Skip to main content

1-20 of 1,092 results for subject:"Social security"

Subject X
Interviews

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

More

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

More
Interviews (1,092)

Publisher


Show detailed: On Off
Results: 10 20 50 100
Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

Welfare Reform Bill. Programme motion (No. 2) on proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments and any subsequent stages. Agreed to on question. Consideration of Lords amendments. Lords amendment 2 disagreed to on division (286 votes to 236). Commons amendments (a) and (b) in lieu agreed to on question. Lords amendments...

Department
Department for Work and Pensions
Type
Debates on bills
Date
10 November 2009
Reference
499 c166-214
House
House of Commons

The phrase, "the best route out of poverty is work", concerns me a little, first because it is not always a route out of poverty. There is a second reason however: according to the Government's logic, that route could take us right down to age zero. Surely for some families,...

Member
John Mason (Scottish National Party)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
10 November 2009
Reference
499 c184
House
House of Commons

The Minister mentioned child poverty immediately before he took that intervention. Does he accept that the fact that a parent has gone into work does not automatically mean that the child is not in poverty any more?

Member
John Mason (Scottish National Party)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
10 November 2009
Reference
499 c172
House
House of Commons

I agree; nobody doubts the potential of these schemes if they are taken up by willing volunteers. In many such cases, they are very successful, but there is a world of difference between a scheme that someone enters into willingly and enthusiastically, and one that people are coerced into entering....

Member
Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
10 November 2009
Reference
499 c182
House
House of Commons

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that work is the best route out of poverty? If he does, why can he not see that, given that the length of time spent out of the labour market determines how easy it is to get back into it, we should start to encourage...

Member
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
10 November 2009
Reference
499 c182
House
House of Commons

It is interesting to note the weasel words. The Government are not proposing to "encourage": they are proposing to force, blackmail and threaten. We have no problem with encouraging lone parents with children of three or four to start the process of becoming ready for work, but why did the...

Member
Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
10 November 2009
Reference
499 c182
House
House of Commons

If the hon. Gentleman agrees that work is the best route out of poverty, but does not like what he describes as "blackmail", does that mean that he does not agree with that approach for any jobseekers? Why does he agree with it for some customers of Jobcentre Plus, but...

Member
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
10 November 2009
Reference
499 c182
House
House of Commons

As the Minister says, there is a fundamental question about the role of sanctions; on the Liberal Democrat Benches, we have a general scepticism about the role of sanctions. However, the case before us is a strong one, because the state is presuming that it, rather than the parent, knows...

Member
Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
10 November 2009
Reference
499 c183
House
House of Commons

We are not saying that we know what is best for the child; we are saying that the well-being of the child comes first. This should be at the convenience of the parent—if adequate child care is available, and while the child is in whatever child care, nursery setting or...

Member
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
10 November 2009
Reference
499 c183
House
House of Commons

There is a non sequitur in the Government's argument. They seem to argue that—the Minister in the Lords, Lord McKenzie, argued this—without the threat, the support cannot be provided, which is nonsense. Lord McKenzie said that, if we accept the amendment, it""would mean depriving lone parents with a youngest child...

Member
Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
10 November 2009
Reference
499 c183
House
House of Commons

I respect the hon. Gentleman and his party's position on no sanctions of any kind. However, is not the case against sanctions for women with children under five that such sanctions affect not only the adult, who is arguably conscious of making their own decisions, but children who are already...

Member
Diane Abbott (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
10 November 2009
Reference
499 c183
House
House of Commons

That is absolutely right. There is a fiction in the Department for Work and Pensions that when sanctions are applied, they are sanctions on the adult bit of the benefit. However, the implications of the sanction are felt by the whole household. The Minister has said, "Ah no, we have...

Member
Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
10 November 2009
Reference
499 c183-4
House
House of Commons

Will the hon. Gentleman explain why the noble Lord Freud, who is no doubt watching these deliberations from on high somewhere, said that the Conservative party was not against financial sanctions? Indeed, he said:""Our amendment is drawn deliberately narrowly;"" and that his party was not against""established financial sanctions for not...

Member
Anne McGuire (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
10 November 2009
Reference
499 c175
House
House of Commons

The right hon. Lady has made her point, but may I draw her attention to Lords amendment 2? It says:""Nothing in this section shall cause any financial sanction to be imposed in the case of a single parent with a child under five years of age."" That amendment was moved...

Member
James Clappison (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
10 November 2009
Reference
499 c175-7
House
House of Commons

Yes, I shall certainly give way. The right hon. Lady has experience of these matters.

Member
James Clappison (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
10 November 2009
Reference
499 c175
House
House of Commons

I rise briefly to support Lords amendment 2 and reluctantly to oppose those on the Treasury Bench. I shall make three points, the first of which is on the politics of the amendment. When I first read the amendment, which effectively raises from three to five the age that children...

Member
John Grogan (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
10 November 2009
Reference
499 c180
House
House of Commons

Where is he?

Member
Diane Abbott (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
10 November 2009
Reference
499 c180
House
House of Commons

I do not want to sound cynical, but affirmative resolution procedures are invariably not worth the paper that they are written on. By the time the matters in question come back to the House, people have forgotten the details of the original debate and the votes are whipped, so they...

Member
Diane Abbott (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
10 November 2009
Reference
499 c177
House
House of Commons

I think I was a little kinder than the hon. Lady in what I said about the value of affirmative resolutions. As a parliamentarian, I always welcome the affirmative procedure and argue in favour of it when considering Bills, but one needs a tinge of realism when discussing the subject....

Member
James Clappison (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
10 November 2009
Reference
499 c177-9
House
House of Commons

Indeed. Lord Freud also produced a report for the previous Prime Minister, Tony Blair. Following the production of that report, I recall a report in The Daily Telegraph that said that our current Prime Minister had a "45-minute shouting match" with the noble Lord Freud before the latter was""aggressively cross-examined...

Member
John Grogan (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
10 November 2009
Reference
499 c180-1
House
House of Commons