13/03/2018 House of Commons

something which is hugely beneficial

to them and save them a lot of time

and a lot of angst in their dealings

with HMRC.

Sends 2010 the minimum wage has gone

from £5 93 to £7 83 per hour, an

increase of 32%. At the same time,

the take-home pay of someone working

on the minimum wage has gone up by

37% thanks to the increase in the

income tax threshold. Does the

Chancellor join me in welcoming the

fact the Government has directed

assistance at those on the lowest

earnings, and can the Chancellor

assure the House that that excellent

approach will continue to be at the

heart of the Government's strategy?

Mr Speaker, we are focused on the

needs of those on the lowest pay who

are in the workforce, and making

work pay and particularly making low

paid work pay is a priority. I would

repeat what I said during the

statement, that partly as a result

of the introduction of the national

living wage and it subsequent

increased to £7 83 per hour, we now

have income inequality in this

country lower than at any point

under the last Labour government.

Income inequality falling in this

country when it is rising in all

other G7 countries.

This statement was an opportunity

for the Government to ease the

burden on care providers by offering

a solution to the sleeping crisis.

Sleeping shifts are an integral part

of public services which government

has a statutory obligation to

provide. Has the Government ruled

out fully paying the six years of

back pay entitled to low paid care

workers directly?

I'm just not sure of the end of her

question there. If she is asking

whether the Government has ruled

out... The Government has not ruled

out anything. We are still looking

at this issue. Of course these

workers must have the page to which

they are entitled and which they

should have been paid, and what we

are doing, and the Cabinet Office is

leading on this -- must have the pay

to which they are entitled. We are

looking at how to deal with this in

a way that does not have negative

impacts on the provision of care.

Youth unemployment has fallen 55% in

south-east Queensland under the

Conservatives, fantastic news. Does

my honourable friend agree with me

that the last thing young people in

Teesside need is reckless borrowing

to reverse that?

My honourable

friend is absolutely right. Parts of

the country which have suffered for

for too long from low levels of

employment and investment have seen

over the last few years investment

coming in, much of that foreign

investment. Employment increasing,

wages rising. And they absolutely do

not need to take risks with the kind

of policies the right honourable

gentleman opposite is proposing

which would plunge us back into a

place we have been before and have

no wish to revisit.

Mr Speaker, people in the same job

should be entitled to the same day's

pay, and the Chancellor continues to

pretend to ignore this is for people

under 25 -- ignore the fact it is

not for people under 25.

Apprentices, they will end a fool

£13 less. Why does he believe in

state-sponsored age discrimination?

You

the honourable lady will know, I

think, that we also announced, due

to come in in April again, record

increases in the use of rates of

minimum wage. But, look, we have had

several exchanges during the course

of this session. About the

importance of maintaining low levels

of youth unemployment, and the

devastating effects of youth

unemployment. What the Government

does, and I am sorry if the

honourable lady does not like this,

but what the Government does is take

the advice of the low pay commission

about the impact of different levels

of pay rates on employment

prospects. And we balance the need

to give people a fair wage with the

need to ensure that we maintain high

levels of youth employment in the

interests of those people

themselves, and in the interests of

our economy.

I welcome the

projections that real wages will

increase in the coming year. That

can only continue longer term if we

improve our productivity. In that

context can I welcome what the

Chancellor said about the human

capital long-term endeavour? And the

improvements we have seen in

productivity over the last six

months.

My honourable friend is

right to draw attention to two

quarters of very good productivity

data. Mr Speaker, I don't want to

change policy or a pervert on the

basis of two quarters of data

because it can be revised -- I do

not want to change policy or pivot

on the basis of two quarters. But I

think we might be at the basis of a

town on productivity performance in

this economy.

Liverpool has many

success stories, but 30% of children

are in poverty, and public services

are under pressure as Liverpool

council loses 60% of its funding,

and the whole economy is threatened

by Brexit. What will the Chancellor

do differently to address these

injustices?

Obviously the best way

out of poverty is to get people into

work, and the proportion of work is

at its lowest -- the proportion of

workless households is at its lowest

level. She will know two thirds of

children less are in absolute

poverty than when we began. Our

strategy is to drive economic growth

across our country, across the

regions of our country, working with

the elected mayors and the devolved

authorities to ensure the investment

needed goes in, in all corners of

the British economy to deliver the

growth that is the only way to get

people sustainably out of poverty

and into well-paid work.

Can I

congratulate the Chancellor on his

progress to date? But now I ask him

to look at investing in a long-term

innovative strategy and plan for the

transport infrastructure, including

road, rail, infrastructure and

siege, in the south-west, to drive

productivity, north and south of the

peninsula, and to include a

commitment to such a strategy in the

Autumn Statement, to build a great

south-west to rival the northern

powerhouse. We thank him for his

support. It is welcome but not

enough.

She will have to think of a

snappy name for it, and if she can

please let me know. Of course we are

investing already in the south-west

and she will know that the crucial

programme vital for transport artery

feeding the south-west, the A303,

and our investment in that. But I

will say that I know many of the

bids for the housing infrastructure

fund have come from authorities in

the south-west, and we are acutely

conscious of the fact that as we ask

them to build more homes we have to

provide them with the resource to be

able to build the supporting

infrastructure, and that is the

purpose of the Housing

Infrastructure Funds and I hope she

will have some good news when my

right honourable friend the housing

minister makes announcements

intercourse.

The number of apprenticeship starts

plummeted after the botched

introduction of the apprenticeship

levy last year. I welcome the

additional amount the Chancellor has

announced for apprenticeships in

school businesses, but does he

recognise to get anywhere near the 3

million target by 2020 will require

much more radical action? Would he

return to this at the time of the

Budget?

I am grateful to the right

honourable gentleman. Our target and

commitment is to deliver those by

2020. The introduction of the

apprenticeship levy change the game

and we were always anticipating it

would have an impact on the profile

of starts. The announcement today of

the additional £80 million is

specifically targeted at small

non-levy paying businesses to help

them take on apprentices. The other

thing that will happen in a couple

of weeks' time at the beginning of

April is large businesses who do pay

the levy will be allowed to transfer

10% of their levy paid to small

businesses in their supply chain to

support their engagement of and

training of apprentices. But of

course we will keep this programme

under very close review. It is a

commitment we have to deliver, and

if we need to intervene in a

different way we will.

Page 193 of

the report states, the future is

uncertain and the likelihood of

unexpected political developments

leave the significant risk to public

finance forecast. Can I ask the

Chancellor if he sees any of those

political downside risk sitting

directly in front of them?

LAUGHTER

Yes, Mr Speaker, and I have made the

point already to one of the right

honourable members opposite, that

conversation with businesses...

Maybe I should just sit down, Mr

Speaker, whilst the right honourable

gentleman conducts his conversation?

I made the point earlier that

businesses in conversation identify

two risks they are concerned about.

The risk of bad Brexit deal, which

will have an impact on the economy,

and the risk of the right honourable

gentleman opposite ever getting his

hands on any of the levers of power

in our economy, and of the two there

is no doubt that business, expressed

in the voice of Paul Dresser this

morning, business regards the risk

of the Right honourable gentleman

being by far the bigger.

The

Chancellor claims spending on

disabled people has gone up, but we

know that cuts to social security

will hit disabled people the

hardest. The Chancellor also spoke

about apologies. Would he like to

apologise to the millions of

disabled people that he blamed for

low productivity?

Of course I did no

such thing. Well, no, I didn't. Mr

Speaker, we spend over £50 billion a

year on benefits to support disabled

people and people with health

conditions, a record high. It is

£7.5 billion higher, in real terms,

since 2010. There is a share of GDP.

Our public spending on disability

and incapacity is the second highest

in the G7. 2.5% of our GDP, 6% of

all Government spending.

My right

honourable friend has struck the

right note between the need for

financial discipline and justifiable

need for investment in public

service. With this in mind with the

autumn budget, will they ensure

additional funding is provided for

schools to ensure the successful

fermentation of the National Funding

Formula which we welcomed in

Stockport.

My right honourable

friend the member for Putney, as a

former Education Secretary,

announced that the funding formula

would be introduced in such a way

that we would protect the per capita

spend per pupil, and we would

guarantee every school, every

school, would receive a cash terms

increase, and that guaranteed stands

today.

My right honourable friend

the Shadow Chancellor talked about

the increasing number of children

being taken into care. In Liverpool

there has been an 11% increase in

the last 12 months alone. Northwest

local authorities wrote to the

Chancellor last month calling for

additional funds to address the

growing crisis in children's social

care. Can I ask him to address this

growing crisis, and do so as a

matter of urgency?

As I said

earlier, spending on support for the

most vulnerable children has

increased by £500 million since

2010, and I think a distinction can

be drawn Lucas Mata. The right

honourable gentleman -- can be drawn

here. There is distinction to be

drawn and I think he has made the

point, between services provided to

the most vulnerable children,

children in care, children in the

adoption and fostering process, and

children at risk, and the wider

children's services budget. But

repeat again, we provide £225

billion of spending power to local

authorities over the five-year

period. It is for local authorities

to decide how they allocate that

spending.

There can be no truer test of a

government's commitment to fairness

than its commitment to the next

generation. There are 7000 young

people who started apprentices in

Redditch who would agree. Can he

tell us more about the funds put

aside to help more small businesses

to access apprenticeships, and would

he agree that the best place for his

construction skills village is in

Redditch, a new town in the heart of

the country?

I am glad to tell the

honourable lady that there will be

20 construction skills villages. So

we look forward to the bid from

Redditch, and I am sure it will be

considered. But I mentioned earlier

that my right honourable friend the

Education Secretary is putting an

extra £80 million specifically to

support small businesses who are

non-levy payers with the costs of

engaging an apprentice. At the same

time, from April, many small

businesses will benefit from the

flexibility that allows large

business levy payers to transfer 10%

of their levy fund to small

businesses in their supply chain to

support them. The indication I have

from talking to the CBI and other

organisations is that businesses are

very keen to do this and many of

them will make such transfers.

Are

the OBR right in calculating the UK

will be making payments to the EU

until 2064 as part of the divorce

settlement, and that this will not

include any new commitments that the

British government may make in the

remaining parts of the negotiation?

Would it not be better just to stay

in?

The honourable gentleman is

referring to the three parts of the

payment profile. There are payments

during the two years of the

implementation period, there are

payments as the EU dispenses the

so-called day over the following few

years and then there is a very long

tail of what will be very small

payments which relate to pensions.

By their very nature, they will

stretch over a long period, but they

are very small amounts of money.

Carlisle Lake District airport is

about to open. We have garden

village in the south of the city and

there are prospects of a borderlands

growth deal. With the Chancellor

agree that the only way to grow the

economy and balance the books is

through such investments, and would

he also agree that it is important

for the government to support such

local initiatives, as they will help

rebalance the economy and sort our

finances?

Yes. It is local

governments and local people and

businesses that understand best how

to grow the economy is of their

regions. I welcome the initiative is

he has mentioned. I am aware of the

garden village initiative and I look

forward to being able to visit in

the spring.

Isn't it true that young

people in our communities are paying

the biggest price for this

government's choices and our

failures? Local government is facing

a funding gap of 5.8 billion by 20

20. My counsel, Hounslow, has had a

40% cut in income since 2010, with

more to come. 400,000 more children

are in poverty than five years ago.

In some wards in my constituency,

that is now hitting 40%. He asked to

be judged on his record. Is this a

record that he is proud of?

Yes, I

am, because the figures the

honourable lady gives are not quite

right. There are 200,000 fewer

children in absolute poverty than

there were in 2010. Absolute poverty

is the relevant measure. The crucial

point that the honourable lady has

skirted around is that after the

financial crash during the last

Labour government, we could have

gone down a route which many of our

continental neighbours went down

which would have seen hundreds of

thousands if not millions of young

people cast onto scrapheap of

unemployment and left their

potentially for decades. We did not

go down that route. And we have seen

youth unemployment in this country

relatively low and falling. That is

a huge benefit to the next

generation, which will benefit from

their engagement in the workforce

and as they go forward, to

benefiting from rising living

standards.

I welcome my right

honourable friend's statement and

the balanced approach to the economy

he detailed. I particularly welcome

the attention on digital skills.

These are the main issues businesses

are raising with me. I am hoping

Yorkshire will be one of the local

allocations. Will he continue to

focus upon fibre and digital as

critical to boosting our national

productivity?

Yes. If we don't have

these enabling network technologies,

a good fibre-optic network and good

digital technologies, we will not be

able to exploit the technologies of

the fourth Industrial Revolution.

The OBR says that real earnings

growth in the next five years is

expected to remain subdued,

averaging 0.7% a year growth and

real household disposable income per

person is expected to average only

0.4% per year. So why won't the

Chancellor properly fund his

government departments to ensure

that the public sector pay freeze is

properly lifted, as has been done in

Scotland?

The public sector pay

freeze has been lifted. We have

removed at the 1% cap, so it is up

to departmental secretaries of state

to make appropriate recommendations,

provide appropriate evidence to pay

review bodies. But we do expect

them, where they are recommending

settlements above the level that

they are already funded for, to use

workforce management measures and

efficiency improvement ushers

negotiated with the workforce to

ensure that over time, those things

are funded through higher efficiency

and higher productivity.

The

Chancellor is right to focus on how

the tax system might be used to

encourage improvements in the

environment. The packaging industry

recognises the need to reduce waste

and will respond positively to his

call. I ask that he includes firstly

that it is people who cause litter,

and he spoke about the need for

behaviour change, and we recognise

the important role the packaging as

in reducing food waste by keeping

food fresh for longer.

Yes, of

course. The point of having a call

for evidence is to make sure that

the decisions we make are based on

full knowledge. He makes an

important point that it would be

massively shooting ourselves in the

foot to make a change in relation to

packaging which then increased food

waste and the energy cost of food

that was wasted.

Why is the

Chancellor refusing to share the

light at the end of his tunnel with

grieving parents who are struggling

to pay for their children's

funerals? Their lives are forever

blighted in darkness. A children's

funeral fund is the dignified,

compassionate and sympathetic thing

to do.

Am grateful to the honourable

lady. She is a tireless campaigner

on this issue and both I and my

right honourable friend the Prime

Minister have heard her pleas on

behalf of parents in this terrible

situation. But I am sure she does

recognise that this is not a

physical event. There have been no

physical announcements today, but I

am certain she will want to make a

representation to me ahead of the

Budget in the autumn.

I thank the

Chancellor for his very spring-like

statement. It is good to hear that

there is light at the end of the

tunnel. But could I ask what plans

he has two support our vital £90

billion creative industries sector,

which is growing in my constituency

of Clacton?

Creative industries are

an increasingly important part of

the UK economy and one in which we

have a significant comparative

advantage. The best way the

government can support the creative

industries, apart from the obvious

one of training and Skilling, is

through supporting the roll-out of

digital technologies on which so

many of the creative industries

these days depend.

The Chancellor

will know of the families working on

the national minimum wage. Does he

agree with the Rowntree foundation,

who have demonstrated that in a

two-parent family, one working with

two children, because of tax credit

cuts, will be £450 a year worse off?

That is not fair, is it?

The

national living wage has given a pay

rise of more than £2000 a year to

anyone in full-time work since it

was introduced in 2015. It is not

just the national living wage, it is

the increase in the personal

allowance which means people are now

able to keep more of what they take

home. And because it is an

allowance, it disproportionately

benefits those on the lowest

earnings.

Fourth Industrial

Revolution technologies are

transforming productivity across the

country: not particularly amongst

the SME sector. As my right

honourable friend considers future

spending priorities, can I urge him

to accelerate support for our

entrepreneurs who create the wealth

of the future?

Yes, my honourable

friend is a tireless advocate of the

technology that will fuel the fourth

Industrial Revolution. The important

thing is that while we are talking

about it, this is actually happening

across the country. These

technologies are actually being used

by large, medium and small

businesses. There are not just

something in the laboratory or the

university classroom, they are

happening in the business parks

across Britain and they will

transform the way we live and work.

I'm sure the Chancellor will agree

that it is not talking down the

economy to report in this placed the

real experiences of the people we

represent, the majority of whom are

not going to see real average wage

incomes exceeding the pre-crash

levels until 2022. Does he not agree

that all of the measures announced

today and the rhetoric will not

bigger difference to the people who

need it the most until their average

incomes increase above the pre-crash

levels? When will that happen?

Raising real incomes is the

principal target we focus on. The

country suffered a recession after

the financial crisis which wiped out

6% of our national income. We are

rebuilding our economy from that

crisis, hindered unhampered by the

fact that the previous government

was ill-prepared for the crisis when

it came. We are determined to make

sure that our economy and our public

finances are in good shape to deal

with the economic cycle in the

future, because we do not believe we

have abolished that economic cycle

and we do have to prepare for future

downturns, because that is the

nature of economic life.

I welcome

the progress that has been made in

reducing the debt and deficit, but

with the Chancellor confirm that we

are still spending £50 billion in

debt interest, more than the Armed

Forces and the police force

combined? If we don't get control of

this, there will be less money for

the things we value like the housing

infrastructure fund, Oxfordshire's

excellent submission of which is so

important to my constituents.

My

honourable friend is right. This is

current spending, £50 billion that

we could be spending on hospitals,

schools or indeed on investment in

infrastructure. The honourable

gentleman opposite's answer to this

is to increase the amount of

borrowing we have, to increase the

amount of money we are pouring down

the drain every year on debt

interest, reducing the amount of

money available for public services.

That cannot be the right way to go.

In spite of the claims for what will

happen to real wages on April full

state, the fact is that real wages

are now lower than they were in 2010

and debt has grown over twice as

fast under this government than it

did on the previous Labour

government in spite of the global

economic crash in 2008. So will the

Chancellor agree that his strategy

is failing people like my

constituents, who are suffering from

£6 billion of cuts to social care

and can no longer get care packages,

so they can die at home surrounded

by their loved ones, but instead are

stuck in hospital?

I don't agree

with the honourable lady. Her

numbers are wrong, as I am sure she

knows. The soaring deficit in

2009-10 created a legacy that of

course was going to lead to

increasing debt. Our challenge has

been to get the deficit down so that

debt can now start to fall. And as

debt starts to fall, we are able to

fund our public services, to invest

in Britain's future, to provide

relief for hard-pressed families and

small businesses do using their tax

burden, and that is what we intend

to continue to do.

A number of

honourable members have mentioned

the next generation. Is it not the

case that only this government's

approach can deliver true

intergenerational fairness, because

the alternative is ever increased

borrowing, which will be put on the

shoulders of young people?

My

honourable friend is right. This is

a point that needs to be made more

often. When the right honourable

gentleman opposite talks about

borrowing an extra £100 billion, 350

billion, whatever it is thinking

about this week, when he talks about

nationalising industry for £190

billion or whatever it is, he is

talking about burdening the next

generation with yet more debt that

will blight their future and limit

their chances. It isn't fair. We

must make sure he never gets the

chance to do it.

There are some

small businesses in Bury still

picking up the pieces from the

Carillion collapse. Small business

confidence in the north-west is at

its lowest in four years, with UK

skills shortages blamed for some 3

billion in lost earnings. Mr

Speaker, he chose to come to the

House today to give us this spring

statement and he had nothing to say.

We had a fake news forecast with

nothing for the real job creators.

Will he give some certainty for the

small businesses, providing the jobs

in towns like mine, and stop this

outsourcing to post up vehicles like

Carillion that appeared to be too

big to fail before they do fail?

The reason I have come to the House

to make a statement is because the

OBR has published its second report

of the fiscal year. It is mandated

by Parliament to produce two reports

a year and I think the House would

have regarded it as a gross disco to

date if I had published a report

without coming to the House to

answer questions -- a gross

discourtesy. I am glad he mentioned

skill shortages, because he will

recognise that whilst they are a

serious problem this is in a sense

better problem to have than skilled

people looking for employment. The

work is there, the jobs are there,

the economic growth is there. Now we

have to respond by delivering the

skills that people need. On

outsourcing, we will to pursue the

best value for money for every pound

of taxpayer money we spend. Where

that involves collaborating with the

private sector, that is what we will

do, and the way we have handed the

situation with Carillion has meant

the public purse has not had to bail

out private company will services

have continued to be provided.

I

would like to join the SNP finance

secretary in Hollywood by

acknowledging the block grant coming

which is a real terms increase over

the next few years. Considering the

law increase in Scotland GDP growth

that is forecast, will my right

honourable friend commit driving

economic growth through all our

constituencies such as the

Clackmannanshire city deal.

Yes, Mr

Speaker, it is just a pity the SNP

spokesperson here did not feel

inclined to acknowledge the same

thing. But, yes, she is right. We

are a government for the whole of

the UK, and it is not the Scottish

people's fault that they have a

Government adopting policies that

are depressing economic growth in

Scotland and will depress it further

in the months and years ahead. We

will go on delivering policies

designed to improve the economy

across the whole of the United

Kingdom, including the growth deals

in Scotland.

Last week it was

revealed the Ministry of Housing

returned £1.1 billion to the

Treasury in news Housing money of

the last two years. It should have

been spent on re-cladding unsafe

tower blocks after the Grenfell

Tower. Will the Chancellor uses

autumn budget to fund the work

required to keep our tower blocks

safe and the residents inside them

safe as well?

Mr Speaker, I have

made the point and my right

honourable friend has made the

point, the Housing Minister, that

local authorities, social landlords,

who have blocks needing the

cladding, they should carry out that

work. Any work required for urgent

safety reasons should be done. Any

authority or housing association

unable to fund that work, that has a

genuine inability to fund it, should

get in touch with the Department for

Housing Communities And Local

Government who will work with them

to find an appropriate solution.

Safety critical work must be carried

out. That is a legal obligation of

the landlord and we will work with

them to make sure it is.

I'd like to welcome my right

honourable friend's continued

commitment to increasing the housing

supply. And to mention that error

was construction village as well.

But does he agree with me it is

measures such as the cut in stamp

duty for first-time buyers that will

help many of my constituents -- to

mention the Erewash construction.

That it will help them get on the

housing ladder?

The housing investment package we

have put together is important

because it has ensured financial

support will not be the constraining

factor in building more homes in

this country. We have other

constraints, skills constraints,

land supply constraints, materials

supply constraints, but finance will

be available.

The measure I announced in the

autumn budget, removing stamp duty

for a million first-time buyers, it

will allow a million mostly young

people once again to be able to

aspire to the dream of home

ownership.

Mr Speaker, the

Chancellor claims he will ensure

cash is available for those that

need it, and he further claims his

is the party of small business. If

he stands by this, will he come too

near, Granton and Aviemore to

explain the business reply with over

70% of shares in the Royal Bank of

Scotland, at his command he is

failing to block the closure of

their branches which should make it

more difficult to do business in

Scotland...

It is absolutely always

a pleasure to visit Nairn but I

don't have a plan to do so right

now. As he has told his right

honourable friends on several

occasions, as he has told his

friends, we do not interfere with

the Royal Bank of Scotland. The

consultation we published today is

about passion lists and digital

payment systems but it specifically

acknowledges, and I said this in my

statement, we also have to ensure

cash is available to people who need

it. If you look at the consultation

when it is published, he will see we

are determined to address that

issue, and I hope you will engage in

that consultation.

The Chancellor is absolutely right

to look at the impact of the VAT

threshold on business. It is a

disincentive to growth and an

incentive to avoid tax to cash

deals. But does he agree it is not

just the financial implications in

registry of VAT but also the

administrative impact of that? Is it

an appropriate time to look at the

entire system of the VAT regime?

I

think that would be rather

dramatically widening the scope of

the intended consultation. I would

remind the House that when I

referred to this issue at the autumn

budget I did say that I was not

minded to more VAT threshold because

the VAT threshold at its current

level does keep a lot of small

businesses out of the burden of VAT

but we want to ensure this cliff

edge effect which does have a

damaging impact on businesses trying

to grow is addressed -- I did say

that I was not inclined to lower the

VAT threshold.

There is a reason why

we need to invest in our public

services. In York schools have gone

from the seventh worst funded to the

very worst funded authority. Our

NHS, and no social housing has been

built. Should not the Chancellor

invest in our children in the -- are

children, in the set, and provide

homes for the homeless?

I'm afraid

it is characteristic of the party

opposite they are only able to see

the world through the lens of

inputs. The reality is this. Since

2010 we have increased the number of

schools that are good or

outstanding, so 90% of schools are

now good or outstanding. 1.9 million

more children are being taught in

good or outstanding schools. That is

the metric that matters to parents,

and the children themselves, in

terms of their life chances. It is

not always just about the money. It

is about the outcomes.

I welcome the

measures introduced by the and to

help the oil and gas industry

including a 2 billion package of

support including the transferable

tax, a much-needed shot in the arm.

With oil and gas industry set to

contribute over a billion impact to

the Treasury this financial year,

can my right honourable friend tell

me what further steps the Government

can take to support this vital

industry?

We are committed to the

oil and gas industry and as my

honourable friend knows, we are

committed to measures that will

ensure that every drop of

economically recoverable oil and gas

in the UK Continental Shelf is

recovered, that is very much in the

interests of the Scottish economy,

the UK economy and Her Majesty's

Treasury, and I am delighted that

the increase in the oil price,

together with the uptake in activity

as a result of it and as a result of

the measures we have announced,

means the contribution of the oil

sector to the UK Treasury will again

become positive in the year to come.

The party opposite has capped the

Welsh government Government by

around £1 billion a year since 2010.

The knock-on impact of that on

public services in Wales and on

Welsh local government to deliver

key services has been huge. Will the

Chancellor today apologised for the

failed Tory austerity that has

caused so much damage to public

services across the UK as well as in

Wales, and given his outline of a

rosy picture, will he set out what

plans he has to adequately fund

public services that many people

rely on?

Well, Mr Speaker on if I

don't have the figures right hand,

but if my memory serves me

correctly, at the budget last year I

was able to confirm Wales would

receive over £1 billion of

additional funding including as a

result of changes to the formula

that were agreed, so not down, but

up, and additional billion pounds

plus. The failure of services in

Wales, which we catalogue regularly

across this dispatch box, mainly in

the Welsh health service, are a

result of decisions made by the

Welsh government. Priorities set by

the Welsh government, not decisions

made by the UK Government.

Economies

move in cycles. Does my right

honourable friend agree that there

is a moral case to ensure our public

finances are in a state to help the

poorest in our society, some of whom

live in my constituency in

Cheltenham? Does he also agree with

me that is an approach the party

opposite manifestly failed to take?

He is right, they did, precisely

because we have seen the devastating

impact of being unprepared for what

was a very serious economic downturn

from a financial crash, it is

precisely because of that we are

determined to ensure the UK economy

is robust lip repaired for the next

normal cyclical downturn when it

occurs. These are normal things,

they happen in everyday economic

life, and we must be able to right

through them without damage to our

economy and without the poorest in

our society paying the price,

because it is the poorest that

always pay when Labour's model

fails.

Following the global

financial crash the American

recovery and reinvestment act of

2009 integers by Obama sought

investment pumped into the US

economy leading to the most

sustained period of growth. -- by

Obama. Which was the right

ideological choice?

The United

States is in a different position

from the United Kingdom. Sadly, we

no longer operates the world's

reserve currency. We are no longer

able to borrow in the conditions the

United States is able to borrow.

Decisions for the United States

economy are for the United States

administration. The Government has

made the right decisions for the UK

economy, and the benefit of those

decisions, the outcomes that we are

now beginning to see, demonstrate

the case for them.

Order,

presentation of Bill, John Mann.

Housing and planning, local

decision-making bill.

Friday the

16th of March, second reading. Thank

you. Order. We come now to the Ten

Minute Rule Motion. Mrs Theresa

Villiers...

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I

beg to move we've be given to

integers are built to prevent the

Holocaust return of cultural objects

act, 2009, from expiring on the 11th

of November 20 19. Mr Speaker, it

was on the 10th of November, 1938,

when the horrors of the gnats or

persecution began in earnest with

the shameful episode known as

Kristallnacht -- when the horrors of

the Nazi persecution. The key focus

of the violent attacks that took

place was also property, the homes,

buildings and businesses owned by

Jewish people. Throughout the 1930s

and 40s, property of all kinds was

systematically stolen from millions

of people, as part of Hitler's

horrific genocidal campaign against

Jewish elite mag Europe's Jewish

community, including many precious

works of art -- Europe's Jewish

community. Around 1000 objects were

pillaged during the Nazi that remain

still hidden to this day. The

horrific crimes of the Nazis can

never be remedied, but there is

action we can take to return works

of art to the people from whom they

were stolen. Mr Speaker, at the end

of the last century there was

growing international awareness of

the risk that looted art might have

inadvertently been acquired by

museums and galleries. This led to

the 1998 Washington Conference on

Holocaust era assets. At that

conference and number of countries

including the United Kingdom pledged

they would work to identify

treasures stolen by the Nazis, and

seek to return them to their

rightful owners. Compared with other

European countries it seems very

little looted art found its way to

the UK. But that should not be used

as an excuse for in action. In 2000,

the previous Labour government

established a panel to consider

claims from anyone who had lost

possession of a cultural object in

circumstances relating to the Nazi

era. A key problem arose in 2002

when the areas of Doctor Feldman

sought the return of drawings in the

British Museum on the grounds they

had been stolen by the Gestapo from

his collection in March 1939, in

what was then Czechoslovakia.

The British Museum

what was then Czechoslovakia.

The British Museum wants

what was then Czechoslovakia.

The British Museum wants to

what was then Czechoslovakia.

The British Museum wants to return

what was then Czechoslovakia.

The British Museum wants to return

these objects, but the High Court

ruled that it could not lawfully do

so. No matter what the moral case

for giving the property back to the

heirs of its owner, the museum was

underrated binding statutory

obligation not to give away items in

its collection. A number of other

national institutions were also

subject to the same restriction.

This and other similar cases were

raised in Parliament in 2009 by

Andrew Dismore, who was the MP for

Hendon at the time. He brought

forward a private member's bill to

remove the statutory restrictions on

national institutions such as the

British Museum, which prevented them

from returning works of art

confiscated by the Nazis. With

cross-party support, the Holocaust

return of cultural objects Bill

received royal assent on the 12th of

November 2009. It provides that 17

national institutions named in the

legislation have the power to return

works of art to their rightful

owners in cases where this is

recommended by the advisory panel

and approved by the Culture

Secretary. But section four,

subsection seven of that act

contains a 10-year sunset clause.

The effect of that is that the 2009

act will cease to have effect after

the 11th of November next year.

After that date, the situation is

named in the legislation will no

longer be able to return works of

art to Holocaust survivors or to the

families of those who perished in

the genocide. The bill I am seeking

leave today to bring in would keep

the legislation on the statute book

by repealing section four seven and

thus removing the sunset clause. In

my view, Parliament was right in

2009 to give our national museums

the power to restore property lost

in these terrible circumstances to

their rightful owners. The

legislation was subject to exacting

scrutiny and was significantly

amended and clarified during its

passage through Parliament. It has

worked well during its eight years

on the statute book, resolving cases

in a fair and balanced way. For

example, take the 12th century

manuscript. The advisory panel

concluded that the manuscript had

been looted during the chaos which

followed the Allied bombing of that

area in 1943. With the approval of

the Secretary of State, the missal

was returned to its owners in Italy.

In 2015, a John Constable painting

from the Tate Gallery was restored

to its owner after the panel

concluded that it had been stolen

when the German army invaded

Budapest in 1944. The 2009 act is a

carefully targeted measure which

applies to a defined and limited

period and certain circumstances, so

it does not open the door for a more

contentious claim relating to

objects brought to the UK in past

centuries and under different

circumstances. The act has not had a

disruptive impact on our national

museums. When the proposal to keep

the measure on the statute book was

announced in 2017, it was warmly

welcomed by the museum community.

Today, the director of the national

gallery, Dr Gabrielle is an Audi,

issued the following statement,

saying "The museum community is

committed to fair redress in the

case of works taken wrongfully

during the Holocaust and World War

II. It is fully supportive of the

proposal to amend the act by

removing the so-called sunset

clause. The task of identifying and

returning objects with an incomplete

history during the relevant period

is by no means yet at an end. As

recently as last September, the

government hosted an international

conference in London to consider how

efforts to identify and give back

works of art lost during the

Holocaust could be accelerated. The

UK has been at the forefront of

global efforts to resolve these

cases in a fair way, and the 2009

act has played an important part in

that. The legislation had the

backing of the last Labour

government, and the Bill I am

putting forward today has the

support of the current Conservative

government. I thank the DC MS for

its work on this, including engaging

with the Scottish Government with a

view to securing their support,

reflecting the fact that there are

Scotland institutions included in

the list in the legislation. There

may still be potential claimants who

are unaware of the location of

artworks owned by their relatives

who died in the Holocaust. So the

moral case for this legislation

remains as strong today as it was

eight years ago. Indeed, the case is

arguably stronger than it was in

2009. We have fewer and fewer

Holocaust survivors still with us,

and I would like to take this

opportunity to pay tribute to all

those survivors who live in my

Chipping Barnet constituency. I have

had the great honour to meet many of

them during my years as their local

MP. I thank them for all they do to

ensure that the current generation

hears their testimony first-hand as

part of the efforts we must make as

a society to ensure that the horrors

of the Holocaust are never

forgotten. Surely it would be

heartless and wrong to deprive those

last supporters of their right to

recover treasured works of art.

Nothing can make up for the trauma

and suffering of those who

experienced the Holocaust

first-hand, or who lost loved ones

in that horror. But at least we can

give them back the pressures works

of art which were stolen from them.

That is what my proposal is designed

to achieve, and I commend this bill

to the House.

The question is that

the right honourable member have

leave to bring in the bill. As many

as are of the opinion, say "aye". To

the contrary, "no". The ayes have

it, the ayes have it. Who will

prepare and bring in the Bill?

Bob

Blackman, Stephen Crabb, Ian Austin,

Mr Edward Vaizey, John Mann, Andrew

Percy, Charles Elphick, Iain Duncan

Smith, and myself.

Theresa Villiers.

Holocaust return of cultural objects

amendment bill. Second reading what

they?

Friday the 27th of April.

Thank you. We now come to the four

motions on Universal Credit,

children and young persons and

social security, which will be

debated together. I must inform the

House that the speaker has certified

the two motions on children and

young persons as relating

exclusively to England and within

devolved legislative competence. The

motions relating to those

instruments are therefore subject to

double majority voting, whole House

and those representing

constituencies in England. I should

inform colleagues that this is a

three-hour debate. It is very well

subscribed. There are over 40

backbenchers wanting to speak. So I

hope the bird frontbenchers and

backbenchers will bear that in mind.

I call Angela Rayner to move the

first of the four motions.

Thank

you, Madame Deputy Speaker. Can I

ask all members of the House to bear

that in mind with their

interventions as well and I would

try and be as brief as I can. I beg

to move the four motions in the name

of the Leader of the Opposition,

myself and my honourable friends. As

my honourable friend the Shadow

Chancellor said, this Tory

government has created a crisis on a

scale that we have not seen before.

Today, they did nothing to tackle

it. In these regulations, they seek

to make it even worse. If the House

does not vote for our motions today,

over a million families will lose

out. Firstly, they will lose their

free school meals.

Does the

honourable lady gree with Channel

4's fact check, that says it is not

the case that the government is

taking free school meals from a

million children? These are children

who are not currently receiving free

school meals and in fact, the

government proposals would see

50,000 extra children receive free

school meals? Perhaps the honourable

lady could stop giving inaccurate

information to the House.

Well, the

honourable member should know that

his government have put in

transitional arrangements and we

would say that actually, under the

transitional arrangements this

government has introduced, those

million children would be entitled

and it is as a result of these

regulations that they are pulling

the rug from underneath those

families that are hard-working. In

my own boroughs of older man

Tayside, a total of 8700 children

growing up in poverty are set to

miss out. In the Secretary of

State's own area, the total is 6500.

So much for that light at the end of

the tunnel the Chancellor mentioned

over the weekend.

Is my honourable

friend aware that the government has

done an assessment on the impact on

childhood obesity prior to taking

this statutory assessment?

The

honourable member makes an important

point, because childhood obesity is

an important issue at the moment.

The Children's Society found that

there will be a million children

growing up in poverty who will lose

out from free school meals. They

would have been entitled to that and

incredibly, the government has the

audacity to claim that they are

being generous. They want to pretend

that there will be no families who

lose because the small numbers who

benefit under Universal Credit will

not lose out now.

Isn't it right

that money should be placed where it

is most needed? And when Universal

Credit is fully rolled out, 50,000

more children will be getting free

school meals, so it is not right to

mislead about this issue.

I am sure

the honourable member doesn't

believe that I am trying to mislead

the House, but let me be clear. Many

people including MPs wrongly believe

that all children in poverty already

get free school meals. That is not

currently the case, but under the

transitional protections under

Universal Credit, there would be

those million children who would be

entitled to that benefit. It is

through this secondary legislation

that there are pulling the rug from

underneath those families.

Would my

honourable friend not agree with me

that this will make the working poor

more poor and hurt families deeply?

The honourable member made an

excellent point, I am sure. I didn't

quite get it!

Would my honourable

friend not agree with me that this

will make the working poor even more

poor in this day and age?

Absolutely. The honourable member

did make an important point. Those

that currently get free school meals

that were not part of the Universal

Credit where households which were

on out of work benefits. It is

actually the ones that are in work

that will be the most detrimental if

this was to go through. The current

system would help over a million

more children than under the plans

we would vote on today. The former

Secretary of State for Work and

Pensions once wrote that Universal

Credit will ensure that work always

pays and it seemed to pay, yet under

these plans, Universal Credit will

mean that work does not pay for

hundreds of thousands of families.

Those who are just above the

threshold would be better off

earning less.

Could I just say that

one of the biggest fundamental

errors that the honourable lady and

her party making is in the

understanding of what transitional

protection is about. I helped design

this, so let me inform her.

Perhaps they might like to listen

and they might learn something.

Transitional protection was designed

to protect those moving from tax

credits into Universal Credit so

they did not, if it happens to be

the case, lose any money in the

transition. It was not about

increasing to the degree she is

talking about the number of those

who receive free school meals. Under

Universal Credit more will receive

free school meals than would have

been under their plan.

Well, Madam

Deputy Speaker, I think he

acknowledges the fact that under the

transitional protection is there are

many more in work families that

would have received free school

meals that under these proposals,

this secondary legislation they are

bringing forward, that we are hoping

members opposite will help those

hard-working families by ensuring

those passport benefits to apply to

them, and that we help those just

about managing out, which is what

the Prime Minister claims she was

going to do in the first place. I

will give way.

27% of children who

live in Lincoln live in poverty.

With the honourable lady agree with

me that this cliff edge threshold

might mean some of those children

might not get a hot meal one day?

I

absolutely agree. Members opposite

keep saying it is scaremongering. It

is absolute fact that under the

transitional agreements that

currently applied, Lake in my

constituency, one of the first to

roll out Universal Credit, free

school meals do apply to those

applicants who receive Universal

Credit, and that this regulation

will remove that right for those

individuals, and it is scandalous. I

will give way.

I thank my honourable

friend for giving way. She is making

an excellent opening statement. I

think... Does she agree with me that

the honourable gentleman opposite

has almost helped make her point for

her? Because he made clear this is

about making sure people currently

in receipt of benefits and free

school meals would not be worse off

when they transition, so in that

case they are going to be worse off

under these... He is making that

case for power. All the hot and part

opposite -- that case for her. We

would have thought we would remember

this is about children and families

living in poverty in work and we

should be doing our utmost to help

them, not having a semantic argument

-- all the huff and puff opposite.

I

absolutely agree, and don't just

take our word for it. Look at what

the Children's Society has said

about those 1 million children who

will not receive it if those

regulations come into force.

I am

very grateful to my honourable

friend and she is indeed making a

very persuasive case. In the

Bradford district, over 10,000

children living in poverty will miss

out on free school meals. Northern

Ireland will be exempt from the

same. Is it not the case that they

are putting political benefit over

child poverty?

Well, my honourable

friend makes an excellent point

which I will come onto later in my

contribution. As I said, those just

above... You have had your chance,

thank you. Those that are just above

the threshold would be better off

earning less. Honourable members

have been told there are over 40

people waiting to get into this

debate. I am trying to give way the

best I can. The honourable member

has already intervened once and I

think that is more than enough.

One

too many!

Those just above the

threshold would be better off

earning less under these proposals.

The Government is pulling the rug

from under their feet, because once

the error above £7,400 they will be

around £400 a year worse off for

each child they have in school --

once they are earning above £7,400.

When did the Government abandon the

principle that work should pay?

Perhaps the Secretary of State can

tell us why she will be voting for

policy, as my honourable friend has

just said, twice as generous in

Northern Ireland as it will be for

own constituents's

I thank my

honourable friend for giving way.

Would she agree with me that the

party opposite when it talks about

making work pay, they completely

demolish that with the Universal

Credit by George Osborne removing...

And now work doesn't pay?

I think

the member makes a really important

point. Universal Credit has had

add-ons and add-ons ever since the

Government proposed it which has

made it very complex and in some

cases, as I have just out later,

work doesn't pay for those in

receipt if these proposals are put

forward. Madam Deputy Speaker, I

would like to make just a little bit

more progress. I would like to

address the issue of free childcare.

Once again the Government has a

policy in transition, one they are

seeking to restrict. In fact there

are around 200 two-year-olds

currently eligible for 15 hours of

free childcare -- 200,000. But there

are over 400,000 in families

receiving free credit. Ministers

have refused to say how many

children will be eligible under

their policy. Can they finally do so

now? There are hundreds of thousands

of children who may lose out under

their plans. Once again, some of the

most vulnerable children are the

first in line for Government cuts. I

will happily give way.

In this House

we all believed in an honest and

balanced debate. Can we just hear

from the honourable lady that it is

clear that 50,000 more children will

be entitled to free school meals

under Universal Credit than

previously, and 700,000 more

children will be entitled to the --

7000 children will be entitled to

their two-year-old offer.

That

figures from their own consultation

document but there is no

accompanying methodology, so I am

not quite as convinced, and it makes

up less than 5% of those in poverty.

Actually, what we are talking about

and what the regulations are would

mean that those that would currently

be eligible under that support that

was laid out for Universal Credit,

they would have that rug pulled from

under them. You can keep making

faces but those are the facts. Once

again, Madam Deputy Speaker, this

create a cliff edge for families in

receipt of their childcare. One that

was pleased the income of working

families who are already struggling

to get by. Under Universal Credit,

they have to pay their childcare

costs upfront, and then claim that

money back. With childcare costs

rising faster than wages meeting

these upfront costs will make it

impossible for many working families

to make ends meet. Yet another

barrier put in their way. Only

months ago several members of the

benches opposite asked the

Chancellor to look again at the

rate, because it meant work would

not pay for low income families.

Today's vote, Madame Deputy Speaker,

is on exactly this issue. When the

Government has already made those

families bear the brunt of their

cuts, to add yet another burden is

just wrong. To go?

Very good. --

them. I thank the honourable lady

for giving way, she has been

extremely generous with the tempest

of the Labour Party manifesto

committed to extend free school

meals to all primary school pupils.

This is an additional extension to a

lot more children in secondary

school. Would she please tell us how

much that would cost and how her

party would fund it where they

empower?

-- were they in power. The

member knows the school plan report

published in July 2013 actually

recommended the Government look at

infant and Junior schools for free

school meals. The Labour Party

manifesto was clearly just extending

that. It was unfortunate this

Government chose not to do that, and

they cut that and just give it to

the infants. If members opposite

would like to see our manifesto and

the costing I am sure I can provide

it, because there were a lot more

costings in our manifesto than there

were in the members' opposite.

Madame Deputy Speaker...

Order, can

I just say I think this is an

extremely important debate? It is a

very serious debate. The honourable

lady has taken a lot of

interventions. But when she has

taken interventions there is no

point in just shouting at her. It is

important to listen to the answer

and that will go the same when the

minister is speaking.

Thank you,

Madame Deputy Speaker. I will now

address the other issue on

childcare. The Government are

phasing out voters as they

transition to a policy of tax free

childcare. -- they are phasing out

vouchers. This policy is not

working. Tax free childcare has been

so shambolic that they fell 90%

short of their take-up target, and

spending was less than 5% of their

projection. Instead, nearly £1

billion earmarked for childcare was

returned to the Treasury. Yet they

are still pushing ahead with a plan

to phase out childcare vouchers, a

plan that will leave families

hundreds of pounds worse off. This

will direct the transfer Government

support to those who are better off.

I will give way.

I am very grateful

to the honourable lady. She may have

received the same and I did from the

Government showing 10,000 of their

own officials still use childcare

vouchers. And the same number signed

up to the scheme. Does she agree

that if ministers won't protect

their own officials they should at

least stand up for our Armed Forces?

I absolutely agree. Armed Forces do

a magnificent job for us and it is

an absolute scandal they will also

be worse off as a result of these

measures. Members across the House

will know hundreds of their

constituents have written letters

and signed petitions expressing

concerns about these policy changes,

yet the Government are continuing to

push ahead with them and have tried

to do so by the stroke of a

ministerial pen. The only

legislation that has come to this

House is that before us today, which

completes the phase-out of those who

change employers from after April.

We have called a boat on the

regulations, but we want to make

clear that if the House passes our

motion today -- we have called a

vote. Then we are sending a clear

message to the Government that it is

time to think again and keep

childcare vouchers open. Finally,

Madame Deputy Speaker, on Universal

Credit, these regulations apply new

sanctions to those currently

protected, and cut the time period

claimants have to provide evidence.

It will be those who suffer, those

with mental health needs. Charities

have charged the Government to

reconsider, saying it will make the

system harder to regulate at a time

when people are unwell and most in

need of support. Why is she ignoring

those voices and making the system

even harder for the very people who

they claim they want to support? I

want to move briefly on the

provisions relating to self employed

people, the absolute bedrock of our

economy. The Chancellor spoke of

start-ups and new businesses in his

speech earlier today but this makes

it harder for self-employed people.

The TUC warns a short start-up

period in the minimum income for

could close businesses with the

potential to become sustainable and

profitable. These rules could

discourage people from

self-employment entirely. Again, why

is the minister making things so

much harder for people her

Government claims to support? We

know that the self-employed are more

likely to be on lower earnings

compared to employees, yet the

Office for Budget Responsibility, in

its recent welfare report, confirms

the low paid self-employed face a

much tougher benefits system under

Universal Credit. On average, Madam

Deputy Speaker, those should expect

to lose around £3000. The savings

seem to be coming from the pockets

of the low paid self-employed. Why

is the Minister pursuing a policy

that will make so many self-employed

people so much worse off? These

regulations make the Universal

Credit system even more complicated

with the introduction of surplus

earnings rule. With Universal Credit

based on previous month income, a

self employed claimant could get

substantially less than an employed

claimant with a similar income. Work

and Pensions Secretary 's have said

it will be simpler and make work

pay, but once again they are

proposing the opposite. Madam Deputy

Speaker, all of these statutory

instruments share a common theme.

They are about support we offer the

families and their children,

particularly those already

struggling to get by. I remember

when the Prime Minister said the

mission of her Government was this,

but I am thinking it stood for Just

About May's

but I am thinking it stood for Just

About May's, survival. But there

will be JAMS today and tomorrow,

because instead of helping them get

on and get by, this Government is

making life even harder. Today is a

chance to say, enough is enough.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend the

motions to this House.

The question is as on the order

paper. Secretary of State Esther

McVey.

Thank you, Madame Deputy

Speaker. As she is on the front

bench today, I congratulate the

honourable lady for Wirral West on

her promotion. I'm sure she would

have liked to have got it in happier

circumstances, but nonetheless, I

welcome her to her role and I hope

she too doesn't fall victim to the

bullying culture of the leader's

office that her friend and

honourable lady the member for

Oldham East and Saddleworth has.

Well, well, well, what a strange and

topsy-turvy world we find ourselves

in. Measures so strongly fought for

and won by claimants, MPs,

stakeholders and charities only

months ago now being opposed by the

opposition. These are changes that

were proposed by the most vocal

defenders of benefits now being

obstructed. In the chamber today, we

shouldn't be giving the public

misinformation, but unfortunately,

that is what has been happening.

Last month, stories emerged from

members opposite, particularly the

member for Ashton-under-Lyne and

repeated today that our plans for

entitlement to free school meals

would deprive over 1 million

children. It took a Channel 4 News

fact check to point out that no

child currently receiving meals

would lose out their entitlement,

and that in fact, 50,000 more

children would benefit under our

proposals when compared to the

previous system. While I understand

that that is the nature of the

opposition, to oppose,

scaremongering and misinformation

from that side of the House have

surely reached a new low as today,

they seek to an old regulations

consisting largely of changes

introduced purely to support benefit

claimants, changes that the members

opposite have called for, and all

this after a recent intervention by

the UK Statistics Authority make it

clear that claims made by the

members opposite about Universal

Credit causing poverty, debt and

eviction were not supported by

evidence. Of course, the scale and

nature of the change represented by

Universal Credit means scrutiny is

inevitable and it is important, and

I welcome that. But unsubstantiated

and exaggerated claims about

widespread problems caused by

Universal Credit amount to nothing

less than scaremongering. They cause

claimants alarm and in the worst

cases, stop them getting the money

they are entitled to. And yet where

we find ourselves today, once again

debating Universal Credit, with the

same false alarms from the Shadow

Cabinet, only this time, we are

debating the very regulations that

have designed to address the

legitimate concerns of the members

opposite and our stakeholders.

The

Secretary of State said that claims

should not be made when they are

unsubstantiated. I have been asking

questions regarding the 50,000

increase figure that is in the

consultation response. I have

received no facts whatsoever about

how that has been arrived at. Will

that be published, please?

The

numbers have been calculated by

civil servants who have been

modelling the numbers. Those are the

facts from independent people, facts

that can be relied upon, rather than

people who are making it up, as we

have heard today, as they go along.

Will my honourable friend dispel

some of the myths being put out by

members of the party opposite in

scaremongering that is going on and

reassure my constituents where we

have full roll-out of Universal

Credit that those already in receipt

of free school meals will not lose

that eligibility?

My honourable

friend is correct. Thank you for

adding that comment, which is right.

That is the protection that is

afforded as well as going forward,

more people will be benefiting from

it. While not just debating these

points today, but we are saving the

extra support that we brought in

from the opposition, who would be

happy to destroy the extra support

that we brought in for benefit

claimants. Perhaps I should remind

the House that some of the changes

in these regulations are what

benefits they will bring to

claimants. After all, the policy

underpinning these regulations have

been widely debated and supported

inside and out of the chamber. The

regulations abolishing waiting days,

which will help many claimants on

average by £160 and at the same time

reduce the time to take to receive

the first monthly payment. These

regulations bring into effect the

housing benefit transitional

payment, which amounts to two weeks

of housing benefit at the start of

the claim. This is worth an average

£233 towards helping claimants they

on top of their housing costs as

they move into Universal Credit and

these regulations also increased the

work allowances in further support

for those who are striving to enter

work.

The Secretary of State is

attempting to provide a stout

defence of the impact of Universal

Credit. Why is it, then, that her

colleagues in Stirling Council

proposed three years of litigation

against the impact of Universal

Credit, worth over half £1 million,

only last month?

Actually, if you

look at what this government brought

in at the Budget, it was £1.5

billion of support for the country.