13/06/2011

:00:10. > :00:18.We are determined to drive out the back -- bad practice whereby, as he

:00:18. > :00:22.says, are given a load of cash, and then it is not worth anything to

:00:22. > :00:28.them. We are looking very hard as to whether regulatory change is

:00:28. > :00:36.needed. Will there be more work place inspections next year or

:00:36. > :00:43.fewer? Weak are seeking to reduce the number of proactive work place

:00:43. > :00:48.inspections by a third. We have been clear about that. By removing

:00:48. > :00:51.inspection of low risk premises with no promises. Then the Health

:00:51. > :00:56.and Safety Executive can concentrate the resource in a place

:00:56. > :01:01.where there is problem and we will insist on fee for fault to recover

:01:01. > :01:04.money from those employers breaking the rules. With the change from

:01:04. > :01:08.three to six months before claimant becomes eligible for the new

:01:08. > :01:14.personal independence payments, for people with a sudden onset

:01:14. > :01:19.conditions such as cancer or stroke, it may affect their family's access

:01:19. > :01:24.to carer's allowance. Will the Minister investigate ways in which

:01:24. > :01:30.loved ones can have an early access to carer's allowance? I thank her

:01:30. > :01:34.for that question. It is important we continue to view the personal

:01:35. > :01:37.independence payments are very much as something that looks at an

:01:37. > :01:42.individual and the way their condition is affecting them. We are

:01:42. > :01:46.not intending to look at particular conditions. We will however be

:01:46. > :01:49.looking very carefully at the way the introduction of the personal

:01:49. > :01:55.independence payment affect benefits and we will bear her

:01:55. > :02:00.comments in mind. The Pensions Minister may recall he

:02:00. > :02:04.met with myself and the member for Chippenham on 8th March about a

:02:04. > :02:12.modest proposal to amend the Sure Start paternity grants to parents

:02:12. > :02:16.of multiples. Can he update us? am very grateful and they were

:02:16. > :02:18.right to raise some specific issues relating to people who have twins

:02:19. > :02:23.or other multiple births and the interaction between that and

:02:23. > :02:33.changes to maternity grants. I had to be in a position to respond to

:02:33. > :02:34.

:02:34. > :02:38.him shortly. Order. Point of order. Last Thursday Mr Speaker, a written

:02:38. > :02:46.statement it was laid in front of the House to do with the fast track

:02:46. > :02:49.solar p the review. By Thursday evening, the response had been from

:02:49. > :02:56.the renewable Energy Association, the handling of this whole a per

:02:56. > :03:03.has been poor. It is bad news for projects, schools, but --,, public

:03:03. > :03:06.buildings. Nothing has changed and this consultation has been a farce.

:03:06. > :03:11.Ministers have continued to ignore warnings from community groups. To

:03:11. > :03:19.make it worse, by Saturday in the Daily Mail, there was an

:03:19. > :03:25.announcement that ministers changed their minds and said they want to

:03:25. > :03:32.rescue solar energy. The minister responsible said "I do believe in

:03:33. > :03:36.solar energy". Out of respect to this House and the necessity of

:03:36. > :03:39.making a policy announcement in front of this chamber, have you had

:03:39. > :03:43.a request from the minister responsible for solar energy, to

:03:43. > :03:49.appear in front of this House to explain, first the review that

:03:49. > :03:59.never was, and the muted policy review changed over this weekend?

:03:59. > :04:00.

:04:00. > :04:03.have not. Point of order said Gerald Kaufman. You are aware there

:04:03. > :04:08.is a major bill before Parliament proposing huge changes in the

:04:08. > :04:12.National Health Service. It has been announced in the press today

:04:12. > :04:17.the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister are to hold he

:04:17. > :04:22.staged events at 12 noon tomorrow, announcing the changes they intend

:04:22. > :04:26.to make in this Bill. Is it not utterly unacceptable, but Italy

:04:26. > :04:33.when a bill is before the House of Commons, that announcements can be

:04:33. > :04:37.made about what it is to be done to that Bill should take place 2.5

:04:37. > :04:43.hours before the House sits? Do you not agree that statement should be

:04:43. > :04:47.made first to the House of Commons and the stunt should be called off?

:04:47. > :04:53.I reiterate my usual. It from the chair to the Right Honourable

:04:53. > :04:58.Gentleman and to the house, which is that if ministers, be they ever

:04:59. > :05:05.so high, have important policy announcements to make, including

:05:05. > :05:12.about any changes in policy, those announcements should be made first

:05:12. > :05:18.to the House of Commons. Point of order, Mr Graham Morris.

:05:19. > :05:24.Following on from the point made by my colleague a moment ago, in light

:05:24. > :05:28.of the NHS future Forum report on the listing exercise into the

:05:29. > :05:31.Health and Social Care Bill, just been referred to. Have you had any

:05:31. > :05:36.indication from the Secretary of State or the Government business

:05:36. > :05:41.managers, when they intend to end the pause in the Pill and whether

:05:41. > :05:45.it will be recommitted to a Bill committee of MPs to allow proper

:05:45. > :05:51.scrutiny of the proposed changes to the Bill and allow the Labour Party,

:05:51. > :05:55.who form the NHS to have a say in these important matters? They are

:05:55. > :06:00.matters for the Government and the point of order the honourable

:06:00. > :06:03.gentleman has just raised, although of great concern to him and others,

:06:03. > :06:07.is essentially a business question and therefore not a matter for the

:06:07. > :06:14.Church. I think those who are responsible for these matters will

:06:14. > :06:18.have noted, and doubt was taken heed of the observations of the

:06:18. > :06:25.honourable gentleman. A point of order, Mr Chris Bryant.

:06:25. > :06:31.I'm letting your original pronouncement to sink in. I don't

:06:31. > :06:34.want to put any words in your mouth, but it seemed to me might have been

:06:34. > :06:38.suggesting that the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister wouldn't

:06:38. > :06:44.be right to go ahead with an announcement before coming to this

:06:44. > :06:48.house in another venue? If the honourable gentleman had not made

:06:49. > :06:58.his name as a Member of Parliament, I feel sure he would have had a

:06:59. > :07:01.

:07:01. > :07:06.very fruitful career at the the bark. -- at the bar. Behind the bar.

:07:06. > :07:10.Not down the stairs, but in the law courts. I don't feel the need to

:07:10. > :07:15.add anything to what I have already said in response to the Right

:07:15. > :07:19.Honourable Gentleman. First, I thought what I said was pretty

:07:19. > :07:26.clear and the Right Honourable Member for Manchester Gorton is not

:07:26. > :07:32.slow on the uptake. I hope that is clear. Before we proceed any

:07:32. > :07:36.further I have to notify the house in accordance with the Royal Assent

:07:36. > :07:46.Act 1967, that her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the

:07:46. > :07:46.

:07:46. > :07:52.following Act. Postal services actor, 2011. We come now to the

:07:52. > :07:59.main business, the Welfare Reform Bill programme motion and to move

:07:59. > :08:02.that motion I call, I was going to call the Secretary of State, but I

:08:02. > :08:08.call Mr Chris Grayling. I will touch briefly on the

:08:08. > :08:12.programme motion before the House. As he will see we have set out a

:08:12. > :08:18.plan to carry at the report stage as indeed the third reading over

:08:18. > :08:21.two days, commencing now until 10pm tonight and enterprising again

:08:21. > :08:26.after Prime Minister's Questions and any other business that takes

:08:26. > :08:31.place during the day on Wednesday with a third reading before the end

:08:31. > :08:37.of the day on Wednesday. It follows a lengthy debate in committee, a

:08:37. > :08:41.very constructive debate. Unusually, it was a debate in committee where

:08:41. > :08:46.we managed to cover every single clause in the bill. I fear I cannot

:08:46. > :08:50.offer the opposition quite the same amount of latitude for the report

:08:50. > :08:56.stage or. Although I know they will wish to bring forward and number of

:08:56. > :09:01.issues on what is a matter of crucial importance. I think it is

:09:01. > :09:07.welcome to note the intervention today, albeit rather confusing

:09:07. > :09:11.intervention from the shadow Secretary of State and indeed the

:09:11. > :09:15.leader of the opposition's intervention about the opposition's

:09:15. > :09:19.position on welfare reform. I hope over the next two days of debate,

:09:19. > :09:24.we will see some evidence emerged about what Lyme Bay will take in

:09:24. > :09:31.these matters. Matters like the benefit cap, whether they will be

:09:31. > :09:35.for us or against us. They have been ambiguous and parts of the

:09:35. > :09:38.debate in committee about whether they are supportive or not. I hope

:09:38. > :09:44.we will reach the end of the programmed debate on Wednesday and

:09:44. > :09:48.we will find they are supportive of this bill at third reading. So I

:09:48. > :09:52.hope that today's we have set aside will allow us to debate all of the

:09:52. > :09:55.key areas for discussion in the Bill and we will be able to

:09:55. > :10:00.discover more clearly, when it comes down to the final decisions,

:10:00. > :10:05.the opposition are with us or against us. I bet Mr Speaker to

:10:05. > :10:08.propose this programme motion and I look forward to two days of lengthy

:10:08. > :10:14.and interesting and perhaps a lighting, in terms of the

:10:14. > :10:19.opposition policy debate, on these matters. Question as is on the

:10:19. > :10:23.Order Paper. I take a little bit of issue with the minister. I don't

:10:23. > :10:27.agree there has been adequate time on Committee to consider this bill.

:10:28. > :10:32.Not least in fact because on more than one occasion the Minister has

:10:32. > :10:36.left early before we have completed our first afternoon of discussions.

:10:36. > :10:41.The consequence was, a number of key issues, particularly new

:10:41. > :10:46.clauses were left and debated when the committee ended. And some of

:10:46. > :10:52.those on the order paper today. With that backlog, as well as other

:10:52. > :10:57.key points in the Bill, I am very concerned the two days now

:10:57. > :11:03.available are likely to be insufficient for the debate that is

:11:03. > :11:10.needed. Given that inadequate time however, the knife which the

:11:10. > :11:15.Government's motion has proposed is in a perfectly sensible place. And

:11:15. > :11:20.because Lene to get on with this debate, I am not going to seek to

:11:20. > :11:25.divide the house on the motion. But I am concerned the house has not

:11:25. > :11:33.had, and I think it will become clear, sufficient time to consider

:11:33. > :11:43.properly the consequences of this Bill. The question is as on the

:11:43. > :11:46.

:11:46. > :11:55.order paper. I think the ayes have it, the ayes habit. The orders of

:11:55. > :11:58.the day will now be read by the clerk, Dr Sir Malcolm Jack.

:11:58. > :12:08.Welfare reform bill as amended in the public Committee to be

:12:08. > :12:11.

:12:11. > :12:18.considered. We begin with Government new clause No 1, with

:12:18. > :12:22.which it will be convenient to consider Government's amendments No

:12:22. > :12:29.1 of 213 on the subject of deductions from their earnings. Mr

:12:29. > :12:33.Chris Grayling. If you would permit me to go off

:12:33. > :12:38.subject for a moment, I think it would be appropriate to mark, as he

:12:38. > :12:44.did in your comments, the recent on a received by the clerk. I am sure

:12:44. > :12:49.members on all sides will send him a congratulations and best wishes.

:12:49. > :12:55.Mr Speaker, I would like to speak about amendments 1-13 and dewclaws

:12:55. > :12:59.one. They introduce a direct earnings attachments as a method of

:12:59. > :13:03.social security debt recovery. An attachment of earnings is a method

:13:03. > :13:08.by which many will be stopped from a customer's wages to pay a debt.

:13:08. > :13:12.The debt in question could be an overpayment of benefits, it could

:13:12. > :13:18.be any associated penalty. It could be a recovery of hardship payments

:13:18. > :13:22.or it could be a payment on account. This is a measure which will also

:13:22. > :13:26.be available for use by local authorities for the recovery of

:13:26. > :13:31.housing benefit overpayments and in due course, could be also used for

:13:31. > :13:37.the recovery of council tax benefit overpayments, once the localisation

:13:37. > :13:40.of Council Tax Benefit takes place. It will also be available to

:13:40. > :13:47.recover an administrative penalty for a benefit fraud a fence or a

:13:47. > :13:51.civil penalty for failing to take proper care of a benefit Award.

:13:51. > :13:54.Thanks for giving way. Is there some sort of structure and process

:13:54. > :13:57.so EU migrants to work in the country and are eligible for

:13:57. > :14:01.benefits and may move out of the country when they no longer wish to

:14:01. > :14:05.be here, to be able to claw back any overpayments of benefit should

:14:06. > :14:10.they move through EU countries? thing she makes an important point.

:14:10. > :14:16.The answer to that whilst in theory mechanisms exist to recover

:14:16. > :14:21.payments, it is much more difficult. I share her point and I will

:14:21. > :14:25.certainly will continue to seek ways of ensuring in such an

:14:25. > :14:28.eventuality, we can make recovery. Whilst the is considering that,

:14:28. > :14:33.will he consider the case of the many hundreds of thousands of

:14:33. > :14:38.British people who are living in Spain? Very often they rely on

:14:38. > :14:45.support in particular from the NHS, and many other services that they

:14:45. > :14:48.receive from the Spanish Government and any were in Europe? Of course

:14:48. > :14:52.the honourable gentleman is correct. He will also agreed that if

:14:52. > :14:56.somebody comes and lives and works in this country and receives

:14:56. > :15:00.benefit payments and then returns overseas and they carry with them

:15:01. > :15:05.an obligation, they should fulfil that obligation. That is I think

:15:05. > :15:08.the sole point my Honourable Friend was making and one that would be

:15:08. > :15:12.seen as having commonsense by members on both sides of the house.

:15:12. > :15:17.And there is Freedman's Best freedom of movement around Europe

:15:17. > :15:24.and we must make sure mechanisms are not abused. The primary purpose

:15:24. > :15:28.is to enforce recovery were the debtor is in PAYE employment and

:15:28. > :15:31.won't make other arrangements for payment. One of the reasons I think

:15:31. > :15:34.this is a sensible approach to take and I should apologise to the

:15:34. > :15:39.opposition we were not able to bring this amendment to the

:15:39. > :15:42.committee. It is being considered and discussed in our processors. We

:15:42. > :15:46.brought it forward at this time but I hope they won't find it

:15:46. > :15:50.controversial. I hope there won't find it controversial is because it

:15:50. > :15:54.is an anomaly, that if somebody incurs a penalty for what ever

:15:54. > :15:57.reason and they remain in the benefits system, we can recover the

:15:57. > :16:02.money through the benefit system through a reduction from the

:16:02. > :16:06.benefit payments that go to them. If they have moved into PAYE

:16:06. > :16:10.employment and say no way, go away, we don't currently have the

:16:10. > :16:20.mechanism to deal with that to make a recovery of the debt that is owed.

:16:20. > :16:24.That is the purpose of this set of The rates of deduction will be

:16:25. > :16:29.determined in the regulations and that will include a safeguard that

:16:29. > :16:35.the debt will not go below the level of giving earnings. That is

:16:35. > :16:39.common practice. In similar arrangements in other parts of our

:16:39. > :16:43.society, where there is a deduction for a court penalty or a child

:16:43. > :16:48.maintenance issue, it is essential that we do not deduct money at a

:16:48. > :16:53.rate that will tip the person concerned below a given level of

:16:53. > :17:00.earnings. It will be a basic principle. That recovery of

:17:00. > :17:04.overpaid benefit should not cause undue hardship. Can the Minister

:17:04. > :17:08.clarify whether any judicial process will be attached to any

:17:08. > :17:13.arrest and made of someone's earnings? The reason I am asking is

:17:13. > :17:18.because I am sure we all know mistakes happen. Sometimes because

:17:18. > :17:22.of errors on a Clement's Park but also because of errors in

:17:22. > :17:28.bureaucracy and I would be concerned there are not enough

:17:28. > :17:32.safeguards -- on a claimant's part. I will come back in a moment and

:17:32. > :17:37.explain what rights the individuals have. It would not be appropriate

:17:37. > :17:42.to have a situation where a TA could be applied and there was no

:17:42. > :17:48.comeback at all for the individual. A wooden and a writer if challenge

:17:48. > :17:56.or appeal and that would be wholly inappropriate. -- it would allow no

:17:56. > :18:00.right of challenge. Just on that point, in terms of the accessible

:18:00. > :18:04.income for child maintenance payments, with a debt order have

:18:05. > :18:11.any bearing on the accessible income that is available for child

:18:11. > :18:15.benefit claimants? That is one which would depend on the

:18:15. > :18:19.circumstances. It is obviously important that they deduction of

:18:19. > :18:23.earnings has to take into account a potential impact on the individual

:18:23. > :18:27.and to take it account of the impact on the individual, you would

:18:27. > :18:32.also have to take account of other payments. It is a basic principle

:18:32. > :18:36.that recovery of overpaid benefit should not cause undue hardship.

:18:36. > :18:41.All circumstances would need to be taken into account. I should

:18:41. > :18:45.clarify a point that council tax benefit will be deducted from a

:18:45. > :18:53.council tax liability so it will not be administered in quite the

:18:53. > :19:01.same way. Imposing a d e eight is intended be a simple process which

:19:01. > :19:05.replaces the current practice. The ability of the DW p to make the AA

:19:05. > :19:09.on its own a authority sends out a signal to potential fraudsters and

:19:09. > :19:14.I think will prove a useful tool and I think given the comments by

:19:14. > :19:18.the Leader of the Opposition today, the opposition will welcome this as

:19:18. > :19:22.a sensible measure to take against people who do defraud the systems.

:19:22. > :19:27.We think these measures will also encourage claimants in debt to be

:19:27. > :19:31.more aware of the possibility of deduction at source, reducing any

:19:31. > :19:36.expectation of avoiding paying debt. There is always a concern that you

:19:36. > :19:39.can pile money up and up and up and there will be no day of reckoning.

:19:39. > :19:45.This will ensure there will be a day of reckoning. The measure will

:19:45. > :19:48.make use of an existing premises used by the child maintenance and

:19:48. > :19:52.Enforcement Commission with which the business has already familiar.

:19:52. > :19:58.This is a matter of routine for M employed to make a deduction of

:19:58. > :20:03.earnings from a person's salary cheque each month relating to child

:20:03. > :20:09.maintenance deductions. This will use the same process. The provision

:20:09. > :20:17.also allows for a levy of an administration charge against the

:20:17. > :20:27.debtor to set any administrative cost. Using this to recover debt

:20:27. > :20:32.does not remove a better's rights to challenge a decision or the

:20:32. > :20:38.penalty. We do not remove the rights of the individual. For

:20:38. > :20:41.example, when an overpayment occurs, an independent decision maker

:20:41. > :20:46.decides if a recoverable overpayment exists and as I set out

:20:46. > :20:52.in the Bill Committee, there are situations where payment will be

:20:52. > :20:56.recovered and circumstances where it will not. We will allow

:20:56. > :21:01.frontline staff to judge what is right and what is wrong. Clearly,

:21:01. > :21:04.we accept there will be times when an overpayment is the result of an

:21:04. > :21:08.administrative error in the department so we have to accept the

:21:08. > :21:13.blame where we do not seek recovery of an overpayment but the general

:21:13. > :21:17.position is if somebody receives money they should not have received,

:21:17. > :21:23.we would expect them to pay it back. If they refuse, this mechanism will

:21:23. > :21:27.allow us to do that. There is a right of appeal to an independent

:21:27. > :21:33.tribunal, should the person be unhappy with the original decision.

:21:33. > :21:37.There is still a full decision -- judicial process available. If

:21:37. > :21:41.there is a sanction imposed which can lead to the withdrawal of

:21:41. > :21:46.benefit payments, they have the right to first go to a decision

:21:46. > :21:50.maker and secondly to go to the tribunal. Those rights will remain

:21:50. > :21:55.in this situation but we will not have to go to court in order to

:21:55. > :22:00.secure the original order to make that deduction of earnings. Before

:22:00. > :22:06.taking action to impose a deep EEA, we will ensure that the debtor is

:22:06. > :22:11.aware that we are taking such action. Also keen to make sure we

:22:11. > :22:16.remain mindful of our welfare obligations. We do not want to push

:22:16. > :22:19.the debtor into leaving work to avoid a payment. This has to be

:22:19. > :22:27.applied with common sense and care. In such instances, it may be

:22:27. > :22:30.determined that another method of recovery should be employed or that

:22:30. > :22:35.it only commences after other commitments have been cleared, the

:22:35. > :22:40.point that was made by my honourable friend a moment ago. It

:22:40. > :22:45.is designed to recover debt from those who seek to avoid repayment,

:22:45. > :22:49.those who think they can avoid paying the money back. Those who

:22:49. > :22:53.comply with requests for repayment and to come to a reasonable

:22:53. > :22:59.arrangement or who can show they are currently unable to repay will

:22:59. > :23:04.not have this imposed. I'm sure the House will agree with me that where

:23:04. > :23:09.somebody refuses to meet their obligations to repay benefit debt,

:23:09. > :23:13.such powers should be available to the relevant authorities to make

:23:13. > :23:17.the recovery. This is all this new clause and amendments are designed

:23:17. > :23:21.to do. They are designed to ensure that we treat people fairly and

:23:21. > :23:25.appropriately within the system. We can recover benefits directly from

:23:25. > :23:29.people who are still on benefits that have a repayment they have to

:23:29. > :23:35.pay back to us. We cannot carry do that easily without going to the

:23:35. > :23:41.courts -- currently do that easily. This set of amendments will allow

:23:41. > :23:44.us to change that. I think it is a prudent and sensible step. It is in

:23:44. > :23:49.keeping with our own anti-fraud strategy. I hope it is now in

:23:49. > :23:53.keeping with the opposition's anti- fraud strategy. I hope this is a

:23:53. > :24:02.set of amendments that will command support on both sides of the House

:24:02. > :24:05.and I beg to move them. New clause 1, deductions from earnings, other

:24:05. > :24:12.cases. The question is that the new clause

:24:12. > :24:16.be read a second time. Mr Stephen Timms. I welcome the opportunity to

:24:16. > :24:20.respond to this first group of amendments. It is certainly one of

:24:20. > :24:24.the less contentious groups that we will be considering and the

:24:24. > :24:31.minister should not hope that we will be equally amenable throughout

:24:31. > :24:35.the debate this afternoon. The new clause aims to amend the Social

:24:35. > :24:39.Security Administration Act 1992 to allow, as the minister has

:24:39. > :24:45.explained, the Government to recover overpayments resulting from

:24:45. > :24:50.mistakes or fraud in out-of-work benefits, housing benefits but also

:24:50. > :24:56.universal credit and the other contributory benefits. I can well

:24:56. > :24:58.see why the minister wants to make these changes. In particular,

:24:58. > :25:03.because universal credit will encompass people who are in work,

:25:03. > :25:07.as well as those who are out of work, it does make sense for the

:25:07. > :25:12.recovery of overpayments to be extended into earnings received in

:25:12. > :25:17.work in the way that he has outlined. I think there are a

:25:17. > :25:23.number of questions that need to be asked about these plans. He has

:25:23. > :25:28.been pressed already about the mechanism for appeals. But, let me

:25:28. > :25:34.put this to him. The changes will certainly require a good deal of

:25:34. > :25:39.co-operation from employers as they are the organisations on whom the

:25:39. > :25:44.Government will be serving notices to deduct from earnings. They will

:25:44. > :25:48.bear the burden of the administration of these deductions,

:25:48. > :25:51.having to pay in amounts to keep records of these amounts and to

:25:51. > :25:56.keep the Secretary of State informed if the claimant leaves

:25:56. > :26:01.their employment. He has made the point reasonably that a system

:26:01. > :26:05.already exists for child support payments but in order to take into

:26:05. > :26:10.account this additional burden that he will now be imposing, the

:26:10. > :26:14.Government has allowed for their employer to deduct an amount in

:26:14. > :26:19.respect of their administration costs. I think we do have to have

:26:19. > :26:24.some idea of the amount the employers will be permitted to

:26:24. > :26:28.deduct. It will need to be seen to be fair to the person whose pay is

:26:28. > :26:33.being deducted whilst also adequately compensating employers.

:26:33. > :26:38.I wonder if the minister can tell us more about how that amount is

:26:38. > :26:42.going to be calculated, how it perhaps relates to existing

:26:42. > :26:48.arrangements for child support that he touched on. The amendments allow

:26:48. > :26:53.for a level of earnings below which earnings must not be reduced by the

:26:53. > :26:57.deductions. Again, that seems appropriate but we also need to

:26:57. > :27:03.know how that level of earnings is going to be prescribed. There could

:27:03. > :27:10.be a very real impact on work incentives, particularly for people

:27:10. > :27:16.who have received overpayments, who may well have been acting entirely

:27:16. > :27:20.innocently, perhaps been confused or simply made a mistake. Or

:27:20. > :27:24.perhaps the JobCentre made a mistake. If the amount is too low,

:27:24. > :27:28.claimants who are out of work could see little gain from moving into

:27:28. > :27:33.work. Additionally, if the deductions are attic flat rate or a

:27:33. > :27:38.percentage of hourly pay, the work incentives that the universal

:27:38. > :27:42.credit taper mechanism is designed to provide, will be compromised.

:27:42. > :27:45.Can the Minister tell us how this level of minimum earnings will be

:27:45. > :27:51.calculated and make sure that people who are repaying over

:27:51. > :27:56.payments are still better off if they increase their income through

:27:56. > :28:00.working additional hours. Paragraph 1 of subsection one creates a

:28:00. > :28:06.criminal offence for non-compliance with these regulations, resulting

:28:06. > :28:12.in a fine of �1,000 which would be a hefty sum for a small business.

:28:12. > :28:15.Small businesses obviously have less time and energy to spend on

:28:15. > :28:21.administration or human resources. The additional burdens that this

:28:21. > :28:25.amendment places on them could prove to be a significant

:28:25. > :28:29.disincentive on their hiring people, are recruiting new employees who

:28:29. > :28:34.have overpayments hanging over them. That would result in those people

:28:34. > :28:37.finding it more difficult therefore to getting to work. I wonder if the

:28:37. > :28:43.minister can tell us more about how he thinks these measures will

:28:43. > :28:49.affect people who are paying back overpayments while trying to find a

:28:49. > :28:55.job and how will he ensure that these new provisions don't create a

:28:55. > :29:05.new barrier to those people getting back into work? The move to

:29:05. > :29:07.

:29:07. > :29:10.allowing deduction from earnings to repay errors due to fraud, is a

:29:10. > :29:14.good run because universal credit will be available to people in work

:29:14. > :29:18.as well as out of work. The Government is already introducing

:29:18. > :29:22.civil penalties for those who it feels have made incorrect

:29:22. > :29:26.statements. It is important we do not penalise people who may have

:29:26. > :29:31.made mistakes but have done so honestly by placing new and are

:29:31. > :29:35.necessary barriers to employment in their way. The minimum level of

:29:35. > :29:43.earnings, the red tape this will mean for small businesses could

:29:43. > :29:47.just do that. If the Government gets these judgments wrong. I hope

:29:47. > :29:53.the Minister will give assurances about how unpractised these

:29:53. > :29:57.measures will work. Kate Green. Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a

:29:58. > :30:01.pleasure to make my first contribution to the stage of

:30:01. > :30:05.proceedings on the bill by welcoming an aspect of the

:30:05. > :30:10.amendment No. Two, tabled by the Government this afternoon,

:30:11. > :30:17.specifically that the short subsection proposed to Clause one

:30:17. > :30:23.or two, in relation to the level of earnings which must be reduced --

:30:23. > :30:28.not be reduced when the level of overpayments have to be recovered,

:30:28. > :30:32.is welcome. That echoes the practice we see in Sweden, Germany,

:30:32. > :30:37.the Netherlands and Norway and other nations where there are

:30:37. > :30:43.legally enforceable attachment free limits, when debts are being

:30:43. > :30:50.enforced. A level of linnets below which claimants must be protected

:30:50. > :31:00.and witches related to a national minimum income standard set by a

:31:00. > :31:04.

:31:04. > :31:09.I am grateful for a number of people who have helped me raise

:31:09. > :31:14.this principle this afternoon. Howard like to see the principle of

:31:14. > :31:18.irreducible attachment extended to all debt to the unemployed to

:31:18. > :31:24.safeguard children's disability and housing benefits. That would

:31:24. > :31:27.prevent the damage that stun to physical and mental health by the

:31:27. > :31:32.enforcement of debt against poverty incomes and the damage that does to

:31:32. > :31:37.the capacity of the poorest adults to find and to keep work. In Sweden,

:31:37. > :31:41.the standards for a reasonable standard of living are operated for

:31:41. > :31:46.price index changes every year and reset every five years by the

:31:46. > :31:51.National Board for consumer affairs. Based on survey data on national

:31:51. > :31:54.household consumption patterns and current prices. This means

:31:54. > :31:59.statisticians and NBC a policy officials are deciding what is

:31:59. > :32:03.reasonable in terms of deviations from the averages. For example, for

:32:03. > :32:08.the past four years in the UK, the prices of food and domestic fuel

:32:08. > :32:14.have increased faster than both the Retail Price Index and the complete

:32:14. > :32:19.-- consumer price index. The standards are set by the social

:32:19. > :32:25.service brought the setting benefits. The tax threshold is also

:32:25. > :32:28.used by the court enforcement authority to set its attachment

:32:28. > :32:32.through some debt enforcement. But some consists of two parts of

:32:32. > :32:38.variable housing costs and affix standard normal sum for all other

:32:38. > :32:42.living expenses. There are other methodologies for setting the

:32:42. > :32:49.minimum acceptable income standard below which income should be

:32:49. > :32:51.protected, and which should be Attachment free. We explored in

:32:51. > :32:56.committee work under way in this country from the universities of

:32:56. > :32:59.York and Loughborough, among others to develop a minimum income

:32:59. > :33:04.standard which can command and indeed is informed by the

:33:04. > :33:09.perceptions of the public as a whole. So we have a range of

:33:09. > :33:13.options for assessing and setting that minimum standard below which

:33:13. > :33:20.there won't be deductions and examples from other nations were

:33:20. > :33:23.such a minimum can be enforceable by the courts and related to

:33:23. > :33:27.national minimum income standards. In setting payment plans, countries

:33:27. > :33:31.that have legally they enforceable limits, enforceable by the look

:33:31. > :33:37.courts, and means the courts can ensure the debtor is left with a

:33:37. > :33:44.minimum level of income, taking into account family-size. I hope

:33:44. > :33:51.the small but vital subsection in the Secretary of State's amendment

:33:51. > :33:55.No. 2, and caused the 202 will give us an opportunity to give an era of

:33:55. > :33:58.cross-party support for such legally enforceable, irreducible

:33:58. > :34:02.and attachment feet minimums are one people are repaying debts,

:34:02. > :34:07.which will be based on minimum income standards and contribute

:34:07. > :34:11.over all to a reduction in the huge cost of mental illness, to the

:34:11. > :34:15.health service and the wider economy. It would also make a

:34:15. > :34:18.significant contribution to the reduction of poverty in the UK and

:34:18. > :34:23.in welcoming this aspect of the amendment proposed by the Secretary

:34:23. > :34:33.of State, I have we will have an ambitious approach to setting what

:34:33. > :34:34.

:34:34. > :34:44.that minimum should be. Can I start by saying I appreciate the comments

:34:44. > :34:44.

:34:44. > :34:50.of the honourable lady a Manchester. Stretford and Urmston, I beg your

:34:50. > :34:53.pardon. I listen very carefully to the point she made. She has given a

:34:53. > :34:58.great deal of thought to these matters. Whilst I cannot offer her

:34:58. > :35:02.a guarantee we will do all of the things she wishes, what I can say

:35:02. > :35:05.is we will take great care in regulations attached to this

:35:05. > :35:10.measure to make sure we get the right balance. It has been

:35:10. > :35:14.absolutely clear for a long time in this country and it remains clear

:35:14. > :35:18.under the current Government, we have to be careful in setting the

:35:18. > :35:22.levels for any deduction to make sure we do not tip people into

:35:22. > :35:28.hardship. And particularly we don't encourage them to leave work and

:35:28. > :35:37.leaving them families in the poverty scale. Let me start with

:35:37. > :35:43.the. Sheep and others have made how we will determine the levels of

:35:43. > :35:46.earnings below which deductions cannot be made. The reality is,

:35:46. > :35:53.circumstances between different families, different situations,

:35:53. > :35:56.there may be a case where you have as she suggested, a deduction for

:35:56. > :36:01.child support. And there may be issues about the number of children

:36:01. > :36:05.in the family, disabilities are great care has to be exercised. The

:36:05. > :36:10.minimum level we will pursue will be determined to ensure the debtor

:36:10. > :36:13.is left with sufficient income to maintain himself or herself and the

:36:13. > :36:18.family in line with similar provisions in the attachment of

:36:18. > :36:24.earnings Act 1971. We are planning to use the same basis that has been

:36:24. > :36:28.used by the same -- previous governments. In many cases, and

:36:28. > :36:32.direct earnings attachment will be implemented with little no decision

:36:32. > :36:37.with the debtor, and the level will be a prescribed minimum and won't

:36:37. > :36:42.be able to take into account of individual circumstances. We will

:36:42. > :36:46.try to create a system where we are mindful of the needs to reflect the

:36:46. > :36:50.circumstances of the individual, but we cannot go the whole way. We

:36:50. > :36:55.cannot go as far as she would wish. If a debtor finds they cannot cope

:36:55. > :36:59.with the level of deductions, they should contact us to discuss an

:36:59. > :37:03.alternative payment rate. But course, they can avoid being placed

:37:03. > :37:07.in this situation. Bear in mind, these are not people struggling to

:37:07. > :37:11.deal with something they have already agreed, these are people

:37:11. > :37:19.who have wilfully refuse to enter an agreement with us and are saying,

:37:19. > :37:23.I am not paying the money back. Debtors who are repaying

:37:23. > :37:29.overpayments by means of a D A will be able to claim a repayment rate

:37:29. > :37:32.causes them hardship and asked for it to be reduced. Although we have

:37:32. > :37:36.a responsibility to recover overpayments in order to protect

:37:36. > :37:40.public funds, we take into account an individual's financial and

:37:41. > :37:44.personal circumstances. Whilst I cannot go as far as the honourable

:37:44. > :37:49.lady, and she has articulated a strong case, in this particular

:37:49. > :37:53.measure I cannot offer quite as much as she would wish but I cannot

:37:53. > :37:57.for the assurance we will always take into account an individual's

:37:57. > :38:01.financial and personal circumstances. Particularly work

:38:01. > :38:06.issues of potential poverty and deprivation and impact and hardship

:38:06. > :38:15.can arise. The right honourable gentleman made a point about the

:38:15. > :38:19.issue of employers. We will of course use the same mechanism for

:38:19. > :38:25.these attachment orders, as are the deductions a for child maintenance

:38:25. > :38:32.orders. These are an established process through the system and

:38:32. > :38:36.prior to that, the CSA system. This won't cause employers to do things

:38:36. > :38:40.differently to the way they have operated before. I am comfortable

:38:40. > :38:45.on that basis this won't represent an additional burden to employers.

:38:45. > :38:49.He made mention of the provision for a �1,000 fine. The truth is,

:38:49. > :38:53.there is no excuse for a refusal to engage with any part of this

:38:53. > :38:58.process. The orders themselves only a rise in the first place because

:38:58. > :39:02.an individual claimant has refused to engage. Their is no excuse for

:39:02. > :39:08.an employer to refuse to engage either. It shouldn't be complex a

:39:08. > :39:15.complicated, it shouldn't be complex enough to cause an employer

:39:15. > :39:17.to decline an applicant for a vacancy. Many employers up and down

:39:17. > :39:22.the country are used to dealing with this and I don't think it will

:39:22. > :39:27.create an extra burden for business. He raised the number of other

:39:27. > :39:31.questions - how much can employers deduct for the admin charge. Amount

:39:31. > :39:35.not in excess of �1 for each deduction is the answer for that.

:39:35. > :39:39.He asked for an assurance the measure won't damage working

:39:40. > :39:43.incentives. The answer to that is with all debt recovery we have of

:39:43. > :39:53.course have to be mindful of the department's welfare obligations

:39:53. > :39:56.and recoveries of overpaid benefits shouldn't cause undue hardship. We

:39:56. > :40:06.certainly wouldn't want in the calculation of the repayments that

:40:06. > :40:08.

:40:08. > :40:11.somebody should have to leave work in order to avoid repayment. The

:40:11. > :40:14.debtor will have had ample opportunity to make other

:40:14. > :40:19.arrangements to pay or show suspension of recovery was

:40:19. > :40:25.applicable in their case. These are not people who have had no chance

:40:25. > :40:30.to engage or discuss. I give way. wonder if it is his intention that

:40:30. > :40:34.if someone gets a pay rise, does he anticipate they will always see

:40:34. > :40:38.some benefit from the rise or is it possible they might lose all of the

:40:38. > :40:43.increase in the additional repayments the department requires?

:40:43. > :40:47.It is difficult to give an absolute answer. It is unlikely we will seek

:40:47. > :40:51.to withdraw an entire pay rise. But if we have given somebody a lot of

:40:51. > :40:55.slack in making their repayments and their financial situation

:40:55. > :41:00.improved, then we wouldn't just allow them to carry on paying at

:41:00. > :41:05.the same hardship rate they had previously. We would expect an

:41:05. > :41:09.improvement in the terms based on their improved circumstances. The

:41:09. > :41:13.reality is, as he knows as a former minister of there are well

:41:13. > :41:17.established hardship issues in place. But the customer engages

:41:17. > :41:27.with the Department, remains suggest another method of recovery

:41:27. > :41:31.should be employed. It maybe the able to be delayed, but only in

:41:31. > :41:35.exceptional circumstances. What lies at the heart of this is common

:41:35. > :41:39.sense. It is our job to recover funds that have been overpaid where

:41:39. > :41:43.there is not good reason for waiving the overpayment because of

:41:43. > :41:46.departmental error. It is not in any of our interests to have a

:41:46. > :41:51.system that forces people into severe hardship and poverty and

:41:51. > :41:54.does not reflect the reality of their financial situation. There is

:41:54. > :41:59.a clear obligation to repay, the Leader of the Opposition was

:41:59. > :42:03.talking this morning about responsibility. Those we are

:42:03. > :42:08.talking about have a responsibility to repay the money due to us. We

:42:08. > :42:11.also, as do the courts, applied common sense to this process,

:42:11. > :42:16.achieve the right balance and make sure we recover the money due to

:42:16. > :42:20.the taxpayer in the right way and in a sensible way. I very much

:42:20. > :42:23.welcome the positive comments of the spokesman for the opposition. I

:42:23. > :42:28.know that we are likely to have some lively debates as the hours go

:42:29. > :42:32.by. Although I would hope, again having listened to the comments,

:42:32. > :42:35.the lively debate will mask a willingness to support this bill.

:42:35. > :42:39.It would be disappointing if at the end of all these debates the

:42:39. > :42:43.opposition did not support this bill. If they decline to do so, I

:42:43. > :42:47.look forward to having a debate in public about what is right and what

:42:47. > :42:50.is wrong. But I am delighted there is cross-party co-operation and

:42:50. > :42:54.there would like to move these amendments forward.

:42:54. > :43:03.Order, the question is that new clause number-one be read a second

:43:03. > :43:10.time. As many of that opinion say Aye. To the contrary, noes. Clause

:43:10. > :43:15.1 be added to the bill? I think the ayes have it. With the leave of the

:43:15. > :43:20.House I will put Government's amendments 1 to 13 together to be

:43:20. > :43:28.moved formally. The question is Government amendments 1-13 be made.

:43:28. > :43:36.As many of that opinion say Aye. I think the ayes habit. We come now

:43:36. > :43:46.to new clause number two with which it will be convenient to consider a

:43:46. > :43:46.

:43:46. > :43:53.new clauses 326 and amendments 23, 24, 38, 27-29, and Government's

:43:53. > :44:01.amendments 14-19. Amendments 61 and Government amendments 20 and 21. Mr

:44:01. > :44:06.Stephen Timms. I rise to move a new clause two and

:44:06. > :44:09.the other amendments in this group in the name of myself and my

:44:09. > :44:16.honourable and right honourable friends. As this Bill returns to

:44:16. > :44:22.the chamber for its report stage, it is astonishing how many policy

:44:22. > :44:25.gaps remain. This group addresses some of the worst holes in the

:44:25. > :44:30.policy on universal creditor and the first new clause, new clause

:44:30. > :44:36.number two in particular deals with child care. What has happened,

:44:36. > :44:39.ministers perhaps understandably, were naive. We begin his enthusiasm

:44:40. > :44:44.they boasted universal credit would solve all of the problems and the

:44:44. > :44:48.benefits system. It would always pay to be in work, the system would

:44:48. > :44:53.be simple, thousands would be better off, nobody worse off and

:44:53. > :44:58.the benefits bill would be cut. Well, in truth you did not have to

:44:58. > :45:03.be Milton Friedman to work out that that did not all add up. That is

:45:03. > :45:10.now their problem. They cannot stand up their posts. When it comes

:45:10. > :45:20.to the detail, they have been unable to deliver a. Nowhere is

:45:20. > :45:26.

:45:26. > :45:30.that clearer than on child care Support for childcare is keep for

:45:30. > :45:34.where their parents are better off in work or out of work. The

:45:34. > :45:40.Secretary of State promised in his evidence to the committee in March

:45:40. > :45:44.of that the Government's proposals would be available before the

:45:44. > :45:50.Welfare Reform Bill left committee. That is what he promised the

:45:50. > :45:54.Committee on 24th March. I quote: It will certainly be done by the

:45:54. > :45:59.committee stage. As I pointed out at Question Time,

:45:59. > :46:02.that promise has been broken. No policy was announced that the

:46:02. > :46:05.committee stage and now the bill will leave the House of Commons

:46:05. > :46:11.this week and we still have not a clue what the Government's policy

:46:11. > :46:15.is because ministers have not been able to work a policy out. At the

:46:15. > :46:20.beginning of the committee stage we told the Government we were worried

:46:20. > :46:24.that the lack of crucial details and now the bill has come back to

:46:24. > :46:30.the House and they are still missing. Ministers have failed to

:46:30. > :46:35.make this fly. We are not talking here about minor details. This is

:46:35. > :46:38.about whether or not parents really will be better off in work as they

:46:38. > :46:44.generally are under the current system. Achieving the whole purpose

:46:44. > :46:50.of these changes hands on the Government's decision on child care.

:46:50. > :46:56.Ministers have failed to reach a decision. That is why, Mr Speaker,

:46:56. > :47:00.Oxfam, Barnardo's and others wrote recently to the Secretary of State.

:47:00. > :47:04.They wrote that for many families on low or middle in comes and I

:47:04. > :47:09.quote directly from their letter: The success of universal credit

:47:09. > :47:14.will stand or fall on the level of child care costs covered.

:47:14. > :47:19.And they are right. The success of this policy stance on the

:47:19. > :47:25.Government's decision. Ministers have simply failed to come up with

:47:25. > :47:28.the decision. At least, with the NHS reforms, the Government paused

:47:28. > :47:33.to work out a policy. Here they have not managed to work out a

:47:33. > :47:37.policy but they are pressing on all the same. No proposals were

:47:38. > :47:43.presented in committee and none from the Government are in front of

:47:43. > :47:47.us today. Instead, we just had an informal seminar on options. We

:47:47. > :47:52.know the Government wants to extend provision for childcare support for

:47:52. > :47:57.people working fewer than 16 hours per week but they want to do that

:47:57. > :48:07.within the existing budget. That does not add up. I will gladly give

:48:07. > :48:13.way. Is his solution the same as the solution of the groups that he

:48:13. > :48:19.mentioned earlier witches to put more money into child care?

:48:19. > :48:23.solution is the one in clause to which we are debating which I am

:48:23. > :48:29.moving. The priority should be to maintain the support that is

:48:29. > :48:34.currently being received by people working more than 16 hours per week.

:48:34. > :48:37.I understand why the Government says they simply cannot find more

:48:37. > :48:40.money for support and child care, but what is going to be disastrous

:48:41. > :48:46.is what appears to be the Government's intention to give a

:48:46. > :48:53.lot more people support from the same cash-limited sum of money.

:48:53. > :49:00.That is going to leave a very large number of people, for whom work

:49:00. > :49:05.pays, finding in the future work no longer pays. I will give way again.

:49:05. > :49:10.Thank you. In terms of giving childcare support to people who are

:49:10. > :49:12.moving into work up to 16 hours, does the right honourable gentleman

:49:12. > :49:18.welcomed the way in which the proposals that are being discussed

:49:18. > :49:23.would allow people to move into some of those many jobs? For people

:49:23. > :49:28.who are currently able to work for more than 16 hours to give up their

:49:28. > :49:32.jobs altogether, no, I would not welcome that. It would be a

:49:32. > :49:35.retrograde step. Accept there is a case for supporting the costs of

:49:35. > :49:39.child care for people in many jobs as well but if there are not the

:49:39. > :49:43.additional resources available to fund it, it would be a terrible

:49:43. > :49:47.mistake to press ahead and claw back money away from people who are

:49:47. > :49:52.depending on it to make work pay at the moment. The Secretary of State

:49:52. > :49:56.did set out some of the options at the seminar. I think the honourable

:49:56. > :50:03.lady was one of those present at the Cenotaph. The Children's

:50:03. > :50:11.Society has had a look at some of the options at that event. They

:50:11. > :50:16.have concluded that on some of the options: A family could pay out one

:50:16. > :50:20.pound 56 pence for every additional pound earned.

:50:20. > :50:24.Ministers have told us that that kind of problem will be eliminated

:50:24. > :50:28.by it universal credit but it now seems that if they proceed on that

:50:28. > :50:34.option, the new system will be a great deal worse than the current

:50:34. > :50:38.one is, introducing a draconian new penalty for working, in the case of

:50:38. > :50:42.parents. As I said to be honourable lady in her intervention, there is,

:50:43. > :50:50.I think, a good case for supporting child care for people in many jobs

:50:50. > :50:54.but that must not be at the expense of parents who are being helped at

:50:54. > :50:58.the moment. The recent report from the resolution Foundation and

:50:58. > :51:03.Gingerbread, also underlines that spreading the same budget under a

:51:03. > :51:07.lot more people will mean families losing money for every additional

:51:07. > :51:13.hour their work. The Government is right to express the aspiration

:51:13. > :51:18.that it should always pay to be in work, but in this particular case,

:51:18. > :51:22.if the Government does pursue the option that will set out in the

:51:22. > :51:27.seminar, something appears to have been lost in translation. These

:51:27. > :51:34.families will have to pay out in order to work. The current system

:51:34. > :51:40.does a far better job than that. The new system that is envisaged

:51:40. > :51:49.will be a very severely retrograde step if it has the feature of

:51:49. > :51:53.taking over �1.50 off everybody for each extra pound that they earn.

:51:53. > :51:59.The Government appears poised, which they have finally worked out

:51:59. > :52:03.what their policy in this Erin is, to make work far less attractive

:52:03. > :52:08.than it is that the moment. The Government has failed to come up

:52:08. > :52:12.with a policy. In our new clause we do have a policy and as I have said,

:52:12. > :52:16.new clause two would retain the percentage of childcare costs

:52:16. > :52:19.covered and the cash limits that are in the current system. It would

:52:19. > :52:23.ensure that work continued to pay for those for whom it pays at the

:52:24. > :52:28.moment. It would allow the retention of existing 16 hours

:52:28. > :52:35.threshold because the Government says it cannot afford any extra

:52:35. > :52:38.spending on child care at the moment. My case to the House is

:52:38. > :52:46.support for child care in many jobs would need to wait until there is

:52:46. > :52:51.funding for it. What this would ensure is that jobs of 16 hours per

:52:51. > :52:54.week do actually paid as they do at the moment. I will give way. Would

:52:54. > :52:57.Mia right honourable friend also agree that it is disingenuous for

:52:57. > :53:01.the Government to put forward proposals to fund childcare for

:53:01. > :53:05.many jobs when I know the child care market is not designed it that

:53:05. > :53:09.way. Finding short episodes of child care for a few hours a week

:53:09. > :53:15.is extremely difficult for parents and could make childcare provision

:53:15. > :53:19.even more financially unviable? honourable friend makes a very good

:53:19. > :53:24.point. There is a real worry about what this will do to the childcare

:53:24. > :53:27.market as a whole, potentially making some providers and economic,

:53:27. > :53:31.given the changes that the Government is proposing. Indeed, if

:53:31. > :53:36.a large number of people who are currently using child care for more

:53:36. > :53:43.than 16 hours a week, are forced to give up their jobs by these changes,

:53:43. > :53:47.withdraw from their child care places, that will put a huge cloud

:53:47. > :53:52.under the whole child care market in the way that she rightly fears.

:53:52. > :53:58.Mr Speaker, we do feel very strongly about this. The Government

:53:58. > :54:03.simply has not come up with a policy. I will be seeking, if I

:54:03. > :54:07.unable to, to divide the House on New Clause two. The Government's

:54:07. > :54:12.failure to produce a policy on child care before the Bill leaves

:54:12. > :54:18.this House is a particularly abject failure. Ministers have not been

:54:18. > :54:23.able to turn their claims into policies. Wild child care may be

:54:23. > :54:28.the most spectacular, perhaps, the most significant hole and the

:54:28. > :54:32.Government's policy, it is not the only one. In this group we are

:54:32. > :54:36.moving for two further clauses to fill the policy holds about

:54:36. > :54:41.passport did benefits, free school meals and free prescriptions. At

:54:41. > :54:45.the moment, people on out-of-work benefits are passport did to those

:54:45. > :54:51.additional benefits but the out-of- work benefits are being abolished.

:54:51. > :54:55.Who will be entitled to free school meals and the future? Again, I do

:54:55. > :54:59.not think this is an obscure question. It is a basic question

:54:59. > :55:05.and the Government, again, has failed to give us an answer. I will

:55:05. > :55:08.give way. I'm grateful to my honourable friend and he is

:55:08. > :55:12.absolutely correct to point out the importance of free school meals for

:55:12. > :55:19.many of our constituents whose children are in desperate need some

:55:19. > :55:22.times of that basic nutrition they receive at school. It would be so

:55:22. > :55:27.confusing for the Government to get to the staging the legislation, to

:55:27. > :55:32.have no clarity about what does and what does not trigger free schools

:55:32. > :55:37.entitlement. Whether there is a new means test they will introduce. I'm

:55:37. > :55:40.glad my honourable friend has raised this. His right about the

:55:40. > :55:45.centrality of this in the system. The Government has simply failed to

:55:45. > :55:49.work out who, under its proposals, will be entitled in the future to

:55:49. > :55:53.free school meals. It is not that I am disagreeing with the

:55:53. > :55:57.Government's policy, the problem is they have not got a policy. We have

:55:57. > :56:05.no idea who they believe should be entitled to free school meals and

:56:05. > :56:10.as far as we can tell, they have not got a clue either. Free school

:56:10. > :56:17.meals are a very, very important part of the system. They could be

:56:17. > :56:22.worth �350 a year to a family with one child in a primary school, it

:56:22. > :56:27.easily over �1,000 to a family with three or more children at school,

:56:27. > :56:32.clearly making an enormous difference. At the moment, families

:56:32. > :56:35.receive free school meals and will they work over 16 hours, after

:56:35. > :56:39.which they receive working tax credit so they are not worse off as

:56:40. > :56:43.they move into additional hours of work. What the universal credit

:56:43. > :56:47.White Paper suggested, this may be partially an answer to my

:56:47. > :56:53.honourable friend's question, the Government intends to remove

:56:53. > :56:58.entitlement to free school meals at a fixed income threshold, creating,

:56:58. > :57:04.if they do that, precisely the sort of cliff edge we were told this

:57:04. > :57:06.Bill would eradicate. I presume that is the difficulty that has

:57:06. > :57:11.presented the Government -- prevented the Government from

:57:11. > :57:16.setting out what its policy is and why the Bill is silent on it and

:57:16. > :57:21.why there were no notes on the regulations to explain what the

:57:21. > :57:27.Government's policy was either. If a lone parent with three children

:57:27. > :57:33.lost entitlement to free school meals at some level of earnings, so

:57:33. > :57:38.perhaps �250 per week or possibly rather higher, than their net

:57:38. > :57:44.household income would fall, unless they earned over �4,000 per year

:57:44. > :57:49.more. If that is how the new system is going to work, that will be a

:57:49. > :57:53.disaster. It is exactly the kind of disincentive that we have been told

:57:53. > :57:57.all along universal credit is supposed to be removing. If that is

:57:57. > :58:02.what the Government did commit universal credit would, in fact,

:58:02. > :58:08.make the problem of work disincentives far worse than is the

:58:08. > :58:12.case in current system. Mr Speaker, our proposal in new clause 3 is the

:58:12. > :58:17.value of free school meals should be paid with universal credit and

:58:17. > :58:21.then be taken away gradually as household income rises. I recognise

:58:21. > :58:26.that there is concern amongst many who follow these matters closely

:58:26. > :58:30.but this could mean the cash would not actually be used for the cost

:58:30. > :58:34.of school meals but for other expenses instead. Given the

:58:34. > :58:38.pressure on household budgets, one could see how that might arise. I

:58:39. > :58:44.suggest a solution would be for the cash to be paid on to an electronic

:58:44. > :58:49.card which can only be used to purchase school meals. An arbitrary

:58:49. > :58:56.cut-off in income, which all support for free school meals was

:58:56. > :59:00.withdrawn, would have a very, very damaging effect all told. Does he

:59:00. > :59:04.accept that the proposal he puts forward, flies in the face of what

:59:04. > :59:07.I think is the Admiral situation at the moment way in the lunchtime

:59:07. > :59:12.school queue, there is no obvious and visible difference between

:59:12. > :59:15.those receiving free school meals and those who are not. To make a

:59:15. > :59:19.provision that would effectively give some a particular card with

:59:19. > :59:25.money on it and some would not, would surely stigmatise those kids

:59:25. > :59:28.on free school meals? No, he is mistaken. All pupils in the school

:59:28. > :59:32.would pay for the meals with card, the difference would be how the

:59:32. > :59:38.money got onto the card. Some would pay cash in the way that happens at

:59:38. > :59:42.the moment, others would have that placed on from universal credit. He

:59:42. > :59:46.is right to raise the importance of this. It is an important point but

:59:46. > :59:51.the solution I'm proposing would solve the problem. I will gladly

:59:51. > :59:56.give way again and perhaps he will tell us how the free school meals

:59:56. > :00:00.will be determined. Perhaps he could answer a question for me.

:00:00. > :00:05.Since it is the case that different schools today use different systems,

:00:05. > :00:10.some use a fingerprinting system, some used an electronic card system

:00:10. > :00:13.and some still use cash, does he envisage his proposal to require

:00:13. > :00:18.schools up and down the country to scrap their current systems and

:00:18. > :00:27.harmonise around a new system and if that is the case, has he

:00:27. > :00:36.calculated what cost a big and how I hope the Government is working

:00:36. > :00:39.out the answers. I would Aintree using existing systems with using

:00:39. > :00:47.payment by transitions. We had the same problem with free

:00:47. > :00:53.prescriptions. I will give way. grateful. Free school meals is an

:00:53. > :00:59.important topic. In his proposal, is he suggesting this taper would

:00:59. > :01:03.begin immediately someone went into work, or would it come into play

:01:03. > :01:10.when the earning's disregard have mood. What would be the cost of his

:01:10. > :01:15.proposals? The point of the proposal is a zero cost proposals.

:01:15. > :01:19.I am suggesting the funding would be provided by the mechanism I have

:01:19. > :01:23.described. It would be tapered away along with the rest of universal

:01:23. > :01:27.credit. It will sit naturally on top of the existing payments system,

:01:27. > :01:32.so there will be an additional payment in respect of school meals

:01:32. > :01:39.that is appropriate and it will be tapered away once the disregard has

:01:39. > :01:45.been exhausted. The budgetary costs would be exactly the same. We would

:01:45. > :01:49.have exactly the same issue with free prescriptions. At the moment

:01:49. > :01:54.the current system provides to those people on benefits, and some

:01:54. > :02:00.people with low incomes. But once again we have not heard anything

:02:00. > :02:04.from the Government on what is going to happen in universal credit.

:02:04. > :02:09.So the new Clause 4 macro addresses that. It is worth perhaps making

:02:09. > :02:14.the point in passing, of course the number of pupils receiving free

:02:14. > :02:18.school meals is an important indicator for education policy as

:02:18. > :02:23.well. The people premium depends on the number of people receiving free

:02:23. > :02:26.school meals. The fact we have no idea of who in the future will be

:02:26. > :02:32.entitled to free school meals under the Government's proposals, will

:02:32. > :02:39.create serious problems as well. The main point of this bill,

:02:39. > :02:44.according to the Government's... Returning to the point about the

:02:44. > :02:48.proposals around prescription charges. Does he not, is he not

:02:48. > :02:50.concerned about the evidence we received on the committee which was

:02:50. > :02:53.from a number of different witnesses saying there is a

:02:53. > :02:59.significant difference between school meals and prescription

:02:59. > :03:03.charges in school meals are ongoing cost. Prescription charges tend to

:03:03. > :03:07.come in a batch. By tabling the amount of money somebody receives,

:03:07. > :03:10.when they actually have significant costs of a number of prescriptions

:03:10. > :03:16.at the same time, they still not would be able to afford it because

:03:17. > :03:20.there would be an ongoing amount of money they had. Unlike a system

:03:20. > :03:25.more similar to the current one where the descriptions are paid

:03:25. > :03:30.when you need them? I agree with the point she is making, to that

:03:30. > :03:34.extent the current system has a lot of attractions. For the problem is

:03:34. > :03:39.with universal credit, we will lose that system and the question is,

:03:39. > :03:42.who will be entitled to free prescriptions? I don't imagine she

:03:42. > :03:46.is arguing, as perhaps the Government will do, I don't know,

:03:46. > :03:52.there should be a cut-off point in income beyond which you suddenly

:03:52. > :03:54.lose all help for prescriptions. Because if that is what happens, we

:03:54. > :04:01.will have is very, very serious and damaging cliff edge in the system,

:04:01. > :04:06.which everybody has agreed, is an undesirable feature of it. So the

:04:06. > :04:12.new clauses is a proposal which addresses that problem. And they

:04:12. > :04:16.may be others. What I would like to extract is a proposal from the

:04:16. > :04:21.Government, so we can find out exactly what it intends to do.

:04:21. > :04:27.Because, so far they have been silent on that subject, as on all

:04:27. > :04:31.of the others. So the main point of this Bill, we have been told that

:04:31. > :04:35.through these debates, people should always be better off in work.

:04:35. > :04:39.The task of Parliament is to scrutinise whether the Bill limps

:04:39. > :04:43.up to that laudable aim. Were that no knock the Government is going to

:04:43. > :04:49.do to provide help with childcare, school meals, prescription costs,

:04:49. > :04:53.we simply cannot tell whether it is true or not. I would suggest it is

:04:53. > :04:58.frankly an abuse of the Parliamentary process not to tell

:04:58. > :05:05.the House of Commons what the Government's policy is before the

:05:05. > :05:09.Bill leaves this House. I don't accuse ministers of withholding

:05:09. > :05:15.information from Parliament. The problem is, ministers have no more

:05:15. > :05:20.clue about their policy than we do. It is an astonishing and abject

:05:20. > :05:26.failure on their behalf. They made all of these posts at the beginning,

:05:26. > :05:33.the bragging ran away with them and now, they cannot deliver policies

:05:33. > :05:40.to substantiate the boasts they have made. I will give way. Isn't

:05:40. > :05:43.it a bit rich to put the case in that way? Under his Government,

:05:43. > :05:49.which were there for many, many years, these aspects were not

:05:49. > :05:53.covered by a benefit. There wasn't a childcare benefit as such, there

:05:53. > :05:59.wasn't a school meal benefits, they were dealt with outside the benefit

:05:59. > :06:05.system. Dealt with in a way he no doubt approves of, and I do as well.

:06:05. > :06:09.Why suddenly bring these into the benefit system? The honourable

:06:10. > :06:12.gentleman has a bit more experience in these matters than some of his

:06:13. > :06:17.colleagues on the front bench, dealing with them at the moment.

:06:17. > :06:22.There was good provision, but Italy for child care support in the tax

:06:22. > :06:25.credit system. That is why there was a dramatic rise in lone parents

:06:25. > :06:29.employment under the previous Government, because there was such

:06:29. > :06:33.strong support for the cost of childcare. I support that, and from

:06:33. > :06:39.what he was hinting a moment ago, he supported it and supports it

:06:39. > :06:43.today. We have no idea once tax credits are polished and universal

:06:43. > :06:49.credit takes their place, how childcare will be supported in the

:06:49. > :06:55.future. And that is what I am modestly appealing for the

:06:55. > :07:00.Government to tell us. Wouldn't he also agree one of the real concerns

:07:00. > :07:05.me now have as a result of the Universal Credit forcing us at

:07:05. > :07:09.lumping these different strands of financial support for families is

:07:09. > :07:14.all our eggs are in one basket. If one thing goes wrong, the whole

:07:14. > :07:18.structure of financial support for that family could collapse? She is

:07:18. > :07:23.absolutely right. The risks around this for that reason are very great

:07:23. > :07:29.indeed. As I will be considering in a few moments when I come to

:07:29. > :07:33.amendment 24, is also the case that if you have beyond, what a

:07:33. > :07:43.prescribed level of savings and you lose all of the help under all of

:07:43. > :07:43.

:07:43. > :07:48.those headings as well. Could he clear up one point of confusion, he

:07:48. > :07:53.has spent most of the past couple of months saying he supported the

:07:53. > :07:57.Universal Credit in principle. But his remarks would imply him

:07:57. > :08:02.distancing himself. Does he intend to support his bill at third

:08:02. > :08:06.reading or not? He will find out the answer to that question in due

:08:06. > :08:11.course. We have been consistent, always support the principle of

:08:11. > :08:15.universal credit. We think bringing in work and out of work benefits

:08:15. > :08:20.together is a good idea and one that has a number of attractions.

:08:20. > :08:26.The problem is, the detailed work to make that policy fly has simply

:08:26. > :08:30.not been done by him and his honourable friends. There are these

:08:30. > :08:35.desperate the gaping gaps in the policy and fundamental questions,

:08:35. > :08:40.which he is unable to answer and to explain to us how these

:08:40. > :08:44.arrangements are going to work. As a result and departing this House,

:08:44. > :08:48.leaves many households and many working families in particular in a

:08:48. > :08:53.very precarious position. Having talked about lots of things we

:08:53. > :08:59.don't know, let's turn to some of the things we do know in this Bill.

:08:59. > :09:02.Clause five, which I touched on a moment ago is going too badly

:09:02. > :09:06.undermined the aspirations of people in work on modest incomes.

:09:06. > :09:12.Under the rules at the moment, it has been a long-standing feature of

:09:12. > :09:17.the system, people out of work but have above a prescribe capital sum

:09:17. > :09:23.are expected to use that to support themselves before claiming income

:09:23. > :09:27.related out-of-work benefits. If someone has �6,000 in savings, the

:09:27. > :09:31.Government assumes an income from those savings which is subtracted

:09:31. > :09:37.from the benefit entitlement. And the person with more than �16,000

:09:37. > :09:42.worth of savings won't receive means-tested benefits at all. Those

:09:43. > :09:47.figures were increased by 30081000 by the last Government to retain

:09:47. > :09:52.some of their savings when they lost work. For somebody in work,

:09:52. > :09:58.the story has been very different. There was no savings cap at all in

:09:58. > :10:01.tax credits. Clause 5 of this Bill will change that fundamentally by

:10:01. > :10:07.extending the rules on savings for those out of work, two people who

:10:07. > :10:11.are in work. The Conservative Party used to tell us they wanted to

:10:11. > :10:16.encourage people to save. Clause five won't just discourage people

:10:16. > :10:20.from saving, it will make it impossible for them to save.

:10:20. > :10:25.Anybody on a modest income who decides to save up for a deposit to

:10:25. > :10:30.buy a house in the future or the cost of university education will

:10:30. > :10:35.suffer under clause five and extraordinary punishment. You

:10:35. > :10:40.cannot buy a house today with a deposit less than �16,000. You

:10:40. > :10:46.cannot get a mortgage for shared ownership with a deposit less than

:10:46. > :10:52.�16,000. If you have savings of �16,000 towards a deposit for a

:10:52. > :10:57.mortgage, if it appears in the view of ministers used are to get ideas

:10:57. > :11:03.above your station, you will lose all of your universal credit.

:11:03. > :11:09.Typically, that might be �5,000 a year. In addition, you will lose

:11:09. > :11:15.any support you get for the cost of childcare. On top of that, you lose

:11:15. > :11:18.any support you get it with housing costs. That will add up to an

:11:18. > :11:23.extraordinary punishments for saving. It all makes saving

:11:23. > :11:27.literally impossible because as soon as you have managed to save

:11:27. > :11:32.�16,000 from your earnings, the Government will drain your savings

:11:32. > :11:35.away. The problem will start as soon as you have �6,000 saved. The

:11:36. > :11:39.honourable member for Redcar made the point in Committee, that this

:11:39. > :11:44.problem wouldn't last very long because the savings would soon be

:11:44. > :11:48.gone. He is absolutely right that under these are proposals, any

:11:48. > :11:52.attempt to start building up a sum of savings that would be enough for

:11:52. > :11:55.a deposit on a house, or contribution to higher education,

:11:55. > :11:59.the Government will take it away from you by withdrawing your

:11:59. > :12:04.universal credit. The message from the Government could not be clearer.

:12:04. > :12:10.Two people on low income is doing the right thing, working to support

:12:10. > :12:16.themselves, this Government won't support you. And amendments 23 and

:12:16. > :12:21.24 will change that. They would allow people to save up money, up

:12:21. > :12:26.to �50,000 if they are in work. Ministers have said it will cost

:12:26. > :12:35.�70 million a year to exclude all working households from the savings

:12:35. > :12:40.cap. This measure is a more modest than that. Surely we should be

:12:40. > :12:43.encouraging people to save, not punishing them for saving. People

:12:43. > :12:47.work to improve their lives and the lives of their families, they are

:12:47. > :12:51.not aiming for a bit more spending money each month, but the means to

:12:51. > :12:56.buy a house, to support their children to university, perhaps

:12:56. > :13:00.start a business and pay for a child's wedding. To achieve these

:13:00. > :13:08.aspirations people need to be able to save from their earnings. Clause

:13:08. > :13:15.five denies them the chance to do that. I'm grateful for him giving

:13:15. > :13:19.way. Particularly he has highlighted the issue of aspiration.

:13:19. > :13:23.Just to draw him back to New Clause 3 which does relate to this point

:13:23. > :13:29.as well about free school meals, does he not find it interesting

:13:29. > :13:34.that if you look at children and education, the mos successful son

:13:34. > :13:39.group are Chinese students. The second most successful group are

:13:39. > :13:43.Chinese children on free school meals. It's not about money it is

:13:43. > :13:48.how we send out a message in Government about aspiration and

:13:48. > :13:52.ambition. That is what the ethos of this Bill does. It should be

:13:53. > :13:56.encouraging aspiration, but if it prevents people from saving it will

:13:56. > :14:01.undermine aspiration and that exactly the point. We want to

:14:01. > :14:06.change this also it will allow people, even on Universal Credit,

:14:06. > :14:11.to save. We argued is, everybody should be encouraged to save, not

:14:11. > :14:15.punished for having saved in the way clause five currently will

:14:15. > :14:20.impose that punishment. The Secretary of State needs to agree

:14:20. > :14:25.with us as well. He made the point in 2008, a policy is not just about

:14:25. > :14:29.how little you learn, it is about how little you own. If we want

:14:29. > :14:32.people to work their way out of poverty in the way the honourable

:14:32. > :14:39.gentleman suggests, and I agree with him about that, we need to

:14:39. > :14:44.offer people the chance to save. If the Government presses ahead with

:14:44. > :14:51.making saving on a low income impossible, then I am afraid the

:14:51. > :14:57.phrase, compassionate Conservatism will have been revealed as a sham.

:14:57. > :15:06.I hope the members' offer so it will the similar reasons, share my

:15:06. > :15:11.concern about the discouragement of self-employment in the bill. The

:15:11. > :15:15.schedule 1 covers self-employed people. Ministers in that provision

:15:15. > :15:25.are making the assumption self- employed people will be earning a

:15:25. > :15:28.minimum wage for every hour that Anyone with even a passing

:15:28. > :15:33.knowledge of knowing what is involved in starting up will know

:15:33. > :15:37.that that is absurd. Many self- employed people work extraordinary

:15:37. > :15:42.hours and earned hardly anything at all as the establish their business.

:15:42. > :15:46.Their income will fluctuate hugely month-by-month. The assumption they

:15:46. > :15:50.will earn the minimum wage for every aware that the work and

:15:50. > :15:56.therefore have the universal credit reduced accordingly is absurd. That

:15:56. > :16:01.is why, the Chartered Institute For taxation has warned that this will

:16:01. > :16:08.be much less reporter for self- employment that the current one.

:16:09. > :16:16.Our amendment seeks to align the Universal Credit definition for

:16:16. > :16:20.those self employed with of those in tax credits. In the tax credit

:16:20. > :16:23.system, at the moment allowances are made for investment in business

:16:23. > :16:31.assets and equipment and trading losses which can be set against

:16:31. > :16:38.other income. Him those arrangements reflect the reality of

:16:38. > :16:42.being self-employed. The idea that you are earning a minimum wage for

:16:42. > :16:46.every hour the work in self employment is an illusion. If it is

:16:46. > :16:53.not amended the bill will destroy the very effective support that the

:16:53. > :16:57.tax credit system offers to self- employment at the moment. On this

:16:57. > :17:04.specific issue of the self-employed, it is important to understand that

:17:04. > :17:11.the current level is not as simple as he makes out. A self-employed

:17:11. > :17:18.individual can invest money to machinery and white of their profit.

:17:18. > :17:27.It is like the breeding resentment when they can then get family

:17:27. > :17:31.credit. This does not work in the same way as a tax credit system. It

:17:31. > :17:37.treats you as if you were earning at least the minimum wage for every

:17:37. > :17:41.arid you could into your business. I know you are genuinely interested

:17:41. > :17:46.in the position of the self employed, but he will know that it

:17:46. > :17:50.is absurd to suggest that from day one of starting up a inset

:17:50. > :17:58.employment you are earning by the minimum wage. You may have months

:17:58. > :18:04.when you learn nothing at all. The tax credit system reflects that.

:18:04. > :18:07.relation to the self-employed, I do support the self-employed and I

:18:07. > :18:17.want the universal self-employed to support them as well. We need to

:18:17. > :18:23.recognise the system when somebody sets up in business in order to

:18:23. > :18:29.breed for a will. It is absurd that that sort of business is supported.

:18:29. > :18:34.I am sorry to hear him belittling self-employment. The reality is,

:18:34. > :18:38.for many people, including people who have lost their jobs, a move

:18:38. > :18:47.into self-employment is the right thing to do. Over time they are

:18:47. > :18:52.able, not to breed rabbits, but to develop a serious business and

:18:52. > :18:56.earned money out of it. We should not be ridiculing them. There is a

:18:56. > :19:02.real problem, one of many, with their arrangements that this bill

:19:02. > :19:09.puts for words, it so badly weakens and undermines the support that is

:19:09. > :19:12.currently available for self- employment. We do not also agree

:19:12. > :19:20.that one of their attractions of supporting self-employment is that

:19:20. > :19:29.it offers help for those that find it difficult to work in their usual

:19:29. > :19:34.market. Women and a disabled people, those that cannot get structured

:19:34. > :19:37.work. We know that there is a long- standing tradition in some of our

:19:37. > :19:41.ethnic-minority communities of finding self-employment as the best

:19:41. > :19:51.way to sustain economic independence. My honourable friend

:19:51. > :20:01.is absolutely right. This is a crucial part of our economy. This

:20:01. > :20:03.is the two are for many people. -- it through for many people. Many

:20:03. > :20:09.people does one the opportunity to build a business for themselves. It

:20:09. > :20:15.is crucial that the system supports them. Universal credit, I am afraid,

:20:15. > :20:21.Wilmot. That is a real worry. It does fly in the face of government

:20:21. > :20:25.a statement of support for self employment. I am quite surprised in

:20:25. > :20:31.terms of the Commons just made, my understanding is the right

:20:31. > :20:38.honourable member is now talking about supporting businesses. How

:20:38. > :20:42.does this fit in with the proposals to support for childcare? I made it

:20:42. > :20:48.clear, in my view, the priority in childcare support she be to

:20:48. > :20:54.maintain the support for those who are receiving it at the moment.

:20:54. > :20:58.There is a case for extending that support to others, but if that is

:20:58. > :21:03.to be done, I can see the case for it, there needs to be funding

:21:03. > :21:07.provided to do it. What you cannot do is take support away from one

:21:07. > :21:13.group, making work impossible for them, in order to support another

:21:13. > :21:18.group. That appears to be, if only we knew what the government's

:21:18. > :21:21.policy was on child care we would have a proper debate, that appears

:21:21. > :21:29.to be with their government is heading. They have not had the

:21:29. > :21:35.ability to put a policy together and tell us what it is. They

:21:35. > :21:39.honourable members Pratt suggested that to many self-employed people

:21:39. > :21:44.are earning a negligible about or are under declaring their profits.

:21:44. > :21:51.One of the problems with the Bill is that it will force many self-

:21:51. > :21:56.employed people... I think it is important to correct the record, I

:21:56. > :22:03.did not state that they were under declaring. I said that the capital

:22:03. > :22:07.allowance allows self-employed reduced the profits to nothing.

:22:07. > :22:11.That is a long-standing feature of the tax system for businesses

:22:11. > :22:16.generally. We should be encouraging investment. I would see that as a

:22:16. > :22:20.strength of the current system that that kind of necessary investment

:22:20. > :22:27.is supported. He is right in the sense that the universal credit

:22:27. > :22:33.would completely remove all that. I am afraid it will be a far less

:22:33. > :22:37.supportive system for self- employment and the current one.

:22:37. > :22:43.is important to understand that a capital allowance system has been

:22:43. > :22:53.changed in the last few years. You could not previously claimed 100%

:22:53. > :22:56.

:22:56. > :23:02.allowances. The net profits could make a business go down to nothing.

:23:02. > :23:08.We must support self-employed but not for those to make the decisions

:23:08. > :23:14.for that purpose of universal credit. I was not quite clear from

:23:14. > :23:22.that whether he does or not. We have had a capital allowances

:23:22. > :23:26.introduced recently. This will encourage enterprise. One of the

:23:26. > :23:31.problems with the bill as it stands will be that in many cases self-

:23:31. > :23:35.employed people will be very, very strongly pressured to lie about the

:23:35. > :23:41.hours they have worked. They are not going to admit to having worked

:23:41. > :23:45.18 I was a day, as some are doing, because they will then lose pound-

:23:45. > :23:48.for-pound from their universal credit because it will be assumed

:23:48. > :23:55.for every one of those 18 hours in the day they have earned at least

:23:55. > :24:00.the minimum wage. This is a bad policy and it needs to be changed.

:24:00. > :24:04.Amendment 33, this may cause some puzzlement. Many will not know that

:24:04. > :24:08.the Government intends to remove pension credit from people over

:24:08. > :24:13.pensionable age who have a spouse's under pensionable age. It has not

:24:13. > :24:17.been announced it anywhere. The pensions minister has not told us

:24:17. > :24:24.about it. He it is, buried in the middle of all places as scheduling

:24:24. > :24:29.to on page 114 of this bill. If the older person was living alone, they

:24:29. > :24:35.would receive pension credit. They will in future be penalised because

:24:35. > :24:41.they have a younger spouse. This is a new couples penalty which we had

:24:41. > :24:46.been insured the Conservative Party wanted to stamp out. The Secretary

:24:46. > :24:50.of State earlier on said once again he wanted to remove couples

:24:50. > :24:55.penalties from the system. Here he is inventing a new one. This will

:24:55. > :24:59.change pension entitlement for some couples with very little notice. In

:24:59. > :25:03.some couples, or by a substantial sum. What I would say to ministers

:25:03. > :25:08.is that if they want to change their arrangements then they should

:25:08. > :25:12.set a doubt openly. It should be in the Pensions Bill. There should be

:25:12. > :25:21.filled discussion for the change. They should not be trying to sneak

:25:22. > :25:26.it past us in this schedule. We have now established that of the

:25:26. > :25:32.610,000 recipients of pension credit with a partner, almost

:25:32. > :25:42.100,000 have a Watermead Country Park aged under 60. As a measure of

:25:42. > :25:42.

:25:42. > :25:46.how much each of those couples is set to lose, this is over �100 per

:25:46. > :25:56.week. For each year it that the couple is in receipt of this, the

:25:56. > :25:57.

:25:57. > :26:04.stand to lose over �5,000. You will remember week have already debated

:26:04. > :26:10.this. Is it his party's policy that people under retirement age who

:26:10. > :26:18.happen to have a partner who is over retirement age should, through

:26:18. > :26:21.that partner, be able to access means-tested help from the state.

:26:21. > :26:26.Mr Deputy Speaker, in government we set out their arrangements for

:26:26. > :26:30.pension credit as they currently stand. Those arrangements are made

:26:30. > :26:34.a sense. If there is a case the Government wants to make for

:26:34. > :26:37.changing those arrangements, I am simply suggesting to the House that

:26:37. > :26:41.the need to announce that and stand-up openly and say that we

:26:41. > :26:47.have decided that in future you cannot have pension credit if your

:26:47. > :26:51.spouse is less than pensionable age. I thought it would have been in the

:26:51. > :26:57.Pensions Bill. We were right we were able to spot it. We had a

:26:57. > :27:02.discussion about it in committee. It is not an example of the

:27:02. > :27:06.Government being open, far from it. I think they seem to have hoped the

:27:06. > :27:11.goods -- slippage through and nobody would notice. For those

:27:11. > :27:16.couples where there is a substantial age gap, in 40% the

:27:16. > :27:26.partner will be younger than 55, more than five years gap, then this

:27:26. > :27:27.

:27:27. > :27:32.could represent an enormous loss. Thank you. Can I take you back to

:27:32. > :27:36.that key question, we are talking about people of working age who

:27:36. > :27:40.would be in receipt her in their household of means tested benefits

:27:40. > :27:45.for the state without having an obligation to look for work. Is it

:27:45. > :27:49.his policy that those people should not have the obligation to look for

:27:49. > :27:56.work and their household should be able to receive means-tested

:27:56. > :27:59.benefits from the state? I simply put to him that as far as I can see

:27:59. > :28:07.their arrangements for pensions and credit have worked perfectly well

:28:07. > :28:11.up until now it. My case is that if the Government wants to change the

:28:11. > :28:18.rules for pension credit and discriminate for people with spices

:28:18. > :28:24.less than of pension age, they should do so openly. It should have

:28:24. > :28:32.been in the Pensions Bill. Why was it not in the year? Instead it was

:28:32. > :28:38.slipped into this schedule in this bill. No minister, until asked,

:28:38. > :28:44.said anything. I find the right honourable gentleman for giving way.

:28:44. > :28:48.I am a little unclear as to whether his position is that this is wrong

:28:48. > :28:53.in principle and he disagrees with it, are whether he agrees with it

:28:53. > :28:58.up things it should have been announced with fanfare. I certainly

:28:58. > :29:02.think it should have been announced. Our amendment proposes that this

:29:02. > :29:12.amendment is removed. I will be interested to hear what the

:29:12. > :29:18.Government's response is. If a retired person of 66 years of age

:29:18. > :29:22.is married to a spouse who is 45 years of age, she should be able to

:29:22. > :29:28.not have to work and be able to have a double claiming of pension

:29:28. > :29:32.credit, is that correct? It is not. Any income to the household from a

:29:32. > :29:42.working spouse will be counted in the household income for pension

:29:42. > :29:43.

:29:43. > :29:47.credit purposes. My case is that if I changed is made it should be made

:29:47. > :29:57.openly. I would have thought it should have been in the Pensions

:29:57. > :30:01.

:30:01. > :30:05.Bill. Forgive me for probing, but I want to press him on this point. If

:30:05. > :30:09.a household is receiving their elements of pension credit that

:30:09. > :30:15.gives him the wherewithal to survive, is he actually saying that

:30:15. > :30:18.a 45-year-old should be able to not work and have no obligation to work

:30:18. > :30:28.well the household receives means tested benefits and from the state?

:30:28. > :30:30.

:30:30. > :30:34.It would be helpful to understand I don't recognise the policy he

:30:34. > :30:39.describes. We have had a long- standing arrangement with pension

:30:39. > :30:43.credit which seems to work very well. If the Minister has found

:30:43. > :30:47.abuses of pension credit I will be eager to hear those issues from him

:30:47. > :30:51.when he responds to this debate. I did notice when he was asked

:30:51. > :30:57.recently about this by the Member for Leeds West, the pensions

:30:57. > :31:00.minister said a "we recognise it is important not to undermine the

:31:00. > :31:05.stability and outcomes for existing pension credit customers, so there

:31:05. > :31:15.will be no change for couples in receipt of pension credit at the

:31:15. > :31:20.point of change". That is welcome. So I don't know if the Minister is

:31:20. > :31:27.satisfied that the abuse he has just mentioned is they are

:31:27. > :31:31.currently. For couples who have planned around receiving pension

:31:31. > :31:36.credit and been perfectly reasonably able to do so and are

:31:36. > :31:43.now approaching retirement, this change, in many cases comes as a

:31:43. > :31:46.severe shock. So, we will support the principle of universal credit,

:31:46. > :31:51.despite the holes in the policy and how it will work and despite the

:31:51. > :31:57.perverse incentives the Government has added on savers and the self-

:31:57. > :32:02.employed. But this is not, as ministers have frequently claimed,

:32:02. > :32:06.a panacea for all of the problems in the system. It is therefore

:32:06. > :32:10.vital that there is sufficient welfare advice available at the

:32:11. > :32:19.point of transition. People will find any transition difficult, even

:32:19. > :32:22.one which unlike this, was a simple system. Yet, at precisely the

:32:22. > :32:28.moment when the Government is embarking on this massive upheaval

:32:28. > :32:32.to the system, funding for welfare advice is being cut. A large part

:32:32. > :32:35.of funding for example, Citizens Advice Bureau comes at the moment

:32:35. > :32:39.through legal aid and the Government has announced that there

:32:39. > :32:44.will be no legal aid funding for welfare advice at all in the future.

:32:44. > :32:47.I think that is about a quarter of the current funding for the

:32:47. > :32:50.Citizen's Advice Bureau comes from that source and it is being taken

:32:50. > :32:55.away. Most of the rest of the funding comes from local

:32:55. > :33:01.authorities and that is also been cut. So what is ahead for welfare

:33:01. > :33:07.advice is the man will rocket, funding will plummet. This is a

:33:07. > :33:11.perfect storm for advice services. Our amendment 26 therefore requires

:33:11. > :33:14.the Secretary of State to report before universal credit is

:33:14. > :33:19.introduced on the availability of welfare advice and is satisfy

:33:19. > :33:23.himself it is adequate to support people through the transition which

:33:23. > :33:28.the Government envisages. New clause five aims for clarity about

:33:28. > :33:32.how claimants will be informed about their universal credit.

:33:32. > :33:35.Stipulates every claimant should be provided with a record of the

:33:35. > :33:39.amount of their award, including details of the separate elements

:33:39. > :33:43.which make it up. I understand the Government does intend to provide

:33:43. > :33:49.each claimant with the equivalent of a pay slip. I had the Minister

:33:49. > :33:53.can confirm that in responding to this debate. Well that payslips be

:33:53. > :33:57.provided on payment, as with payslips for those in work? Will it

:33:57. > :34:02.be provided directly by the department or through the employer?

:34:02. > :34:09.Will it set out the various elements of the award, child care,

:34:09. > :34:11.housing support, support in respect of children and so on? A full

:34:11. > :34:17.statements would ensure transparency between the Government

:34:17. > :34:21.and claimants and their thing would be a welcome feature. Amendment 30

:34:21. > :34:25.addresses support for families with disabled children under universal

:34:25. > :34:30.credit. It amends clause 10 to assure the amount of these families

:34:30. > :34:36.receive won't be less than under the current tax credit and benefit

:34:36. > :34:41.system. My honourable friend raised this very important point in DW p

:34:41. > :34:45.Questions earlier on this afternoon. Under universal credit, the family

:34:45. > :34:50.receiving a higher rate care element of the De La will receive

:34:50. > :34:53.�74.50 through the Severe Disability edition. At first glance,

:34:53. > :34:57.that seems broadly in line with the current position, but there are

:34:57. > :35:02.worries because we are told the higher level of the Disability

:35:02. > :35:06.edition will be operated in the future only as resources allow. So

:35:06. > :35:12.it is very likely families with severely disabled children well

:35:12. > :35:15.over time lose out. For families with disabled children not

:35:16. > :35:20.receiving a higher rate of the care element, the situation looks worse.

:35:20. > :35:28.The amount available under the Universal Credit disability edition

:35:28. > :35:32.will be �26.75 a week. As opposed to �53.62 under child tax credit,

:35:32. > :35:36.so support will be hard. The Minister has justified this in

:35:36. > :35:40.terms of aligning the support given to children and easing the

:35:40. > :35:44.transition. But we know that children helped under the

:35:44. > :35:53.Disability edition won't automatically be helped under adult

:35:53. > :35:58.universal credit. And the two final amendments, amendments 61 specify

:35:58. > :36:06.as the elements of universal credit paid in respect of children must be

:36:06. > :36:11.paid to the designated carer for the children, rather, other than in

:36:11. > :36:14.prescribed circumstances. This is a crucial amendment to safeguard the

:36:14. > :36:22.interests of children. Let me quote from the briefing Oxfam sent to

:36:22. > :36:25.every member of the House, "we know from our work on the ground money

:36:25. > :36:30.in her household is often unevenly distributed. Women in poor

:36:30. > :36:34.households can have little or no access to money. As mothers usually

:36:34. > :36:37.take the main responsibility for clothing and feeding children, it

:36:37. > :36:41.affects both women and their children and sometimes means women

:36:41. > :36:46.go without eating themselves in order to pay the bills or put a

:36:46. > :36:50.meal on the table for their children. This lack of access to

:36:50. > :36:56.income in their own right leaves women open to the risk of financial

:36:56. > :37:03.abuse and can reduce their chances of escaping domestic violence. They

:37:03. > :37:07.argued the bill must be amended to allow payments intended for

:37:07. > :37:15.children to be labelled as such and to the main carer, which is usually

:37:15. > :37:19.female.". That will be the effect of amendments 61. Amendment 68

:37:20. > :37:24.would provide for a minimum amount to be paid to any claimant who has

:37:24. > :37:29.caring responsibilities. It is vital that people who give up their

:37:29. > :37:32.time and energy to look after the most vulnerable in our society save

:37:32. > :37:36.the taxpayer considerable sums in the process and a properly

:37:36. > :37:41.supported when they move on to Universal Credit in line with help

:37:41. > :37:47.available at the moment through carer's allowance. I do hope the

:37:47. > :37:52.Minister will make it clear how he will ensure that happens.

:37:52. > :37:56.Rehearsing these concerns, let me remind the House this whole project

:37:56. > :37:59.of universal credit it will depend on an enormous in new IT system,

:37:59. > :38:08.which the Government claims will be ready in an implausibly short

:38:08. > :38:14.period of time. In truth, it won't be ready by 20th October 13 as

:38:14. > :38:22.claimed. Giving rise her to very serious problems as that deadline

:38:22. > :38:27.arises. -- 2013. I put this question to him on

:38:27. > :38:30.Committee, and I put it to him again, the Government's approach to

:38:30. > :38:33.IT is more thought-through and better planned and than the

:38:33. > :38:37.previous Government which spent a vast amounts of money without any

:38:37. > :38:41.consideration to what the end and the roots and purpose of the policy

:38:41. > :38:46.was. This Government is more directed him what it is doing a

:38:46. > :38:54.should have the I T ready on time and on budget. I will look forward

:38:54. > :38:57.to reminding him about a Commons when we get two SEP- 2013. The

:38:57. > :39:01.intention of Universal Credit his work should always paid. Without

:39:01. > :39:07.decisions, without policies on child care or passport to benefits,

:39:07. > :39:10.we cannot know it work will always pay. All the indications are is the

:39:11. > :39:16.Government's, in due course when they finally do put a policy

:39:16. > :39:20.together, introduce one which will mean for many, work won't pay any

:39:20. > :39:25.more. On savings, the Government is heading to crush the hopes of many

:39:25. > :39:31.people in work, on self-employment they will be crushing the hopes of

:39:31. > :39:37.many of those who want to set up a business for themselves. As Policy

:39:37. > :39:42.Exchange recently argued in their report, universal credit has been

:39:42. > :39:48.oversold by ministers and I hope very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, the

:39:48. > :39:51.House will support our men and so universal credit can support the

:39:51. > :39:58.aspirations of families across the country.

:39:58. > :40:05.New clause NC two, child care. The question is new clause to be read a

:40:05. > :40:09.second time. Mr Chris Grayling. Mr Deputy Speaker, thanks very much.

:40:09. > :40:15.Let's start with where I started at the beginning of the debate in

:40:15. > :40:21.committee. What I have listened to for the last while his the right

:40:21. > :40:24.honourable gentleman really setting out a vast range of measures, of

:40:24. > :40:29.amendments come of details which he wants to write on to the face of

:40:29. > :40:33.this Bill. He is of course forgetting, or conveniently

:40:33. > :40:38.forgetting the first fundamental of this Bill and lessons he himself

:40:38. > :40:43.taught me 10 years ago when I was first elected to this place, about

:40:43. > :40:48.the nature of primary legislation and the nature of this piece of

:40:48. > :40:51.legislation. I remember in committee in his house, as a new

:40:51. > :40:55.member of Parliament, debating a case of primary legislation and

:40:55. > :41:00.asking questions about why there was not more detail on the face of

:41:00. > :41:03.the Bill, proposing amendments. I also remember the right honourable

:41:03. > :41:07.Templeman in the position of minister at the time, standing

:41:07. > :41:12.arguing against me, why these shouldn't be put on to the face of

:41:12. > :41:17.the Bill, it was an Education Bill at the time, why it was enabling

:41:17. > :41:20.legislation, why it was creating a framework for changes of the

:41:21. > :41:26.previous Government was looking to put into place and there for all of

:41:26. > :41:29.my amendments were necessary. So in Committee, today, 10 years later I

:41:29. > :41:34.find the role is reversed and he is conveniently forgetting all of the

:41:34. > :41:42.things he told me as a Government minister all those years ago.

:41:42. > :41:44.Instead telling me I should write all kinds of new details on the

:41:44. > :41:54.face of primary education at -- legislation I have brought to the

:41:54. > :42:00.House. I will give way to him. he seriously telling the House that

:42:00. > :42:05.how the cost of childcare will be supported is a detail? What I am

:42:05. > :42:10.saying to him is what he said to me those years ago. That many of the

:42:10. > :42:13.details are dealt with in secondary legislation. What of course is

:42:13. > :42:17.there in this particular bill is a framework which includes, amongst

:42:17. > :42:22.other things, provision for there to be a childcare element of

:42:22. > :42:25.universal credit. We are all agreed it is essential that there should

:42:25. > :42:30.be a childcare element, in the same way they should be elements

:42:30. > :42:34.relating to disability, elements relating to other aspects of the

:42:34. > :42:41.features of our current benefit system that needs to be replicated

:42:41. > :42:45.in universal credit. I wonder if the Minister would explain why he

:42:46. > :42:52.expects us and indeed, the general public to accept his statements

:42:52. > :42:58.about the impact of this huge reform, when so much of the detail

:42:58. > :43:05.is not known? Is it not reasonable for us to request these fundamental

:43:05. > :43:08.people will be better off or not? For precisely the same reason that

:43:08. > :43:13.the right honourable gentleman asked me to support his education

:43:13. > :43:17.measures 10 years ago and asked me to take on trust, many are the same

:43:17. > :43:21.kind of things I am being asked by the honourable lady today. The

:43:21. > :43:25.truth is, we have been completely transparent in setting out the

:43:25. > :43:30.different stages we have reached in the formulation of universal credit.

:43:30. > :43:33.We have been transparent about the consultation process has we're are

:43:33. > :43:37.going through to fill in some of the details of universal credit. We

:43:37. > :43:45.have been clear and transparent about the principles we are

:43:45. > :43:48.following. I did go along to one of the meetings the Secretary of State

:43:48. > :43:52.was kind enough to invite a number of people along about the

:43:52. > :43:55.Government's proposals for childcare. We were presented with

:43:55. > :43:59.three different options with selective figures. It was

:43:59. > :44:03.impossible to tell exactly what it was the Government was proposing

:44:03. > :44:06.with regard to childcare. I am still none the wiser so it is

:44:06. > :44:11.difficult to vote on a principle when we don't know what it is the

:44:11. > :44:15.Government is going to do to implement that principle? Precisely

:44:15. > :44:18.the point of this is that you don't write numbers onto the face of the

:44:18. > :44:25.bill and I will come back and talk in detail about the moment been

:44:25. > :44:29.brought forward in a moment. But the fact is, primary legislation

:44:29. > :44:32.sets out the framework for these things and what we have done with

:44:32. > :44:37.her and her select committee members, with members of the

:44:37. > :44:42.opposition benches, with members of the Government benches, with people

:44:42. > :44:48.and representative groups outside this place, in child care and other

:44:48. > :44:53.areas. We have started a process of discussion, which is the best of a

:44:53. > :44:57.number of options to fit into the framework we are creating. Indeed I

:44:57. > :45:02.did Mr Deputy Speaker. Very often things are not written on to the

:45:02. > :45:05.face of the bill and the Minister is right. We usually the

:45:05. > :45:09.regulations have been published before the Bill goes out of the

:45:09. > :45:15.House of Commons. Having been criticised in the past regulations

:45:15. > :45:19.been late, not published, just late, from members on the Government

:45:19. > :45:23.benches. So where are the regulations so they can be

:45:23. > :45:33.Parliamentary scrutiny of that aspect of the bill, because that is

:45:33. > :45:33.

:45:33. > :45:39.I have had this discussion and have brought through some draft

:45:39. > :45:43.regulations do. This is far more than the previous Government. They

:45:43. > :45:48.did not bring forward so many regulations. We have brought

:45:48. > :45:54.forward as much, if not more detail, under this measure than the

:45:54. > :46:04.previous Government would have done. They did some sensible things, they

:46:04. > :46:09.brought forward measures, they brought forward their reforms. But

:46:09. > :46:16.the road a framework into a legislation and filled in the

:46:16. > :46:19.details with secondary legislation. One of the concerns that has been

:46:19. > :46:24.raised by children's organisations in Scotland is that not enough

:46:24. > :46:29.consideration has been given to the difference statutory results that

:46:29. > :46:31.pertains to childcare in different parts of the UK. Those

:46:31. > :46:37.organisations are concerned that existing infrastructure may not be

:46:37. > :46:40.able to cope with increased demand that could arise from universal

:46:40. > :46:44.credit. I appreciate you do not want to be drawn on the detail but

:46:44. > :46:48.could he assure us that parents who are unable to access quality

:46:48. > :46:53.childcare and affordable child care will not face sanction if, through

:46:53. > :46:58.no fault of their own, they cannot find the child care they need.

:46:58. > :47:04.already provide childcare for children, universally, through were

:47:04. > :47:09.school system. No parent with our youngest child under school age can

:47:09. > :47:19.be subject to any job search related sanctions. It is only once

:47:19. > :47:23.their youngest child reaches school age that they are subjected to it.

:47:23. > :47:26.Under the rules that are pursued at the moment and under the provisions

:47:26. > :47:32.that we have said we then it universal credit, it would be the

:47:32. > :47:36.case that we would only expect the loan of parents of children at

:47:36. > :47:44.primary school to do a part-time job that fits in with the hours of

:47:44. > :47:48.that primary-school. I am slightly concerned to hear him describing

:47:48. > :47:53.school as a glorified babysitting service. The real pressure. In

:47:53. > :47:57.relation to this pertains to older children, particularly to out of

:47:57. > :48:01.school care, that is not covered across the UK by the Child Care Act.

:48:01. > :48:10.It only applies to England and Wales. I would urge the Minister to

:48:10. > :48:15.take a closer look at that. We do not penalise parents, particularly

:48:15. > :48:20.lone parents. We do not require them to pursue work that is out of

:48:20. > :48:23.keeping with the reality of their childcare responsibilities. I am

:48:23. > :48:28.not describe this school as a babysitting service. But for a good

:48:28. > :48:33.part of the year children of school age are at school and do not need

:48:33. > :48:38.additional childcare. The requirements placed on to those of

:48:38. > :48:42.parents by JobCentre plus are designed to work around what is

:48:42. > :48:47.reasonable and what is not reasonable for them to do. We do

:48:47. > :48:53.not expect lone parents of school- age children to work nation. It is

:48:53. > :48:56.not our intention to seek to sanction parents around a job

:48:56. > :49:00.requirement that is unreasonable and unrealistic given their child

:49:00. > :49:06.care responsibilities. I think the honourable lady wanted to come back

:49:06. > :49:11.one more time. I was going to ask the Minister on a matter of

:49:11. > :49:15.principle whether he believed that the regulations should be subject

:49:15. > :49:25.to parliamentary scrutiny in the same way that primary registration

:49:25. > :49:29.

:49:29. > :49:33.is. -- legislation. I did take on board the request and you will know

:49:33. > :49:37.be brought forward and number of Government amendments to address

:49:37. > :49:44.the concerns that were raised in committee. I will touch on those

:49:44. > :49:52.before I go on to detail about these amendments. 14 it to 21,

:49:52. > :49:57.these amendments make certain regulations for Universal Credit

:49:57. > :50:00.and pension credit, subject to the FA and it -- affirmative procedure

:50:00. > :50:04.when they are first used. I recognise the point that the

:50:04. > :50:07.honourable lady makes, it is a point that was well made by the

:50:07. > :50:11.right honourable gentleman in committee. I do not indispensable

:50:11. > :50:15.to have these in the negative resolutions here in and out. It is

:50:15. > :50:23.right and proper that a house should be able to debate them what

:50:23. > :50:27.they are introduced. I thank the Minister for giving way and for is

:50:27. > :50:31.important announcement on their whole affirmative procedure for the

:50:31. > :50:36.first time the regulations go through. I do think that the

:50:36. > :50:40.process the Government has taken, to informally consult and sheer so

:50:40. > :50:44.transparently this document where we all sat around and discussed

:50:44. > :50:48.options for childcare, is a great step forward. It is important and

:50:48. > :50:52.they would have thought it was an area that the select committee

:50:52. > :51:02.Worcester itself to have a look at properly before the regulations

:51:02. > :51:04.

:51:04. > :51:09.come in. To help this process of reforming the benefits system.

:51:09. > :51:14.think he has made an important point. Some of the colleagues have

:51:14. > :51:18.been here for a longer period then he has. When that other party was

:51:18. > :51:24.in government. I do not recall a moment in government when I was

:51:24. > :51:30.called in to discuss the policy making process for one part of a

:51:30. > :51:34.piece of legislation. A request to come and discuss education or

:51:34. > :51:39.health. The decisions were always just decided. What is different now

:51:39. > :51:46.is that we have extended the hand of involvement and asks people to

:51:46. > :51:52.come and the part of this process. As another new member, I am

:51:52. > :51:56.wandering if you could cast your memory back to see whether he felt

:51:56. > :52:03.that when the gentleman on the bench opposite was Secretary of

:52:03. > :52:08.State, whether he ever consulted so extensively with organisations,

:52:08. > :52:14.charities, who can inform the work of this government in developing

:52:14. > :52:19.the benefits system. One I would say is that I cannot remember in

:52:19. > :52:24.the past the previous Government doing more than we have. They have

:52:24. > :52:28.not tried harder than ours to try to engage people within Westminster

:52:28. > :52:38.and around Parliament, we are taking a genuine attempt in a

:52:38. > :52:39.

:52:39. > :52:44.number of these areas. To get things right. That will continues.

:52:44. > :52:50.We will be delighted to continue to seek to and involve members of the

:52:50. > :52:56.opposition parties in both Labour and the nationalists parties.

:52:56. > :53:02.Particularly the point made that it is right and proper that we have

:53:02. > :53:07.full dialogue with Cardiff, Belfast and Edinburgh and with members of

:53:07. > :53:11.the Parliament to represent those three countries. It is certainly

:53:11. > :53:16.the case that the previous Government never got to this stage

:53:16. > :53:22.in a bill with such an enormous hole in the policy as is in place

:53:22. > :53:29.in the bill that is in front of the House today. I think fit technical

:53:29. > :53:33.response to that is, you wish! I remember many times when we came in

:53:33. > :53:38.to see what they were going to do and we did not know. We have got

:53:38. > :53:43.different memories. It is important to remember that this bill create a

:53:43. > :53:46.structure for universal credit. The issues raised by the opposition in

:53:46. > :53:50.their amendments today mainly relate to issues that will be dealt

:53:50. > :53:54.with in regulations and do not affect the structure of the

:53:54. > :53:57.universal credit as set out in the bill. Where I did except the

:53:57. > :54:00.recommendations of the party opposite is that the bill is

:54:00. > :54:07.introduced provided that the regulations see be subject to the

:54:07. > :54:11.negative procedure. It was decided that would not reach the right

:54:11. > :54:21.level of scrutiny. A number of provisions have been identified

:54:21. > :54:26.that he thought should be identified. On 28th April these

:54:26. > :54:28.should have been considered carefully. Of these highlighted,

:54:28. > :54:35.there were two relating to conditionality where we did not

:54:35. > :54:41.been the procedure was appropriate. Some classes did not introduce new

:54:41. > :54:44.principles. We intend that regulations will be much less

:54:44. > :54:47.prescriptive that current regulations, these powers will be

:54:48. > :54:55.used to create a regime for jobseeker's that is broadly similar

:54:55. > :55:02.to what is there now. Therefore, there was not a necessity subject

:55:02. > :55:12.these. It always remains that the members opposite can go against

:55:12. > :55:15.

:55:15. > :55:19.this if they wanted it debated. Apart from these two specific

:55:19. > :55:23.provisions, I have thought long and hard about this, I agree with the

:55:23. > :55:26.suggestion made by the right honourable gentleman to make

:55:26. > :55:30.regulations affirmative in the first instance. The reason I have

:55:30. > :55:36.gone for the first instance is that is seen sensible to me that we do

:55:36. > :55:40.not repeat you in and year out where regulations are renewed. As

:55:40. > :55:45.set out in amendment 14, the proposals cover all key regulation

:55:45. > :55:50.making powers relating to the universal credit. Including rules

:55:51. > :55:54.on capital, calculation of income, treatment of self-employed cases,

:55:54. > :56:01.amounts of elements within an award, including their minds for disabled

:56:01. > :56:09.children, housing and childcare. Members opposite may want to say

:56:09. > :56:12.this is not enough for their concerns, but I halt, I made it

:56:12. > :56:17.clear in committee that we recognise the importance of getting

:56:17. > :56:23.right the details of universal credit, we are working hard to do

:56:23. > :56:27.that. We're listening to concerns. The amendments tabled by members

:56:27. > :56:34.opposite would pre-empt our decisions and tie the hands of this

:56:34. > :56:38.and any future government with regards to errors. I thought it was

:56:38. > :56:42.perfectly reasonable to say that, as a matter of course, as we

:56:42. > :56:48.finalise our views and come to a final conclusion, involving members

:56:48. > :56:51.of all sides of the House and the select committee and third party

:56:51. > :56:57.groups, that it is right and proper be bring those resolutions back to

:56:57. > :57:04.the House on the affirmative basis and they can then be a full and

:57:04. > :57:09.proper debate in committee. I thank you for giving way and being moved

:57:09. > :57:12.on this issue. There is still a problem with the affirmative motion

:57:12. > :57:17.that it is take-it-or-leave-it. There is no ability for the

:57:17. > :57:25.committee or the House to amend. That in itself is not the same as

:57:25. > :57:30.line-by-line scrutiny. I do except that, but that is precisely why we

:57:30. > :57:35.have extended the hand in involvement to members opposite to

:57:35. > :57:40.help us shape the detail. This is a big project, it is complex, there

:57:40. > :57:45.are some challenging issues to deal with. We want to work on a basis to

:57:45. > :57:49.take views from all sides of the House as to see head is to shape it.

:57:49. > :57:53.We will finally have to take a decision ourselves, but we wish to

:57:53. > :57:58.involve all those who want to be involved in the thought process.

:57:58. > :58:06.This brings us on to child care where we have been seeking to do

:58:06. > :58:09.exactly that. There are important. As to how we hope to support people.

:58:09. > :58:15.Honourable members will be aware that we recently held to seminars

:58:15. > :58:22.on this topic. Members of both Houses of Parliament intended.

:58:22. > :58:25.There was a fruitful discussion. I am aware that members raised

:58:25. > :58:29.particular queries and we have undertaken to look into these

:58:29. > :58:33.questions and come back with more information. The seminars were part

:58:33. > :58:37.of an ongoing dialogue about how best restructured childcare support

:58:37. > :58:42.under the universal credit. For now I would reiterate the points I made

:58:42. > :58:50.before or that the bill as cities allows us to include an additional

:58:50. > :58:54.element for childcare. We have already made a firm commitment. I

:58:54. > :59:00.make no apology for taking the time over the details in this imported

:59:00. > :59:08.air, to get it right and listen to those with experience. To look at

:59:08. > :59:12.options and listen to those with real expertise. He will be aware

:59:12. > :59:17.how important the childcare tax credit has been in supporting

:59:17. > :59:21.families with childcare, will he undertake to... That people will

:59:21. > :59:27.not be worse off in terms of childcare costs or is this just

:59:27. > :59:31.about saving money? Issue at listen to the debate, we're putting in

:59:31. > :59:36.protection across the introduction of the universal credit. Nobody

:59:36. > :59:41.will lose out in terms of cash terms. That is right and

:59:41. > :59:47.appropriate. The problem with the amendment that has been brought

:59:47. > :59:52.forward by the Labour Party today, first of all the cost. That is

:59:52. > :00:00.something that was not mentioned in discussions this afternoon. If we

:00:00. > :00:07.introduced the current new clause would the current 16 and were rule,

:00:07. > :00:10.it would cost �16 million in addition. That is a clear spending

:00:10. > :00:14.commitment by the opposition. It appears to be a reversal of their

:00:14. > :00:19.policy. I was under the impression that the Leader of the Opposition

:00:19. > :00:27.and the Shadow Chancellor had said no spending commitments. Certainly

:00:27. > :00:32.nothing without officials at -- sanction. If it is, they need to

:00:32. > :00:37.see whether money is coming from. There are few different measures in

:00:37. > :00:42.front of us today which require different spending. It is important

:00:42. > :00:45.on a party which is just decided to build upon the biggest deficit in

:00:45. > :00:50.our history, if they come back with spending commitments that would

:00:50. > :00:56.take away some of the money we are trying to reinvest. If they want to