The way in which Parliament operates seem strange to many people and when new MPs or Peers first arrive many of them still struggle to understand its rules weeks and sometimes even months after they have arrived. It is perhaps a shock though when a debate takes places as happened last Wednesday in the House of Commons for an MP to state that after 34 years in the House of Commons that he is left confused. Edward Leigh is Conservative MP for Kensington and he was shocked by the failure of the Government to respond to the result of the vote. A total of 299 MPs supported a Labour motion calling on the Government to suspend the roll out of Universal Credit, they represented all political parties apart from the DUP and Sinn Fein. There was a cross party consensus that the roll out should be suspended and not a single vote opposing this motion. Leigh explained his dismay that a Minister did not appear, “I do not quite understand something. For 34 years, I have been trooping through hundreds of Divisions on Wednesdays under successive Labour and Conservative Governments. When I was required to be here for those Divisions, I was under the impression that it served some purpose. What worries me is that surely there is some precedent here.” However he should also have been shocked that the Government demanded that members of its party abstain. He should also have been surprised that with the exception of the widely respected MP for Totnes, Sarah Wollaston who voted with the motion, that the whole party complied with such a strange request not to vote. Many of us who voted to remain in the EU referendum have pointed out on numerous occasions that despite a slim majority in favour of leaving the EU that many people did not vote and so claiming that the majority of people in the UK want to leave is incorrect. Yet Tories on the leave side of the argument have suggested that if people do not bother to vote, they do not deserve to be listened to. Surely this strategy by the Government raises all sorts of questions about the role of electoral abstainers?

The roll out of Universal Credit has many problems. The truth is that if the policy was de-politicised in such a way that the Government was willing to listen to bodies such as Citizen Advice and Foodbanks as well as other political parties and make appropriate changes without feeling their credibility is at stake, then actually many of us might see the policy as a good thing as long as it is properly funded. However the Government is treating this as a matter of political pride, even though many within the party clearly have disagreements with it. Even Jeremy Quin, Conservative MP for Horsham stated “Of course, there will be issues, some heartrending, that need to be resolved” and he went on to refer to the fact that 50% of new claimants are successful in claiming advance payments against the policy. Whilst he did not say many things that appeared to disagree with the Government, the fact is that when 50% of participants end up being granted concessions from the structure and presumably others were not fully considered, that the policy is in effect broken. Jeremy went on to say “They are all examples of how the system is adapting. It is a system worth working with” In other words the policy needs to change and be reformed.

The area that is widely seen as failing is the idea that claimants should have to wait six weeks to receive their benefits which explains why 50% are getting advance payments. As Caroline Lucas stated “If the Secretary of State’s intention really is not to cause hardship and distress, why will he not get rid of that automatic six-week wait?” Debbie Abrahams, the Labour MP who introduced the debate pointed out that back in 2012 when the policy was first discussed in the Works and Pensions Committee that the proposals that Universal Credit payments would be made monthly, in arrears was raised as a major concern. During the debate Iain Duncan Smith argued that the logic of paying benefits monthly in arrears was to link it to the way some people are paid. However as Labour member Stephen Timms explained “The right hon. Gentleman has explained the theory of the four-week delay, but does he accept that that theory simply does not work for the very large number of people who are still paid weekly?” What no one has explained is why four weeks has slipped to six, which makes no logical sense and is causing great hardship!