It is not our intention that routine or minor changes in circumstances would lead to the loss of transitional protection. The requirement for child care clearly fluctuates during the course of the year, but follows a set pattern. It is not our intention for a moment to remove transitional protection in that situation, nor is it our intention to remove it in an environment in which there is an annual increase—RPI or CPI—in the rate of child care. We are looking at material changes in circumstances, and I certainly would not envisage the change from term time to holidays as a material change.
The other issue that I have with the Opposition's proposals is that they would remove the ability for people to take up mini jobs. For women re-entering the workplace after a lengthy time out of it, there is a bigger barrier than needs to be the case. One of the strengths of the universal credit system is the flexibility for people to take on mini jobs. The level of prescription set out in the Opposition's proposals would set up unnecessary and inappropriate barriers to getting people back to work.
Welfare Reform Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Grayling
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 13 June 2011.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Welfare Reform Bill (Programme) (No. 2).
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
529 c537 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 16:43:40 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_748161
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_748161
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_748161