Victims and Prisoners Bill

Debate between Maria Miller and Nigel Evans

Report stage
Monday 4th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Dame Maria Miller, who has six minutes.

[Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

Let me start by thanking my right hon. Friend the Minister for the constructive way in which he has engaged with the Bill since its Second Reading. In the interests of time, I will confine my comments to the two amendments that I have tabled, which have cross-party support and to which I think the Government are listening intently.

Amendment 1 would recognise as victims people who have been silenced by non-disclosure agreements. Those people are victims by virtue of the very fact they have been silenced, not knowing if they can talk to anyone without incurring legal consequences. The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 already deems the use of NDAs to be unlawful when there are allegations of bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct in publicly funded universities, and my amendment is intended to do the same in other spheres. Some individuals making such allegations are already treated by the Government as needing protection in law; my amendment would merely apply what is seen as essential legal protection in universities to everyone.

Unfortunately, despite two warning notices issued by the Solicitors Regulation Authority alerting solicitors to NDA misuse, one in three solicitors’ firms are still apparently unaware of the issues. I therefore think it is time to act through legislation to change a culture which, seven years on from #MeToo, continues to see it as acceptable for those in the legal and human resources professions to use devices that are so destructive to the individuals concerned. The United States, Canada and Ireland have already legislated in this regard. I listened carefully to the Minister’s opening remarks, and I definitely heard a door being left wide open to a change in the Bill. I hope we will see measures to outlaw this bad practice sooner rather than later, because the time to leave it to the regulators is past; that has not worked.

I thank Rape Crisis for helping me to draft new clause 19, which concerns access to counselling records. Rape and sexual abuse are traumatic crimes and survivors need to gain access to therapy, but frontline services are reporting that survivors are being deterred from accessing support because records are routinely requested by the police and trawled through, often unnecessarily. A recent review showed that nearly a third of 342 requests for survivors’ records contained requests for counselling records, and nearly a third of those requests related to victims’ reliability or credibility rather than aiming to establish the facts of the incident involved.

Commonwealth Parliamentary Association

Debate between Maria Miller and Nigel Evans

Thursday 6th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dame Maria Miller]

Yes. Many Members here today will have known the value of meeting incoming delegations and being part of outward delegations. It gives us, as parliamentarians, an understanding of the world in which we are operating, in the same way that other organisations do, including the Inter-Parliamentary Union—we are pleased to have the chair of the British Group of the IPU, my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), with us today. These organisations are valued by parliamentarians, and we need to ensure that the Government are aware of that and take appropriate action.

I want to reiterate the reason why this change in status is so important. Countries that are members of the CPA make payments, ultimately, from their taxpayers’ money to a UK charity. Those concerns are held most strongly by parliamentary colleagues in the Africa region of the CPA. That is understandable: it is incongruous at best for them to be making payments for membership of an international organisation when it looks on their books as if they are making payments to UK charities. We have to understand that, and sympathise and empathise with it.

Other organisations have already ensured that they are structured in an appropriate way. French legislation underpins the CPA’s francophone counterpart in Paris, the Assemblée Parlementaire de la Francophonie, and the Inter-Parliamentary Union has a Geneva headquarters agreement with Switzerland. The need to follow those international examples is particularly true for an international institution such as the CPA, which is all about the importance of parliamentary democracy, and the Commonwealth charter to which we and our fellow member states are signed up commits us to that.

This Parliament’s actions regarding the CPA’s status may appear peripheral to some, but in fact, they spill over into our relations with very near family members. Other members of the British family that are involved in the CPA include the devolved legislatures in the UK, the Crown dependencies and the overseas territories. They are all active members, and they too support the need to resolve this situation. The Government need to take that much more into account, not least because those organisations are concerned that they could be damaged by association should Westminster not be able to resolve this amicably. All also look to His Majesty the King as Head of State, as do the 14 other realms. At the coronation in May, we saw the huge importance attached to the Commonwealth, with His Majesty now head of the Commonwealth in succession to Her late Majesty, Queen Elizabeth.

At its April meeting in Gibraltar, the CPA executive agreed to continue to support efforts to persuade the UK Government to make the necessary changes, but— to be very clear—that is contingent on achieving new legislation by the time that the CPA’s Commonwealth parliamentary conference takes place in Ghana at the end of September, just a few short weeks away. The House should know that the CPA executive is already working on a relocation package for the secretariat, including a timeline and procedure for assessing future host countries. This is not a hollow threat: it is something that is already happening. To restate, should the UK not pass new legislation by the end of September, the organisation will proceed with relocation outside of the UK from October 2023.

There appears to be absolutely no reason why the Bill should take much parliamentary time, given the clear support for it in both Houses—my right hon. Friend the Minister will have heard that already from Opposition Members. It involves no additional costs for the UK taxpayer. It has been suggested that any change in status would create an unhelpful or unwelcome precedent, but with respect, that argument does not bear any scrutiny at all. The CPA’s case is unique. It is an international inter-parliamentary organisation headquartered in the UK. There are no others. When we pressed for examples of comparators, not a single one on the list could make a similar case. Some were international organisations, undoubtedly worthy but headquartered elsewhere and with no particular link to the UK. There were territories or groups of states and Governments—again, completely different and not parliamentary in category, and obviously not headquartered in the UK. Legislation to recognise the status of the CPA and the secretariat’s location here in the UK does not create a precedent, so that cannot credibly be cited as a reason for inaction.

Parliamentarians from around the globe tell us that they would like the CPA secretariat to remain in London. London works well as a location for the secretariat: here on the parliamentary estate, the secretariat can attract talented staff from a diverse pool. Hosting the CPA is a small but important example of the UK’s soft power, and I hope my right hon. Friend the Minister can use her good offices to ensure that time is given to pass the modest Bill required to change the status of the CPA in the time remaining before the annual assembly meeting in September. That would demonstrate not only our commitment to the Commonwealth, but the importance of strong democracies around the world.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I will call the Front-Bench spokespeople at the end of the debate.

Parliamentary Services for MPs

Debate between Maria Miller and Nigel Evans

Thursday 9th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

On my very first day in Parliament, I decided to sit next to this blond-haired man whom I had never met before in my life. He stood up, and I will not repeat what he said to the assembled masses because it would embarrass him, but my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) was entertaining, informed and, above all, principled right from the start. He has been a great colleague for the last 17 years, and we will miss him.

It is therefore a great privilege to follow my hon. Friend, who has clearly set out how parliamentary services must change to help our democracy, and particularly to recruit the brightest and the best to Parliament. I would like to take that one stage further and talk about how we can broaden the debate to consider how parliamentary services must work even harder to ensure that this place functions in a way that can protect our democracy into the future. We have already mentioned that amazing visit yesterday from Volodymyr Zelensky, who is fighting for democratic freedoms for his nation, and the way that he talked so affectionately about our own Parliament. It made me feel, even more than ever, that we cannot take these things for granted, even in western Europe. That is why I am so grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate, and to the staff of the Administration Committee for all the work they do in helping us with the running of this House.

I also pay tribute to those who sit in the Chair you sit in, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is easy in this place to come in, be important and talk about important things that happen to our constituents and to the nation, but very few people take the time to think about how this place runs, and how they can play their part in making it better. Too few come forward to sit in that Chair and do the sorts of things that you do, Mr Deputy Speaker, and that your colleagues do in the Speaker’s Office. It is important that we acknowledge that. It is always behind the scenes, but it is what makes one of the most important and central institutions of our democracy work. Probably the people sitting in front of you also have a bit of a role in that, but we won’t go there.

The last two Speakers of this House were appointed at times of crisis, which is an interesting thing to reflect on. Our current Speaker—I will not refer to the previous one—was recruited to the role in the midst of a behavioural and cultural crisis in this place. I think that our Mr Speaker’s focus on security, culture and behaviour change has been exemplary, and led to a rapid change in a way that many people would not have foreseen. We also saw the way that the Speaker and staff rapidly changed the way our Parliament worked during the coronavirus pandemic, and the way that Mr Speaker has changed attitudes towards the security of Members of Parliament. We know that individuals in the Chair you are sitting in, Mr Deputy Speaker, can change the way this place works, but I suggest that we cannot rely on individuals alone, not least because we have had some recent Speakers who have not been entirely unflawed characters. We have to think about the governance of the institution, and the way it creates the right framework for the running of this important place.

The services provided by Parliament are crucial to MPs being effective. We are elected to come here, to scrutinise, and to get things done for the people we represent. We do that with the support of the House of Commons; we cannot do it ourselves. There is an army of literally thousands of people, from cleaners to Clerks, police to chefs, and subject experts in the Library to dedicated constituency staff, who are all there to help us be effective. Being effective MPs requires the right services to be in place—not just the same services that were there 40 years ago, but the right services for today. Even the most time-poor manager of a small business ensures that they have the right services in place for their business, and that is why this debate is important.

It is important that we discuss these things to explore whether parliamentary services are delivering in a way that helps MPs to be effective, and delivering for the way that we need Parliament to run. Effective MPs are not just a good thing in their own right; effective MPs help to build trust in the House of Commons; they help to build trust in Parliament and so they help to build trust in democracy. It could not be more important, particularly for those who believe that we have a responsibility to strengthen democracy in our time here.

Let us also remember that the staff of this place, whether they are extremely specialised, highly intellectual people drafting bits of legislation, the people who keep us safe as we enter this place or the people who service our meals when we are here late into the night, choose to be here. They choose to be in Parliament, not because it is just another place to work but because they want to be part of the democratic function of this country—what makes it so special.

Like much of Parliament, the provision of services is organised through Committees, predominately the Administration Committee, which my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne chairs incredibly well. Unlike other Committees, these are House Committees and, for the most part, they are advisory. When members of the Committee, including a number of Members present, raise issues around how this place is run or that they would like to see done differently, such as the quality of the wi-fi, the availability of mobile phone chargers in the Tea Room, as I was reminded a few minutes ago, or concerns about the perimeter security, these concerns can be voiced and they will be heard. However, we have absolutely no power whatsoever to get any action taken. We only usually get action taken because of the vivacious character of our Chair. That cannot be enough; things need to be more structured than that. Only the Commission has oversight of all these issues and can take action—a Commission, I remind everybody, that has no process to elect its members.

When it comes to planning ahead and the issues that the administration might want to consider because there are problems on the horizon, we have no ability to do that effectively either. The Administration Committee is strictly limited in what it can do. Of course, when it comes to the provision of services, the Procedure Committee and our Finance Committee are also crucial, but there is no structure in place for these Committees to work together. For example, if we have something like the uncertainty of sitting hours, which can go late into the night, there is no way of viewing how that might affect members of staff who are employed to run the services in this place.

The Leader of the House has been clear in her vision, such as in her recent speech to the Institute for Government, that the House of Commons should be the best legislature in the world. I could not agree more with her sentiment, but to achieve that not just noble but essential ambition, our parliamentary services also need to be the best in the world. They need to fit into that vision of a modern workplace, with modern procedures, adequate finance and accountability, and an ability to plan for the future and to respond to events. We have made huge strides under Mr Speaker’s leadership, but I am concerned that our governance and structures have changed very little, that they are not as good as they should be and that we need to look at them more. Indeed, some experts would say that the governance of the House of Commons is opaque, lacks accountability and is complex to understand. Those are not the attributes of an organisation that I would like to work for. To make provision for parliamentary services for MPs to be their most effective, Parliament needs to look at these things in detail. It needs to look at the governance and structures of how we can be a trusted institution into the future that reflects an organisation not of yesterday, but of tomorrow.

There are some notable examples, of which I am sure other Members will be aware, of where the inability to change things and evolve the way we work have received the full glare of publicity. Not least of them is the recent example of where we tried to set up a nursery in this place, which took three debates, two papers and a lot of behind-the-scenes work. Some of the hon. and right hon. Members involved have been in this place even longer than I have, and they still could not work out how we could effect that change. That is a salutary lesson; it shows that we cannot evolve services to meet the needs of Members. The result will be that we cannot attract the right Members to this place. We cannot then expect this place to be the world-class legislature that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House would like it to be.

How do we make sure that parliamentary services are effective, and are what our MPs, and our democracy, really need? Some straightforward changes could easily be made that would make a real difference. It would be quite a revolution if we ensured that House Committees could work together and take a common look at how this place is run. We should evolve their role from a “take note” or advisory role, to a strategic one of the sort that Select Committees perhaps already have, so that they do not merely rubber-stamp decisions after the event, which, as colleagues on the Administration Committee will remember, was what happened in the case of the removal of the trees in the atrium of Portcullis House.

We should make the House Committees, which are fundamental to how the place runs, accountable through elections. They are the last area of Parliament in which Members are not elected to posts. We are appointed to our posts, and that simply does not pass the sniff test. We need to change that; the way that people gain positions on those Committees should be similar to the way that Select Committee members gain theirs. That would increase accountability. Our meetings are already transparent, but let us look at ways of opening them up even more, if they are so fundamental to democracy.

Scrutiny of the House of Commons Commission should be firmly in the remit of the House Committees. Just as Select Committees scrutinise Government, House Committees should scrutinise the Commission. That would be a very simple change of our role, but it might increase transparency about how the Commission runs, so that more Members can understand it, and can understand how decisions are taken. For too long it has felt as though the House of Commons is run from behind closed doors. Perhaps it is easier that way; that is what I have been told when I have asked why that is. There are concerns that scrutiny will undermine trust in this organisation. My argument is that a lack of scrutiny has already done that job for us, so let us have that change.

We cannot continue to rely on individuals, rather than governance, structures and systems, to ensure that this place is run well. I am told that it is Members who decide, when it comes to the running of this House, but I am afraid that those are hollow words to me when I think back to the debacle over the establishment of a nursery in this place. “It is for Members to decide!” No, it really was not, because there was no way for us to crystallise the decision and ensure action.

As a result of this debate, I hope that people not just in this Chamber, or listening in Parliament, but from outside start to call loudly for the changes that I have outlined. It has taken a year to get this debate, so I can already feel that this is not necessarily a debate that people in this place want to have. The issue is important because we need to support MPs, so that they can be their most effective. We need this to be a modern workplace, where both MPs and their staff can function at their best. We must attract a diverse cross-section of society to stand for election. We will not do that unless this place works better, and we have to start taking that far more seriously.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Thank you, Maria, for your very generous and kind words. I will make sure that Sir Lindsay hears them. Those thanks are on behalf of Sir Lindsay, his entire team, and the Clerks. Thank you very much for your generosity.

Point of Order

Debate between Maria Miller and Nigel Evans

Tuesday 8th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In Foreign Office questions today, a number of Members raised the plight of the people of Belarus. Indeed, yesterday we saw the remaining opposition leader, Maria Kolesnikova, kidnapped. I welcome the Minister’s updates in questions, but it is no substitute, Mr Deputy Speaker, for a proper debate on this issue and, indeed, on a range of others, so can you advise me on how we can reinstate Westminster Hall debates? It really strikes me that there is no reason why those debates cannot start up so that we can have more of an opportunity for this Parliament to play its full and proper role, not just in domestic affairs, but in international affairs as well.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her point of order and for giving advance notice to the Chair. I can understand her anxiety. There are a number of issues, including Belarus, that people would like to raise in this House, and it is up to the Government to provide time in this Chamber. We get that with Backbench Business debates, which, of course, we have an example of later this week. None the less, I do understand her anxiety, and, indeed, as far as Backbench Business is concerned, there will always be more demand than there is supply. If we understand rightly from the Leader of the House, the intention is to bring back Westminster Hall from 5 October. That was the plan and that is what we hope will happen in order for more Members to get more opportunities to raise the issues that are important to them and their constituents.

BILL PRESENTED

Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) (No. 2) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mr Secretary Jenrick, supported by the Prime Minister, Michael Gove, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Alok Sharma, Simon Clarke and Jesse Norman presented a Bill to make provision to change the dates on which non-domestic rating lists must be compiled; and to change the dates by which proposed lists must be sent to billing authorities, the Secretary of State or the Welsh Ministers.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 174) with explanatory notes (Bill 174-EN).

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Maria Miller and Nigel Evans

Thursday 12th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Ind)]

T3. If the Secretary of State came to Lancashire and had a selfie done with me and was enthusiastic to show it to the wider public, she would find that uploading it would be a bit hit and miss, because in Lancashire only 55% have access to superfast broadband, compared with 65% nationally. Will she ensure that, rather than being left in the digital dinosaur age, Lancashire will have superfast broadband rolled out as quickly as possible, and that 100% will get access to it?

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend is right to say that every corner of the country needs to be in our targets when it comes to rolling out superfast broadband. I am delighted to tell him that that is exactly why the Government are investing more than £1 billion of public money in rolling out rural superfast broadband. We are making rapid progress in his area. As of the end of last month, more than 11,000 premises had been passed, and Ofcom data now show that Lancashire county council has more than 67% availability of superfast broadband. We are making progress, but we need to ensure that that continues.

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]

Debate between Maria Miller and Nigel Evans

Monday 22nd April 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Maria Miller)]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 17A.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Lords amendment 17B.

Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendment 131A.

[Maria Miller]

Hon. Members will recall that on Report on 18 March the House agreed to a number of new clauses which, together with an amendment to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, implement the legislative parts of the cross-party agreement on Leveson. They will also remember that the published clauses, along with the royal charter, enabled the Government to bring forward a cross-party agreement based on a system of incentivisation rather than compulsion. There will be a tough system of self-regulation that avoids full statutory regulation—the Rubicon that the Prime Minister and I refuse to cross. The clauses will put in place the incentive-based, self-regulatory system for the press envisaged by Lord Justice Leveson.

The other place agreed, by and large, with the Commons amendments, but there is one substantive issue that we need to resolve: namely, the position within the new framework of small-scale bloggers. Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendment 131A address that issue.

It might assist the House if I put the amendments in context by explaining our approach to the definition of “relevant publisher”. At present, four interlocking tests define who is and who is not a relevant publisher for the purposes of these provisions. A relevant publisher must meet all of those. They must publish news-related material, be written by different authors, be subject to editorial control and be published in the course of business, whether or not that is with a view to profit.

We want to ensure that the new approach acts as the incentive that Lord Justice Leveson intended, but we have to be clear and careful about which publishers are covered. He said of the new regulatory body:

“Ideally the body would attract membership from all news and periodical publishers, including news publishers online. It is important for the credibility of the system, as well as for the promotion of high standards of journalism and the protection of individual rights, that the body should have the widest possible membership among news providers.”

However, he was also clear that:

“This is not meant to be prescriptive at the very small end of the market: I would not necessarily expect very small publishers to join the body”.

We have therefore provided a definition of “relevant publisher” that captures national newspapers and their online editions, local and regional newspapers and their online editions, and online-only edited, press-like content providers.

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]

Debate between Maria Miller and Nigel Evans

Monday 18th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 22—Relevant considerations.

Government new clause 23—Amount of exemplary damages.

Government new clause 24—Multiple claimants.

Government new clause 25—Multiple defendants.

Government new clause 26—Awards of aggravated damages.

Government new clause 27A—Awards of costs.

Government new clause 29—Meaning of “relevant publisher”.

Government new clause 30—Other interpretative provisions.

Government new schedule 5—‘Exclusions from definition of “relevant publisher”.

Government amendments 121A and 122.

[Maria Miller]

The Leveson inquiry shone a spotlight on the worst excesses of the press. As a result of the revelations involving the hacking of Milly Dowler’s phone and all that went before it, we have seen the closure of a national newspaper and a range of ongoing criminal investigations.

Lord Justice Leveson heard evidence for more than a year. I should like to pause for a second to pay tribute—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Please will Members leaving the Chamber do so quietly? I am finding it very difficult to hear what the Minister is saying.

[Maria Miller]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I should like to pay tribute to those who gave evidence that involved them revisiting those harrowing experiences. I hope it will be clear today that that ordeal has not been in vain.

Today marks a turning point. We can move on from simply talking about Lord Justice Leveson’s report to starting to act on it, with a new package that is agreed by all three party leaders. The package includes a new royal charter, as announced by the Prime Minister earlier; a new costs and damages package that seeks to maximise incentives for relevant publishers to be part of the new press self-regulator; and one short clause reinforcing the point that politicians cannot tamper with the new press royal charter, which is the subject of debate in the other place.

Before I discuss the Bill, I should like to make clear what we are not talking about. The Prime Minister said to the House on the day the report was published that he had serious misgivings about statutory press regulation. He—I agreed with him—was determined to find a better way of establishing the recognition body that would oversee the tough self-regulatory body that Lord Justice Leveson envisaged. That is what our royal charter does.

Our proposals will provide the toughest system of regulation that this country has ever seen. The system will protect the public and ensure that the freedom of the press is not undermined. Alongside our proposals, we will include a three-line clause that reinforces the language within the charter and says that it cannot be changed without a two-thirds majority in both Houses. The clause ensures that, for generations to come, Ministers cannot interfere with the new system without explicit and extensive support from both Houses.

We have achieved all of that without needing to set out a system of press regulation in legislation—hence, our proposals are not statutory underpinning. The three-line clause applies to all royal charters of a particular nature from this point onwards. It is simply a safeguard.

We are in the House to debate amendments that will put in place a new, tough set of incentives for publishers. There are two such incentives—the first relates to the award of exemplary damages, and the second relates to the award of costs in litigation involving relevant publishers. The package forms a crucial part of the new regulatory regime, providing strong new incentives to relevant press publishers to join the press regulator. When they choose to join the press regulator, they will receive a series of benefits on costs and damages. However, those that choose not to join the regulator will be exposed to the tough new regime, which includes payment, in most cases, of the costs of people who bring claims in the courts against publishers on civil media laws, regardless of whether those people win or lose; and exposure to a new exemplary damages regime—we are introducing a new punitive damages regime for breaches of those media laws for those who do not sign up to the regulator.

Victims of press mistreatment will, for the first time, have access to a new toughened complaints mechanism with prominent apologies, tough £1 million fines, and access to a new arbitration system.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Maria Miller and Nigel Evans

Wednesday 1st February 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

Lords amendment 2, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 3, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 4, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 5 to 14, 16, 20 to 22, 24 and 25.

Lords amendment 26, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 27 to 46 and 48 to 72.

Lords amendment 73, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 74 to 110.

[Maria Miller]

As Mr Speaker has indicated, Lords amendments 1, 2, 3, 4, 26 and 73 impinge on the financial privileges of the House of Commons. In disagreeing to the amendments, I will ask the Reasons Committee to ascribe financial privilege as the reason to the House of Lords. Notwithstanding that, however, the House of Commons has an opportunity to debate the substance of the amendments, and to provide the Government’s full rationale for rejecting them,

Lords amendment 1 concerns elements for disabled children. Let us be clear about the impact of the amendment. It would force the Government to reduce support for severely disabled children and, moreover, would go against our commitment to increase support for such children to £77. I believe that our original policy, as agreed in this House, is the right one, because it targets support for disabled people not on age but on need, and removes the cliff edge of financial support that is currently faced by young adults and their families.

In these difficult times, we must make tough choices about where to target our limited resources. The choice that the Government have made is to protect the money that is available to support disabled people in universal credit, and to use it more effectively to ensure that the people who face the biggest challenge are given more support. I repeat that all the money is recycled to support disabled people. What we are doing is thinking about the whole life of an individual, and removing the current artificial division between childhood and adulthood. I hope that that reassures my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), who spoke earlier about the importance of supporting disabled people. We have ensured that we can protect the money that is so important to them.

As we have reiterated throughout our debates on the Bill, we are overhauling existing support. It does not really make sense to look at any one aspect of universal credit in isolation: it provides families with a new package of support to meet a range of needs, and for that reason we need to consider the overall impact of the offer rather than concentrating on any of its individual components.

A parent with a disabled child and who is working 20 hours a week on the minimum wage is likely to be £73 better off in work under universal credit, rather than only £13 better off under tax credits. About 30,000 more families with a disabled child are in work than are out of work, so it is right for us to target support in a way that helps working families. An out-of-work family with a disabled child can receive just over £8,000 a year in benefits for their child once universal credit has been introduced. That compares with just over £4,000 for an out-of-work family with a non-disabled child, and about £1,000 for a family who only receive child benefit. Our impact assessments and modelling demonstrate that, overall, families are more likely to be better off on universal credit, and that there will be no significant change for disabled children living in poverty.

As all Members know, increasing spending is not an option. We simply cannot maintain the existing rates for disabled children if we are to increase the rates for severely disabled adults. That would cost £200 million, which we simply cannot afford. This is a critical point. If the amendment were agreed to, it would not be possible to increase the addition for the most severely disabled people to £77. Let us be clear: the decision to be made is whether we should maintain rates for moderately disabled children at the expense of raising the limits for severely disabled people. We strongly believe that the fairest approach is to align support between children and adults. We take an holistic view of an individual’s life. In summary, what is fair and right is to simplify benefits within universal credit, and to focus limited resources on the basis of need, not age.

Let me now turn to the amendments that deal with child maintenance:

“we should use every lever at our disposal to make reaching a voluntary agreement more attractive than coming into the Child-Maintenance Enforcement Commission.”

Those are not my words, but those of the former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, now Lord, Hutton, to a Select Committee of this House in 2006.

Let me make four brief points to put the debate in context. Conflict when families break down is bad for children, as we all know from our constituency casework, and we all know that all too often that conflict can be embedded and entrenched as a result of problems to do with the Child Support Agency.

The role of the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission has changed fundamentally. It is no longer about recovering, pound for pound, the benefits payments made to lone parents. Instead we have a benefits system that gives more than £6.5 billion in welfare payments directly to lone parents, both those in work and those not in work. In the past, change has been piecemeal. That has created the current failing system, which costs taxpayers £500 million every year; has nil-assessed more than 250,000 people, some of whom really should be receiving support; and has 100,000 clerical cases. It would not be putting it too strongly to say that we have inherited a real mess from the Labour party. The reform that we are undertaking is long overdue.

My concern is that the amendment from the other place is not about improving the situation; if anything, it would make the situation worse. It is about attempting to divide parents into those who deserve to be charged, and those who do not. Our reforms are about creating a behavioural change for the benefit of children, and about helping parents to work together. The amendment from the other place would make that approach unworkable.