of the motion. The fact that it merely isolates Universal Credit,

and what we need to be doing is looking in the round at all of the

various measures, all of the welfare reforms, that this government has

introduced. It creates, I think, a significant and beneficial package

of reforms. I understand the concerns. I'm coming to a

conclusion, if the gentleman will forgive me. I understand the concern

is the gentleman has raised. And, that this motion seeks to

address. But, in the long run, having sat through the delegated

registration committee, Universal Credit will have longer beneficial

times, it needs to be seen as part of their package and it is not

important that we look at what children people are being affected

by these measures -- I know it is important.

I know the effect that welfare reforms are having on children and

we want to ensure that the effects are beneficial, I believe that they

will be and I believe the government is moving in the right direction.

Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to thank the right

honourable member, my friend from East Ham, for your eloquent

introduction to this motion. I would like to thank the backbench business

committee, for bringing this debate to the main chamber. This debate is

of particular concern to my constituency, where there is a high

proportion of people claiming welfare benefits. As of April 2015,

there were 14,500 people on tax credits, and it is estimated that by

2020 - 21, 19,000 people will be on Universal Credit. According to

figures from the child poverty action group, reductions of work

allowance means Universal Credit introduced in April 2016 will result

in a working single parent in rental accommodation losing up to ?554 a

year. A working single parent who owns their own home will lose up to

?2000 per year. In both cases, this is more than double the loss

suffered by working couples. The majority of these single parents are

women. Once again, this is a cut that comes at the expense of women.

Women who account 486% of benefit and tax savings, and the has

increased, not decreased, as a result of the Chancellor 's latest

budget Cash 86%. They will have to work an extra 46

days per year, more than two additional working months, to make

up for what they would lose. While the government may paint these

reductions in income as an incentive to work, for single parents who are

already in full-time work, extra hours are not realistic. Support for

childcare may have increased from 70% to 85%, but the fact remains

that this does not compensate for the losses families will see due to

changes in Universal Credit. In my constituency, Endcap Amat child

Property estimates 49% of children live in relative poverty, making it

the constituency with the sixth highest level of child poverty.

A four-year freeze on support for children under Universal Credit is

expected to reduce the value of key children's benefits by 12%.

By the end of the decade, inflation, which creeps up, will also add to

the cost of living. In 2011, the government forecast that Universal

Credit would lift up to 350,000 children out of poverty. In 2013,

this figure was amended to 150,000. The government today refuses to give

a figure. There remains significant gaps between the goblet's aims

through making paid work through the new Universal Credit regime, and the

reality of families facing huge cuts to their income. I would like to ask

the Minister two questions. Firstly, with a government review on the

IMPAC on working families, especially single families, with the

government review the decision to freeze most key children's benefits

in the next four years? As I have stated in this debate, the impact of

changing tax credits to Universal Credit will affect families in my

constituency, and I am here representing them and get their

voices heard in this chamber. What I ask is that you take seriously the

effect these changes will have on families, women, and, more

importantly... Honourable friend makes a powerful case, but does she

agree with me, that we should particularly concerned about the

plight of the self-employed, and increasing group of income insecure

people. Their Doshi share my concern that an

employed people will lose 1000 pounds per year as a result of the

cuts to Universal Credit? I totally agree with the point you

have made. In my constituency, I have many lone workers, many people

who actually have their own businesses, they have come to me in

my office and said to me they are very concerned because they need to

use benefits to top up their salaries. It is an issue I hope the

goblet is taking on board as well. I want to end by asking the Minister

to please review the impact impact work allows reductions are having

and will the Government agreed to review the decision to freeze most

key children's benefits for years? Richard Graham, were you hear the

beginning of the debate? Not for all of it. Today's debate comes at an

interesting time and the Right honourable member for East Ham

introduced it with his usual reasonableness on an issue of

concern to everybody in the House list stop there are or three things

and a brief contribution that I wanted to highlight today. The first

one is the big strategic challenge for the Right honourable member for

East Ham and his colleagues which is where the balance of the strategy

that his party is trying to pursue will lead the country. I offer two

thoughts. The first is that they still haven't yet told us what

reforms to welfare changes they would make.

At a time when the country is still spending more on the interests of

our debts than on the education of our children, it has to be wrong to

ignore that part of the equation. In the last Parliament, they opposed

every one of the welfare reforms the Coalition Government pushed through,

some 20 billion of reductions in expenditure and indeed everything

since in this Parliament as well. That comes at the same time as they

have also consistently imposed measures which the Government has

taken to improve conditions for businesses which generate directly

and indirectly 75% of all attacks that pays for the services come at

the welfare and the pensions which all of us know so important to our

constituents. I will give way. Does he believe that giving a tax cut to

the richest people in society and introducing the married person's tax

allowance are a better use of public money than the investment? The first

point is I subscribe on the issue of generating more tax to the

philosophy of the former Chinese leader Hu said it matters not

whether the cat is white or black. What matters is does it catch mice?

On this occasion when we lower the top tax rate from 50 to 45%, the

additional tax revenue was millions. Will he -- was ?8 billion. Would you

rather have that all enjoyed the ideological thrill of raising the

tops -- top tax rate and collecting less revenue and having less to

spend on services? I know what I would go for. She is shaking their

head which suggest my colleague on the Work and Pensions Select

Committee is still from the school of thought that prefers to raise

taxes and get less tax revenue. I would have thought that the period

of Thatcher and Reagan was you incentivise people to grow and

generate more revenue and employ more people by giving them a

business friendly environment. That is something that she and her party

will have to work out. She did make a second question somewhere in

there. The marriage tax allowance. The point there is that all the

evidence that has come out research done by people over a period years

shows you get happier families, less dysfunctional behaviour when you

have closer families and marriage plays a key part in that. I

recognise not everybody in the House subscribes to the importance of

marriage as a contributing factor to a happy society. We should probably

leave that debate for another day. My second point was on the point

raised by the Right honourable member for East Ham on the question

of Universal Credit and whether the motion touches on this. Many may

struggle with the approaches to pavement and administration. There

is a philosophical issue here. Originally, the current minister in

the other place, the local noise -- the local zero -- noble Lloyd fraud

-- noble Lloyd Freud. I asked him once what the difference was between

the work that he had done for the previous Labour Government and our

own Government and he said the difference was that we will

implement it. Lord darning -- Lord Darling said the reason the Labour

Party haven't implemented Universal Credit was because it was too

difficult. His party has always struggled with the fact that we are

implementing something which they had decided was too difficult. They

haven't been able to work out whether to oppose it all in

principle which will be given they had looked at it or attack it in

detail on the basis it is too conjugated to do. As Universal

Credit continues to move forward on its journey across the country and

to implement towards a growing number of people I suspect that

challenges going to be more difficult and won the front bench

opposite are going to have to reconcile. His assumption today is

it is basically too complicated and with the twist that it now can't be

understood by those going on, I don't know how many people in the

House today have been to bed Jobcentre plus. Have they spoken

about the implementation of Universal Credit and to their

customers who are receiving Universal Credit? I suspect that

those that have done so will find that people working in the Jobcentre

plus find Universal Credit is a huge step forward, a quiet revolution and

those who are receiving it find it much easier to understand than the

plethora of often contradictory benefits systems which our country

has built up over a long period of time. I fundamentally disagree with

the Right honourable member, with reluctance, but I disagree with him

on the idea that it can't be understood by those who are

receiving it for those responsible for administering it. He gave us an

example for his case that there were long delays to Universal Credit

claims and that the trust had said once again that the increasing

demand of food banks was largely down to the delays in benefits. I

have heard this argument over quite a long period of time and last year

I set up with my local Citizens Advice Bureau on a service agreement

which advises them to refer to me any incident where constituents are

waiting longer to receive benefits due to them than is the accepted

norm from DWP. Any situation and in the last six months, how many people

have been referred to my office that having unnecessary delays to their

benefits? One. One single constituent. It could be argued that

there is not a complete correlation between people referred to the food

bank by the CABG and those who go to the food bank. A number of

organisations in the city of Gloucester including my own office

refer people to our food bank. Nonetheless, the CBeebies probably,

and I don't have the precise statistics, it is probably the

biggest single organisation handling welfare difficulties amongst my

constituents. It is telling that over the last six months, there has

only been one case of these unnecessary delays to the this. he

has got the wrong end of the stick of what I was saying. The five-week

delay is built into the design of the benefit. That is not a fault.

That is how it is supposed to work. The assumption is you have your last

month's paycheque in the bank and you don't get anything for five

weeks. That is the problem and what the Trussell Trust is starting to

pick up. It is proving a very serious problem for many claiming

the new benefit. It is not that I grasped the wrong end of the stick

but may have grasped a different part of the stick. It is important

that all parts of the search -- stick considered. I have sought

approval from the DWP and my local Jobcentre plus to install a DWP

adviser in the building, where we have the food bank and a health

service for the homeless. Should I be fortunate enough to receive

approval from the Department and from my Jobcentre plus, then I hope

that adviser with access to his or her computer, will be able to see

precisely where the problems are and if there is a real issue about the

in-built delay on Universal Credit, I hope there will be revealed. I put

it to him gently that there are a number of alternative scenarios. One

of which is that when people go to the food bank and they are asked

what are the reasons they'll come to the food bank, it very easy indeed

to say, I have had problems getting my benefits. They hope one of the

advantages of having the DWP adviser there will be to actually see to

what extent that claim is correct or possibly slightly exaggerated. I

think the reality of life is people get into financial difficulties

through no fault of their own and get into financial difficulty --

difficulties in a series of ways matters the aspect of the feedback

that hasn't been explored in enough detail so far. It is not just the

Trussell Trust that are reporting these issues where people are

finding themselves requiring the emergency food aid from food banks.

The poverty Alliance in Scotland last year commissioned a report that

delays and benefits cut asthma to support was the direct contributing

factor in people needing additional food aid. -- benefit cuts. It is

many that are saying this. I thank him for that contribution. The issue

is rather than just relying on statements made by particular

charities that tend to generalise, I would encourage the honourable

gentleman to look at it in great detail in his own constituency so

that he can see what the issues are. He will have to face the same

strategic issue that I addressed to the right honourable member which is

if his party's position is that all welfare expenditure is sacrosanct

from now until the end of all days, then he will have to think about

whether revenue is going come from that is going to fund that without

building up excessive debt on which interest has to be paid, which

reduces the amount of money available to be spent on services.

If he studies the ratio of expenditure from budget is being

spent on welfare in our country compared to the largest come to us

in Europe, he will see we spend more on welfare. -- largest countries. He

is shaking his head but reality is going to have to intervene one day.

There are other people who wish to speak. Can I finish by addressing

one particular aspect of the issue of child poverty. There is a

physicist -- philosophical divide between different parties on this

issue. Since this is an important part of the motion that the right

honourable member for East Ham has put forward, that the Government

should ensure the number of children in poverty falls as a result of the

introduction of the new Universal Credit system, I do believe strongly

that the evidence on the highest poverty exit rate is strongly linked

to the children of families who have gone into work and moved from

part-time employment into full employment. The figure is 75% and it

enables children to leave the poverty figure that is being used in

the motion today. What I think that is telling us is any welfare system

which encourages people to work longer hours and to get promotion

and advance themselves in different jobs is going to have a hugely

beneficial impact on the number of children in poverty. The steps taken

by the Government to improve the chances of those on Universal Credit

moving up the ladder in the workforce will undoubtedly have a

positive effect on the number of children in relative poverty.

There are three points, one is about the philosophical strategy on

welfare relativity tax revenue, the second is about the value of

Universal Credit to our own constituents, and the third is

challenging gently some of the Trussell Trust assumptions about why

people are going to food banks and the role of DWP advisers in shedding

more light on the issue. Lastly, the relationship in getting into the

workplace and moving on, and relative child poverty. On that

basis, I cannot support the motion today. Neal Gray. Thank you Madam

Deputy Speaker, I appreciate your flexible to this afternoon.

I congratulate the right honourable member for East Ham and the

backbench committee for securing this debate.

I think the right honourable member displayed measure in his brilliant

speech about it, well researched and came across with powerful points.

The new Secretary of State has been keen to push the line that his

department needs to look at people, not just statistics. I completely

agree, but where is the evidence of that happening? Where is the camp

ashen being brought into Social Security policy?

-- compassion. The Secretary of State would want to be reminded of

the quote from Doctor Seuss, a person is a person, no matter how

small. He has to think about the impact the

policies of his department are having on children. While he is

relatively new to the job, we can call them inherited policies. But,

as he starts his tenure by marching to the defence of everything that

went before him, these policies will become his own, and he will be the

one responsible for what unfolds. He has the opportunity to make his

mark on the Department, make a genuine part you from what happened

before -- departure. And that starts with cuts to

Universal Credit. If he does not, not, how is he any different from

his predecessor? Perhaps the Minister can relay this and other

issues raised in the debate today to be absent Secretary of State, the

cost of bird from tax credits are going to have a very real impact on

the quality of children's lives and their long-term life chances.

Slashing the only work incentives in Universal Credit will see families

and lone parents hit the hardest. Lone parents, without housing costs,

will experience the largest reduction in their work allowance

from ?8,800 last year to ?4764 this year, a cut of ?4000, according to

the House of Commons library. They are working families, the children

of single parents are already twice as likely to have the risk of living

in poverty as those in coupled families, according to the child

poverty action group, it will exacerbate this disadvantage.

Lastly, the resolution foundation published a devastating report for

this covenant, seeing and a Universal Credit, half a million

working families will be significantly worse off --

government. With changes to the the tax allowance accounted for.

Analysis published by the IFS and debris this year said that absolute

child poverty is good to rise from 15.1% in 2015 to 23.1% in 2020.

I thank my honourable friend for giving way. Families with a disabled

child, prevented from working due to this, they look set to be

particularly badly affected by the government's changes. It is

estimated that these families will be ?1600 worse off by the end of the

year. Does my honourable friend agree with me that the change

directly discriminates against these families and the government should

go back to the drawing board. I thank my honourable friend for that

interventional and I completely agree. I will touch on what is

happening in Scotland later in my speech. The IFS say that an increase

projected in child poverty is driven directly by a sharp rise in poverty

with children I could kill families with three or more children, a

result of planned -- with families with three or more

Jordan. If it is universally applied by the

end of this Parliament, there will be a quarter, rather than a faith,

of all children living in poverty because of this government's tax and

security changes. Surely, it is time for the secretary of state to see

these statistics and the children behind them. Every child in four in

my constituency will be in poverty if he accepts the changes he

inherited. The child poverty action group agrees, that to lift children

out of poverty, a second earner allowance for couples to support

owners getting into work without a withdrawal of Universal Credit, and

higher employment support, it recognises people's individual

circumstances so that Universal Credit can meet its aspiration to

promote in work progression through the provision of high-quality advice

rather than through the threat of sanctions. Certainly food for

thought in that. Universal Credit was supposed to be a streamlined

way of tackling poverty and reducing the scope for error and fraud,

instead we have massive delays, is huge overspend is and fundamental

changes in cuts to awards, driving more children and families into

poverty. This is not what was intended but under this government's

austerity at any cost obsession, this is the reality. Universal

Credit has been watered down and completely undermined, especially by

cutting the allowance to ribbons. Under the latest Scotland Bill, the

newly re-elected SNP Scottish Government will have power over 15%

of social security spending. While I would prefer... I hear some

chuntering across the chamber, 15% would be determined in Scotland,

meaning the issue of Social Security will be determined in Westminster,

that is why it is important we challenge whenever we can. While I

prefer my colleagues up the road had control over all Social Security

decisions, the SNP is determined to use the powers it will get to

transform the service people receive. An area of change will come

when we scrapped the role but sees income from families of children

with disabled children if they are in hospital for 84 days remain.

And the carers allowance the same level of jobseeker's allowance,

putting dignity and respect at the heart of the new Scottish social

security agency, supported by a ?200 million investment.

We will also scrap the bedroom tax. In conclusion, one of the key

elements of the motion before us today is the call for a proper

impact assessment to take account of the significant cuts to the work

allowance. My call is to reassess what went before, and assess what

impact these cuts will have on children up and down the aisles. And

set its own path is sending its own into work rather than threatening

with poverty. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. When

the government announced plans to introduce Universal Credit, the

rationale was to lift people out of poverty, and help them into work. It

was built as a mechanism to end cycles of poverty. And, for parents,

it would give their children the best start in life. In 2011, the

government forecast Universal Credit would lift 350,000 children out of

poverty. In 2013, this was downgraded to 150,000 children.

Today, the government cannot exactly say how many children will be helped

by this process. Will the government outlined how many families

they are helping with this system, based on estimates by the Children's

Society and the Child poverty action group, it looks like this downward

trend has reached a point where children will be helped out of

poverty. It will heavily outweigh those who are from poorer families.

It is deeply concerning. As an MP, I often hear from constituents that

they are struggling under this government 's programme of austerity

and I want their voices to be heard today. I want the Minister to

seriously consider the fully unintended, I'm sure, consequences

and negative impact Universal Credit is having on many families and their

children. He most damaging part of the welfare reform takes into

account the eligibility criteria from April 20 17 -- the most

damaging part. Only two children per family will be

eligible for these elements of Universal Credit, and they are

intended to allow families to meet children's basic needs.

How dare the government to discriminate on the possibility of a

third or fourth child in the family, how dare they discriminate on any

child? One of the most disgraceful aspect of this, aside from the

clause my honourable friend has raised repeatedly, when you are

planning a family, you plan a family based on the circumstances you find

yourselves in at the time. Two parents working, what happens if

they are unable to work further down the line having had three children,

what happens to the two child policy? It is a disgrace. I

wholeheartedly agree, this government has no right or reason to

dictate to families how many children it ought to have and how

much the monetary value would place on a child's life, or their

livelihood. The first premium for a child this government has removed

the possibility of a 545 pounds per year equivalent to the family

element of tax credits designed to help families with extra costs of

their first child. Obviously the government does not prioritise the

needs and best interests of giving every child the best possible start

in life, something the Scottish Government and First Minister has

ensured every child in Scotland, newborn child, will receive a box

that will allow every single family to deliver the best possible care,

health and support needed to any family. Childcare, what it initially

appears to be a benefit to low income families, support for