Clause 7
Welfare Reform Bill
9:45 am

Tim Boswell (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Daventry, Conservative)

One could reasonably describe the clause as small but perfectly formed. Again, I shall take no more than a moment of the Committee’s time, but it is worth pausing for thought. As I understand the clause, it will prevent separate payments when the  entitlement is less than 10p a week. If the entitlement is paid in conjunction with another benefit, such as the disability premium that we have discussed, the amount could be more. The provision appears to hark back to legislation introduced under the previous Government—ours—in 1992. Will Ministers reflect on the number of such payments that would be made in theory, and on whether the payment continues to be appropriate? No one wants to take money away from vulnerable people, but some of them may consider payments of 10p a week to be insulting.

I wonder whether it is a de minimis provision that will need sensible revisiting in due course. If the payment were 50p a week, would it make the slightest difference? I would not rush to put my head on the block by saying that we should change it now because the value of money and the cost of postage have changed. We should not reopen the whole benefit payment issue, but will the Under-Secretary share her thoughts?

Anne McGuire (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Disabled People), Department for Work and Pensions; Stirling, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman has raised an interesting issue. It is about getting the balance right. The de minimis level of 10p is appropriate, but I hear his comments, and I am sure that we will reflect on them. However, we see no reason why we should increase the de minimis amount from 10p. He has been around longer than I have in some respects, and he may have seen the value of money decrease or increase over the years. The point is well made, but we will hold to 10p.