Live Work and Pensions Questions House of Commons

If hello and welcome to BBC Parliament's live coverage. The

main business in the Commons today is the rare Welfare Reform Bill.

The legislation will inform from new welfare credit. It also creates

an annual cap on benefits set at the level of average earnings,

currently �26,000 per year. There where report on a U-turn on the

benefits cap. Remember to join me for a rental of the day of both

Houses of Parliament at the record this evening. First, we have

questions to Iain Duncan Smith and Mr Speaker, a message from Her

Majesty the Queen. I have received your address concerning the 90th

birthday of his Royal Highness, the Duke of Edinburgh. It gives me

great pleasure to hear of the loyal affection and regard of the House,

the nation and the Commonwealth in this special occasion, and I

welcome your intention to send the Order! Questions to the Secretary

of State for Work and Pensions. Speaker, with your permission I

will answer this and question 14 together. Work experience and

apprenticeships are central to improving prospects of young,

unemployed people. This year's budget, the Chancellor announced

funding for an additional 80,000 work experience placements. In

addition to that, we have announced a tens of thousands of new

apprenticeships. We will also be providing early access for young

people from the most challenged background to the Work Programme.

am grateful for that. Apart from the record deficit the previous

government also let an extra 270,000 young people unemployed

when the left office. How is the Government working with business to

ensure that new apprenticeships are what hour economy need to tackle

youth an employer -- unemployment. The Government has a very proactive

campaign to engage employers, both working with employees to a

identify it workings Behan's play met -- placements were unemployed

people. My colleagues at the Department for business are working

hard to engage employers with apprenticeships. They are being

successful in doing so and have met their targets for apprenticeships.

I welcome what my right honourable friend has just said about the

importance of apprenticeships. There are 615 unemployed people in

my constituency. What other measures will be put in place to

insure the some people have the skills they need to compete in the

workplace? The other policy we will introduce later in the summer his

work Academies which will provide a mix of short-term training and a

period of work experience but, again designed to provide young

people were the first foothold in the workplace. To give those

without previous qualifications to get a view into employment. May I

congratulate the Minister for his statement and also for his

announcement of the Work Programme comes into force around now. Does

he however except that at this time where there is a shortage of jobs

that they knew providers might well be placing jobs that it is easiest

to get jobs anyway. To insure that those who find it most difficult to

get jobs or do not want to work, that we need a backup stage? Will

the keepers might open about the future jobs fund? -- will he keep

his mind Open? I am very grateful for those comments. I do except

there is a challenge pleasing some people into work. That is why we

have created a different structure to reflect this challenge. I hear

what he says. I think the problem with the future jobs fund was the

cost. In this financial time, we need to see what not only works but

what is affordable. Will the Government reinstate Labour's jobs

guarantee, ensuring that young people are offered a job or

training scheme after a six-month out of work? What she does not

understand is that governments do not create jobs. Governments have

to create an environment where jobs are created by the private sector.

Our job is to ensure that unemployed people are in the best

position to take advantage of jobs when they are created. One of their

encouraging things is the private sector is creating more full-time

jobs. Question number two. We recognise the vitally important

role that child care place in supporting parents. We set out a

process with options for childcare within universal credit. We have

also committed to spend all the money at present available for

childcare. It remains our attention that everybody moving into work

will be better off when the child care his imprint -- included.

the Minister ensure that parents are working within 16 hours a week

will continue to get childcare support? The plan the we have got

to, the purpose is to make sure that the money we have is spread so

that parents taking those choices of a differential I was would find

themselves not just 16 hours, but across the board able to going to

work and get support necessary. The answer to that question is yes.

the Minister tell the House the effect that universal credit will

have one child poverty? The wider poverty is that they universal

credit is a static system. We estimate we will have the effect of

list -- lifting 900,000 people out of poverty. Many of those will be

children. It is worth remembering that under the present childcare

systems, are they are at least 100,000 out there who do not get

the child care that they are eligible for. Under universal

credit, the take-up will be much better and much higher. Universal

credit will have a better effect. The Secretary of State has been

right to recognise the support for him childcare is key to whether

parents are better off in or out of work. He promised the Welfare

Reform Bill committee that the Government's proposals on child

care support would be available before the bill left the committee.

That promise has been broken. He has only been able to provide at

discussion of the options. When will he come up with the policy?

will get a grip the moment his team decide whether they decide if they

are or in favour or against the bill. The Leader of the Opposition

has today moved like a worm and has decided he is both for and against

it. The whole point about bringing forward other proposals is that he

and others have a chance to look at them and decide whether they agree

with some of them or do not. We will come forehead after that

consultation and make clear what our final proposals are. I think

that is rather fear. -- fear. Question number four. Mr Speaker,

we estimate that the total annual cost it two Great Britain of

workplace injuries is currently in order of �20 billion. In the

workplace last year there was 152 fatalities, 26,000 major injuries

and over 800,000 people suffer as a consequence of work-related illness.

As a consequence of the Cup's, a large number of inspections have

been withdrawn. How will the Government is sure these figures

are increased year on.? As a former union official, he will know that

the biggest challenge we face is of those employers who do cut corners

and breaks rules. We will have a health inspections on at those

employers who are not playing by the book and endangering their

employees. That is where I want our regulatory effort to be focused.

my honourable friend has just said, you will agree that health and

safety rep -- regulation applied correctly is important. Does he

also agree that applied inappropriately it can cost jobs

and damage our economy? absolutely agree. I believe health

and safety is extremely important to get right, as the honourable

member suggest we need to protect people against real dangers in the

workplace. If we have a system which has over-bureaucratic it

would lead to the closure of businesses and will cost jobs. We

need to get the right balance. Number five. Transitional placement

is being in assured to make sure they will be no loss borne to

Universal Credit per circumstances remain the same. Thank you. I not

the Secretary of State's reply, has the not taking into account the

criticisms made of this policy by family action? It will not apply to

new recipients. Changes in circumstances leading to loss of

cash protection are not being sufficiently did find. By failing

to operate cash protection in line with inflation, many people could

I hear what the Honourable Gentleman says. I would have

thought he would have welcomed the idea that we are planning to cash

protect those already in receipt of other benefits. I don't think I

really need to take too many lessons from his party. When they

scrapped the 10 p tax band, they did not cash protect anybody.

the Secretary of State accept that in insuring people are cash

protected he is managing to bring in the universal benefit which

would be almost impossible to do, and that benefit will be of benefit

to the work incentive people up and I am glad my Honourable Friend is

more welcoming than the Honourable Gentleman. The truth is that cash

protection is there to protect people who win the circumstances

have changed Universal Credit they would have lost out slightly, but

they won't, because we will make sure they are smoothed into

Universal Credit unless there is a significant change. That is a

positive gesture from the government. If the other government

did not cash protect people when they scrapped the 10 p starting

rate. Not withstanding that the government is going to provide a

provisional protection, can the Secretary of State explain why in

the context of new claimants their plans to abolish the disability

element of child credit and replace it with a disability edition will

mean a cut of 50 % to families with disabled children. According to

family action, and that is not this side of the house, this will mean

that families with one disabled child are in line to lose �1,400

per annum, people in great need. Why are disabled children are

buried and the cost of this Government's welfare reforms?

have to say that they are not. Hour adjustments to this have been

meaning there are more disabled children in families benefiting

from a high degree from the changes we have made and they will work

well with Universal Credit. The whole idea about bringing more

disabled people into the workforce has to be a good thing, unless she

disagrees with that. Mr Speaker, we recognise that poverty is about

more than income and more than their deprivation indicator, and

this considers both financial and on financial elements such as ill

health and social isolation and used alongside low-income it will

give a greater understand and of pensioners experience of poverty.

am proud that many people chose my constituency to retire to and am

grateful for the Government's efforts to arrest the levels of

pensioner poverty left by the previous government. But this

threatens to be undermined by double-digit price rises by energy

companies. What more can be done to address this? My Honourable Friend

is right be keeping a home warm is an important part of the standard

of living in pensioners and this is why it is in the broader measure we

are undertaking and I would echo the words of my Right Honourable

Friend the Energy Secretary is said that faced with double-digit price

rises, and other people could shop around so they could use the market

Pensioner poverty was tackled by the last government with great

regret, but how can we be assured that in changing any measures a

pensioner poverty that the government isn't simply trying to

cover up a failure of its own policies into the future. What

assurances can he give to the House about these changes? I am grateful

for the question. The idea of measuring pensioner poverty in

terms of actual deprivation is supplementary and we will continue

to publish both, but I'm sure he would accept that having a penny or

two above an arbitrary income line does not mean you have a good

standard of living, and we aim to tackle all facets on quality of

Mr Speaker, on 21st March I announced an immediate review of

health and safety regulation with a view to finding ways to simplify

the regulatory burden on business. That review is being chaired by the

professor of risk management at King's College London. He published

a call for evidence on 20th May, and the closing days 29th July and

we hope to publish the findings of the review later this year. I thank

my right honourable friend. Some of the most inappropriate and

burdensome health and safety recommendations on business come

from unqualified cowboy consultants. My Right Honourable Friend the Home

Secretary is getting rid of cowboy wheel clampers, what is the

government doing to tackle cowboy Health and Safety Consultants?

Either emerge agree with my Honourable Friend. -- I very much

agree. We launched an online register of qualified health and

safety consultants provide -- precisely with a view of stamping

out cowboys. I want other businesses to be working with

qualified people capable of advising them on what the law says

rather than what people who would like to argue it does something

different claims it says. While the minister is considering what reform

might be necessary to health and safety, I hope he will take into

account the problems that the Health and Safety Executive have

had. In my constituency there was a major fire incident over the last

few days which has covered much of the industrial area in acrid black

smoke as well as a residential areas, and I hope he can give me an

assurance that the Health and Safety Executive will work together

with the local authority, the council and the fire service and

everybody else in the town, and we have reached the conclusion and

should be closed down. I am aware of the unfortunate incidents in the

constituency. I cannot comment specifically asked about the

investigation they can assure him that the Health and Safety

Executive is investigating carefully what is happening and

lessons must be learnt that it understands the we should be

concentrating resources on genuine The government is committed to

reducing disincentives in the benefit system and the Universal

Credit has a disregard for couples which will help them keep more of

their earnings in work. It is our intention overtime to work further

A widow and widower each with two children who form a new

relationship could be �9,000 worse off as a result of the proposed

benefits can. Given reported confusion among some ministers over

the weekend about the fate of the benefits cap, can the Secretary of

State assure us that such a couple would not face a penalty? Clearly,

as the Honourable Lady made out, we do not want to make anyone's face

further penalties and our plan is to make sure that over this period

time we work to erode the couple penalty, but it's worth reminding

the Honourable Lady quite specifically what happened under

the last government because it is important the baseline we have

accepted. It was pointed out that the couple needed about 75 % the

income of two people together as singles, but under the last

government they left them only 60 % of those earnings, in other words

they took far more than most other countries did and that is the

reason we are in difficulty and I think she should reflect on that

I am pleased to tell the House that as of today all bar four of the

contract package Jerez for the work programme are now fully operational

and that many thousands of claimants have already been

referred to the work programme and I am also pleased to say that in

one area where a provider has been quick off the ground they have

achieved the first to job outcomes. I thank my Right Honourable Friend

for his comments there. Will he join me in congratulating the

providers that are participating in the work programme and does he

agree with me that by involving a diverse range of providers we can

tackle welfare dependency and worthlessness that grew and the

Labour so we can ensure that work does pay. I absolutely agree with

my Honourable Friend. One of the things that is encouraging about

the work programme is the vast diversity of organisations taking

part, from big international organisations to small businesses

took some prestigious charities like the Prince's Trust and

individual localise charities. There is even a garden project in

Yorkshire and with many of our local colleges. Together they can

make a huge difference in what is a revolutionary approach to long-term

unemployment in this country. minister will remember about the

exchange of correspondence with the select committee about to be

transferred cover. Now the work programme has happen there is

confusion about which posts will enjoy the protection and that seems

to have continued with contractor is in the same area, one saying it

does apply, and others saying it doesn't do exactly the same workers

in some of the sub-contracted companies. I would ask the Minister

to clarify exactly as to what positions will have that protection

and what the rules are with regard to this fund for people working in

the work programme. What the Honourable Lady needs to remember

is that in many cases the programmes will replace it are

different programmes. There will be cases where it does not apply. We

have been very clear in saying to the providers it is a matter

between the providers themselves, the individuals on the former

employers to resolve where it applies. It is not for the

department to offer legal advice to provide us. Can I welcome the speed

to which the work programme contract has been put together, but

it is the case that some voluntary organisations in my constituency

who took an interest in a have not been successful. Could the minister

reassure them that there will continue to be opportunities for

them to play a role in relation to getting people back into work in a

more informal way. I can. There will be further opportunities to

contract has to provide support to the Department, but we do not

believe that the supply chains to the work programme providers are

fixed in stone and in perpetuity. The nature of the programme makes

it desirable for the contract is to look for the best in the business

and getting people in the business. I am sure it will find his way back

into the programme even if it is Mr Speaker. The Independent office

for budget responsibility is forecasting unemployment of four

from its current level of 2.5 million to around 2 million by 2015.

There is no separate forecasts for youth unemployment, but over the

medium term it will follow a broadly similar trend. What's less

than 14 % of the population in my constituency are aged between 18

and 24, this accounts for 35 % of people looking for work in the

constituency. What is the Minister doing to ensure that private

contractors in the new work programme went simply cherry-pick

those areas of the country where it is easy to get young people into

work and ignore less performing economic areas like my own

constituency. I would like to reassure the Honourable Member that

one of the things we looked out for was whether we would see a

difference in the level of interest between different areas of the

country depending on the nature of the local labour market. That was

not the case. The competition was intense, and the presence of the

work programme offering people support after nine months and after

three months of unemployment, combined with the additional

support provided through JobCentre plus and work experience

opportunities will, as the months go by, make a significant

difference to their prospects. my Honourable Friend agree that the

best way to deal with youth unemployment is not just through

the 250,000 apprenticeships, but through the roll-out of the 24

University technical schools around the country? I do indeed agree with

him, but when you look at those schools and the increased numbers

of apprenticeships and the work experience scheme and the support

provided through the work programme, if you look at the additional

measures announced recently, what this shows is we have a government

now that recognises the problem of youth unemployment and understand

its severity and is doing something about it. Does the Minister think

the record level of youth unemployment is being made worse by

the botched ending of the connections courier service in

which the service what went wrong, no replacement for Tim place and no

transistor three plan put in place? What I would say is that the

Honourable Gentleman is talking about the causes for youth

unemployment and should look back to when the increase started in

2003/04 and he should ask a question, why did their policies

Throughout the development of the new personal independence payment

which will replace Disability Living Allowance, we have had

extensive discussions with disabled people, their families and

organisations representing them. Many organisations into how

Disability Living Allowance can fail to support people has been

discovered. We will continue to try and help support disabled people.

On the recent hardest her -- head March I met with constituents who

had the impression that this allowance would end all together

and not be replaced by the pest not independence payment. Does the

Minister agree that in representing these disabled constituents,

organisations have to ensure that they communicate clearly with those

who may be affected, some of the most vulnerable in our were society.

I thank my friend for these comments. It is important that

organisations that were with us in the development of this new payment

use that have to make sure people are well informed. We need a new

approach to Disability Living Allowance. We are still waiting to

hear exactly what the opposition's plan would be. The organisation of

which they honourable lady spoke of sounded like organisations

representing people whose condition is a condition which does not the

hugely. There are people on Disability Living Allowance who

have conditions are like, for example, multiple sclerosis, we can

be hugely better and hugely worse. How much conversation has she had

with organisations representing people with fluctuating conditions

as well as those with conditions which are progressive. Thank you

for your question. I only read them out quickly was to not occur the

wrath of Mr Speaker. I would like to reassure her that I understand

the point she is making. I am meeting with organisations dealing

with people were who have fluctuating conditions. We are

looking to see how we can make sure that the new personal independence

plan has something built into it which serves people with these

fluctuating conditions. Number 13. Our proposed changes will equalise

women's pension age with a men's more rapidly. Women born at -- or

another 6th March 1954 will have a pension age of 56 and others will

have a pension age of up to one month less. I highlight the plight

of 33,000 women born in one month in 1954 who will be the worst

affected under the new pension retirement rules. Half a million

women in total will be affected, to the effect of one year or more than

expected. When the get their pensions they will be a lot better

off than they would have been under the party opposite. But what can we

do, for this particular group, he will have to wait an additional two

years for the pension? honourable friend raised this

question in the debate last Wednesday when we were startled

when she declared an interest in the question. In terms of the group

of 33,000 women, is the where to address that specific group, we

would find that a woman of one month before or later than that

would then ask for a change. The short answer is that to delay the

whole thing to 2020 as some have suggested would require 20 -- �10

billion. Their early day motion calling the Government to rethink

these unfair changes to the pension system have been signed by 180

honourable members. More than 10,000 people have presented a

petition to Downing Street asking the government to think again and

the campaign is backed by charities. If it Government can U-turn on

other things, then surely they can listen and act upon the concerns of

women approaching retirement now with fear and trepidation. To the

extent that we know what it honourable ladies policy is, it

appears to be to put it off for a decade. Unfortunately, one of the

problems with the approach of the last government on many difficult

issues was to put them off and assume that somebody else would

deal with it. This would be another �10 billion which would have to be

paid by tomorrow's taxpayers. It does she think that is a fair

burden? Question number 15. No such estimate has been made, and I

should perhaps remind the lady that Disability Living Allowance are not

related to a medical diagnosis. They are about considering people

as individuals and looking at their impact of the disabilities they

have to live individual lives. -- independent lives. They do not

necessarily correlate to an individual diagnosis. In the course

of the committee, the Minister indicated that the reason for doing

this was not about savings and said he did not expect to make any

savings from this proposal. People who fall ill suddenly with onset

conditions and do occur additional costs, not people who are long-term

unemployed or welfare dependent, will she say why she is making this

change if it is not to make savings? I think what I said it was

that there would be some savings but they are modest. The principle

of a six-month qualifying period was not intended ever to deny

disabled people help us in the short-term. That's comes from means

tested support. Will my honourable friend tell us if the six-month

qualifying period will allow for special cases such as a those with

a terminal illness you may not survive six-month? I can reassure

my honourable friend that that will be the case and that will be a

provision that will carry on from the Disability Living Allowance.

am sure this is not the Government's intention to leave

nearly is 7,000 cancer patients potentially up to �94 a week worse

off. Today Macmillan Cancer Trust warned that this was their

consequence of the policy. Can this be modified? The honourable lady

has raised the issue with regards to employment support allowance. We

will obviously be making sure that people who are in the most

difficult circumstances continued to receive the support that the

required through the support group. What is absolutely vital is that we

do not analysed people based on the condition that they have got, we

look at the problems that the encounter living independent lives.

Number 16. Both the department and myself received a number of

communications from customers and their representatives asking about

our policies on the use of 0845 numbers and whether we have

considered changing to other numbers. I have asked the

Department to undertake an internal review about areas of those numbers

to see what other options are available. Given that benefit plans

normally have no access to at landline and calls from mobile can

cost as much as 40 p and the country be kept waiting, should we

not do more and consider talking to their television -- telephone

helpline to make faster progress? agree with honourable gentleman, we

do know offer a ring back service to anybody who is concerned about

the cost of the call they are making. There is a genuine issue

here and it is one I have asked the department to look at to see if

there are better options available. No. 17. A number of State colder

groups have expressed concern about the changes we propose also said a

majority agree that we need to increase the state pension age more

quickly. I wonder if the Minister is aware that 1,200 women in my

constituency are going to lose out, does he understand that they are

angry and feel cheated that pension payments that they had every reason

to believe that they have paid for and where to, well no not be paid

to them. What does he say to those 1,200 women? One of their very

significant changes that those women will have seen through the

course of their working life is a generation ago they would have

expected to drop a state pension for six years less than they will

now draw. They will still get the state pension for exactly the same

light of time as someone a generation ago would have expected

to. We are trying to beat the year. -- beefier. The state pension in

2020, bringing it forward to 2018 would not help the government's

target of getting the public finances in balance by 2015, it

will impact a shop -- small number of women. Will they revert to their

coal Allison agreement? This has been raised before. When he is

correct to say this, I will draw his attention to the national debt

at their end of this Parliament under previous projections was 1.4

trillion pounds. If we were to delay this change it is another �10

billion we would have to add to that. What noticed as the Minister

believe is required if changes to the state pension age? I am

grateful for this being raised. We ask is in our green paper. We are

looking at future changes to 67 and 68. We believe that has to happen

sooner. We are reflecting on what the current balance is on giving

fear notice. Question 18. I would like to answer this question and in

19 together. The quality impact together was published on 9th May

1920 11. It does not contain a specific estimate on impact on

homelessness cos we cannot anticipate that. One of the big

problems across the board for people under the age of 35, who

meet not be able to reduce their housing costs are and therefore

could face eviction. That would put more pressure on local authorities

which are already under pressure because of the lack of affordable

housing. Has the Government got any plan to help local-authority is me

does increased pressures? We do. My honourable friend who has that

strong track records in this House has raised an important point. We

will added �190 million to local authority payments. This money will

help difficult cases. I welcome to answer, but is it not more likely

that a third or more or of this budget will be required for the

disabled? That is without other vulnerable groups. Is there not a

case for exempting certain groups from is altogether? I can assure my

friend that certain disabled groups have a blanket exemption. Those who

qualify for the severe disablement premium are exempted. There is a

particular problem in will rule area it -- areas. So North Wales

Housing Association has pointed out that, in particularly seaside towns,

there is no flexibility. Although a GMOs are one response to this

problem, young people will have arranged to look at. Single people

aged 25 up to 34, one-third lives with their parents. That may be an

option for some. Some may use the government's rent a Room scheme.

Some may be able to rent a room from a social landlords, something

we are looking to explore or more. Mr Gerry Sutcliffe. Number 22.

of the things I was surprised to discover in the past few years is

that the department does not keep any record of the nationality of

people who claim benefits. This is something we are now moving to

address. That is indeed a scandal that we do not know how many EU

nationals are claiming benefits. Is it not completely wrong for any

eastern European citizen to be working in this country with his

family and children back home in Poland or for ever and claiming and

receiving child benefit at the British taxpayer's expense?

Speaker, my friend pits his finger on one of the anomalies of the

European system. This causes concern around Europe. I have had

many conversations of the last few months with fellow ministers and

there is lamenting debate about their it need for real changes

which was set out when and we're benefit should be paid. Number 23.

Mr Speaker, they issue of youth unemployment is one which is a

great matter of importance to this Government and the nation. We are

taking urgent steps to seek to Despite excellent apprenticeship

schemes, in Wales, youth unemployment is sadly still the

highest percentage of unemployment of young people in the United

Kingdom as a whole. Given what he did say earlier about potential

jobs being created, in the absence of a strong regional policy and the

scrapping of the Labour job schemes, how can he guarantee that jobs to

young people will go where most young people are unemployed?

need two things to solve the problem of youth unemployment, a

strategy for growth, which was at the heart of the Budget put forward

by the chance of the Exchequer few weeks ago, and we will continue to

seek measures which encourages business to create jobs in this

country. Alongside that, we will continue to pursue measures through

work experience, the work programme and other support for young people

to make sure they are as well- equipped as possible to take

advantage of the vacancies whether Mr Speaker, last week we launched

the biggest single welfare-to-work programme that the UK as ever had,

in contrast to a number of confusing and what prescriptions,

we are adopting a flexible approach that will engage paying providers

by results, which we have explained, and giving them the freedom to

innovate. We believe it will deliver effective and cost-

effective support to help claimants with sustainable employment. Rising

fuel costs, 20 % VAT, cuts to winter fuel allowance and local

government budgets will all hit vital frontline services used by

pensioners. I would be grateful if the minister would explain to the

pensioners of West Lancashire why the government needs a new material

deprivation indicator to tell them what they already know, that the

policies of this Conservative government are hitting them over

and over again. Mr Speaker, the Honourable Lady is right that we

did not reverse Labour's planned cut in the winter fuel payment, we

did reverse into the cold weather payment which pays �25 per week

every time the temperature falls below zero and we ended up paying

over �400 million to Kohl, vulnerable pensioners, money that

the party opposite would not have spent. In the mindset of the big

society, what is there that the figures for the work programme have

come from the voluntary sector. There is huge evidence that two of

the main providers are voluntary sector based, and they will beat in

the voluntary sector. This will be the biggest boost to the big

society and now we hit the opposite side are rethinking themselves on

welfare and we hope they have good things to say about that as well.

Mr Speaker, the cap on overall benefits and the Welfare Reform

Bill is an important part. Yesterday it was said on television

there would be a significant U-turn and there would be exemptions, and

pressed on the detail the set this, well, it's where ever we think that,

you know, there's something happening that is on Rhys -- and

desirable. I don't wish to be pedantic, but that is not a clear

plan for reform. Will we have the amendments for the new proposal on

the table by Wednesday? It is good to see him again. I'm glad he has

finally made it to the dispatch box. He should not believe everything he

reads in the media. The reality is that this policy is not changing

because it is a good policy. The reality is that nearly half of

those of working age are working her less than 26,000 a year and

they pay taxes to see some people on benefits earning more than that

figure. I say to the Right Honourable Gentleman that as we

proceed with this through the report and third reading it, I look

forward to seeing him support this and support and vote for the

welfare bill on third reading because he believes that those on

benefits should not be earning more than those who are living and

working hard. His welfare reform bill would be easier to support if

we knew what difference it was going to make in the real world,

but we don't know what it means for child care, people with

disabilities and now we don't know what it will mean for the benefit

cap either. Since the Secretary of State took office their housing

benefit bill has been projected to go up by the Treasury by a �1

billion. Now if he can't tell us what his policy on exemptions is,

will he tell us what the policy is actually going to cost the

taxpayer? As I said to him, we are not changing the policy. If my

Noble Friend was referring to what we are already doing with housing

benefit, which is a discretionary payment to make sure that the

policies these dim properly. Hang on a second, he can't have it both

cutting housing benefit enough. He would like to talk to these

honourable friend the things we are cutting it too much. This is the

problem with the opposition right now. They have it all ways. Today

we have a speech from the leader of the opposition in which they will

be tough on benefit claimants and those not working will not get

social housing. I simply say the whole idea of welfare and change is

a lot of wriggly worm you turns from the opposition. If we are to

maximise progress we needs Pete the progress -- questions and pithy

answers. Honourable Members have raised the issue of women born in

1954 will have to wait two years extra for their pension, so why

should they find themselves out of work after the later retirement

level, so at the jobseeker's allowance would be poor. How will

this relate to disadvantage women in this way? Dr Noble Lady is right

that there is often an interaction between the rules for benefits such

as jobseeker's allowance, but the point I would make is that where

people of state pension age has risen, the rules are as they have

always been. There will be provision if it is jobseeker's

allowance or an occupational pension. We are not talking about

leaving people with nothing to live on. The mental health charity Mind

have suggested changes to the work capability assessment to capture

the complexity of those suffering from mental illness. Wish -- what

reassurance can the Minister give us about how the process can be

enhanced to reflect those needs? have already introduced mental

health champions in the network of health care professionals carrying

out the assessments, and we believe that the changes introduced at the

start of April will mean more people with mental health

conditions and the support group. But we now have a new set of

proposals from the charity which we asked them to bring forward to us

and we are considering them carefully and had to respond in the

near future. One important use for crisis loans is to cover

emergencies where claimants have no money and there is a delay in the

pay of their benefits or tax credits. Because applications are

limited to three per year there are already families in my constituency

who face the prods -- prospect of the route being closed down, not

because they have failed, because of systemic failures. Could a more

flexible approach be brought in? recognise it is a nonsense that we

have one part of the benefit system lending people money because they

don't get their benefits on time. This has grown under matter -- and

control. This matter will be dealt with by advance payments of the

Universal Credit and clearly the idea that people can have multiple

crises, up to 10 a year, is not a rational system which is why we are

reforming it. Will my right Honourable Friend update the house

on the progress of the work Club's initiative? If I may, can I pay

tribute to my have a boyfriend for his work in establishing a national

network of work clubs. There are several -- can I pay tribute to my

Honourable Friend. There are several clubs around and we have a

strong network that will make a real difference to people looking

for clubs -- jobs and I hope their numbers will grow. I opposed

changes to rental work in my eight constituencies which resulted in

the closure of a local factory. For will the Minister go back to the

former employees of the factory in Woolwich and tell me how many found

jobs and are in employment before he goes ahead with any further

closures? I would like to reassure the Honourable Gentleman that the

policy of this government is to continue with the modernisation

plan and that they have not been further closures of those factories.

What we will be doing is carefully looking at the recommendations of

the report issued last week, which included recommendations of the

future of that firm, and will consult on that before we go for it

and that could include what he has suggested. On behalf of my

Caulfield Job Club in my constituency, a strictly voluntary

effort to help people back into work and on behalf of GB job clubs

which is a charity which supports other networks of clubs, can I

asked the Government what they would do to make sure the state

does not crush this voluntary provision. The one thing I have

made sure is that there are note the Thames in JobCentre plus and

the dw pay that there are no monitoring systems. We are there to

provide local encouragement and sometimes initial funding to clubs

to get running her but after that it is very much up to them to shape

their destiny and it is for us to champion their success but not

interfere. The WP's own research on the future job funds publish last

month demonstrated the value of government subsidy for young people

during an economic crash. Does the government minister agree with the

research of his own department and therefore reconsider the

possibility of a word subsidy for young people if levels of

employment do not improve for them in the coming year. The whole point

of that was to look at what you get as value-for-money out of how many

people you get back to work. We inherited a terrible situation from

the last government with youth unemployment there had been rising

for a number of years, so the programmes we are bringing forward

that include the work programmes and special provisions in the work

programme and others like the innovation fund will help them more

than lavishing huge amounts of money for little return. I would

like to ask the Minister what the government was doing to reduce

conflict between parents in their dealings with the Child Support

At the heart of the reforms we are looking at at the moment is

reducing conflict by having support for parents to work collaboratively

at the time of a family break down. That is something all sides of the

house can welcome and has certainly been welcomed by those

organisations working with families and the charitable sector.

Would the minister outlined to the House what the terms of reference

are given by the DW p and what the cost of the report was and if the

main beneficiary was implemented. slightly missed the end of that

question, but we have commissioned the report to look at generally the

way employment programmes were supporting severely disabled people

which included all the programmes that are currently run by the

department. It is a very fragmented bunch of programmes and I think an

excellent job has been done in pulling it together and

recommending the strategy and the way forward. We did remunerate

radar because they had to have additional help to support them in

the running of their business while they were helping us. I welcome the

proposed reform of the benefits system, but how will Universal

Credit help people who have been out of work to take up part-time or

flexible work if they are unable to take up a full-time job for any

reason? I am glad my Honourable Friend has brought the matter

forward. The reality about Universal Credit is that it is

aimed at those who cannot take on full-time work or those who are

transition in back to full work having been out of work for a while.

It will help everybody take up work at a number of different hours and

suits their own conditions and is particularly good for lone parents

and they will do better than they do at the moment. The government

benefit cap will force many of my constituents to leave their homes

for many years, up rooting families for jobs and communities. According

to his colleagues -- colleague, such people are making lifestyle

choices. Is that the government view? The position on the benefit

cap is straightforward. It is quite simple, and that is to say that

those who are on benefit should not receive more money than those who

are working and paying their taxes. They are of course exemptions to

that. We are said those who are making the right efforts to get

back to work, on tax credits, disabled, war widows, they are

exempted from this. But the rest of them there is the simple principle,

if you can, you should be helping them to help them to work and

�26,000 earns a reasonable sum of money. How many people are being

tricked out of money being offered lump sums instead of their pension

scheme? What steps is the government taking into these

incentive feist transfers out of 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?