Immigration Bill

Debate between Baroness Meacher and Baroness Lister of Burtersett

Wednesday 12th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, Amendment 66 requires information outlining details of health charges for health services applicable to the individual to be given at the point of an application for immigration permission or upon request. One of the biggest worries about the health service clauses in Part 3 is that they could create confusion and wrongly discourage some migrants from accessing free healthcare to which they are entitled. According to the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, for whose briefing I am most grateful, there is already a notable lack of understanding about how the charges for health services will work among both individuals and healthcare professionals. Even more worrying, there has also been inconsistency in how charges are implemented.

Most welcome is the exemption from charging for the treatment of diseases which present a public health risk. However, public confusion could result in delays in people presenting themselves and therefore in diagnosis. Already in 2012, 47% of adults newly diagnosed with HIV were diagnosed late. I am not sure what percentage of those late diagnoses would be attributable in any way to confusion. Overall, 81% of AIDS-related deaths in England and Wales in 2012 were attributable to late diagnosis. There is an issue about timing.

Equally, unless people are made aware of their entitlement to health treatment right at the start of their application for immigration permission or when they request it, they are likely never to sort this out or to become clear about the services to which they are entitled. From the taxpayers’ point of view, it is crucial that those entitled to free GP consultations are aware of it. The risk is that fear of being charged for a visit to the GP may result in people not doing that and later needing an A&E appointment. The cost differential between these two options is £90 per patient and could over time add up to quite a bit for the taxpayer, quite apart from the detriment to the patient.

Does the Minister agree that readily available information accompanying any changes to the healthcare charging system or to the collection of charges—I understand that is going to be much tougher in future—is essential to prevent public health risks and unnecessary costs to the Exchequer? I hope the Minister will inform the House what assessment the Government have made about the current level of public understanding about healthcare charges and exemptions for specific groups and what steps they have taken or will be taking to improve awareness among healthcare professionals and members of the public.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

Following what the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said about the importance of the evidence base, I take us back to our debate on Monday. In that debate, a number of noble Lords questioned the evidence base for the claim that there is a problem of so-called health tourism in this country. They asked the Minister what the evidence base was for that claim and questioned the Department of Health’s report on it. The Minister had an awful lot of points to make in his summing up speech and, after about 30 minutes, he quite understandably thought that he had had enough and probably everyone else had, too. Although he has already helpfully circulated a letter following our first day, I could not see anything in it that responded to the concerns raised on all sides of the House. I use this opportunity to invite the Minister to respond on that this evening.

Immigration Bill

Debate between Baroness Meacher and Baroness Lister of Burtersett

Monday 10th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon and with regard to clause stand part. I made clear my opposition to this part of the Bill at Second Reading on the grounds of its impact both on migrants and on black and minority ethnic citizens. I raised the concerns in the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and we returned to the issue in our second legislative scrutiny report in which we welcomed,

“the Government’s indication that the Secretary of State, when exercising her residual discretion to grant permission to occupy premises under a residential tenancy agreement, will take into account the best interests of any child involved, in accordance with the duty in s. 55”.

By acknowledging the relevance of Section 55 in this context, this goes beyond the general indication already given by the Government, welcomed in our first report, that,

“nothing in the Bill is intended to change or derogate in any way from the children duty in s. 55”.

The committee said:

“However, we remain concerned about whether it will be sufficiently clear to front-line decision-makers that the s. 55 duty applies to significant functions such as the Secretary of State’s discretion to grant permission to occupy residential premises. Under s. 55(3) of the 2009 Act, a person exercising any of the Secretary of State’s functions in relation to immigration, nationality and asylum must, in exercising the function, have regard to any guidance given by the Secretary of State. We recommend that the Secretary of State issue new guidance specifically on the s. 55 duty, explaining clearly to front-line decision-makers exactly how that statutory duty applies in relation to functions conferred by or by virtue of this Bill”.

I invite the Minister to give that assurance.

With regard to piloting, the subject of Amendments 50 and 51, at Second Reading I asked what steps would be taken to monitor the impact from the equalities and human rights perspective. The Minister kindly referred to this question in his written response on Second Reading issues, so I eagerly looked for an answer first in the commentary and then in the factsheet to which we were referred for answers, but answer came there none. Therefore, I would be grateful for an answer this evening on the record.

I welcome the fact that the draft code of practice was published with the factsheet, but given the 36 pages of the code of practice plus 16 pages of the anti-discrimination code, I could not help but wonder how many landlords are going to read, learn and inwardly digest all the contents of those codes? I fear that, even without any discriminatory intention, landlords—this point has already been made by, for example, the noble Lord, Lord Best—will simply avoid letting to anyone who looks or sounds like a foreigner. This is in the context of a housing market where we know that, particularly in London, landlords are getting increasingly selective about whom they will rent to. For example, housing benefit claimants are finding it increasingly difficult to get private lettings. As has already been said, the danger is that people are then pushed into having to rent from rogue landlords. The Migrants’ Rights Network raises particular concerns about women who may have insecure immigration status and how this provision could make them very vulnerable to physical or sexual exploitation.

At Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, asked about a possible exemption for small landlords. The written response given afterwards was that the Government did not consider this to be appropriate. I realised only the other day that lodgers are included in this provision. This will mean that people subjected to the bedroom tax who are taking in lodgers because they want to stay in their home and they cannot afford to pay their rent because their benefit is being cut will be treated as landlords. These people never wanted to be landlords; they have been pushed into it. The noble Lord, Lord Best, talked about amateurs. These really are amateurs. Are we really saying that someone who has been subjected to the bedroom tax could be fined up to £3,000 if they get this wrong? It is appalling. I hope that at the very least the Government will think again about lodgers. Like my noble friend, I would prefer it if we could remove this nasty clause from the Bill altogether but, if not, at the very least we need firm assurances that there will be a genuine pilot from which lessons will be learnt and which will monitor the equalities and human rights impact.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, wish to put on record my concerns about the proposed use of landlords as unpaid immigration officials. My preferred option, too, would be for the Government to drop Clause 15 altogether, although I do not expect the Minister to be thrilled at that idea. Therefore, as a second option, I would very much support a single pilot, which is evaluated and has an evaluation report put before Parliament before—this is very important—any attempt is made to roll out these provisions beyond that single pilot. That is, as others have said, totally different from what the Government are currently proposing.

I, too, do not believe that the system will work and it is therefore better to find that out before it happens all over the country. As other noble Lords have said, landlords will find ways to avoid entering into a tenancy agreement with anyone who may not have a legitimate right to remain and anyone who may bring into the household others who may not have a right to remain. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has said, this could involve a considerable number of people.

Landlords do not keep a close eye on who is staying in each of their properties from week to week and month to month. The tenant may indeed have a visa, a job and all the necessary papers in order to remain in Britain, but if he brings over relatives to live with him, it must be for the immigration authorities to ensure that those relatives return home or obtain the right to remain. It cannot be right that the landlord can be penalised to the tune of initially £1,000, and then £3,000, for not being aware of this. Is he supposed to undertake an inspection of each of his properties each week or month? What kind of police state are this Government thinking of introducing?

An additional concern is that landlords are generally very anxious to remain on good terms with their tenants, and for good reasons. If tenants are threatened with a report from the Home Office or the results of such a report, they could well leave the property trashed, at considerable cost to the landlord and considerable inconvenience.

The Minister’s briefing says that if a tenant has no documents then they must, in order to rent a property, produce a police letter confirming that this has been reported. Does the Minister believe that this is realistic? What will be the cost to a landlord of undertaking or paying an agent to undertake the necessary checks, getting all these documents and police papers? I should be very interested to hear the Minister’s response.

The Minister’s briefing dismisses the exemption of students from the landlord provisions on the grounds that it would be complicated for landlords to keep records on only some of their tenants. I do not know. In my experience, most students live together in student accommodation of one sort or another, such as a student house. I hope the Minister will reconsider that point.

Then there is the experience of the former Minister Mark Harper, which has been referred to. The implications of landlords’ fears of inadvertently falling foul of the law and being penalised for an understandable error are considerable and will have huge implications for many communities. As Liberty argues:

“The net impact of the policy may well be to push those with irregular status further under the radar, increasing vulnerability and exploitation by creating another black market in private rented property”.

As the Home Affairs Committee put it, these new housing measures must not drive,

“more people into the twilight world of beds-in-sheds and overcrowded houses in multiple occupation”.

Does the Minister agree with those concerns—and if not, why not?

If the Government insist upon going ahead with these provisions, does the Minister accept that the requirements of the landlord must be minimal and very straightforward. The Minister’s briefing note says:

“Where a variety of documents are presented as evidence, it will be good practice to check that the names, photographs and dates of birth are consistent throughout”.

In fact, the wording behind that paragraph makes it clear not that that would be a good idea but that the landlord must do so. Can the Minister confirm that the landlord should not be penalised if his agent simply confirms that records have checked and are there, but that subsequently inconsistencies are found? Surely the landlord cannot be found responsible. If landlords are penalised for this sort of thing, landlords simply will not let a property to anyone whose documents are not or might not be straightforward. Landlords simply do not want to become immigration officers. Why should they? They have not gone into that profession in the first place.

Also, do the Government have any evidence at all that these measures would work? Finally, what will be the effect on ethnic minorities in general living in this country? Does the Minister have any concerns about the wider societal implications of these provisions?

Children and Families Bill

Debate between Baroness Meacher and Baroness Lister of Burtersett

Monday 9th December 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, in Committee I spoke in support of Amendment 2. I quoted the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member, in its legislative scrutiny report. This led to some debate about the implications of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child for this clause.

I want to read from the letter that the chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights wrote to the Minister following our debate in Committee. He expresses disappointment at the Government’s refusal to accept the amendment. He writes: “In your response”—to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss—

“you said that ‘the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child does not require children to be placed with someone who shares exactly the same ethnicity but someone who respects it.’ That is correct, but what the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child does expressly require, in Article 20(3), is that ‘when considering solutions, due regard shall be paid … to the child’s ethnic, religious, cultural and linguistic background’. Removing the statutory provision which gives effect to that obligation, without retaining those considerations in the welfare checklist, is incompatible with that provision of the Convention.

Unless the Government accepts the amendment when it is brought back at Report stage, it seems to us to be inevitable that this aspect of the Bill will be the subject of criticism by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. The Government is currently finalising its Report to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, for submission in January 2014. My Committee will ensure that the issue is brought to the attention of the Committee when it examines the UK’s Report”.

Would it not make sense to listen to experts such as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the NSPCC? It has said that the amendment would,

“ensure that reference to ethnicity in the Adoption and Children Act is better balanced rather than it being given prominence in its current standalone form, and that it is appropriately recognised given its significance. We welcome the updating of statutory guidance … and are keen to work with DfE to input into this. However, while the detail of the guidance is certainly important it will only go so far in ensuring this is appropriately taken into account and could send a contradictory message as to its importance having removed this from primary legislation”.

That is one of the concerns—that having expressly taken this out of the legislation, and if nothing is put back, it will send out a message that whatever the statutory guidance says, this is not important. But it is important, and I really hope the Minister will think again. I know that his reading of the UN convention is different, but the Joint Committee on Human Rights is expressly given the duty to advise Parliament on the human rights implications of legislation. I hope the Minister will take seriously this rather strong advice given by the Joint Committee.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I was not planning to speak in this debate at all but I feel strongly that we need to support my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss. I want to mention only one case—that of a really superb set of parents who adopted two children across the racial barrier; that is, two African children. You could not find better parents. They were both involved in the mental health services and were devoted to these two girls. It seemed that the thing was perfect. But both those girls committed suicide in their late teens. If we are to neglect the advice of the UN convention, we need to beware. It is no accident that these issues are emphasised so clearly, and no accident that our extremely experienced noble and learned friend, Lady Butler-Sloss, has tabled this amendment. We should support it.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Meacher and Baroness Lister of Burtersett

Wednesday 14th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Meacher]

My Lords, I support Amendment 19. I have particular concerns. I fully endorse the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, that when people lose their job it is unacceptable for them immediately to face not only the shock of being unemployed and the dramatic fall in their incomes but the prospect of having to move their home. Psychologists always say that it is important to avoid changing more than one of our three mainstays of security in any one year: employment, our main relationship and our home. The risks of mental health problems rise significantly if we do so, as the noble Baroness illustrated very well.

There is therefore a strong case for allowing newly unemployed people time to adjust before they have to think of moving home. Of course the hope would be that they would find work within that year and never have to move at all. I want to raise again a particular problem that to some degree would be assisted by the amendment. I raised this issue in my most helpful meeting with the Minister but have reason to believe that his assurances would not work as he thinks they would. The issue is that of people with severe mental health problems who may be absolutely unable to move into shared accommodation, either because they themselves could not handle having someone else around or because the situation would be untenable if not downright dangerous for anyone else trying to live with them. The Minister assured me that discretionary housing payments should deal with this problem. Perhaps in theory this might be the case, but apparently in practice it does not in fact work. Does the Minister regard it as right for sick people to be penalised when for therapeutic reasons they cannot move into a living space with someone else?

I have a couple of examples to illustrate the point. A woman in her early 30s, living alone in private rented accommodation, receives ESA because of her mental health condition. She already has rent arrears as her housing benefit does not cover her rent. She applied for a discretionary housing payment but this has been refused. She has now been told that her housing benefit will be cut further, of course, in January 2012, when she is only entitled to the shared accommodation rate. She finds it difficult to cope with other people, and could not cope with a shared flat, even if she could find one. The adviser who is dealing with her fears that she could become homeless.

The other example is of a woman in her early thirties with HIV and related health difficulties, including depression. She is regarded as being unlikely to receive a discretionary housing payment until she is 35. I do not know why, but that is what I am told. She comes from a traumatic background, needs regular access to her many medications, and to the bathroom. She is not regarded as someone who could cope with shared accommodation: again, a likely homeless person.

If these claimants finish up on the streets, they will no doubt end up on one of our hospital wards at a cost of £261 per day, £95,000 per year to the taxpayer. I realise that this is a cost to the Department of Health, and not to the DWP, but I know the Minister is broad-minded on such matters and will not want to cause a massive increase in Department of Health costs. I am serious about it. There might be a saving to the DWP, but a much bigger cost in the Department of Health. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, does not accept at all that there would even be a cost saving in the DWP. There would therefore be a double whammy. We already see people moving automatically from benefits, to losing benefits, then on to the streets, and then into hospital. That is the way the system works, and this measure will simply make matters worse.

Apart from the inappropriateness of shared accommodation for some, though not at all every mentally ill person, there is also the practicality of finding such accommodation for this particular group. Someone with a mental health problem is going to be the last person many people want to share with. We know that the stigma involved is considerable. People are frightened, and they assume that people are dangerous when in fact they are not at all. But also, in reality, some people have difficult personal assumptions which would make them quite difficult to live with.

The result is that these people will not find shared accommodation readily, even if they could cope with it, and many absolutely could not. I know many people on our wards whom we could not discharge into shared accommodation. They would simply sit around on the wards, and it would be a problem.

I have focused on a particular claimant group, but an important one, in view of the numbers of these people. I hope the Minister will be sympathetic to the amendment, for all the reasons the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, pointed out, but also because it would ameliorate the problem of this particular group of people with mental health problems who, with any luck, might over a year settle down rather further and then might be able to be accommodated within the system.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, I support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham. She has painted a vivid and powerful picture of what this means for the people affected. I have sat through and participated in a couple of debates already about this, partly on the regulations, in Grand Committee. The more I have listened and read the evidence, the more uncomfortable I feel about us allowing this measure to go ahead.

When I was younger, I flat-shared. I answered the ads in Time Out, and it is a very different thing. I am sure that many noble Lords may have been in that position, and think there is nothing wrong in sharing accommodation. But doing it from choice is very different from being pushed into it. As my noble friend has spelt out, we are talking about less salubrious accommodation.

I am concerned about various groups who are particularly vulnerable here, as we have already heard. When the Social Security Advisory Committee considered this, it talked in particular about the way women will be affected. Women are not disproportionately affected as a group, but those who will be affected could be particularly adversely so.

There are two groups in particular. Pregnant single women, the advisory committee said, will be restricted to the shared accommodation rate until they give birth. They face one of three undesirable situations. They can move home twice, at a time when they may be financially, emotionally and physically ill-equipped to do so, into shared accommodation, and then back to self-contained accommodation when the baby is born; they can decide to move into shared accommodation and remain there after the birth of their child; or they can try to make up the shortfall in their rent.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Meacher and Baroness Lister of Burtersett

Tuesday 8th November 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

I was just quoting from a letter I received from a 50 year-old woman with complex mental health problems. She wrote that,

“my life revolves around trying to be as well as possible. I cannot stress enough how frightening it is to feel that you are not able to work, will not be put into the support group”,

she fears,

“and will be left to use up everything you have until eligible for means-tested benefits … My medicine prescription has been increased 4-fold and been supplemented with extra medication since the time limit was announced”.

As someone who has campaigned and argued for a more inclusive social security system for 40 years, I feel that I have to use the luxury of being a Back-Bencher to oppose this clause on principle. My noble friends on the Front Bench know and understand my position. However, if time-limiting goes ahead, it must be done on the fairest possible basis. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will look favourably on the proposed amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, which would aim to achieve that in three main ways.

First, I hope that action will be taken so as not to penalise people with fluctuating conditions who go on to the support group after the contributory ESA has expired. I know that that is a particular concern of Macmillan Cancer Support. Secondly, I could not believe at first that the rule would be applied retrospectively. The case against that has been made extremely eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester. As a result of this, the letter has gone out to existing recipients. According to one who wrote to me, far from providing the reassurance mentioned by the Minister in his opening remarks at Second Reading, that will, she warns, “strike fear” into the hearts of those affected. Could the Minister state whether there is a precedent for such a letter to go out before Parliament has agreed such a controversial change?

Thirdly, I was also dismayed when I realised that the 13-week assessment phase is included in the one-year time limit, which in effect means that full contributory ESA will last for a year minus 13 weeks. In Committee in the other place, the Minister of State agreed to look again at this issue in response to concerns expressed by a Liberal Democrat MP. What was the outcome of this further look? According to a Written Answer that I received, if the assessment phase were excluded it would reduce the savings by £100 million in 2012-13, rising to £120 million by 2014-15, but falling to only £40 million by 2016-17. Here is the nub: this clause is not about making social security fairer; it is about saving money, as my noble friend Lord McKenzie has already stated.

I have some sympathy with the Minister. He is extolling the virtues of universal credit at every opportunity, yet universal credit is in danger of being contaminated by sharing a Bill with unfair, cost-cutting measures such as this one. I hope, therefore, at the very least, that the Minister will think very hard about how to mitigate this unfairness through the kind of amendments before us.

[Baroness Meacher]

I rise to speak to Amendments 71M, 71N, 71P, 72A and 73. First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord German, for kindly allowing me to speak a little earlier than I had planned because I have to leave the Committee briefly at 5 pm. I apologise to the Minister and the Bill team that I have not been able to attend the briefing sessions. They are a wonderful idea and I had hoped and assumed that I would attend every one, but life has not been quite like that.

I also apologise for not having had quite the time I would have wished to prepare for this debate. Having said that, I have major concerns about the plan to limit entitlement to contributory ESA to one year. I understand from the CAB service that the DWP has estimated that, of those on contributory ESA and in the work-related activity group, 94 per cent will remain on the benefit from more than a year, so it is estimated that by 2015-16 700,000 people will be affected by limiting contributory ESA. Some will lose their entire benefit payment, currently worth £94.25 a week. I know that the Minister will correct me if that is wrong. It sounds astonishing. The rationale for this change is, I suppose, twofold. First, it is to give maximum incentive to people to return to work and, secondly, it is to save taxpayers’ money. I will refer to those two points briefly.

It is particularly difficult to support the employment incentive argument at present, when even able-bodied people and remarkably highly skilled people are finding it very difficult to find work. As we said, we think that about 94 per cent of those with disabilities will remain on this benefit beyond their contributory entitlement. I would welcome the Minister’s views on the fairness of this provision in relation to an individual with—obviously in terms of my own concerns—ongoing and fluctuating symptoms. He is very keen to work and does not need any incentive, but no doubt he will be given lots of incentives through the mechanics of the work-related activity group. But the fact is that he cannot persuade an employer to take him on. I know that the Minister is aware that there are very large numbers of people on ESA who want to work and cannot persuade an employer to take them. In other words, these people are very much the deserving unemployed. They used to be called the deserving poor. I happen to know hundreds of people personally who fall into that category. I would be grateful for the Minister's views on that.

If we consider for a moment the need to protect taxpayers’ money, I happen to believe that taxpayers would recognise that this group—people who are disabled and sick on benefits—should be entitled to their benefit, having contributed, many of them, for decades. Politically, I do not believe that this is something that one can possibly justify. It is very hard to argue that savings to taxpayers’ money should be made with this particular group—sick and disabled people—rather than at the expense of other groups in society with much broader shoulders. There are all sorts of cuts that a Government could make that would seem much fairer than this one.

Amendment 71M, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, would at least be a great deal fairer. In a sense you could say that it is all rather arbitrary— 365 days or some other number of days. Really, it is just not justified to cut contributory benefit at any stage for many of these people, but I suppose that that would be better than the alternative.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Meacher and Baroness Lister of Burtersett

Tuesday 1st November 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 71JA. These amendments have been tabled with the assistance of Gingerbread. The aim is to protect the opportunity for responsible carers to access further education and training up to and including level 3 when their children start school without facing the risk of sanctions. This means that responsible carers would be deemed to be fulfilling work search and availability requirements while studying until their youngest child reached the age of seven or the course ended. These amendments strike me as eminently reasonable, and indeed should be seen as totally consistent with the Government’s own anti-child poverty and social mobility strategy which emphasises the importance of education and training and the contribution they can make to ensuring that paid work represents a genuine path out of poverty.

The level to which a person is educated has a significant influence on how much they can earn and their ability to move up the earnings ladder. As Gingerbread points out, it is well established that holding a level 3 qualification can provide substantial economic value, particularly in relation to marginal wage returns. For example, only 25 per cent of people aged 25 to 29 holding a level 3 qualification are earning less than £7 per hour compared with 55 per cent of those with a level 1 qualification, and 37 per cent of those at level 2. Level 3 qualifications include access courses to HE as well as vocational courses. It makes long-term sense to enable lone parents in particular to improve their educational qualifications so as to maximise their labour market opportunities.

Until recently, lone parents on income support could complete a full-time further education course up to and including level 3 in preparation for entering the labour market or higher education. This meant that lone parents on income support had a two-year window of opportunity to access training with a fee remission when their children started school and before moving on to jobseeker’s allowance when their youngest child turned seven. As of September 2011, lone parents claiming income support are no longer eligible for fee remissions when accessing further education. Lone parents on income support will now have to self-fund as well as pay for any necessary childcare if they want to improve their chances of employment by undertaking training. Instead, fee remissions are available for individuals in receipt of JSA, but claimants will be required to continue actively seeking work while training, and if offered a job, be prepared to drop out of a training course or face a payment sanction. JSA work search and work availability requirements severely limit lone parents’ ability to train and gain skills that could help them find higher paid employment that is sustainable, and to make the most of opportunities to progress once working.

This modest amendment raises larger questions about some inconsistencies in government policy. On the one hand, as I have said, education and training are key elements in their child poverty and social mobility strategies. On the other hand, they are pursuing what in the jargon is called a “work first” rather than a “human capital development” approach to moving people from benefits into paid work. One of the risks of such an approach, identified by, for example, Dr Sharon Wright of the University of Stirling in a recent article, is that it can mean that large numbers of benefit recipients end up cycling or churning between unemployment and temporary low-paid jobs without advancement. Without the opportunity to train, lone parents face just such a future of low paid, insecure employment, cycling between in-work poverty and out-of-work benefits with little prospect of their financial or social circumstances improving. In our last session, we heard how they might then face in-work conditionality if they do not manage to improve their position to get themselves above the threshold which applies to them.

This amendment would go a small way to addressing the issue by ensuring that responsible parents, in particular lone parents, are better placed to advance in the jobs market and thereby lift themselves and their families out of poverty. I beg to move.

[Baroness Meacher]

My Lords, I support Amendment 51EA moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. I was impressed when the Minister mentioned in an earlier debate that providers of support to claimants will be rewarded financially if their clients find a job and remain in it for two years. That claimants should achieve long-term employment is clearly the objective of the Minister and the Government. I have no doubt that it is a fine objective. Certainly it is supported by me and, I am sure, by other noble Lords around the table. However, this clause seems to run absolutely in the opposite direction. It encourages claimants with young children to rush into a low-paid and probably insecure job rather than taking the opportunity to train and prepare themselves for long-term work.

Will the Minister explain the rationale behind the lack of protection for carers responsible for very young children aged five or six while they complete a training course up to level 3? Does he see the apparent inconsistency between the aim of placing people in long-term employment, which we all support, and incentivising them to take low-paid work rather than educate and train themselves in order to better their future? I will be interested to hear what he says about that.

My second point is about the unreliability as an employee of a primary carer of children who are in the first two years of school. Having had four children, I have strong recollections of the childhood illnesses they pick up in the early years: for example, a cold, an infection or German measles. If you have four children, it is not one lot of German measles but four, one after the other. Employment? Forget it. This is a serious point. The strain of working when your young children are starting school and picking up all those bugs has to be experienced to be fully understood. In education and training, one can catch up when life settles down and the kids go back to school. I know because I did it. I did an economics degree when I had three children under seven.

We know that the Minister is under enormous pressure to deliver cuts through Parliament, but perhaps this issue is worth fighting for in terms of the Government's own admirable priorities of encouraging claimants to undertake training in order to improve their long-term employment prospects for the future.