Results 1-20 of 3,435 for (in the 'Commons debates' OR in the 'Westminster Hall debates' OR in the 'Lords debates' OR in the 'Northern Ireland Assembly debates') speaker:Steve Webb

Outlawries Bill: Debate on the Address — [1st Day] (18 Nov 2009)

Steve Webb: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point about the role of quangos, but he will recall from "Yes Minister" and the like in the 1980s, which were based on inside knowledge, that people could become the chair of the "Whitefish Authority", or whatever it was. Does he not accept that quangoisation has been happening for decades and is not just a new Labour phenomenon?

Welfare Reform Bill (Programme) (No. 2): Report on operation of travel authorisation amendments (10 Nov 2009)

Steve Webb: The Minister is right to say that this represents a concession on the part of the Opposition parties, which understandably had grave reservations about allowing officials to have the power to withdraw passports, rather than it being done through a judicial process. I have to say that those reservations remain, but at least we now have the promise of a review after two years, at which point...

Welfare Reform Bill (Programme) (No. 2): Clause 25 — Contracting out functions under Jobseekers Act 1995 (10 Nov 2009)

Steve Webb: The Minister referred to places on treatment programmes, and we are talking not only about drugs in the traditional sense, but about alcohol abuse. Certainly my local service providers say that it can be easy to find money for drugs programmes, but hard to find it for alcohol programmes. Can he say something about the resourcing of places for treatment of people with alcohol abuse problems?...

Welfare Reform Bill (Programme) (No. 2): Clause 25 — Contracting out functions under Jobseekers Act 1995 (10 Nov 2009)

Steve Webb: I regard this group of amendments as making the best of a bad job. The provisions relating to drug and alcohol addiction are offensive and authoritarian, and it would have been better to take them out of the Bill altogether. The amendments make things slightly less bad, but the pilots will prove that we have an awfully long way to go before we get an effective response to the issues of drug...

Welfare Reform Bill (Programme) (No. 2): Clause 1 — Social security (10 Nov 2009)

Steve Webb: I have two concerns about that. Perhaps I asked my first question too quickly and the Minister did not understand. Why would we want to give the Minister the power only for the year starting 2010. Why would it not be a general power? The same situation might happen not next year but in a few years' time, and there may not then be a social security Act passing through the House onto which to...

Welfare Reform Bill (Programme) (No. 2): Clause 1 — Social security (10 Nov 2009)

Steve Webb: I am grateful for that clarification. The other issue in this group of amendments is the failed pilots. Actually, that description is rather uncharitable, and I do not like being uncharitable. A pilot that proves that a scheme is not a good idea is not a failed pilot, but a pilot: a scheme was trialled and tried, and proved not to be cost-effective. I could not help musing that we have spent...

Welfare Reform Bill (Programme) (No. 2): Clause 1 — Social security (10 Nov 2009)

Steve Webb: That obviously invites the same question that the hon. Gentleman has just put to the Minister. Would that be a net increase in overall spending, and if not, does he already know what he would cut to pay for it?

Welfare Reform Bill (Programme) (No. 2): Clause 1 — Social security (10 Nov 2009)

Steve Webb: Like the right hon. Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan), I welcome that small step towards trying to improve take-up of council tax benefit. It is worth while, but it is very small step on a very long journey. My understanding is that council tax benefit is the social security benefit with the worst take-up rate of any in the entire system. As she said, many hundreds of thousands of...

Welfare Reform Bill (Programme) (No. 2): Clause 1 — Social security (10 Nov 2009)

Steve Webb: The amendments, as I read them, relate only to 2010. Will the Minister explain why he has not given the Secretary of State a general power? In 12 months' time, the RPI could still be negative and we would need primary legislation again. Why not provide for a general power?

Welfare Reform Bill (Programme) (No. 2): Clause 1 — Social security (10 Nov 2009)

Steve Webb: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's call for clarity. For the avoidance of doubt, could he confirm whether this policy would be implemented if his party were in power in 2011?

Welfare Reform Bill (Programme) (No. 2): Clause 2 — Work-related activity: income support claimants and partners of claimants (10 Nov 2009)

Steve Webb: 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 what is best for the welfare of a child. We are talking about not only, for example, an unemployed adult,...

Welfare Reform Bill (Programme) (No. 2): Clause 2 — Work-related activity: income support claimants and partners of claimants (10 Nov 2009)

Steve Webb: 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...

Welfare Reform Bill (Programme) (No. 2): Clause 2 — Work-related activity: income support claimants and partners of claimants (10 Nov 2009)

Steve Webb: 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 brought in a safeguard—the well-being of the child." I have looked at the three amendments in the group...

Welfare Reform Bill (Programme) (No. 2): Clause 2 — Work-related activity: income support claimants and partners of claimants (10 Nov 2009) has video

Steve Webb: The hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out in an earlier intervention that there are as many children in poverty in working households as in non-working households, so work in itself is not a guarantee of being out of poverty. I also take his point that it should surely be for the lone parent themselves to judge what is in the best interests of their family, particularly when their children are...

Welfare Reform Bill (Programme) (No. 2): Clause 2 — Work-related activity: income support claimants and partners of claimants (10 Nov 2009) has video

Steve Webb: Like the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), I am a great fan of the Webbs. I find it odd that an amendment tabled by a former Government adviser who now feels comfortable in the Conservative party is being resisted as "too soft". Sometimes I cannot work out who is on which side. We have to be on the side of the child and the family, so we have real concerns about the motion to disagree with...

Welfare Reform Bill (Programme) (No. 2): Clause 2 — Work-related activity: income support claimants and partners of claimants (10 Nov 2009)

Steve Webb: 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. Indeed, the Government's approach could be counter-productive, because everybody who took part...

Welfare Reform Bill (Programme) (No. 2): Clause 2 — Work-related activity: income support claimants and partners of claimants (10 Nov 2009)

Steve Webb: 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 Minister use the word "encourage", not "force", "threaten" or "blackmail", because that is what a...

Welfare Reform Bill (Programme) (No. 2): Clause 2 — Work-related activity: income support claimants and partners of claimants (10 Nov 2009) has video

Steve Webb: The Minister started by setting out all the positive things that the Government are going to do to engage, and all the support that lone parents are going to get. However, these proposals are, in essence, about the stick; they are not about the carrot. They are about saying what punishment will be meted out to a lone parent with a three or four-year-old child if they do not do what the...

Petition — Equitable Life (Northavon) (9 Nov 2009) has video

Steve Webb: This petition relates to the Government's response to the parliamentary ombudsman's report on Equitable Life. The petitioners are policyholders, their survivors and their supporters. The policyholders have suffered maladministration leading to injustice, as found by the parliamentary ombudsman in her July 2008 report. Furthermore, they and those whom they represent have suffered regulatory...

Olympics: Energy National Policy Statements (9 Nov 2009) has video

Steve Webb: The proposed Oldbury B power station, unlike the existing one next to it in my constituency, would have a very high cooling tower. If my constituents objected to that because of the visual impact and other factors, would they actually be listened to—not just heard—or would their views be overridden? The document states that the national need for stations is the most important factor.