0:00:00 > 0:00:00recorded coverage of all the up-to-date's business after the
0:00:00 > 0:00:05daily later tonight. -- the daily politics.
0:04:53 > 0:05:00My lords.
0:11:30 > 0:11:48My lords, 244, malcontents 194. So the contents have it.
0:11:49 > 0:11:56My lords the question is, amendment six has been agreed to, to those
0:11:56 > 0:12:08that say content. Contrary not content. The contents have it.My
0:12:08 > 0:12:17lords, Peachtree D, if I could just reminded members says in the second
0:12:17 > 0:12:26article, to perform its tasks, the community shall ensure wide
0:12:26 > 0:12:31commercial outlets and assets to facilities of a Common Market and
0:12:31 > 0:12:38specialised materials and equipment by the free movement of capital for
0:12:38 > 0:12:44investment. And the employment a specialist within the community.
0:12:44 > 0:12:52Now, I have not taken a hold of the article, in this amendment, just the
0:12:52 > 0:12:58really important post Brexit part, which is the free movement of
0:12:58 > 0:13:04nuclear specialists. I'm not going to make a long speech, because to
0:13:04 > 0:13:07me, this is self evident. The government hasn't
0:13:09 > 0:13:18the government has said strategy, missing in previous debates, the
0:13:18 > 0:13:25most important in the short term is steady functioning safeguarding
0:13:25 > 0:13:28authority, whether it is the gear read them, as
0:13:33 > 0:13:41, we need those bodies and nobody in particular to function, we have a
0:13:41 > 0:13:45shortage of people who are qualified in this area, we have a shortage of
0:13:45 > 0:13:50specialists in the industry more generally. Although this amendment,
0:13:50 > 0:13:54because of this bill, primarily around safeguarding. Therefore it
0:13:54 > 0:13:59must be in the interest of the objective of this bill, and in the
0:13:59 > 0:14:08interest of the country at large, to ensure that we maintain, the
0:14:08 > 0:14:11mobility of those specialists in the nuclear industry and the nuclear
0:14:11 > 0:14:23sector that we benefit from that. Post our Brexit and our membership.
0:14:23 > 0:14:26That's why believe this amendment absolutely appropriate to this bill
0:14:26 > 0:14:33and is of great importance to not just the sector, but to our national
0:14:33 > 0:14:42security as well. And, I very much hope that the minister will be able
0:14:42 > 0:14:49to give greater reassurance, perhaps a higher up on the Richter scale of
0:14:49 > 0:14:56assurances, then we've been able to have so far. But this area will be
0:14:56 > 0:15:01looked after by the government that we won't be browbeaten by the Home
0:15:01 > 0:15:08Office and terms of minimal circulation of specialists and this
0:15:08 > 0:15:15country can benefit from those with the experience and the skills that
0:15:15 > 0:15:18will make us be able to perform in the sector, not just in
0:15:18 > 0:15:28safeguarding, but in the nuclear sector, I beg to move.Insert the
0:15:28 > 0:15:33new words, and printed on the Marshall's list.I valued my name to
0:15:33 > 0:15:41this amendment, I remain concerned about the industries access to the
0:15:41 > 0:15:50workforce it needs once the UK leads. The free flow is essential of
0:15:50 > 0:15:55speciality staff, I suggest dry up, unless the government is reasonably
0:15:55 > 0:16:02energetic. Any kind of guarantees that it gets to them. And this is
0:16:02 > 0:16:10not just the safeguarding workforce issue, it involves all sector. And
0:16:10 > 0:16:16very well brought out and the nuclear industry Association's
0:16:16 > 0:16:22briefing. I'm not going to go into the details on that, but it's very
0:16:22 > 0:16:26clear that maintaining existing reactors and even more
0:16:26 > 0:16:33significantly, the course of the building new reactors, that we need
0:16:33 > 0:16:38a very skilled workforce coming into this country to help those areas as
0:16:38 > 0:16:44well as safeguarding these areas. And I think it is a bit
0:16:44 > 0:16:47disappointing, because we did not manage to get on the bill in the
0:16:47 > 0:16:54regular reports that the government will be giving to Parliament on
0:16:54 > 0:16:59progressive safeguarding area, something with a specific reference
0:16:59 > 0:17:03to, essential specialist workforce. But at the Minister will take the
0:17:03 > 0:17:07suggestion in the spirit in which it is offered, that he might encourage
0:17:07 > 0:17:11his officials when they are producing these reports, to say
0:17:11 > 0:17:16something about progress, particularly in getting the
0:17:16 > 0:17:21specialist staff that it needs to make progress. Perez in conclusion,
0:17:21 > 0:17:26I would just like to raise an issue, which government ministers are
0:17:26 > 0:17:33usually keen that you don't say out loud. It's called immigration rules.
0:17:33 > 0:17:40And governments, successive governments, have been surprisingly
0:17:40 > 0:17:45flexible when they're really up against it in terms of getting
0:17:45 > 0:17:53specialist staff in particular, sectors of industries. And no more
0:17:53 > 0:17:59so than in the NHS, where immigration rules have been
0:17:59 > 0:18:04modified, bend, utilised, to bring specialist people in when this
0:18:04 > 0:18:09country has a shortage of them. I wonder what assurances and the terms
0:18:09 > 0:18:15of this debate, what assurances the Minister could give us that they
0:18:15 > 0:18:22will not lose sight of the possibility of modifying the
0:18:22 > 0:18:28immigration rules, where this may be necessary to help specialist
0:18:28 > 0:18:34safeguarding staff when necessary? But also to be a bit more flexible
0:18:34 > 0:18:43when it comes to the areas where there may be problems on maintaining
0:18:43 > 0:18:47reactors, or problems, for example in terms of getting the specialist
0:18:47 > 0:18:53skills that are
0:18:53 > 0:19:01For at least 20 years, this country... This was of course a
0:19:01 > 0:19:05failure of successive governments to address the issues about what our
0:19:05 > 0:19:15attitude was towards. -- towards policy. It's quite certain that we
0:19:15 > 0:19:19will depend on specialist skills from overseas. Whether it's really
0:19:19 > 0:19:22necessary to put this amendment of the face of the Bill, I rather
0:19:22 > 0:19:27doubt. I am confident that my honourable friend the Minister will
0:19:27 > 0:19:30agree that we will need specialist skills, we must be given assurance
0:19:30 > 0:19:36by the industry that there will be welcome and the Minister in
0:19:36 > 0:19:55responding to this short debate, Lord by -- led by the...they had a
0:19:55 > 0:20:01research programme on connecting fusion and fission and the very
0:20:01 > 0:20:11long-range problems that we have in the nuclear industry is dealing with
0:20:11 > 0:20:16nuclear waste. One of the ways for that in the future, thus that your
0:20:16 > 0:20:30random -- that's the programme. This is the kind of extremely important
0:20:30 > 0:20:33issue and the people who will be able to work on that will have a
0:20:33 > 0:20:40very broad range of specialties, not just a narrow existing fission
0:20:40 > 0:20:48experts at the moment.I commend the noble lord for bringing this
0:20:48 > 0:20:51amendment back and report. It contains an important issue that the
0:20:51 > 0:20:57UK must address the skills needed in the UK. The problem with labour
0:20:57 > 0:20:59supply with the necessary skills beyond those present and available
0:20:59 > 0:21:03in the UK will be to be addressed by the Vashti to be addressed by
0:21:03 > 0:21:13several of the that -- will need to be addressed by... PDF is certainly
0:21:13 > 0:21:19correct to identify the ports of the specialist needed to deliver Hinkley
0:21:19 > 0:21:32point C on time. With restrictions to the move to the free -- with
0:21:32 > 0:21:35restrictions to freedom of movement, there is no route that would
0:21:35 > 0:21:37identify that many categories of workers to enter the UK under the
0:21:37 > 0:21:46point system to fill... Is crucial that the minister's department
0:21:46 > 0:21:49aligns the importance of the issue with the Home Office to come up with
0:21:49 > 0:21:52a solution. It would be needed for the best interests of the UK's civil
0:21:52 > 0:22:09nuclear industry.I am grateful for the contributions of noble Lords and
0:22:09 > 0:22:13I acceptable continue to be in port and that we continue to attract, as
0:22:13 > 0:22:22the noble lord Hunt of the brightest and the best to ensure that we
0:22:22 > 0:22:29maintain our excellence in the nuclear field. This amendment is
0:22:29 > 0:22:39somewhat more limited in scope than just that. As regards, our future
0:22:39 > 0:22:44immigration system, that will be set up shortly and I think it will be
0:22:44 > 0:22:49right... Is my right honourable friend made clear in his statement
0:22:49 > 0:22:55on the 11th of January, working to ensure that businesses and problem
0:22:55 > 0:23:00and have the opportunity to contribute interviews before any
0:23:00 > 0:23:03decisions are made about the future system that the Home Office will be
0:23:03 > 0:23:10developing.Could the Minister confirm that the issues as rehearsed
0:23:10 > 0:23:16in this debate have been presented to the Home Office and the people
0:23:16 > 0:23:24drawing up these immigration laws by the department...As I remember, the
0:23:24 > 0:23:32last time we debated this, just by chance, I might be missed murmuring
0:23:32 > 0:23:36-- misremembering, but I can confirm that the Home Office are fully aware
0:23:36 > 0:23:41of the concerns with the expressed in debates of this source and -- of
0:23:41 > 0:23:45the start and we will ensure that they are. This is important to us,
0:23:45 > 0:23:54that we continue, as I put it, access the best talent. We have
0:23:54 > 0:23:58already doubled the number of already available visas in the tier
0:23:58 > 0:24:03one exceptional talent review. We will be looking at changing
0:24:03 > 0:24:10immigration rules to enable world leading scientists and researchers
0:24:10 > 0:24:14under tier one route to apply for settlement after three years, make
0:24:14 > 0:24:19it quicker for highly skilled students to work in the United
0:24:19 > 0:24:26Kingdom. We are relaxing the labour market test where appropriate.
0:24:26 > 0:24:39Turning to the tracks of the amendment, and... To safeguarding
0:24:39 > 0:24:42the staff, with the amendment attempts to do is ensure that
0:24:42 > 0:24:51freedom of employment of those specialists, it's clearly a matter
0:24:51 > 0:24:58of particular interest in matter of -- in light of the Government's...
0:24:58 > 0:25:01Among other important work means securing the right quality and the
0:25:01 > 0:25:07right quantity of appropriate safeguards, and staff for the office
0:25:07 > 0:25:13of nuclear regulation. Given the importance of attracting the right
0:25:13 > 0:25:21staff to work in this field, the Government is committed to ensuring
0:25:21 > 0:25:26that they have the right personnel. I can give an assurance, I just saw
0:25:26 > 0:25:32a bit of information, the most recent Krugman round just for two
0:25:32 > 0:25:42further posts in this field, there were a applicants flesh 112
0:25:42 > 0:25:47applicants -- 112 applicants. We will ensure that they will have the
0:25:47 > 0:25:50right staff and the position to regulate the UK's new civil nuclear
0:25:50 > 0:25:56safeguards regime. From those figures, it seems there is no
0:25:56 > 0:26:03shortage, certainly in the world of recruiting and training the
0:26:03 > 0:26:08appropriate inspectors and building additional institutional capacity.
0:26:08 > 0:26:18The noble lord will be surprised that we will go into this, if I give
0:26:18 > 0:26:24him assurance that the amendment itself is possibly defective and
0:26:24 > 0:26:32therefore not suitable for us to be putting in, but I hope people accept
0:26:32 > 0:26:46that there is no need for this, that the Government of...I think noble
0:26:46 > 0:26:50lord the Minister for his reply will stop its good to have some figures,
0:26:50 > 0:27:00can we have more of them in these interactions around groups? Can I
0:27:00 > 0:27:05also remind the Minister them noble lord he mentions very regularly the
0:27:05 > 0:27:13highly skilled and talented, that I agree may be the case in terms of
0:27:13 > 0:27:19nuclear safeguarding. But in a lot of areas of Brexit, and perhaps in
0:27:19 > 0:27:24some areas of the nuclear industry, that is -- the need is far more
0:27:24 > 0:27:30broad than that. But I take his point in terms this particular bill.
0:27:30 > 0:27:33I recognise that inevitably this will be fought out in terms of the
0:27:33 > 0:27:36immigration bill Debbie will eventually have. My delight is we
0:27:36 > 0:27:44will have another opportunity to debate this in another bill and
0:27:44 > 0:27:54pursue sanity and perhaps change in this area. I except the noble lord's
0:27:54 > 0:27:59challenge, as it were, as well as assurances to take up these issues
0:27:59 > 0:28:01in the future immigration bill, which we still wait for. With
0:28:01 > 0:28:14interest. I beg to withdraw the amendment in the meantime.Amendment
0:28:14 > 0:28:269... On the supplementary left, amendment 9- A.During the committee
0:28:26 > 0:28:30debate, I raise an issue which I don't think have been raised, which
0:28:30 > 0:28:39is that information systems that required to perform its tasks
0:28:39 > 0:28:46efficiently to be acceptable as a safeguarding agency in the
0:28:46 > 0:28:53international system. And I subsequently asked a written
0:28:53 > 0:29:00question to the Government on this and I want to thank very genuinely
0:29:00 > 0:29:03the Minister for what was an interesting reply and a very good
0:29:03 > 0:29:12reply to that. As part of that, I almost feel I have to apologise to
0:29:12 > 0:29:30the House for the list of names on this amendment. Mr informs me they
0:29:30 > 0:29:36were needed in order that we can fulfil our international -- the
0:29:36 > 0:29:42Minister. I asked what cost it would be to those systems, in order, not
0:29:42 > 0:29:49so much to understand the cost but undersigned the size -- to
0:29:49 > 0:29:52understand the size of the test that need to be completed within the next
0:29:52 > 0:30:0012 months. Maybe I can just perhaps quote that written reply to my
0:30:00 > 0:30:06question from the Minister. The OMR has estimated that it will cost £10
0:30:06 > 0:30:12million to establish a UK SSA CE and SIM RS, which are the two systems
0:30:12 > 0:30:17included as a part of this overall estimate. An additional opportunity
0:30:17 > 0:30:23in relation to the latter is being advertised on the Government digital
0:30:23 > 0:30:30marketplace and responses to that city will provide more certainty...
0:30:30 > 0:30:34I think my lords the thing that concerns me about that is that I
0:30:34 > 0:30:37don't know whether we already had the other system, I don't think we
0:30:37 > 0:30:42do. But at the moment where only tendering for only one of them. This
0:30:42 > 0:30:47is clearly significant, with the cost of £10 million combined, but we
0:30:47 > 0:30:54are only now getting around to advertising these. I know from my
0:30:54 > 0:31:00corporate career and my role in this House in scrutinising what
0:31:00 > 0:31:04government is up to and government systems. But IT systems are not the
0:31:04 > 0:31:09greatest thing to predict when they are ready. Let alone when they are
0:31:09 > 0:31:16functioning. We had a debate last week about the smart metres bill and
0:31:16 > 0:31:19all of the IT that is needed for that, and it's 12 years later when
0:31:19 > 0:31:23it comes to those particular systems. My real question here,
0:31:23 > 0:31:31which I'm trying to get to, is a very serious one. Clearly, for the
0:31:31 > 0:31:38minister's reply, we cannot be -- the OMR can function without this
0:31:38 > 0:31:42system. Were only just advertising one of them, the size of them is at
0:31:42 > 0:31:47least probably £10 million. And I just feel very nervous indeed that
0:31:47 > 0:31:54these systems will be ready when we need them to be ready on the 29th of
0:31:54 > 0:31:59March next year. That seems to me to be quite and ask, and therefore what
0:31:59 > 0:32:07I am looking for in this amendment is some substantial reassurance from
0:32:07 > 0:32:12the Minister that this is under control. And secondly, that it will
0:32:12 > 0:32:16be part of the Government's reporting mechanism between now and
0:32:16 > 0:32:25our leaving date so we could understand this progress in an area
0:32:25 > 0:32:28where, if I put it likely, the Government doesn't have the greatest
0:32:28 > 0:32:39reputation. I beg to move.
0:32:39 > 0:32:41Partial list.
0:32:44 > 0:32:52In support of this amendment, I don't expect it to be, I don't
0:32:52 > 0:32:58expect us to go for hat trick on this particular amendment. I speak
0:32:58 > 0:33:03as someone who had the misfortune of inheriting the NHS IT system as a
0:33:03 > 0:33:08responsibility. And what I would say, and have also had some
0:33:08 > 0:33:15experience and that office on IT systems, but what I would say to the
0:33:15 > 0:33:20house is things never work out the way you think they will. And B are
0:33:20 > 0:33:26usually delayed, and they usually malfunction a bit at the point when
0:33:26 > 0:33:34Dave first been introduced. So my question to the minister is, has he
0:33:34 > 0:33:40got a plan B? If this system does not come online up to time. But at
0:33:40 > 0:33:49the end of the day, we still have responsibilities, and if it has not
0:33:49 > 0:33:51gotten the IT system how will it go about discharging its
0:33:51 > 0:34:04responsibilities?Following up on my noble friend, the reason for this
0:34:04 > 0:34:11amendment, and section two, the long name programme and systems there,
0:34:11 > 0:34:15but the minister tell the Lordship whether these are built on existing
0:34:15 > 0:34:19systems? Or are they going to be built from scratch? And may be that
0:34:19 > 0:34:23the minister asked her right these answers later, but if they are built
0:34:23 > 0:34:29from scratch, or are they existing systems that are being adapted? And
0:34:29 > 0:34:32the nature of the IT companies delivering these, is there a
0:34:32 > 0:34:38competition indeed in delivering systems such as this? Was frankly
0:34:38 > 0:34:43there is a hysteria with a very small pool to choose from and not
0:34:43 > 0:34:52much choice, and that leads to price escalation.Irish Bank
0:34:56 > 0:35:05the nuclear safeguard, I also, noble Lord for replying so swiftly. The
0:35:05 > 0:35:10importance of understanding the costs and management systems was
0:35:10 > 0:35:15debated, that the government clarified the implications of the
0:35:15 > 0:35:28mechanisms, that will need to set up our matters to being included in the
0:35:28 > 0:35:39process, it will be costed reported, and certified to be robust.I am
0:35:39 > 0:35:44grateful to the noble Lord for moving his amendment, and I think he
0:35:44 > 0:35:57and the house really want two things, substantiated reassurances,
0:35:57 > 0:36:02and they want details of further reporting. I think the noble Lord
0:36:02 > 0:36:11will except, that, because I think some extent does extent does deal
0:36:11 > 0:36:16with this matter and we propose, put such reporting on the face of the
0:36:16 > 0:36:24bill. And progress of information technology systems required for the
0:36:24 > 0:36:28safety, will Ballwin without duty.
0:36:31 > 0:36:38Fall in with that duty. If I can give something of an update button
0:36:38 > 0:36:43what is happening, the noble Lord put it later on, I will have to
0:36:43 > 0:36:50write with further detail. The statements were they take place and
0:36:50 > 0:36:55how they are providing with sufficient information. If not, they
0:36:55 > 0:37:05can come back. The overall system of safeguards is seen as the control of
0:37:05 > 0:37:14nuclear materials, referring to that in my original written answer. Also
0:37:14 > 0:37:22known as, a sack. It was the social security advisory committee. But we
0:37:22 > 0:37:23won't go there thousand
0:37:27 > 0:37:32-- that was a different territory. As the safeguards information and
0:37:32 > 0:37:38reporting system, I don't know how you pronounce that so we would just
0:37:38 > 0:37:46stick with... Enabling and processing the information to ensure
0:37:46 > 0:37:54that timely submission to the agency of the reports require any future
0:37:54 > 0:38:06safeguards agreements, the SIM are as well also have information, on
0:38:06 > 0:38:12the agreements. Estimated it is going to cost £10 million am a that
0:38:12 > 0:38:24is the figure I gave some weeks ago, as included as part of this overall
0:38:24 > 0:38:29estimate. And the qualification question that they were recently
0:38:29 > 0:38:38advertised on the government marketplace six have been invited to
0:38:38 > 0:38:43respond to the invitation. By the 6th of April. Responses to that will
0:38:43 > 0:38:48provide more certainty on estimates and costs, for contract in early
0:38:48 > 0:38:58May. I of course take note of what the noble Lord warned about an IT
0:38:58 > 0:39:01systems, from his experience of the health service and the Home Office I
0:39:01 > 0:39:07think we are all aware of the problems that new IT systems can
0:39:07 > 0:39:13have. I do not think what we're proposing here is light on the scale
0:39:13 > 0:39:17of what the National Health Service needs. But even so, I accepted that
0:39:17 > 0:39:26can be problems and that we and department had a duty to examine
0:39:26 > 0:39:29this as carefully as we can. And I give an assurance that we will do
0:39:29 > 0:39:38that as part, as far as possible. I think that put very simply what I
0:39:38 > 0:39:43want to say is, that's where we are at the moment. We will keep noble
0:39:43 > 0:39:52Lords updated, we've moved and accepted my amendment six, I don't
0:39:52 > 0:39:57think there's any need to further complicate the bills proceedings by
0:39:57 > 0:40:01adding this amendment, which duplicates but we are ready have
0:40:01 > 0:40:15now.I think the noble Lord, and I welcome his undertaking as a
0:40:15 > 0:40:18understand it, of the IT systems being included in the regular report
0:40:18 > 0:40:25and a welcome that very much. But I think it would be useful if the
0:40:25 > 0:40:30noble Lord, the minister could come back to the noble Lord to answer his
0:40:30 > 0:40:37question as to starting from zero or whether we are effectively modifying
0:40:37 > 0:40:44existing systems? They'll be very useful. Unless I have misunderstood?
0:40:44 > 0:40:59On that basis then I'd take leave. Amendment withdrawn. Amended ten the
0:40:59 > 0:41:03question is, say content, to the contrary not content. The contents
0:41:03 > 0:41:17have it. Not move. Amendment 12. Is amendment 12 being agreed to. Those
0:41:17 > 0:41:25say content, contrary not content. The contents have it.I beg to move
0:41:25 > 0:41:33that the House now adjourned for five minutes. Five minutes.Does the
0:41:33 > 0:41:40house at Jorn for white minutes? Those say content? Contrary not
0:41:40 > 0:41:47content. The contents have it.
0:42:39 > 0:42:45Before taking his seat. Make an oath of allegiance to the crown. For the
0:42:45 > 0:42:52MP it doesn't matter, until the oath is taken, you can't take your seat,
0:42:52 > 0:42:57draw a salary, or make a speech or boat. And you could have your seat
0:42:57 > 0:43:06declared vacant, if you try. The sacred text and says the words of
0:43:06 > 0:43:16the old.That I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Majesty,
0:43:16 > 0:43:26Queen Elizabeth. So help me God.The Scottish manner, by raising their
0:43:26 > 0:43:32hand and not holding the holy book. I swear by Almighty God that I will
0:43:32 > 0:43:38be faithful. And bear true allegiance to Majesty Queen
0:43:38 > 0:43:46Elizabeth. So help me God.It was extended to atheists in 1888, after
0:43:46 > 0:43:51Charles, founder of the national secularist society was thrown out
0:43:51 > 0:43:58for atheism. Those who are less keen on the monarchy had been known to
0:43:58 > 0:44:06hedge their bets, famously kept his fingers firmly crossed. And please
0:44:06 > 0:44:12don't take the oath at all some of them, a United Ireland so if elected
0:44:12 > 0:44:15members don't swear allegiance to the British Monarch and don't take
0:44:15 > 0:44:21their seats in the House of Commons. Members of the Welsh Parliament also
0:44:21 > 0:44:29taken note.I swear that I will be faithful, and bear true allegiance
0:44:29 > 0:44:34to Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors according to law.Members
0:44:34 > 0:44:39take their seats in Northern Ireland by signing the role of membership.
0:44:39 > 0:44:43Members of the Lords to cant sit vote, or receive an allowance until
0:44:43 > 0:44:48they are sworn in. Back in the comments, the oath and affirmation
0:44:48 > 0:44:59must be taken in English, but can be repeated in Welsh...
0:45:05 > 0:45:10At the start of every new parliament or following the death of a monarch,
0:45:10 > 0:45:16all MPs have to swear in and there is a strict order to proceedings.
0:45:16 > 0:45:22The father of the house!Be bringing the father of the house, and in the
0:45:22 > 0:45:28Shadow Cabinet, and the ministers, and finally the remaining MPs. If
0:45:28 > 0:45:31you ambition to be the father of the house, it is important to get to the
0:45:31 > 0:45:38front of the queue and take the oath to determine your place in the
0:45:38 > 0:45:42pecking order when it comes to that job in the years to come. There is a
0:45:42 > 0:45:46range of holy books to swear on, including the old and New Testament
0:45:46 > 0:46:00and the Koran. I swear by Almighty God and be faithful to Her Majesty
0:46:00 > 0:46:04Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors me God. MPs take the
0:46:09 > 0:46:17both, and then are introduced to the common speaker, before going behind
0:46:17 > 0:46:22the chair. Being a fully fledged member of Parliament.
0:47:05 > 0:47:09I make no apologies for moving this motion and I make it plain from the
0:47:09 > 0:47:16start that I say this in personal terms. Back of the 1960s, time that
0:47:16 > 0:47:23brings happiness for many noble Lords, I was a teenager living with
0:47:23 > 0:47:30my... Shortly before the 1966 World Cup, he collapsed and died of a
0:47:30 > 0:47:35heart attack. I was just short of 13 and my mothers world collapsed
0:47:35 > 0:47:42around her. She worked as she always had, she was a farm on a blush a
0:47:42 > 0:47:55farm worker. -- a farm worker. My lords, it was hard work, some does
0:47:55 > 0:47:59about ours. The pay was regulated by the agricultural wages Board. Her
0:47:59 > 0:48:16weekly take-home pay was 157 shillings, 6p. The today of £7 85.
0:48:18 > 0:48:21I would have written closer thresholds set by the Government for
0:48:21 > 0:48:36cutting off access fleshed it would have ridden close to the
0:48:36 > 0:48:40threshold... I tried to help pave my way, but in 19 sexy sex, she was
0:48:40 > 0:48:45what we now call part of the working poor. Until I did some research to
0:48:45 > 0:48:52date, I hadn't realised just how poor she was. There weren't many
0:48:52 > 0:48:58silver linings for my mum becoming a widow. She struggled to cope both
0:48:58 > 0:49:02financially and emotionally. Eventually, the local council
0:49:02 > 0:49:06transferred the tendency to her. The loss of household income led to a
0:49:06 > 0:49:08housing balance an intern that triggered entitlement free school
0:49:08 > 0:49:27meals. When my mum eventually got ahead, she saw me qualify for FIS,
0:49:27 > 0:49:31which I didn't. I do imagine this that? Free school meals were for my
0:49:31 > 0:49:35mother a godsend. They were not an add-on, they were an essential. She
0:49:35 > 0:49:39didn't have to spend time packing a lunch, and I got a hot meal five
0:49:39 > 0:49:45days a week without her having to worry. If you are working poor, that
0:49:45 > 0:49:52matters and it saved her money. That's what's -- that's what makes
0:49:52 > 0:50:03these regulations aboard. -- of torrent -- abhorent.
0:50:08 > 0:50:13This isn't because the scheme is more generous, is simply as the
0:50:13 > 0:50:16Children's Commissioner bumbled last week, because of an increase in the
0:50:16 > 0:50:27school-age population by 2022. As the percentage -- as a percentage,
0:50:27 > 0:50:31fewer will be entitled. Studies show that the educational benefits of
0:50:31 > 0:50:36good eating habits are profound. The work on this suggests a real benefit
0:50:36 > 0:50:41in terms of educational attainment of a midday meal for low income
0:50:41 > 0:50:45households. It was precisely because of this link that school meals were
0:50:45 > 0:50:50first introduced back in 1906 and waved Labour has done so much to
0:50:50 > 0:50:53encourage breakfast clubs to ensure kids get fed before the school day
0:50:53 > 0:51:01begins. -- and why Labour. These changes are being made as part of
0:51:01 > 0:51:04the continuing austerity package. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten
0:51:04 > 0:51:09us this evening to a level of continuous savings produced in the
0:51:09 > 0:51:14Treasury. But we do know the value of free school meals to individual
0:51:14 > 0:51:22households. £437 per child for a year over £1300 a year for the three
0:51:22 > 0:51:28child family, we're all that take those sums away and it represents a
0:51:28 > 0:51:34significant cut to family income. We are supposed to be assured by the
0:51:34 > 0:51:37transitional arrangements. Note family is supposed to lose out if
0:51:37 > 0:51:41they currently receive free school meals except when they moved to the
0:51:41 > 0:51:49next phase of schooling. So one transfer from the bash on transfer,
0:51:49 > 0:51:59Angie -- on transfer, you lose out. I ask how would feel if you are in a
0:51:59 > 0:52:01family where the youngest Lucas secondary schooling and loses free
0:52:01 > 0:52:05school meals as a result of moving faces but has a brother or sister
0:52:05 > 0:52:12still in receipt of free school meals? This is a device to fall --
0:52:12 > 0:52:17divisive policy where some of the bout what are the total numbers of
0:52:17 > 0:52:21people who will benefit now and who benefited the end of the roll-out?
0:52:21 > 0:52:26Can we get a better fuller picture of the impact. The Children's
0:52:26 > 0:52:35Commissioner suggests that we won't know until 2027 due to the that the
0:52:35 > 0:52:40dot I read the consultation document and at paragraph or point for
0:52:40 > 0:52:43comments is 90% of people currently getting free school meals will
0:52:43 > 0:52:49continue to get them, but the 10% that will amass 210,000. A not
0:52:49 > 0:52:58insignificant number. Where is their transitional protection? -- 110,000.
0:52:58 > 0:53:03At its heart, Universal Credit is very simple, and will ensure that
0:53:03 > 0:53:12work always pays, it will mean the people be consistently and
0:53:12 > 0:53:17transparently better off for each hour they work, and of quote. The
0:53:17 > 0:53:21Children's Society says the introduction of the earnings limit
0:53:21 > 0:53:25for free school meals creates a cliff edge that fundamentally
0:53:25 > 0:53:31undermines that objective and that families will become worse off over
0:53:31 > 0:53:36all dying creasing their earnings. The Children's Society estimates
0:53:36 > 0:53:40that some 200,000 families with half a million children are at risk of
0:53:40 > 0:53:45falling into a new poverty trap where they seek to increase earnings
0:53:45 > 0:53:49or are forced to buy their work coach and they will then lose the
0:53:49 > 0:53:53benefit of free school meals. They also estimate that a further 150,000
0:53:53 > 0:53:56families with 400,000 children will find themselves in a position where
0:53:56 > 0:54:01they could be better off by reducing their earnings. The best thing that
0:54:01 > 0:54:04can be said for the Government's consultation is that it is
0:54:04 > 0:54:14confusing. In it, the Government tells us that the pupils will be...
0:54:14 > 0:54:20They apply this numbered schools, why not people in poverty? Another
0:54:20 > 0:54:26DWP report on households below average income base and a 4-2016
0:54:26 > 0:54:32suggests that there are up to 4 million children in poverty. And
0:54:32 > 0:54:37only 1.1 million currently benefiting from free school meals.
0:54:37 > 0:54:48Even on the best estimate, this will... The Children's Society...
0:54:48 > 0:54:52The commissioner says, under any scenario, possibly millions of the
0:54:52 > 0:54:58in poverty will not receive free school meals. So the Children's
0:54:58 > 0:55:01Commissioner suggests that the Government should do four things.
0:55:01 > 0:55:04Release the analysis behind what looks like a spurious claim that can
0:55:04 > 0:55:12increase eligibility, provide an estimate of the future number of
0:55:12 > 0:55:22pupils who... They should provide impact assessments beyond 2022 to
0:55:22 > 0:55:28capture the full impact long-term, and finally, publish an estimate of
0:55:28 > 0:55:32the number of children previously ineligible for free school meals who
0:55:32 > 0:55:44will now become eligible because of... My motion suggests that the
0:55:44 > 0:55:47Government should delay the changes for six months while they get their
0:55:47 > 0:55:51house in order, complete a full poverty impact assessment and bring
0:55:51 > 0:55:56it before both houses so we get a complete picture. Then we should
0:55:56 > 0:55:59consider these regulations again. Otherwise it would penalise many of
0:55:59 > 0:56:04the working poor, people like my widowed mother who lived and worked
0:56:04 > 0:56:08in hard times and who asked for little but needed a benign statement
0:56:08 > 0:56:11not the penalise her but to make life more tolerable so she could
0:56:11 > 0:56:18just about manage. Poverty doesn't make headlines, it should. These
0:56:18 > 0:56:22regulations do nothing to solve problems of modern poverty, but they
0:56:22 > 0:56:34surely make things worse. I beg to move.Firstly, I think the -- I was
0:56:34 > 0:56:39moved by his opening comments about his own circumstances and his own
0:56:39 > 0:56:46widowed mother. Too many people, in particular those whose children have
0:56:46 > 0:56:49less cool, it may not seem important to debate one tiny piece of
0:56:49 > 0:56:52secondary legislation that traced the regulations around who will be
0:56:52 > 0:57:00entitled to a free school dinner. This measure is a bout the bus about
0:57:00 > 0:57:05children. Those who need us most. Children who live in poverty,
0:57:05 > 0:57:11children who are not well fed. Even in my the wealthiest countries on
0:57:11 > 0:57:22Earth. For many children, 190 meals that they get in school, lesson four
0:57:22 > 0:57:26a week on average, are the only proper meals they get. A holiday
0:57:26 > 0:57:32from school is also a holiday from hot dinners. I can well remember
0:57:32 > 0:57:37Christopher, who I taught many years ago, who was always pleased to see
0:57:37 > 0:57:40the end of the holiday so he could come back for school dinners once
0:57:40 > 0:57:43more. I'm sure we'll hear from the Government about how the
0:57:43 > 0:57:48statisticians with their electronic slide rules have worked out who
0:57:48 > 0:57:51should and who should qualify for free school dinners. In order to
0:57:51 > 0:57:57meet the demands of a small army of government accountants employed to
0:57:57 > 0:58:06deliver austerity. The reality is that each will pay the cost of our
0:58:06 > 0:58:13meanness. Children in our poorest communities, whose brothers and
0:58:13 > 0:58:17sisters who benefited from those lunches, will not have that benefit.
0:58:17 > 0:58:24Why? Because they will not be aged for by April 2000 22. The let age
0:58:24 > 0:58:33four by April 2022. The Prime Minister will be remembered for
0:58:33 > 0:58:38taking a set of Europe, but if these regulations get on the statue book,
0:58:38 > 0:58:41she should also be remembered from taking away from a children there
0:58:41 > 0:58:45only Hotmail of the day. Marriott when it is believed to have said let
0:58:45 > 0:58:51them eat cake when she was told the poor had no right to eat. Bobbled
0:58:51 > 0:58:54the Prime Minister said to the children who have no free school
0:58:54 > 0:58:58meals? The Liberal Democrats fought hard in coalition to deliver
0:58:58 > 0:59:05universal in front free meals, ensuring that children are able to
0:59:05 > 0:59:10make the most of their education. These regulations once Universal
0:59:10 > 0:59:13Credit is rolled up with intro that 1 million children will not be
0:59:13 > 0:59:21getting that free meal. Last week, on March the 14th, 2018, the quality
0:59:21 > 0:59:25and human rights commission published its final report at what
0:59:25 > 0:59:34the impact of changes on the text buffer system on families will be in
0:59:34 > 0:59:392021 - 22. It found that children will be hit the hardest, as an usher
0:59:39 > 0:59:4811 5 million children will be in poverty. -- an extra 11.5 million
0:59:48 > 0:59:54children. Hostels with three or more children will see a particularly
0:59:54 > 1:00:00large losses of... The chair of the quality and human rights commission,
1:00:00 > 1:00:08responsible for making recommendations to government, said,
1:00:08 > 1:00:12quote, it's disappointing to discover that the reforms
1:00:12 > 1:00:15re-examined negatively affect the most disadvantaged in our society.
1:00:15 > 1:00:20It's even more shocking that children, our future generation,
1:00:20 > 1:00:24will be the hardest hit and so many will be condemned to start a life in
1:00:24 > 1:00:30poverty. We can't let this continue if we want a fairer Britain.
1:00:30 > 1:00:34Appalling though this picture is, I'm certain it does not take into
1:00:34 > 1:00:43account the additional impact on many poor families. When I taught
1:00:43 > 1:00:52infant children, if they misbehave, I would say, I was sat in my heart.
1:00:52 > 1:00:58While I'm set in my heart and I regret the fact that there is a lack
1:00:58 > 1:01:05of humanity in the changes of the regulations. Our children are our
1:01:05 > 1:01:09future and we must cherish and nurture them. On top of the negative
1:01:09 > 1:01:13impact on children of tax and book forward forms, this change adds
1:01:13 > 1:01:22insult and hunger to injury.I was moved, I haven't got a flinty heart,
1:01:22 > 1:01:28I was moved by what the noble lord said about his own circumstances and
1:01:28 > 1:01:32his hard-working mother and how people in working poverty suffer. I
1:01:32 > 1:01:35don't think there's anyone in this House who isn't concerned about
1:01:35 > 1:01:42poverty in the proper dealings with poverty. It has to be based on fact.
1:01:42 > 1:01:50Not on sentiment. What strikes me about the noble lord said in his
1:01:50 > 1:01:54speech is that there does seem to be a huge gap not just in a legend or
1:01:54 > 1:01:59asserted numbers but in credibility between the alleged 1 million child
1:01:59 > 1:02:18losers to the noble Lord prefers -- noble lord prefers...
1:02:18 > 1:02:217-figure difference from iTunes noble friend.
1:02:24 > 1:02:31From my noble friend. If I'd gotten the chance, but there is a bridge a
1:02:31 > 1:02:41ball cap, a 7-figure gap, then they reflect on the division, he clipped
1:02:41 > 1:02:47away, charting up the votes, counting up on their devices, as a
1:02:47 > 1:02:55back-up. A new statistical fact checker. No hiding place for the
1:02:55 > 1:03:00eventual numbers of those content. And now their independent
1:03:00 > 1:03:07authorities that say that there massive losses of free school meals,
1:03:07 > 1:03:14wrong. And I like experts by the way, unlike some of my colleagues,
1:03:14 > 1:03:20these authorities and experts, say that the statistics Authority make
1:03:20 > 1:03:29it clear that Universal Credit cause, right through to the Channel
1:03:29 > 1:03:33for fact check, pointing out that no child currently receiving free
1:03:33 > 1:03:37school meals will lose their entitlement, rather they'll benefit
1:03:37 > 1:03:43from these changes. So, while I understand the strength of feeling,
1:03:43 > 1:03:50it does seem to me that we've seen the new-found freedom, transmogrify
1:03:50 > 1:03:55into being sensitive bean counter, or perhaps I could say pure counter
1:03:55 > 1:03:59of those voting content or not content, and to what some might
1:03:59 > 1:04:04think would be a statistical tear away, all based on a good cause. And
1:04:04 > 1:04:08I do not doubt that is for a good cause, but I prefer the hard facts
1:04:08 > 1:04:16as opposed to somebody who prefers exaggeration to rely on. I certainly
1:04:16 > 1:04:24wish to see that all children in all households who are in need get help.
1:04:24 > 1:04:29But of course of all children at all households on Universal Credit,
1:04:29 > 1:04:33would he get free school meals, were talking about a cost of billions my
1:04:33 > 1:04:43Lord. And I am not making that up. By comparison, I commend the
1:04:43 > 1:04:47government for what they're doing, all children will, which is not
1:04:47 > 1:04:55mentioned in the debate, continue to get free school meals. No child will
1:04:55 > 1:04:59lose out, and I think with respect, these are facts, rather than
1:04:59 > 1:05:09assertions.Recognising that on all sides of the house, these just
1:05:09 > 1:05:16managing family, working two thirds, working hard to make ends meet, to
1:05:16 > 1:05:20make the best for their children. It is really encouraging to hear the
1:05:20 > 1:05:25Prime Minister talk so strongly about Brexit post, about reaching
1:05:25 > 1:05:29out to those families in need. So I do hope the Minister will take this
1:05:29 > 1:05:36golden opportunity and let the noble Lords basket, to offer moral support
1:05:36 > 1:05:41to children in poverty, families in poverty today, yes there may be
1:05:41 > 1:05:44difficulties, but he will look at how we can ensure that all children
1:05:44 > 1:05:49in poverty get a free school meals. Another is also speaking this
1:05:49 > 1:05:53morning, with a mother corridor property for several years, she had
1:05:53 > 1:05:53been the
1:05:57 > 1:06:02a victim of domestic violence, she had spent six to seven months and
1:06:02 > 1:06:07breakfast accommodation, sitting in the wrong room with her teenage
1:06:07 > 1:06:13daughter, her and it was a challenging time for her, and she
1:06:13 > 1:06:18did support, her friends are either giving or moral support. This
1:06:18 > 1:06:22morning, she had been successful on her visa application, she's a
1:06:22 > 1:06:26financial better state. She found a good man to have a new relationship
1:06:26 > 1:06:31with, but we need to give support to families as they are struggling
1:06:31 > 1:06:33through difficult times. It just appetizers appetizer so many
1:06:33 > 1:06:33families.
1:06:38 > 1:06:46It is difficult times for so many families. We have increasing numbers
1:06:46 > 1:06:50of children, growing up in bed and breakfast and hospital
1:06:50 > 1:06:59accommodations, and even more secure accommodations lack ... And the
1:06:59 > 1:07:03accolades of being the global best teacher in the world. And she talked
1:07:03 > 1:07:10of her experiences where she was concerned about the housing, so many
1:07:10 > 1:07:13children overcrowded, having to work in the bathroom to concentrate. So
1:07:13 > 1:07:20these families are coping with the stress, they have lost their early
1:07:20 > 1:07:24intervention, their services, local services that and cut. This is
1:07:24 > 1:07:28opportunity for the government, yes a difficult one perhaps, burn
1:07:28 > 1:07:33opportunity to offer support for those, often mothers brings up their
1:07:33 > 1:07:38children on their own. Beginning of the day to have confidence that
1:07:38 > 1:07:39their child will have a good healthy help
1:07:43 > 1:07:48hot meal, so he can reach out to these families and often do not
1:07:48 > 1:07:49help. And the Minister can
1:07:54 > 1:08:02give us that assurance today.I speak with some sorrow, I am hoping
1:08:02 > 1:08:06that the proposals made by the government involving I'm sure the
1:08:06 > 1:08:15treasury, the education department, our privacy results of those
1:08:15 > 1:08:20interlocking interest and at inadvertently left which surely
1:08:20 > 1:08:25can't be intended. The consequences of this policy, run counter to
1:08:25 > 1:08:29everything the government has said about the principles of Universal
1:08:29 > 1:08:34Credit stop which I, and many others, has supported. If the
1:08:34 > 1:08:38consequences are unintended, and I should be delighted to hear the
1:08:38 > 1:08:43ministers say so, I'll be relieved and pleased. I've looked at these
1:08:43 > 1:08:53regulations, but I have concluded that they are dry. Through the
1:08:53 > 1:08:57defining principle Universal Credit, which I wholeheartedly endorse, the
1:08:57 > 1:09:05work should pay. They create an arbitrary cliff edge and low income
1:09:05 > 1:09:12threshold through which many risk falling. For working families, just
1:09:12 > 1:09:16below the current threshold, they would very clearly, this would very
1:09:16 > 1:09:22clearly not make extra work pay. They would be better off not seeking
1:09:22 > 1:09:27more paperwork, leaving the children on free school meals, unless the
1:09:27 > 1:09:31family can increase by some considerable margin. There's just a
1:09:31 > 1:09:38bump in the threshold that they will be worse off in these regulations
1:09:38 > 1:09:41facing school meal charges. They will be better off if they could
1:09:41 > 1:09:49work why working less. That, my Lords, is at best an anomaly I am
1:09:49 > 1:09:54tempted to describe it as an absurdity. But I do not want to see
1:09:54 > 1:10:01this as pointing towards a flaw or contradiction in policy design,
1:10:01 > 1:10:05rather to the real pressing increasingly difficult circumstances
1:10:05 > 1:10:12that over the years, families would face more often than not, people
1:10:12 > 1:10:16were already in work, and already earn very little, people whose
1:10:16 > 1:10:26weekly budgets have already little or no slack. Members of your
1:10:26 > 1:10:32lordships House may recall some of you, that I shared for members of
1:10:32 > 1:10:37both houses, recently, a briefing. And a number of your lordships may
1:10:37 > 1:10:42remember, speaking to us, her oldest child currently receives free school
1:10:42 > 1:10:51meals. She and her husband do not want to live on benefits on credits
1:10:51 > 1:10:59or allowances. They want to get on and get up. Her husband had been
1:10:59 > 1:11:03made redundant after 18 months volunteering at a local school, he
1:11:03 > 1:11:11now works as a teaching assistant and he earns £8,000. Claire had
1:11:11 > 1:11:16worked for 15 years, as an NHS dental nurse, but her clinic closed.
1:11:16 > 1:11:18I direct the
1:11:23 > 1:11:26directly quote Claire, we never thought we would be in this
1:11:26 > 1:11:33situation. We feel terribly ashamed to have to rely on health care. So
1:11:33 > 1:11:39she is retraining as a solicitor. When she's done, sir husband will
1:11:39 > 1:11:45complete his own retraining as a teacher. Both will incur significant
1:11:45 > 1:11:52debts, hers will be £56,000. Claire has told us that they have many
1:11:52 > 1:11:55working years ahead of them and looks forward, and they will look
1:11:55 > 1:12:00forward to a future in which taxes are spent helping the vulnerable in
1:12:00 > 1:12:08society. She feels blessed to live in a society that has a safety net
1:12:08 > 1:12:15and place for them and others. Basing short-term difficulties. My
1:12:15 > 1:12:21lords, these regulations won't help Claire and those like her overcome
1:12:21 > 1:12:26the short-term challenges, they'll add to them. Hinder her, from
1:12:26 > 1:12:30creating a long-term future for herself and her family. Because
1:12:30 > 1:12:36Claire has no slack. She told us her family of four and I quote again,
1:12:36 > 1:12:44survives on £10 a day for food and pet troll with no luxuries. Claire
1:12:44 > 1:12:50does not understand how the figure of £7,400 has been arrived at. Nor
1:12:50 > 1:12:58does she understand how introducing an earnings threshold as low as that
1:12:58 > 1:13:05could possibly benefit people in her situation. My lords, I don't
1:13:05 > 1:13:08understand either. She knows her eight-year-old daughter will for now
1:13:08 > 1:13:17continue to receive free school meals, but what of that child, and
1:13:17 > 1:13:21then her son who start school in September? Of the children of their
1:13:21 > 1:13:27ages. As she observes initially, it seems nobody will lose out, but in
1:13:27 > 1:13:35the long-term and more people and more specifically my lords, more and
1:13:35 > 1:13:44more children,. My lords, we are creating potentially anxiety, even
1:13:44 > 1:13:50despair but we should be offering hope and support. So
1:13:54 > 1:13:58the job of this house is often to ask the government to think again,
1:13:58 > 1:14:05to think again about what may be the unintended consequences of policy.
1:14:05 > 1:14:09The outcomes of this one are severe. It asked the government to think
1:14:09 > 1:14:21again this evening, and I do say so from the bottom of my heart.Is very
1:14:21 > 1:14:27moving in his opening speech, explain the Universal Credit when
1:14:27 > 1:14:29your Secretary of State, saying Universal Credit would always make
1:14:29 > 1:14:34work pay. And people would be better off for every hour they work. I want
1:14:34 > 1:14:40to focus specifically on that question of work incentives. The
1:14:40 > 1:14:44nitrate in that, so I offer it to the house or their consideration. It
1:14:44 > 1:14:48was not a throwaway comment, it was any forward to the white paper,
1:14:48 > 1:14:52which explained by the government was planning to abolish working age
1:14:52 > 1:14:56benefits and replace them with Universal Credit. That process is
1:14:56 > 1:15:01now ongoing. It has had its challenges, as we all know. Problems
1:15:01 > 1:15:05the system, proms and computers, design and implementation
1:15:05 > 1:15:09challenges, and severe delays. And it's been subject to repeated budget
1:15:09 > 1:15:14cuts, with results that will was originally designed as a benefit to
1:15:14 > 1:15:18be a net saving to the treasury. But my lords, the whole point of this
1:15:18 > 1:15:23enormous... To include some 7 million people, was that it would
1:15:23 > 1:15:29always make work pay. I was the point, even small amounts of work
1:15:29 > 1:15:32and every action our we pay. That was the aim of the system in a
1:15:32 > 1:15:37nutshell. Yet, this reintroduces the mother of all cliff edges into
1:15:37 > 1:15:46universal credit. By that point, they gain access to working tax
1:15:46 > 1:15:50credit which is worth more. Under this system it would mean that if a
1:15:50 > 1:15:57parent were offered a pay raise, or the chance of an extra hours week,
1:15:57 > 1:16:04working. I would take the earnings over a cash limit and he died at the
1:16:04 > 1:16:07turn that down, or take it knowing that children would all lose free
1:16:07 > 1:16:17school meals. Modelled the impact on a single parent and 2022 at the
1:16:17 > 1:16:21expected minimum wage, raising two children in a rented house. She
1:16:21 > 1:16:26wants to risen to 12 hours week to 16 hours a week, the same thing
1:16:26 > 1:16:29Universal Credit is meant to help. What would have been as her earnings
1:16:29 > 1:16:37would go up by £1893 a year. But you actually end up on just under £74 a
1:16:37 > 1:16:40year worse off by the time she's lost Universal Credit and free
1:16:40 > 1:16:47school meals. She would be better off by cutting their hours and it
1:16:47 > 1:16:52taking a pay cut. This undoes all the progress done by tax credit and
1:16:52 > 1:16:55Universal Credit and getting away from precisely those problems in the
1:16:55 > 1:17:01old-fashioned benefit system. And also there's a problem here,
1:17:01 > 1:17:05finally, Universal Credit has an in work conditionality system, that
1:17:05 > 1:17:09means that people who have got a job can still be forced to take more
1:17:09 > 1:17:12hours, or to take a better paying job. Sven next giveaway that what
1:17:12 > 1:17:16happens a single parent can be put in a position where they will be
1:17:16 > 1:17:19forced to take more hours, particularly paying job, but in
1:17:19 > 1:17:24doing so, would lose free school meals and be worse off! And when
1:17:24 > 1:17:30this was debated in another place, that question was put to the
1:17:30 > 1:17:32Secretary of State. She said, I'm
1:17:36 > 1:17:40will not seek to put someone in a less advantageous position. If they
1:17:40 > 1:17:43would demand is coming in and the support that's coming from school
1:17:43 > 1:17:48meals, they can will not seek to do that an individual. And we'll be
1:17:48 > 1:17:51working with individuals doubt the progress of work. So they are in a
1:17:51 > 1:17:55better situation. So can the Minister confirm today that this
1:17:55 > 1:18:02means no claim will be sectioned for refusing to increase their earnings
1:18:02 > 1:18:07if they'll make them worse off? And they cannot, can he write to me to
1:18:07 > 1:18:12confirm? I have that is true, but even if it is, how then and the
1:18:12 > 1:18:16Secretary of State word, how can parents progress in work if they
1:18:18 > 1:18:19afford to
1:18:22 > 1:18:30cannot afford to take a pay rise? To my lords, we are putting back in
1:18:30 > 1:18:33this enormous cliff edge right into the middle of the system. Can the
1:18:33 > 1:18:38Minister tell the house how that is meant to help achieve the
1:18:38 > 1:18:42governments objective of making sure warp always pays a view can progress
1:18:42 > 1:18:48out of poverty to work? I do want to try and challenge the government to
1:18:48 > 1:18:53get the house some facts about where exactly this figure has come from.
1:18:53 > 1:18:56The same 50,000 more children would get free school meals. Is also a
1:18:56 > 1:19:01point made that the churches commission had pointed out, that in
1:19:01 > 1:19:04fact simply on children numbers alone, there'll be another half
1:19:04 > 1:19:08million kids by two dozen 22, expecting to be getting free school
1:19:08 > 1:19:13meals. The 2022, the date by which these children will get free school
1:19:13 > 1:19:17meals, isn't some random date, it's actually the date that Universal
1:19:17 > 1:19:23Credit will be rubbed out busstop has been chosen because it's a high
1:19:23 > 1:19:26water mark where as long as those people who qualify under the new
1:19:26 > 1:19:30system, there is a maximum number of people getting transitional
1:19:30 > 1:19:34protection from inside Universal Credit? My lords, therefore that
1:19:34 > 1:19:39number includes people will go want to lose free school meals with their
1:19:39 > 1:19:41children circumstances change, but when they move from primary to
1:19:41 > 1:19:45secondary school. And for all those children, the deputy Universal
1:19:45 > 1:19:49Credit is rolled out, if their parents are on the same,
1:19:49 > 1:19:53transitional, they will not get free school meals. So my lords, I say to
1:19:53 > 1:19:58the noble Lord, look very carefully at the briefing of the government.
1:19:58 > 1:20:02It it skewers as much as it reveals. This ought to be made clear, a
1:20:02 > 1:20:07proper impact assessment which compares, compare the number of
1:20:07 > 1:20:14people would get free school meals, and steady-state of the new system,
1:20:14 > 1:20:17and steady-state before reform. Without transitional protection.
1:20:17 > 1:20:21They have not done that, and the charges commission has caught up the
1:20:21 > 1:20:24issue and asked the government to reveal all the analysis behind the
1:20:24 > 1:20:2850,000. And us to provide us with estimates, who would lose out in
1:20:28 > 1:20:32different categories on Universal Credit and the current system before
1:20:32 > 1:20:38and after 2022.
1:20:38 > 1:20:48Unless Ministers agreed to do that, I'm afraid to say we must treat the
1:20:48 > 1:20:56figures was some concern.My basic concern is this. This puzzle as the
1:20:56 > 1:21:10Bishop of Portsmouth said, drives... Though -- this proposal. For what?
1:21:10 > 1:21:13Just bring back in the biggest cliff edge we've seen in the system in
1:21:13 > 1:21:20decades? Surely this can't be right. Of the Government think again?The
1:21:20 > 1:21:25Lesher will the Government think again? I echo the concerns of the
1:21:25 > 1:21:28noble lord about the Government's proposals to introduce an earnings
1:21:28 > 1:21:33threshold for eligibility for free school meals and milk. This is very
1:21:33 > 1:21:39unfair because it takes no account into the amount of children the
1:21:39 > 1:21:47parents have to feed. As we've heard, it would cause a poverty trap
1:21:47 > 1:21:57per minute. This, -- poverty trap for many. Let me say first of all
1:21:57 > 1:22:03why I believe free school meals are so important. There's plenty of
1:22:03 > 1:22:07research that shows that the nutrition levels of school meals are
1:22:07 > 1:22:14vastly better than either the average packed lunch, only 1.6% of
1:22:14 > 1:22:18rich reach the same nutritional standard, and certainly better than
1:22:18 > 1:22:25a cheap pack of chips and a fizzy drink from the shop on the corner.
1:22:25 > 1:22:33The provision of a nursing meal at lunch time, often times is the only
1:22:33 > 1:22:41decent meal they would get all day. Many teachers tell you that they
1:22:41 > 1:22:44have children and their class who come to school without any practise.
1:22:44 > 1:22:48One local authority has taken this a much on board that is decided to
1:22:48 > 1:22:54offer free meals to poor children every day of the year. This is
1:22:54 > 1:22:57because teachers notice, evidence of malnutrition and some children when
1:22:57 > 1:23:03they come back to school after the holidays. A nursing balanced meal
1:23:03 > 1:23:06containing fruits and vegetables is not just for the health of the
1:23:06 > 1:23:11child, providing the vitamins needed for healthy growth and helping to
1:23:11 > 1:23:15prevent obesity, but it's also important for the child's behaviour
1:23:15 > 1:23:19and academic attainment. The pilot studies on the effective provision
1:23:19 > 1:23:25of freeze school meals for Key stage one children when they were
1:23:25 > 1:23:27introduced by the coalition government showed a distinct
1:23:27 > 1:23:32improvement in behaviour, entertainment advanced by as much as
1:23:32 > 1:23:36two months. This is particularly so with children from this vantage
1:23:36 > 1:23:40background. Clearly free school meals are where the major tools in
1:23:40 > 1:23:46our armoury for closing the attainment gap between the and poor.
1:23:46 > 1:23:49The main objective of our education system must be to help all children
1:23:49 > 1:23:54attained their maximum potential. Good nutrition is one of the
1:23:54 > 1:24:00foundations of this. A hungry child is not a learning child. Anything
1:24:00 > 1:24:02that has the potential of reducing the number of poor children who
1:24:02 > 1:24:06received these meals is something which should be rejected. We should
1:24:06 > 1:24:13be providing free meals for more children, not fewer. A free meals
1:24:13 > 1:24:17regime increases uptake, decreases stigma and reduces the number of
1:24:17 > 1:24:21children bringing sandwiches and biscuits are going to the chip shop.
1:24:21 > 1:24:27This improves the attainment of all children. The Government has told us
1:24:27 > 1:24:30that 50,000 more children will receive free meals under the new
1:24:30 > 1:24:35regulations than under the old ones. They promised that no child already
1:24:35 > 1:24:46on them bulldoze them -- will lose them. The problem is that children
1:24:46 > 1:24:50grow up. Children who were formerly eligible for free meals will no
1:24:50 > 1:24:54longer get them. There does have to have been -- dirt does not have to
1:24:54 > 1:25:01have been a change in a parents earnings for this to happen. Every
1:25:01 > 1:25:05mum and dad knows it takes twice as much money to feed to my children as
1:25:05 > 1:25:10one, and three times as much to feed three. That's £10 a week for lunches
1:25:10 > 1:25:17every week, or 20, or 30. Which could easily be enough to make it
1:25:17 > 1:25:21not worth taking a few extra hours worked. Where then is the
1:25:21 > 1:25:24fundamental work incentive that is supposed underpinned Universal
1:25:24 > 1:25:39Credit? Where is the mantra making work pay? Is quite clearly -- what
1:25:39 > 1:25:43the Government needs to look at is the disposable income of the family
1:25:43 > 1:25:48once the 62% withdrawal of Universal Credit for every extra pound earned
1:25:48 > 1:25:53has been taken into account. School meals have been paid for. If they do
1:25:53 > 1:25:56that, there may come up with a fairer system because my lords,
1:25:56 > 1:26:01school lunches are not a luxury. They are at an essential of life for
1:26:01 > 1:26:06those families that find hard to feed their children. We're not even
1:26:06 > 1:26:12only talking about meals. Are many other benefits went to free school
1:26:12 > 1:26:16meals, and they help to make people able to bring up their children
1:26:16 > 1:26:21bearable. They currently include the early years pupil premium, and I
1:26:21 > 1:26:24would think that ministered to decouple that at the very least
1:26:24 > 1:26:29because again, it's in the interest of closing the attainment gap.
1:26:29 > 1:26:32Universal Credit was supposed to avoid the cliff edge and make it
1:26:32 > 1:26:37worthwhile going to work. But by introducing a lower earnings
1:26:37 > 1:26:40threshold, the Government would be creating a cliff edge at a very low
1:26:40 > 1:26:45earnings level where it will hurt most. It would undermine the whole
1:26:45 > 1:26:51point of Universal Credit. It's putting at risk to help and academic
1:26:51 > 1:26:53attainment of the poorest children, will the Minister please think
1:26:53 > 1:27:04again?The noble lord make his case with characteristic vigour and force
1:27:04 > 1:27:09and with deep feeling recalling life in the part of Essex in the 1960s
1:27:09 > 1:27:15with which I was very familiar myself. The motion states that up to
1:27:15 > 1:27:20a million poor children could be deprived of free school meals as a
1:27:20 > 1:27:25result of government policies. As my noble friend Lord Patten has shown,
1:27:25 > 1:27:31it depends -- independent experts have purchased to treat this
1:27:31 > 1:27:36prediction with considerable caution. I think we should be wary
1:27:36 > 1:27:42about rushing to the conclusion that a crisis is in the making. It's
1:27:42 > 1:27:46excepted on all sides that introduction of Universal Credit
1:27:46 > 1:27:51throughout our country is so vital in helping more people into jobs
1:27:51 > 1:27:56will affect the number of children eligible for free school meals while
1:27:56 > 1:28:02ensuring that poor families whose needs must be safeguarded remain at
1:28:02 > 1:28:05the centre of policy. Answer of arrangements were announced last
1:28:05 > 1:28:17summer to secure free -- in terror arrangements -- interim
1:28:17 > 1:28:26arrangements. There is nothing new or unexpected about this. It has
1:28:26 > 1:28:30been a feature of the plans for this major contract of reform of our
1:28:30 > 1:28:37welfare system since 2013. What are the implications? The Department for
1:28:37 > 1:28:44Education estimates as we have heard that in the years ahead, some 50,000
1:28:44 > 1:28:49more children will be entitled to a free school meal than under the
1:28:49 > 1:28:56arrangements, which Universal Credit is replacing. That is a doctor that
1:28:56 > 1:29:00I think perhaps the Government should consider some form of
1:29:00 > 1:29:06monetary arrangement. I wonder if arrangements could be made to
1:29:06 > 1:29:11publish figures on the number of children receiving free school meals
1:29:11 > 1:29:18at regular intervals between now and 2022. So that the effects of this
1:29:18 > 1:29:24hugely significant change in policy can be assessed. We do need to be
1:29:24 > 1:29:27sure that the poorest families in our country are continuing to
1:29:27 > 1:29:39receive the help they need.My lords, I'd would just like to pick
1:29:39 > 1:29:43up to make statements. One of which I agree with and one of which I do
1:29:43 > 1:29:50not agree with. I think the first one, possibly the most substantial
1:29:50 > 1:29:55one, is the claim that 1 million would lose out and that the new
1:29:55 > 1:30:10threshold of 37,400 changes the line . This figure was chosen to try and
1:30:10 > 1:30:15find the right level to go on making that provision. I would disagree
1:30:15 > 1:30:23with him there. But where I agree with him, and the points made by
1:30:23 > 1:30:32Lady Sherlock, the right Reverend Bishop of Portsmouth, is around the
1:30:32 > 1:30:47distance devising -- disincentivising... It's almost more
1:30:47 > 1:30:58of a waterfall effect on the cliff edge. It's there, and SAC came out
1:30:58 > 1:31:04with a report looking at what we could do with passport at benefits
1:31:04 > 1:31:11generally. In order to incorporate them with -- with the Universal
1:31:11 > 1:31:19Credit. We could eliminate not just... We could put them within the
1:31:19 > 1:31:28taper in a way that didn't have a cash flow impact. You can see that
1:31:28 > 1:31:32there is a suggested structure and indeed, the DWP response to that
1:31:32 > 1:31:44report endorsed it. We are the country with the most passport
1:31:44 > 1:31:49benefits of any country. Date have proliferated. If we do have all of
1:31:49 > 1:31:56these benefits, -- they have proliferated. We need to look at a
1:31:56 > 1:31:59machine to add into Universal Credit so that we can put them on the paper
1:31:59 > 1:32:04so that we don't have a disincentive effect. The reality is other
1:32:04 > 1:32:13departments don't particularly care about disincentivising work. The DWP
1:32:13 > 1:32:16does, this House does, departments worry about feeding children and so
1:32:16 > 1:32:22on. I do think it's important to keep up the pressure in the years to
1:32:22 > 1:32:29come that we don't allow these cliff edges or these waterfalls to be
1:32:29 > 1:32:34reincorporated into the system and to do that, we will have to design a
1:32:34 > 1:32:45way of putting the passport benefits...I wanted to pay tribute
1:32:45 > 1:32:52to my noble friend for a very powerful introduction. The
1:32:52 > 1:33:03Government has the that... Vesely, and Oral Questions, then mumbled
1:33:03 > 1:33:10baroness Lady Boskin said that there was found that there was a research
1:33:10 > 1:33:14evidence to show that the provision of passport benefits act as an
1:33:14 > 1:33:26incentive. It's a right door stopper, I could tell you. There the
1:33:26 > 1:33:30other that there is slightly different. What is interesting is
1:33:30 > 1:33:39the response to... It said in its introduction, the coalition
1:33:39 > 1:33:44government endorses the view that the design of passport benefits
1:33:44 > 1:33:59under Universal Credit cavity impact... -- it's important to
1:33:59 > 1:34:07highlight that the response has gathered in the review rather than
1:34:07 > 1:34:13the impact on the Universal Credit. This is an important distinction as
1:34:13 > 1:34:23currently, some benefits are withdrawn, what recipients often
1:34:23 > 1:34:35increase... As my noble friend pointed out, but this was ignored by
1:34:35 > 1:34:43the Secretary of State, Les Reed told the House of Commons... -- he
1:34:43 > 1:34:55told the House of Commons... And declare an interest as honourary
1:34:55 > 1:34:59president, which is already being referred to. I also would refer back
1:34:59 > 1:35:09to that report to a dress a point made by Lord Becks and, we have
1:35:09 > 1:35:18known that the -- what is happening now is an entire room -- interim
1:35:18 > 1:35:22arrangement. It is not surprising that some wars have forgotten about
1:35:22 > 1:35:27that because it was a long time ago. The Government also said then that
1:35:27 > 1:35:33they would consult on the new criteria that year to put in place
1:35:33 > 1:35:38the new system and October 20 13. We've had to wait six years, what
1:35:38 > 1:35:43took them so long? I suspect because they couldn't find a way around the
1:35:43 > 1:35:51cliff edge problem. Because SA see drew attention to the fact that if
1:35:51 > 1:35:58you go down that road, it creates a cliff edge problem. We didn't have
1:35:58 > 1:36:01an answer to it because I don't think there is an answer. If you're
1:36:01 > 1:36:11not a prayer to pay to give Universal Credit...