division_name: Tied Public Houses (Code of Practice) &#8212; Welfare Reform Bill
motion: <p class="" pid="b.919.3/1" pwmotiontext="yes">I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.</p>
  
  <p class="" pid="b.919.3/2" pwmotiontext="yes">The Bill before us today covers a number of areas, but I hope that it sets a new course for the welfare state. I believe it will enable us to reach out to some of the groups of people who have become detached from the rest of society&#8212;trapped, too often, in a permanent state of worklessness and dependency. For the sake of the House, I will go through the relevant clauses of the Bill. I am sure that colleagues on both sides of the House will want to intervene. I hope they will recognise that we shall get to most of the clauses that they want to discuss, but I will take interventions as and when they come.</p>
  
  <p class="" pid="b.934.1/1" pwmotiontext="yes">I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from &#8220;That&#8221; to the end of the Question and add:</p>
  
  <p class="" pid="b.934.1/2" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;this House, whilst affirming its belief in the principle of simplifying the benefits system and good work incentives, declines to give a Second Reading to the Welfare Reform Bill because the proposal of the Universal Credit as it stands creates uncertainty for thousands of people in the United Kingdom; because the Bill fails to clarify what level of childcare support will be available for parents following the abolition of the tax credit system; because the Bill penalises savers who will be barred from the Universal Credit; because the Bill disadvantages people suffering from cancer or mental illness due to the withdrawal of contributory Employment Support Allowance; because the Bill contains no safeguards to mothers in receipt of childcare support; because it proposes to withdraw the mobility component of Disability Living Allowance from people in residential care and fails to provide sufficient safeguards for future and necessary reform; because it provides no safeguards for those losing Housing Benefit or appropriate checks on the Secretary of State&#8217;s powers; because it fails to clarify how Council Tax Benefit will be incorporated in the Universal Credit system; because it fails to determine how recipients of free school meals and beneficiaries of Social Fund loans will be treated; and because the proposals act as a disincentive for the self-employed who wish to start up a business; and is strongly of the opinion that the publication of such a Bill should have been preceded by both fuller consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny of a draft Bill.&#8221;</p>
  
  <p pid="b.1022.2/1" pwmotiontext="yes"><i>Question put, </i>That the amendment be made.</p>
  
  <p class="italic" pid="b.1022.2/2" pwmotiontext="yes">The House divided:</p>
  
  <p pid="b.1022.2/3" pwmotiontext="yes">Ayes 244, Noes 317.</p>