20/03/2018 House of Lords

recorded coverage of all the

up-to-date's business after the

daily later tonight. -- the daily

politics.

My lords.

My lords, 244, malcontents 194. So

the contents have it.

My lords the question is, amendment

six has been agreed to, to those

that say content. Contrary not

content. The contents have it.

My

lords, Peachtree D, if I could just

reminded members says in the second

article, to perform its tasks, the

community shall ensure wide

commercial outlets and assets to

facilities of a Common Market and

specialised materials and equipment

by the free movement of capital for

investment. And the employment a

specialist within the community.

Now, I have not taken a hold of the

article, in this amendment, just the

really important post Brexit part,

which is the free movement of

nuclear specialists. I'm not going

to make a long speech, because to

me, this is self evident. The

government hasn't

the government has said strategy,

missing in previous debates, the

most important in the short term is

steady functioning safeguarding

authority, whether it is the gear

read them, as

, we need those bodies and nobody in

particular to function, we have a

shortage of people who are qualified

in this area, we have a shortage of

specialists in the industry more

generally. Although this amendment,

because of this bill, primarily

around safeguarding. Therefore it

must be in the interest of the

objective of this bill, and in the

interest of the country at large, to

ensure that we maintain, the

mobility of those specialists in the

nuclear industry and the nuclear

sector that we benefit from that.

Post our Brexit and our membership.

That's why believe this amendment

absolutely appropriate to this bill

and is of great importance to not

just the sector, but to our national

security as well. And, I very much

hope that the minister will be able

to give greater reassurance, perhaps

a higher up on the Richter scale of

assurances, then we've been able to

have so far. But this area will be

looked after by the government that

we won't be browbeaten by the Home

Office and terms of minimal

circulation of specialists and this

country can benefit from those with

the experience and the skills that

will make us be able to perform in

the sector, not just in

safeguarding, but in the nuclear

sector, I beg to move.

Insert the

new words, and printed on the

Marshall's list.

I valued my name to

this amendment, I remain concerned

about the industries access to the

workforce it needs once the UK

leads. The free flow is essential of

speciality staff, I suggest dry up,

unless the government is reasonably

energetic. Any kind of guarantees

that it gets to them. And this is

not just the safeguarding workforce

issue, it involves all sector. And

very well brought out and the

nuclear industry Association's

briefing. I'm not going to go into

the details on that, but it's very

clear that maintaining existing

reactors and even more

significantly, the course of the

building new reactors, that we need

a very skilled workforce coming into

this country to help those areas as

well as safeguarding these areas.

And I think it is a bit

disappointing, because we did not

manage to get on the bill in the

regular reports that the government

will be giving to Parliament on

progressive safeguarding area,

something with a specific reference

to, essential specialist workforce.

But at the Minister will take the

suggestion in the spirit in which it

is offered, that he might encourage

his officials when they are

producing these reports, to say

something about progress,

particularly in getting the

specialist staff that it needs to

make progress. Perez in conclusion,

I would just like to raise an issue,

which government ministers are

usually keen that you don't say out

loud. It's called immigration rules.

And governments, successive

governments, have been surprisingly

flexible when they're really up

against it in terms of getting

specialist staff in particular,

sectors of industries. And no more

so than in the NHS, where

immigration rules have been

modified, bend, utilised, to bring

specialist people in when this

country has a shortage of them. I

wonder what assurances and the terms

of this debate, what assurances the

Minister could give us that they

will not lose sight of the

possibility of modifying the

immigration rules, where this may be

necessary to help specialist

safeguarding staff when necessary?

But also to be a bit more flexible

when it comes to the areas where

there may be problems on maintaining

reactors, or problems, for example

in terms of getting the specialist

skills that are

For at least 20 years, this

country... This was of course a

failure of successive governments to

address the issues about what our

attitude was towards. -- towards

policy. It's quite certain that we

will depend on specialist skills

from overseas. Whether it's really

necessary to put this amendment of

the face of the Bill, I rather

doubt. I am confident that my

honourable friend the Minister will

agree that we will need specialist

skills, we must be given assurance

by the industry that there will be

welcome and the Minister in

responding to this short debate,

Lord by -- led by the...

they had a

research programme on connecting

fusion and fission and the very

long-range problems that we have in

the nuclear industry is dealing with

nuclear waste. One of the ways for

that in the future, thus that your

random -- that's the programme. This

is the kind of extremely important

issue and the people who will be

able to work on that will have a

very broad range of specialties, not

just a narrow existing fission

experts at the moment.

I commend the

noble lord for bringing this

amendment back and report. It

contains an important issue that the

UK must address the skills needed in

the UK. The problem with labour

supply with the necessary skills

beyond those present and available

in the UK will be to be addressed by

the Vashti to be addressed by

several of the that -- will need to

be addressed by... PDF is certainly

correct to identify the ports of the

specialist needed to deliver Hinkley

point C on time. With restrictions

to the move to the free -- with

restrictions to freedom of movement,

there is no route that would

identify that many categories of

workers to enter the UK under the

point system to fill... Is crucial

that the minister's department

aligns the importance of the issue

with the Home Office to come up with

a solution. It would be needed for

the best interests of the UK's civil

nuclear industry.

I am grateful for

the contributions of noble Lords and

I acceptable continue to be in port

and that we continue to attract, as

the noble lord Hunt of the brightest

and the best to ensure that we

maintain our excellence in the

nuclear field. This amendment is

somewhat more limited in scope than

just that. As regards, our future

immigration system, that will be set

up shortly and I think it will be

right... Is my right honourable

friend made clear in his statement

on the 11th of January, working to

ensure that businesses and problem

and have the opportunity to

contribute interviews before any

decisions are made about the future

system that the Home Office will be

developing.

Could the Minister

confirm that the issues as rehearsed

in this debate have been presented

to the Home Office and the people

drawing up these immigration laws by

the department...

As I remember, the

last time we debated this, just by

chance, I might be missed murmuring

-- misremembering, but I can confirm

that the Home Office are fully aware

of the concerns with the expressed

in debates of this source and -- of

the start and we will ensure that

they are. This is important to us,

that we continue, as I put it,

access the best talent. We have

already doubled the number of

already available visas in the tier

one exceptional talent review. We

will be looking at changing

immigration rules to enable world

leading scientists and researchers

under tier one route to apply for

settlement after three years, make

it quicker for highly skilled

students to work in the United

Kingdom. We are relaxing the labour

market test where appropriate.

Turning to the tracks of the

amendment, and... To safeguarding

the staff, with the amendment

attempts to do is ensure that

freedom of employment of those

specialists, it's clearly a matter

of particular interest in matter of

-- in light of the Government's...

Among other important work means

securing the right quality and the

right quantity of appropriate

safeguards, and staff for the office

of nuclear regulation. Given the

importance of attracting the right

staff to work in this field, the

Government is committed to ensuring

that they have the right personnel.

I can give an assurance, I just saw

a bit of information, the most

recent Krugman round just for two

further posts in this field, there

were a applicants flesh 112

applicants -- 112 applicants. We

will ensure that they will have the

right staff and the position to

regulate the UK's new civil nuclear

safeguards regime. From those

figures, it seems there is no

shortage, certainly in the world of

recruiting and training the

appropriate inspectors and building

additional institutional capacity.

The noble lord will be surprised

that we will go into this, if I give

him assurance that the amendment

itself is possibly defective and

therefore not suitable for us to be

putting in, but I hope people accept

that there is no need for this, that

the Government of...

I think noble

lord the Minister for his reply will

stop its good to have some figures,

can we have more of them in these

interactions around groups? Can I

also remind the Minister them noble

lord he mentions very regularly the

highly skilled and talented, that I

agree may be the case in terms of

nuclear safeguarding. But in a lot

of areas of Brexit, and perhaps in

some areas of the nuclear industry,

that is -- the need is far more

broad than that. But I take his

point in terms this particular bill.

I recognise that inevitably this

will be fought out in terms of the

immigration bill Debbie will

eventually have. My delight is we

will have another opportunity to

debate this in another bill and

pursue sanity and perhaps change in

this area. I except the noble lord's

challenge, as it were, as well as

assurances to take up these issues

in the future immigration bill,

which we still wait for. With

interest. I beg to withdraw the

amendment in the meantime.

Amendment

9... On the supplementary left,

amendment 9- A.

During the committee

debate, I raise an issue which I

don't think have been raised, which

is that information systems that

required to perform its tasks

efficiently to be acceptable as a

safeguarding agency in the

international system. And I

subsequently asked a written

question to the Government on this

and I want to thank very genuinely

the Minister for what was an

interesting reply and a very good

reply to that. As part of that, I

almost feel I have to apologise to

the House for the list of names on

this amendment. Mr informs me they

were needed in order that we can

fulfil our international -- the

Minister. I asked what cost it would

be to those systems, in order, not

so much to understand the cost but

undersigned the size -- to

understand the size of the test that

need to be completed within the next

12 months. Maybe I can just perhaps

quote that written reply to my

question from the Minister. The OMR

has estimated that it will cost £10

million to establish a UK SSA CE and

SIM RS, which are the two systems

included as a part of this overall

estimate. An additional opportunity

in relation to the latter is being

advertised on the Government digital

marketplace and responses to that

city will provide more certainty...

I think my lords the thing that

concerns me about that is that I

don't know whether we already had

the other system, I don't think we

do. But at the moment where only

tendering for only one of them. This

is clearly significant, with the

cost of £10 million combined, but we

are only now getting around to

advertising these. I know from my

corporate career and my role in this

House in scrutinising what

government is up to and government

systems. But IT systems are not the

greatest thing to predict when they

are ready. Let alone when they are

functioning. We had a debate last

week about the smart metres bill and

all of the IT that is needed for

that, and it's 12 years later when

it comes to those particular

systems. My real question here,

which I'm trying to get to, is a

very serious one. Clearly, for the

minister's reply, we cannot be --

the OMR can function without this

system. Were only just advertising

one of them, the size of them is at

least probably £10 million. And I

just feel very nervous indeed that

these systems will be ready when we

need them to be ready on the 29th of

March next year. That seems to me to

be quite and ask, and therefore what

I am looking for in this amendment

is some substantial reassurance from

the Minister that this is under

control. And secondly, that it will

be part of the Government's

reporting mechanism between now and

our leaving date so we could

understand this progress in an area

where, if I put it likely, the

Government doesn't have the greatest

reputation. I beg to move.

Partial list.

In support of this amendment, I

don't expect it to be, I don't

expect us to go for hat trick on

this particular amendment. I speak

as someone who had the misfortune of

inheriting the NHS IT system as a

responsibility. And what I would

say, and have also had some

experience and that office on IT

systems, but what I would say to the

house is things never work out the

way you think they will. And B are

usually delayed, and they usually

malfunction a bit at the point when

Dave first been introduced. So my

question to the minister is, has he

got a plan B? If this system does

not come online up to time. But at

the end of the day, we still have

responsibilities, and if it has not

gotten the IT system how will it go

about discharging its

responsibilities?

Following up on my

noble friend, the reason for this

amendment, and section two, the long

name programme and systems there,

but the minister tell the Lordship

whether these are built on existing

systems? Or are they going to be

built from scratch? And may be that

the minister asked her right these

answers later, but if they are built

from scratch, or are they existing

systems that are being adapted? And

the nature of the IT companies

delivering these, is there a

competition indeed in delivering

systems such as this? Was frankly

there is a hysteria with a very

small pool to choose from and not

much choice, and that leads to price

escalation.

Irish Bank

the nuclear safeguard, I also, noble

Lord for replying so swiftly. The

importance of understanding the

costs and management systems was

debated, that the government

clarified the implications of the

mechanisms, that will need to set up

our matters to being included in the

process, it will be costed reported,

and certified to be robust.

I am

grateful to the noble Lord for

moving his amendment, and I think he

and the house really want two

things, substantiated reassurances,

and they want details of further

reporting. I think the noble Lord

will except, that, because I think

some extent does extent does deal

with this matter and we propose, put

such reporting on the face of the

bill. And progress of information

technology systems required for the

safety, will Ballwin without duty.

Fall in with that duty. If I can

give something of an update button

what is happening, the noble Lord

put it later on, I will have to

write with further detail. The

statements were they take place and

how they are providing with

sufficient information. If not, they

can come back. The overall system of

safeguards is seen as the control of

nuclear materials, referring to that

in my original written answer. Also

known as, a sack. It was the social

security advisory committee. But we

won't go there thousand

-- that was a different territory.

As the safeguards information and

reporting system, I don't know how

you pronounce that so we would just

stick with... Enabling and

processing the information to ensure

that timely submission to the agency

of the reports require any future

safeguards agreements, the SIM are

as well also have information, on

the agreements. Estimated it is

going to cost £10 million am a that

is the figure I gave some weeks ago,

as included as part of this overall

estimate. And the qualification

question that they were recently

advertised on the government

marketplace six have been invited to

respond to the invitation. By the

6th of April. Responses to that will

provide more certainty on estimates

and costs, for contract in early

May. I of course take note of what

the noble Lord warned about an IT

systems, from his experience of the

health service and the Home Office I

think we are all aware of the

problems that new IT systems can

have. I do not think what we're

proposing here is light on the scale

of what the National Health Service

needs. But even so, I accepted that

can be problems and that we and

department had a duty to examine

this as carefully as we can. And I

give an assurance that we will do

that as part, as far as possible. I

think that put very simply what I

want to say is, that's where we are

at the moment. We will keep noble

Lords updated, we've moved and

accepted my amendment six, I don't

think there's any need to further

complicate the bills proceedings by

adding this amendment, which

duplicates but we are ready have

now.

I think the noble Lord, and I

welcome his undertaking as a

understand it, of the IT systems

being included in the regular report

and a welcome that very much. But I

think it would be useful if the

noble Lord, the minister could come

back to the noble Lord to answer his

question as to starting from zero or

whether we are effectively modifying

existing systems? They'll be very

useful. Unless I have misunderstood?

On that basis then I'd take leave.

Amendment withdrawn. Amended ten the

question is, say content, to the

contrary not content. The contents

have it. Not move. Amendment 12. Is

amendment 12 being agreed to. Those

say content, contrary not content.

The contents have it.

I beg to move

that the House now adjourned for

five minutes. Five minutes.

Does the

house at Jorn for white minutes?

Those say content? Contrary not

content. The contents have it.

Before taking his seat. Make an oath

of allegiance to the crown. For the

MP it doesn't matter, until the oath

is taken, you can't take your seat,

draw a salary, or make a speech or

boat. And you could have your seat

declared vacant, if you try. The

sacred text and says the words of

the old.

That I will be faithful and

bear true allegiance to Majesty,

Queen Elizabeth. So help me God.

The

Scottish manner, by raising their

hand and not holding the holy book.

I swear by Almighty God that I will

be faithful. And bear true

allegiance to Majesty Queen

Elizabeth. So help me God.

It was

extended to atheists in 1888, after

Charles, founder of the national

secularist society was thrown out

for atheism. Those who are less keen

on the monarchy had been known to

hedge their bets, famously kept his

fingers firmly crossed. And please

don't take the oath at all some of

them, a United Ireland so if elected

members don't swear allegiance to

the British Monarch and don't take

their seats in the House of Commons.

Members of the Welsh Parliament also

taken note.

I swear that I will be

faithful, and bear true allegiance

to Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and

successors according to law.

Members

take their seats in Northern Ireland

by signing the role of membership.

Members of the Lords to cant sit

vote, or receive an allowance until

they are sworn in. Back in the

comments, the oath and affirmation

must be taken in English, but can be

repeated in Welsh...

At the start of every new parliament

or following the death of a monarch,

all MPs have to swear in and there

is a strict order to proceedings.

The father of the house!

Be bringing

the father of the house, and in the

Shadow Cabinet, and the ministers,

and finally the remaining MPs. If

you ambition to be the father of the

house, it is important to get to the

front of the queue and take the oath

to determine your place in the

pecking order when it comes to that

job in the years to come. There is a

range of holy books to swear on,

including the old and New Testament

and the Koran. I swear by Almighty

God and be faithful to Her Majesty

Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and

successors me God. MPs take the

both, and then are introduced to the

common speaker, before going behind

the chair. Being a fully fledged

member of Parliament.

I make no apologies for moving this

motion and I make it plain from the

start that I say this in personal

terms. Back of the 1960s, time that

brings happiness for many noble

Lords, I was a teenager living with

my... Shortly before the 1966 World

Cup, he collapsed and died of a

heart attack. I was just short of 13

and my mothers world collapsed

around her. She worked as she always

had, she was a farm on a blush a

farm worker. -- a farm worker. My

lords, it was hard work, some does

about ours. The pay was regulated by

the agricultural wages Board. Her

weekly take-home pay was 157

shillings, 6p. The today of £7 85.

I would have written closer

thresholds set by the Government for

cutting off access fleshed it would

have ridden close to the

threshold... I tried to help pave my

way, but in 19 sexy sex, she was

what we now call part of the working

poor. Until I did some research to

date, I hadn't realised just how

poor she was. There weren't many

silver linings for my mum becoming a

widow. She struggled to cope both

financially and emotionally.

Eventually, the local council

transferred the tendency to her. The

loss of household income led to a

housing balance an intern that

triggered entitlement free school

meals. When my mum eventually got

ahead, she saw me qualify for FIS,

which I didn't. I do imagine this

that? Free school meals were for my

mother a godsend. They were not an

add-on, they were an essential. She

didn't have to spend time packing a

lunch, and I got a hot meal five

days a week without her having to

worry. If you are working poor, that

matters and it saved her money.

That's what's -- that's what makes

these regulations aboard. -- of

torrent -- abhorent.

This isn't because the scheme is

more generous, is simply as the

Children's Commissioner bumbled last

week, because of an increase in the

school-age population by 2022. As

the percentage -- as a percentage,

fewer will be entitled. Studies show

that the educational benefits of

good eating habits are profound. The

work on this suggests a real benefit

in terms of educational attainment

of a midday meal for low income

households. It was precisely because

of this link that school meals were

first introduced back in 1906 and

waved Labour has done so much to

encourage breakfast clubs to ensure

kids get fed before the school day

begins. -- and why Labour. These

changes are being made as part of

the continuing austerity package.

Perhaps the Minister can enlighten

us this evening to a level of

continuous savings produced in the

Treasury. But we do know the value

of free school meals to individual

households. £437 per child for a

year over £1300 a year for the three

child family, we're all that take

those sums away and it represents a

significant cut to family income. We

are supposed to be assured by the

transitional arrangements. Note

family is supposed to lose out if

they currently receive free school

meals except when they moved to the

next phase of schooling. So one

transfer from the bash on transfer,

Angie -- on transfer, you lose out.

I ask how would feel if you are in a

family where the youngest Lucas

secondary schooling and loses free

school meals as a result of moving

faces but has a brother or sister

still in receipt of free school

meals? This is a device to fall --

divisive policy where some of the

bout what are the total numbers of

people who will benefit now and who

benefited the end of the roll-out?

Can we get a better fuller picture

of the impact. The Children's

Commissioner suggests that we won't

know until 2027 due to the that the

dot I read the consultation document

and at paragraph or point for

comments is 90% of people currently

getting free school meals will

continue to get them, but the 10%

that will amass 210,000. A not

insignificant number. Where is their

transitional protection? -- 110,000.

At its heart, Universal Credit is

very simple, and will ensure that

work always pays, it will mean the

people be consistently and

transparently better off for each

hour they work, and of quote. The

Children's Society says the

introduction of the earnings limit

for free school meals creates a

cliff edge that fundamentally

undermines that objective and that

families will become worse off over

all dying creasing their earnings.

The Children's Society estimates

that some 200,000 families with half

a million children are at risk of

falling into a new poverty trap

where they seek to increase earnings

or are forced to buy their work

coach and they will then lose the

benefit of free school meals. They

also estimate that a further 150,000

families with 400,000 children will

find themselves in a position where

they could be better off by reducing

their earnings. The best thing that

can be said for the Government's

consultation is that it is

confusing. In it, the Government

tells us that the pupils will be...

They apply this numbered schools,

why not people in poverty? Another

DWP report on households below

average income base and a 4-2016

suggests that there are up to 4

million children in poverty. And

only 1.1 million currently

benefiting from free school meals.

Even on the best estimate, this

will... The Children's Society...

The commissioner says, under any

scenario, possibly millions of the

in poverty will not receive free

school meals. So the Children's

Commissioner suggests that the

Government should do four things.

Release the analysis behind what

looks like a spurious claim that can

increase eligibility, provide an

estimate of the future number of

pupils who... They should provide

impact assessments beyond 2022 to

capture the full impact long-term,

and finally, publish an estimate of

the number of children previously

ineligible for free school meals who

will now become eligible because

of... My motion suggests that the

Government should delay the changes

for six months while they get their

house in order, complete a full

poverty impact assessment and bring

it before both houses so we get a

complete picture. Then we should

consider these regulations again.

Otherwise it would penalise many of

the working poor, people like my

widowed mother who lived and worked

in hard times and who asked for

little but needed a benign statement

not the penalise her but to make

life more tolerable so she could

just about manage. Poverty doesn't

make headlines, it should. These

regulations do nothing to solve

problems of modern poverty, but they

surely make things worse. I beg to

move.

Firstly, I think the -- I was

moved by his opening comments about

his own circumstances and his own

widowed mother. Too many people, in

particular those whose children have

less cool, it may not seem important

to debate one tiny piece of

secondary legislation that traced

the regulations around who will be

entitled to a free school dinner.

This measure is a bout the bus about

children. Those who need us most.

Children who live in poverty,

children who are not well fed. Even

in my the wealthiest countries on

Earth. For many children, 190 meals

that they get in school, lesson four

a week on average, are the only

proper meals they get. A holiday

from school is also a holiday from

hot dinners. I can well remember

Christopher, who I taught many years

ago, who was always pleased to see

the end of the holiday so he could

come back for school dinners once

more. I'm sure we'll hear from the

Government about how the

statisticians with their electronic

slide rules have worked out who

should and who should qualify for

free school dinners. In order to

meet the demands of a small army of

government accountants employed to

deliver austerity. The reality is

that each will pay the cost of our

meanness. Children in our poorest

communities, whose brothers and

sisters who benefited from those

lunches, will not have that benefit.

Why? Because they will not be aged

for by April 2000 22. The let age

four by April 2022. The Prime

Minister will be remembered for

taking a set of Europe, but if these

regulations get on the statue book,

she should also be remembered from

taking away from a children there

only Hotmail of the day. Marriott

when it is believed to have said let

them eat cake when she was told the

poor had no right to eat. Bobbled

the Prime Minister said to the

children who have no free school

meals? The Liberal Democrats fought

hard in coalition to deliver

universal in front free meals,

ensuring that children are able to

make the most of their education.

These regulations once Universal

Credit is rolled up with intro that

1 million children will not be

getting that free meal. Last week,

on March the 14th, 2018, the quality

and human rights commission

published its final report at what

the impact of changes on the text

buffer system on families will be in

2021 - 22. It found that children

will be hit the hardest, as an usher

11 5 million children will be in

poverty. -- an extra 11.5 million

children. Hostels with three or more

children will see a particularly

large losses of... The chair of the

quality and human rights commission,

responsible for making

recommendations to government, said,

quote, it's disappointing to

discover that the reforms

re-examined negatively affect the

most disadvantaged in our society.

It's even more shocking that

children, our future generation,

will be the hardest hit and so many

will be condemned to start a life in

poverty. We can't let this continue

if we want a fairer Britain.

Appalling though this picture is,

I'm certain it does not take into

account the additional impact on

many poor families. When I taught

infant children, if they misbehave,

I would say, I was sat in my heart.

While I'm set in my heart and I

regret the fact that there is a lack

of humanity in the changes of the

regulations. Our children are our

future and we must cherish and

nurture them. On top of the negative

impact on children of tax and book

forward forms, this change adds

insult and hunger to injury.

I was

moved, I haven't got a flinty heart,

I was moved by what the noble lord

said about his own circumstances and

his hard-working mother and how

people in working poverty suffer. I

don't think there's anyone in this

House who isn't concerned about

poverty in the proper dealings with

poverty. It has to be based on fact.

Not on sentiment. What strikes me

about the noble lord said in his

speech is that there does seem to be

a huge gap not just in a legend or

asserted numbers but in credibility

between the alleged 1 million child

losers to the noble Lord prefers --

noble lord prefers...

7-figure difference from iTunes

noble friend.

From my noble friend. If I'd gotten

the chance, but there is a bridge a

ball cap, a 7-figure gap, then they

reflect on the division, he clipped

away, charting up the votes,

counting up on their devices, as a

back-up. A new statistical fact

checker. No hiding place for the

eventual numbers of those content.

And now their independent

authorities that say that there

massive losses of free school meals,

wrong. And I like experts by the

way, unlike some of my colleagues,

these authorities and experts, say

that the statistics Authority make

it clear that Universal Credit

cause, right through to the Channel

for fact check, pointing out that no

child currently receiving free

school meals will lose their

entitlement, rather they'll benefit

from these changes. So, while I

understand the strength of feeling,

it does seem to me that we've seen

the new-found freedom, transmogrify

into being sensitive bean counter,

or perhaps I could say pure counter

of those voting content or not

content, and to what some might

think would be a statistical tear

away, all based on a good cause. And

I do not doubt that is for a good

cause, but I prefer the hard facts

as opposed to somebody who prefers

exaggeration to rely on. I certainly

wish to see that all children in all

households who are in need get help.

But of course of all children at all

households on Universal Credit,

would he get free school meals, were

talking about a cost of billions my

Lord. And I am not making that up.

By comparison, I commend the

government for what they're doing,

all children will, which is not

mentioned in the debate, continue to

get free school meals. No child will

lose out, and I think with respect,

these are facts, rather than

assertions.

Recognising that on all

sides of the house, these just

managing family, working two thirds,

working hard to make ends meet, to

make the best for their children. It

is really encouraging to hear the

Prime Minister talk so strongly

about Brexit post, about reaching

out to those families in need. So I

do hope the Minister will take this

golden opportunity and let the noble

Lords basket, to offer moral support

to children in poverty, families in

poverty today, yes there may be

difficulties, but he will look at

how we can ensure that all children

in poverty get a free school meals.

Another is also speaking this

morning, with a mother corridor

property for several years, she had

been the

a victim of domestic violence, she

had spent six to seven months and

breakfast accommodation, sitting in

the wrong room with her teenage

daughter, her and it was a

challenging time for her, and she

did support, her friends are either

giving or moral support. This

morning, she had been successful on

her visa application, she's a

financial better state. She found a

good man to have a new relationship

with, but we need to give support to

families as they are struggling

through difficult times. It just

appetizers appetizer so many

families.

It is difficult times for so many

families. We have increasing numbers

of children, growing up in bed and

breakfast and hospital

accommodations, and even more secure

accommodations lack ... And the

accolades of being the global best

teacher in the world. And she talked

of her experiences where she was

concerned about the housing, so many

children overcrowded, having to work

in the bathroom to concentrate. So

these families are coping with the

stress, they have lost their early

intervention, their services, local

services that and cut. This is

opportunity for the government, yes

a difficult one perhaps, burn

opportunity to offer support for

those, often mothers brings up their

children on their own. Beginning of

the day to have confidence that

their child will have a good healthy

help

hot meal, so he can reach out to

these families and often do not

help. And the Minister can

give us that assurance today.

I

speak with some sorrow, I am hoping

that the proposals made by the

government involving I'm sure the

treasury, the education department,

our privacy results of those

interlocking interest and at

inadvertently left which surely

can't be intended. The consequences

of this policy, run counter to

everything the government has said

about the principles of Universal

Credit stop which I, and many

others, has supported. If the

consequences are unintended, and I

should be delighted to hear the

ministers say so, I'll be relieved

and pleased. I've looked at these

regulations, but I have concluded

that they are dry. Through the

defining principle Universal Credit,

which I wholeheartedly endorse, the

work should pay. They create an

arbitrary cliff edge and low income

threshold through which many risk

falling. For working families, just

below the current threshold, they

would very clearly, this would very

clearly not make extra work pay.

They would be better off not seeking

more paperwork, leaving the children

on free school meals, unless the

family can increase by some

considerable margin. There's just a

bump in the threshold that they will

be worse off in these regulations

facing school meal charges. They

will be better off if they could

work why working less. That, my

Lords, is at best an anomaly I am

tempted to describe it as an

absurdity. But I do not want to see

this as pointing towards a flaw or

contradiction in policy design,

rather to the real pressing

increasingly difficult circumstances

that over the years, families would

face more often than not, people

were already in work, and already

earn very little, people whose

weekly budgets have already little

or no slack. Members of your

lordships House may recall some of

you, that I shared for members of

both houses, recently, a briefing.

And a number of your lordships may

remember, speaking to us, her oldest

child currently receives free school

meals. She and her husband do not

want to live on benefits on credits

or allowances. They want to get on

and get up. Her husband had been

made redundant after 18 months

volunteering at a local school, he

now works as a teaching assistant

and he earns £8,000. Claire had

worked for 15 years, as an NHS

dental nurse, but her clinic closed.

I direct the

directly quote Claire, we never

thought we would be in this

situation. We feel terribly ashamed

to have to rely on health care. So

she is retraining as a solicitor.

When she's done, sir husband will

complete his own retraining as a

teacher. Both will incur significant

debts, hers will be £56,000. Claire

has told us that they have many

working years ahead of them and

looks forward, and they will look

forward to a future in which taxes

are spent helping the vulnerable in

society. She feels blessed to live

in a society that has a safety net

and place for them and others.

Basing short-term difficulties. My

lords, these regulations won't help

Claire and those like her overcome

the short-term challenges, they'll

add to them. Hinder her, from

creating a long-term future for

herself and her family. Because

Claire has no slack. She told us her

family of four and I quote again,

survives on £10 a day for food and

pet troll with no luxuries. Claire

does not understand how the figure

of £7,400 has been arrived at. Nor

does she understand how introducing

an earnings threshold as low as that

could possibly benefit people in her

situation. My lords, I don't

understand either. She knows her

eight-year-old daughter will for now

continue to receive free school

meals, but what of that child, and

then her son who start school in

September? Of the children of their

ages. As she observes initially, it

seems nobody will lose out, but in

the long-term and more people and

more specifically my lords, more and

more children,. My lords, we are

creating potentially anxiety, even

despair but we should be offering

hope and support. So

the job of this house is often to

ask the government to think again,

to think again about what may be the

unintended consequences of policy.

The outcomes of this one are severe.

It asked the government to think

again this evening, and I do say so

from the bottom of my heart.

Is very

moving in his opening speech,

explain the Universal Credit when

your Secretary of State, saying

Universal Credit would always make

work pay. And people would be better

off for every hour they work. I want

to focus specifically on that

question of work incentives. The

nitrate in that, so I offer it to

the house or their consideration. It

was not a throwaway comment, it was

any forward to the white paper,

which explained by the government

was planning to abolish working age

benefits and replace them with

Universal Credit. That process is

now ongoing. It has had its

challenges, as we all know. Problems

the system, proms and computers,

design and implementation

challenges, and severe delays. And

it's been subject to repeated budget

cuts, with results that will was

originally designed as a benefit to

be a net saving to the treasury. But

my lords, the whole point of this

enormous... To include some 7

million people, was that it would

always make work pay. I was the

point, even small amounts of work

and every action our we pay. That

was the aim of the system in a

nutshell. Yet, this reintroduces the

mother of all cliff edges into

universal credit. By that point,

they gain access to working tax

credit which is worth more. Under

this system it would mean that if a

parent were offered a pay raise, or

the chance of an extra hours week,

working. I would take the earnings

over a cash limit and he died at the

turn that down, or take it knowing

that children would all lose free

school meals. Modelled the impact on

a single parent and 2022 at the

expected minimum wage, raising two

children in a rented house. She

wants to risen to 12 hours week to

16 hours a week, the same thing

Universal Credit is meant to help.

What would have been as her earnings

would go up by £1893 a year. But you

actually end up on just under £74 a

year worse off by the time she's

lost Universal Credit and free

school meals. She would be better

off by cutting their hours and it

taking a pay cut. This undoes all

the progress done by tax credit and

Universal Credit and getting away

from precisely those problems in the

old-fashioned benefit system. And

also there's a problem here,

finally, Universal Credit has an in

work conditionality system, that

means that people who have got a job

can still be forced to take more

hours, or to take a better paying

job. Sven next giveaway that what

happens a single parent can be put

in a position where they will be

forced to take more hours,

particularly paying job, but in

doing so, would lose free school

meals and be worse off! And when

this was debated in another place,

that question was put to the

Secretary of State. She said, I'm

will not seek to put someone in a

less advantageous position. If they

would demand is coming in and the

support that's coming from school

meals, they can will not seek to do

that an individual. And we'll be

working with individuals doubt the

progress of work. So they are in a

better situation. So can the

Minister confirm today that this

means no claim will be sectioned for

refusing to increase their earnings

if they'll make them worse off? And

they cannot, can he write to me to

confirm? I have that is true, but

even if it is, how then and the

Secretary of State word, how can

parents progress in work if they

afford to

cannot afford to take a pay rise? To

my lords, we are putting back in

this enormous cliff edge right into

the middle of the system. Can the

Minister tell the house how that is

meant to help achieve the

governments objective of making sure

warp always pays a view can progress

out of poverty to work? I do want to

try and challenge the government to

get the house some facts about where

exactly this figure has come from.

The same 50,000 more children would

get free school meals. Is also a

point made that the churches

commission had pointed out, that in

fact simply on children numbers

alone, there'll be another half

million kids by two dozen 22,

expecting to be getting free school

meals. The 2022, the date by which

these children will get free school

meals, isn't some random date, it's

actually the date that Universal

Credit will be rubbed out busstop

has been chosen because it's a high

water mark where as long as those

people who qualify under the new

system, there is a maximum number of

people getting transitional

protection from inside Universal

Credit? My lords, therefore that

number includes people will go want

to lose free school meals with their

children circumstances change, but

when they move from primary to

secondary school. And for all those

children, the deputy Universal

Credit is rolled out, if their

parents are on the same,

transitional, they will not get free

school meals. So my lords, I say to

the noble Lord, look very carefully

at the briefing of the government.

It it skewers as much as it reveals.

This ought to be made clear, a

proper impact assessment which

compares, compare the number of

people would get free school meals,

and steady-state of the new system,

and steady-state before reform.

Without transitional protection.

They have not done that, and the

charges commission has caught up the

issue and asked the government to

reveal all the analysis behind the

50,000. And us to provide us with

estimates, who would lose out in

different categories on Universal

Credit and the current system before

and after 2022.

Unless Ministers agreed to do that,

I'm afraid to say we must treat the

figures was some concern.

My basic

concern is this. This puzzle as the

Bishop of Portsmouth said, drives...

Though -- this proposal. For what?

Just bring back in the biggest cliff

edge we've seen in the system in

decades? Surely this can't be right.

Of the Government think again?

The

Lesher will the Government think

again? I echo the concerns of the

noble lord about the Government's

proposals to introduce an earnings

threshold for eligibility for free

school meals and milk. This is very

unfair because it takes no account

into the amount of children the

parents have to feed. As we've

heard, it would cause a poverty trap

per minute. This, -- poverty trap

for many. Let me say first of all

why I believe free school meals are

so important. There's plenty of

research that shows that the

nutrition levels of school meals are

vastly better than either the

average packed lunch, only 1.6% of

rich reach the same nutritional

standard, and certainly better than

a cheap pack of chips and a fizzy

drink from the shop on the corner.

The provision of a nursing meal at

lunch time, often times is the only

decent meal they would get all day.

Many teachers tell you that they

have children and their class who

come to school without any practise.

One local authority has taken this a

much on board that is decided to

offer free meals to poor children

every day of the year. This is

because teachers notice, evidence of

malnutrition and some children when

they come back to school after the

holidays. A nursing balanced meal

containing fruits and vegetables is

not just for the health of the

child, providing the vitamins needed

for healthy growth and helping to

prevent obesity, but it's also

important for the child's behaviour

and academic attainment. The pilot

studies on the effective provision

of freeze school meals for Key stage

one children when they were

introduced by the coalition

government showed a distinct

improvement in behaviour,

entertainment advanced by as much as

two months. This is particularly so

with children from this vantage

background. Clearly free school

meals are where the major tools in

our armoury for closing the

attainment gap between the and poor.

The main objective of our education

system must be to help all children

attained their maximum potential.

Good nutrition is one of the

foundations of this. A hungry child

is not a learning child. Anything

that has the potential of reducing

the number of poor children who

received these meals is something

which should be rejected. We should

be providing free meals for more

children, not fewer. A free meals

regime increases uptake, decreases

stigma and reduces the number of

children bringing sandwiches and

biscuits are going to the chip shop.

This improves the attainment of all

children. The Government has told us

that 50,000 more children will

receive free meals under the new

regulations than under the old ones.

They promised that no child already

on them bulldoze them -- will lose

them. The problem is that children

grow up. Children who were formerly

eligible for free meals will no

longer get them. There does have to

have been -- dirt does not have to

have been a change in a parents

earnings for this to happen. Every

mum and dad knows it takes twice as

much money to feed to my children as

one, and three times as much to feed

three. That's £10 a week for lunches

every week, or 20, or 30. Which

could easily be enough to make it

not worth taking a few extra hours

worked. Where then is the

fundamental work incentive that is

supposed underpinned Universal

Credit? Where is the mantra making

work pay? Is quite clearly -- what

the Government needs to look at is

the disposable income of the family

once the 62% withdrawal of Universal

Credit for every extra pound earned

has been taken into account. School

meals have been paid for. If they do

that, there may come up with a

fairer system because my lords,

school lunches are not a luxury.

They are at an essential of life for

those families that find hard to

feed their children. We're not even

only talking about meals. Are many

other benefits went to free school

meals, and they help to make people

able to bring up their children

bearable. They currently include the

early years pupil premium, and I

would think that ministered to

decouple that at the very least

because again, it's in the interest

of closing the attainment gap.

Universal Credit was supposed to

avoid the cliff edge and make it

worthwhile going to work. But by

introducing a lower earnings

threshold, the Government would be

creating a cliff edge at a very low

earnings level where it will hurt

most. It would undermine the whole

point of Universal Credit. It's

putting at risk to help and academic

attainment of the poorest children,

will the Minister please think

again?

The noble lord make his case

with characteristic vigour and force

and with deep feeling recalling life

in the part of Essex in the 1960s

with which I was very familiar

myself. The motion states that up to

a million poor children could be

deprived of free school meals as a

result of government policies. As my

noble friend Lord Patten has shown,

it depends -- independent experts

have purchased to treat this

prediction with considerable

caution. I think we should be wary

about rushing to the conclusion that

a crisis is in the making. It's

excepted on all sides that

introduction of Universal Credit

throughout our country is so vital

in helping more people into jobs

will affect the number of children

eligible for free school meals while

ensuring that poor families whose

needs must be safeguarded remain at

the centre of policy. Answer of

arrangements were announced last

summer to secure free -- in terror

arrangements -- interim

arrangements. There is nothing new

or unexpected about this. It has

been a feature of the plans for this

major contract of reform of our

welfare system since 2013. What are

the implications? The Department for

Education estimates as we have heard

that in the years ahead, some 50,000

more children will be entitled to a

free school meal than under the

arrangements, which Universal Credit

is replacing. That is a doctor that

I think perhaps the Government

should consider some form of

monetary arrangement. I wonder if

arrangements could be made to

publish figures on the number of

children receiving free school meals

at regular intervals between now and

2022. So that the effects of this

hugely significant change in policy

can be assessed. We do need to be

sure that the poorest families in

our country are continuing to

receive the help they need.

My

lords, I'd would just like to pick

up to make statements. One of which

I agree with and one of which I do

not agree with. I think the first

one, possibly the most substantial

one, is the claim that 1 million

would lose out and that the new

threshold of 37,400 changes the line

. This figure was chosen to try and

find the right level to go on making

that provision. I would disagree

with him there. But where I agree

with him, and the points made by

Lady Sherlock, the right Reverend

Bishop of Portsmouth, is around the

distance devising --

disincentivising... It's almost more

of a waterfall effect on the cliff

edge. It's there, and SAC came out

with a report looking at what we

could do with passport at benefits

generally. In order to incorporate

them with -- with the Universal

Credit. We could eliminate not

just... We could put them within the

taper in a way that didn't have a

cash flow impact. You can see that

there is a suggested structure and

indeed, the DWP response to that

report endorsed it. We are the

country with the most passport

benefits of any country. Date have

proliferated. If we do have all of

these benefits, -- they have

proliferated. We need to look at a

machine to add into Universal Credit

so that we can put them on the paper

so that we don't have a disincentive

effect. The reality is other

departments don't particularly care

about disincentivising work. The DWP

does, this House does, departments

worry about feeding children and so

on. I do think it's important to

keep up the pressure in the years to

come that we don't allow these cliff

edges or these waterfalls to be

reincorporated into the system and

to do that, we will have to design a

way of putting the passport

benefits...

I wanted to pay tribute

to my noble friend for a very

powerful introduction. The

Government has the that... Vesely,

and Oral Questions, then mumbled

baroness Lady Boskin said that there

was found that there was a research

evidence to show that the provision

of passport benefits act as an

incentive. It's a right door

stopper, I could tell you. There the

other that there is slightly

different. What is interesting is

the response to... It said in its

introduction, the coalition

government endorses the view that

the design of passport benefits

under Universal Credit cavity

impact... -- it's important to

highlight that the response has

gathered in the review rather than

the impact on the Universal Credit.

This is an important distinction as

currently, some benefits are

withdrawn, what recipients often

increase... As my noble friend

pointed out, but this was ignored by

the Secretary of State, Les Reed

told the House of Commons... -- he

told the House of Commons... And

declare an interest as honourary

president, which is already being

referred to. I also would refer back

to that report to a dress a point

made by Lord Becks and, we have

known that the -- what is happening

now is an entire room -- interim

arrangement. It is not surprising

that some wars have forgotten about

that because it was a long time ago.

The Government also said then that

they would consult on the new

criteria that year to put in place

the new system and October 20 13.

We've had to wait six years, what

took them so long? I suspect because

they couldn't find a way around the

cliff edge problem. Because SA see

drew attention to the fact that if

you go down that road, it creates a

cliff edge problem. We didn't have

an answer to it because I don't

think there is an answer. If you're

not a prayer to pay to give

Universal Credit...