The following amendments have been selected: amendment 1 in the name of Darren Millar and amendment 2 in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Item 6 on the agenda this afternoon is a debate on the analysis of the impact of the UK Government's welfare reform on households in Wales, and I call on the Deputy Minister for Housing and Local Government to move the motion. Hannah Blythyn.

Motion NDM6993 Rebecca Evans

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Notes the empirical analysis of the effect of the UK Government’s Welfare Reform on Households in Wales.

2. Recognises and regrets the negative impact on the lives of the poorest and most vulnerable people in Wales.

Motion moved.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Thank you for the opportunity to bring this important debate about the latest analysis published last week on the impact of the UK Government's welfare reforms on households in Wales.

I would like to first turn to the amendments that have been tabled. I don't think that it will come as a surprise that we reject the amendment from the Conservatives, which at best seeks to play down the impact of welfare reform and, at worst, attempts to absolve themselves of any responsibility for the devastating effect that it's having on the lives of the most vulnerable and the least well-off in Wales.

In respect of the Plaid Cymru amendment, I want to be clear that this Government has already committed to exploring the case for devolving the administration of aspects of the benefits system. We will look further at the evidence of the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee, which is currently being considered, assess the experience of Scotland to date, and then provide an evidence base to look at things that may be taken forward. We will, of course, need to look at how we can ensure that any transfer of functions is accompanied by the necessary funding.

This report brings together key statistics, analysis and evidence on the impact of both already implemented and proposed welfare reforms on households in Wales. The report highlights the substantial benefit cuts announced by the UK Government since 2010 up to the end of January 2019—a period where we have witnessed significant change to the system—and outlines the individual and cumulative impacts.

The UK Government has recently signalled some positive changes, such as an increase in some universal credit work allowances, but these are relatively small in scale. We know that the overall effect of these benefit changes is regressive, with the largest impacts felt by people on the lowest incomes, especially those with children. We also know that many benefit cuts are only partly implemented, with the spectre of further significant cuts looming large. Relative child poverty in Wales is estimated to increase substantially, with the reforms pushing an extra 50,000 children into poverty by the time they are fully enforced. The stark reality is that the double whammy of welfare reform and the agenda of austerity is hitting those least able to bear the burden the hardest. And, it does not stop there.

There is also a disproportionately negative impact on the incomes of several protected groups, including disabled people, Bangladeshi and Pakistani households at a GB-wide level and, of course, women. These negative impacts, for the most part, are the result of changes to the benefits system, in particular: the freeze in working-age benefit rates; the two-child limit in tax credits and universal credit; the abolition of the family element; and changes to disability benefits. Last week's spring statement provided a timely platform for action to end the benefits freeze. Sadly, neither announcement nor action were forthcoming, despite the freeze pushing many families deeper into poverty.

This report also makes clear a number of issues of concern with the roll-out of universal credit to date, focusing on three key areas: the impact on rent arrears, food banks and applying for universal credit online. The Trussell Trust, along with the parliamentary Work and Pensions Committee, are rightly calling for an end to the five-week wait for the first payment of universal credit. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions admitted on 11 February that the main issue that led to this increase in food bank usage could have been the fact that people have difficulty assessing their money for universal credit early enough.

In terms of personal independence payments, evidence summarised in this report suggests that huge and harmful problems exist and persist with the eligibility assessment process. Deputy Llywydd, all who are here in this Chamber will be familiar with some of the perverse problems that people have encountered when applying for personal independence payments. There are real concerns in relation to the ability of contractors to conduct accurate eligibility assessments, which is reflected by a significant and increasing proportion of appeals being found in favour of the claimant.

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions wrote to me, setting out a number of changes to health and disability benefits that the UK Government is looking to ensure. A commitment to reviewing the assessment process is welcome but, as they say, the devil will be in the detail and delivery of this. We have repeatedly and robustly made clear this Government's concerns to the UK Government, calling for a halt in the roll-out of universal credit, and seeking urgent change to the most damaging policies, such as the two-child limit. The UK Government has made some changes, but these do not go far enough.

The Welsh Government does not have the resources to meet the entire shortfall resulting from these UK Government welfare reforms, estimated to be £2 billion by 2020 for Wales, but we will do all we can to support the most vulnerable people and do the right thing by them as they try to deal with the disproportionate and unfair impact of these reforms. Through our financial inclusion work, we provide grant funding of almost £6 million a year, which is used to fund projects such as Better Advice, Better Lives that deliver advice services within all 22 local authority areas. And when a share of the financial levy for the provision of debt advice services is devolved to the Welsh Government, I anticipate this will increase our current grant funding to approximately £8.5 million from April this year.

We know that our advice service funding is making a real difference to people’s lives. During the last year, the funding supported over 73,000 people, helping them to access almost £60 million of welfare benefit income. I recently visited Bargoed Citizens Advice, one of the pilot areas for the new help-to-claim service for universal credit, and saw for myself some of the digital difficulties being experienced and what a lifeline this support is in making a claim for universal credit.

Our discretionary assistance fund is playing a crucial role in supporting those most in need and has supported 214,300 people, with awards to the most vulnerable people in Wales, with over £44 million in grants since April 2013. The fund has seen a peak in people making contact for assistance. Deputy Llywydd, when I actually visited the centre that takes the calls from people trying to access claims for the DAF and the emergency assistance fund, the evidence suggests from there that, for a lot of these people, this is a consequence of the roll-out of universal credit. Therefore, we are increasing funding by £2 million this year, and for 2019 and 2020.

In order to meet the additional free school meal costs associated with the roll-out of universal credit, we will be providing additional funding of £5 million to local authorities in 2018-19 via a grant scheme. We are also making a further £7 million available to local authorities for free school meals in 2019-20.

Our childcare offer is supporting working families across Wales and is helping second earners into work and enabling parents who work part-time to increase their income by working more hours, which is critical to tackling in-work poverty.

We know that austerity is placing huge financial pressure on both our public services and our people, so we are providing £244 million annually to support the council tax reduction scheme. Almost 300,000 vulnerable and low-income households in Wales continue to be protected from any increases in their council tax bills, of which 220,000 continue to pay no council tax at all.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I know that the impact of the UK Government’s welfare reforms is something that many in this Chamber and in communities right across the country don't simply have acute concerns about, but are downright and rightly angry about. So, I look forward to the contributions to this debate on the analysis of the impact of the UK Government’s welfare reforms on households in Wales. Diolch yn fawr.

Diolch. I have selected the two amendments to the motion, and I call on Mark Isherwood to move amendment 1, tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Mark.

Amendment 1—Darren Millar

Delete all and replace with:

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Acknowledges the Welsh Government’s analysis of the impact of welfare reform.

2. Notes the recent comments made by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the rollout of Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payments, as well as the actions taken by the UK Government to address concerns over the implementation of both.

3. Further notes that the Welsh Government has admitted that employment is one of the best ways to tackle inequality, through its programme for government and  economic action plan;

4. Is concerned that, while employment has substantially increased since 2010, the Equality and Human Rights Commission report ‘Is Wales Fairer?’ highlighted that poverty and deprivation still remain higher in Wales than other British nations; Wales is the least productive nation in the UK, and median weekly earnings in Wales are lower than in England and Scotland.

5. Calls on the Welsh Government to publish a robust and meaningful plan to tackle poverty that contains clear performance targets and indications to measure progress.

Amendment 1 moved.

Diolch. In 2010, the UK Government inherited a cycle of hopelessness, with deep-rooted, multigenerational worklessness and dependency in too many places, and Wales lagging behind. Now we have record employment and UK wages are rising at the fastest rate in over a decade. And newly published Office for National Statistics figures show that personal well-being levels and mental health scores improved in the UK after 2011.

I move amendment 1, which acknowledges the Welsh Labour Government's analysis of the impact of welfare reform. We regret, however, its politicised nature and the omission of key areas of change, including UK Government changes to personal income tax allowances since 2010 and to the roll-out of universal credit and personal independence payments. We also regret the absence of meaningful Welsh Government poverty reduction targets. In consistently blaming the UK Government for causing deprivation in Wales, they seek to dodge the reality that it is they who have held many of the levers to tackle poverty over 20 years. And, as last October's Equality and Human Rights Commission report 'Is Wales Fairer?' found, poverty and deprivation still remain higher in Wales than in other British nations. Wales is the least productive nation in the UK and median weekly earnings in Wales are lower than in England and Scotland. Damningly, ONS figures on employee earnings in the UK 2018 also showed that average earnings in Wales were lower and had grown slower than other UK nations in the previous year. In fact, 20 years after devolution, Wales has the lowest take-home pay amongst the UK nations.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation's 'UK Poverty 2017' report found that 60 per cent of working-age adults in workless households were in poverty compared with 16 per cent of those in working households. The Welsh Government itself has admitted that employment is one of the best ways to tackle inequality. The House of Commons—[Interruption.] Sorry, who's speaking? Yes, sorry.

Thank you, Mark, for giving way. Thank you very much. If we accept that there are high levels of disadvantage and deprivation in some of the communities and some of those on the lowest incomes are being most affected by minute little changes, I ask him to listen to the voice of Conservative MPs, and indeed Ministers, who've spoken out on this. When Esther McVey acknowledged that people with a transfer to universal credit, some of those people that you were just talking about, could be £200 a month worse off as a result of the switch, they'd be poorer, including people who are in work. She said,

'I've said we made tough decisions, some people will be worse off', or even Amber Rudd, who said universal credit has caused a surge in the use of food banks. You can't deny, surely, that the tax and welfare changes have hit those people you were talking about the worst.

Thanks. Well, I'll be covering that in the rest of my speech, and I too have been writing to Westminster Ministers in relation to matters raised in my experience with constituents.

The House of Commons Work and Pensions Select Committee said in 2012,

'The principles behind Universal Credit have widespread support, which we share.'

And Labour's shadow work and pensions Secretary said in 2014 that

'Labour supports the principle of Universal Credit'.

Universal credit replaces a failing system, and the evidence shows people are more likely to get a job as a result, move into work faster and stay in work longer. However, as the UK Government states, any issues in its roll-out should and will be addressed. As the UK work and pensions Secretary said last November,

'I know that there are problems with universal credit, despite its good intentions.....I will be listening and learning from the expert groups in this area who do such good work. I know it can be better.' 

Speaking here last November, I detailed actions taken by the UK Government to address concerns over implementation of universal credit already then announced. Although the food bank network that you referred to opened in 2004, with the aim of a food bank in every UK town, the UK work and pensions Secretary also recently acknowledged that delays to payments have led to a growth in food bank use, and stated

'Already we have introduced 100% advance payments, budgeting support, direct rent payments to landlords and an extra two weeks' housing benefit payment for people moving from Housing Benefit to Universal Credit.'

Under personal independence payments, 31 per cent of disabled claimants are now receiving the highest rate of support compared to 15 per cent under disability living allowance. However, I have supported many constituents in successfully challenging PIP decisions while the health professionals carrying out their assessments exhibited a poor awareness and understanding of the barriers their conditions created for them. I have also written many times to DWP Ministers regarding this. I therefore welcome the work and pensions Secretary's statement that the number of PIP disability benefit appeals ruling against the UK Government—72 per cent last summer—was too high, and that she would be giving her attention to this, and other announcements including proposed integration of PIP, universal credit and ESA into a single information sharing service to reduce the need for applicants to submit information multiple times. Only yesterday I heard from a participating Welsh charity about their work with the DWP to support people with sensory loss into the workplace.

The Welsh Government should also play its part by, for example, responding positively to the call by Community Housing Cymru for them and Welsh local authorities to work with JobcentrePlus in Wales to co-locate services and enable applications for local authority benefits to be made at the same time as universal credit, and by publishing a robust plan to tackle poverty that contains clear performance targets and progress measures. Diolch.

I call on Leanne Wood to move amendment 2, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Leanne.

Amendment 2—Rhun ap Iorwerth

Add as new point at end of motion:

Calls for the administrative devolution of welfare to Wales so that mitigating measures can be put in place.

Amendment 2 moved.

Diolch, and I move the amendment. It's no surprise that we've tabled this amendment. We've been pushing this agenda for several years now, believing that the only way we can really tackle the scandalous attitudes towards the poorest in our society is through taking responsibility for ourselves. It's worth noting at the start the impact the political choices that are austerity and welfare reform has had on women. As I outlined earlier during business questions, the House of Commons library estimates that, in looking at all changes to tax and benefits from 2010 to 2017, 86 per cent of the reduction in Government spending is spending on women. And today we've had a report from the House of Commons committee that describes how some women have no choice other than to turn to prostitution to make ends meet, and that is linked to welfare reform.

I don't need to reel off a long list of policies that have had a devastating, cumulative impact on the poorest people here in Wales. These policies are well documented, and as the recent proposed changes to universal credit illustrated, these impacts are quietly now being accepted, even by many Tories. It's been amusing on one level to see ex-Tories like Anna Soubry realise the scale of what has happened in their name, as illustrated on tv's The Last Leg recently.

It's the attitudes within the civil service that I really want to highlight today, because I don't believe we can really create a human social security system worthy of the name unless we change the way in which staff interact with people in need on a day-to-day basis. The long list of sanctions given to people experiencing tragic circumstances—for example, the man who was sanctioned for a missed appointment due to being at hospital with his partner who had just had a stillborn child—is illustrative of this. This system is callous. Now, reviews into sanctions have denied that there has been an official policy of penalising bereavement, and have highlighted regional inconsistencies in that policy. I've no doubt, though, that the DWP would have used those reports to identify regions not sanctioning people enough, and probably asked questions as to why. But the rest of us reading those reports would acknowledge that something much more complex is going on.

Official policy has been draconian and designed to punish the poor and, of course, has nothing to do with work incentives, as the DWP's own impact assessment on universal credit has shown. But more widely, these policies haven't been introduced in a vacuum—they've been part of a suite of policies that started when Lord Freud spent an entire three weeks reviewing welfare policy in detail for Tony Blair. Yes, that's sarcasm—what was really happening was it was an effort on the part of the Blairites to appease the Daily Mail. We know that appeasement doesn't work, so rather than change the way in which the tabloid media covers those issues around social security, the tabloids instead became more and more hysterical and inaccurate, when the real issues at the time were bureaucracy, inflexibility and the inability to support casual labour. That in turn created the culture whereby our entire political system was afraid of opposing many welfare cuts and the coalition, and it seemed seriously to think that the 2008 financial crash was caused by disabled people claiming too many benefits. That is a climate that can turn nasty very quickly and permeate throughout Government, as we've seen by the day-to-day interaction of DWP staff in sanctioning.

Which brings me to my final point here—the attitudes remain evident, even in the Welsh Government's report. Now, I know the Minister didn't personally write this report, but I'll give an example as follows. On page 2, the report refers to the removal of the spare-room subsidy. Now, that's a loaded political term—it's the term the Tories tried to use to counter the labelling of the policy of the bedroom tax. The real name for the policy, as shown in official documents at the time, is the 'underoccupancy charge'. But by using the Tory term here, the Welsh Government officials have shown just how internalised the narrative of welfare cuts has become.

All of this shows that the language we use to describe things matters and is rarely apolitical, and deference to Whitehall's terminology and mentality remains. That is one reason why we need devolution of welfare so that we can start to change attitudes and so that we can find some compassion. 

It's a pleasure to take part in this debate, but I wish we didn't have to, in many ways. John F. Kennedy once said:

'If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.'

I think that is the essence of what we are looking at here—it's how a society looks after those who face disadvantage. And by the way, disadvantage is not something that is a million miles away from any of us. The repeated analyses that have looked to see how many of us are one or two paychecks away from penury and from poverty is a reality. I myself—when I was working at the height of a former career in leisure management, doing exceptionally well, and the company was taken over and a whole raft of management was just stripped out by the new company—found myself in my mid-20s facing redundancy, in the City of London, paying high rent, still with myself and my wife there, and I spent six months not only getting my head together but also working as a night-time security guard on 12-hour shifts in the City of London surrounded by the wealth and the affluence of the mid 1990s in London, and working before the minimum wage through those long 12-hour shifts. I had a great time and met a lot of great people as well. But it just shows that, actually, for many of us—and those people who turn up in foodbanks are often people who are either in work or they've been working recently and a couple of incidents in their lives have pushed them beyond the brink. And at that point we expect the welfare and the tax system to support them to allow them to get back to work, and when they get back to work to actually make work pay. That is not happening, despite the very best ambitions—and I'm being generous here—at one time, of Iain Duncan Smith, who held this portfolio in Government, who went to the Glasgow housing estates, who spent six months there learning what it was like, who put in place a well-funded, at the time, proposal to actually turn around those communities, and then when he came back to Government George Osborne ripped the check book up and said, 'You can do all the stuff around the sticks, you can do some of the stuff around the carrots, but there'll be no money to do this.' It absolutely undermined what could have been a compassionate, thoughtful, well-structured, evidence-based way to actually help people back into work, give them the support that they need, and actually make work pay. That hasn't happened. We are here where we are now. 

I want to pay tribute to the many housing associations, local authorities, the credit unions, organisations like Christians Against Poverty and others, who are out there now on a day-to-day basis providing debt advice, money management advice, financial budgetary advice, holding people's hands as they try to reconstruct their lives, often because the tax and welfare reforms have pushed them into poverty. I also want to thank, of course, all those who volunteer week in, week out, not simply when we turn up as politicians to help them on one Saturday now and then, but actually those who every week, every day of every week, contribute within foodbanks like Bridgend foodbank, the Trussell Trust, the churches, the community organisers and others, who provide not only physical sustenance and literally food and nappies and deodorants and everything else to help people balance their budgets—this is in the sixth-most prosperous country in the world—but they also provide friendship and support as well. I want to thank as well all the local homelessness charities at this point, including Emmaus, The Wallich, Centrepoint and Shelter and the many others in Bridgend and throughout Wales as well. But we shouldn't be here—if a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. 

The simple facts are, Mark, and I heard what you said, and I really appreciate the work you do as an individual Assembly Member, taking up cases on welfare and benefits for your constituents, as I do and as many others do—but the simple fact is these tax and welfare reforms have been deeply regressive. Even after the amendments, the analysis shows they are still deeply regressive. They're most deeply regressive because they hit those who are least able to defend themselves. It is women, it is particular ethnic communities, it is the young, it's those who do not have a voice—who need to come to you and me to ask for help. But do you know we're helping them against the system, despite the system? Why did not—? When I was a Minister, when I and Julie James and others wrote the letter to the UK Ministers to say, 'Do your own evidence-based cumulative impact assessment. Work out what the impact of these are.' 'No, there's no need to do it.' 'Why, what are you afraid of?' They're afraid of the very fact that it will show that these are punishing the poor. 

This has never been to do with balancing austerity on the shoulders of those who can most afford it—it's being done on those who can least afford it, and it is damaging them and it is damaging communities. When we talk about the distance, as was mentioned in a previous debate there, between the elite, the politicians, can you wonder why, when in a constituency like mine you have affluent areas who do not see this at all, it doesn't touch their lives, and yet in Caerau and in Gilfach and in other places, there are whole communities now who are suffering under this, and it will get worse? And I can't go through the details of the submissions that you will have seen, and I will have seen, and everybody will have had from Age Cymru on some of the changes that are yet to come and how they will impact on some of our older recipients of PIP and so on. I simply say to compassionate Conservatives, to people who genuinely really care about their constituents—we cannot hide our head in the sand any longer. This is punishing people, and if we think the distance isn't going to grow larger, it is. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. We have a duty to acknowledge the facts out there before we can actually come forward with the solutions. 

We have to face facts here today. It was all very well and good saying that we are going to take the politics out of this, but we can't take the politics out of a political decision that has been made, and that is to serve a whole system that sees people in poverty, in abject poverty, those people who can't see their way through tomorrow, the next day or the day after—people who turn up in our surgeries or people who write to us saying that they really don't know how they're going to go on. And we can't pretend that that wasn't a political choice. It is a political choice. Austerity is a political choice. It was a choice in two parts, really. The first part was to deprive any money to the public sector, and it is the public sector that was providing the help to those people who found themselves subject to these drastic welfare reforms. So not only did the welfare reforms cut the money that was going into families week in, week out, but the cuts then also into local government, the political decision to remove the funds, which were running at 65 per cent of GDP when you took over and now are 45 per cent of GDP—that was a political choice. So, there is less money all round. 

It's an absolute failure. It's an absolute disgrace, and I'm pleased that Leanne Wood did highlight the things that she did—the way that people are treated when they can't get to meetings, the sanctions that have been put on them. Who could really think that it is a fair system to put sanctions on people where they have to turn up to beg for their money, and if they can't turn up to beg for their money, then they're not going to get any money? You cannot excuse that as a non-political decision, because it is a political decision. 

I do want to raise the issue of Age Cymru, the welfare reforms that are yet to come, and I thought I'd focus on that because clearly other people haven't been able to do so. We're talking here about mixed-age couples and their pension credit and housing benefit criteria, which will be changing on 15 May this year, and will be making those households in future as much as £7,000 a year poorer. And these are families that are already poor in their own right. So, what are these changes? Well, at the moment, the oldest person can claim, and does claim, the pension credit allowance, regardless of the age of the younger person in that household. What will happen on 15 May is that both people will have to reach that pensionable age, and let's be clear here: we are talking mostly about women, who will be younger than their men—it's not exclusive; we know that—and we also know that they've increased the retirement age in any case for those women. We also know, and there are examples that have been given here today, that some of those women might have been out of the job market for some time for various reasons. And there is another statistic that is well-known, and that is the PRIME Cymru stat that anybody over the age of 65-plus looking for work is more likely to die before they are going to find that work. And that stat is really, really well known. It's substantiated, it's known, and yet here we have a Government saying to older people, 'You will go out and you will find work, because, if you don't, what you're going to find is that you are going to have to survive on £143 a week, because we've removed your entitlement.' Unless, of course, you happen to split up. If you happen to split up, the older partner will actually get a top-up, and he will have, if it's a he, £163 a week. Now, come on, let's get in the real world here. This is absolutely outrageous. Whilst the Tories recognised and paid some lip service to not affecting older people because they might vote for them, they've even removed those thoughts now. So, we're going to put people, from the cradle to the grave now, it seems, in poverty. It isn't from-the-cradle-to-the-grave social assistance.

Can I now call on the Deputy Minister for Housing and Local Government to reply to the debate? Hannah Blythyn.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I'd like to thank Members for their contributions to this considered debate today, and particularly Leanne Wood, Huw Irranca-Davies and Joyce Watson. You started off by talking about, actually, how a civilised society should be judged by how we treat our least well off and those who are suffering the most. Joyce, linking to that, you talk about the inhumanity of the current system and in particular the impact on older people, in particular women. Members in the Chamber talked today about how political things are or not to politicise things, but, actually, let's be honest, welfare reform and austerity are anti-women at their core. There's no getting away from that. We see the impacts and the evidence for that. I take what you say in terms of language. Language is often loaded and can serve to depoliticise, as you say, and also dehumanise as well. It's really acutely important, particularly when we talking about an issue like this. So, clearly there is—

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, sure.

Do you accept the point that I was making about the officials who wrote the report being out of touch with the situation on the ground? So, for example, the report examines the decision to limit tax credits to the first two children but completely ignores the scandal of the rape clause. Do you share my concerns about this?

I don't think it's a criticism of officials directly or as individuals, but I do take on board what you're saying in terms of thinking about the language that we use. And, actually, this document is meant to be specifically a factual document, but I totally take on board that, actually, if we're not upfront and blunt about what these things actually are in practice, it does serve to depoliticise and dehumanise and shift the debate in a direction that we don't want it to go in, and we need to be more bold and upfront about that.

Clearly, there's still much more that the UK Government needs to do to address the systemic issues with the welfare benefits system and reverse the ideologically driven and damaging cuts, which are increasing child poverty. When you see the cumulative impact of these major welfare reforms that have been implemented or are still yet to take full effect, the impact of the UK Government's austerity measures is a stark reality that none of us can or should shy away from.

One of the many aspects that is worrying for those new universal credit claimants is for those seeking vital support with their housing costs, and many will not be able to afford to pay the rent to the landlord until their first payment is received. Local authorities where universal credit full service is already in operation are seeing increases in rent arrears for many tenants. This is causing and making worse debt problems for those in most need of support and has serious consequences for people who may face eviction as a result of not having any money to pay their rent. Some UK Government changes, such as the piloting of more frequent payments and direct payment of housing costs to private sector landlords, which the Minister for employment has outlined in his letter in response to the Minister for Housing and Local Government, will help to make improvements if they're fully implemented Wales-wide. However, these changes alone will not go far enough or fast enough to address the significant problems in the design of universal credit.

Deputy Llywydd, as outlined in my opening remarks, we will be opposing the Conservative amendment, which fails to acknowledge the scale of the problems that have already been demonstrated, and I also want to reiterate how we will be exploring the case for devolved administration of certain aspects of the welfare benefits system, looking at whether there is a way in which we could do things, administratively, differently, better and fairer in Wales. We've asked the Wales Centre for Public Policy to support us in taking this work forward. As part of this, we will also be following closely and with great interest the work of the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee with regard to their current inquiry on benefits in Wales, options for better delivery.

This report makes all too clear the damaging impact of the UK Government's welfare reform in Wales. As we've heard here again today—and many of us are hearing and seeing first hand the distressing and devastating reality of this, whether that's in our correspondence, in our advice surgeries or in our communities. Prior to being elected to this Parliament, I campaigned for an end to the cruel and callous sanctions regime. This Welsh Government will continue to take action to address the effect of welfare reform and press for the reversal of the pernicious policies that are having a huge—[Interruption.]—harmful and hurtful impact on the lives of people here in Wales. Diolch. 

Are you giving way? No. Okay, sorry. The proposal is to agree amendment 1. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we defer voting under this item until voting time. 

Voting deferred until voting time.

Before we move to debate Stage 3 of the Renting Homes (Fees etc.) (Wales) Bill, I will suspend proceedings for 10 minutes. The bell will be rung five minutes before we reconvene, but could I urge Members to return to the Chamber promptly, please? Thank you.

Plenary was suspended at 16:52.

The Assembly reconvened at 17:02, with the Deputy Presiding Officer in the Chair.