Welfare Reform Bill

In advance of formally moving the amendment, it might be for the convenience of the Committee to pause on a procedural point. I am conscious that there is some pressure on Members to degroup big amendments. I certainly understand that. The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, in a very effective piece of advocacy in the previous sitting, degrouped six amendments when she was talking about exemptions from capital limits, making two groups of three. I assume that is because there is an expectation of a fuller ministerial response, which is absolutely understandable. The Committee had a very good debate on that. On the other hand, if we are to get to Clause 136, which I have an interest in getting to because the child maintenance provisions of the Bill are important, there is an advantage in having a big group of amendments around housing, for example. It allows for a wider debate to take place. However, that is sensible for Members of the Committee only if the Minister of State is able to give at least some indication of the Government’s position on each amendment in that group. The Committee is trying to understand where we will be by Report. This is only my idea—I have talked to nobody—but it seems sensible. I am happy if the common view is that we should all degroup everything, but we will need to be very disciplined in how we structure the debates. I must stop calling the Minister ““the Minister of State””, since it promotes him, although it is only a matter of time until he is promoted. Maybe I should offer to be his personal assistant and be the advance party on his visits to Warrington. His career is safe in my hands.