This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/int/news/-/news/uk-politics-16825646

The article has changed 14 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 10 Version 11
Government wins benefit cap vote in Commons MPs reverse Lords welfare defeats
(about 1 hour later)
  
MPs have backed the government's plans for a £26,000 annual cap on overall household benefits and agreed child benefit should be included - overturning a key defeat in the Lords. MPs have overturned a series of defeats inflicted on the government's welfare reform bill in the House of Lords.
The benefit cap is among the highest profile changes in the government's controversial Welfare Reform Bill. The coalition won seven key votes in the Commons, rejecting amendments made by peers and reinstating their original proposals into the legislation.
Ministers say it will bring benefits into line with average working households' income. These include plans for a £26,000 annual limit on total household benefits, including child benefit.
MPs have now overturned six of seven defeats peers inflicted on the Bill. Ministers say they will use a rule known as "financial privilege" to ensure Parliament approves the cap.
A special committee of MPs from all parties approved the move on Wednesday.
This will mean the Lords cannot send the same amendments back to the Commons when they re-consider the bill for a final time, preventing what is known as "ping pong" between the two chambers and effectively ending parliamentary opposition.
The measure relates to the principle that the Lords cannot oppose tax and spending decisions agreed by the Commons.
During nearly seven hours of debate in the Commons, the government won a series of votes on controversial aspects of the bill with large majorities.
They voted by 334 to 251 to overturn the Lords amendment - tabled by a group of bishops - which would exclude child benefit from counting towards the £26,000-a-year cap on benefits to working-age households - set at the equivalent to the average post-tax salary of a working household.They voted by 334 to 251 to overturn the Lords amendment - tabled by a group of bishops - which would exclude child benefit from counting towards the £26,000-a-year cap on benefits to working-age households - set at the equivalent to the average post-tax salary of a working household.
Labour say they support the cap in principle but argue that rather than one national cap - there should be local caps, set by an independent commission.Labour say they support the cap in principle but argue that rather than one national cap - there should be local caps, set by an independent commission.
'Transitional arrangements''Transitional arrangements'
In the Commons, Work and Pensions Minister Chris Grayling said that idea was "ill-thought out" and "would be more credible if it was not being made at the very last minute".In the Commons, Work and Pensions Minister Chris Grayling said that idea was "ill-thought out" and "would be more credible if it was not being made at the very last minute".
He said there were already exemptions to the cap - such as families in receipt of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) and Working Tax Credit - and outlined "transitional arrangements" to minimise the impact.He said there were already exemptions to the cap - such as families in receipt of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) and Working Tax Credit - and outlined "transitional arrangements" to minimise the impact.
People who had been in work for the previous 12 months would get a nine-month "grace period" before the cap kicked in and he said people in receipt of the "support component" of ESA - for people deemed unable to work due to illness - but who do not receive DLA, would not be penalised.People who had been in work for the previous 12 months would get a nine-month "grace period" before the cap kicked in and he said people in receipt of the "support component" of ESA - for people deemed unable to work due to illness - but who do not receive DLA, would not be penalised.
Additional payments would be made to families in certain circumstances, following a similar model used when the housing benefit cap was introduced - at a cost of up to £80m for 2013/2014 and £50m in 2014/2015.Additional payments would be made to families in certain circumstances, following a similar model used when the housing benefit cap was introduced - at a cost of up to £80m for 2013/2014 and £50m in 2014/2015.
And he said the policy would be reviewed "in a transparent way" - as they would with any major policy change of this kind.And he said the policy would be reviewed "in a transparent way" - as they would with any major policy change of this kind.
Mr Grayling told MPs the government would use parliamentary rules known as "financial privilege" to get their measures on ESA and the benefit cap through - it refers to the principle that the Lords cannot oppose tax and spending decisions agreed by the Commons. For Labour, Liam Byrne told MPs there were "dangerous flaws" in the "one-cap-fits-all approach".
It will have to be formally signed off by a special committee of MPs tonight before the bill returns to the Lords. He dismissed government claims that Labour had never raised the issue of a local cap before and said they had made plenty of calls for safeguards in the cap.
It means that the Lords cannot send their same amendments to the welfare bill back to the Commons, preventing parliamentary "ping pong" over aspects of the bill.
For Labour, Liam Byrne suggested the reason the government had resorted to the measure was because they wanted to block a Labour amendment calling for a flexible, local limit on the benefits cap.
He told MPs there were "dangerous flaws" in the "one-cap-fits-all approach". Mr Byrne dismissed government claims that Labour had never raised the issue of a local cap before and said they had made plenty of calls for safeguards in the cap.
He said the government had already "burnt a third of the savings they proposed for this measure" - because they had got the policy wrong - and the proposal had become a "dog's breakfast".He said the government had already "burnt a third of the savings they proposed for this measure" - because they had got the policy wrong - and the proposal had become a "dog's breakfast".
The government's decision to use financial privilege rules was also criticised by former Conservative chancellor Lord Mackay - who led a Tory rebellion in the Lords against charges for parents to access the Child Support Agency. The government's decision to use financial privilege rules has been criticised by Labour peers.
He suggested it was "a waste of taxpayers' money at a time of considerable austerity" for peers to pass amendments which were then rejected out of hand. And former Conservative chancellor Lord Mackay - who led a Tory rebellion in the Lords against charges for parents to access the Child Support Agency - suggested it was "a waste of taxpayers' money at a time of considerable austerity" for peers to pass amendments which were then rejected out of hand.
'Waste of money''Waste of money'
Earlier MPs voted down Lords changes to reduce entitlements to employment and support allowance (ESA).Earlier MPs voted down Lords changes to reduce entitlements to employment and support allowance (ESA).
They voted by 324 to 265 to back the government over plans to stop young disabled people who have never worked, due to illness or disability, from being able to claim "contributory" ESA - usually paid to those who have paid a certain amount of National Insurance.They voted by 324 to 265 to back the government over plans to stop young disabled people who have never worked, due to illness or disability, from being able to claim "contributory" ESA - usually paid to those who have paid a certain amount of National Insurance.
They backed ministers by 332 to 266 over plans to means-test the same allowance after 12 months for those judged capable of working at some point in future.They backed ministers by 332 to 266 over plans to means-test the same allowance after 12 months for those judged capable of working at some point in future.
And they voted down a peers' amendment that would have exempted some cancer patients from means testing by 328 to 265. The government also reversed a Lords amendment limiting the proposed reduction to the lower rate of the "disabled child element" of Child Tax Credits by 324 votes to 255.And they voted down a peers' amendment that would have exempted some cancer patients from means testing by 328 to 265. The government also reversed a Lords amendment limiting the proposed reduction to the lower rate of the "disabled child element" of Child Tax Credits by 324 votes to 255.
Critics say the move will hit working people facing severe financial difficulties - and could cost them over £1,300 a year.Critics say the move will hit working people facing severe financial difficulties - and could cost them over £1,300 a year.
The government says it wants to target support at the children with the highest care needs - and say there will be transitional protection so those already in receipt of the benefit will not lose money.The government says it wants to target support at the children with the highest care needs - and say there will be transitional protection so those already in receipt of the benefit will not lose money.
MPs also voted to overturn a Lords proposal calling for social tenants with one spare room to be exempt from new "under-occupancy penalties" linked to housing benefit. It won the vote by 310 to 268.MPs also voted to overturn a Lords proposal calling for social tenants with one spare room to be exempt from new "under-occupancy penalties" linked to housing benefit. It won the vote by 310 to 268.
It also overturned the Lords amendment calling for single parents not to be charged for accessing the Child Support Agency by 318 to 257 votes - but only after ministers said they would reduce planned upfront fees to £20.