Jim Murphy (Minister of State (Work), Department for Work and Pensions; Renfrewshire East, Labour)

Thank you for calling me, Mr. Hood. I congratulate you on your appointment to the Chair—co-Chair, lead Chair or whatever—of our proceedings. The Clerks or Mr. Amess might have informed you that we had a relatively well-informed debate in good tone while trying to work our way through some important details of the Bill. At the start of our second of 16 sittings, I seek to continue that approach.

I was responding to a point about migration raised by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander). I said that the migration strategy will be based on the premise that those who have been out of the labour market for the shortest time will be migrated first, simply because those people have a greater chance, based on objective analysis, of returning to the labour market.

Tim Boswell (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Daventry, Conservative)

If somebody has been out of the labour market for a long time but is mad keen to get back—if they are strongly motivated and extenuating circumstances explain why they have not approached it—would the Minister consider at least in principle that they should be able on application to advance in the queue and to enter the new arrangements?

Jim Murphy (Minister of State (Work), Department for Work and Pensions; Renfrewshire East, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman anticipates one of three points that I wish to make about migration. One is proximity to the labour market based on time out of it; the second is child poverty. The No. 1 priority of the Department for Work and Pensions is to eradicate child poverty. By general acknowledgment, the Government have set the most ambitious child poverty reduction target of any Government on the globe: we aim to halve it by 2010 and to eradicate it by 2020. In terms of migration strategy, it is important that those with dependent children—

Adam Afriyie (Windsor, Conservative)

The Minister talks about eradicating child poverty. Which measurement of child poverty is he discussing in this context—relative or absolute?

Jim Murphy (Minister of State (Work), Department for Work and Pensions; Renfrewshire East, Labour)

We are committed to abolishing all measures of child poverty till there are no kids in poverty. It does not matter which measure is used, but the one that we are using for our target is relative poverty. By all acknowledgment, that is the most ambitious measurement of child poverty, because it is a measure of relative income across the economy.

Adam Afriyie (Windsor, Conservative)

On a point of clarity, if the Minister is referring to relative poverty, it would seem mathematically impossible to eradicate it. If he is talking about the lowest percentile of income for a family with children, that is a mathematical impossibility.

Jim Murphy (Minister of State (Work), Department for Work and Pensions; Renfrewshire East, Labour)

I am pleased to hear from the hon. Gentleman. He has involved himself in an important part of the conversation. However, we are committed to that target, and we are even more committed to developing policies to get us to that target by 2020. It is really a question that he should have addressed to his own Front-Bench Members. As he will know, they have apparently now committed themselves to that objective. As so often, his party wills the ends without identifying any of the means; nevertheless, it is a small move forward for the child poverty target.

On the migration strategy, we are looking for ways to maximise the income of those with dependent children and to eradicate child poverty. The general assessment is that this Bill and the measures in the Green Paper could remove about 100,000 kids from relative poverty. Those and other measures on child support reform play an important part.

On the point made by the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), we are considering ways of ensuring that volunteering happens. Someone out of the labour market for three, five or seven years may, because of a change in circumstances, have the determination to get on and get up. We are considering ways to make that a reality.

Finally, I turn to the point raised this morning by the hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt) about clause 1(3)(e). I confirm that someone wishing to make a benefit application would contact Jobcentre Plus and discuss the available options. For some people, only one benefit—jobseeker’s allowance, for example—would be available. However, some would have the opportunity to choose.

This morning, I gave the example of a lone parent who also had a disability; they would be able to claim employment and support allowance or income support. The customer, in discussion with Jobcentre Plus, will make their own decision about what would be most appropriate for their circumstances; the key point is that they would make the decision. As we know, they would be entitled to only one income-related benefit at any one time.

The point raised by the hon. Member for South-West Surrey was not an issue of principle but of whether clause 1(3)(e) was fit for purpose. I looked into that point during the recess. I shall say something about the work entitlement, which the hon. Gentleman asked about. A person is entitled to a benefit only if they meet all the conditions and make a claim for it. Those are the two stages: entitlement to the conditions and making a claim. That is the legal, constitutional and legislative argument on entitlement.

Just before the end of this morning’s sitting, I was about to say—it was on the tip of my tongue—that, in common with other social security legislation, the Bill will achieve what I have set out by amending section 1 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 through a consequential amendment, which can be found in paragraph 4(2) of schedule 3.

That may be a dry assurance, but I hope that it is what the hon. Gentleman sought at the end of this morning’s sitting. I have been advised that it has the correct and proper legal meaning and that it achieves the purpose that we wish to set out. I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue and giving me the opportunity to clarify it.