13/06/2011 House of Commons

We are determined to drive out the back -- bad practice whereby, as he

says, are given a load of cash, and then it is not worth anything to

them. We are looking very hard as to whether regulatory change is

needed. Will there be more work place inspections next year or

fewer? Weak are seeking to reduce the number of proactive work place

inspections by a third. We have been clear about that. By removing

inspection of low risk premises with no promises. Then the Health

and Safety Executive can concentrate the resource in a place

where there is problem and we will insist on fee for fault to recover

money from those employers breaking the rules. With the change from

three to six months before claimant becomes eligible for the new

personal independence payments, for people with a sudden onset

conditions such as cancer or stroke, it may affect their family's access

to carer's allowance. Will the Minister investigate ways in which

loved ones can have an early access to carer's allowance? I thank her

for that question. It is important we continue to view the personal

independence payments are very much as something that looks at an

individual and the way their condition is affecting them. We are

not intending to look at particular conditions. We will however be

looking very carefully at the way the introduction of the personal

independence payment affect benefits and we will bear her

comments in mind. The Pensions Minister may recall he

met with myself and the member for Chippenham on 8th March about a

modest proposal to amend the Sure Start paternity grants to parents

of multiples. Can he update us? am very grateful and they were

right to raise some specific issues relating to people who have twins

or other multiple births and the interaction between that and

changes to maternity grants. I had to be in a position to respond to

him shortly. Order. Point of order. Last Thursday Mr Speaker, a written

statement it was laid in front of the House to do with the fast track

solar p the review. By Thursday evening, the response had been from

the renewable Energy Association, the handling of this whole a per

has been poor. It is bad news for projects, schools, but --,, public

buildings. Nothing has changed and this consultation has been a farce.

Ministers have continued to ignore warnings from community groups. To

make it worse, by Saturday in the Daily Mail, there was an

announcement that ministers changed their minds and said they want to

rescue solar energy. The minister responsible said "I do believe in

solar energy". Out of respect to this House and the necessity of

making a policy announcement in front of this chamber, have you had

a request from the minister responsible for solar energy, to

appear in front of this House to explain, first the review that

never was, and the muted policy review changed over this weekend?

have not. Point of order said Gerald Kaufman. You are aware there

is a major bill before Parliament proposing huge changes in the

National Health Service. It has been announced in the press today

the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister are to hold he

staged events at 12 noon tomorrow, announcing the changes they intend

to make in this Bill. Is it not utterly unacceptable, but Italy

when a bill is before the House of Commons, that announcements can be

made about what it is to be done to that Bill should take place 2.5

hours before the House sits? Do you not agree that statement should be

made first to the House of Commons and the stunt should be called off?

I reiterate my usual. It from the chair to the Right Honourable

Gentleman and to the house, which is that if ministers, be they ever

so high, have important policy announcements to make, including

about any changes in policy, those announcements should be made first

to the House of Commons. Point of order, Mr Graham Morris.

Following on from the point made by my colleague a moment ago, in light

of the NHS future Forum report on the listing exercise into the

Health and Social Care Bill, just been referred to. Have you had any

indication from the Secretary of State or the Government business

managers, when they intend to end the pause in the Pill and whether

it will be recommitted to a Bill committee of MPs to allow proper

scrutiny of the proposed changes to the Bill and allow the Labour Party,

who form the NHS to have a say in these important matters? They are

matters for the Government and the point of order the honourable

gentleman has just raised, although of great concern to him and others,

is essentially a business question and therefore not a matter for the

Church. I think those who are responsible for these matters will

have noted, and doubt was taken heed of the observations of the

honourable gentleman. A point of order, Mr Chris Bryant.

I'm letting your original pronouncement to sink in. I don't

want to put any words in your mouth, but it seemed to me might have been

suggesting that the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister wouldn't

be right to go ahead with an announcement before coming to this

house in another venue? If the honourable gentleman had not made

his name as a Member of Parliament, I feel sure he would have had a

very fruitful career at the the bark. -- at the bar. Behind the bar.

Not down the stairs, but in the law courts. I don't feel the need to

add anything to what I have already said in response to the Right

Honourable Gentleman. First, I thought what I said was pretty

clear and the Right Honourable Member for Manchester Gorton is not

slow on the uptake. I hope that is clear. Before we proceed any

further I have to notify the house in accordance with the Royal Assent

Act 1967, that her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the

following Act. Postal services actor, 2011. We come now to the

main business, the Welfare Reform Bill programme motion and to move

that motion I call, I was going to call the Secretary of State, but I

call Mr Chris Grayling. I will touch briefly on the

programme motion before the House. As he will see we have set out a

plan to carry at the report stage as indeed the third reading over

two days, commencing now until 10pm tonight and enterprising again

after Prime Minister's Questions and any other business that takes

place during the day on Wednesday with a third reading before the end

of the day on Wednesday. It follows a lengthy debate in committee, a

very constructive debate. Unusually, it was a debate in committee where

we managed to cover every single clause in the bill. I fear I cannot

offer the opposition quite the same amount of latitude for the report

stage or. Although I know they will wish to bring forward and number of

issues on what is a matter of crucial importance. I think it is

welcome to note the intervention today, albeit rather confusing

intervention from the shadow Secretary of State and indeed the

leader of the opposition's intervention about the opposition's

position on welfare reform. I hope over the next two days of debate,

we will see some evidence emerged about what Lyme Bay will take in

these matters. Matters like the benefit cap, whether they will be

for us or against us. They have been ambiguous and parts of the

debate in committee about whether they are supportive or not. I hope

we will reach the end of the programmed debate on Wednesday and

we will find they are supportive of this bill at third reading. So I

hope that today's we have set aside will allow us to debate all of the

key areas for discussion in the Bill and we will be able to

discover more clearly, when it comes down to the final decisions,

the opposition are with us or against us. I bet Mr Speaker to

propose this programme motion and I look forward to two days of lengthy

and interesting and perhaps a lighting, in terms of the

opposition policy debate, on these matters. Question as is on the

Order Paper. I take a little bit of issue with the minister. I don't

agree there has been adequate time on Committee to consider this bill.

Not least in fact because on more than one occasion the Minister has

left early before we have completed our first afternoon of discussions.

The consequence was, a number of key issues, particularly new

clauses were left and debated when the committee ended. And some of

those on the order paper today. With that backlog, as well as other

key points in the Bill, I am very concerned the two days now

available are likely to be insufficient for the debate that is

needed. Given that inadequate time however, the knife which the

Government's motion has proposed is in a perfectly sensible place. And

because Lene to get on with this debate, I am not going to seek to

divide the house on the motion. But I am concerned the house has not

had, and I think it will become clear, sufficient time to consider

properly the consequences of this Bill. The question is as on the

order paper. I think the ayes have it, the ayes habit. The orders of

the day will now be read by the clerk, Dr Sir Malcolm Jack.

Welfare reform bill as amended in the public Committee to be

considered. We begin with Government new clause No 1, with

which it will be convenient to consider Government's amendments No

1 of 213 on the subject of deductions from their earnings. Mr

Chris Grayling. If you would permit me to go off

subject for a moment, I think it would be appropriate to mark, as he

did in your comments, the recent on a received by the clerk. I am sure

members on all sides will send him a congratulations and best wishes.

Mr Speaker, I would like to speak about amendments 1-13 and dewclaws

one. They introduce a direct earnings attachments as a method of

social security debt recovery. An attachment of earnings is a method

by which many will be stopped from a customer's wages to pay a debt.

The debt in question could be an overpayment of benefits, it could

be any associated penalty. It could be a recovery of hardship payments

or it could be a payment on account. This is a measure which will also

be available for use by local authorities for the recovery of

housing benefit overpayments and in due course, could be also used for

the recovery of council tax benefit overpayments, once the localisation

of Council Tax Benefit takes place. It will also be available to

recover an administrative penalty for a benefit fraud a fence or a

civil penalty for failing to take proper care of a benefit Award.

Thanks for giving way. Is there some sort of structure and process

so EU migrants to work in the country and are eligible for

benefits and may move out of the country when they no longer wish to

be here, to be able to claw back any overpayments of benefit should

they move through EU countries? thing she makes an important point.

The answer to that whilst in theory mechanisms exist to recover

payments, it is much more difficult. I share her point and I will

certainly will continue to seek ways of ensuring in such an

eventuality, we can make recovery. Whilst the is considering that,

will he consider the case of the many hundreds of thousands of

British people who are living in Spain? Very often they rely on

support in particular from the NHS, and many other services that they

receive from the Spanish Government and any were in Europe? Of course

the honourable gentleman is correct. He will also agreed that if

somebody comes and lives and works in this country and receives

benefit payments and then returns overseas and they carry with them

an obligation, they should fulfil that obligation. That is I think

the sole point my Honourable Friend was making and one that would be

seen as having commonsense by members on both sides of the house.

And there is Freedman's Best freedom of movement around Europe

and we must make sure mechanisms are not abused. The primary purpose

is to enforce recovery were the debtor is in PAYE employment and

won't make other arrangements for payment. One of the reasons I think

this is a sensible approach to take and I should apologise to the

opposition we were not able to bring this amendment to the

committee. It is being considered and discussed in our processors. We

brought it forward at this time but I hope they won't find it

controversial. I hope there won't find it controversial is because it

is an anomaly, that if somebody incurs a penalty for what ever

reason and they remain in the benefits system, we can recover the

money through the benefit system through a reduction from the

benefit payments that go to them. If they have moved into PAYE

employment and say no way, go away, we don't currently have the

mechanism to deal with that to make a recovery of the debt that is owed.

That is the purpose of this set of The rates of deduction will be

determined in the regulations and that will include a safeguard that

the debt will not go below the level of giving earnings. That is

common practice. In similar arrangements in other parts of our

society, where there is a deduction for a court penalty or a child

maintenance issue, it is essential that we do not deduct money at a

rate that will tip the person concerned below a given level of

earnings. It will be a basic principle. That recovery of

overpaid benefit should not cause undue hardship. Can the Minister

clarify whether any judicial process will be attached to any

arrest and made of someone's earnings? The reason I am asking is

because I am sure we all know mistakes happen. Sometimes because

of errors on a Clement's Park but also because of errors in

bureaucracy and I would be concerned there are not enough

safeguards -- on a claimant's part. I will come back in a moment and

explain what rights the individuals have. It would not be appropriate

to have a situation where a TA could be applied and there was no

comeback at all for the individual. A wooden and a writer if challenge

or appeal and that would be wholly inappropriate. -- it would allow no

right of challenge. Just on that point, in terms of the accessible

income for child maintenance payments, with a debt order have

any bearing on the accessible income that is available for child

benefit claimants? That is one which would depend on the

circumstances. It is obviously important that they deduction of

earnings has to take into account a potential impact on the individual

and to take it account of the impact on the individual, you would

also have to take account of other payments. It is a basic principle

that recovery of overpaid benefit should not cause undue hardship.

All circumstances would need to be taken into account. I should

clarify a point that council tax benefit will be deducted from a

council tax liability so it will not be administered in quite the

same way. Imposing a d e eight is intended be a simple process which

replaces the current practice. The ability of the DW p to make the AA

on its own a authority sends out a signal to potential fraudsters and

I think will prove a useful tool and I think given the comments by

the Leader of the Opposition today, the opposition will welcome this as

a sensible measure to take against people who do defraud the systems.

We think these measures will also encourage claimants in debt to be

more aware of the possibility of deduction at source, reducing any

expectation of avoiding paying debt. There is always a concern that you

can pile money up and up and up and there will be no day of reckoning.

This will ensure there will be a day of reckoning. The measure will

make use of an existing premises used by the child maintenance and

Enforcement Commission with which the business has already familiar.

This is a matter of routine for M employed to make a deduction of

earnings from a person's salary cheque each month relating to child

maintenance deductions. This will use the same process. The provision

also allows for a levy of an administration charge against the

debtor to set any administrative cost. Using this to recover debt

does not remove a better's rights to challenge a decision or the

penalty. We do not remove the rights of the individual. For

example, when an overpayment occurs, an independent decision maker

decides if a recoverable overpayment exists and as I set out

in the Bill Committee, there are situations where payment will be

recovered and circumstances where it will not. We will allow

frontline staff to judge what is right and what is wrong. Clearly,

we accept there will be times when an overpayment is the result of an

administrative error in the department so we have to accept the

blame where we do not seek recovery of an overpayment but the general

position is if somebody receives money they should not have received,

we would expect them to pay it back. If they refuse, this mechanism will

allow us to do that. There is a right of appeal to an independent

tribunal, should the person be unhappy with the original decision.

There is still a full decision -- judicial process available. If

there is a sanction imposed which can lead to the withdrawal of

benefit payments, they have the right to first go to a decision

maker and secondly to go to the tribunal. Those rights will remain

in this situation but we will not have to go to court in order to

secure the original order to make that deduction of earnings. Before

taking action to impose a deep EEA, we will ensure that the debtor is

aware that we are taking such action. Also keen to make sure we

remain mindful of our welfare obligations. We do not want to push

the debtor into leaving work to avoid a payment. This has to be

applied with common sense and care. In such instances, it may be

determined that another method of recovery should be employed or that

it only commences after other commitments have been cleared, the

point that was made by my honourable friend a moment ago. It

is designed to recover debt from those who seek to avoid repayment,

those who think they can avoid paying the money back. Those who

comply with requests for repayment and to come to a reasonable

arrangement or who can show they are currently unable to repay will

not have this imposed. I'm sure the House will agree with me that where

somebody refuses to meet their obligations to repay benefit debt,

such powers should be available to the relevant authorities to make

the recovery. This is all this new clause and amendments are designed

to do. They are designed to ensure that we treat people fairly and

appropriately within the system. We can recover benefits directly from

people who are still on benefits that have a repayment they have to

pay back to us. We cannot carry do that easily without going to the

courts -- currently do that easily. This set of amendments will allow

us to change that. I think it is a prudent and sensible step. It is in

keeping with our own anti-fraud strategy. I hope it is now in

keeping with the opposition's anti- fraud strategy. I hope this is a

set of amendments that will command support on both sides of the House

and I beg to move them. New clause 1, deductions from earnings, other

cases. The question is that the new clause

be read a second time. Mr Stephen Timms. I welcome the opportunity to

respond to this first group of amendments. It is certainly one of

the less contentious groups that we will be considering and the

minister should not hope that we will be equally amenable throughout

the debate this afternoon. The new clause aims to amend the Social

Security Administration Act 1992 to allow, as the minister has

explained, the Government to recover overpayments resulting from

mistakes or fraud in out-of-work benefits, housing benefits but also

universal credit and the other contributory benefits. I can well

see why the minister wants to make these changes. In particular,

because universal credit will encompass people who are in work,

as well as those who are out of work, it does make sense for the

recovery of overpayments to be extended into earnings received in

work in the way that he has outlined. I think there are a

number of questions that need to be asked about these plans. He has

been pressed already about the mechanism for appeals. But, let me

put this to him. The changes will certainly require a good deal of

co-operation from employers as they are the organisations on whom the

Government will be serving notices to deduct from earnings. They will

bear the burden of the administration of these deductions,

having to pay in amounts to keep records of these amounts and to

keep the Secretary of State informed if the claimant leaves

their employment. He has made the point reasonably that a system

already exists for child support payments but in order to take into

account this additional burden that he will now be imposing, the

Government has allowed for their employer to deduct an amount in

respect of their administration costs. I think we do have to have

some idea of the amount the employers will be permitted to

deduct. It will need to be seen to be fair to the person whose pay is

being deducted whilst also adequately compensating employers.

I wonder if the minister can tell us more about how that amount is

going to be calculated, how it perhaps relates to existing

arrangements for child support that he touched on. The amendments allow

for a level of earnings below which earnings must not be reduced by the

deductions. Again, that seems appropriate but we also need to

know how that level of earnings is going to be prescribed. There could

be a very real impact on work incentives, particularly for people

who have received overpayments, who may well have been acting entirely

innocently, perhaps been confused or simply made a mistake. Or

perhaps the JobCentre made a mistake. If the amount is too low,

claimants who are out of work could see little gain from moving into

work. Additionally, if the deductions are attic flat rate or a

percentage of hourly pay, the work incentives that the universal

credit taper mechanism is designed to provide, will be compromised.

Can the Minister tell us how this level of minimum earnings will be

calculated and make sure that people who are repaying over

payments are still better off if they increase their income through

working additional hours. Paragraph 1 of subsection one creates a

criminal offence for non-compliance with these regulations, resulting

in a fine of �1,000 which would be a hefty sum for a small business.

Small businesses obviously have less time and energy to spend on

administration or human resources. The additional burdens that this

amendment places on them could prove to be a significant

disincentive on their hiring people, are recruiting new employees who

have overpayments hanging over them. That would result in those people

finding it more difficult therefore to getting to work. I wonder if the

minister can tell us more about how he thinks these measures will

affect people who are paying back overpayments while trying to find a

job and how will he ensure that these new provisions don't create a

new barrier to those people getting back into work? The move to

allowing deduction from earnings to repay errors due to fraud, is a

good run because universal credit will be available to people in work

as well as out of work. The Government is already introducing

civil penalties for those who it feels have made incorrect

statements. It is important we do not penalise people who may have

made mistakes but have done so honestly by placing new and are

necessary barriers to employment in their way. The minimum level of

earnings, the red tape this will mean for small businesses could

just do that. If the Government gets these judgments wrong. I hope

the Minister will give assurances about how unpractised these

measures will work. Kate Green. Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a

pleasure to make my first contribution to the stage of

proceedings on the bill by welcoming an aspect of the

amendment No. Two, tabled by the Government this afternoon,

specifically that the short subsection proposed to Clause one

or two, in relation to the level of earnings which must be reduced --

not be reduced when the level of overpayments have to be recovered,

is welcome. That echoes the practice we see in Sweden, Germany,

the Netherlands and Norway and other nations where there are

legally enforceable attachment free limits, when debts are being

enforced. A level of linnets below which claimants must be protected

and witches related to a national minimum income standard set by a

I am grateful for a number of people who have helped me raise

this principle this afternoon. Howard like to see the principle of

irreducible attachment extended to all debt to the unemployed to

safeguard children's disability and housing benefits. That would

prevent the damage that stun to physical and mental health by the

enforcement of debt against poverty incomes and the damage that does to

the capacity of the poorest adults to find and to keep work. In Sweden,

the standards for a reasonable standard of living are operated for

price index changes every year and reset every five years by the

National Board for consumer affairs. Based on survey data on national

household consumption patterns and current prices. This means

statisticians and NBC a policy officials are deciding what is

reasonable in terms of deviations from the averages. For example, for

the past four years in the UK, the prices of food and domestic fuel

have increased faster than both the Retail Price Index and the complete

-- consumer price index. The standards are set by the social

service brought the setting benefits. The tax threshold is also

used by the court enforcement authority to set its attachment

through some debt enforcement. But some consists of two parts of

variable housing costs and affix standard normal sum for all other

living expenses. There are other methodologies for setting the

minimum acceptable income standard below which income should be

protected, and which should be Attachment free. We explored in

committee work under way in this country from the universities of

York and Loughborough, among others to develop a minimum income

standard which can command and indeed is informed by the

perceptions of the public as a whole. So we have a range of

options for assessing and setting that minimum standard below which

there won't be deductions and examples from other nations were

such a minimum can be enforceable by the courts and related to

national minimum income standards. In setting payment plans, countries

that have legally they enforceable limits, enforceable by the look

courts, and means the courts can ensure the debtor is left with a

minimum level of income, taking into account family-size. I hope

the small but vital subsection in the Secretary of State's amendment

No. 2, and caused the 202 will give us an opportunity to give an era of

cross-party support for such legally enforceable, irreducible

and attachment feet minimums are one people are repaying debts,

which will be based on minimum income standards and contribute

over all to a reduction in the huge cost of mental illness, to the

health service and the wider economy. It would also make a

significant contribution to the reduction of poverty in the UK and

in welcoming this aspect of the amendment proposed by the Secretary

of State, I have we will have an ambitious approach to setting what

that minimum should be. Can I start by saying I appreciate the comments

of the honourable lady a Manchester. Stretford and Urmston, I beg your

pardon. I listen very carefully to the point she made. She has given a

great deal of thought to these matters. Whilst I cannot offer her

a guarantee we will do all of the things she wishes, what I can say

is we will take great care in regulations attached to this

measure to make sure we get the right balance. It has been

absolutely clear for a long time in this country and it remains clear

under the current Government, we have to be careful in setting the

levels for any deduction to make sure we do not tip people into

hardship. And particularly we don't encourage them to leave work and

leaving them families in the poverty scale. Let me start with

the. Sheep and others have made how we will determine the levels of

earnings below which deductions cannot be made. The reality is,

circumstances between different families, different situations,

there may be a case where you have as she suggested, a deduction for

child support. And there may be issues about the number of children

in the family, disabilities are great care has to be exercised. The

minimum level we will pursue will be determined to ensure the debtor

is left with sufficient income to maintain himself or herself and the

family in line with similar provisions in the attachment of

earnings Act 1971. We are planning to use the same basis that has been

used by the same -- previous governments. In many cases, and

direct earnings attachment will be implemented with little no decision

with the debtor, and the level will be a prescribed minimum and won't

be able to take into account of individual circumstances. We will

try to create a system where we are mindful of the needs to reflect the

circumstances of the individual, but we cannot go the whole way. We

cannot go as far as she would wish. If a debtor finds they cannot cope

with the level of deductions, they should contact us to discuss an

alternative payment rate. But course, they can avoid being placed

in this situation. Bear in mind, these are not people struggling to

deal with something they have already agreed, these are people

who have wilfully refuse to enter an agreement with us and are saying,

I am not paying the money back. Debtors who are repaying

overpayments by means of a D A will be able to claim a repayment rate

causes them hardship and asked for it to be reduced. Although we have

a responsibility to recover overpayments in order to protect

public funds, we take into account an individual's financial and

personal circumstances. Whilst I cannot go as far as the honourable

lady, and she has articulated a strong case, in this particular

measure I cannot offer quite as much as she would wish but I cannot

for the assurance we will always take into account an individual's

financial and personal circumstances. Particularly work

issues of potential poverty and deprivation and impact and hardship

can arise. The right honourable gentleman made a point about the

issue of employers. We will of course use the same mechanism for

these attachment orders, as are the deductions a for child maintenance

orders. These are an established process through the system and

prior to that, the CSA system. This won't cause employers to do things

differently to the way they have operated before. I am comfortable

on that basis this won't represent an additional burden to employers.

He made mention of the provision for a �1,000 fine. The truth is,

there is no excuse for a refusal to engage with any part of this

process. The orders themselves only a rise in the first place because

an individual claimant has refused to engage. Their is no excuse for

an employer to refuse to engage either. It shouldn't be complex a

complicated, it shouldn't be complex enough to cause an employer

to decline an applicant for a vacancy. Many employers up and down

the country are used to dealing with this and I don't think it will

create an extra burden for business. He raised the number of other

questions - how much can employers deduct for the admin charge. Amount

not in excess of �1 for each deduction is the answer for that.

He asked for an assurance the measure won't damage working

incentives. The answer to that is with all debt recovery we have of

course have to be mindful of the department's welfare obligations

and recoveries of overpaid benefits shouldn't cause undue hardship. We

certainly wouldn't want in the calculation of the repayments that

somebody should have to leave work in order to avoid repayment. The

debtor will have had ample opportunity to make other

arrangements to pay or show suspension of recovery was

applicable in their case. These are not people who have had no chance

to engage or discuss. I give way. wonder if it is his intention that

if someone gets a pay rise, does he anticipate they will always see

some benefit from the rise or is it possible they might lose all of the

increase in the additional repayments the department requires?

It is difficult to give an absolute answer. It is unlikely we will seek

to withdraw an entire pay rise. But if we have given somebody a lot of

slack in making their repayments and their financial situation

improved, then we wouldn't just allow them to carry on paying at

the same hardship rate they had previously. We would expect an

improvement in the terms based on their improved circumstances. The

reality is, as he knows as a former minister of there are well

established hardship issues in place. But the customer engages

with the Department, remains suggest another method of recovery

should be employed. It maybe the able to be delayed, but only in

exceptional circumstances. What lies at the heart of this is common

sense. It is our job to recover funds that have been overpaid where

there is not good reason for waiving the overpayment because of

departmental error. It is not in any of our interests to have a

system that forces people into severe hardship and poverty and

does not reflect the reality of their financial situation. There is

a clear obligation to repay, the Leader of the Opposition was

talking this morning about responsibility. Those we are

talking about have a responsibility to repay the money due to us. We

also, as do the courts, applied common sense to this process,

achieve the right balance and make sure we recover the money due to

the taxpayer in the right way and in a sensible way. I very much

welcome the positive comments of the spokesman for the opposition. I

know that we are likely to have some lively debates as the hours go

by. Although I would hope, again having listened to the comments,

the lively debate will mask a willingness to support this bill.

It would be disappointing if at the end of all these debates the

opposition did not support this bill. If they decline to do so, I

look forward to having a debate in public about what is right and what

is wrong. But I am delighted there is cross-party co-operation and

there would like to move these amendments forward.

Order, the question is that new clause number-one be read a second

time. As many of that opinion say Aye. To the contrary, noes. Clause

1 be added to the bill? I think the ayes have it. With the leave of the

House I will put Government's amendments 1 to 13 together to be

moved formally. The question is Government amendments 1-13 be made.

As many of that opinion say Aye. I think the ayes habit. We come now

to new clause number two with which it will be convenient to consider a

new clauses 326 and amendments 23, 24, 38, 27-29, and Government's

amendments 14-19. Amendments 61 and Government amendments 20 and 21. Mr

Stephen Timms. I rise to move a new clause two and

the other amendments in this group in the name of myself and my

honourable and right honourable friends. As this Bill returns to

the chamber for its report stage, it is astonishing how many policy

gaps remain. This group addresses some of the worst holes in the

policy on universal creditor and the first new clause, new clause

number two in particular deals with child care. What has happened,

ministers perhaps understandably, were naive. We begin his enthusiasm

they boasted universal credit would solve all of the problems and the

benefits system. It would always pay to be in work, the system would

be simple, thousands would be better off, nobody worse off and

the benefits bill would be cut. Well, in truth you did not have to

be Milton Friedman to work out that that did not all add up. That is

now their problem. They cannot stand up their posts. When it comes

to the detail, they have been unable to deliver a. Nowhere is

that clearer than on child care Support for childcare is keep for

where their parents are better off in work or out of work. The

Secretary of State promised in his evidence to the committee in March

of that the Government's proposals would be available before the

Welfare Reform Bill left committee. That is what he promised the

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

committee stage. As I pointed out at Question Time,

that promise has been broken. No policy was announced that the

committee stage and now the bill will leave the House of Commons

this week and we still have not a clue what the Government's policy

is because ministers have not been able to work a policy out. At the

beginning of the committee stage we told the Government we were worried

that the lack of crucial details and now the bill has come back to

the House and they are still missing. Ministers have failed to

make this fly. We are not talking here about minor details. This is

about whether or not parents really will be better off in work as they

generally are under the current system. Achieving the whole purpose

of these changes hands on the Government's decision on child care.

Ministers have failed to reach a decision. That is why, Mr Speaker,

Oxfam, Barnardo's and others wrote recently to the Secretary of State.

They wrote that for many families on low or middle in comes and I

quote directly from their letter: The success of universal credit

will stand or fall on the level of child care costs covered.

And they are right. The success of this policy stance on the

Government's decision. Ministers have simply failed to come up with

the decision. At least, with the NHS reforms, the Government paused

to work out a policy. Here they have not managed to work out a

policy but they are pressing on all the same. No proposals were

presented in committee and none from the Government are in front of

us today. Instead, we just had an informal seminar on options. We

know the Government wants to extend provision for childcare support for

people working fewer than 16 hours per week but they want to do that

within the existing budget. That does not add up. I will gladly give

way. Is his solution the same as the solution of the groups that he

mentioned earlier witches to put more money into child care?

solution is the one in clause to which we are debating which I am

moving. The priority should be to maintain the support that is

currently being received by people working more than 16 hours per week.

I understand why the Government says they simply cannot find more

money for support and child care, but what is going to be disastrous

is what appears to be the Government's intention to give a

lot more people support from the same cash-limited sum of money.

That is going to leave a very large number of people, for whom work

pays, finding in the future work no longer pays. I will give way again.

Thank you. In terms of giving childcare support to people who are

moving into work up to 16 hours, does the right honourable gentleman

welcomed the way in which the proposals that are being discussed

would allow people to move into some of those many jobs? For people

who are currently able to work for more than 16 hours to give up their

jobs altogether, no, I would not welcome that. It would be a

retrograde step. Accept there is a case for supporting the costs of

child care for people in many jobs as well but if there are not the

additional resources available to fund it, it would be a terrible

mistake to press ahead and claw back money away from people who are

depending on it to make work pay at the moment. The Secretary of State

did set out some of the options at the seminar. I think the honourable

lady was one of those present at the Cenotaph. The Children's

Society has had a look at some of the options at that event. They

have concluded that on some of the options: A family could pay out one

pound 56 pence for every additional pound earned.

Ministers have told us that that kind of problem will be eliminated

by it universal credit but it now seems that if they proceed on that

option, the new system will be a great deal worse than the current

one is, introducing a draconian new penalty for working, in the case of

parents. As I said to be honourable lady in her intervention, there is,

I think, a good case for supporting child care for people in many jobs

but that must not be at the expense of parents who are being helped at

the moment. The recent report from the resolution Foundation and

Gingerbread, also underlines that spreading the same budget under a

lot more people will mean families losing money for every additional

hour their work. The Government is right to express the aspiration

that it should always pay to be in work, but in this particular case,

if the Government does pursue the option that will set out in the

seminar, something appears to have been lost in translation. These

families will have to pay out in order to work. The current system

does a far better job than that. The new system that is envisaged

will be a very severely retrograde step if it has the feature of

taking over �1.50 off everybody for each extra pound that they earn.

The Government appears poised, which they have finally worked out

what their policy in this Erin is, to make work far less attractive

than it is that the moment. The Government has failed to come up

with a policy. In our new clause we do have a policy and as I have said,

new clause two would retain the percentage of childcare costs

covered and the cash limits that are in the current system. It would

ensure that work continued to pay for those for whom it pays at the

moment. It would allow the retention of existing 16 hours

threshold because the Government says it cannot afford any extra

spending on child care at the moment. My case to the House is

support for child care in many jobs would need to wait until there is

funding for it. What this would ensure is that jobs of 16 hours per

week do actually paid as they do at the moment. I will give way. Would

Mia right honourable friend also agree that it is disingenuous for

the Government to put forward proposals to fund childcare for

many jobs when I know the child care market is not designed it that

way. Finding short episodes of child care for a few hours a week

is extremely difficult for parents and could make childcare provision

even more financially unviable? honourable friend makes a very good

point. There is a real worry about what this will do to the childcare

market as a whole, potentially making some providers and economic,

given the changes that the Government is proposing. Indeed, if

a large number of people who are currently using child care for more

than 16 hours a week, are forced to give up their jobs by these changes,

withdraw from their child care places, that will put a huge cloud

under the whole child care market in the way that she rightly fears.

Mr Speaker, we do feel very strongly about this. The Government

simply has not come up with a policy. I will be seeking, if I

unable to, to divide the House on New Clause two. The Government's

failure to produce a policy on child care before the Bill leaves

this House is a particularly abject failure. Ministers have not been

able to turn their claims into policies. Wild child care may be

the most spectacular, perhaps, the most significant hole and the

Government's policy, it is not the only one. In this group we are

moving for two further clauses to fill the policy holds about

passport did benefits, free school meals and free prescriptions. At

the moment, people on out-of-work benefits are passport did to those

additional benefits but the out-of- work benefits are being abolished.

Who will be entitled to free school meals and the future? Again, I do

not think this is an obscure question. It is a basic question

and the Government, again, has failed to give us an answer. I will

give way. I'm grateful to my honourable friend and he is

absolutely correct to point out the importance of free school meals for

many of our constituents whose children are in desperate need some

times of that basic nutrition they receive at school. It would be so

confusing for the Government to get to the staging the legislation, to

have no clarity about what does and what does not trigger free schools

entitlement. Whether there is a new means test they will introduce. I'm

glad my honourable friend has raised this. His right about the

centrality of this in the system. The Government has simply failed to

work out who, under its proposals, will be entitled in the future to

free school meals. It is not that I am disagreeing with the

Government's policy, the problem is they have not got a policy. We have

no idea who they believe should be entitled to free school meals and

as far as we can tell, they have not got a clue either. Free school

meals are a very, very important part of the system. They could be

worth �350 a year to a family with one child in a primary school, it

easily over �1,000 to a family with three or more children at school,

clearly making an enormous difference. At the moment, families

receive free school meals and will they work over 16 hours, after

which they receive working tax credit so they are not worse off as

they move into additional hours of work. What the universal credit

White Paper suggested, this may be partially an answer to my

honourable friend's question, the Government intends to remove

entitlement to free school meals at a fixed income threshold, creating,

if they do that, precisely the sort of cliff edge we were told this

Bill would eradicate. I presume that is the difficulty that has

presented the Government -- prevented the Government from

setting out what its policy is and why the Bill is silent on it and

why there were no notes on the regulations to explain what the

Government's policy was either. If a lone parent with three children

lost entitlement to free school meals at some level of earnings, so

perhaps �250 per week or possibly rather higher, than their net

household income would fall, unless they earned over �4,000 per year

more. If that is how the new system is going to work, that will be a

disaster. It is exactly the kind of disincentive that we have been told

all along universal credit is supposed to be removing. If that is

what the Government did commit universal credit would, in fact,

make the problem of work disincentives far worse than is the

case in current system. Mr Speaker, our proposal in new clause 3 is the

value of free school meals should be paid with universal credit and

then be taken away gradually as household income rises. I recognise

that there is concern amongst many who follow these matters closely

but this could mean the cash would not actually be used for the cost

of school meals but for other expenses instead. Given the

pressure on household budgets, one could see how that might arise. I

suggest a solution would be for the cash to be paid on to an electronic

card which can only be used to purchase school meals. An arbitrary

cut-off in income, which all support for free school meals was

withdrawn, would have a very, very damaging effect all told. Does he

accept that the proposal he puts forward, flies in the face of what

I think is the Admiral situation at the moment way in the lunchtime

school queue, there is no obvious and visible difference between

those receiving free school meals and those who are not. To make a

provision that would effectively give some a particular card with

money on it and some would not, would surely stigmatise those kids

on free school meals? No, he is mistaken. All pupils in the school

would pay for the meals with card, the difference would be how the

money got onto the card. Some would pay cash in the way that happens at

the moment, others would have that placed on from universal credit. He

is right to raise the importance of this. It is an important point but

the solution I'm proposing would solve the problem. I will gladly

give way again and perhaps he will tell us how the free school meals

will be determined. Perhaps he could answer a question for me.

Since it is the case that different schools today use different systems,

some use a fingerprinting system, some used an electronic card system

and some still use cash, does he envisage his proposal to require

schools up and down the country to scrap their current systems and

harmonise around a new system and if that is the case, has he

calculated what cost a big and how I hope the Government is working

out the answers. I would Aintree using existing systems with using

payment by transitions. We had the same problem with free

prescriptions. I will give way. grateful. Free school meals is an

important topic. In his proposal, is he suggesting this taper would

begin immediately someone went into work, or would it come into play

when the earning's disregard have mood. What would be the cost of his

proposals? The point of the proposal is a zero cost proposals.

I am suggesting the funding would be provided by the mechanism I have

described. It would be tapered away along with the rest of universal

credit. It will sit naturally on top of the existing payments system,

so there will be an additional payment in respect of school meals

that is appropriate and it will be tapered away once the disregard has

been exhausted. The budgetary costs would be exactly the same. We would

have exactly the same issue with free prescriptions. At the moment

the current system provides to those people on benefits, and some

people with low incomes. But once again we have not heard anything

from the Government on what is going to happen in universal credit.

So the new Clause 4 macro addresses that. It is worth perhaps making

the point in passing, of course the number of pupils receiving free

school meals is an important indicator for education policy as

well. The people premium depends on the number of people receiving free

school meals. The fact we have no idea of who in the future will be

entitled to free school meals under the Government's proposals, will

create serious problems as well. The main point of this bill,

according to the Government's... Returning to the point about the

proposals around prescription charges. Does he not, is he not

concerned about the evidence we received on the committee which was

from a number of different witnesses saying there is a

significant difference between school meals and prescription

charges in school meals are ongoing cost. Prescription charges tend to

come in a batch. By tabling the amount of money somebody receives,

when they actually have significant costs of a number of prescriptions

at the same time, they still not would be able to afford it because

there would be an ongoing amount of money they had. Unlike a system

more similar to the current one where the descriptions are paid

when you need them? I agree with the point she is making, to that

extent the current system has a lot of attractions. For the problem is

with universal credit, we will lose that system and the question is,

who will be entitled to free prescriptions? I don't imagine she

is arguing, as perhaps the Government will do, I don't know,

there should be a cut-off point in income beyond which you suddenly

lose all help for prescriptions. Because if that is what happens, we

will have is very, very serious and damaging cliff edge in the system,

which everybody has agreed, is an undesirable feature of it. So the

new clauses is a proposal which addresses that problem. And they

may be others. What I would like to extract is a proposal from the

Government, so we can find out exactly what it intends to do.

Because, so far they have been silent on that subject, as on all

of the others. So the main point of this Bill, we have been told that

through these debates, people should always be better off in work.

The task of Parliament is to scrutinise whether the Bill limps

up to that laudable aim. Were that no knock the Government is going to

do to provide help with childcare, school meals, prescription costs,

we simply cannot tell whether it is true or not. I would suggest it is

frankly an abuse of the Parliamentary process not to tell

the House of Commons what the Government's policy is before the

Bill leaves this House. I don't accuse ministers of withholding

information from Parliament. The problem is, ministers have no more

clue about their policy than we do. It is an astonishing and abject

failure on their behalf. They made all of these posts at the beginning,

the bragging ran away with them and now, they cannot deliver policies

to substantiate the boasts they have made. I will give way. Isn't

it a bit rich to put the case in that way? Under his Government,

which were there for many, many years, these aspects were not

covered by a benefit. There wasn't a childcare benefit as such, there

wasn't a school meal benefits, they were dealt with outside the benefit

system. Dealt with in a way he no doubt approves of, and I do as well.

Why suddenly bring these into the benefit system? The honourable

gentleman has a bit more experience in these matters than some of his

colleagues on the front bench, dealing with them at the moment.

There was good provision, but Italy for child care support in the tax

credit system. That is why there was a dramatic rise in lone parents

employment under the previous Government, because there was such

strong support for the cost of childcare. I support that, and from

what he was hinting a moment ago, he supported it and supports it

today. We have no idea once tax credits are polished and universal

credit takes their place, how childcare will be supported in the

future. And that is what I am modestly appealing for the

Government to tell us. Wouldn't he also agree one of the real concerns

me now have as a result of the Universal Credit forcing us at

lumping these different strands of financial support for families is

all our eggs are in one basket. If one thing goes wrong, the whole

structure of financial support for that family could collapse? She is

absolutely right. The risks around this for that reason are very great

indeed. As I will be considering in a few moments when I come to

amendment 24, is also the case that if you have beyond, what a

prescribed level of savings and you lose all of the help under all of

those headings as well. Could he clear up one point of confusion, he

has spent most of the past couple of months saying he supported the

Universal Credit in principle. But his remarks would imply him

distancing himself. Does he intend to support his bill at third

reading or not? He will find out the answer to that question in due

course. We have been consistent, always support the principle of

universal credit. We think bringing in work and out of work benefits

together is a good idea and one that has a number of attractions.

The problem is, the detailed work to make that policy fly has simply

not been done by him and his honourable friends. There are these

desperate the gaping gaps in the policy and fundamental questions,

which he is unable to answer and to explain to us how these

arrangements are going to work. As a result and departing this House,

leaves many households and many working families in particular in a

very precarious position. Having talked about lots of things we

don't know, let's turn to some of the things we do know in this Bill.

Clause five, which I touched on a moment ago is going too badly

undermined the aspirations of people in work on modest incomes.

Under the rules at the moment, it has been a long-standing feature of

the system, people out of work but have above a prescribe capital sum

are expected to use that to support themselves before claiming income

related out-of-work benefits. If someone has �6,000 in savings, the

Government assumes an income from those savings which is subtracted

from the benefit entitlement. And the person with more than �16,000

worth of savings won't receive means-tested benefits at all. Those

figures were increased by 30081000 by the last Government to retain

some of their savings when they lost work. For somebody in work,

the story has been very different. There was no savings cap at all in

tax credits. Clause 5 of this Bill will change that fundamentally by

extending the rules on savings for those out of work, two people who

are in work. The Conservative Party used to tell us they wanted to

encourage people to save. Clause five won't just discourage people

from saving, it will make it impossible for them to save.

Anybody on a modest income who decides to save up for a deposit to

buy a house in the future or the cost of university education will

suffer under clause five and extraordinary punishment. You

cannot buy a house today with a deposit less than �16,000. You

cannot get a mortgage for shared ownership with a deposit less than

�16,000. If you have savings of �16,000 towards a deposit for a

mortgage, if it appears in the view of ministers used are to get ideas

above your station, you will lose all of your universal credit.

Typically, that might be �5,000 a year. In addition, you will lose

any support you get for the cost of childcare. On top of that, you lose

any support you get it with housing costs. That will add up to an

extraordinary punishments for saving. It all makes saving

literally impossible because as soon as you have managed to save

�16,000 from your earnings, the Government will drain your savings

away. The problem will start as soon as you have �6,000 saved. The

honourable member for Redcar made the point in Committee, that this

problem wouldn't last very long because the savings would soon be

gone. He is absolutely right that under these are proposals, any

attempt to start building up a sum of savings that would be enough for

a deposit on a house, or contribution to higher education,

the Government will take it away from you by withdrawing your

universal credit. The message from the Government could not be clearer.

Two people on low income is doing the right thing, working to support

themselves, this Government won't support you. And amendments 23 and

24 will change that. They would allow people to save up money, up

to �50,000 if they are in work. Ministers have said it will cost

�70 million a year to exclude all working households from the savings

cap. This measure is a more modest than that. Surely we should be

encouraging people to save, not punishing them for saving. People

work to improve their lives and the lives of their families, they are

not aiming for a bit more spending money each month, but the means to

buy a house, to support their children to university, perhaps

start a business and pay for a child's wedding. To achieve these

aspirations people need to be able to save from their earnings. Clause

five denies them the chance to do that. I'm grateful for him giving

way. Particularly he has highlighted the issue of aspiration.

Just to draw him back to New Clause 3 which does relate to this point

as well about free school meals, does he not find it interesting

that if you look at children and education, the mos successful son

group are Chinese students. The second most successful group are

Chinese children on free school meals. It's not about money it is

how we send out a message in Government about aspiration and

ambition. That is what the ethos of this Bill does. It should be

encouraging aspiration, but if it prevents people from saving it will

undermine aspiration and that exactly the point. We want to

change this also it will allow people, even on Universal Credit,

to save. We argued is, everybody should be encouraged to save, not

punished for having saved in the way clause five currently will

impose that punishment. The Secretary of State needs to agree

with us as well. He made the point in 2008, a policy is not just about

how little you learn, it is about how little you own. If we want

people to work their way out of poverty in the way the honourable

gentleman suggests, and I agree with him about that, we need to

offer people the chance to save. If the Government presses ahead with

making saving on a low income impossible, then I am afraid the

phrase, compassionate Conservatism will have been revealed as a sham.

I hope the members' offer so it will the similar reasons, share my

concern about the discouragement of self-employment in the bill. The

schedule 1 covers self-employed people. Ministers in that provision

are making the assumption self- employed people will be earning a

minimum wage for every hour that Anyone with even a passing

knowledge of knowing what is involved in starting up will know

that that is absurd. Many self- employed people work extraordinary

hours and earned hardly anything at all as the establish their business.

Their income will fluctuate hugely month-by-month. The assumption they

will earn the minimum wage for every aware that the work and

therefore have the universal credit reduced accordingly is absurd. That

is why, the Chartered Institute For taxation has warned that this will

be much less reporter for self- employment that the current one.

Our amendment seeks to align the Universal Credit definition for

those self employed with of those in tax credits. In the tax credit

system, at the moment allowances are made for investment in business

assets and equipment and trading losses which can be set against

other income. Him those arrangements reflect the reality of

being self-employed. The idea that you are earning a minimum wage for

every hour the work in self employment is an illusion. If it is

not amended the bill will destroy the very effective support that the

tax credit system offers to self- employment at the moment. On this

specific issue of the self-employed, it is important to understand that

the current level is not as simple as he makes out. A self-employed

individual can invest money to machinery and white of their profit.

It is like the breeding resentment when they can then get family

credit. This does not work in the same way as a tax credit system. It

treats you as if you were earning at least the minimum wage for every

arid you could into your business. I know you are genuinely interested

in the position of the self employed, but he will know that it

is absurd to suggest that from day one of starting up a inset

employment you are earning by the minimum wage. You may have months

when you learn nothing at all. The tax credit system reflects that.

relation to the self-employed, I do support the self-employed and I

want the universal self-employed to support them as well. We need to

recognise the system when somebody sets up in business in order to

breed for a will. It is absurd that that sort of business is supported.

I am sorry to hear him belittling self-employment. The reality is,

for many people, including people who have lost their jobs, a move

into self-employment is the right thing to do. Over time they are

able, not to breed rabbits, but to develop a serious business and

earned money out of it. We should not be ridiculing them. There is a

real problem, one of many, with their arrangements that this bill

puts for words, it so badly weakens and undermines the support that is

currently available for self- employment. We do not also agree

that one of their attractions of supporting self-employment is that

it offers help for those that find it difficult to work in their usual

market. Women and a disabled people, those that cannot get structured

work. We know that there is a long- standing tradition in some of our

ethnic-minority communities of finding self-employment as the best

way to sustain economic independence. My honourable friend

is absolutely right. This is a crucial part of our economy. This

is the two are for many people. -- it through for many people. Many

people does one the opportunity to build a business for themselves. It

is crucial that the system supports them. Universal credit, I am afraid,

Wilmot. That is a real worry. It does fly in the face of government

a statement of support for self employment. I am quite surprised in

terms of the Commons just made, my understanding is the right

honourable member is now talking about supporting businesses. How

does this fit in with the proposals to support for childcare? I made it

clear, in my view, the priority in childcare support she be to

maintain the support for those who are receiving it at the moment.

There is a case for extending that support to others, but if that is

to be done, I can see the case for it, there needs to be funding

provided to do it. What you cannot do is take support away from one

group, making work impossible for them, in order to support another

group. That appears to be, if only we knew what the government's

policy was on child care we would have a proper debate, that appears

to be with their government is heading. They have not had the

ability to put a policy together and tell us what it is. They

honourable members Pratt suggested that to many self-employed people

are earning a negligible about or are under declaring their profits.

One of the problems with the Bill is that it will force many self-

employed people... I think it is important to correct the record, I

did not state that they were under declaring. I said that the capital

allowance allows self-employed reduced the profits to nothing.

That is a long-standing feature of the tax system for businesses

generally. We should be encouraging investment. I would see that as a

strength of the current system that that kind of necessary investment

is supported. He is right in the sense that the universal credit

would completely remove all that. I am afraid it will be a far less

supportive system for self- employment and the current one.

is important to understand that a capital allowance system has been

changed in the last few years. You could not previously claimed 100%

allowances. The net profits could make a business go down to nothing.

We must support self-employed but not for those to make the decisions

for that purpose of universal credit. I was not quite clear from

that whether he does or not. We have had a capital allowances

introduced recently. This will encourage enterprise. One of the

problems with the bill as it stands will be that in many cases self-

employed people will be very, very strongly pressured to lie about the

hours they have worked. They are not going to admit to having worked

18 I was a day, as some are doing, because they will then lose pound-

for-pound from their universal credit because it will be assumed

for every one of those 18 hours in the day they have earned at least

the minimum wage. This is a bad policy and it needs to be changed.

Amendment 33, this may cause some puzzlement. Many will not know that

the Government intends to remove pension credit from people over

pensionable age who have a spouse's under pensionable age. It has not

been announced it anywhere. The pensions minister has not told us

about it. He it is, buried in the middle of all places as scheduling

to on page 114 of this bill. If the older person was living alone, they

would receive pension credit. They will in future be penalised because

they have a younger spouse. This is a new couples penalty which we had

been insured the Conservative Party wanted to stamp out. The Secretary

of State earlier on said once again he wanted to remove couples

penalties from the system. Here he is inventing a new one. This will

change pension entitlement for some couples with very little notice. In

some couples, or by a substantial sum. What I would say to ministers

is that if they want to change their arrangements then they should

set a doubt openly. It should be in the Pensions Bill. There should be

filled discussion for the change. They should not be trying to sneak

it past us in this schedule. We have now established that of the

610,000 recipients of pension credit with a partner, almost

100,000 have a Watermead Country Park aged under 60. As a measure of

how much each of those couples is set to lose, this is over �100 per

week. For each year it that the couple is in receipt of this, the

stand to lose over �5,000. You will remember week have already debated

this. Is it his party's policy that people under retirement age who

happen to have a partner who is over retirement age should, through

that partner, be able to access means-tested help from the state.

Mr Deputy Speaker, in government we set out their arrangements for

pension credit as they currently stand. Those arrangements are made

a sense. If there is a case the Government wants to make for

changing those arrangements, I am simply suggesting to the House that

the need to announce that and stand-up openly and say that we

have decided that in future you cannot have pension credit if your

spouse is less than pensionable age. I thought it would have been in the

Pensions Bill. We were right we were able to spot it. We had a

discussion about it in committee. It is not an example of the

Government being open, far from it. I think they seem to have hoped the

goods -- slippage through and nobody would notice. For those

couples where there is a substantial age gap, in 40% the

partner will be younger than 55, more than five years gap, then this

could represent an enormous loss. Thank you. Can I take you back to

that key question, we are talking about people of working age who

would be in receipt her in their household of means tested benefits

for the state without having an obligation to look for work. Is it

his policy that those people should not have the obligation to look for

work and their household should be able to receive means-tested

benefits from the state? I simply put to him that as far as I can see

their arrangements for pensions and credit have worked perfectly well

up until now it. My case is that if the Government wants to change the

rules for pension credit and discriminate for people with spices

less than of pension age, they should do so openly. It should have

been in the Pensions Bill. Why was it not in the year? Instead it was

slipped into this schedule in this bill. No minister, until asked,

said anything. I find the right honourable gentleman for giving way.

I am a little unclear as to whether his position is that this is wrong

in principle and he disagrees with it, are whether he agrees with it

up things it should have been announced with fanfare. I certainly

think it should have been announced. Our amendment proposes that this

amendment is removed. I will be interested to hear what the

Government's response is. If a retired person of 66 years of age

is married to a spouse who is 45 years of age, she should be able to

not have to work and be able to have a double claiming of pension

credit, is that correct? It is not. Any income to the household from a

working spouse will be counted in the household income for pension

credit purposes. My case is that if I changed is made it should be made

openly. I would have thought it should have been in the Pensions

Bill. Forgive me for probing, but I want to press him on this point. If

a household is receiving their elements of pension credit that

gives him the wherewithal to survive, is he actually saying that

a 45-year-old should be able to not work and have no obligation to work

well the household receives means tested benefits and from the state?

It would be helpful to understand I don't recognise the policy he

describes. We have had a long- standing arrangement with pension

credit which seems to work very well. If the Minister has found

abuses of pension credit I will be eager to hear those issues from him

when he responds to this debate. I did notice when he was asked

recently about this by the Member for Leeds West, the pensions

minister said a "we recognise it is important not to undermine the

stability and outcomes for existing pension credit customers, so there

will be no change for couples in receipt of pension credit at the

point of change". That is welcome. So I don't know if the Minister is

satisfied that the abuse he has just mentioned is they are

currently. For couples who have planned around receiving pension

credit and been perfectly reasonably able to do so and are

now approaching retirement, this change, in many cases comes as a

severe shock. So, we will support the principle of universal credit,

despite the holes in the policy and how it will work and despite the

perverse incentives the Government has added on savers and the self-

employed. But this is not, as ministers have frequently claimed,

a panacea for all of the problems in the system. It is therefore

vital that there is sufficient welfare advice available at the

point of transition. People will find any transition difficult, even

one which unlike this, was a simple system. Yet, at precisely the

moment when the Government is embarking on this massive upheaval

to the system, funding for welfare advice is being cut. A large part

of funding for example, Citizens Advice Bureau comes at the moment

through legal aid and the Government has announced that there

will be no legal aid funding for welfare advice at all in the future.

I think that is about a quarter of the current funding for the

Citizen's Advice Bureau comes from that source and it is being taken

away. Most of the rest of the funding comes from local

authorities and that is also been cut. So what is ahead for welfare

advice is the man will rocket, funding will plummet. This is a

perfect storm for advice services. Our amendment 26 therefore requires

the Secretary of State to report before universal credit is

introduced on the availability of welfare advice and is satisfy

himself it is adequate to support people through the transition which

the Government envisages. New clause five aims for clarity about

how claimants will be informed about their universal credit.

Stipulates every claimant should be provided with a record of the

amount of their award, including details of the separate elements

which make it up. I understand the Government does intend to provide

each claimant with the equivalent of a pay slip. I had the Minister

can confirm that in responding to this debate. Well that payslips be

provided on payment, as with payslips for those in work? Will it

be provided directly by the department or through the employer?

Will it set out the various elements of the award, child care,

housing support, support in respect of children and so on? A full

statements would ensure transparency between the Government

and claimants and their thing would be a welcome feature. Amendment 30

addresses support for families with disabled children under universal

credit. It amends clause 10 to assure the amount of these families

receive won't be less than under the current tax credit and benefit

system. My honourable friend raised this very important point in DW p

Questions earlier on this afternoon. Under universal credit, the family

receiving a higher rate care element of the De La will receive

�74.50 through the Severe Disability edition. At first glance,

that seems broadly in line with the current position, but there are

worries because we are told the higher level of the Disability

edition will be operated in the future only as resources allow. So

it is very likely families with severely disabled children well

over time lose out. For families with disabled children not

receiving a higher rate of the care element, the situation looks worse.

The amount available under the Universal Credit disability edition

will be �26.75 a week. As opposed to �53.62 under child tax credit,

so support will be hard. The Minister has justified this in

terms of aligning the support given to children and easing the

transition. But we know that children helped under the

Disability edition won't automatically be helped under adult

universal credit. And the two final amendments, amendments 61 specify

as the elements of universal credit paid in respect of children must be

paid to the designated carer for the children, rather, other than in

prescribed circumstances. This is a crucial amendment to safeguard the

interests of children. Let me quote from the briefing Oxfam sent to

every member of the House, "we know from our work on the ground money

in her household is often unevenly distributed. Women in poor

households can have little or no access to money. As mothers usually

take the main responsibility for clothing and feeding children, it

affects both women and their children and sometimes means women

go without eating themselves in order to pay the bills or put a

meal on the table for their children. This lack of access to

income in their own right leaves women open to the risk of financial

abuse and can reduce their chances of escaping domestic violence. They

argued the bill must be amended to allow payments intended for

children to be labelled as such and to the main carer, which is usually

female.". That will be the effect of amendments 61. Amendment 68

would provide for a minimum amount to be paid to any claimant who has

caring responsibilities. It is vital that people who give up their

time and energy to look after the most vulnerable in our society save

the taxpayer considerable sums in the process and a properly

supported when they move on to Universal Credit in line with help

available at the moment through carer's allowance. I do hope the

Minister will make it clear how he will ensure that happens.

Rehearsing these concerns, let me remind the House this whole project

of universal credit it will depend on an enormous in new IT system,

which the Government claims will be ready in an implausibly short

period of time. In truth, it won't be ready by 20th October 13 as

claimed. Giving rise her to very serious problems as that deadline

arises. -- 2013. I put this question to him on

Committee, and I put it to him again, the Government's approach to

IT is more thought-through and better planned and than the

previous Government which spent a vast amounts of money without any

consideration to what the end and the roots and purpose of the policy

was. This Government is more directed him what it is doing a

should have the I T ready on time and on budget. I will look forward

to reminding him about a Commons when we get two SEP- 2013. The

intention of Universal Credit his work should always paid. Without

decisions, without policies on child care or passport to benefits,

we cannot know it work will always pay. All the indications are is the

Government's, in due course when they finally do put a policy

together, introduce one which will mean for many, work won't pay any

more. On savings, the Government is heading to crush the hopes of many

people in work, on self-employment they will be crushing the hopes of

many of those who want to set up a business for themselves. As Policy

Exchange recently argued in their report, universal credit has been

oversold by ministers and I hope very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, the

House will support our men and so universal credit can support the

aspirations of families across the country.

New clause NC two, child care. The question is new clause to be read a

second time. Mr Chris Grayling. Mr Deputy Speaker, thanks very much.

Let's start with where I started at the beginning of the debate in

committee. What I have listened to for the last while his the right

honourable gentleman really setting out a vast range of measures, of

amendments come of details which he wants to write on to the face of

this Bill. He is of course forgetting, or conveniently

forgetting the first fundamental of this Bill and lessons he himself

taught me 10 years ago when I was first elected to this place, about

the nature of primary legislation and the nature of this piece of

legislation. I remember in committee in his house, as a new

member of Parliament, debating a case of primary legislation and

asking questions about why there was not more detail on the face of

the Bill, proposing amendments. I also remember the right honourable

Templeman in the position of minister at the time, standing

arguing against me, why these shouldn't be put on to the face of

the Bill, it was an Education Bill at the time, why it was enabling

legislation, why it was creating a framework for changes of the

previous Government was looking to put into place and there for all of

my amendments were necessary. So in Committee, today, 10 years later I

find the role is reversed and he is conveniently forgetting all of the

things he told me as a Government minister all those years ago.

Instead telling me I should write all kinds of new details on the

face of primary education at -- legislation I have brought to the

House. I will give way to him. he seriously telling the House that

how the cost of childcare will be supported is a detail? What I am

saying to him is what he said to me those years ago. That many of the

details are dealt with in secondary legislation. What of course is

there in this particular bill is a framework which includes, amongst

other things, provision for there to be a childcare element of

universal credit. We are all agreed it is essential that there should

be a childcare element, in the same way they should be elements

relating to disability, elements relating to other aspects of the

features of our current benefit system that needs to be replicated

in universal credit. I wonder if the Minister would explain why he

expects us and indeed, the general public to accept his statements

about the impact of this huge reform, when so much of the detail

is not known? Is it not reasonable for us to request these fundamental

people will be better off or not? For precisely the same reason that

the right honourable gentleman asked me to support his education

measures 10 years ago and asked me to take on trust, many are the same

kind of things I am being asked by the honourable lady today. The

truth is, we have been completely transparent in setting out the

different stages we have reached in the formulation of universal credit.

We have been transparent about the consultation process has we're are

going through to fill in some of the details of universal credit. We

have been clear and transparent about the principles we are

following. I did go along to one of the meetings the Secretary of State

was kind enough to invite a number of people along about the

Government's proposals for childcare. We were presented with

three different options with selective figures. It was

impossible to tell exactly what it was the Government was proposing

with regard to childcare. I am still none the wiser so it is

difficult to vote on a principle when we don't know what it is the

Government is going to do to implement that principle? Precisely

the point of this is that you don't write numbers onto the face of the

bill and I will come back and talk in detail about the moment been

brought forward in a moment. But the fact is, primary legislation

sets out the framework for these things and what we have done with

her and her select committee members, with members of the

opposition benches, with members of the Government benches, with people

and representative groups outside this place, in child care and other

areas. We have started a process of discussion, which is the best of a

number of options to fit into the framework we are creating. Indeed I

did Mr Deputy Speaker. Very often things are not written on to the

face of the bill and the Minister is right. We usually the

regulations have been published before the Bill goes out of the

House of Commons. Having been criticised in the past regulations

been late, not published, just late, from members on the Government

benches. So where are the regulations so they can be

Parliamentary scrutiny of that aspect of the bill, because that is

I have had this discussion and have brought through some draft

regulations do. This is far more than the previous Government. They

did not bring forward so many regulations. We have brought

forward as much, if not more detail, under this measure than the

previous Government would have done. They did some sensible things, they

brought forward measures, they brought forward their reforms. But

the road a framework into a legislation and filled in the

details with secondary legislation. One of the concerns that has been

raised by children's organisations in Scotland is that not enough

consideration has been given to the difference statutory results that

pertains to childcare in different parts of the UK. Those

organisations are concerned that existing infrastructure may not be

able to cope with increased demand that could arise from universal

credit. I appreciate you do not want to be drawn on the detail but

could he assure us that parents who are unable to access quality

childcare and affordable child care will not face sanction if, through

no fault of their own, they cannot find the child care they need.

already provide childcare for children, universally, through were

school system. No parent with our youngest child under school age can

be subject to any job search related sanctions. It is only once

their youngest child reaches school age that they are subjected to it.

Under the rules that are pursued at the moment and under the provisions

that we have said we then it universal credit, it would be the

case that we would only expect the loan of parents of children at

primary school to do a part-time job that fits in with the hours of

that primary-school. I am slightly concerned to hear him describing

school as a glorified babysitting service. The real pressure. In

relation to this pertains to older children, particularly to out of

school care, that is not covered across the UK by the Child Care Act.

It only applies to England and Wales. I would urge the Minister to

take a closer look at that. We do not penalise parents, particularly

lone parents. We do not require them to pursue work that is out of

keeping with the reality of their childcare responsibilities. I am

not describe this school as a babysitting service. But for a good

part of the year children of school age are at school and do not need

additional childcare. The requirements placed on to those of

parents by JobCentre plus are designed to work around what is

reasonable and what is not reasonable for them to do. We do

not expect lone parents of school- age children to work nation. It is

not our intention to seek to sanction parents around a job

requirement that is unreasonable and unrealistic given their child

care responsibilities. I think the honourable lady wanted to come back

one more time. I was going to ask the Minister on a matter of