I thank the Minister for that reply. As we discussed earlier, we understand the need for the sort of thresholds that are envisaged here, and why they are there. We also understand the need for scope for a further category of claimants who will be subject to no work-related requirements at all.
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, is right that this is a fairly broad power. I would not put it in quite the terms that the noble Lord does, and I am not sure why, if he envisages that there may be a different Government in the future, it might not be made up of people on this side of the Chamber, although perhaps that is a debate for another day.
This was raised because we wanted to focus on the issue that subsequent uses of the power will only make minor adjustments—since that was what the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee were seeking in the noble Lord’s answer—particularly in relation to thresholds of hours-worked earnings, and the amount of universal credit payable. If the assurance is that it will only move in a minor way from the starting position, then it addresses precisely the issue that we were probing. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 51CEF withdrawn.
Amendment 51D
Moved by
Welfare Reform Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord McKenzie of Luton
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 26 October 2011.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Welfare Reform Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
731 c333-4GC 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 20:52:04 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_778147
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_778147
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_778147