Proceeding contribution from Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 10 November 2009. It occurred during Debate on bill on Welfare Reform Bill.

Welfare Reform Bill

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 aged three or four of the help and support that they may need".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 October 2009; Vol. 713, c. 839.]" Why? Why does the absence of bullying, a threat or a sanction prevent Governments and jobcentres from contacting lone parents, encouraging them and telling them what is available? Why do we need to threaten them?

Secondary information

Type: Proceeding contribution
Reference: 499 c183
Session: 2008-09
Chamber / Committee: House of Commons chamber
Subjects: Poverty Council tax benefits Disability Disability living allowance Childcare Alcoholic drinks Community care Jobseeker's allowance Income support Domestic abuse Drugs Interviews Rehabilitation Employment schemes Medical treatments Pensioners Misuse Lone parents Reform Social security benefits Social security Registration of births, deaths, marriages and civil partnerships Travel requirements Sanctions Uprating Birth certificates
Legislation: Welfare Reform Bill 2008-09
Link: View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk

Welfare Reform Bill

Secondary information

Librarians' tools