Welfare Reform and Work Bill — Committee (2nd Day)

Part of the debate – in the House of Lords at 6:00 pm on 9 December 2015.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Baroness Lister of Burtersett Baroness Lister of Burtersett Labour 6:00, 9 December 2015

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken, particularly the right reverend Prelate, whose argument was far better than mine on life chances. What better argument is there than using terms that children themselves can understand? Starting at the end, I am desperately disappointed by the Minister’s response. He simply has not addressed the arguments as to why “life chances” would be a better title for the commission than “social mobility”. I am very disappointed by that. I thought he might be able to go away and say, “Yes, perhaps there’s something to be said for that”. Instead, he has said that they will expand the remit of the commission, but he is actually narrowing it. Which is it: expansion or narrowing? It is not at all clear. Why drive on social mobility rather than on life chances, which still allows you to talk about social mobility but has the advantages that I set out and as the right reverend Prelate did in his killer argument—if he does not mind me calling it that? We have had no answer to those. As I say, I am desperately disappointed.

The Minister kindly said that he thought he would please me with his response on strategy. I appreciate that, but I am afraid I am not that easily pleased.

Again, there is that key word, “statutory”. On the previous group of amendments my noble friend Lady Blackstone explained why that word is important: Governments and Ministers change. Given that the intention is to produce a life chances strategy, why not make it statutory? There is no argument about targets. We are agreed on it. Again, I am rather disappointed that the Minister has been unable to say that the Government will think about it and that it would perhaps be good to have a statutory duty. I am talking not about tick-boxes or anything like that, but about the kind of strategy that he is talking about.

Again, we may have to come back to these questions on Report because we have not heard convincing arguments in response to a very strong set of arguments from a number of noble Lords. Having said that, I of course beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 31 withdrawn.

Amendments 32 to 35 not moved.

Clause 4 agreed.

Clause 5: Social Mobility Commission

Amendments 36 to 45 not moved.

Clause 5 agreed.

Clause 6: Other amendments to Child Poverty Act 2010

Amendments 46 to 48 not moved.

Clause 6 agreed.

Amendment 49 not moved.

Clause 13: Employment and support allowance: work-related activity component

Amendment 50

Moved by Lord Patel

50: Clause 13, page 14, line 24, at end insert—

“( ) Subsections (2) and (3) shall not come into force until the Secretary of State has laid before both Houses of Parliament a report giving his or her estimate of the impact of the provisions in those subsections on the—

(a) physical and mental health,

(b) financial situation, and

(c) ability to return to work, of persons who would otherwise be entitled to start claiming the work-related activity component of employment and support allowance.

( ) Regulations bringing subsections (2) and (3) into force shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”